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.

How different do Wizards play than compared to 3.5th edition?

The freebie PDF only listed School of Evocation as a path, what other things are there-- one for each school, plus generalist?

No Generalist school. There is eight traditions, conforming to the age-old magic divisions. For a highlight:, Abjuration wizards get to make a magical shield with temporary hitpoints, which protects you and recharges whenever you cast abjuration spells. It has hp equal to (2 x (wizard level + int bonus)). When you hit sixth, you can protect other people with it. At 10th, you get to add your proficiency bonus to certain abjuration spells. At 14th you get Resistance to spell damage and Asvantage on saving throws against spells.

Not so sure on Warlock, sorry, not had a chance to read it yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the book is really pretty.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hvldmxon9ilj49b/Photo%2008-08-2014%2022%2055%2020.jpg

https://www.dropbox.com/s/m1e1r3zq4n0oinl/Photo%2008-08-2014%2022%2056%2006.jpg

I also got a copy of the PHB as well. Shame as they were all sold out of the Hoard if the Dragon Queen book. Next week!

Favorite part just from the once-through: feats. Really cool implementation, and they're flavorful without being game breaking.

 infinite_array wrote:

Favorite part just from the once-through: feats. Really cool implementation, and they're flavorful without being game breaking.

did they go with something closer to the "backgrounds" from 4th ed. ?

 Charles Rampant wrote:
No Generalist school. There is eight traditions, conforming to the age-old magic divisions.

ah.

Are there any disadvantages to picking them like in previous editions?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

Favorite part just from the once-through: feats. Really cool implementation, and they're flavorful without being game breaking.

did they go with something closer to the "backgrounds" from 4th ed. ?

Nope. Basically, at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th level you can either increase an single ability score by +2, or increase 2 ability scores by +1. You can, however, choose to not increase an ability score, and instead take a feat.

So, feats like "Athlete" which improve either Strength or Dexterity by +1 (along with other benefits) don't stack on top of a class-based ability improvements. And a lot of feats don't improve ability scores at all.

 Melissia wrote:

 Charles Rampant wrote:
No Generalist school. There is eight traditions, conforming to the age-old magic divisions.

ah.

Are there any disadvantages to picking them like in previous editions?

Doesn't seem to be. However, the Arcane Traditions seem to be more perks along a single line of spells. At second level, for example, the costs and time it takes to inscribe a spell for your chosen school is halved. These perks come at 2nd, 6th, 10th and 14th level.

Of all the things to bring back, scribing costs for spells was pretty much lowest on the list of "important things".

 infinite_array wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

Favorite part just from the once-through: feats. Really cool implementation, and they're flavorful without being game breaking.

did they go with something closer to the "backgrounds" from 4th ed. ?

Nope. Basically, at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th level you can either increase an single ability score by +2, or increase 2 ability scores by +1. You can, however, choose to not increase an ability score, and instead take a feat.

So, feats like "Athlete" which improve either Strength or Dexterity by +1 (along with other benefits) don't stack on top of a class-based ability improvements. And a lot of feats don't improve ability scores at all.

So, you can improve your ability scores... OR, take something like "Monkey Grip" (from previous edition)... that sounds rather like they are trying to depower characters a bit to me, unless there's something more to this that I'm missing.

The thing is that feats in 5E are a lot more encompassing than earlier so that may be what you are missing. Each is several of what the old feats would be. There should be some examples a few pages back.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


So, you can improve your ability scores... OR, take something like "Monkey Grip" (from previous edition)... that sounds rather like they are trying to depower characters a bit to me, unless there's something more to this that I'm missing.

I would agree, because all of the class-based ability score improving choices - ability scores increases and feats - CANNOT increase a character's ability score above 20.

As frequently appears in the book, "As normal, you can't increase an ability score above 20 using this feature."

Or, with feats, "Increase your [chosen ability score] by 1, to a maximum of 20."

Unlike other editions where you just hammered one or two stats to high heaven, having decent all around stats is good as they all are used for Saving Throws and skills. For example ,as a Fighter you might even want to, Pelor forbid, improve a stat besides Str or Con.

Edit: Examples are on page 34.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
How are warlocks.

Fine? None of the classes seem obviously broken. Let me know if you have a more specific question.

 Melissia wrote:
How different do Wizards play than compared to 3.5th edition?

Take a look at the free PDF.

 Melissia wrote:
Are there any disadvantages to picking them like in previous editions?

No.

 infinite_array wrote:
Shame as they were all sold out of the Hoard if the Dragon Queen book.

Managed to get this today, too. The paper is completely different from the PHB. It feels rough and is not glossy. Very interesting approach.

 streamdragon wrote:
scribing costs for spells was pretty much lowest on the list of "important things".

Tell that to the LFQM naysayers.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
you can improve your ability scores... OR, take something like "Monkey Grip" (from previous edition)

Not really. Feats are less like niche tweaks and more likes suites of characterful traits.

 Ahtman wrote:
Unlike other editions where you just hammered one or two stats to high heaven, having decent all around stats is good as they all are used for Saving Throws and skills. For example ,as a Fighter you might even want to, Pelor forbid, improve a stat besides Str or Con.

