Hey /tg/,
I've been away from 4chan for several years now. Recently started lurking again (as in the past two days) as I'm about to move back to my native state for work.
I've been considering finding a tabletop group when I get settled in; I've always loved RPing but haven't done it in earnest in many years.
I started on 3.0 in middle school and then switched to 3.5 in HS. 4e happened while I was in college; looked over the rules and couldn't stop shitting myself for a couple days afterwards. Never found a good Pathfinder group where I live.
So what does /tg/ think of 5e? Did some reading, sounds better than 4e, but that's not of much help.
>>48272754
Since you seem to be allergic to good design, you are safe.
It's a bit more rules lite, but I really like it. It combines the best bits of 3e and 4e. It goes back to its much more RP/DM-fiat roots and the goal is to make things easy to resolve and that everything is dangerous at every level - i.e. you wont just roll your eyes at a goblin at 20th level, it can still fuck you up if there are enough of them. If you liked the munchkinning/optimisation of 3.5e then there's still lots of room for that.
I like it a lot.
Firstly, in case it actually needs clarifying, /tg/ is not a hive mind and there's lots of different opinions on here.
Secondly, one upside to 5e is that it's so comparatively easy to pick up and learn that it requires almost no real effort so if you decide you don't like it then almost no time is wasted at all.
It's much lighter in rules and the "deck-building" style of character creation where you look for the optimal combination of feats and skills is nonexistent however, so if that's what you liked most about 3e you might find it not to your linking.
It feels mechanically like a cross between 3e's unified mechanics and 2e's simplicity and emphasis on modularity in terms of "this could go into the game IF YOU WANT" rather then lots and lots and lots of hard rules covering absolutely everything.
>>48272754
It's better than 3.5 and pathfinder.
It focuses more on the roleplay aspect and you don't have the most flawed aspect that 3.5 and PF has: caster supremacy. Or, well, it's not as bad, especially in the mid levels.
Even after 6, martials pull their weight and casters do their thing on equal ground, somewhat.
>>48272779
You're saying that D&D the MMORPG is an example of "good design?"
>It's much lighter in rules and the "deck-building" style of character creation where you look for the optimal combination of feats and skills is nonexistent however, so if that's what you liked most about 3e you might find it not to your linking.
I mean there are still lots of fun combos, and there are more and more books coming out (+ Unearthed Arcana) that make character building more complex if you want.
The Sword Coast Adventuring Guide cantrips Greenflame Blade and Booming Blade for example really opened up many ways to play a Gish.
>>48272796
I'm saying not obfuscating mechanics is good design, yes.
>>48272788
I'm asking the board (i.e. all of the individual users) for some input. Not implying that /tg/ is a singular entity.
I honestly liked the complexity of 3.5, but didn't particularly enjoy dealing with my PC's using splats to make all sorts of twink shit.
>>48272792
Caster supremacy doesn't kick until level 12 and up, you must've had some shitty martials.
>>48272817
It's still significantly less so then the prior two editions by fairly a silly margin.
>>48272817
Though that said there's precious little reason to multiclass in more than 3 classes, MAYBE 4 at the absolute most. Which IMO is much better than 3.5e where you'd end up with A 3/ B 1/ C 5/ D 3 / E 7 etc.
>>48272792
Meh, I never had a problem with caster supremacy because in the campaign I ran, I always, always made situations and encounters that let individual PC's shine when appropriate. Never went past 11th level, though, and I well-aware of what 20th+ level casters are capable of.
>>48272832
Okay, I was just giving a warning about the complexity thing.
Other then that the ease of "pick up and go" to the game means it's pretty easy to try out, decide you don't like, then drop it if that's your choice.
I once showed a new player how to make a character (a Wizard too, so fairly complex compared to other classes) in just a bit less then fifteen minutes and that was all he needed to do to make it playable when he was late for the group.
>>48272832
>I honestly liked the complexity of 3.5, but didn't particularly enjoy dealing with my PC's using splats to make all sorts of twink shit.
That's always up to the GM though.
You can pick and choose what splat you like and ban what you don't like. Part of what makes the system great is all the options but they're just that.
Only an idiot would consider everything all together, including Pazio's fucktarded errata.
>>48272821
I guess you will need to spell this out for me. Are you implying that 3.X and Pathfinder are too complex with their algorithms? Because while I can agree with that statement, it's not the only factor in overall design.
>>48272833
Depends on how you define it I guess.
Rituals+utility spells put casters way above martials in everything but combat... and they are not THAT much behind in combat, especially if you twink a bit.
But if you only consider combat, yeah, they are fine until about ~10-ish, then the skeletons start reaching critical mass.
>>48272884
I'm saying that their mixing of natural language with rules verbiage leads to unclear rules that take up way more space than they should. It's not a matter of complexity, it's a matter of clarity.
>>48272787
So... RPability of 3.X with the combat of 4e? I could get behind that.
>>48272937
>with the combat of 4e
Hahahahaha.
No.
More like the RP of 4e with the combat of 3.5 sans opportunity attacks for everything and instant kill rocket tags, and without the near infinite amount of small bonuses of either.
It's not a bad game, mind, but combat is not really like 4e.
>>48272961
Opportunity Attacks are in 5e. Generally only 1 per character per round though, if that small number was what you were referring to.
5E is essentially classic D&D, with a feeling closer to AD&D than any other edition. It's a fairly rules light system that uses bounded accuracy to keep everything fairly evenly balanced but retains the old school feel of the game.
advantage/disadvantage is great to adjudicate things on the fly you lose a degree of verisimilitude but with the plus of being able to attempt a lot more in game and not have to remember a huge amount of situational modifiers.
Proficiency essentially replaces skill ranks , it essentially provides a flat bonus to whatever you're good at and can be gained through tools as well as. Your background. A lot of fluffy things are hand waved as a result. You don't need to put points into playing a violen or crafting you can just do it if you're proficient.
