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.

nomotog wrote:
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.

I found the overabundance of splat, level dipping, and ridiculous options a big draw back against 3rd actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Not when I am getting ready to head out to a bbq, no.

Well whenever you get a chance.

 Manchu wrote:
@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.

Not so much higher levels, considering even lower level spells could break an encounter. A group of Fighters vs a Wizard and the wizard could still win easily. Heck grease can still topple Fire giants in half-plate on an easy check.

And yes it did, considering Monte Cook's words to the same that the smarter players picked spell-casters.

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.

Generally the things about fighters in 3E was that they could do things...If the DM allowed it, generally spells were mechanical and thus had a set reason to do things, which made it harder for a DM to say no to.

It sounds like you are talking about bad DMs. I have learned, after a great deal of resistance to the idea, that no ruleset can make up for a bad DM.

I have, I've also had good DM's.

The main thing was I only really started having fun in 3.5E was when they either 'Tiered it" like some sort of 7th edition Warhammer game, or I played a caster as well.

Generally it felt as if most of the games I played without tiers was where the DM had to fight the casters at most points so they didn't end up breaking things, sure they could limit them but at the same time it meant it still had to focus on the casters spotlight.

There were martial character in 3.5... Book of Nine Swords.

I have been skimming the basic rules pondering a few feat/ability ideas and if they would brake the game.

An ability that lets you add your proficiency bonus to your AC if your not wearing armor? How about a expertise bonus? (Actually where dose it say what your non armored AC is? I haven't found that yet.)

What about applying an Expertise bonus to more then just skill checks things like weapons, spells? I ponder that might be too much. It's a scaling bonus that can be a +6 at high level.

I also ponder if you could do proficiency in things like dragons or other general groupings. Like you take a feat in dragons and get to add your proficiency bonus for any ability check directly relating to a dragon or dragons.

I think it would be OK balance if I just made up some new skills for different backgrounds. Like if I wanted the game to be in space or something like that.

Pg 9
10 + dex.

 Manchu wrote:
Well whenever you get a chance.

You know I think some of this is hold over from older LFQW discussions, but I also think I want to hold out for the PHB with the full range of options before really getting to into. Generally I am fairly happy with what I am seeing, even if they did rip off some of my ideas without knowing it.

5th looks...fine so far? Haven't tried yet so I don't know.

Has anyone tried 13th age perhaps? If 5E doesn't work out I heard it was somewhat like 4th edition.

 Manchu wrote:
@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.

What's so irritating about the whole matter is many of the folks (myself included) saw this exact state of affairs coming, and regularly had our concerns mocked and disregarded.

 Manchu wrote:
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.

I disagree to an extent, but whatever the semantics it seems both of us agree that there is a distinct difference in this regard between the editions.

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

A small but telling example: each class adds proficiency to two (and only two) ability scores. For the fighter class it's strength and constitution. Which would be awesome if fighters were all of the 'hit things' type, but fighters also contain the 'shoot things' archetype. So the rules completely support a low strength, high dex fighter either as ranged or melee... except the saves.

This exists with pretty much all the classes, albeit to less of a degree: why, for example, does your bookish and withdrawn cleric with high wisdom and strength but poor charisma have wisdom and charisma save proficiencies? Because... well, because.

Now, while it's fair to point out that 4e also had classes with fixed bonuses to NADs, it's also fair to point out the the (much less) relative importance of that (+1 or so) bonus compared to proficiency in 5e (which starts at +2 and goes to +6).

 Buzzsaw wrote:
What's so irritating about the whole matter is many of the folks (myself included) saw this exact state of affairs coming, and regularly had our concerns mocked and disregarded.

Again, 4E was a disaster for WotC. Why anyone would imagine WotC would continue on that path is a real mystery. Even the guy brought on to champion 4E in the design process eventually saw that D&D is not a tactical miniatures game:

Robert J. Schwalb wrote:So here we are, at the dawn of the next edition, an edition I, in some part, helped to create. When I was brought onto the team, it was with the understanding that I would fly the 4th Edition flag, a game I had worked hard to support through the countless articles and supplements throughout the life of that game. Looking back, I find it strange since I have all but divorced myself from the 4th Edition rules, largely for the reasons I outline above. While I enjoy 4E, it scratched a different itch for me than the one D&D had for many years. As I worked on 5th Edition, I shed my 3rd Edition and 4th Edition influences. I abandoned conceptions and beliefs about design that I had held as truths for years until I returned to my roots, to a place where the most important part of D&D is not what’s in the book but what happens at the table.

