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.

 pretre wrote:
Or some people just like Tieflings... I was also a fan of Aasimar.

And some people just have bad taste.

I'm just waiting to see if they culled the dragonborn as a race to try and further distance it from 4E.


Or if Gnome will be in the monster manual again.

For the record- I don't like Gnomes either.
Halflings are good enough for a core small race, unless they also include goblins, kobolds, or some other non-super magical race in the core book.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Or some people just like Tieflings... I was also a fan of Aasimar.

And some people just have bad taste.

Don't be so hard on yourself, man...

Gnomes > hobbits all day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
The art on these pages has been pretty bad IMO.

Ugh! They could've hired Rob Liefeld and had it look better.

So a buddy of mine decided to buy the starter kit, and we gave it a spin. Three players cleared the first adventure with not too many problems. Honestly, it felt like a dumbed-down 3.pfndr. Maybe it was because it was a starter kit, but we didn't play any differently than any of the other campaigns we've ever played.

Still signed up for an event at Gencon and I'll see how it goes with the full rules, but just based on the starter kit I'm not seeing any pulls to convert.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
we didn't play any differently than any of the other campaigns we've ever played

What were you expecting?

 Manchu wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
we didn't play any differently than any of the other campaigns we've ever played

What were you expecting?

Something a little more unique. When I say it didn't play any differently, I meant any differently than every other 3.pfndr game I've ever played/run. Fourth feels very unique in comparison to 3.pfndr. Other RPG systems feel unique. 3.pfndr is pretty much my baseline: it's what I started with and played the longest so I'm the most familiar with it. The starter kit felt exactly the same.

I think that was the idea: a less redramatic update that returns to the form of OD&D through 3.5.

But then why change? If it's the same, why buy a new book other than it just being the new shiney?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Granted, I'm basing this opinion on a trimmed down starter kit.

Because it isn't the same?

Unless you're forgetting/skipping 4E entirely?

I guess in that case, it will feel very similar!

I said 'returns to the form' not 'completely copies'. It is LIKE OD&D through 3.5, not a direct copy. Just as 2nd was like 1st,etc so on.

I pretty much did skip fourth. Just now starting up a campaign- I'm hoping all the bandwagoners offload their old fourth books for cheap on eBay.

Of course when fourth came out, all the 3.5 books' prices skyrocketed...

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I pretty much did skip fourth. Just now starting up a campaign- I'm hoping all the bandwagoners offload their old fourth books for cheap on eBay.

Why you gotta be derogatory about it?

Some people move to the new edition when it comes out. For example, I just sold my 6th edition 40k rulebooks because I don't need them anymore. Does that make me a bandwagoner? Does selling a lot of my 3rd/3.5 splat when I moved to 4th make me a bandwagoner? Geeze.

Why did you sell off your books? It's not like the pages turned to dust. Unless you needed them to buy the newer books, but one can usually save up for a few weeks/months and buy them that way.

By the way, if you're bandwag...selling your fourth books send me a PM.

Keeping mine pretty much, though man you sound pretty hostile considering people can move on if they want.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Why did you sell off your books?

Space and a realistic assessment of what I would use in the future. I had pretty much everything 3 and 3.5 put out for splat (excepting non-core settings). I was never going to use them and they took up a recockulous amount of space. I kept the complete books, the big 3 and a couple ones I really liked. I then sold and made a huge amount of money back on the rest.

I will play the new game before deciding on my fourth (or rather my group will) but chances are that I will keep the core stuff for that as well.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Keeping mine pretty much, though man you sound pretty hostile considering people can move on if they want.

I apologize if I came across as hostile or aggressive. It was not my intention, bandwagoner was the closest term to people who move wholesale to a new edition. Although I did use it as a small tease the second time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Why did you sell off your books?

Space and a realistic assessment of what I would use in the future. I had pretty much everything 3 and 3.5 put out for splat (excepting non-core settings). I was never going to use them and they took up a recockulous amount of space. I kept the complete books, the big 3 and a couple ones I really liked. I then sold and made a huge amount of money back on the rest.

I will play the new game before deciding on my fourth (or rather my group will) but chances are that I will keep the core stuff for that as well.

I could use anything other than the core(Already have the PHB, DMG, and MM1). I prefer Monster Manuals though. If you do decide to part with them, I would probably be interested. Although if you can get more for them through eBay you won't hurt my feelings.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Keeping mine pretty much, though man you sound pretty hostile considering people can move on if they want.

I apologize if I came across as hostile or aggressive. It was not my intention, bandwagoner was the closest term to people who move wholesale to a new edition. Although I did use it as a small tease the second time.

How about 'player' or 'current edition player'? I know it's a couple more syllables, but...

I could use anything other than the core(Already have the PHB, DMG, and MM1). I prefer Monster Manuals though. If you do decide to part with them, I would probably be interested. Although if you can get more for them through eBay you won't hurt my feelings.

I'll keep it in mind, but it'll be a while.

 pretre wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Keeping mine pretty much, though man you sound pretty hostile considering people can move on if they want.

