It's a starter; it's supposed to be simple. Look at the previews for the phb.
Also, sounds like your party needs scouts to prevent surprise. Were your fighters using second wind? Were you working together? We used the pregens and had no deaths.
pretre wrote: We used the pregens and had no deaths.
Same here. Not sure why everyone died so much unless it was every man for himself or missed a rule somewhere here or there. My players got beat around and hurt, but no one died.
pretre wrote: It's a starter; it's supposed to be simple. Look at the previews for the phb.
Also, sounds like your party needs scouts to prevent surprise.
Our rogues did scout, didn't spot the goblins and cleric 1 got killed outright in the suprise round.
you only get second wind once per long/short rest. and its 1d10+fighter level, vs getting hit for an average of 11 dmg a turn from the bugbear
fighter was at 2 hp from round 2, round 3 he used second wind to gain 3 hp back (5hp total), 2 goblins bring him down with their arrows.
Bug bear walks past his body to kill the mage outright due to massive damage.
Yup, didn't help that the stats in this game are either Dead or alive at level 1.
pretre wrote: We used the pregens and had no deaths.
Did your DM have the Goblins Attack, stealth, move every round so they had an attack advantage every turn, or Disengage instead of stealth which for some reason gives them a free double movement per turn?
Once per short rest is basically once per encounter and yes, I was the dm and the goblins didn't last long enough for most shenanigans.
I'm unsure how your cleric got killed outright since the goblins do d6 plus 2. If he's alive at 1 that can't kill him. I guess if all four Focus on him...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Our bugbear knocked down the fighter and then got focused on by the Mage, cleric, rogue and other fighter. Kill the boss first.
pretre wrote: We used the pregens and had no deaths.
Did your DM have the Goblins Attack, stealth, move every round so they had an attack advantage every turn, or Disengage instead of stealth which for some reason gives them a free double movement per turn?
Okay, so I double checked this. They get one bonus action (hide or disengage). So they can: 1) Attack, Disengage, move. 2) Disengage, move, hide. 3) Attack, hide, move.
In order to get advantage every turn, they would need to be in cover (hiding requires you to be out of sight) and it opposed by your perception. If you're not flushing them from cover, then yes, they will have advantage every turn. But it seems like that would be priority. In the first fight, 2 charge you and 2 shoot at you (written in the encounter). I guess if you were having your Cleric tank and in the front of the party, it's possible that all four would attack them, but unlikely. Furthermore, the players shouldn't all have been surprised. The goblins only have a +6 modifier and there are four of them. Your scouts should have seen one of them at least and gotten a shot off first (+3 initiative modifier vs +2 goblin initiative) (Assuming of course that you were not just blindly walking up to the horses and assuming a trap.)
I'm not saying it's impossible, but played well it should have been fine.
pretre wrote: Once per short rest is basically once per encounter and yes, I was the dm and the goblins didn't last long enough for most shenanigans.
I'm unsure how your cleric got killed outright since the goblins do d6 plus 2. If he's alive at 1 that can't kill him. I guess if all four Focus on him....
First encounter
Suprise round
1 crit (brought to zero) and then 3 normal attack into Cleric for 3 failed death saves. (Cleric killed outright)
Round 1, Goblins attack, stealth, move
all of their attacks are aimed at me but they miss,
I cast shield of faith, (AC 20) and move into the woods
rogues and mage hide in the woods (they rolled poorly)
Round 2, Goblins attack, stealth, move (2 fail to stealth but still move)
they bring the halfing rogue to 0 and the mage to 1
I use sacred flames on one of them and kill it,
Human rogue wounds another
Halfing mage hides
Round 3, goblins attack, stealth, move (they miss)
Rouge, and I ready an action to attack the goblins when they reappear
Round 4, goblins attack, stealth, move(they miss)
Rogue, and I miss
Rouge, Mage and I ready an action to attack the goblins when they reappear
Round 5, goblins attack, stealth, move(they miss)
Rogue, mage and I miss
Rouge, Mage and I ready an action to attack the goblins when they reappear
Round 6, Round 3, goblins attack, and fail to stealth, and move
Rogue, mage and I kill 2 goblins
Round 7, Goblin attacks, moves disengages to move agian
Human rouge kills the goblin as its running away.
Bug bear room.
Round 1, Goblins focus me down,
fighter moves up to engage the bugbear
Bug bear + wolves move to fighter but they miss all attacks
rogues and mage move up (maintaining a good distance from the bugbear)
Party wiffs all attacks,
Round 2, Goblins wiff attacks agianst party.
Fighter hits the bugbear for 4 damage
Bugbear + wolves bring him down to 2 hp Rogues and mage wiff attacks
Round 3, goblins wiff attacks agianst everyone
Fighter use second wind to gain 3 hp,
Wolves attack fighter bringing him to 0,
Bug bear walks past and kills the mage due to massive damage
rogues attack bugbear (bring him to around 13 hp) and move back
Round 4, Goblins wiff again
fighter rolls a 1 on his death save,
wolve attacks him and me (both of us are dead now, though it didn;t matter anyways because I got a 5 for this turn)
Bug bear moves foward
Rogues kill bugbear and move back
Round 5, Goblins move attack disengage and kill the human rogue
Wolve moves up to attack the halfing, Wiffs attacks
Halfing rouge kills the wolf and moves back
Round 6, Goblins Move, attack and kill the halfling.
Suprise round
1 crit (brought to zero) and then 3 normal attack into Cleric for 3 failed death saves. (Cleric killed outright)
So not a single one of your party members noticed stealthed goblins? And then two goblins charged the same dude and shot at the same dude? What was your party order? Cleric 60 feet in front of the party?
Round 1, Goblins attack, stealth, move
all of their attacks are aimed at me but they miss,
I cast shield of faith, (AC 20) and move into the woods
rogues and mage hide in the woods (they rolled poorly)
Wait, so round one, you don't shoot or attack once? Umm, there's your problem. Shield of faith is a bonus. So move into the woods and shoot the goblins. Or shoot the goblins and move into the woods.
Round 2, Goblins attack, stealth, move (2 fail to stealth but still move)
they bring the halfing rogue to 0 and the mage to 1
I use sacred flames on one of them and kill it,
Human rogue wounds another
Halfing mage hides
There's no 'fail to stealth'. You roll against their hide check with your perception. If you weren't actively looking for them and shooting them or charging them, I don't know what to say. Your rogues should also be going before the bad guys so at worst can ready an action to shoot when they appear (before they attack).
fighter moves up to engage the bugbear
Bug bear + wolves move to fighter but they miss all attacks
rogues and mage move up (maintaining a good distance from the bugbear)
Party wiffs all attacks,
Why don't your rogues have advantage? Halfling at least can hide behind a party member. Other rogues should be hiding before you enter a room.
Round 2, Goblins wiff attacks agianst party.
Fighter hits the bugbear for 4 damage
Bugbear + wolves bring him down to 2 hp Rogues and mage wiff attacks
Did the guy playing the cleric just quit? No extra character for him?
Round 4, Goblins wiff again
fighter rolls a 1 on his death save,
wolve attacks him and me (both of us are dead now, though it didn;t matter anyways because I got a 5 for this turn)
Bug bear moves foward
Rogues kill bugbear and move back
Why is the wolf attacking an unconscious character?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, you had some bad luck, but I think there's also some major tactical and understanding errors going on here.
pretre wrote: So not a single one of your party members noticed stealthed goblins? And then two goblins charged the same dude and shot at the same dude? What was your party order? Cleric 60 feet in front of the party?
Nope the DM had the goblins take postions in the forest because they saw us before we saw them.
pretre wrote: Wait, so round one, you don't shoot or attack once? Umm, there's your problem. Shield of faith is a bonus. So move into the woods and shoot the goblins. Or shoot the goblins and move into the woods.
Goblins went first after the suprise round, they attacked hid, and then moved,
each of our individual perpection rolls didn't beat their stealth checks so yeah we really couldn't shoot at them
pretre wrote: There's no 'fail to stealth'. You roll against their hide check with your perception. If you weren't actively looking for them and shooting them or charging them, I don't know what to say. Your rogues should also be going before the bad guys so at worst can ready an action to shoot when they appear (before they attack).
When I said "Fail to stealth" it means that the Cleric 2 (me) and our Rogue managed to beat two of their checks with our perception
pretre wrote: Why don't your rogues have advantage? Halfling at least can hide behind a party member. Other rogues should be hiding before you enter a room.
Rogues didn't have advantage because the Cave isn't lit, I was holding the torch (thats why I died first) and because of their positions it would be impossible for them to hide while casting shadows
pretre wrote: Did the guy playing the cleric just quit? No extra character for him?
He's the fighter, I was at 0 hitpoints turn 1 so I couldn't heal him.
Group comp at first encounter was 2 clerics 2 rogues and 1 mage
Group comp at the goblin cave was 1 fighter, 1 cleric, 2 rogues, 1 mage
pretre wrote: Why is the wolf attacking an unconscious character?
Cause its a wolf and not an intelligent creature, DM rolled percentile for it to either attack an alive character or one on the ground.
pretre wrote: So not a single one of your party members noticed stealthed goblins? And then two goblins charged the same dude and shot at the same dude? What was your party order? Cleric 60 feet in front of the party?
Nope the DM had the goblins take postions in the forest because they saw us before we saw them.
Right, but the rules for surprise say you get a chance to see the people trying to surprise you (P9). If he didn't let you do that, he wasn't following the rules. Also, two goblins are supposed to charge (they're not hiding if they charge). Again, DM didn't follow the starter/rules.
Goblins went first after the suprise round, they attacked hid, and then moved,
Goblins have a +2 init modifier. Your rogues and the bow fighter have a +3. Why did the goblins go first?
Rogues didn't have advantage because the Cave isn't lit, I was holding the torch (thats why I died first) and because of their positions it would be impossible for them to hide while casting shadows
Halflings can hide if they are obscured by a larger creature, like anyone in your party. Also, why wouldn't the rogues start in the shadows. torches give off dim light, which is light concealment (P6).
Cause its a wolf and not an intelligent creature, DM rolled percentile for it to either attack an alive character or one on the ground.
There's no rules for attacking helpless creatures in the starter, so your DM made that up as he went along.
pretre wrote: The problem is that CR 1/4 monster have better abitlties than low level characters.
No, the problem is that the DM gave them rules interpretations to make them better than low level characters.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, you had some bad luck with some rolls, but your DM was also ruling (outside of RAW) pretty soundly against you.
Agreed. Certainly they are smart enough to tell what is a threat and what isn't-- they aren't going to start gorging themselves on a meal while there's still fighting going on. They're some of the most intelligent pack hunters in the world.
Havent actually run the starting adventure yet but just reading it I could easily see that first fight going against the PCs. That's part of the nature of low level (non4e) D&D.
Just to start: the goblins have +6 stealth, which is resisted by PASSIVE perception of the party. The best passive perception is 13, so the goblins only need an 8 to stay hidden. Not exactly hard for the goblins to end up with a surprise round. Even on active perception versus stealth, the best Perception of the starter set characters is +3; half the bonus the goblins are getting for stealth.
Goblins are getting +4 to-hit for d6+2 damage. Even if you use average damage (which is better for the party than rolling), 2 hits on the wizard (hits on 8+) drop him. Same with the rogue, although it's naturally a bit harder to hit the rogue. The archers should be practically immune to retaliation at first, since they are in an area they can hide easily, and can do so as a bonus action (before or after moving).
And certainly it shouldnt be that odd for ambushing monsters to focus fire one enemy down. It's certainly what the PCs would do, even if it sucks for the player on the receiving end! I would also argue it makes perfect sense to focus the mage and rogue first, and they will be the least armored and thus the most likely to drop. (Manchu's dwarven wizard not withstanding. So totally stealing that idea, btw!)
Anyway, I look forward to running the starter adventure at some point. Not sure when we will be switching away from our current 4e game, and none of the group has really expressed any interest in switching to 5e just yet.
streamdragon wrote: Just to start: the goblins have +6 stealth, which is resisted by PASSIVE perception of the party. The best passive perception is 13, so the goblins only need an 8 to stay hidden. Not exactly hard for the goblins to end up with a surprise round. Even on active perception versus stealth, the best Perception of the starter set characters is +3; half the bonus the goblins are getting for stealth.
Right, but according to the starter, prior to the surprise round, everyone gets to see if they are surprised so 5 players all roll their perception and try to beat 4 different goblin's stealth. Chances are someone is going to see them.
Goblins are getting +4 to-hit for d6+2 damage. Even if you use average damage (which is better for the party than rolling), 2 hits on the wizard (hits on 8+) drop him. Same with the rogue, although it's naturally a bit harder to hit the rogue. The archers should be practically immune to retaliation at first, since they are in an area they can hide easily, and can do so as a bonus action (before or after moving).
The players get a cart to start with. Our party (when they saw the dead horses), sent a hidden rogue up and positioned themselves 30 feet back from the horses with the archer hiding and everyone else ready for battle.
And certainly it shouldnt be that odd for ambushing monsters to focus fire one enemy down. It's certainly what the PCs would do, even if it sucks for the player on the receiving end! I would also argue it makes perfect sense to focus the mage and rogue first, and they will be the least armored and thus the most likely to drop. (Manchu's dwarven wizard not withstanding. So totally stealing that idea, btw!)
Except the book has very specific orders for the goblins. 2 Charge and 2 Shoot. I suppose with poor party setup, they could charge the same person, but it's unlikely. (Unless, like I said, they all see the rogue who snuck forward or the cleric stands 50 feet in front of the party by himself.)
My group didn't see the goblins (they rolled a 23 stealth) so the goblins got a surprise round, but I wasn't dickish enough to make them all attack the same target. They just each went after the closest, with the two melee going for whoever went up the wreck (cleric and fighter) and the two archers picking a different target near the wagon (archer and wizard). Unless the party really sets themselves up for it, like the cleric going off alone up front, using Ninja Gaiden tactics at level 1 is not very nice.
And the goblins are still at a +3 differential on their stealth compared to the players. You were surprised that players didnt go first with their +1 initiative differential, it shouldnt be any surpise that the goblins would stay hidden.
How the actual ambush unfolds will naturally vary from party to party; I wouldnt have my ambushers jump people who are still hiding in cover, for instance. Makes for a poor ambush!
And it wouldnt be hard (depending on PC placement, of course) for 2 goblins to attack a target; 1 charger and 1 archer are both getting the same to-hits and the same damage. One scimitar + one short bow = one downed PC.
Naturally, some groups will have little trouble dealing with 4 goblins. Sending heavily armored PCs up first (especially the fighters who can heal themselves, and survive more than two hits) isnt exactly a terrible plan, especially if you suspect an ambush!
