Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:
I haven't been able to muster the discipline needed to approach this one page at a time and in order BUT (really and truly) so far, so good. It really does seem to split the difference between old school and modern gaming. Could be a triumph.

Yeah, I've been popping around.

Has anyone seen a defined time for a turn?

Just noticed that Delayed Blast Fireball is duration concentration or 1 minute. It grows by 1d6 per turn maintained. If it's still 6 seconds a turn, that could be beefy if you get the drop on somebody.

A round is 6 seconds.

Aha, so if you can hide it near an opponent, you can get it up to 22d6 without a higher spell slot. Neato.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They definitely moved away from combat on a grid map. It's a variant now but that's about it.

Technically possible but the caster can pretty much do nothing else for 10 rounds. It's the sort of thing that would be talked about as very clever for a long time afterwards if you could manage it, which is perfect IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:
They definitely moved away from combat on a grid map. It's a variant now but that's about it.

I was wondering about this regarding Opportunity Attacks. Tying them to the "reaction" mechanic really does free you up from the grid. More points for 5E in my book.

I'm not seeing a lot of Save or Die type stuff. Make that any.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
They definitely moved away from combat on a grid map. It's a variant now but that's about it.

I was wondering about this regarding Opportunity Attacks. Tying them to the "reaction" mechanic really does free you up from the grid. More points for 5E in my book.

What is meant by "death saves" on the character sheet?

nevermind -- I see, p. 76

Oh wait, Imprisonment. And PWK works without a save, ofc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
What is meant by "death saves" on the character sheet?

nevermind -- I see, p. 76

I love that it is a searchable PDF, btw.

 Manchu wrote:
For example, I wonder if Ahtman's friend would think Monty Cook wrote everything that came before Third Edition ... given earlier editions entail hundreds of spells and basically no "martial maneuvers."

It was just a cursory read and response as far as I understand it, and I think the Monte Cook was meant more as a bit of a joke than completely damning. He was a big fan of 4E so I think moving away almost completely, at least the perception, from maneuvers probably is irritating to him. I probably could give the document a quick look but I am using my spare moments to respond to you!

 Ahtman wrote:
I am using my spare moments to respond to you!

Truly the better part.

The Trinkets Table (pp. 54-55) is pretty awesome.

So, which previous edition is this most like? The "story in your head" style of 1st edition or the "pen and paper video game" style of 3rd and 4th edition?

 Breotan wrote:
So, which previous edition is this most like? The "story in your head" style of 1st edition or the "pen and paper video game" style of 3rd and 4th edition?

I think you've had some...interesting games of (A)D&D in your past!

I genuinely think you could play this either as something like AD&D or as something like 3.5E, depending on what you prefer.

These Basic rules will not get you to 4E, however.

 Alpharius wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
So, which previous edition is this most like? The "story in your head" style of 1st edition or the "pen and paper video game" style of 3rd and 4th edition?

I think you've had some...interesting games of (A)D&D in your past!

What can I say? I'm old school.

Er, so am I?

Manchu has me somewhat excited for 5th - unbelievable!

(Downloaded the PDF - will digest on upcoming business trip)

 Ahtman wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
For example, I wonder if Ahtman's friend would think Monty Cook wrote everything that came before Third Edition ... given earlier editions entail hundreds of spells and basically no "martial maneuvers."

It was just a cursory read and response as far as I understand it, and I think the Monte Cook was meant more as a bit of a joke than completely damning. He was a big fan of 4E so I think moving away almost completely, at least the perception, from maneuvers probably is irritating to him. I probably could give the document a quick look but I am using my spare moments to respond to you!

Considering Monte Cook was responsible for LFQW due to his massive wizard favoritism, I doubt he was much a fan of 4E (Especially if you read through his tweets and thoughts on 4E where he denounced the Warlord as SHOUTING HEALING, he got so much wrong!)

 Manchu wrote:
I genuinely think you could play this either as something like AD&D or as something like 3.5E, depending on what you prefer.

These Basic rules will not get you to 4E, however.

That sounds near to Amazing. Ok, I'm going to download the PDF and give it a read. I've been wary and worried that it'll be a dumbed down simplistic game for people that don't play RPG's.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
For example, I wonder if Ahtman's friend would think Monty Cook wrote everything that came before Third Edition ... given earlier editions entail hundreds of spells and basically no "martial maneuvers."

It was just a cursory read and response as far as I understand it, and I think the Monte Cook was meant more as a bit of a joke than completely damning. He was a big fan of 4E so I think moving away almost completely, at least the perception, from maneuvers probably is irritating to him. I probably could give the document a quick look but I am using my spare moments to respond to you!

Considering Monte Cook was responsible for LFQW due to his massive wizard favoritism, I doubt he was much a fan of 4E (Especially if you read through his tweets and thoughts on 4E where he denounced the Warlord as SHOUTING HEALING, he got so much wrong!)