There's therefore also no skill checks, just ability checks and likewise every stat is a save so no more fort, will, reflex. And you can make intelligent saves now for example.
it's not perfect of course but there's certainly a focus on balance and ease of use. As I say it loses out in a certain amount of depth and 'realism' for want of a better word. Advantage and disadvantage just cancel each other out for example so you can't stack various circumstantial bonuses like say tracking a bleeding creature through mud at night in the rain but with your pet hound and work it out 'exactly' but it makes doing things on the fly more easy.
Combat is pretty simple and bridles. Cantrips are more powerful but fights are mostly those and basic attacks then the limited spell effects. Doing a lot of combat maneuvers is a lot simpler , there's far less attacks of opportunity so players are a lot more free to grapple, disarm , trip and so on as well as the more creative environmental stuff.
It's the most fun I've had playing D&D and it's totally anti munchkin/ rules lawyer so I love it . Give it a try!
>>48272983
You don't get an opportunity attack for shit like standing up, walking around someone, attempting a combat maneuver, etc. all of which work in 3.PF.
I actually have a player bitching about wanting to get an AoO for every fucking thing, cause that1s how it worked in PF.
>>48272961
Now you're making me question the whole system. I personally found the combat of 3.X a little clunky at times, but the RP was fantastic. I never actually played 4e, but the combat *seemed* to be much easier to handle.
My biggest problem with 4e was how it seemed to throw classes and races into a pseudo-vidja system. I loved tabletop because it wasn't a CRPG.
>>48273028
4e RP is actually the same as all the other modern D&Ds, people just got salty about the skill list being shorter and the skill points being gone (which is the same in 5e).
The combat is un-cluncked, but it's also not really similar to 4e, focusing on "theater of mind" instead of precise positioning stuff, and martials are back to using the same attacks over and over (but at least on the off chance you want to try something else, you are not penalized for it).
>>48272924
I will certainly concede that 4e trumps when it comes to clarity. But I'd take the arcane nature of 3.X over the vidya system of 4e any day of the year.
>>48273062
I loved the skill list and thought it was a great way of giving characters depth. Any good group can roleplay fantastically with any decent system, but I like it when the game actually caters to making your character "feel" developed.
>>48273062
The problem with 4E RP was that combats took 3 hours each so you didn't have enough time to RP in between tactically choosing the most optimal option for your hundred combat rounds.
Likewise there was also fuck loads of disassociated mechanics that were impossible to make sense of or interact with outside if the tactical combat grid.
>>48273095
>combats took 3 hours each
Use MM3 math.
>>48273063
They are about 90% the same aside from most non-essentials classes using the same power layout in 4e. But that's kinda why essentials was made.
It just puts "daily" on things instead of writing "once a day you can do X you regain use of this ability when you finish a long rest", and then you have the elf bitching about him only needing 4 hours of rest because trance leading into a 30 minute long argument that not even showing the FAQ to his dense fucking face ended HOLY SHIT FRANK SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT HOW IT'S UNFAIR THAT YOU DON'T GET TO CAST TWICE AS MUCH. GOD.
>>48273095
But that's true for all D&D since AD&D. It's a combat game first and foremost. If you want something that's not focused on combat, why play D&D?
>>48273101
Alternatively, don't play with retards.
Obligatory jab here about how that becomes easier and easier nowdays as they flock to 5e, but honestly, 5e is pretty good.
>>48273101
Combats still take an inordinate amount of time whatever math you did because you were forced to use a grid and had to throw 4-5 combats at the players daily to challenge them because of the huge bags of hit points and abilities . Not to mention tracking the huge amount of situational modifiers and abilities.
You could RP in it but you can technically RP when you play mage knight or Warhammer it doesn't make them great role playing games.
>>48273161
Please no, this'll become a discussion about how old editions were achtchually about avoiding combat and combat was the worst case scenario etc.
Plus you can't deny that 4e was the only edition that actually took the time to try and make the combat feel good instead of the designers just going "close enough!".
In that way, it really is the most combat focused edition.
>>48273028
>My biggest problem with 4e was how it seemed to throw classes and races into a pseudo-vidja system. I loved tabletop because it wasn't a CRPG.
Every single system with more than the barest minimum of combat rules does that, but 4e is at least honest about it.
>>48273182
3.PF has the same amount of modifiers, sometimes even more.
5e gives the players the same amount of recovery, but forgets to use a limiter like Healing Surges were. I had combats where the barbarian went down 4 tomes, each time being picked up by a single first level spell by the cleric in 5e as a fucking bonus action.
To make matters worse, most 5e monsters aside from the high level legendary ones are either boring as fuuuuuuuck with no notable special ability to speak of aside from maybe an auto-grapple on hit, or are casters, and can essentially oneshot the party on a lucky/unlucky roll (but then, the party can also oneshot them so it's fine).
>>48273161
You can have an interesting combat focused role playing game that doesn't involve 3 hour long tactical slug fests. The entirety of 4E was so heavily built towards tactical combat encounters that it didn't leave breathing room for much of anything else.
Likewise it had huge amounts of disassociated mechanics which are the anti-thesis of role playing for me.
>>48273233
>Likewise it had huge amounts of disassociated mechanics which are the anti-thesis of role playing for me.
Name one. And please not fucking bloody path.
Thanks for all the input everyone! I need to drive my roommate to work (still not sure how the hell he will function when I move back to CA), but will continue to read/reply if this thread is still up in ~20 minutes.
Just wanted to post this in the event that it 404's. :)
>>48273242
Essentially if a character in the game can't explain what is happening with a certain mechanic it's disassociated.
The rogues Trick Strike or pretty much any martial Daily Power fits this. They've learned this powerful attack but there's no explanation as to why they can only do it once per day beyond its a game mechanic.
Likewise fighters Marks are the same. There's no explanation as why you can force an enemy to attack you at a penalty to others, even if they're blind or unintelligent or anything else , beyond its a game mechanic.
>>48273363
>There's no explanation as why you can force an enemy to attack you at a penalty to others.
I find that you being able to attack anyone else willy-nilly while being harassed by a fighter is more immersion breaking than the opposite (marks, that is).
