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.

What level would you say that Cleric is?

 Manchu wrote:
What level would you say that Cleric is?

Using GW logic, he's probably a novice... so around 1 or below

 Ahtman wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
I don't even know what edition we're talking about anymore.

Just being playfully silly, as I thought you were as well.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
They're not traditional prestige classes.

Prestige classes aren't really traditional anyway.

It's more 2E character kits.

I'm not really fond of that 5+ con healing at 18+, that's just kinda pathetic.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It's more 2E character kits.

It does seem a bit more reminiscent of Kits.

Starter set came in today' will read it later. My favorite part is that one player was complaining that Fighters were better archers than Rangers in 3E and one of the pre-mades is a Fighter Archer. I know who is "randomly" getting that one.

I heard some earlier rumors saying that they've gone back to bloodless weapons for Clerics, and that all the divine classes - including Paladin - are now lumped in to that. So, no swords or axes. Any truth?

 Manchu wrote:
Do you think you will be DMing or playing? I assume DMing given you purchased the Starter Set but if not, what kind of character do you want to play?

I'll probably try to DM this time. Maybe later I will escape - we started an adventure in 4th edition ages ago and everyone enjoyed it (just not the rules) so maybe we'll be able to convert that story into 5th edition somehow. I played a Rune Priest in that one.

 Seaward wrote:
I heard some earlier rumors saying that they've gone back to bloodless weapons for Clerics, and that all the divine classes - including Paladin - are now lumped in to that. So, no swords or axes. Any truth?

I hope not!

At least not for Paladins!

I don't remember seeing that. Sounds like bunk.

In the starter kit the dwarf cleric has throwing axes, so I'm going to say no.

Looks like Amazon finally started shipping the starter set.

Rumor is "Premier" stores are getting the PHB on August 8.

 Cyporiean wrote:
Looks like Amazon finally started shipping the starter set.

Just got my shipping notification.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Odd how one of the ideals to roll for is "evil".

There's usually one for each alignment, to make it Fairer I suppose rather then pure good.

wow that art is awful. looks like something out of a bad JRPG job system.

I am so excited for the new D&D, after largely missing out on 4e edition as I was playing other RPGs instead. I've already got my campaign for the next academic year (at the uni society) planned out: I call it Ragnarok's Return.

On Monday we are doing the second session of the Starter Box adventure, after finishing the Goblin cave encounter with only two near-TPKs, so hopefully level 2 treats the players more kindly! I know that D&D 1st level can often be grim, but I wasn't expecting quite how bad things could get. I mean, luck obviously played a part in it. But one of the Fighters went down almost instantly in the final fight, and Wolves turned out to be majorly dangerous for the players.

Actually, I think that the most dangerous thing was the player who brought along an impulsive Halfing fighter who kept rushing ahead without the rest of the group. That rapidly went south for him...

I'm glad to know that being dumb still gets you killed.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Odd how one of the ideals to roll for is "evil".

Is this in the Basic rules?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Odd how one of the ideals to roll for is "evil".

Is this in the Basic rules?

That's a preview from the PHB>

 pretre wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
Odd how one of the ideals to roll for is "evil".

Is this in the Basic rules?

That's a preview from the PHB>

It's straight out of the Basic PDF, however.

Only skimmed the Basic (waiting for PHB and I have Starter) but if Evil is an option I would wonder if it doesn't mean what it did in earlier editions? In Hackmaster Chaotic Evil is a legal option for PC's, but it just essentially means a "might makes right" attitude, and not mustache twirling evil.

Since when is alignment choice a question of "legality"?

 Manchu wrote:
Since when is alignment choice a question of "legality"?

As long as people have answered a question with a question.

The fact that it has 'evil' written after it is to combine two things:

1) A random d6 roll.
2) A quick choice for each alignment.

So you can use the chart in two ways. I think that even the evil options are not out and out JokerMad! levels of evil, but instead are broad ideas that shouldn't conflict with alignment.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Since when is alignment choice a question of "legality"?

As long as people have answered a question with a question.

We have a rule about not spamming the forum around here.

Of course you can be evil in D&D. You can be dumb, obvious evil or something more interesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And some new content from the PHB ~ the hermit background:

Thus far, I've not been impressed with the artwork in these preview pages, at all.

I have to admit, I was 'raised' on the 1E AD&D stuff, and to me, nothing compares to that stuff!

But...this new stuff isn't looking all that bad to me.

What's going on?

 Alpharius wrote:

What's going on?

This is all just IMO, and if you like it then that's cool... I'm not one to hate on people for liking something different.

But, in the two pictures shown (samurai chick, and hippy, arab, buddhist monk dude) don't really jive right with me.... If you look at the samurai chick, it looks like she should be a larger male fighter with a round body, thick arms/legs of a well fed fighter, etc.... But then you get to the face, and she's 100 lbs, soaking wet after Thanksgiving dinner. It's kind of similar with the "hermit" picture for me... He appears to be some form of desert dwelling nomad with his head wrap, robes and whatnot. But then he's got prayer beads like a monk. I dunno, it's like his parts don't appear to add up to a singular whole in my eyes.

Ha! No worries!

I am with you 100% on different tastes and all that!

I was just curious!