LFQW existed long before Monte Cook came along.

 pretre wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
For example, I wonder if Ahtman's friend would think Monty Cook wrote everything that came before Third Edition ... given earlier editions entail hundreds of spells and basically no "martial maneuvers."

It was just a cursory read and response as far as I understand it, and I think the Monte Cook was meant more as a bit of a joke than completely damning. He was a big fan of 4E so I think moving away almost completely, at least the perception, from maneuvers probably is irritating to him. I probably could give the document a quick look but I am using my spare moments to respond to you!

Considering Monte Cook was responsible for LFQW due to his massive wizard favoritism, I doubt he was much a fan of 4E (Especially if you read through his tweets and thoughts on 4E where he denounced the Warlord as SHOUTING HEALING, he got so much wrong!)

LFQW existed long before Monte Cook came along.

It likely did, but I mainly know 3E and Monte Cook's thoughts on wizards and casters being the 'Better choice' and should always be.

 pretre wrote:
LFQW existed long before Monte Cook came along.

I don't think the idea was that he invented it, but that he embraced it and expanded upon it. Wizards, for all their LFQW'ishness, were more thought out in the 1st and 2nd edition. Sure they eventually were quite powerful, but they took longer to level, had lots more spell management, had to spend more time finding new spells, and were far more fragile. Getting them leveled was a feat with high pay off in the end. In 3/3.5/PF casters are pretty much handed the keys to the kingdom and told to have a good time. Martial characters seem like a fleeting afterthought.

And then along came 4E with the notion that the way to address that was by making everyone a wizard. Or, more accurately, a super hero.

 Manchu wrote:
And then along came 4E with the notion that the way to address that was by making everyone a wizard. Or, more accurately, a super hero.

That's sort of what I meant by "pen and paper video game".

Well you don't get to be a superhero in 5E. There seems to be a soft cap of 20 on PC ability scores. The highest score you get in the standard array or point buy systems is 15. There's very little "glowiness" in character abilities.

 Manchu wrote:
And then along came 4E with the notion that the way to address that was by making everyone a wizard. Or, more accurately, a super hero.

Or an actual hero with a narrative rather then simulation.

It still beat out being "Spell casters and people who carried their stuff"

 Manchu wrote:
I genuinely think you could play this either as something like AD&D or as something like 3.5E, depending on what you prefer.

These Basic rules will not get you to 4E, however.

Having digested the PDF, I completely agree.

Whatever slender hope I may have maintained can be well and truly buried now.

The best way to describe it is with what Manchu says above: "you don't get to be a superhero in 5E". If there was one single point that my group agreed on, it was how they enjoyed the feeling of being "heroic" even at first level.

I can't speak for everyone else that would be called a 4e fanatic, but I certainly can't see paying for anything that builds on this. Where there are good ideas (and I'll freely admit there are a few), it looks like it'll be far easier to graft them onto the existing framework of 4e then trying to transplant the viscera of 4e into... this.

@Buzzsaw: Yes, it is hard to see how anyone who really loves the crunchiness of 4E could simulate it with 5E, even with the idea of bolting on more aspects of 4E with the upcoming DMG. Fortunately, there's a ton of 4E material.

I will say there is quite a difference between being a hero and being a super hero. Fourth went with the latter. Fifth goes with the former.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It still beat out being "Spell casters and people who carried their stuff"

True but that was only really a problem at high levels. Plus Third clearly wanted everyone to become some kind of spell caster, hence prestige classes. In any case, I very much doubt this will be an issue in 5E.

I don't mind it going to a lower power scale, or not being like 4E, I just don't like the regression in martial thinking/design. Martial classes are limited to what the designers think they can do in real life whereas casters are only limited by their imagination.

You can add in some new martial classes. One of the big + for 5ed is that it looks like we are back to 3ed in terms of how easy it is to add in new classes. If you want to play a super hero, it shouldn't be too hard to make a class for it.

 Ahtman wrote:
Martial classes are limited to what the designers think they can do in real life whereas casters are only limited by their imagination.

I disagree. First, it is not a matter of classes but rather of characters, Secondly, the truth is that all characters are primarily limited by their players' imaginations. D&D is not best understood as a "permissive ruleset," as with board games and war games. Finally, there is no such thing as the "martial classes" outside of 4E.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Martial classes are limited to what the designers think they can do in real life whereas casters are only limited by their imagination.

I disagree.

Well obliviously so do I.

 Manchu wrote:
First, it is not a matter of classes but rather of characters

I never really bought that excuse for poor/lacking martial mechanics.

 Manchu wrote:
Secondly, the truth is that all characters are primarily limited by their players' imaginations.

Mechanically speaking that doesn't really ring true. I wasn't referring to the imagination of the players, but of the designers, who seem myopic when it comes to martial characters.

Can you give me an example of myopic design as to the Fighter or Rogue in 5E?