>>48273428
Why can't everyone mark?
Are you saying that a ranger isn't as threatening as a fighter?
>>48273458
Why can't everyone throw fireballs?
Simply put, he isn't trained in being as harassing as the fighter. He's still threatening, hence AoOs and flanking and stuff, but not to the same degree.
>>48273428
You can choose to attack another target and risk the fighter attacking you via attacks of opportunity etc which makes in game character sense.
"I wanted to race up and smash tht annoying Elf wizard but had to suffer the blows of that monstrous half orc in front of him to do it "
>>48273474
There is nothing about a fighter that makes them more THREATENING than a ranger who will eviscerate you.
>>48273491
The point is that the fighter is trained in a style that interferes more with opponents that try to attack allies than the ranger. This could be about being threatening (fighters can train in intimidate after all) but could be pure martial skill focused on defensiveness instead of offensiveness like the ranger.
The ranger can't do it because he is trained in a different style. He can pick it up by multiclassing (or themes, or any of the other methods available) if he wants to.
>>48273483
Sure, the Fighter is also better at that, but he can also interfere when you are already standing right next to him.
Is this really so hard to accept? I mean, I can see it is, but I'm not sure what the hangup is.
>>48272792
>It focuses more on the roleplay aspect
Whenever I see a roleplaying game claim to do this, it gets instantly dropped. So fuckign sick of the smug superior "yeah we ROLEPLAY unlike you ROLL PLAYING you stupid fuck" attitude that they think is marketing.
5ed is the best edition I have played since AD&D.
Does it have faults? Yeah, pretty much any d20 focused system does, but on the whole it is pretty easy to get into, combat is solid, RP elements are solid, and the game itself is just well done from the ground up.
To be honest though, the best fantasy rpg I have played is still Warhammer Fantasy RPG 3e. It had a lot of bits and bobs to it, but it really did a lot of roleplaying stuff better than anything else I have played to the point I use some of the stuff from that system to make 3e better.
The biggest thing? A progress track. Simple line with ten dot on it and a big dot in the middle with a token on the bottom of the dots and a token on the top. Top is bad guys, bottom is players.
While the players do shit, the top token moves every so often (if they are asking the wrong questions in the wrong part of town, not keeping a low profile, or just fucking off) and if they mess up bad enough, it will jump forward pretty fast as a big clue they fucked up.
At the mid point, something has changed from a story point.
For example, the group is trying to find a stolen dragon egg. They ask around a tavern for clues and get some information (bottom advances a tick) and start following leads without paying off their source, silencing him in any way, or covering up that they had been there (top advances).
They find the guy who actually committed the theft (he was paid to do so and passed the egg off) and proceeded to have a foot chase with him. They lose (top advances by two).
To make it simple, the bad guys get to the halfway mark which causes the egg to be moved to a different location, be put under better lock and guard, and the BBEG is now on the scene.
If they would have made it halfway before the bad guys, they would have found the location before they had moved it. However, if they didn't act quickly, the bad guys would still get that marker half-way and move the egg to make it more of a whore to get.
>>48273007
>with a feeling closer to AD&D than any other edition
Confirmed for never playing AD&D
Complex subsystems and once per day second wind abilities are a 4e thing borne of late 3.5. They have nothing to do with and feel nothing like AD&D and it is very clear you never played it.
D&D 5e tried to pander to grognards and it was a fucking terrible idea. Guess what, Wizards of the Coast? Grogs don't want to play the new edition, because they already have their AD&D group they've been in for 30 years. Or they are playing Lamentations of the fucking Flame Princess and jacking off to the NSFW art.
inb4 some "grognard" tries to talk about 5e "renewed his interest in the hobby" and act like the 5% of 5e players who were into AD&D somehow justifies designing the system to pander to them. Just like the 5% of trannies who play D&D, justifies designing the system to pander to them.
>>48273601
The tracker can be used for chase mechanics as well.
On the whole, it just adds urgency to the parties actions and keeps them moving forward instead of wasting time. It also serves as a clue that they are on the wrong path and should investigate elsewhere.
The mechanic also makes the world feel less static.
If they happen to let the top marker get all the way to the end when they haven't even reached half-way? Bad guys win. Quest is over. You fucking failed.
>>48273249
Back.
I suppose the most pressing question I have regarding 5e is how the game handles proficiencies vs. how 3.X handled skills. Can you pick up additional proficiencies? How do they improve?
>>48273601
>5ed is the best edition I have played since AD&D.
You provide literally zero evidence to back this up so your opinion is invalid as far as this thread is concerned.
WFRP 3e is fucking garbage. That track sounds like absolute shit and yet another one of these "story mechanics" that just restricts the plot of the game for no reason.
If you want a good fantasy roleplaying game, try Dungeon World. It's the best RPG out there on the market currently. It has fast easy to use mechsnics and is perfect for beginners, it's a lot cheaper than most of these other rules bloated systems that cost fifty dollars. There is no reason for extra rules when it is he role playing that matters. Dungeon World is fast and innovative and still feels exactly like the spirit of ADND before DnD 3.5 destroyed the hobby and ruined a generation of role players.
>>48273621
There's an optional rule for learning more profs, as well as a feat that gives you 3 extra (which is also an optional rule now that I think about it, but I have heard of no parties playing without feats yet). Your bonuses for shit you are proficient in (be it weapons, tools or skills) improve automatically as you level.
>>48273634
You are either a troll, or an idiot.
DW's fronts and how they advance are actually pretty damn close to that track thing.
>>48273615
This... tracker thing sounds disgustingly meta to me. Maybe I'm not understanding it correctly, but isn't part of the fun of tabletop the immersion of it all? Things like this would make me feel like I'm playing vidya, which is not what I want from tabletop.
This tracker sounds like something a DM would employ and keep secret from the players. If the party gets "lost," isn't it up to the DM to arrange some clever, inconspicuous method to put them back on the trail?
>>48273621
>Can you pick up additional proficiencies?