So while some groups will face roll their way through, I can easily see how others will struggle even on "average" luck.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Unless the party really sets themselves up for it, like the cleric going off alone up front, using Ninja Gaiden tactics at level 1 is not very nice.
Probably not, no, but given previous discussions in this thread on hand-holding players I thought it a relevant discussion point. Goblins live by wits and ambushes; spreading damage around isn't really smart or effective as an ambush.
I have also never been much of a hand-holder in my games, which my players seem to appreciate, so obviously it will vary by group.
streamdragon wrote: And the goblins are still at a +3 differential on their stealth compared to the players. You were surprised that players didnt go first with their +1 initiative differential, it shouldnt be any surpise that the goblins would stay hidden.
Except that initiative isn't rolled. It is fixed. 5 rolls to see 4 different stealths is going to thave someone either roll really well or really poorly.
How the actual ambush unfolds will naturally vary from party to party; I wouldnt have my ambushers jump people who are still hiding in cover, for instance. Makes for a poor ambush!
Except the starter gives instructions for how the ambush is supposed to go down. If you change that, you can drastically increase the difficulty of the encounter.
And it wouldnt be hard (depending on PC placement, of course) for 2 goblins to attack a target; 1 charger and 1 archer are both getting the same to-hits and the same damage. One scimitar + one short bow = one downed PC.
No, and I would expect that. 4 though...
Naturally, some groups will have little trouble dealing with 4 goblins. Sending heavily armored PCs up first (especially the fighters who can heal themselves, and survive more than two hits) isnt exactly a terrible plan, especially if you suspect an ambush!
This is my point all along. His party had a mix of bad luck, poor dm rulings and bad strategy.
pretre wrote: Except that initiative isn't rolled. It is fixed. 5 rolls to see 4 different stealths is going to thave someone either roll really well or really poorly.
Except the starter gives instructions for how the ambush is supposed to go down. If you change that, you can drastically increase the difficulty of the encounter.
No, and I would expect that. 4 though...
This is my point all along. His party had a mix of bad luck, poor dm rulings and bad strategy.
? I dont have the starter set on me, but the rules section for combat still includes a d20 roll for initiative. Is the starter set modifying this for the ambush? And again, with +3 over the players that's a 15% shift in favor of the goblins. No one seeing them isnt a huge stretch.
I am aware, loosely, of the ambush rundown. But as the rulebook cant obviously account for every single way the PCs will approach the situation I think pretending that it includes some sort of hard rigid prescribed flowchart is a little disingenuous.
As to dropping a player, I think we're using different definitions for 'focus fire'. Im not saying all 4 goblins should beat one player until it stops being funny, just that having 4 goblins all attack different targets seems off for an ambush. I was also pointing out the mathematics of dropping some of the softer characters. 2 hits is all it takes to drop the wizard, on average. With certain rolls, only 1 is needed.
Again, not saying it's a badly designed encounter or that it's unwinnable or anything. There just seemed to be so many responses surprised that people might struggle with that encounter.
streamdragon wrote: I have also never been much of a hand-holder in my games, which my players seem to appreciate, so obviously it will vary by group.
There is a difference between not being a hand-holder and being out for blood, which is what Ninja Gaiden tactics refers to.
Being out for blood has nothing to do with it though. It's not like I hate my players or anything.
It's an ambush. An ambush set up by creatures that pretty much survive by ambush. I dont think running monsters according to their nature really constitutes 'being out for blood'.
I know our group struggled with the encounter, and we even saw half of the goblins after actively looking for them(so no passives). The cleric(myself) and the fighter almost got dropped. I would say it's the second hardest encounter in the first adventure.
I should probably note we were a party of three(no rogue).
streamdragon wrote: Being out for blood has nothing to do with it though. It's not like I hate my players or anything.
Which is nice, but I never said you did. Having two goblins attack a party member is fine, having all of them attack one because you know mechanically it will kill them is not. I wasn't criticizing you are the two on one reasoning.
streamdragon wrote: It's an ambush. An ambush set up by creatures that pretty much survive by ambush. I dont think running monsters according to their nature really constitutes 'being out for blood'.
Having all four ignore other threats to attack one target becuase you know it will bring it down in the game isn't a natural response for goblins. In case you misunderstood I will clarify: I wasn't saying you were doing this, just that it would be cruel to do so if someone were. You were never singled out as doing this, nor did I take issue with two goblins teaming up.
? I dont have the starter set on me, but the rules section for combat still includes a d20 roll for initiative. Is the starter set modifying this for the ambush? And again, with +3 over the players that's a 15% shift in favor of the goblins. No one seeing them isnt a huge stretch.
Whoops! I misread initiative. That being said, the players still have an advantage there. And 5 perception checks vs 4 stealth checks (even with their bonus) is an advantage, even with the slight stealth advantage.
I am aware, loosely, of the ambush rundown. But as the rulebook cant obviously account for every single way the PCs will approach the situation I think pretending that it includes some sort of hard rigid prescribed flowchart is a little disingenuous.
I don't think it is at all. The starter says that if the players approach the horses they do X. Doing something different is significantly increasing the difficulty.
As to dropping a player, I think we're using different definitions for 'focus fire'. Im not saying all 4 goblins should beat one player until it stops being funny, just that having 4 goblins all attack different targets seems off for an ambush. I was also pointing out the mathematics of dropping some of the softer characters. 2 hits is all it takes to drop the wizard, on average. With certain rolls, only 1 is needed.
I don't disagree, but having all 4 able to attack one character is different when 2 have to charge.
Being out for blood has nothing to do with it though. It's not like I hate my players or anything.
It's an ambush. An ambush set up by creatures that pretty much survive by ambush. I dont think running monsters according to their nature really constitutes 'being out for blood'.
Except when you decide their nature is something different than the tactics outlined in the encounter.
Ahtman wrote:Which is nice, but I never said you did. Having two goblins attack a party member is fine, having all of them attack one because you know mechanically it will kill them is not. I wasn't criticizing you are the two on one reasoning.
Having all four ignore other threats to attack one target becuase you know it will bring it down in the game isn't a natural response for goblins. In case you misunderstood I will clarify: I wasn't saying you were doing this, just that it would be cruel to do so if someone were. You were never singled out as doing this, nor did I take issue with two goblins teaming up.
Ah, yeah. I agree that having 4 rush one person would be messed up, especially if you do it to outright kill them (i.e., not just drop/unconscious/0 hp them). It also wastes the ambush potential of the attackers.
pretre wrote:
Whoops! I misread initiative. That being said, the players still have an advantage there. And 5 perception checks vs 4 stealth checks (even with their bonus) is an advantage, even with the slight stealth advantage.
I don't think it is at all. The starter says that if the players approach the horses they do X. Doing something different is significantly increasing the difficulty.
I don't disagree, but having all 4 able to attack one character is different when 2 have to charge.
Except when you decide their nature is something different than the tactics outlined in the encounter.
The +3 to stealth is a bigger advantage than the +1 to initiative, imo, especially considering the surprise round it provides. It doesn't matter if your initiative roll is 10 better than mine if you don't get a turn at all that round.
As to how the ambush itself unfolds, like I said I don't have the starter set on me. But from your description, and the way you said your group did it, it really only brings up a couple variations of significance:
1. The players mostly hide in the cart, but send a few forward. This makes it more likely that those forward few would be focus fired*.
2. The players mostly get out of the cart and approach as a group. This pretty much goes back to what I imagined as the default scenario.
Neither scenario significantly changes the deadliness of the ambush. Nor does either one significantly change the tactics of the goblins. They're still going to lurk in trees until ambush time, 2 are still going to charge, and 2 are still going to shoot. I agree (and have previously agreed) that all 4 goblins focusing one target would be a bit more difficult since 2 are prescribed to be charging (and also agreed that 4 goblins bum rushing 1 player is messed up, unless that player is the only viable target). I just don't think it really goes against their nature or indeed changes the difficulty of the encounter significantly to suspect the goblins might set an ambush to actually, ya know, ambush. This isn't a computer game with prescripted events being triggered down a numbered code program.
10 PLAYERS APPROACH HORSE?(20:30)
20 WAIT GOTO 10
30 CHARGE ALL THE THINGS!
Really I haven't even been arguing (or at least, haven't been meaning to argue) about WHEN they ambush, so much about HOW they ambush. 1 scimitar attack + 1 shortbow attack, which is easily possible if someone is in range to be charged (like say a rogue sneaking along the tree line), is enough to drop several of the pregen characters. (And is indeed likely to do so with 8+ to hit and average damage from each attack reducing a character to <0 HP.)
* I think where we may be tripping up is my use of "focus fire". I wasn't suggesting that all 4 goblins should attack one target to the exclusion of all others. I was suggesting that, like players tend to do, attacking one target until it is down or significantly weakened is the "smartest" way to go about an ambush (or any fight really). It's a side effect of the HP system that being at 1 HP or 100 HP, you are still pretty much the same threat (i.e., your attack/damage capabilities don't weaken like they do with WoD's wound penalties).
No, I got you now. And really, my problem with Ninja's example is all four attacked their cleric. Killing him outright. Then the PCs hid in the woods rather than attacking. It was crazy.
edit: Realistic worst case scenario is this. Players approach the horses in a realistic party order and completely fail to see the goblins. Goblins get better initiative so go twice before players go, knocking down 1-2 players because they hit with every attack. Then it is 3 vs 4 and the goblins aren't long for the world.
And that's under the assumption that the Goblins make every check and the players fail every check. Yes, you'll have a tough adventure if you fail everything you try.
Meh, I've seen harder first encounters for my players. And even had no one die (though it did end up as a hilarious wizard vs wizard staff-whacking contest at the end, but even if the PC wizard lost, the fighter would have made their saving throw and gotten back in to the fight eventually...).
Melissia wrote: Meh, I've seen harder first encounters for my players. And even had no one die (though it did end up as a hilarious wizard vs wizard staff-whacking contest at the end, but even if the PC wizard lost, the fighter would have made their saving throw and gotten back in to the fight eventually...).
Yeah, if people think these 4 goblins are killer encounters, I would have been lynched and driven out of town after some of the stuff I've thrown at low level players.
Melissia wrote: Meh, I've seen harder first encounters for my players. And even had no one die (though it did end up as a hilarious wizard vs wizard staff-whacking contest at the end, but even if the PC wizard lost, the fighter would have made their saving throw and gotten back in to the fight eventually...).
Yeah, if people think these 4 goblins are killer encounters, I would have been lynched and driven out of town after some of the stuff I've thrown at low level players.
Yeah, you guys sound like a hoot to play with.
"Everyone ready to roll up their 7th party to try and beat this first encounter?"
"Umm, no. I think we're just gonna go play video games forever now."
I'm sure that compared to 4th edition level 1 characters, 5th edition is a big shock. But I much prefer that. It's great to have that progression from being in fear of your life in every encounter to becoming more grizzled and hardened, and eventually becoming confident in your abilities.
That's one of my favourite parts of dungeons and dragons.
Ambushes are always pretty nasty, and people can always get wiped out by lucky shots. This conversation is making me interested to try out the adventure in question to see how it would play with my group.
We should also remember this is meant to be a way of the new system, not a super snowflake DM special epic. The point isn't to try and kill PC's, or necessarily even have goblins be 'natural', but for people to play, learn, and discuss the new rules.
"Everyone ready to roll up their 7th party to try and beat this first encounter?"
"Umm, no. I think we're just gonna go play video games forever now."
Manchu wrote:I think their point is, the encounters in question are not really that hard if DMed properly.
Manchu has it right. Just because something is difficult and requires though to beat, does not mean TPK. Generally, TPK is a failure in the cooperative experience.
Da Boss wrote:I'm sure that compared to 4th edition level 1 characters, 5th edition is a big shock. But I much prefer that. It's great to have that progression from being in fear of your life in every encounter to becoming more grizzled and hardened, and eventually becoming confident in your abilities.
Really? I didn't find these much less powerful than 4th. No daily, but that's about it.
Ambushes are always pretty nasty, and people can always get wiped out by lucky shots. This conversation is making me interested to try out the adventure in question to see how it would play with my group.
My poor players just received a TPK tonight, after another near TPK earlier on. With two players missing this week, including their wizard, the Wyvern Tor encounter destroyed them. Sadly it wasn't their tactics, as they were solid; I basically rolled hot and managed to critical the Cleric twice in a row and then consistently roll high against the two fighters.
We agreed to just redo the encounter next week with more players. It was really interesting to see what having no Wizard and no Rogue did for them, and the lack of Fireball was especially critical here. I think that it is valuable to have these moments before I begin a proper campaign!
Really? I didn't find these much less powerful than 4th. No daily, but that's about it.
It's interesting to look at the give and take for 4e vs 5e level 1 characters.
From a pure toughness perspective, 4e characters tend to have a few more HP than 5e. 10+con for a 4e wizard vs 6+con mod for a 5e wizard, for instance. 15+con for a fighter vs 10+con mod. All classes also get Second Wind, which seems to be fighter only in 5e.
From an ability perspective, I'd say at-will 4e powers are generally better than caster cantrips (since non-casters have no equivalent), but 1x encounter + 1x daily is a bit weaker than starting spells for wizards/clerics, imo.
Goblins tend to do about the same damage, though some particular goblin iterations in 4e actually do more damage than their standard 5e counterpart. Funnily enough, all retain the ability to one shot a wayward wizard.
It'll be interesting to see how my group handles 5e, if they handle it at all. I admit I'm still hesitant, mostly because I tend towards non-caster classes which I still see as lacking in 5e for the most part. Here's hoping the PHB in a few weeks will assuage those concerns.
Edit:
I have been party to at least 3 TPKs in various systems.
D&D as a player: an L5R game where we were ambushed by not-kobolds. They managed to surround us in a corridor, spit our party, and we wiped. It was embarrassing all around.
Werewolf the Apocalypse as a player: fetish to recover is inside an active volcano in the spirit world. For whatever reason, I was under the impression only I could pick it up (I was a Silver Fang, and it was an ancestral Silver Fang fetish). Well, my not-athletic social pack leader type ended up falling into lava. The rest of the pack basically died trying to save me. Also embarrassing all around.
Star Wars OCR as a GM: Not quite a TPK, but critical hits in that game were DEVASTATING. I almost wiped the party after a couple crits in a row. It was bad.
We've only had TPKs recently actually, and it's been quite refreshing and made a compelling little story for our open table game.
Steamdragon: I might be remembering this wrong, but in the play test, it was 6+con mod, whereas in 4th it was 10+con score? I'm at my parent's place in Ireland right now so I can't check.
The difference in number of hit points is mostly what I meant in terms of toughness.
I've never TPK'd. I'm in the camp that would aim to avoid character death in general, before aiming to create it.