From here.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
each class adds proficiency to two (and only two) ability scores

Whoa now. That's what we have in the Basic rules. You know, the PDF that does not even include feats yet. Moreover, D&D is not a permissive war gaming rule set. While we wait for the rest of the published character options, groups can experiment -- changing the STR proficiency to a DEX proficiency for a character is not going to "break the game." This kind of house ruling, and rulings in general, are at the center of roleplaying games (unlike war games and board games).

 Manchu wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
What's so irritating about the whole matter is many of the folks (myself included) saw this exact state of affairs coming, and regularly had our concerns mocked and disregarded.

Again, 4E was a disaster for WotC. Why anyone would imagine WotC would continue on that path is a real mystery.

Heh, not so great a mystery: I like 4e and find it the superior product.

Besides, you seem to be missing the point: I'm complaining that during the early playtest especially the 4e folks were being told that they were crazy for saying that 5e was never going to be able to fit in the 4e elements we wanted. Now you're saying "well, of course it wasn't, because X". That's fine, but it's nothing to do with my point. Heck, even now there are people maintaining that 5e will be able to handle it "in modules".

 Manchu wrote:
Even the guy brought on to champion 4E in the design process eventually saw that D&D is not a tactical miniatures game:

Robert J. Schwalb wrote:So here we are, at the dawn of the next edition, an edition I, in some part, helped to create. When I was brought onto the team, it was with the understanding that I would fly the 4th Edition flag, a game I had worked hard to support through the countless articles and supplements throughout the life of that game. Looking back, I find it strange since I have all but divorced myself from the 4th Edition rules, largely for the reasons I outline above. While I enjoy 4E, it scratched a different itch for me than the one D&D had for many years. As I worked on 5th Edition, I shed my 3rd Edition and 4th Edition influences. I abandoned conceptions and beliefs about design that I had held as truths for years until I returned to my roots, to a place where the most important part of D&D is not what’s in the book but what happens at the table.

From here.

This is a very interesting article. Disheartening, provocative, but very interesting.

 Manchu wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
each class adds proficiency to two (and only two) ability scores

Whoa now. That's what we have in the Basic rules. You know, the PDF that does not even include feats yet. Moreover, D&D is not a permissive war gaming rule set. While we wait for the rest of the published character options, groups can experiment -- changing the STR proficiency to a DEX proficiency for a character is not going to "break the game." This kind of house ruling, and rulings in general, are at the center of roleplaying games (unlike war games and board games).

It seems scarcely fair to ask for myopic rules, and then when presented with a requested example wave it away with "well, you can just house rule it". The ability to change the rules doesn't mean the rule isn't bad as written, which is what you asked about, after all.

When we play, we adhere strictly to the rules from the jump. Then, as players progress, we house rule the pants off the game if things don't work.

This is definitely not a ruleset that can be run like "fourthcore".

 Manchu wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
What's so irritating about the whole matter is many of the folks (myself included) saw this exact state of affairs coming, and regularly had our concerns mocked and disregarded.

Again, 4E was a disaster for WotC. Why anyone would imagine WotC would continue on that path is a real mystery. Even the guy brought on to champion 4E in the design process eventually saw that D&D is not a tactical miniatures game:

Robert J. Schwalb wrote:So here we are, at the dawn of the next edition, an edition I, in some part, helped to create. When I was brought onto the team, it was with the understanding that I would fly the 4th Edition flag, a game I had worked hard to support through the countless articles and supplements throughout the life of that game. Looking back, I find it strange since I have all but divorced myself from the 4th Edition rules, largely for the reasons I outline above. While I enjoy 4E, it scratched a different itch for me than the one D&D had for many years. As I worked on 5th Edition, I shed my 3rd Edition and 4th Edition influences. I abandoned conceptions and beliefs about design that I had held as truths for years until I returned to my roots, to a place where the most important part of D&D is not what’s in the book but what happens at the table.