Lol. No. That's the problem with proficiency. I like the idea but there are downsides and the fucktastic way 5e implements a lot of its good ideas are honestly most of my issue with it.
> How do they improve?
Your proficiency bonus increases by 1 every few levels. It is basically 1/5th level + 2. I wish it was 1/2 level + 2, then it'd max out at +12, which is a pretty decent amount, but fuck it, the bounded accuracy is pretty decent.
>>48273634
>try Dungeon World
Dungeon World is an aborted mishap of the much better Apocalypse World.
It's a fucking injustice that Sage LaTorra and Adam Koebel get jerked off to for Dungeon World.
>>48273621
You can, but it is pretty rare without taking feats.
You add your proficiency bonus to the appropriate skill if you are proficient in it.
For example, at level 5 you have a +3 prof bonus. That means if you have a skill you are prof in, you add that +3 and whatever modifier your stat adds as well instead of just the stat modifier.
With weapons you are not proficient in? you still use them, you just don't get the prof bonus for attacks. Shields? You still wear it fine, but get disadvantage to all strength and dexterity checks (same with wearing armor you aren't prof with). This isn't attacks and defense, but trip attacks, opposed strength rolls for grapples, skills that rely on those stats, etc all confer a disadvantage so it isn't a great idea to use armor you are not proficient with.
Go ham with a weapon though, you will just not get that sweet, sweet attack advantage.
In another context though, can you play D&D by yourself? I've never played D&D before and I don't have friends to play it with.
>>48273634
Dungeon World is a game based around "story mechanics" where a DM can say a dragon rips your arm off just cos but it doesn't matter anyway to your character.
>>48273642
Do different classes have differing amounts of proficiencies? Are there class restrictions on them? It makes me feel like the characters are rather static after creation, but then again, I have no experience with the system.
>>48273655
>DW's fronts and how they advance are actually pretty damn close to that track thing.
Except, unlike your shitty system where everything needs to be rulesrulesrules, the Dungeon World fronts system is open and freeform and is simply a tool for the GM to brainstorm, not a set of mechanics for him to follow. For a real gamemaster who doesn't need a ton of rules to tell him how to game, it is objectively superior.
>>48273681
I think some old editions had enough random tables that you could play by yourself but it feels kinda self defeating.
>>48273697
IIRC the classes generally have the same amount of profs (although some classes get extra tool profs, like the rogue). The characters are somewhat static I guess, but you do get new abilities every level.
>>48273702
A common trait they share with you is that they are both just tools.
>>48273659
The tracker isn't there to put people on track when they get lost, it is a reminder that they have something that should be doing and it is a way to let them know that the bad guys are not being static in trying to accomplish their goal.
To be fair, there are plenty of times when such a mechanic is uncalled for and I wouldn't use it. Raiding an ancient tomb for an artifact? No tracker. That tomb isn't going to suddenly change.
Your party and another party are after the same bounty? Better believe that is a tracker situation. You have something actively racing you for a similar goal.
I have played with and without a tracker for chases and quests that are supposed to be urgent. The trackers use is almost always the better way to go because it makes the players tense and provide a big sense of urgency in them which is the whole idea.
No tracker and they aren't all that urgent. That leads to people getting gay marriage legalized while the lich takes over the kingdom.
>>48273702
I've heard some murmurings of this RPG, but my first priority is finding a group that actually functions and is great to play with. I'm looking at D&D/PF simply because I have a decent amount of experience with the system and could fit into a group nicely.
Once/if I find one, I might look into DW. It sounds interesting. But it would definitely require a solid group of people to get off of the ground.
>>48273702
>A common trait they share with you is that they are both just tools.
Nope. Your is a restriction. Mine is meant to organize, not strangle. Saying "oh but you don't have to use the rules that they say you are supposed to use" is complete bullcrap, it's like excusing shittily designed systems like 5e as "just homebrew it bro!". Utter bullcrap.
>>48273753
meant to reply to
>>48273718
>>48273697
Yeah, rogue get more. Your class and your background give you prof with skills and a tool or instrument. At max a non-rouge will have about four skills they are proficient with and one tool, instrument, or game.
A rogue? Looking at about six skills and their class provides expertise allowing them to double up on some shit. I remember my rogue having +9 to stealth checks at level 2 for example. So they have more skills and a bigger boon to those that they do have for the most part.
The bigger thing is how they pretty much always have a sneak attack bonus all the fucking time in 5e.
>>48273702
Dungeon World story mechanics are *literally* things the DM has to follow. The entire game is based around the DM having to make a strict set of moves based around the players actions. It literally tells DM'S what to do in every situation mechanically that's the entire point of the system.
It's even less free from than D&D where DM'S do have a choice.
>>48273753
>>48273763
It's not my game/mechanic/whatever you fucking idiot. I haven't even played WFRP.
>>48273778
>Dungeon World story mechanics are *literally* things the DM has to follow. The entire game is based around the DM having to make a strict set of moves based around the players actions.
While technically true, this is because DM moves basically cover everything worthwhile you could do. You also aren't forced into them, you get to pick from multiple ones.
>>48273744
>>48273688
>>48273669
You all need to kill yourselves. It is clear that you have no idea what the FUCK you are talking about, and I am absolutely sick of it.
First off, Dungeon World forces the DM to obey rules just like the players, he cannot just handwave rule zero because there is no need for rule zero, everything can be accomplished within the bounds of the rules. There are no character "builds" in Dungeon World, so there are no powergamers, which is probably why you are all so butthurt, because you are rollplayers who don't want to try something else.
Also it doesn't matter if Apocalypse World is much better, OP wanted heroic fantasy, and Dungeon World is here to fulfill that promise. Dungeon World is also a clear step above D&D or any game of its kind. It is absolutely fantastic tight design that has been lauded by designers from all over the roleplaying community.