I figure the actual danger level only needs to be high enough to create a sufficient feeling of risk to ensure the PCs pay respect to the tone of the game/setting. Of course depending on the tone, setting and the personalities of your players what that entails exactly can be pretty variable.
pretre wrote: I tpk'd once. Starting adventure in 3rd or 3.5. Players ran into a wererat. No silver. Game over.
That happened in Temple of Elemental Evil when random encounter was Shadows (or was it Shades?), which can only be harmed by magical weapons, of which no one had...
pretre wrote: I tpk'd once. Starting adventure in 3rd or 3.5. Players ran into a wererat. No silver. Game over.
That happened in Temple of Elemental Evil when random encounter was Shadows (or was it Shades?), which can only be harmed by magical weapons, of which no one had...
Yeah but Temple is basically designed to kill parties...
pretre wrote: I tpk'd once. Starting adventure in 3rd or 3.5. Players ran into a wererat. No silver. Game over.
That happened in Temple of Elemental Evil when random encounter was Shadows (or was it Shades?), which can only be harmed by magical weapons, of which no one had...
Yeah but Temple is basically designed to kill parties...
Alpharius wrote: Your party was playing TOEE and no one had a magic weapon?
Not at level 1 when still exploring just outside the Hamlet of Hommlet, which is what we kept calling it. We also died to giant frogs at some point when one of the players rolled the max number of them for the encounter.
Backgrounds and subclasses. For example, Eldritch Knight sounds amazing for giving that touch of magical flavour to a fighter without needing to multiclass, while giving a magical thief subclass nicely suits the 'medieval noir' style of character. As someone who will be GMing it, I'm really looking forward to giving the players these kinds of options without having to deal with stuff like Prestige Classes and weird feat chains. I also think that the backgrounds have been really entertaining so far and do a really nice job of giving that extra level of detail to a character.
All in all, I'm hopeful that 5e gives us the 3.x era idea of 'build your own concept', but without all the mindboggling complexities and acres of options.
The Feats. As was mentioned earlier, they should be more rare(?) and are more along the lines of character background stuff?
4th had something like these in the Backgrounds section.. I know I've made a character who's background was as a Mariner, which gave me a bonus to one of two skills (they usually gave the option for 2 skills or a blanket option without any bonuses)
it's the Paladin's kit or path, at least in the Alpha leak it was.
"Sacred Oath
When you reach 3rd level, you swear the oath
that binds you as a paladin forever. Up to this
time you have been in a preparatory stage,
committed to the path but not yet sworn to it.
Now you choose the Oath of Devotion, the Oath
of the Ancients, or the Oath of Vengeance, all
detailed at the end of the class description.
Your choice grants you features at 3rd level,
and then again at 7th, 15th, and 20th level. Those
features include oath spells and the Channel
Divinity feature.
Oath Spells
Each oath has a list of associated spells. You gain
access to these spells at the levels specified in
the oath description. Once you gain access to an
oath spell, you always have it prepared. Oath
spells don’t count against the number of spells
you can prepare each day.
If you gain an oath spell that doesn’t appear on
the paladin spell list, the spell is nonetheless a
paladin spell for you. "
Yeah I figured as much, but I meant more as a mechanic than a concept -- i.e., what does the oath consist of, how is it maintained/broken, what are the game consequences, etc.
Manchu wrote: Yeah I figured as much, but I meant more as a mechanic than a concept -- i.e., what does the oath consist of, how is it maintained/broken, what are the game consequences, etc.
Like this?
Breaking Your Oath
A paladin tries to hold to the highest standards of
conduct, but even the most virtuous paladin is fallible.
Sometimes the right path proves too demanding,
sometimes a situation calls for the lesser of two evils,
and sometimes the heat of emotion causes a paladin to
transgress his or her oath.
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks
absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or
from another paladin of the same order. The paladin
might spend an allanight vigil in prayer as a sign of
penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of selfa
denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the
paladin starts fresh, with his or her oath renewed.
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows
no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more
serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin
might be forced to abandon this class and adopt
another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin
option that appears in the Dungeon)Master’s)Guide.
Oath of Vengeance
The Oath of Vengeance is a solemn commitment
to punish those who have committed a grievous
sin. When evil forces slaughter helpless villagers,
when an entire people turns against the will of
the gods, when a thieves’ guild grows too violent
and powerful, when a dragon rampages through
the countryside—at times like these, paladins
arise and swear an Oath of Vengeance to set
right that which has gone wrong. To these
paladins—sometimes called avengers or dark
knights—their own purity is not as important as
delivering justice.
Tenets of Vengeance
The tenets of the Oath of Vengeance vary by paladin,
but all the tenets revolve around punishing wrongdoers
by any means necessary. Paladins who uphold these
tenets are willing to sacrifice even their own
righteousness to mete out justice upon those who do
evil, so the paladins are often neutral or lawful neutral
in alignment. The core principles of the tenets are
brutally simple.
Fight the Greater Evil. Faced with a choice of fighting
my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I choose the
greater evil.
No Mercy for the Wicked. Ordinary foes might win my
mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.
By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can’t get in the
way of exterminating my foes.
Restitution. If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is
because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed
by their misdeeds.
At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin
might be forced to abandon this class and adopt
another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin
option that appears in the Dungeon)Master’s)Guide.
At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin
might be forced to abandon this class and adopt
another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin
option that appears in the Dungeon)Master’s)Guide.
Oh god no, they really had to bring this back.
Well, it's DM's discretion, so not that big a deal.
Oath of Vengeance
The Oath of Vengeance is a solemn commitment
to punish those who have committed a grievous
sin. When evil forces slaughter helpless villagers,
when an entire people turns against the will of
the gods, when a thieves’ guild grows too violent
and powerful, when a dragon rampages through
the countryside—at times like these, paladins
arise and swear an Oath of Vengeance to set
right that which has gone wrong. To these
paladins—sometimes called avengers or dark
knights—their own purity is not as important as
delivering justice.
Tenets of Vengeance
The tenets of the Oath of Vengeance vary by paladin,
but all the tenets revolve around punishing wrongdoers
by any means necessary. Paladins who uphold these
tenets are willing to sacrifice even their own
righteousness to mete out justice upon those who do
evil, so the paladins are often neutral or lawful neutral
in alignment. The core principles of the tenets are
brutally simple.
Fight the Greater Evil. Faced with a choice of fighting
my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I choose the
greater evil.
No Mercy for the Wicked. Ordinary foes might win my
mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.
By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can’t get in the
way of exterminating my foes.
Restitution. If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is
because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed
by their misdeeds.
Oh god. I can just hear the heavy mouth-breathing as some overly excited neckbeard insists yeah he's totally a good guy for torturing petty thieves to death because "Oath of Vengeance". What a bother.
Once we have the final text of the paladin's Sacred oath rules, we will have a better picture of how to use them.
The best way I ever came up to play a Paladin was to sit down and write a series of actual vows my character took and to briefly explain to the DM that the spirit trumps the letter. So, all questions of alignment aside, the matter was pretty simple: break the spirit of the vows and lose your Paladin status.
Here are the vows I wrote for my werewolf-hunting order if anyone is interested in an example of this method:
Spoiler:
- The Vow of Yew -- Vigilant Sobriety: To absolutely avoid voluntary intoxication (that is, actual stupefaction of the senses) by means of drink or similar substances; to avoid self-righteousness, arrogance, and inappropriate material ostentation -- and so to tithe, as per the Swords & Wizardry rules. To accept destruction rather than give into bestial motives: harmful acts committed in anger and malice require handing oneself over to the lawful authorities for judgement and punishment, including death. (Lawful authorities means those proper to the Brotherhood's world view. Even in the Underdark, Drow would not be considered lawful authorities.)
- The Vow of Amethyst -- Obedient Purity: To obey in good conscience the commands of the Brotherhood elders. (Good conscience means that the paladin is not bound to carry out orders obviously at odds with his other vows or general alignment but also that he cannot avoid the spirit of the command by appealing to its letter.) Also, to avoid all romantic entanglement until the Brotherhood itself chooses a spouse for the paladin. (This having to do with the Brotherhood and Sisterhood wishing to carefully manage the lycanthropic bloodlines.)
- The Vow of Silver -- Redemptive Pursuit: To tirelessly hunt down the wicked (most literally werewolves) but in every instance to capture and imprison; to never take into one's own discretion whether another person merits life or death. (All humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings no matter what mental or phsyical state [except the condition of undeath] are persons; other races, especially those that are uniformly evil, may or may not be as per the circumstances but usually are not.) This includes putting oneself between the transgressor and those who would harm him unless they are lawfully entitled to do so.
Chongara wrote:Oh god. I can just hear the heavy mouth-breathing as some overly excited neckbeard insists yeah he's totally a good guy for torturing petty thieves to death because "Oath of Vengeance". What a bother.
Melissia wrote:Yeah, that gak wouldn't fly with me as a DM...
What's the problem with Oath of Vengeance? It isn't the only Paladin oath, it's just the one I happened to cut and paste.
People justifying ends by any means are a well established part of both real life and fantasy worlds. Why wouldn't they have a paladin like this?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: So, it seems they are "forcing" paladins into the "lawful good = lawful nice" trope?? (I know we had a thread on this a bit ago)
As far as I'm concerned-- and this was my official stance as a DM-- cold-blooded torture is beyond the scope of a good person. Hot-blooded torture MIGHT be within their scope, but it makes them teeter on the edge of an alignment change-- and if they don't regret it and try to do better next time, their alignment won't be good for long.
I don't know if Paladins in 5e need to be good-aligned any more or even if the alignment system exists in 5e, but that's what I was trying to communicate.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: So, it seems they are "forcing" paladins into the "lawful good = lawful nice" trope?? (I know we had a thread on this a bit ago)
Did you read Oath of Vengeance?
Plus there's the Oathbreaker path.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: I don't know if Paladins in 5e need to be good-aligned any more or even if the alignment system exists in 5e, but that's what I was trying to communicate.
Alignment non-exists in 5E so far, which is to say, it is there but it doesn't seem to do anything, at least not in the Basic PDF. This is another element of 5E that is pretty similar to 4E.
Oath of Devotion
The Oath of Devotion binds a paladin to the
loftiest ideals of justice, virtue, and order.
Sometimes called cavaliers, white knights, or
holy warriors, these paladins meet the ideal of
the knight in shining armor, acting with honor in
pursuit of justice and the greater good. They
hold themselves to the highest standards of
conduct, and some, for better or worse, hold the
rest of the world to the same standards. Many
who swear this oath are devoted to gods of law
and good and use their gods’ tenets as the
measure of their devotion. They hold angels—
the perfect servants of good—as their ideals, and
incorporate images of angelic wings into their
helmets or coats of arms.
Tenets of Devotion
Though the exact words and strictures of the Oath of
Devotion vary, paladins of this oath share these tenets.
Honesty. Don’t lie or cheat. Let your word be your
promise.
Courage. Never fear to act, though caution is wise.
Compassion. Aid others, protect the weak, and punish
those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but
temper it with wisdom.
Honor. Treat others with fairness, and let your
honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much
good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.
Duty. Be responsible for your actions and their
consequences, protect those entrusted to your care,
and obey those who have just authority over you.
Oath of the Ancients
The Oath of the Ancients is as old as the race of
elves and the rituals of the druids. Sometimes
called fey knights, green knights, or horned
knights, paladins who swear this oath cast their
lot with the side of the light in the cosmic
struggle against darkness because they love the
beautiful and lifeWgiving things of the world, not
necessarily because they believe in principles of
honor, courage, and justice. They adorn their
armor and clothing with images of growing
things—leaves, antlers, or flowers—to reflect
their commitment to preserving life and light in
the world.
Tenets of the Ancients
The tenets of the Oath of the Ancients have been
preserved for uncounted centuries. This oath
emphasizes the principles of good above any concerns
of law or chaos. Its four central principles are simple.
Kindle the Light. Through your acts of mercy,
kindness, and forgiveness, kindle the light of hope in the
world, beating back despair.
Shelter the Light. Where there is good, beauty, love,
and laughter in the world, stand against the wickedness
that would swallow it. Where life flourishes, stand
against the forces that would render it barren.
Preserve Your Own Light. Delight in song and laughter,
in beauty and art. If you allow the light to die in your
own heart, you can’t preserve it in the world.
Be the Light. Be a glorious beacon for all who live in
despair. Let the light of your joy and courage shine forth
in all your deeds.
Oath of Vengeance
The Oath of Vengeance is a solemn commitment
to punish those who have committed a grievous
sin. When evil forces slaughter helpless villagers,
when an entire people turns against the will of
the gods, when a thieves’ guild grows too violent
and powerful, when a dragon rampages through
the countryside—at times like these, paladins
arise and swear an Oath of Vengeance to set
right that which has gone wrong. To these
paladins—sometimes called avengers or dark
knights—their own purity is not as important as
delivering justice.
Tenets of Vengeance
The tenets of the Oath of Vengeance vary by paladin,
but all the tenets revolve around punishing wrongdoers
by any means necessary. Paladins who uphold these
tenets are willing to sacrifice even their own
righteousness to mete out justice upon those who do
evil, so the paladins are often neutral or lawful neutral
in alignment. The core principles of the tenets are
brutally simple.
Fight the Greater Evil. Faced with a choice of fighting
my sworn foes or combating a lesser evil, I choose the
greater evil.
No Mercy for the Wicked. Ordinary foes might win my
mercy, but my sworn enemies do not.
By Any Means Necessary. My qualms can’t get in the
way of exterminating my foes.
Restitution. If my foes wreak ruin on the world, it is
because I failed to stop them. I must help those harmed
by their misdeeds.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I didn't see an alignment requirement for Paladin, but may have missed it.
Hm, Vengeance says you can be Neutral or LN for a Paladin, so there goes alignment requirements.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: I really wish neutrality wasn't so tied to being a nature freak.
It isn't.
The tenets of the Oath of Vengeance vary by paladin,
but all the tenets revolve around punishing wrongdoers
by any means necessary. Paladins who uphold these
tenets are willing to sacrifice even their own
righteousness to mete out justice upon those who do
evil, so the paladins are often neutral or lawful neutral
in alignment. The core principles of the tenets are
brutally simple.
What's the problem with Oath of Vengeance? It isn't the only Paladin oath, it's just the one I happened to cut and paste.
People justifying ends by any means are a well established part of both real life and fantasy worlds. Why wouldn't they have a paladin like this?
Have you seriously been lucky enough to avoid the vast swath of RPG players who seem to want any excuse to break an NPCs fingers, set sapient beings on fire, and pull a lot of gak that just sometimes crosses the line into sexual assault?
I swear there is this whole class of people who think Jack Bauer or your average Liam Neeson character are the height of ethics. Certainly these characters exist but they're not heroes and they're not paragons of anything save perhaps expedience, which hardly counts a virtue by any measure.