Yes, exactly correct. 5E is not a game mastery edition like 3.5 ... so far.

Fine? None of the classes seem obviously broken. Let me know if you have a more specific question.

That was a dumb question.

Here's what I really meant:

What sort of casting does the Warlock perform now, is it similar to 3.5? 4E? New system?

 Manchu wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
you can improve your ability scores... OR, take something like "Monkey Grip" (from previous edition)

Not really. Feats are less like niche tweaks and more likes suites of characterful traits.

So instead of a feat like Monkey Grip, Feats are more similar to the 4E backgrounds where to use one of my own character's backgrounds: Ancestral Holdings, allows the option to make Diplomacy or History a class skill, OR take a +2 bonus to all Diplomacy or History rolls??

But instead of things like History, Diplomacy and thievery, these bonuses are for STR, CON, WIS, etc?

OK Manchu - here's the big one for me!

Is this edition really 3.xE + 1E = 5E?

In other words, will an Old School AD&D 1E gamer like me find a lot to like here?

I'm hoping so!

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
What sort of casting does the Warlock perform now, is it similar to 3.5? 4E? New system?

I don't remember much about 3.5 warlocks to be honest but I kind of liked 4E ones. I would say the 5E Warlock is similar in spirit, as the term "Striker" could still apply (d8 hit die helps). Eldritch Invocations are like mini-feats: they give you stuff like improved dark vision, the ability to add CHA mod to Eldritch Blast damage, speak with animals, etc, etc. You also get a pact boon, which is a familiar, animal, or special book that lets you do cool things like, in the case of the book, casting cantrips at will from other classes' spell lists.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
So instead of a feat like Monkey Grip, Feats are more similar to the 4E backgrounds [...]

5E feats are geared more to combat (mostly) but they confer 2-3 small bonuses rather than only one thing like 3.5 or 4E feats. They are pretty clearly designed to appeal to players who like a crunchier game.

 Alpharius wrote:
In other words, will an Old School AD&D 1E gamer like me find a lot to like here?

I guess there are two flavors of D&D grognard: the guy who prefers Basic and the guy who prefers AD&D. 5E is more for the guy who prefers AD&D.

 Manchu wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
In other words, will an Old School AD&D 1E gamer like me find a lot to like here?

I guess there are two flavors of D&D grognard: the guy who prefers Basic and the guy who prefers AD&D. 5E is more for the guy who prefers AD&D.

Honestly, I was going to give it a try anyway, but now...

...I *really* going to give it a try!

What are the known release dates for the next batch of stuff?

Is there a list somewhere?

I'm rather excited about the whole thing now...

Check the OP for all release dates.

Bummer that the DMG is so far off!

For that true 1E FEEL they should have released the Monster Manual first!

 Alpharius wrote:
Bummer that the DMG is so far off!

For that true 1E FEEL they should have released the Monster Manual first!

The free Basic PDF is getting a bestiary update when the PHB comes out I believe.

Just wondering is the an alignment system same as previous editions of D&D and how detailed is each alignment? Is there a paragraph detailing each Alignment or just a short sentence?

 Ravenblade666 wrote:
Just wondering is the an alignment system same as previous editions of D&D and how detailed is each alignment? Is there a paragraph detailing each Alignment or just a short sentence?

That's a good question - and one that I was almost going to ask instead of my "How much would a 1E Guy like it?" one.

So, yeah, any info on that would be greatly appreciated!

9 alignments are included ranging from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil, and have a sentence description along with some examples of what would match.

"Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don't take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Lizardfolk, most druids, and many humans are neutral."

Following that is a section titled "Alignment in the Multiverse" which describes how alignments are derived, whether they're moral choices, inherent values (like in those races created by good and evil goods), the essence of a creature (a devil does not chose to be Lawful Evil, or tends to be Lawful Evil, but is the embodiment of Lawful Evil), or if they have no alignment at all, (non-intelligent animals).

 infinite_array wrote:
"Neutral (N) is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don't take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Lizardfolk, most druids, and many humans are neutral."

About time they focus on that aspect as opposed to the "careful balance of nature" aspect that they seemed to have loved in previous editions...

There is also some chat about alignments in appendix C, which discusses the shape of the multiverse and the Outer Planes.

The interesting thing to note is that PC alignment has no mechanical effect. There is no way to detect another's alignment - Detect/Protection from Evil spells only affect stuff like Aberrations and Fiends. The Paladin gets to add damage to attacks irrespective of the enemy's alignment. This seems a good approach, since if you want to remove alignment then it doesn't mess stuff up.

So having read the book cover to cover, with the obvious exception of the Argos catalogue spells chapter, I have a few thoughts to share.



The Physical Book
The book is lovely, full of good art and without White Wolf style backgrounds that make it hard to read. I don't forsee any problems in using it at the table, thanks to the clear text and the way that the book sits open on its spine. In terms of the art, I am really impressed; not all of the art is perfect, but there are very few duds. They have also managed to show more of the adventuring 'life': alongside the pictures of full blown fight scenes, you have pictures of adventurers combing through treasure hordes, making camp, researching magic, and getting into bar fights.