Also, OP, if your only excuse for playing Dungeon World (and you have no excuse for not playing Dungeon World) is "I can't find a group to play with" then you are a lazy piece of shit. It is easy as fuck to get a group to try Dungeon World, and it is far cheaper than D&D. If your players are not willing to try Dungeon World, they are not worth playing with, and their lives really aren't worth living to be perfectly honest. Fucking closeminded fucks.
>>48273778
>>48273792
It is clear that you don't understand Dungeon World mechanics at all so I would ask you to stop talking about them before you embarass yourself further.
> It's even less free from than D&D where DM'S do have a choice.
No, giving them those moves gives them more freedom, fucktard. It structures the game so that something is always happening. Whereas D&D the DM has the "freedom" to let the story just sit there while they jack off.
>>48273792
You're forced by RAW to pick from multiple ones.
What if none of them appeal?
You have no choice. I like free will in my role playing games.
>>48273837
>What if none of them appeal?
I can't think of a situation that's possible in, especially since you can interpret them pretty liberally.
>>48273814
You know, I'll just take you at face value and accept that you like DW and are using some kind of reverse-reverse psychology to get people to play it.
You are still a dickhead, however, and everyone would prefer if you stopped posting.
>>48273681
If you have a PC and a reliable internet connection, or have reliable access to a library with open PCs, you can go on roll20.net to look for people to play with.
Just be sure to read all the stuff the GM has posted about any campaign that catches your eye; believe me, being in a game with furries or other magical realm stuff is worse than not being in a game at all.
>>48273814
I resent being called lazy. I tried for a long, long time finding a group during my college days. What I found were either twinks or nerdcore people trying to be trendy. This likely has everything to do with the university I attended. I gave up once I got into the upper level courses for my degree because academics became demanding. Now I'm moving back to a state I haven't lived in for over six years. My old friends are scattered to the four winds and while we occasionally fantasize of getting something going online, it inevitably turns into "it wouldn't have the magic of sitting around the table together."
I am an easy-going person, but when it comes to something like tabletop, if I'm not having fun, it's not worth my time. I need all of my fingers and toes to count the number of groups I've joined and dropped out of because the group and myself were playing for different reasons. I admit, it's probably more my fault that theirs because I am more discerning, but the fact remains.
I still haven't appraised the scene in the city I'm moving to. I'll keep DW on my radar when I start looking in about a month, and I appreciate the recommendation.
But please, don't make assumptions about me.
>>48273814
DW is babby's first roleplaying game, and if you haven't been able to grow beyond it,. you're an unimaginative autist.
>>48273834
>>48273814
Go away Virt.
>>48273885
More ad hominem bullshit. Try attacking Dungeon World instead of me. You are the one who is wrong here, not me.
>>48273972
Well that's your own damned fault for moving away from your home state. Try getting into a field where you can find jobs in your home state, dumbass. It's what I did. It's called actually planning your life. If you don't get what you want from life, it's because YOU failed at planning.
>>48273991
>DW is babby's first roleplaying game
[citation needed]
>>48272754
It's the best edition of D&D wizards has put out.
Still D&D though.
>>48273007
>5E is essentially classic D&D, with a feeling closer to AD&D than any other edition.
You can fuck right off with that. It felt nothing like AD&D did and the ridiculous amount of HP compared to damage didn't help.
>>48274011
> I started on 3.0 in middle school and then switched to 3.5 in HS.
> It's the best edition of D&D wizards has put out.
Fair enough.
>>48274008
>Well that's your own damned fault for moving away from your home state. Try getting into a field where you can find jobs in your home state, dumbass. It's what I did. It's called actually planning your life. If you don't get what you want from life, it's because YOU failed at planning.
I moved out-of-state because it let me go to a $50k+ a year private institution for free for five years, letting me pick up two degrees and build a network. Leaving my home state to avoid debt and have money in the bank afterwards was a sound decision. I'm moving back to CA partly because I miss my family and partly because I will make more money there than here. How in the *fuck* do you think it's all right to assume that because I went to college in a different state that I suffered from a "failure to plan?"
>>48273814
>There are no character "builds" in Dungeon World, so there are no powergamers, which is probably why you are all so butthurt, because you are rollplayers who don't want to try something else.
Unless it's entirely freeform, I don't see how any system couldn't have optimal choices and therefore some characters which are objectively, mechanically better at doing things than other characters.
I find it somewhat more likely that Dungeon World doesn't have powergamers due to a lack of a large enough player base to support them.
5e is not at all like AD&D and even less like 4e. If anything, 5e is 3.5 except with less attacks of opportunity, no real skill system, and one-modifier-fits-all (advantage/disadvantage). I do not believe it was ever meant to reconcile edition fans (as some seem to believe) or cater to old-school players. Rather, its goal is to get those players who like 3.5 but don't like its complexity.
If that is you, then go for it. I cannot tell you if it is worth getting into, as that depends on your tastes, not mine. Do you like simple, quick games? Go for 5e. You want something with tactical depth? Don't. Its that simple.
>>48274008
>More ad hominem bullshit. Try attacking Dungeon World instead of me.
See, the problem is that I actually don't have a problem with DW. I have a problem with you being a dick.
>You are the one who is wrong here, not me.
I guess, I never considered that possibility... hmm...
...
Nope, I still think you should probably kill yourself.
>>48274115
Why are you even bothering to respond to a "muh bootstraps" retard?
>>48274031
What are you talking about? My group is playing through one of the modules right now and most single monster combat encounters can easily two shot me.
>>48274132
And you can't do it back to them. Not even close.
And the problem gets worse and worse with each level.
>>48274131
The same reason people are responding to a very obvious troll, presumably.
/tg/ never changes.
>>48274131
Hah, not sure. Kneejerk, I guess.
>>48274031
>and the ridiculous amount of HP compared to damage didn't help.
Confirmed for having not actually played 5E.
>>48274143
Depending on the archetype of the enemy, yes I can. God knows the GWF Barb can. And we're not even a particularly optimized party.
>>48272796
Thread should have ended here when it was clear OP was too simple minded to benefit from advice.
>>48274166
Confirmed for never touching a level past 3 in 5E. Go look at a Balor's stats.