I apologize if I came across as hostile or aggressive. It was not my intention, bandwagoner was the closest term to people who move wholesale to a new edition. Although I did use it as a small tease the second time.

How about 'player' or 'current edition player'? I know it's a couple more syllables, but...

It didn't spring to mind, and I didn't assume bandwagoner would be taken with a negative connotation. Not every 'player' is the same(obviously), and 'current edition player' sounds a little janky.

I could have used much worse too- rats(from a sinking ship), or carpet-baggers, but I'm a just a nice guy like that.

I still have to ask, what big differences are there between 3rd and 5th?

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I still have to ask, what big differences are there between 3rd and 5th?

That's going to be hard to tell until we get the PHB. Right now? Feats and Prestige classes aren't present.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Why did you sell off your books? It's not like the pages turned to dust.

It would be so cool if they did though - how D&D would that be?!?

OK, not really, but still!

I freely admit to being a bandwagoner, wagoneer?, whatever, when it comes to D&D. This is because I am interested in D&D as it develops and not stuck on a particular edition. I think it is exciting when a new edition comes out.

As to big differences between 3E and 5E: IMO, 5E does not put an emphasis on min/maxing and power gaming. The Proficiency mechanic allows more freedom to play whatever kind of character and still feel capable/effective, therefore allowing for greater focus on playing the character rather than playing the character's stats.

 Manchu wrote:
I freely admit to being a bandwagoner, wagoneer?, whatever, when it comes to D&D. This is because I am interested in D&D as it develops and not stuck on a particular edition. I think it is exciting when a new edition comes out.

A-men!

As to big differences between 3E and 5E: IMO, 5E does not put an emphasis on min/maxing and power gaming. The Proficiency mechanic allows more freedom to play whatever kind of character and still feel capable/effective, therefore allowing for greater focus on playing the character rather than playing the character's stats.

We'll see if that continues with some more splat.

A big I did notice- except for pure damage whatever the fighter could do I(the cleric) could do better. Fighter could throw a rock to distract the goblins, or I could use thaumatergy to rustle some leaves and not worry about missing. Fighter could light a torch, and just not use his greatsword or shortbow, or I could cast light on his weapons. His bow can run out of arrows- Sacred Flame could not. Those are just the cantrip spells.

The differences between martials and spellcasters only seemed to grow wider based on the starter kit compared to 3rd. Based upon my impressions anyway.

Outside of 4E, there is no such thing as a "martial" class. In 5E, there are casters and non-casters.

I don't see the need to pit classes against each other, which is a lesson from 4E (and less likely to have been learned by those who ignored 4E). The PC classes form a team. The Fighter brings different strengths to the team than the Cleric and, at least given the options presented in the PDF (let's see the inevitable War Domain), the Cleric cannot just replace the Fighter.

 Manchu wrote:
Outside of 4E, there is no such thing as a "martial" class. In 5E, there are casters and non-casters.

I don't see the need to pit classes against each other, which is a lesson from 4E (and less likely to have been learned by those who ignored 4E). The PC classes form a team. The Fighter brings different strengths to the team than the Cleric and, at least given the options presented in the PDF (let's see the inevitable War Domain), the Cleric cannot just replace the Fighter.

Well I certainly hope so, considering that was exactly the problem in 3E

 Manchu wrote:
Outside of 4E, there is no such thing as a "martial" class. In 5E, there are casters and non-casters.

I don't see the need to pit classes against each other, which is a lesson from 4E (and less likely to have been learned by those who ignored 4E). The PC classes form a team. The Fighter brings different strengths to the team than the Cleric and, at least given the options presented in the PDF (let's see the inevitable War Domain), the Cleric cannot just replace the Fighter.

Agreed... because in 4E, the Fighter, and other melee centric "Martial" classes can "Mark" enemies, which the cleric cannot... These marks do a TON of different things, depending on abilities, etc. I know my 4E Warden could automatically grab/grapple enemies, or make a striking attack against any marked enemy that doesn't attack the Warden (basically the NPC monsters take a penalty or disadvantage to attack someone other than the character, while they are marked)

I've found that every class, at some point brings something seriously unique to the party that is useful at some point, and is quite often used a lot (ie, a rogues thievery abilities, cleric's healing, bard's songs... etc)

 Manchu wrote:
Outside of 4E, there is no such thing as a "martial" class. In 5E, there are casters and non-casters.

I don't see the need to pit classes against each other, which is a lesson from 4E (and less likely to have been learned by those who ignored 4E). The PC classes form a team. The Fighter brings different strengths to the team than the Cleric and, at least given the options presented in the PDF (let's see the inevitable War Domain), the Cleric cannot just replace the Fighter.

When I say 'martial' I mean non-spell casting class. It's something our group has always done, since the days before fourth. At first level, we could have replaced the fighter with another cleric and be better off. His only role was "slightly more damage, but less versatility."

 Sinful Hero wrote:
At first level, we could have replaced the fighter ...

It's not a discussion worth having, especially not in 5E where 300 XP is Level 2.