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:

 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.

The question was whether or not they are defining evil in a way that was different from past iterations and has nothing to do with the 'legality' of playing an evil character. Perhaps I misunderstood what, or who, you were responding to, but it seemed you ignored the question and were purposefully confrontational and rude, which is a violation of Rule 1, which we also have around here.

No boob plate, no boob window, no mini skirt, and no 'come hither' pose... I thought it was quite well done!

 Sinful Hero wrote:
No boob plate, no boob window, no mini skirt, and no 'come hither' pose... I thought it was quite well done!

Lol, I don't have a problem with there not being what you mention (as I do also like a bit of realism, even in a fantasy setting)... it's really the proportions that are so off.

 Ahtman wrote:
The question was whether or not they are defining evil in a way that was different from past iterations and has nothing to do with the 'legality' of playing an evil character.

Well, you brought up the issue of "legality," which is what provoked my question. Perhaps I misunderstood. I will admit to being totally confused by the Hackmaster reference. Disregarding that altogether, I can rephrase my question as: How does evil being "an option" (for PCs), which it always has been, imply that 5E adopts a new definition of evil? Or we can skip that, because I sincerely did not and do not mean to offend you or to answer a question with a question, so here's my best guess at what you want to know:

Q: Is Evil different is 5E compared to previous editions?
A: No.

Alignment is different, however. 4E linear spectrum alignment is gone and it's back to Cartesian plane alignment. But like 4E, and unlike 3E and previous, alignment seems to pretty much do nothing mechanical (but then again we haven't seen the Paladin yet).

As to the art ...

The Tiefling looks unfinished. It has nothing to do with whether or not she's got boob plate or whatever. And the Samurai, I gotta agree with steamdragon and Ensis Ferrae, it's just a kind of bad drawing totally independent of any PC considerations. WotC showcasing non-Western tropes and avoiding sexism is irrelevant to whether a drawing looks finished or has believable proportions. Here's another example from earlier ITT:

 Manchu wrote:
PHB in progress:

 Manchu wrote:
Now, how about that art. I'm a little concerned. The pose seems awkward. Lower body shows forward momentum but upper body is at rest. Why's she holding her stick like that. Not trying to be a debbie downer but it just looks a bit weird.

Actually I believe the samurai is one of the more well-proportioned drawings- if you overlay the "stick" outline it matches her body well. It's the baggy bloomers and having her feet cut off at the ankles that throws off the perspective.
Here's a pic of a similar set of armor that makes the legs look short- the 'skirt' rides low on the hips(and in the case of our samurai girl her feet are cut off at the ankles contribute to the problem)

I'm super excited. I got mine and started picking out minis for all the monsters. We should be playing tomorrow.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
No boob plate, no boob window, no mini skirt, and no 'come hither' pose... I thought it was quite well done!

I wonder if we will get through the whole players guild without any cheesecake trip ups.

I hope not. I'm liking what I'm seeing of 5th so far, and I'm hoping my group might migrate over. Lack of pretty artwork wouldn't help.

Ran some of the Started Set the other night and I am generally happy with it. It seems to be like AD&D but with lessons from 3rd and bits of 4th incorporated into. Outside one player constantly complaining the entire night that he should have spotted some goblins even though his Perception check (22)* was less than their Stealth (23), everything went smoothly.

*He was upset that a 19 on the die didn't mean auto-success, essentially. He had an evening of being one short, such as trying to calm some wild wolves with Animal Empathy, a skill he had been mocking all evening, and rolled a 14 when he needed a 15. Next he fed the wolves, which lowered the difficulty and then rolled a 2.

This looks like it might be an ok alternative to Pathfinder; as I honestly really dislike Pathfinder.

Gonna have to chime in on the whole 4e thing after reading this entire thread and say I agree with Prete and Buzzsaw.

Personally 4e was my favorite edition and while I didn't get the chance to play Basic or 1e I feel that at least for me 4e had the flexibility to do what most other editions could not. I belief personally that for an RPG to provide such a large foundation for players or DM's to fall back on if they were not as good at illustrating or portraying scenes or in game rule mechanics is far more useful then simply relying on the DM to determine how exactly well something works.

A tighter rules system simply means that those who min/max will have characters that better reflect the persona of who they Role Play imho.

Besides in any game there are those who want to subvert the rules to their favor, and wouldn't it be harder if there where LESS rules? If a DM makes a ruling that later a character uses AGAINST the game and the DM has no rules to fall back on to support it not happening, wouldn't that ruin the immersion of said game?