>>48274001
Are you retarded? Virt hated DW.
>>48274178
Few people in this thread are actually here to help OP. Most are here to edition war with each other.This may have been OP's intent in the first place.
D&D 5e is popular because D&D fans are basically a 40 year old housewife whose husband has Erectile Dysfunction. She gets excited the one time her husband can achieve a goddamn erection.
That's basically what happened with D&D 5e. People were so sick of 3.5 and 4e and the constant edition wars between the two, and how complex both were, that they were happy for ANYTHING that wasn't a third attempt at something "new."
As a result, 5e has very few new ideas that couldn't be learned by visiting a basic game design advice website. Unified mechanics, bounded accuracy, et cetera. Hell even background mechanics are 20 years old, this isn't something Wizards came up with. They are twenty years behind the times in terms of game design and have been holding back the entire RPG community. The thing is, D&D's legacy mechanics are a core part of its identity, so the more they change, the less reason D&D has to exist at all.
>>48274132
That's cause you're 1st or 2nd level dumb ass. Also he did say that the game increased damage to compensate so no shit. If you have 5 hp and monsters deal 5 damage, then go up to 10th level and have 50 hp and monsters deal 50 damage, it's the same goddamn thing in the end. And it's still a shitty idea.
>>48274120
Thanks for the concise, relevant comparison between 5e and the systems I'm familiar with.
At the end of the day, I could take or leave the tactical depth of the combat. There are plenty of other avenues for that. I'm really just concerned with how much the system caters to roleplaying and a strong sense of uniqueness for the PC's. As I said before, any group can RP well given any system, but I like those that are naturally more conducive.
>>48274202
The wheel keeps turning, then.
>>48274118
>I find it somewhat more likely that Dungeon World doesn't have powergamers due to a lack of a large enough player base to support them.
No, it's because Dungeon World attracts better roleplayers who don't powergame, those cancerous fuckers reside in the denegerate mire that is D&D. Maybe you should stop talking shit when you don't know what the FUCK you are talking about, got it dumb shit? You're a little babby boy who thinks trolling on the internet is cute. Well it isn't faggot. You've never even played Dungeon World. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you have NO idea who you are dealing with.
>>48274199
Probably true, which is why he pretended he liked it as reverse psychology, just like >>48274241
We all know that the only thing Virt likes is trolling.
>>48274178
I didn't like the direction 4e took the game. That was clear from my OP. This thread was supposed to be about 4e insofar that comparisons between 4e and 5e could be made.
>>48274202
Yes.
And no.
>>48274199
Ah, to be young and innocent again.
Not everyone on the Internet is sincere about what they post, sweet child.
>>48274181
You know, I think I will.
>262 hp
>AC 19
>CR 19
My Rogue (currently level 10) has Dex 20 (and has since level 4, gotta love rolling for stats) and is currently wielding a magic knife that deals 1d4 piercing plus 1d6 acid (which a balor has no resistance to) plus grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls. By level 19 she'd have a +12 to attacks with that knife so she'll hit an AC of 19 on a roll of 8 or better, or 65% of the time. Each hit will deal 1d4+6 piercing plus 1d6 acid.
Being a Rogue (thief), my character will additionally be able to Sneak Attack for +10d6 damage provided either a) she has advantage or b) an ally of hers is standing next to her.
I don't know why she wouldn't be fighting side-by-side with the fighter of the group specifically to get that. So her attack WILL, more often than not, have Sneak Attack. So she'll be dealing an average of 8 (piercing) plus 3 (acid) plus 35 (Sneak Attack) damage per round on average from this one attack, or 46 damage.
So that is about 5.9 rounds until the Balor drops, without taking into account the damage from my character's other party members.
D&D is balanced around the idea of each encounter being around 4-6 rounds long.
On the other side of the field, between Elusive and Uncanny Dodge by 19th level, plus my current Lucky and Defense Duelist feats, the Balor is going to have a hard time dealing meaningful damage to my thief.
So...I don't see the problem here.
>>48274217
Except we're sixth level, dumbass, and besides the barbarian we're all thoroughly unoptimal.
>>48274269
>We all know that the only thing Virt likes is trolling.
And slowly murdering Elf women
>>48274320
>46 damage[a round]
>So that is about 5.9 rounds until the Balor drops
That is the problem.
>>48274320
>D&D is balanced around the idea of each encounter being around 4-6 rounds long.
Shit, I've been playing the game wrong for years.
>>48274320
>D&D is balanced around the idea of each encounter being around 4-6 rounds long.
No. 4E and 5E are, and that's a large part of the issues I have with both games. I *vastly* prefer rocket tag to this bullshit.
>>48274241
> it's because Dungeon World attracts better roleplayers who don't powergame
No such thing. At least, not really.
"Powergaming" simply means building the best possible character for whatever you're trying to do. We usually think of powergamers as being those insufferable jerks who greedily seek out every single advantage they possibly can and delve deep into splats and third-party supplements to build overpowered characters, but really, "powergaming" can be as innocuous as taking an ability that grants you extra hit points (or whatever) because you've noticed that the DM likes to send hard-hitting monsters your way and you want to toughen your character up.
Like I said, if there are any mechanical effects to anything in Dungeon World, then some choices are going to be more optimal than other choices simply as a matter of course.
>and you have NO idea who you are dealing with.
Oh please regale me, sempai.
>>48274348
Except that's one character attempting to solo it, when the fuck does that ever happen? Add a fighter and a wizard and you're looking at 3-4 rounds. Maybe even less.
>>48274321
>and besides the barbarian we're all thoroughly unoptimal.
You did point buy for 5e didn't you? I'm normally all for point buy in games but 5e's point buy system just makes such shit starting characters.
>>48274230
That anon doesn't know the systems that well. 5e doesn't play a lot like 3.pf despite people trying to claim it does. Your characters' backgrounds are more important to the game, your base level of competence is greatly boosted outside of combat, and the game took a lot from 4e - combat got pared down in complexity and HP bloat and isn't the rocket tag/whiff fest of 3.pf. AC never gets that high compared to hit bonuses, only "boss" NPCs have inflated HP, legendary monsters have been built to make a single monster battling the party interesting and fun.