I get what WotC seems to be going for here. A crusading sort of paladin who goes out and slays dragons, or topples tyrants stopping along the way to help those affected by their actions.
What a lot of "That Guys" are going to do with it is use it as an excuse to cut off the hands of mooks that have surrendered, or play inquisitioner with anyone they assume has some small chance of having information.
The old torture trope has happened in almost every game I have ever played across all the groups I have played with and, yes, I have definitely done it myself. I actually insisted on torturing a prisoner as the paladin character I mentioned above. The rule set was Swords & Wizardry: the alignment system does not have a good/evil axis so Paladins are only required to be lawful. Torture violated neither my character's alignment nor his vows. Now, you can say he was a bad guy or even psychotic for inflicting torture on another sapient. I won't disagree. The DM and the other PCs were kind of shocked -- not that torture was happening (and it wasn't super gross-out stuff, either) but that the Paladin was doing it.
My point was to subvert the Paladin trope. I concluded from this experiment that Paladin's should be LG and LG should basically mean courteous, helpful, and valiant for Paladins. There is more than enough grimdark potential in the other character classes.
Chongara wrote: Have you seriously been lucky enough to avoid the vast swath of RPG players who seem to want any excuse to break an NPCs fingers, set sapient beings on fire, and pull a lot of gak that just sometimes crosses the line into sexual assault?
So you play with a lot of creepy douches? Yeah, I don't play with those kind of folks.
[quote[I get what WotC seems to be going for here. A crusading sort of paladin who goes out and slays dragons, or topples tyrants stopping along the way to help those affected by their actions.
So you play with a lot of creepy douches? Yeah, I don't play with those kind of folks.
Then you're lucky. Sometimes they're your only option. Sometimes they don't telegraph themselves until 12 sessions in when they finally get the opportunity to "Shine". Sometimes they're otherwise tolerable players who just get hung up doing this one goddamn awful thing whenever it comes up. Sometimes it's a combination. They can sneak in other ways too.
I'm glad I'm (mostly), free of them in my current playgroup but they are problem. Oath Vengeance is worded in such a way as to give those types maximum leeway for disruptive behavior - particularly with inexperienced or unassertive GMs.
As far as I'm concerned-- and this was my official stance as a DM-- cold-blooded torture is beyond the scope of a good person. Hot-blooded torture MIGHT be within their scope, but it makes them teeter on the edge of an alignment change-- and if they don't regret it and try to do better next time, their alignment won't be good for long.
I don't know if Paladins in 5e need to be good-aligned any more or even if the alignment system exists in 5e, but that's what I was trying to communicate.
3.5 had a book about being good and torturing in the Exalted Champions one.
I keep swinging back and forth on whether I want to really get in to this edition. Some things I like(feats and class archetypes)and others make me a little nervous(magic user>Everyone else who can't wield the powers of the cosmos; too many similarities to 3.5). It's not like I have to decide to buy it tomorrow or anything, but so far I'm a little torn from the information I have so far.
Ahtman wrote: At first I was like "Why is that barbarian wearing a shirt?" and then I realized it is so he can tear it off when he rages. Same for the pants.
Sounds like you might be thinking of that Bard, what was his name, Magic Mike?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sinful Hero wrote: magic user>Everyone else who can't wield the powers of the cosmos
It's strongly hinted IMO, or maybe I just got that impression from the starter. Spells like Knock(which can just replace certain class mechanics by themselves), don't bode well either.
Ah, I thought it was the same "open anything that's locked spell" from 3.5. I assume since it used the same name, it would not have become a completely different spell.
If it just makes a loud noise it's replacing noncasters ability to throw rocks! Why bother throwing anything when the wizard can do it louder, farther, and without any chance of error!
It also unlocks things, with some provisos. But it's also a second level spell and it makes a loud noise. So there are some drawbacks there.
More importantly, the idea that only a Rogue can pick locks is silly and needs to be exorcised from gamers' minds ASAP.
Well, they do generally have a high focus on dexterity which regardless of class abilities means they're usually better at it than a cleric or fighter.
Right now, I was very impressed by the fighter in the starter. At second level, you've got your focus, second wind and extra attack action per encounter.
The Fighter in our Thursday Night Game used his Second Wind to effectively kill (not outright kill, but prevent from escaping in order to be killed by the Fighter on the next turn) the Junior Big Bad in our campaign so far. So the class has impressed me as well. I really thought Junior would get away.
Sinful Hero wrote: It seems good for a "fluffy" choice, but it'll be bottom tier for min/maxing I'm sure. The stat bonuses are gonna be where it's at.
I'm thinking they may have put the kibosh on hard min/maxing if the feats are all just +1 to a stat. I guess it depends on how many you get and if there are any standouts. People avoided the fluffy choices in 3rd because they were so lame comparatively. But look at that one? You get a huge number of mechanical advantages with your fluff. Compared to Durable, it's a no brainer.
There will always be min/maxing. As the elemental adept feat says you can take it multiple times(just choose a different element), I imagine you'll get a fair few choices.
On another note all three of those choices are mostly defensive, except for the adept. Usually feats with bonuses to damage/potency are a higher priority- the feats that add to dex, str, wis, and int are going to be the real honey-pots.
Speaking of magic... I'm... too lazy to search through all thirty four pages-- has someone posted an image for Wizards like the Paladin and Barbarian ones you've posted so far?
Iunno, haven't seen information on the magical classes yet. Only seen info on paladins and barbarians, which are both kind of meh to me. Will play them eventually of course, but not my first choices.
Well the wizard and the cleric are in the basic rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post: From the wild magic table- You turn into a potted plant until the start of your next turn...
That is cute. Though I also found a bit of my worry again. The game has fluff. The game has crunch, but some times the crunch and the fluff doesn't connect. Like on the table there is a result that makes everyone around you resistant to pointy damage, but it doesn't say how. I mean it's magic yes, but how dose it look, how do you describe it? Is it like a shield, dose their skin turn to stone, or is it something more crazy?
I would think that with wild magic it should be something different each time otherwise it's not really 'wild' which might be why they've not gone into detail
so go wild (as it were)
stone skins, energy fields, mystical shields, all the opponants weapons become soft or blunted, maybe the plants in the area come alive and get in the way, of birds swoop in and take the blows etc
put it down to the player, give bonus XP for clever ideas, or maybe even penalise them if it's the same every time
What's the problem with Oath of Vengeance? It isn't the only Paladin oath, it's just the one I happened to cut and paste.
People justifying ends by any means are a well established part of both real life and fantasy worlds. Why wouldn't they have a paladin like this?
Have you seriously been lucky enough to avoid the vast swath of RPG players who seem to want any excuse to break an NPCs fingers, set sapient beings on fire, and pull a lot of gak that just sometimes crosses the line into sexual assault?
I swear there is this whole class of people who think Jack Bauer or your average Liam Neeson character are the height of ethics. Certainly these characters exist but they're not heroes and they're not paragons of anything save perhaps expedience, which hardly counts a virtue by any measure.
I get what WotC seems to be going for here. A crusading sort of paladin who goes out and slays dragons, or topples tyrants stopping along the way to help those affected by their actions.
What a lot of "That Guys" are going to do with it is use it as an excuse to cut off the hands of mooks that have surrendered, or play inquisitioner with anyone they assume has some small chance of having information.
No, I think they're pretty clearly going for Black Templars, or Judge Dredd with that particular path. They don't have to be a paragon of chivalry, they certainly don't have to be Lawful Good, and a DM's not going to be able to give them an Orc Baby Dilemma to make them fall. They absolutely are the ends justify the means sorts - they're happy to give up their "righteousness" if it brings about the end of a greater evil.
I'd be a fan if they weren't pretty clearly just recycled 4E Avengers, likely to have some Oath of Enmity mechanic.
What's the problem with Oath of Vengeance? It isn't the only Paladin oath, it's just the one I happened to cut and paste.
People justifying ends by any means are a well established part of both real life and fantasy worlds. Why wouldn't they have a paladin like this?
Have you seriously been lucky enough to avoid the vast swath of RPG players who seem to want any excuse to break an NPCs fingers, set sapient beings on fire, and pull a lot of gak that just sometimes crosses the line into sexual assault?
I swear there is this whole class of people who think Jack Bauer or your average Liam Neeson character are the height of ethics. Certainly these characters exist but they're not heroes and they're not paragons of anything save perhaps expedience, which hardly counts a virtue by any measure.
I get what WotC seems to be going for here. A crusading sort of paladin who goes out and slays dragons, or topples tyrants stopping along the way to help those affected by their actions.
What a lot of "That Guys" are going to do with it is use it as an excuse to cut off the hands of mooks that have surrendered, or play inquisitioner with anyone they assume has some small chance of having information.
No, I think they're pretty clearly going for Black Templars, or Judge Dredd with that particular path. They don't have to be a paragon of chivalry, they certainly don't have to be Lawful Good, and a DM's not going to be able to give them an Orc Baby Dilemma to make them fall. They absolutely are the ends justify the means sorts - they're happy to give up their "righteousness" if it brings about the end of a greater evil.
I'd be a fan if they weren't pretty clearly just recycled 4E Avengers, likely to have some Oath of Enmity mechanic.
<gravely voice>I am vengeance. To fight evil. I must become evil. Which is good for the greater good because I am evil but not as evil as them. Vengeance!</gravely voice> ? Jeez louise, this exactly what I'm talking about here. We've actually got someone endorsing baby-killing as being a-ok it's an Oath Vengeance.
What's the problem with Oath of Vengeance? It isn't the only Paladin oath, it's just the one I happened to cut and paste.
People justifying ends by any means are a well established part of both real life and fantasy worlds. Why wouldn't they have a paladin like this?
Have you seriously been lucky enough to avoid the vast swath of RPG players who seem to want any excuse to break an NPCs fingers, set sapient beings on fire, and pull a lot of gak that just sometimes crosses the line into sexual assault?
I swear there is this whole class of people who think Jack Bauer or your average Liam Neeson character are the height of ethics. Certainly these characters exist but they're not heroes and they're not paragons of anything save perhaps expedience, which hardly counts a virtue by any measure.
I get what WotC seems to be going for here. A crusading sort of paladin who goes out and slays dragons, or topples tyrants stopping along the way to help those affected by their actions.
What a lot of "That Guys" are going to do with it is use it as an excuse to cut off the hands of mooks that have surrendered, or play inquisitioner with anyone they assume has some small chance of having information.
No, I think they're pretty clearly going for Black Templars, or Judge Dredd with that particular path. They don't have to be a paragon of chivalry, they certainly don't have to be Lawful Good, and a DM's not going to be able to give them an Orc Baby Dilemma to make them fall. They absolutely are the ends justify the means sorts - they're happy to give up their "righteousness" if it brings about the end of a greater evil.
I'd be a fan if they weren't pretty clearly just recycled 4E Avengers, likely to have some Oath of Enmity mechanic.
<gravely voice>I am vengeance. To fight evil. I must become evil. Which is good for the greater good because I am evil but not as evil as them. Vengeance!</gravely voice> ? Jeez louise, this exactly what I'm talking about here. We've actually got someone endorsing baby-killing as being a-ok it's an Oath Vengeance.
You mean besides the fact that Paladin's being a specific lawful good class despite the fact they are just militarized fighter clerics of a god...
I still don't understand why they were made so specific in the first place, A paladin of Grummash and a paladin of Tor isn't exactly different aside from Allegiance, with clerics being un-specific is sort of the weird thing.
What Paladin's do and what Cleric's do is fairly different. One is a priest willing to put on some armor and go on adventures whereas the other is a chosen champion of a deity; the difference lies in their role. There are lots of clerics, though most aren't adventurers, but there are only a few Paladins. This isn't to say one is better than the other, just that they are different.
Clerics aren't unspecific as they have to pick a deity.
Ahtman wrote: What Paladin's do and what Cleric's do is fairly different. One is a priest willing to put on some armor and go on adventures whereas the other is a chosen champion of a deity; the difference lies in their role. There are lots of clerics, though most aren't adventurers, but there are only a few Paladins. This isn't to say one is better than the other, just that they are different.
Clerics aren't unspecific as they have to pick a deity.
Oh I never minded that.
I was always annoyed that they were both champions of a god, but yet the Paladin was restricted only to Lawful Good.
And yet the only other Paladin archetype for evil was Blackguards..Which were nothing but Fallen Paladins (in fluff)
Paladins play off the ancient trope that a hero is fueled by righteousness ("a pure heart") rather than brute force or will power. They aren't just champions of some deity or another. I would guess pure-heartedness is not so highly valued by moral relativists, however, so the Paladin (along with objective alignment generally) has become increasingly bizarre to players over time.
As to paladins, I remember an interesting quote somewhere that a core 'idea' for D&D (which means probably something Gygax, Arneson, or someone else read in a book and liked) was that Law vs. Chaos (or later Good vs. Evil) could also be described as 'single powerful entities vs. hordes of less powerful but more numerous foes.'
I don't think I've seen this concept really ever stated in any D&D publications, but it does explain why Paladins were essentially overpowered superheroes in these editions. You had to be lucky to qualify for the class n the first place in 2nd and earlier, but if you did you got a ton of benefits to dungeon-crawling like immunity to disease, some healing, etc.
I feel like there's been some sort of 'alternate paladin' for every edition of D&D. I remember some semi-official 'Anti-Paladin' stuff for 1st or 2nd, which combined a goofy name with basically flopping the class's alignment and power descriptors. I think there was a 3rd edition book that did equivalents for each alignment that was interesting: A Chaotic Good Paladin-equivalent might be more of a 'Robin Hood' type that works under the radar, but is still empowered by a deity.
If people want something along those lines - similar but not identical, make something called "Champion of the Gods" or some such?
I know it is partially because in many ways my RPGing IS trapped in amber, but I have a hard time with 'non-good', non-human Paladins!
Or, break it down into two different classes??
Paladin: heavy/plate armor wearing, blunt object wielding knight who views the Law and/or a Deity as being above all else.
"Crusader": heavy/plate armor wearing, military weapon wielding knight, empowered by their deity to cleanse the world of a taint brought on by other forces (this could mean that they aren't necessarily Lawful Good, as they could align with Gruumsh, or some other "evil" deity)
Manchu wrote: Paladins play off the ancient trope that a hero is fueled by righteousness ("a pure heart") rather than brute force or will power. They aren't just champions of some deity or another. I would guess pure-heartedness is not so highly valued by moral relativists, however, so the Paladin (along with objective alignment generally) has become increasingly bizarre to players over time.
I don't find the paladin to be odd...
... I guess that might indicate my stances on most philosophies that advocate moral relativism though
If people want something along those lines - similar but not identical, make something called "Champion of the Gods" or some such?
I know it is partially because in many ways my RPGing IS trapped in amber, but I have a hard time with 'non-good', non-human Paladins!
Or, break it down into two different classes??