At the end of the day I feel in my opinion DnD is not simply JUST a Role Play. It is also a GAME, and as such even though the DM has say over rulings the goal is to have some system of rules to use in assisting your game that can or not be used.

I just wish my group wasn't so hell bent on using Pathfinder as I really dislike the clumsiness of the amount of feats, skills and other things 3e 3.5 and Pathfinder seem to share. Hopefully this will be some sort of middle ground I can persuade them towards.

Talked to someone that had seen the PHB and it includes the following (going by memory):

Human
Elf
Half Elf
Drow
Dwarf
Halfling
Half Orc
Gnome
Tiefling
Dragonborn

All the classes from PHB 1 excluding Warlord (boo), classes from PHB2 excluding Warden, and just the Monk for PHB 3. In other words:

Fighter
Rogue
Cleric
Wizard
Druid
Ranger
Sorcerer
Barbarian
Warlock
Monk
Paladin
Bard

If this is an accurate account it seems to have a lot of choices in one book this time around. I think each has different paths/archetypes but I forgot to ask about that.

 Ahtman wrote:


If this is an accurate account it seems to have a lot of choices in one book this time around. I think each has different paths/archetypes but I forgot to ask about that.

One could only assume/imagine that if they follow their previous routes (as in, 4E) each class will have 2-3 "Paths" to follow, with PHB2 adding a couple of new races, some new classes w/ "Paths" and some new "paths" for a couple of PHB classes to expand on (usually this is the fighter, cleric types or the "big" classes) with PHB3 following the same route as well.. Then they'll release a Martial/Divine/Natural classes book with still more options for just about any class you can imagine

I should have been clearer; when I was referring to PHB 1 et al I was comparing it to the 4E books. All the classes and races I listed are (supposedly) in the PHB coming out in August.

 Victorraven wrote:
for an RPG to provide such a large foundation for players or DM's to fall back on if they were not as good at illustrating or portraying scenes or in game rule mechanics is far more useful then simply relying on the DM to determine how exactly well something works

Board games are even better at this.

 Victorraven wrote:
If a DM makes a ruling that later a character uses AGAINST the game

In the games you are talking about, DMs make calls, not rules.

 Ahtman wrote:
it includes the following (going by memory):

I had heard Warforged were in. If they aren't, I know a lot of people who will be happy ... and a lot who won't!

They're swapping the default setting to Forgotten Realms, right? Warforged wouldn't make a ton of sense there.

I have to say, the more I read about 5th, the more I like it. Seems nice and low powered. Our next campaign was going to use E6 rules due to magic starting to balloon out of control in the current one, and we'd like a more Tolkienesque feel, but 5th might be a viable alternative.

I dunno if anything about 5E is Tolkienesque. Have you looked at The One Ring?

Played the starter on Saturday. Finished the Goblin Caves.

Cantrips are great for casters. My wife was annoyed that she only had two spells, ran forward and stabbed a goblin, only to realize that she had cantrips that did damage!

Fighters seems really cool. Second wind being per encounter is awesome! Action surge too (Haven't tried this yet).

I DMPC'd the Cleric, and felt like healing was low but then we remembered second wind, so that'll change on the next game.

Halfling Thief was a beast (getting advantage a lot is reallllly helpful at low level).

Overall, a good time.

http://boingboing.net/2014/07/21/an-exclusive-look-at-the-new-d.html

d8 Hit Dice for a magic user?!?

And the description of a 'Warlock' sure sounds like it should be for a "Sorcerer"!

Only 4 spell slots/day at Level 20 (contrast with Wizard, 22 slots/day), max 5th Level, not to mention only 15 spells known. I wonder what an "Invocation" is ...

So I was thinking back on the new 5e system and realized I'd seen it somewhere before: a houserule for 4e I wanted to try, but never implemented. Once again, Wizards seems tapped into my brain!

 Manchu wrote:
Only 4 spell slots/day at Level 20 (contrast with Wizard, 22 slots/day), max 5th Level, not to mention only 15 spells known. I wonder what an "Invocation" is ...

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140303 wrote:A warlock forges a pact with an otherworldly patron. That patron grants the warlock magical power in the form of a limited number of spells—far fewer than either the sorcerer or the wizard. However, a warlock also gains a number of innate magical abilities called eldritch invocations. These invocations allow a warlock to cast spells as rituals, to gain unique magical powers, and to use specific spells at will. Invocations are the warlock's signature magical ability. You can think of them as cantrips or feats on steroids—powerful abilities that a warlock can use again and again.