From here.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
each class adds proficiency to two (and only two) ability scores

Whoa now. That's what we have in the Basic rules. You know, the PDF that does not even include feats yet. Moreover, D&D is not a permissive war gaming rule set. While we wait for the rest of the published character options, groups can experiment -- changing the STR proficiency to a DEX proficiency for a character is not going to "break the game." This kind of house ruling, and rulings in general, are at the center of roleplaying games (unlike war games and board games).

4E was a marketing disaster, considering they insulted the 3.5 players, bucked too many things at once (and created their worst enemy in pathfinder), but they even managed to keep majority market share up until they tried to turn 4E into more 3E, alienating 4E players in the process.

It was not the game itself that broke it, it was their horrific marketing, and now they are doing the same by insulting 4E to try and please the grognards and grab some pathfinder fans. It's disgusting that they haven't learned a damn thing.

So far, so good on the PDF. They definitely cut some broken stuff out (rolling twice every turn?!) And brought back the advantage/disadvantage thing I really liked.

Wizard seems a little more linear than i would have expected. Also, starting gold for a cleric is higher than a rogue?!?!? Eff that, I'm robbing that cleric first chance I get.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
So far, so good on the PDF. They definitely cut some broken stuff out (rolling twice every turn?!) And brought back the advantage/disadvantage thing I really liked.

Wizard seems a little more linear than i would have expected. Also, starting gold for a cleric is higher than a rogue?!?!? Eff that, I'm robbing that cleric first chance I get.

Well the Cleric would get potential donations, gold for healing people, potential allowance from the temple etc.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
So far, so good on the PDF. They definitely cut some broken stuff out (rolling twice every turn?!) And brought back the advantage/disadvantage thing I really liked.

Wizard seems a little more linear than i would have expected. Also, starting gold for a cleric is higher than a rogue?!?!? Eff that, I'm robbing that cleric first chance I get.

Well the Cleric would get potential donations, gold for healing people, potential allowance from the temple etc.

While I haven't read the new 5e stuff, I *could* assume that the reason a cleric would start off with more gold, is because they "need" more gear to start with.... Most rogues are what, the shirt on their back, a small pointy object and a backpack with random adventuring gear? The Cleric usually "needs" a weapon, a shield, chain/plate/whatever armor, possibly a holy implement, and a pack with random adventuring gear.


Of course, this is all meaningless as I've not seen the books with their potential fluff reasoning as to why this is the case.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
It seems scarcely fair to ask for myopic rules, and then when presented with a requested example wave it away with "well, you can just house rule it". The ability to change the rules doesn't mean the rule isn't bad as written, which is what you asked about, after all.

You're right, I should have addressed your point on its own narrow terms rather than skipping through to the bigger, controlling issue of D&D being a RPG rather than a board game or war game.

The issue you brought up is that, in the Basic PDF, Fighters don't add proficiency to DEX saving throws even considering it is possible to play a Fighter that concentrates on DEX rather than STR. In other words, the Basic PDF doesn't permit you stack your Proficiency bonus onto your highest ability. In other, other words, this is (incidentally) a road block to power gaming. So what? Honestly, what is the harm?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It was not the game itself that broke it, it was their horrific marketing

Let's be honest, it was both. Also, when did WotC try to make 4E more like 3E? I hope you're not talking about Essentials because Essentials was nothing like 3E.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
Also, starting gold for a cleric is higher than a rogue?!?!? Eff that, I'm robbing that cleric first chance I get.

Mechanics inspiring roleplay.

 Manchu wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
It seems scarcely fair to ask for myopic rules, and then when presented with a requested example wave it away with "well, you can just house rule it". The ability to change the rules doesn't mean the rule isn't bad as written, which is what you asked about, after all.

You're right, I should have addressed your point on its own narrow terms rather than skipping through to the bigger, controlling issue of D&D being a RPG rather than a board game or war game.

The issue you brought up is that, in the Basic PDF, Fighters don't add proficiency to DEX saving throws even considering it is possible to play a Fighter that concentrates on DEX rather than STR. In other words, the Basic PDF doesn't permit you stack your Proficiency bonus onto your highest ability. In other, other words, this is (incidentally) a road block to power gaming. So what? Honestly, what is the harm?.