Paladin: heavy/plate armor wearing, blunt object wielding knight who views the Law and/or a Deity as being above all else.
"Crusader": heavy/plate armor wearing, military weapon wielding knight, empowered by their deity to cleanse the world of a taint brought on by other forces (this could mean that they aren't necessarily Lawful Good, as they could align with Gruumsh, or some other "evil" deity)
I will bet you can play a "Crusader" like that in 5E using a War Domain or something.
Lots of confusion between Paladins and Clerics ITT. The Paladin is not defined by worshiping this or that deity but rather commitment to moral principles (a.k.a. chivalry).
I'm fine with Clerics not having alignment restrictions but Paladins should be the alignment of their respective deity. A devotee is more likely to have moments of doubt or just not be as pure, but the champion of a deity should embody their god. It also does away with "anti-paladin" as a Champion of an evil god would still be a Paladin, just one of an evil alignment.
Manchu wrote: Paladins need not devote themselves to any particular deity.
That isn't how I feel about Paladins, and when I run D&D I don't go for those kinds of shenanigans. I also don't allow atheist Clerics in my games either.
I'm not talking about peculiar homebrew takes on classes or alternative class options lurking in the back of splat books published late in a product cycle. I'm talking the up front, normative standards for these classes.
Clerics are priests. Worshiping a deity is what they do as a matter of course. That is not true of Paladins. By contrast, they are knights errant. I'm not saying they are necessarily non-religious, just that their religion or relationship with a specific deity or pantheon is not what makes them Paladins. Rather, adhering to a code of righteous conduct is what makes them Paladins.
Paladins are sort of like Monks in this respect. Monks can certainly be religious but it's not what makes them Monks. They are Monks thanks to their pursuit of spiritual enlightenment through rigorous physical training.
Unless they changed the meaning of the word arbitrary I don't see how it is arbitrary at all. It isn't on a whim and it isn't without reason, it just isn't to your personal taste. It also isn't something I cram down others throats and tell them it is how they have t approach it either, but it is how I generally feel about it. I'm open to other iterations and ideas.
Manchu wrote: Do you also require Monks to worship/be the champions of a specific deity?
Depends on the type of Monk I would think. European? Asian? Western Fantasy? Wuxia? In 4E they are a Psionic, not divine, and 5E seems to have moved them more toward martial with maybe a hint of Arcane if you take the elemental path. That isn't to say they can't be religious, as any class can be, but they derive no powers whatsoever from deities whereas Clerics and Paladins gain all theirs from deities.
Depends on the type of Monk I would think. European? Asian? Western Fantasy? Wuxia? In 4E they are a Psionic, not divine, and 5E seems to have moved them more toward martial with maybe a hint of Arcane if you take the elemental path.
4E monks are closer to a martial class than a psionic one... Which is weird because PH3 does say they derive their powers from Psionics... But basically all of their combat abilities are martial in nature (I know this because I've played a monk for a good while) They sort of derive a combat bonus, or other "fringe benefits" from the Psionic realm (such as the centered breath, and that sort of stuff)
Manchu wrote: Do you also require Monks to worship/be the champions of a specific deity?
Depends on the type of Monk I would think. European? Asian? Western Fantasy? Wuxia? In 4E they are a Psionic, not divine, and 5E seems to have moved them more toward martial with maybe a hint of Arcane if you take the elemental path. That isn't to say they can't be religious, as any class can be, but they derive no powers whatsoever from deities whereas Clerics and Paladins gain all theirs from deities.
Eberron has monks associated with the religions. I kind of liked that aspect too. It let you have more verity of monks and more verity of the priest character.
Depends on the type of Monk I would think. European? Asian? Western Fantasy? Wuxia? In 4E they are a Psionic, not divine, and 5E seems to have moved them more toward martial with maybe a hint of Arcane if you take the elemental path.
4E monks are closer to a martial class than a psionic one... Which is weird because PH3 does say they derive their powers from Psionics... But basically all of their combat abilities are martial in nature (I know this because I've played a monk for a good while) They sort of derive a combat bonus, or other "fringe benefits" from the Psionic realm (such as the centered breath, and that sort of stuff)
To my understanding they wanted to do a 'ki' power source, but they had a guideline that every power source had to have several classes, and couldn't think up interesting variants for the roles.
Although, if they had done a book with a 'ki' source for multiple asian-themed classes, so the ki-defender might have been a samurai that used the point-mechanic in a slightly different way from the monk, etc.
@Ahtman: Since we're both native speakers of English I'm not going to get into a dictionary battle. The point is, I don't think the DM's personal take on a given class should override the established archetype. I don't even care for it when Ed Greenwood does it TBH, which is why I don't play paladins in FR.
Ahtman wrote: I'm open to other iterations and ideas.
Manchu wrote: Do you also require Monks to worship/be the champions of a specific deity?
Depends on the type of Monk I would think. European? Asian? Western Fantasy? Wuxia?
The D&D kind.
Whether you file Monks under "Divine" or "Psionic" mechanically, the archetype remains the same: warriors who pursue spiritual enlightenment through rigorous physical training. The same is true of Paladins. Slap on whatever mechanical labels you need for Xth Edition, Paladins remain warriors who derive special powers from the strength of their righteous moral conviction.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: 4E monks are closer to a martial class than a psionic one... Which is weird because PH3 does say they derive their powers from Psionics... But basically all of their combat abilities are martial in nature (I know this because I've played a monk for a good while) They sort of derive a combat bonus, or other "fringe benefits" from the Psionic realm (such as the centered breath, and that sort of stuff)
As did I. I think they went with Psionic in 4E to a) justify their extra attacks and movement and b) give PHB3 another Psionic class.
Alpharius wrote: You're going to make me go look up the Paladin description in my 1E AD&D PHB when I get home!
The older iterations, besides having impossible to roll stat requirements, very much were more of the chivalrous code/knight type by their description. It wasn't until 3E that they were their own separate class and not considered a Fighter variant.
To my understanding they wanted to do a 'ki' power source, but they had a guideline that every power source had to have several classes, and couldn't think up interesting variants for the roles.
Although, if they had done a book with a 'ki' source for multiple asian-themed classes, so the ki-defender might have been a samurai that used the point-mechanic in a slightly different way from the monk, etc.
Yeah, and the weird thing was, a Ki Focus took up a "hand slot" except that when you were fighting, you weren't armed, so you still got your unarmed bonus, even though you were "armed" I actually kind of envisioned it as being sort of like a rosary, or those buddhist prayer beads (I don't know what they call them, but they arent a rosary, since that's catholic ) to where they were more wrapped around the users hand, and didn't hinder using any items (even two handed ones like a quarterstaff)
So it basically broke down to a "free magic item slot" on the personal inventory. And there were no penalties or disadvantages to having a Ki on you.
Alpharius wrote: You're going to make me go look up the Paladin description in my 1E AD&D PHB when I get home!
The sub-class description starts on page 22.
As far as religion goes, here's the closest on-point directive the AD&D PHB offers: Paladins who have knowingly performed a chaotic action "must" confess to and accept penance from a 7th-level or higher LG Cleric. There is no requirement that said Cleric worship the same deity or deities as the Paladin. More interestingly, note the PHB does not say what happens if the Paladin doesn't confess/do penance.
I'd argue that is for three reasons: First, it is left up to the DM to make a circumstances-specific call. Second, it is a nice contrast to the definitive end of your Paladin career should you knowingly do evil and moreover a vivid example of Gygaxian Naturalism concerning objective alignment. Third, and most important, why would there need to be negative consequences? Anyone who wants to play a Paladin should want avoid chaotic actions and play out regretting having taken them. This is a key part of the archetype.
Manchu wrote: The point is, I don't think the DM's personal take on a given class should override the established archetype.
Besides the fact that I was just exaggerating for effect, I don't think I've seen a game that was 100% by the rules with absolutely no tweaks/home rules. I let Paladins have greater options in alignment, but I don't allow them to not have a deity. If you don't like it don't play in that game. When you run your game if you go 100% by the book that is fine and I wouldn't complain as it is not my game as I, unlike others it seems, don't have a problem with different people approaching things differently. To be fair this also depends on the setting as well, and I rarely run a game using the stock setting.
Which have never had divine powers nor derived a single class feature/ability from divine sources in any edition. The same is not true of Paladins or Clerics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Yeah, and the weird thing was, a Ki Focus took up a "hand slot"
In the character builder, either of them, it never took up a hand slot.
Ahtman wrote: I don't think I've seen a game that was 100% by the rules with absolutely no tweaks/home rules.
And yet they exist all the same. I am playing in one currently on Thursday evenings. Not tweaking/homebrewing is a specific point of our sessions because we are "testing out" 5E. And of course there is no reason to assume a given group playing "right out of the box" would do anything but go on the published material.
But that's all irrelevant to the issue of whether Paladins are champions of a given deity. PHB-standard Paladins are knights who can cast a few spells from the Cleric list and that's pretty much as far as it goes. In FR, all Paladins are the champions of a god, which muddles the issue.
Ahtman wrote: Which have never had divine powers nor derived a single class feature/ability from divine sources in any edition. The same is not true of Paladins or Clerics.
There are a few disparate ideas swirling around in there, but the argument from a mechanical label does not avail. Power Source is a 4E mechanic. Divine is a mechanical term of art from 3E carried forward. As I mentioned above, mechanics don't alter the underlying fundamental archetype:
Manchu wrote: Whether you file Monks under "Divine" or "Psionic" mechanically, the archetype remains the same: warriors who pursue spiritual enlightenment through rigorous physical training. The same is true of Paladins. Slap on whatever mechanical labels you need for Xth Edition, Paladins remain warriors who derive special powers from the strength of their righteous moral conviction.
Melissia wrote: I can see the paladin as a non-religious moral knight, but I'm wondering where they get their divine powers from if not from a deity?
Well, first, I am not arguing that Paladins are non-religious just that their powers are not bestowed on them in exchange for ritual worship, as appears to be the case with Clerics. Paladins wield special powers because of their righteous conviction. Remember, we are dealing with a universe where Law and Good are fundamental cosmic principles. Paladins align themselves with those cosmic principles so perfectly, through living lives of dedication to a strict moral code, that they can wield that very power. This is why Paladins who do evil immediately lose all their powers -- they have lost their alignment with the cosmic forces that empowered them.
I think that Paladins are granted their 'divine' powers from a...divine source - it is just that I think that all these years I in fact *did* think that they had to be devoted to a specific deity when apparently this was not the case!
Alpharius wrote: I think that Paladins are granted their 'divine' powers from a...divine source - it is just that I think that all these years I in fact *did* think that they had to be devoted to a specific deity when apparently this was not the case!
Neither is correct as matter of the AD&D PHB, which ties all the Paladin's powers to alignment rather than religion. To wit, "Law and good deeds are the meat and drink of paladins."
Melissia wrote: I can see the paladin as a non-religious moral knight, but I'm wondering where they get their divine powers from if not from a deity?
There are any number of ways you could fluff it depending on what tone you want your campaign/setting campaign to have.
The moral energy of the world could be something that is in a sense tangible something you interact and manipulate with the proper tools. Things that drop from a great height are accelerated by gravity, a spring can be compressed to hold force, fuel and oxygen combust to generate heat, a strong will, good heart and disciplined mind can channel the positive energy of the world to heal innocent or harm the wicked.
Alternatively, perhaps the energy comes strictly from within. Maybe the soul is a tangible source of power, something you can tap and shape. With training and conviction one can project one's inner energy to whatever effect that soul desires. The way the power manifests for the paladin is a reflective of their particularly righteous (or evil, in the case of anti-paladin) soul.
Maybe the the energy is just an offshoot of what might be traditionally seen as "Arcane" magic, force of will changing the world to effect. Maybe paladins derive their power from ancient relics ritually implanted during their initiation rites. Perhaps it is the will of humanity that fuels them, the hopes and fears of good people reaching out to empower them to better the world. It could be the paladins of the past reaching in from some other realm, connected to this one by the strength of the conviction they had in life being matched by the the current paladins.
There really are a ton of ways you could explain what powers the abilities we see in the paladin class. "Ethos-powered warrior" has a lot of design space. You could also just have the gods hand them their power, or a rabbit wearing a silly hat. Whatever works for your game.
Manchu wrote: Well, first, I am not arguing that Paladins are non-religious just that their powers are not bestowed on them in exchange for ritual worship, as appears to be the case with Clerics. Paladins wield special powers because of their righteous conviction. Remember, we are dealing with a universe where Law and Good are fundamental cosmic principles. Paladins align themselves with those cosmic principles so perfectly, through living lives of dedication to a strict moral code, that they can wield that very power. This is why Paladins who do evil immediately lose all their powers -- they have lost their alignment with the cosmic forces that empowered them.
So basically like Guild Wars 2's Guardian? They draw magic, literally, from the virtues of courage, justice, and resolve.
In spite of my question, it is my interpretation that in past DnD games the rules have always stated that they had divine powers granted by a deity, and regained their magic through prayer to said deity-- I'm interested in seeing if this one differs.
I wouldn't object to it being different. A paladin need not necessarily be the "righteous fist of god", as it were.
Alpharius wrote: I still think the Intent is that they must be paying fealty to some Deity - all indications seem to point in that direction.
I don't think Lawful Good in of itself grants them...anything?
But, like Ahtman, that's the way its always been in my campaigns.
I agree it's clearly the intended default. I certainly usually run things that way. Still, paladins as typically presented can certainly fit into any number of metaphysical frameworks without much if any modification, if that's the sort of thing you're inclined to do.
Fighters are very good at opening the encounter with a flurry of blows. It has really helped the players, especially when they use it to ensure that a guy goes down. They are also generally the last ones standing, thanks to Second Wind. I think that the Fighter class finally gives the impression of being the skilled and dangerous guy that we all wanted it to be.
Folks who say D&D rules state or intend that Paladins get their powers through devotion to a deity, by all means please let me know where a PHB actually supports this statement. We have already seen how it is not supported by the AD&D PHB. Nearly the same text is found in the 2E Revised PHB, right down to the "meat and drink" point quoted above. The 3.5 PHB explicitly says: "A paladin need not devote herself to a single deity -- devotion to righteousness is enough." Only in 4E are Paladins required to choose a "patron" deity but apparently only because they are no longer required to be LG; their alignment must now be identical to their deity's. Even so, the 4E PHB clarifies that "Paladins are not granted their power directly by their deity, but instead through various rites performed when they become paladins" (and this again is a consequence of the lack of a LG requirment; Paladins no longer lose their class/class powers by straying off the moral-ethical path because in 4E alignment is basically a non-thing).