Your session-in-session-out combat encounters will be over quick and are easier to avoid, you don't roll nearly as much, and a lot of utility abilities are just "you can do X" without frills or specifics.
Overall it's a clean experience that puts all the storytelling power in the DM seat and is designed to be much easier to house rule, homebrew, and use the optional rules presented in published material.
>>48274348
Why is that a problem? It's a Balor, it shouldn't go down easy.
>>48274362
Not wrong, just different. I personally enjoy longer (10+ rounds) encounters, since it gives me more of an opportunity to do cool shit like swing from chandeliers or knock enemies down stairs or other swashbuckly stuff. Which is not to say that I ONLY like combat - the most fun I've ever had on D&D was when we spent 60 in-game days traveling as part of a caravan, just roleplaying and getting to know the people on the caravan, with only the occasional combat encounter. Didn't skip or gloss over any of the days, either - that is, while not much might have happened on day X, we spent time making sure that we didn't have anything we wanted to do, rather than have the DM say "several days pass..."
But if/when combat happens, given a choice between short and interesting or long and interesting, I'll choose the latter.
>>48274372
Actually 4E and 5E were balanced around 4-6 round encounters after it was noticed that in 3E combat tended to be that long. 3E wasn't balanced around encounters of any particular length, it just happened that most encounters didn't make it past 6 rounds.
I don't know what it was like in AD&D or earlier, having never played them. Unless Baldur's Gate counts. Which it doesn't.
For the record, on the chance we're gonna start revealing our Power Levels, I've been playing D&D since the premier of 3.0 back in 2000.
>>48274397
>Except that's one character attempting to solo it
And a level 19 Fighter soloing an enemy in 3E is doing 200 damage a round against things with the same HP. A level 19 Rogue in 3E is sneak attacking on every attack for 9d6 minimum , and with a single feat and a couple of magic items it's going up to 12d6+19 on each sneak attack.
>>48273814
There are loads of power gamers in Dungeon World. The system rewards you primarily by making moves, so power gamers are the ones rolling dice a lot. Even the bonds system just has to be agreed on by the players, and every DW player says the RAW bonds are horseshit.
Then again, your probably the same idiot that says there is no caster supremacy in DW.
>>48274320
Sneak attack goes off on whether an ally of yours is beside the target, not beside you.
>>48274437
>after it was noticed that in 3E combat tended to be that long.
No, no it wasn't. Combat in 3E was 1-3 rounds.
>>48274403
The barb did point buy, rest of us did array.
The issue has more to do with our classes and feats. The wizard took a 1 level dip into cleric for no good reason, so he's behind on spell levels. And I'm a monk, 'nuff said.
>>48274453
Depends on level. Low level it goes on for a long time because miss chances, sweet spot levels were 4-6 rounds, and high levels encounters were over with whatever side won initiative.
>>48274437
>I've been playing D&D since the premier of 3.0 back in 2000.
A) I've been playing a lot longer than that.
B) That doesn't really mean anything because there are *still* idiots playing 3.5 who spout off stupid bullshit like "NERF MONK IT OP" or cry about a Fighter taking Power Attack because minmaxers.
>>48274439
Okay, but, why is that good? I'm not saying that it's bad, mind, I just don't see why it's objectively better to deal more damage.
>>48274446
True. You get my point, however.
>>48274453
As >>48274473 said.
>>48274486
>A) I've been playing a lot longer than that.
>B) That doesn't really mean anything
Cool. Power levels are bullshit anyway. I just got a sense that the thread was heading that direction.
>>48274321
>>48274321
>Except we're sixth level, dumbass
READ THE SECOND PART OF MY FUCKING POST WHERE I SAY THAT DAMAGE SCALES WITH HIT POINTS ANYWAY SO IT COMES OUT TO THE SAME GODDAMN THING.
HOLY SHIT DO YOU EVEN INTO READING COMPREHENSION YOU MONGOLOIDAL MOTHERFUCKER?
>>48274230
>I'm really just concerned with how much the system caters to roleplaying and a strong sense of uniqueness for the PC's.
It does that well enough, I think. Go for it.
>>48274442
>Then again, your probably the same idiot that says there is no caster supremacy in DW.
Except there isn't. You just want to apply your 3.5 boogeyman to Dungeon World to avoid admitting it's better.
Well guess what faggot.
It is better. It is better in every possible way. THERE IS NOTHING THAT D&D CAN DO THAT DUNGEON WORLD CANNOT, AND THAT IS THE FUCKING UNDENIABLE TRUTH.
I HOPE WIZARDS OF THE COAST BURNS TO THE GODDAMN GROUND. THEY HAVE HIJACKED THE ROLEPLAYING INDUSTRY AND YOU SHEEP PLAY RIGHT INTO THEIR HAND.
YOU DON'T EVEN RECOGNIZE QUALITY WHEN YOU SEE IT
YOU DON'T DESERVE TO PLAY RPGS YOU USELESS FUCKWITS.
>>48274532
>THERE IS NOTHING THAT D&D CAN DO THAT DUNGEON WORLD CANNOT, AND THAT IS THE FUCKING UNDENIABLE TRUTH.
Squad sized tactical combat involving specialists with detailed, unique powers that rely on positioning and space control with tight design and relative balance.
Admittedly, only one D&D does that.
>>48274499
>Okay, but, why is that good?
This wasn't originally a question of whether it was good or not, it was a comparison of 5E to AD&D. 5E's damage vs HP is NOTHING like AD&D's.
>>48273233
>You can have an interesting combat focused role playing game that doesn't involve 3 hour long tactical slug fests.
At least with 4e, I'm not stuck hacking away at a wall of meat for until the wizard pops his SoL/SoD spells and end combat in one turn.