I suppose a quick answer to the issue of "the Basic PDF doesn't permit you stack your Proficiency bonus onto your highest ability" would be that in general, it does. That is to say, for the other three classes, you will always be getting proficiency on your highest ability saves, there is no alternative build condition presented for them. But for fighters there is. A fighter playing the archer style is not only clearly disadvantaged by the way the rule is written, it is uniquely disadvantaged.

I would also aver concerning this notion that RPGs are unique in terms of needing house rules, as compared to Mini games. After all, a quick glance up the forums will show a very large amount of house rules for one particular game. Put simply, the reason that 40k needs large amounts of house rules, while (to my knowledge) house rules are virtually unknown in WM/H and Infinity, etc, is not to do with one being an RPG and the other not, it's a matter of 40k being very poorly written, while others are very well written.

But why bother with such diversions? This again seems like a situation where we're not actually disagreeing. I am incomplete agreement when you observe that "it is hard to see how anyone who really loves the crunchiness of 4E could simulate it with 5E". To that extent, when you say "[t]his kind of house ruling, and rulings in general, are at the center of roleplaying games", I think this illuminates the phenomenon precisely. When I played 2nd, or early 3rd, I was well accustomed to having to house rule rules of various sorts.. and it irritated me. Looking back I can't believe the efforts we made to make rules that we thought were terribly written work. More to the point, having played 4e, I know that I am unwilling to go back to that type of product.

This all comes around to something I said some weeks ago;

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
4 did some damage to the D&D 'brand' though, right?

I'd brace for more disappointment if anyone's looking for more 4 in 5, maybe?

In a very real way, it did the ultimate damage to D&D: it illuminated everything that I disliked but couldn't articulate about pre-4th editions.

It's like driving a beater car for years and years, and then having a friend loan you his sports car for a month. If you have to go back to the beater, it's never the same, because the flaws that you had simply accepted before, that had been invisible, now can't be unseen.

There is a yawning chasm in the D&D fan base, one which I don't believe can ever be bridged.

As ZebioLizard2 mentions, there were many reasons for the decline of the D&D brand during the period of 4e, and it strikes me that all of them are still in effect, some even more so. Certainly I don't think we can imagine the 4e player base is less alienated then the 3.x players were at the disastrous start of marketing for 4e (this is quickly apparent if one takes a look at the comments on the above linked article).

In the end, 5e looks to be shaping up to be everyone's second favorite rules set.

-If you like the crunchiness of 4e and the feeling of being a hero (or superhero if one prefers), 5e... kinda sorta works. It's better then 3.x, Pathfinder and so on in that department.

-If you like the Pathfinder-y nature of Pathfinder... well, it's not that, but it's (I presume) closer then 4e was.

-If you loved 3.x, 5e is kinda close to that, certainly closer then 4e (though Pathfinder remains a contender in this area).

-It doesn't have the raw innovation of 13th Age, though it's more innovative then 3.x and less structured then 4e.

Or, to use Manchu's terms: it has too much crunch for people that hate crunch, and too little crunch for people that love crunch.

"Uniquely disadvantaged"?

I played a Dwarven Wizard last night. Wizards add Proficiency bonus to INT and WIS saving throws. My WIS was 8, giving me a -1 modifier. Wisdom is useless to my gruff'n'tough Dwarf Wizard. I would much prefer Proficiency with STR or CON saving throws.

You think "house rule" means band aid. That is a board game mentality. In RPGs (and scenario-based war gaming), the better word is ruling. A ruling isn't about "fixing the game" so "it works." It is about customization and imagination. A RPG without rulings is Warhammer Quest, Descent, Myth, or, their more complicated cousin, D&D 4E.

You are right, however, that we agree that the Original. First, Second, Third, and Fifth Editions of D&D are ultimately incompatible with Fourth Edition.

So far, 5E is my favorite version of D&D. I have not and will not throw out any of my 4E stuff (finally snagged the DMK two weeks ago), because it is a wonderful skirmish game, but it's not what I call a good RPG.

Let's be honest, it was both. Also, when did WotC try to make 4E more like 3E? I hope you're not talking about Essentials because Essentials was nothing like 3E.