The interpretation/assumption that Paladins are the champions of a certain deity, which as far as I know is unique to the Forgotten Realms, really does explain the confusion about/reaction against the LG alignment requirement -- especially in light of the explicit correlation in 4E between these issues. Given the default setting of 5E is the Forgotten Realms and 5E alignment is still a non-thing as in 4E, it will be surprising if 5E Paladins are not required to have patron deities. But the Paladin preview pages seem to indicate that a Paldin's power comes from living by a strict moral code (actually, that's a pretty good analog to alignment), specifically the oath mechanic, rather than religious devotion.
Manchu wrote: Folks who say D&D rules state or intend that Paladins get their powers through devotion to a deity, by all means please let me know where a PHB actually supports this statement. We have already seen how it is not supported by the AD&D PHB. Nearly the same text is found in the 2E Revised PHB, right down to the "meat and drink" point quoted above. The 3.5 PHB explicitly says: "A paladin need not devote herself to a single deity -- devotion to righteousness is enough." Only in 4E are Paladins required to choose a "patron" deity but apparently only because they are no longer required to be LG; their alignment must now be identical to their deity's. Even so, the 4E PHB clarifies that "Paladins are not granted their power directly by their deity, but instead through various rites performed when they become paladins" (and this again is a consequence of the lack of a LG requirment; Paladins no longer lose their class/class powers by straying off the moral-ethical path because in 4E alignment is basically a non-thing).
The interpretation/assumption that Paladins are the champions of a certain deity, which as far as I know is unique to the Forgotten Realms, really does explain the confusion about/reaction against the LG alignment requirement -- especially in light of the explicit correlation in 4E between these issues. Given the default setting of 5E is the Forgotten Realms and 5E alignment is still a non-thing as in 4E, it will be surprising if 5E Paladins are not required to have patron deities. But the Paladin preview pages seem to indicate that a Paldin's power comes from living by a strict moral code (actually, that's a pretty good analog to alignment), specifically the oath mechanic, rather than religious devotion.
I think most were saying they "thought" it was like this, or that they 'preferred' it this way?
I can see how a lot of what Paladins are about (the 'divine' powers, the access to clerical spells, the tithing, etc.) seems to 'imply' it.
Otherwise, it is odd that LAWFUL GOOD (The Alignment) is what 'grants' and 'revokes' these things!
Alignment was a pretty big deal until 4E. And not just as a mechanic but as a setting element. Keep in mind that the moral and ethical axes went beyond individual characters and helped determine the shape of reality itself, with entire planes of reality being defined by their alignment.
Paladins are not LG in the same sense as any other given PC but then again no other class is totally about alignment. While all PCs have an alignment (again, before 4E), only the Paladins really live and breathe it (or in the idiom of AD&D, eat and drink it). Paladins are invoking the cosmic power of LG itself in the material plane.
Alignment was a pretty big deal until 4E. And not just as a mechanic but as a setting element. Keep in mind that the moral and ethical axes went beyond individual characters and helped determine the shape of reality itself, with entire planes of reality being defined by their alignment.
Paladins are not LG in the same sense as any other given PC but then again no other class is totally about alignment. While all PCs have an alignment (again, before 4E), only the Paladins really live and breathe it (or in the idiom of AD&D, eat and drink it). Paladins are invoking the cosmic power of LG itself in the material plane.
Well, this here is the fairly 'odd' part:
Manchu wrote: Paladins are invoking the cosmic power of LG itself in the material plane.
At least, it is for me.
I just prefer that "Divine" powers come from an actual Deity, and not from some vague representation of a way of life/moral/ethical code, even if that is BTB and/or How Gary Would Play It!
I don't really care about How Gary Would Play It, or at least not any more than I do about How Alpharius Would Play It, because that is just a matter of personal taste. There is really nothing to discuss after someone says "I play it this way because that's how I like it." I mean, you can't argue with someone about their favorite color: "no, you really should think blue is better than red." It's just not a worthwhile conversation. For the same reason, declaring one's favorite color in the first place doesn't make for a worthwhile conversation. All anyone can say in response is, okay that's nice.
On the other hand, statements like "the text says ...", "the text intends ...", and "the text implies ..." can be discussed. According to at least four different PHBs, Paladins do not get their powers from being devoted to deities. Three of them say Paladins get their powers from their moral conviction (e.g., "law and good deeds," "righteousness") while the fourth says they are invested with their powers in rites associated with their dedicated lifestyle. That last one, the 4E PHB text, is fascinating because it really shows how there is a relationship between the source of a Paladin's powers and alignment precisely because the 4E Paladin has no specific alignment restriction -- and does not lose powers or get kicked out of the class for behaving contrary to alignment. And for the first time, Paladins must have a deity.
Even considering 4E explicitly says Paladins don't get their powers from their patron deities, these developments still represent a huge break from every previous edition. That is actually how this came up; specifically in Zebio's post here:
ZebioLizard2 wrote: You mean besides the fact that Paladin's being a specific lawful good class despite the fact they are just militarized fighter clerics of a god...
I still don't understand why they were made so specific in the first place, A paladin of Grummash and a paladin of Tor isn't exactly different aside from Allegiance, with clerics being un-specific is sort of the weird thing.
Why must pre-4E Paladins be LG when they are just Champions of [Insert Deity Here]. If Grummsh is CE, then shouldn't his champion also be CE? That is in fact how 4E works! And we know from these 36 pages that Zebio likes his 4E (and so does Ahtman, which might explain why he requires Paladins to have a deity). The problem comes when one starts reading that 4E assumption "back" onto previous editions, where Paladins were not (outside of FR) champions of some deity.
Instead, they were the knights errant of medieval romance. The AD&D 2E Revised PHB goes so far as to give Charlemagne's paladins and Arthurian knights like Sir Galahad as examples. These guys were not men of the cloth. They were warrior noblemen who, instead of being ruthless barbarian warlords or pious cloistered monks, lived and fought and loved according to a code of courtly, honorable conduct called chivalry.
Why must pre-4E Paladins be LG when they are just Champions of [Insert Deity Here]. If Grummsh is CE, then shouldn't his champion also be CE? That is in fact how 4E works! And we know from these 36 pages that Zebio likes his 4E (and so does Ahtman, which might explain why he requires Paladins to have a deity). The problem comes when one starts reading that 4E assumption "back" onto previous editions, where Paladins were not (outside of FR) champions of some deity.
I was discussing 3.5, thanks for assuming and all that, I mostly played FR which for most purposes ended up the main campaign setting due to just how saturated it ended up.
FR required EVERYONE to have a deity, and thus why he might think of it as well.
I never played much before 3E, thus my knowledge is lacking beyond that.
Manchu wrote: I know you were discussing 3.5 and not 4E, it's pretty obvious given you were asking about an alignment restriction that doesn't exist in 4E.
And it is possible not have a deity in FR but your soul winds up stuck in the Fugue Plane as part of the Wall of the Faithless.
Still don't like that thing!
Like the ultimate dick move of the gods and yet it has to remain because the gods are like parasites that need faith to function or die.
Generally though, things do change over time for the classes and mechanics, bards used to be the first prestige class, fighting men used to end up as lords, and gold used to be exp, I just find that as long as they find a natural flow for where the mechanics and classes end up they'll be fine myself, so long as the balance isn't broken two ways to sunday. Like how they are trying to make arcane casters mechanically different from each other in 5E.
I completely agree about the Wall. That always irritated me but you are right -- it's a result of the concept that gods only exist because they are worshiped so we have this narrative conceit to punish the Faithless. It's like a store where you are free to leave at any time after you purchase something.
Manchu wrote: I completely agree about the Wall. That always irritated me but you are right -- it's a result of the concept that gods only exist because they are worshiped so we have this narrative conceit to punish the Faithless. It's like a store where you are free to leave at any time after you purchase something.
Except even in the narrative the Overgod AO can survive without being worshiped by mortals (in fact he punishes those that find out about him and worships him), so as a concept it seems like the under-deities just really want to keep their power. I'm pretty sure Forgotten Realms would be far better off if Cyric had no power, even if Mystral provides magic (Which ended up a bust anyways as the spellplague ended up in 4E due to it )
I think the only other realm I really know is Greyhawk, which was the standard up until FR become like seriously popular, while the rest (Eberron, Planescape) I only know in passing, so my knowledge of what could be 'baseline' is somewhat skewed.
Adjudicating Illusions has always been something that is difficult to do 'correctly' and/or 'fairly'.
Is there anything about this in the 5E materials that have been released so far?
The Illusionist class is something I've always liked in 1E (especially after they expanded the spell list for them via 'Unearthed Arcana'), but they were always hard to play in terms of survivability and just plain old player/DM interactions too!
Supposedly the reasoning behind it was that unless the gods required worship to live, they'd stop doing their jobs, therefor they require worship to live, so sayeth Ao-- and becaus ethey require worship to live, even the good-aligned ones are donkey-caves to those who don't worship.
I always found it rather flimsy myself. When I DMed, the souls of those without faith "slept", as it were, after death, until they were awoken by necromancy. No pain, no pleasure, just the titular "eternal rest".
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I think the only other realm I really know is Greyhawk, which was the standard up until FR become like seriously popular, while the rest (Eberron, Planescape) I only know in passing, so my knowledge of what could be 'baseline' is somewhat skewed.
The whole 'gods need faith' is really most predominant int he Forgotten Realms. I don't think it ever came up in Dragonlance or many other settings.
Now Planescape is an interesting disucssion, as a core conceit of Planescape is that everything is powered by faith. Existence only has a shape because we will it to do so. Or maybe not... it's confusing, and as Planescape technically encompasses the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, etc. all legends are true, for a different meaning of 'true.'
Planescape even has a faction (The Athar) that are dedicated to the idea that Powers aren't gods and shouldn't be worshiped...They're just really powerful people.
Some of the art is just beautiful, much better than the previews let on. There is a picture in the spell section of a Wizard casting Prismatic Spray at some Chuul. Just phenomenal.
Let me know if people have questions and I will try to answer them later tonight (much later probably, playing X-Wing this evening).
Manchu wrote: Some of the art is just beautiful, much better than the previews let on. There is a picture in the spell section of a Wizard casting Prismatic Spray at some Chuul. Just phenomenal.
Let me know if people have questions and I will try to answer them later tonight (much later probably, playing X-Wing this evening).
No Generalist school. There is eight traditions, conforming to the age-old magic divisions. For a highlight:, Abjuration wizards get to make a magical shield with temporary hitpoints, which protects you and recharges whenever you cast abjuration spells. It has hp equal to (2 x (wizard level + int bonus)). When you hit sixth, you can protect other people with it. At 10th, you get to add your proficiency bonus to certain abjuration spells. At 14th you get Resistance to spell damage and Asvantage on saving throws against spells.
Not so sure on Warlock, sorry, not had a chance to read it yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the book is really pretty.
Favorite part just from the once-through: feats. Really cool implementation, and they're flavorful without being game breaking.
did they go with something closer to the "backgrounds" from 4th ed. ?
Nope. Basically, at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th level you can either increase an single ability score by +2, or increase 2 ability scores by +1. You can, however, choose to not increase an ability score, and instead take a feat.
So, feats like "Athlete" which improve either Strength or Dexterity by +1 (along with other benefits) don't stack on top of a class-based ability improvements. And a lot of feats don't improve ability scores at all.
Charles Rampant wrote: No Generalist school. There is eight traditions, conforming to the age-old magic divisions.
ah.
Are there any disadvantages to picking them like in previous editions?
Doesn't seem to be. However, the Arcane Traditions seem to be more perks along a single line of spells. At second level, for example, the costs and time it takes to inscribe a spell for your chosen school is halved. These perks come at 2nd, 6th, 10th and 14th level.
Favorite part just from the once-through: feats. Really cool implementation, and they're flavorful without being game breaking.
did they go with something closer to the "backgrounds" from 4th ed. ?
Nope. Basically, at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th level you can either increase an single ability score by +2, or increase 2 ability scores by +1. You can, however, choose to not increase an ability score, and instead take a feat.
So, feats like "Athlete" which improve either Strength or Dexterity by +1 (along with other benefits) don't stack on top of a class-based ability improvements. And a lot of feats don't improve ability scores at all.
So, you can improve your ability scores... OR, take something like "Monkey Grip" (from previous edition)... that sounds rather like they are trying to depower characters a bit to me, unless there's something more to this that I'm missing.
The thing is that feats in 5E are a lot more encompassing than earlier so that may be what you are missing. Each is several of what the old feats would be. There should be some examples a few pages back.
So, you can improve your ability scores... OR, take something like "Monkey Grip" (from previous edition)... that sounds rather like they are trying to depower characters a bit to me, unless there's something more to this that I'm missing.
I would agree, because all of the class-based ability score improving choices - ability scores increases and feats - CANNOT increase a character's ability score above 20.
As frequently appears in the book, "As normal, you can't increase an ability score above 20 using this feature."
Or, with feats, "Increase your [chosen ability score] by 1, to a maximum of 20."
Unlike other editions where you just hammered one or two stats to high heaven, having decent all around stats is good as they all are used for Saving Throws and skills. For example ,as a Fighter you might even want to, Pelor forbid, improve a stat besides Str or Con.
Fine? None of the classes seem obviously broken. Let me know if you have a more specific question.
Melissia wrote: How different do Wizards play than compared to 3.5th edition?
Take a look at the free PDF.
Melissia wrote: Are there any disadvantages to picking them like in previous editions?
No.
infinite_array wrote: Shame as they were all sold out of the Hoard if the Dragon Queen book.
Managed to get this today, too. The paper is completely different from the PHB. It feels rough and is not glossy. Very interesting approach.
streamdragon wrote: scribing costs for spells was pretty much lowest on the list of "important things".
Tell that to the LFQM naysayers.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: you can improve your ability scores... OR, take something like "Monkey Grip" (from previous edition)
Not really. Feats are less like niche tweaks and more likes suites of characterful traits.
Ahtman wrote: Unlike other editions where you just hammered one or two stats to high heaven, having decent all around stats is good as they all are used for Saving Throws and skills. For example ,as a Fighter you might even want to, Pelor forbid, improve a stat besides Str or Con.
Yes, exactly correct. 5E is not a game mastery edition like 3.5 ... so far.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: you can improve your ability scores... OR, take something like "Monkey Grip" (from previous edition)
Not really. Feats are less like niche tweaks and more likes suites of characterful traits.
So instead of a feat like Monkey Grip, Feats are more similar to the 4E backgrounds where to use one of my own character's backgrounds: Ancestral Holdings, allows the option to make Diplomacy or History a class skill, OR take a +2 bonus to all Diplomacy or History rolls??
But instead of things like History, Diplomacy and thievery, these bonuses are for STR, CON, WIS, etc?
ZebioLizard2 wrote: What sort of casting does the Warlock perform now, is it similar to 3.5? 4E? New system?