The System
It is worth noting that the Basic pdf contains the whole of the Adventuring, Combat and Rules chapters, word for word, so you can read that to see what they are like. I would say that, in terms of feel on the table, that it is less complex and fiddly than 3e. It feels a little bit like AD&D, in terms of options being fairly simple and mechanically light, while still having the easy to understand maths of 3e.

Complexity
I want to talk briefly about the way that this edition handles complexity. The game has made a very clear attempt to reduce complexity, especially player-facing complexity. Firstly, it has moved a lot of the more complex combat options out of the main chapter and into the classes and feats.

For example, the main combat chapter doesn’t have anything about moving enemies around, like 4e. But the Battlemaster Fighter class has lots of options along these lines, with its own subsystem to fuel it. Other classes can get a lesser form of the same thing from a feat. This means that if you want a more complex battlefield control style of Fighter play, you can take the Battlemaster class; if you don’t, then the Champion gives you simple and easy to use passive bonuses. Similarly, the Warlock class can be built and played in a very simple fashion, with only a few spells known and the option to tailor your Invocations to boost you in ways that don’t add complexity. So as a player, you can choose your level of game complexity fairly easily.

Another way that it does this is by removing the reams of combat and non-combat modifiers. You don’t get Flanking bonuses, nor do any feats give you situational bonuses like “you get a +1 Dodge bonus to AC against one enemy in melee”. The Ranger doesn’t get Favoured Enemy in combat, only on tracking, and there are no bonuses or penalties for tools or favourable circumstances. This makes it much quicker to actually get on with the dice rolling; players have less incentive to stack modifiers, with elaborate descriptions of different AC bonuses to try and keep them under control.

So the rules themselves are nice and simple, and as a GM I’ve found that the game runs as quickly in play as systems like Savage Worlds, rather than the death by a thousand cuts that I used to experience in 3e.


I love how dorky this Dragon looks. Did he just fart or something?


Adventuring
The game has clearly made a strong effort to bring adventuring back into the conception of what a character class is about. For example, the Ranger at first level picks a Favoured Enemy (which lets him have advantage against said enemy on Tracking and Intelligence checks to recall information about them, as well as speaking their language) and a Natural Terrain type (within which he isn’t slowed by difficult terrain, can forage while marching, can march while stealthed, etc). These benefits are really interesting and flavourful while adventuring, but not so much while killing things.

The backgrounds are full of this sort of thing, with the Sailor being able to blag rides on friendly ships, the Noble being able to arrange meetings with high society types, and the Urchin being adept at finding shortcuts through cities. In short, Wizards have clearly tried to focus on the way that your characters can have flavour and interesting things to do in the world beyond just stabbing stuff.

I’ve kind of run out of things to say, but hopefully this can help those trying to decide whether the game suits them or not.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
you can improve your ability scores... OR, take something like "Monkey Grip" (from previous edition)

Not really. Feats are less like niche tweaks and more likes suites of characterful traits.

So instead of a feat like Monkey Grip, Feats are more similar to the 4E backgrounds where to use one of my own character's backgrounds: Ancestral Holdings, allows the option to make Diplomacy or History a class skill, OR take a +2 bonus to all Diplomacy or History rolls??

But instead of things like History, Diplomacy and thievery, these bonuses are for STR, CON, WIS, etc?

Closer, but from what I've seen it's more like a feat is a 'package' of things that would be an entire feat-chain in 3rd or 4th. For example, there's no 'Cleave' but the Great Weapon Master feat (or whatever it's called) gives the equivalent of the older edition's 'Weapon expertise' feats (a minor bonus with a class of weapons), AND something like Cleave, AND a +1 to relevant stat.

I'm hopeful that it will break up (slightly) the idea that it is optimum to focus on on combat maneuver and spam it constantly by making those maneuvers a bit more situational and part of generally being able to do cool stuff with a specific weapon-class.

I quite like that they've taken away Detect Evil and so on. I think they were poor mechanics anyway. Detecting fiends and aberrations is much better.

I am interested to see if they can manage the difficult task of streamlining while maintaining enough depth to please cantankerous 3.5 junkies. Though I suppose that segment of the market might be lost.

5th looks like being a really decent edition to me, the big problem they're going to have is that their competitor provides a lot of stuff for free, which lowers barrier to entry, and also has a vast library of cool stuff to pick from. I can run my 3.0 and 3.5 adventures in 5th, sure, but it won't transfer as neatly as into Pathfinder, where the rules are essentially the same.

This is my first d&d an I am happy with it as seems to have plenty of depth and cool options but still seems fairly simple.

My 1st char is going to be a cathulu bound warlock with a blade pact. This means that by lvl 3 I have telepathy, can cast mage armour for free and summon a weapon of my choice which I automatically gain mastery with and is a magic weapon. I also have a spell which is effectively force lightning
Basicly I can make a mage warrior that is not totally gimped.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't seem to find anything about a Paladin needing to be Lawful Good only. Is that right?