It wasn't exactly 3E, but you could see within the various abilities and characters they've added with it that they hearkened back to 3E such as the slayer.

 Manchu wrote:
finally snagged the DMK two weeks ago

Evil! EVIL!

Here's a question: anyone know where I can get a 10's d10 in the same style as the ones in the starter box? Sort of odd that they only include the one d10 with the single digits.

Dunno yet Infinite_array but I will be looking because I really like them. Will let you know if I find anything.

Here's an "actual play" example of how 5E supports tactical combat:

Last evening, we were facing down a lone, cornered goblin. Three of five PCs were pretty well up in its ugly green face and that sucker still managed to survive ... for a bit longer. It dashed through the legs of the Dwarf Fighter, my (reasonably tough) Dwarf Wizard, and the Human Fighter.

Thinking about this earlier tonight, it suddenly struck me that 5E incorporates Opportunity Attacks from 3E/4E. I figured the DM must have forgotten about them or quietly houseruled them out (perhaps in deference to his beloved '77 Basic D&D?) because we did not get to swing at the goblin as it deftly fled. Then I realized the goblin did not attack before moving past our PCs. Ah hah! He took a Disengage action to avoid provoking Opportunity Attacks for the rest of his movement. Whether the DM had this in mind or not, the resulting play was entirely consonant with the rules as written.

Importantly, the DM did not simply allow the goblin to move through our ranks without any trouble at all. He ruled that each PC take an opposing DEX check against the goblin to block his escape. It's just that we all failed because the DM rolled well and the goblin, quite reasonably, had a good DEX modifier (including beating my 17). Wondering if this was a rule or a ruling, I looked through the PDF and found "Contests in Combat" sidebar that indeed covers it, even if it only explicitly mentions Grappling and Shoving. So again, whether he intended it or not, the DM's call was a ruling in harmony with the rules.

At this point, I interjected that the goblin would surely not have enough movement to totally escape. In some corner or my mind, I suppose I must have remembered that Dash is an action and not a Bonus Action. The DM ruled that the goblin was just at the edge of getting away and, given the Initiative order, we therefore each had another shot at taking him down. Fortunately, the Human Fighter (an able bowman) put an arrow between its ears.

In other words, the goblin seized the tactical opportunities open to it and very nearly got away to warn and rally its despicable tribemates. And so did we, the PCs, seize our opportunity. Interestingly, all this happened with basically no "stepping out of the scene" to discuss rules. For my part, this is because the rules strike me as intuitive and the DM's rulings seemed both fair and made the combat more interesting. Something more than crushing one measly goblin was at stake, so tactics became an issue even if we didn't need to evoke the language of rules to make it happen.

@Ahtman, Buzzsaw, ZebioLizard2: you guys are our 4E fans, what do you think about this scenario?

@Alpharius: you are our 1E fan, what do you think?

It sure does seem 'old school' in feel and intention!

I'm getting more and more excited to give 5th a real good read through and possibly...try it out?!?

Thought to be honest, I'm the DM of my current AD&D group, and RPGs are one of those things that really can survive and somewhat 'thrive' even after the the game has released newer editions...

Agreed. The new edition doesn't erase the older rules. I still plan to play 4th again whenever people feel the itch for slow-moving tactical dungeon runs.

 Manchu wrote:
@Ahtman, Buzzsaw, ZebioLizard2: you guys are our 4E fans, what do you think about this scenario?

Aww... no love for me (to be fair, 4E is the ONLY edition of D&D that I know)


Anyhow... if you had merely explained the actions, it wouldn't make sense to me (especially as I haven't read any of the new PDFs), as in 4E there wasn't a "disengage" move that didn't provoke an attack of opportunity, but the explanations you provided make it sound very reasonable and not at all world breaking/rules lawyering or any other craziness.

@Ahtman, Buzzsaw, ZebioLizard2: you guys are our 4E fans, what do you think about this scenario?

It seems like..Gameplay? Interesting gameplay but it is one combat situation, though I'm not sure what I'm being asked in this situation.

I mean, it's a cool story but I agree that I'm not sure the question. Could you do that in pretty much any edition of D&D? Sure could. Was it smoother? Sounds like it may have been.