I don't remember much about 3.5 warlocks to be honest but I kind of liked 4E ones. I would say the 5E Warlock is similar in spirit, as the term "Striker" could still apply (d8 hit die helps). Eldritch Invocations are like mini-feats: they give you stuff like improved dark vision, the ability to add CHA mod to Eldritch Blast damage, speak with animals, etc, etc. You also get a pact boon, which is a familiar, animal, or special book that lets you do cool things like, in the case of the book, casting cantrips at will from other classes' spell lists.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: So instead of a feat like Monkey Grip, Feats are more similar to the 4E backgrounds [...]
5E feats are geared more to combat (mostly) but they confer 2-3 small bonuses rather than only one thing like 3.5 or 4E feats. They are pretty clearly designed to appeal to players who like a crunchier game.
Alpharius wrote: In other words, will an Old School AD&D 1E gamer like me find a lot to like here?
I guess there are two flavors of D&D grognard: the guy who prefers Basic and the guy who prefers AD&D. 5E is more for the guy who prefers AD&D.
Just wondering is the an alignment system same as previous editions of D&D and how detailed is each alignment? Is there a paragraph detailing each Alignment or just a short sentence?
Ravenblade666 wrote: Just wondering is the an alignment system same as previous editions of D&D and how detailed is each alignment? Is there a paragraph detailing each Alignment or just a short sentence?
That's a good question - and one that I was almost going to ask instead of my "How much would a 1E Guy like it?" one.
So, yeah, any info on that would be greatly appreciated!
9 alignments are included ranging from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil, and have a sentence description along with some examples of what would match.
"Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don't take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Lizardfolk, most druids, and many humans are neutral."
Following that is a section titled "Alignment in the Multiverse" which describes how alignments are derived, whether they're moral choices, inherent values (like in those races created by good and evil goods), the essence of a creature (a devil does not chose to be Lawful Evil, or tends to be Lawful Evil, but is the embodiment of Lawful Evil), or if they have no alignment at all, (non-intelligent animals).
infinite_array wrote: "Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don't take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Lizardfolk, most druids, and many humans are neutral."
About time they focus on that aspect as opposed to the "careful balance of nature" aspect that they seemed to have loved in previous editions...
There is also some chat about alignments in appendix C, which discusses the shape of the multiverse and the Outer Planes.
The interesting thing to note is that PC alignment has no mechanical effect. There is no way to detect another's alignment - Detect/Protection from Evil spells only affect stuff like Aberrations and Fiends. The Paladin gets to add damage to attacks irrespective of the enemy's alignment. This seems a good approach, since if you want to remove alignment then it doesn't mess stuff up.
So having read the book cover to cover, with the obvious exception of the Argos catalogue spells chapter, I have a few thoughts to share.
The Physical Book The book is lovely, full of good art and without White Wolf style backgrounds that make it hard to read. I don't forsee any problems in using it at the table, thanks to the clear text and the way that the book sits open on its spine. In terms of the art, I am really impressed; not all of the art is perfect, but there are very few duds. They have also managed to show more of the adventuring 'life': alongside the pictures of full blown fight scenes, you have pictures of adventurers combing through treasure hordes, making camp, researching magic, and getting into bar fights.
The System It is worth noting that the Basic pdf contains the whole of the Adventuring, Combat and Rules chapters, word for word, so you can read that to see what they are like. I would say that, in terms of feel on the table, that it is less complex and fiddly than 3e. It feels a little bit like AD&D, in terms of options being fairly simple and mechanically light, while still having the easy to understand maths of 3e.
Complexity I want to talk briefly about the way that this edition handles complexity. The game has made a very clear attempt to reduce complexity, especially player-facing complexity. Firstly, it has moved a lot of the more complex combat options out of the main chapter and into the classes and feats.
For example, the main combat chapter doesn’t have anything about moving enemies around, like 4e. But the Battlemaster Fighter class has lots of options along these lines, with its own subsystem to fuel it. Other classes can get a lesser form of the same thing from a feat. This means that if you want a more complex battlefield control style of Fighter play, you can take the Battlemaster class; if you don’t, then the Champion gives you simple and easy to use passive bonuses. Similarly, the Warlock class can be built and played in a very simple fashion, with only a few spells known and the option to tailor your Invocations to boost you in ways that don’t add complexity. So as a player, you can choose your level of game complexity fairly easily.
Another way that it does this is by removing the reams of combat and non-combat modifiers. You don’t get Flanking bonuses, nor do any feats give you situational bonuses like “you get a +1 Dodge bonus to AC against one enemy in melee”. The Ranger doesn’t get Favoured Enemy in combat, only on tracking, and there are no bonuses or penalties for tools or favourable circumstances. This makes it much quicker to actually get on with the dice rolling; players have less incentive to stack modifiers, with elaborate descriptions of different AC bonuses to try and keep them under control.
So the rules themselves are nice and simple, and as a GM I’ve found that the game runs as quickly in play as systems like Savage Worlds, rather than the death by a thousand cuts that I used to experience in 3e.
I love how dorky this Dragon looks. Did he just fart or something?
Adventuring The game has clearly made a strong effort to bring adventuring back into the conception of what a character class is about. For example, the Ranger at first level picks a Favoured Enemy (which lets him have advantage against said enemy on Tracking and Intelligence checks to recall information about them, as well as speaking their language) and a Natural Terrain type (within which he isn’t slowed by difficult terrain, can forage while marching, can march while stealthed, etc). These benefits are really interesting and flavourful while adventuring, but not so much while killing things.
The backgrounds are full of this sort of thing, with the Sailor being able to blag rides on friendly ships, the Noble being able to arrange meetings with high society types, and the Urchin being adept at finding shortcuts through cities. In short, Wizards have clearly tried to focus on the way that your characters can have flavour and interesting things to do in the world beyond just stabbing stuff.
I’ve kind of run out of things to say, but hopefully this can help those trying to decide whether the game suits them or not.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: you can improve your ability scores... OR, take something like "Monkey Grip" (from previous edition)
Not really. Feats are less like niche tweaks and more likes suites of characterful traits.
So instead of a feat like Monkey Grip, Feats are more similar to the 4E backgrounds where to use one of my own character's backgrounds: Ancestral Holdings, allows the option to make Diplomacy or History a class skill, OR take a +2 bonus to all Diplomacy or History rolls??
But instead of things like History, Diplomacy and thievery, these bonuses are for STR, CON, WIS, etc?
Closer, but from what I've seen it's more like a feat is a 'package' of things that would be an entire feat-chain in 3rd or 4th. For example, there's no 'Cleave' but the Great Weapon Master feat (or whatever it's called) gives the equivalent of the older edition's 'Weapon expertise' feats (a minor bonus with a class of weapons), AND something like Cleave, AND a +1 to relevant stat.
I'm hopeful that it will break up (slightly) the idea that it is optimum to focus on on combat maneuver and spam it constantly by making those maneuvers a bit more situational and part of generally being able to do cool stuff with a specific weapon-class.
I quite like that they've taken away Detect Evil and so on. I think they were poor mechanics anyway. Detecting fiends and aberrations is much better.
I am interested to see if they can manage the difficult task of streamlining while maintaining enough depth to please cantankerous 3.5 junkies. Though I suppose that segment of the market might be lost.
5th looks like being a really decent edition to me, the big problem they're going to have is that their competitor provides a lot of stuff for free, which lowers barrier to entry, and also has a vast library of cool stuff to pick from. I can run my 3.0 and 3.5 adventures in 5th, sure, but it won't transfer as neatly as into Pathfinder, where the rules are essentially the same.
This is my first d&d an I am happy with it as seems to have plenty of depth and cool options but still seems fairly simple.
My 1st char is going to be a cathulu bound warlock with a blade pact. This means that by lvl 3 I have telepathy, can cast mage armour for free and summon a weapon of my choice which I automatically gain mastery with and is a magic weapon. I also have a spell which is effectively force lightning Basicly I can make a mage warrior that is not totally gimped.
infinite_array wrote: So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't seem to find anything about a Paladin needing to be Lawful Good only. Is that right?
That is right you get traditional paladins with the oath of devotion, oath of the ancients is good with no concern for law or chaos and oath of vengeance are neutral or lawful neutral.
Some of my friends want to roll up characters for the starter adventure since the PHB is already in a few hands. My question is if I allow variant options do I make that universal or is it something that varies? The main issue is people wanting to make human using the variant to get a Feat at level 1, but does that mean all the races should use their variants or mix and match? I personally won't have my book till Monday or Tuesday and I am trying to figure out what to say.
I am not sure other races have variants similar to the human issue. Even if they do, it's still a matter for the DM and player to negotiate rather than a "take one, take all" rules issue. In other words, it might be kind of dickish to allow only one player to use a variant but it won't break the game mechanically, nor will allowing everyone to use variants if they want to do so.
Manchu wrote: I am not sure other races have variants similar to the human issue. Even if they do, it's still a matter for the DM and player to negotiate rather than a "take one, take all" rules issue. In other words, it might be kind of dickish to allow only one player to use a variant but it won't break the game mechanically, nor will allowing everyone to use variants if they want to do so.
I'd also comment that if you know your players well enough, you could probably let the guy who loves to RPG do it, but not the "powergamer" (the one who'd want to do this to give them a perceived hand up in the game)
They are almost all power gamers, so I expect lots of humans. Normally I would have time to go over it but since I won't have the book till early next week I thought I would ask those who do have it what they thought.
Honestly none of the feats are massively overpowering at lvl1 and given some of the other races abilities it is a fair trade for a human.
I have been looking myself and I am taking half elf, as it has a nice mixture of fluff and crunch with+2 to cha and 2x+1's of your choice plus an extra language ontop of common and elven, plus darkvision and resistance to charm and immunity to sleep
The option of the Feat is much better than the standard Human option, unless your player rolled all odd numbers (15, 15, 13, 13, 9, 9, for example). In comparison to the other stuff that races get, I don't know that I regard it as a powergamer choice. I mean, Tieflings get spells for free, Dwarves can make wizards in heavy armour and High Elf Eldritch Knights are rocking the perfect stats and an extra cantrip. The races are meant to be strong influences on the character, since otherwise why bother having them in the game?
Many of the feats either improve a given fighting style without adding any numbers to the attack roll. My group just hit level four, halfway through Cragmaw Castle, and they spent a goodly while looking over the Feats. None of them actually took any, which I thought was interesting. Let's look at my Archer PC and see why.
I recommended that he take the Sharpshooter feat, which lets you use a bow more competently, ignoring cover and range modifiers and adding a Power Attack option, but does nothing for your actual to-hit or to-damage rolls. So my player considered it, then decided to just raise his Dexterity by +2, which gave him +1 to hit, +1 to damage, +1 to AC, +1 to several skills and +1 to initiative. Compared to that, Sharpshooter never had a chance.
Yeah, 20 is the maximum for a PC race. I checked Wish, and that doesn't affect it. Maybe magic items? I suspect not though, as they seem to be determined to keep the numbers under control.
I'm fine with a 20 cap for stats, and think it is good to have a cap on PC's, my only (half-hearted) concern is everyone showing up with a human character.
1) Roll for stats - you roll 4d6 six times, keeping the top three dice from each roll, then assign to stats as desired.
2) Point buy - I haven't looked in detail, but it is designed to let you buy up to 15s, and either have lots of average stats or three good stats and three bad ones.
3) Array - you can take the following numbers and assign as desired: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8.
In all cases you then add racial modifiers. 18 is the max you can have pre-modifiers, and 20 is the absolute max. Races generally add +2 to one stat and +1 to another, good for gettig dual 16s from the array, for example.
It's definitely interesting in that point buy this edition is slightly less than the average from rolling. 4d6 keep 3, and assign as needed is an optional method from older editions (2nd at least) and it's interesting that people are actually interested in using it.
I feel like that 'stat range' has pulled back a bit from 4th edition. Unlike 1st, in 4th and 5th you get occasional stat boosts, but about half as often in 5th.
The stat boosts are also something you must trade if you want feats. A suggestion is there's a sort of 'conservation of awesome' going on: You can go single classed, max out your prime requisite (or get close) and get one or two feats in 20 levels. Alternately, you can multi class and get two high stats, but probably won't get the feat or feats. So you either focus, and get a feat (which is awesome), or multi class and have something cool that way.
I feel that it also provides two viable ways to play: A very simple way that focuses on just getting you big numbers to swing with, or fiddly feats and stuff to mess around with and try to optimise.
I think that's a great idea. I've recently been getting my brother into D'n'D and it's been a right pain teaching him the rules. All the options in Pathfinder are pretty bewildering for someone who has never played D'n'D before. I feel like 5th is easier on a newbie.
Charles Rampant wrote: So they updated the website to include a second Basic PDF, this one with sixty pages of monsters, magic items and DM advice. Awesome.
Certain magic items require a user to attune to them before their magical properties can be used. Attuning to a magic item requires that you spend a short rest concentrating on it (this can’t be the same short rest used to learn an item’s properties). Depending on the nature of the item, this concentration can take the form of prayers, weapon practice, or meditation. In any case, the concentration period must be uninterrupted. Once you are attuned to an item, you can use its magical properties. An item can be attuned to only one creature at a time. A creature can be attuned to no more than three magic items at any given time, and you can attune yourself to only one item during a short rest.
The Identify spell tells you quickly discover what the properties are, or you can spend a uninterrupted short rest in physical contact with the item to learn its properties. It is also might be that cursed items will show up as cursed when using the Identify spell whereas the short rest version would not, so it also has that going for it. I'm fine with the low number of magic items. There are other games where magic items are falling out of every nook and cranny if that is my desire. Plus in a party of five 15 magic items is a lot of magic items. Of course all this could change between now and the DMG release in November as well.
To my understanding, the attunement thing only applies to 'serious' magic items, not trivial stuff like potions, scrolls, or other low-level stuff. The expectation is it's to keep a character from carrying multiple magic weapons for different circumstances on top of magic armor, etc.
Three is enough for a weapon, armor, and one other major item per character.
I reckon limiting the number of magic items is not a bad thing, especially if you want to differentiate yourself from Pathfinder, where the number of different bonuses and combos can get a bit unwieldy for GMs and players.
Just taking a break after running/playing in 41 sessions of pathfinder over the past while. I like the system, especially the searchable SRD, but the level of fiddly detail and clunkyness does wear on me over time. The next game I run will be a 5th edition game.
Balance wrote: To my understanding, the attunement thing only applies to 'serious' magic items, not trivial stuff like potions, scrolls, or other low-level stuff. The expectation is it's to keep a character from carrying multiple magic weapons for different circumstances on top of magic armor, etc.
Three is enough for a weapon, armor, and one other major item per character.
I guess I'd like to see what counts as a 'major' magic item that also counts towards that 'only 3' limit.
Agreed because of the characters that I've ran, and of the magic items they've acquired I would say that, thus far the only "major" magic items that I've gotten were armor, weapon, neck slot/ or shield.