A warlock uses spells in a slightly different manner than other arcane casters. The warlock gains a small number of spells per day, but all those spells are cast at a spell slot level determined by the warlock's level. A high-level warlock casts fewer spells than a wizard of the same level, but each of those spells is cast at a heightened level of potency. Warlocks select spells from the class's spell list, in addition to gaining bonus spells based on the entity with which they forge a pact.

I like the sounds of that, seems like it's sufficiently different from the Mage to work well.

I've always liked the idea of pact magic.

Since that sounds an awful lot like a sorcerer, what makes a 'Sorcerer' a 'sorcerer' in D&D 5E then?

 Alpharius wrote:
Since that sounds an awful lot like a sorcerer, what makes a 'Sorcerer' a 'sorcerer' in D&D 5E then?

I'm curious as well, given that the 5e wizard is basically a mix of 3.pf Wizard and Sorcerer.

 Alpharius wrote:
Since that sounds an awful lot like a sorcerer, what makes a 'Sorcerer' a 'sorcerer' in D&D 5E then?

From the same article:

When looking at D&D's three arcane casters—the wizard, the warlock, and the sorcerer—you can see a trend emerge. As students of magic, wizards have the most flexibility in how they employ that magic. They master more spells and can prepare a wider range of spells. When faced with a specific situation, a wizard has the best chance of having the right spell for the job.

Sorcerers are specialists who master fewer spells, but who can shape and amplify those spells to make them even more effective. When faced with a specific situation or challenge, a sorcerer twists spells to suit that challenge.

Though warlocks have less flexibility in their spellcasting than wizards or sorcerers, their capacity for supporting their spellcasting with unique tricks and focus gives them an edge. A warlock faced with a specific situation doesn't worry about having the right spell at hand, but instead uses the class's unique features and advanced spellcasting power to overcome any challenge.

Also:

A quick glance at the sorcerer's advancement table might seem to undercut our intention to make the class more distinct from the wizard. The sorcerer and wizard both cast an identical number of spells per day at each level. However, lurking on the sorcerer's class table is a column that summarizes the class's unique mechanic: sorcery points.

A sorcerer is a natural conduit for arcane energy. Sorcerers can augment spells, conjure energy from thin air, and produce unique magical effects derived from the source of their innate power. Sorcery points represent this ability to channel arcane magic. Sorcerers expend this resource to cast additional spells; to alter spells to increase range, damage, or other variables; or to invoke the benefits of their arcane origin. For example, sorcerers with a draconic heritage (a staple concept of the class) can create magical wings, shield themselves from harm with dragon scales, and withstand more physical punishment than other arcane spellcasters.

It's true that wizards and sorcerers cast the same number of spells as a baseline. However, by spending sorcery points, a sorcerer can easily surpass the wizard's limits. The wizard's advantage remains flexibility. Even as a party's sorcerer casts a limited number of spells more often or with improved effects, a wizard will always bring a much more diverse range of magical options into every adventure.

If I remember correctly, didn't 4e have 'Psion Points' or something like that that allowed the psionic classes to alter their spells?

Seems to be an inverse relationship of versatility vs. effectiveness. A warlock has few spells, but can augment them greatly based on their patron. A wizard has a huge variety of spells, but they're baseline. Sorcerers seems to be a conceit to both - not as many spells as the wizards, but more than the warlock. Not as capable of changing spells as the warlock, but more so than the wizard.

Of course, all this remains to be seen until the PHB comes out. Glad that I'm near one of the D&D Premier stores, so I can get it early.

 Manchu wrote:
I dunno if anything about 5E is Tolkienesque. Have you looked at The One Ring?

"Tolkienesque" in the sense that wizards won't wind up teleporting people into the nearest sun as a routine means of ending conflict or stopping time to cast spells that make them as unto gods. Magic appears to have been dialed down.

Sorry if this was already answered, but either in Basic or Starter, Advantage was referred to as a +5 modifier in an example (?), but was defined as rolling two d20 and taking the better of the two in the Advantage section. Is this a typo or what? Thanks in advance.

ced1106 wrote:
Sorry if this was already answered, but either in Basic or Starter, Advantage was referred to as a +5 modifier in an example (?), but was defined as rolling two d20 and taking the better of the two in the Advantage section. Is this a typo or what? Thanks in advance.

The only +5 I saw was 3/4 cover. Advantage is roll 2.

When using passive perception to determine if something is noticed, normally WIS mod + 10, you add +5 for advantage or -5 for disadvantage. That is the only +/- 5 I can recall.