Usually things like helmets (depending on the individual item) or boots tend to give a decent bonus that is applicable either everywhere, so long as the item is worn, or it's fairly useful in only select circumstances.
Well with the mountain of feats in 3/3.5/PF you can easily make a dual wielding fighter, and 4E had a build based on it as well. Older iterations were not as condusive to it but I don't think they thought it was as cool as people later would, and mostly built the game around sword/board and two-handers. They also seemed to be obsessed with polearms.
From looking at the PDF of the basic rules, they have 15 or so magic items listed there and it lists which ones of them require attunement. They have both +1 Armor and +1 Weapon listed and neither say they require attunement, so maybe those type of items don't.
Jebus10000 wrote: From looking at the PDF of the basic rules, they have 15 or so magic items listed there and it lists which ones of them require attunement. They have both +1 Armor and +1 Weapon listed and neither say they require attunement, so maybe those type of items don't.
Yup. Looks like attunement is mainly being limited to +2 or higher (although there's no +2 items in the list in the pdf, so that's conjecture) and primarily 'wearable' items (Gauntlets of Ogre Power require attunment, a bag of holding doesn't).
I'm more interested in what we're seeing for the 'Legendary' monsters: it looks like these are rules to make big, solo 'boss' monsters more viable, whereas in earlier editions fights with big solo 'boss' types could be highly dependent on initiative as a big monster would either go first and smash the party pretty badly or go late in the order and get stomped. Monsters tended to need allies, especially at higher levels when PC could pull out abilities to deny actions and such.
In 5e, Legendary monsters have a few interesting special abilities. It looks like 'Legendary X' may be a class of abilities that are one of the few things that require state-tracking for monsters outside the encounter. I.E. an Adult Red Dragon has a 'Legendary Resistance' that lets it decide to pass a failed save 3 times a day. it looks like outside of these abilities, monsters are being written to avoid the need to track ability usage. (There's a 'recharge' mechanic for certain abilitities, too. The Red Dragon has it for it's 18d6 breath attack!)
There's also Legendary Actions. These are special actions (the Adult Red can do three a turn) that it can do after an opponent's action. So if you attack a Red Dragon, it can choose to immediately attack back with it's tail, or blow two of the three on a wing-buffet that hits everyone nearby doing damage, knocking people down, and flying a bit away. That's every turn, and doesn't take away from it's normal action (which can be a pretty nasty claw/claw/bite routine).
There's also Lair Action, which are interesting. They're kind of pre-written ways to make an encounter interesting, and are more environmental effect. There's a suggestion of them being a kind of 'mythic' thing: the Red Dragon's lair might have magma eruptions, tremors, or volcanic gas while the leaked Sphinx gets wacky stuff like time distortions. These are 'environmental effects' and occur on a fixed initiative of 20.
There's also Regional Effects, which seem to play up the mythic idea. When a Big Bad Evil Guy sets up shop, he (or she) might blight the area by his mere existence if he's really nasty. (Note: There's nothing saying that really good critters won't have the opposite. If a particularly good creature lairs in an area, nearby farms might get boosted to 2x normal output or something.) These seem to be mostly atmospheric or could contribute to challenges reaching the lair (or maybe even provide clues?) and those described don't have mechanical effects. For the Adult Red Dragon, the region around its lair might have earthquakes, sulfer-tainted streams, or fiery fissures. This is noted as an effect of the Legendary creature, a these fade in 1d10 days after the creature is killed.
They're interesting. i would be interested in seeing a 'toolkit' to make it easier for a DM to give an evil warrior some Legendary Actions easily. I hope it makes fights interesting: I think this has been a historic problem with a lot of editions of D&D.
In 5e, Legendary monsters have a few interesting special abilities. It looks like 'Legendary X' may be a class of abilities that are one of the few things that require state-tracking for monsters outside the encounter. I.E. an Adult Red Dragon has a 'Legendary Resistance' that lets it decide to pass a failed save 3 times a day. it looks like outside of these abilities, monsters are being written to avoid the need to track ability usage. (There's a 'recharge' mechanic for certain abilitities, too. The Red Dragon has it for it's 18d6 breath attack!)
I know that some monsters have a recharge for some attacks in 4th edition. I may have been doing the recharge wrong, but IIRC their ability should show recharge: + and would only recharge when the dice showed exactly what the ability called for.
Jebus10000 wrote: From looking at the PDF of the basic rules, they have 15 or so magic items listed there and it lists which ones of them require attunement. They have both +1 Armor and +1 Weapon listed and neither say they require attunement, so maybe those type of items don't.
Yup. Looks like attunement is mainly being limited to +2 or higher (although there's no +2 items in the list in the pdf, so that's conjecture) and primarily 'wearable' items (Gauntlets of Ogre Power require attunment, a bag of holding doesn't).
That could be. Sucks that the DM Guide isn't slated to come out until November...
As far as wearable items, maybe it depends on what slot it's occupying. The Boots of Striding and Springing and the Goggles of Night don't require attunement, but both the gauntlets and gloves do as well as all three of the rings they have listed.
Balance wrote: To my understanding, the attunement thing only applies to 'serious' magic items, not trivial stuff like potions, scrolls, or other low-level stuff. The expectation is it's to keep a character from carrying multiple magic weapons for different circumstances on top of magic armor, etc.
Three is enough for a weapon, armor, and one other major item per character.
Manchu wrote: Have to agree that three magic items is not too few. Folks should keep in mind that DMs can always make exceptions as they deem necessary.
The legendary monster stuff sounds ace.
Not too thrilled with it as the ones who likely would need more magic items would be the melee/non-magical classes. So long as they can get rings of flight and it wouldn't count it'd be fine I think.
You know it has got to be too early to start making spin offs, but I kind of think I want to do a battlestations/FTL thing. It wouldn't be too hard to do would it?
I picked up the PHB at GenCon and am still processing it. I'm still on the Cleric Class page and haven't read any of the magic, feats, combat, short/long rests, etc.
I do like the Cleric's divine magic mechanics. You pick a number of spells equal to your wisdom bonus and cleric level, and you can cast those in any combination up to your spells per day restriction, right? So a level 3 cleric with a 16 (+3 bonus) wisdom can pick 6 spells between first and second level. He can cast 4x level 1 spells and 2x level 2 spells as desired.
I also like how the spells scale. Using the example above, I can take a Cure Wounds spell, which only takes up one of my 6 slots, and use it as either a first level spell for 1d8+3 or a second level spell for 2d8+3 (if I recall the +1 per cleric level correctly). Obviously this method kicks spells like Magic Missile in the jimmy. Sure, it can still do 3d4+3, but only if you use a level 3 spot on it.
Still, I'm just starting to chew on this book. I am liking what I see. I certainly see why Humans would be very popular, too. The ability score bumps are very nice.
Manchu wrote: The human ability score thing is probably not as good as the variant where they get +1 to two abilities, a feat, and a skill proficiency.
I haven't really read through the feats yet, so I couldn't comment on that option.
There aren't many but they seem more flavorful than having a spare point added to a score you don't depend on. Plus having an additional skill proficiency is great.
To me, they are a great opportunity to flesh out your character. That is what I really love about 5E chargen, as oppoed to optimising the build or whatevs.
Manchu wrote: To me, they are a great opportunity to flesh out your character. That is what I really love about 5E chargen, as oppoed to optimising the build or whatevs.
I feel like there's a lot of "lessons learned" from 3rd. I'm a little worried there isn't as much from 4th: if anything, an attitude of "if it was 4th, it was bad" that caused some good things to be passed over or re-implemented in a poor manner. (As a specific example, hit dice vs. healing surges. Not arguing the value of reducing the number of abilities that consumed healing surges and the availability therof, but as a system it worked well and gave related bits like the 'bloodied' status to key off of.)
I'm hopeful this edition is less about a 'build' vs. playing what is in front of you, though. Overall, I think that's at least possible.
I've got the PHB now and have been reading through it more thoroughly. My positive initial impressions are being reinforced for the most part. All the character classes have interesting sets of options that are presented in a clear and cohesive fashion. The numbers sprawl has been kept to a minimum though a few abilities did raise my eyebrow, mostly the double proficiency bonus on skills. I wish they kept the same level of conservatism with the non-combat portions of the game as they showed in the combat portions. That said it doesn't seem like it'd start to really start being degenerate until 9th level.
I like the layout and the approach they've taken to descrptions of races and backgrounds. The art is super-duper hit or miss for me, and more miss than hit: WTF is with your spine, Ms.Researcher? I do love the little sketches in the introduction and status effect sections though.I would have loved to see more stuff like that.
I definitely like how well-defined the are templates for everything. As I'm entering the planning stages for my own campaign it's a huge help. I very rarely run things purely vanilla and I'm finding it easy to add my custom content even without the benefit of table experience.
It'll probably be the better part of a month before I can actually get some play time but I'm more optimistic for this than I've been about else in the D&D space, though I'll admit that isn't a terribly high bar to pass.
I just got the Hoard of the Dragon Queen adventure book to get started. I noticed a lot of the enemies in the adventure are not even listed in the book itself, nor the PHB for that matter. You have to Download an entire other supplement to get the stats for all the monsters despite a few named people. A bit frustrating.
Manchu wrote: I rather like having that material in a print out, not only so I can mark notes but also because it saves me flipping around in the book.
Personally, I'd rather have, at least an option for both. I'd prefer complete monster stats to be within an adventure book, so that when I'm sitting down to plan out/mull over the adventure itself, I have a better idea what I need to prepare (for models, etc.)
Manchu wrote: I rather like having that material in a print out, not only so I can mark notes but also because it saves me flipping around in the book.
When I GMed, I'd often do the same. I'd photocopy or just type out the important stat blocks for known or likely encounters on a separate sheet so I could write on it rather than scratch paper (which I'd use for goombas and random encounters).
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I'd prefer complete monster stats to be within an adventure book, so that when I'm sitting down to plan out/mull over the adventure itself, I have a better idea what I need to prepare (for models, etc.)
You can do that with the supplement, of course. And that is in fact easier to do as you can reference the supplement side by side with the adventure text while preparing.
kronk wrote: When I GMed, I'd often do the same. I'd photocopy or just type out the important stat blocks for known or likely encounters on a separate sheet so I could write on it rather than scratch paper (which I'd use for goombas and random encounters).
Yep, it's quite convenient if you are organized enough to do it. WotC has just done it for us in this case. I also like that the supplement contains the relevant spells so the DM does not have to rifle through the PHB as well while running the module.
I also wonder if the supplement contains the monsters because their stats were not finished before the module went to print/still aren't totally finished.
D&D was never cool regardless that we nerds thought and think it is cool. I just had a work colleague laugh in my face yesterday when I mentioned going to GenCon for my vacation. Same old same old. I know some hipsters (claim to) like D&D but the term "hipster" is itself derogatory so there you go. Geek chic is laughable (bitterly) marketing minstrelsy and naught else.
So to answer the question posed at the top: Is Dungeons & Dragons cool now? I think the answer is, “Sure, as long as you’re cool with Dungeons & Dragons.” In a world where ironic trashy T-shirts and Warby Parker are the status quo, why wouldn’t a game based around orcs, gray wizards, flaming swords, and leafy druids excel? We’re no longer afraid of bullies, we’re more socially aware than we’ve ever been, and no one’s going to tease us any more.
I have an innate aversion to anything that can be described as "fantasy". We all know the cliches of the fantasy fan: the Games Workshop employee who sighs when children don't know how to play the game properly. The people who found their cultural Garden of Eden in the graphic novels section of Waterstones and the T-shirt aisle of HMV some time in the late 90s. Their cultural trajectory took them from Redwall, to Red Dwarf, to Reddit and now they argue loudly in small-town rock pubs about how Bruce Lee died. They hate fashion in all its forms, yet they yearn to look different. To get round this, all of their clothing must refer to something else. Be it an oversized Alan Moore-style amulet purchased from a free catalogue in the back of Metal Hammer, or one of those “Afraid of the dark, lagerboy?” T-shirts.
Alpharius wrote: I think it was considered 'cool', maybe, when it first broke big in the late 70's/early 80's?
You could find AD&D and Basic stuff EVERYWHERE!
All the major department store chains were carrying it... it was amazing!
Of course, I'm not sure how 'cool' it really was, or even if it was, it was quickly relegated to 'nerdy' status for many.
Still, it was certainly 'popular'. Or maybe 'successful' would be a better term?
Yeah, it was certainly a different era in regards to where you could find it. And I think there was a sense of momentum about the game as it spread and TSR grew.
I think the whole "D&D would have been cool if it wasn't for those religious nuts and that derned Tom Hanks movie" story is a bit of canard, however.
pretre wrote: I guess we have differing opinions on what 'cool' is.
'Mainstream popular?' No.
Then it isn't really "cool" in the culture. Being ok with something on an individual level doesn't really make it "cool", it just means you don't care what others think about it. I'm ok with it not being cool as
'Awesome?' Yes.
is really all you need. Geek chic and nerddom may be in at the moment but all things come and go in pop culture.
Alpharius wrote: I still think it was somewhere around cool/popular/etc. back in the late 70's/early 80's but either way, whatever!
It has been a lot of fun for going on 5 decades now!
It was very popular and sold in all sorts of places (although it does that again now). I remember buying it at Wards, Toys R Us, KB Toys, etc up until the early 90's, I think.
It was never something that the 'popular kids' at school would play, but that hardly makes it any less cool.
Alpharius wrote: I still think it was somewhere around cool/popular/etc. back in the late 70's/early 80's but either way, whatever!
I think there was a moment where it was but then the whole 'pagan' and 'devil worship' hysteria came and slapped the label on it eventually leading to bad Tom Hanks movies about how it will kill you. And let's not forget:
pretre wrote: When I was in high school, all that mattered to me was what your mom told me as well.
I pity the fool who makes jokes about mothers.
I remember when TSR started to circle the bowl. Suddenly the local toy store was full of boxed sets priced at $10 or less. As a kid from a very modest background, this was the first time buying D&D stuff was even remotely possible for me. It was like something from a dream.
In the early '80s there was a seller at a flea market near us that had stuff for 50% off. I think modules were regularly around $5-6 then. So my brother and I ended up with a lot of modules.
Alpharius wrote: I still think it was somewhere around cool/popular/etc. back in the late 70's/early 80's but either way, whatever!
I think there was a moment where it was but then the whole 'pagan' and 'devil worship' hysteria came and slapped the label on it eventually leading to bad Tom Hanks movies about how it will kill you. And let's not forget:
That thing is so hilariously awesome!
I'm currently DMing a 1E campaign, and my most frequent DM controlled NPC is named Konrad Blackleaf in honor of that comic!
+ 
and would only recharge when the dice showed exactly what the ability called for.