I mean, it was the only modern D&D edition where the martial actually had tactics that were viable to a given situation beyond rolling attack/damage every turn until one side of the conflict perished.
>>48274320
While I see what you're saying in terms of the combat math fights really aren't meant to be these dull mechanical exchanges.
A Balor can fly and has a 30 foot reach attack so he's going to fly and whip the shit out of you from a distance. Good luck getting your fighter within 5 feet of him without some magic.
It can also teleport 120 feet if anything does get close.
It also has an aura of fire so anything next to it or attacking it is taking 3d6.
>>48274418
I never got along far enough into the level for the combat to be rocket tag-esque. But then again, I think it's the DM's responsibility to make encounters engaging, challenging, and fair, not stick a bunch of monsters in a 10'X10' room and yell "FIGHT!" Rocket tag is pretty easy to avoid if the DM gives a shit and is paying attention to how the PC's are developing. At other times, high stakes can be great fun.
Thanks for the info, by the way.
>>48274531
Thanks for the feedback on the primary issue I care about. Could you explain just a little more before I decide to order and peruse the PHB?
>>48274320
>AD&D Balor
>13d8 HD for 58 HP
>-8 AC
>can only be hurt by +3 or greater weapons
>70% magic resistance
>>48274574
I've still yet to understand why players will do tactical moves in combat if a little power card says they can but refuse to do so when the rules say they can.
You can disarm, trip , make called shots ( variant rules willing) , flank, feint , dodge , overrun , grapple , use the environment and anything else your imagination can come up with in combat as a fighter.
I 5E in particular there's huge freedom to do this and in 3.5/PF it was a bit trickier but a lot more powerful.
It's to me that weird players choose to basic attack over and over again then complain about it. I'd love to find a way to encourage them to do so that doesn't require MMO power cards.
>>48274553
DUNGEON WORLD CAN DO THAT EXCEPT NO ONE WANTS TO BECAUSE THAT IS WARGAMING SHIT NOT A ROLEPLAYING GAME
HOW DIFFICULT IS THIS TO EXPLAIN
Goddamn it i am losing my patience with you people. How can you be so stupid???????
>>48274672
There is race, there is background (which has mechanical effects), there are classes, and there are feats. Between background, class and feats, you have enough to give a sense of uniqueness for PCs.
Also, you don't need to buy it to peruse it. Just pirate it, like the rest of us, and you can see for yourself.
>>48274751
Just make MMO power cards for the basic manoeuvres and give them to everybody. There's nothing wrong with cards.
>>48274751
Combat maneuvers were absolute shit in 3.5 and you were heavily punished for using them, whether it's between the necessity of investing feats just to start, soft or hard immunities becoming more and more common the higher your level goes, and the infeasibility of making more than one combat maneuver work well.
They're better in 5E, but they're still not good.
>>48274581
This.
Also, I'm really not sure why there is so much goddamn arguing about HP/damage/rocket tag/etc. when these are all purely products of RAW. The DM controls the encounters and can massage stat blocks and the rules themselves as needed. And while I would argue that changing rules themselves is almost always a poor decision, monsters can (and in my opinion, should) be modified to suit the encounter. This obviously becomes incredibly difficult at super high levels, but at that point, the campaign is usually over or has moved into a different phase entirely.
Are we all forgetting that these systems are templates for making your own unique, fun adventures?
>>48274766
No it fucking doesn't you piece of shit.
God, you're worse than a 4rrie.
>>48274532
>THERE IS NOTHING THAT D&D CAN DO THAT DUNGEON WORLD CANNOT
Sell.
>>48274815
And if the DM sticks to the rules, as is what usually happens when there's not an obvious problem?
>>48274815
But that requires people who actually tailor their adventures to the players, rather than RAW whiteroom theorycrafting which is what the game is all about anon!
>>48274751
>It's to me that weird players choose to basic attack over and over again then complain about it.
It's because hacking away at a meatshield in 3.X is more efficient than performing a maneuver and getting fucked for it.
You needed like three feats, minimum, to be good at performing a maneuver like trip or disarm or grapple and even then, most creatures you fight in later levels are immune to these maneuvers in some way.
That and you eat an AoO if you didn't invest in a feat at all.
And you still had to deal with shitloads of penalties if you performed a maneuver on a creature that had a soft immunity to it, like tripping a four legged creature or trying to grapple large creatures.
In 4e at least, they made it so that you could automaticaly perform these maneuvers as part of an attack and made it so that even if you missed, you didn't invest a lot into the swing and something still happened even though you didn't blind or trip them effectively.
>>48274581
>Good luck getting your fighter within 5 feet of him without some magic.
Well, magic, or...
1) Hide so that the balor has to get close.
2) Lasso the balor with your rope
3) When tries to fly away, you can come with him!
4) this works a particularly well if you're a Thief and so can, among other things, a) move as a bonus action, and b) climb at your full speed.
>>48274695
Look, the original complaint was that in 5E, balors have ridiculous hp. In AD&D they may have lower hit points, but with a -8 AC and DR/+3 or better, they're also harder to hit. I'm pretty sure the net result, then, is combat will take more or less the same amount of time. It's just that it's more fun to hit and chip away at a large amount of HP, then it is to be constantly missing, or hitting but dealing no damage.
>>48274815
If I was going to play a system whose rules I didn't like to the point where the only way to get me to play anymore is an agreement to change things in exactly the way I want them changed, why would I play 5E instead of T3-only 3.5?
>>48274850
THAT IS BECAUSE WIZARDS HAS CORNERED THE MARKETPLACE AND IS LITERALLY INTIMIDATING SMALLER GAMES OUT OF HTE MARKET
ALSO MOST GAME STORE OWNERS ARE FUCKING PIECES OF SHIT, I WOULD LOVE TO KNOCK THEM DOWN AND STOMP ON THEIR THROATS. I TRIED TO GET MY FLGS TO CARRY DUNGEOn WORLD AND THEY FUCKING WOULDNT DESPITE ME LITERALLY OFFERING TO BUY THEM THE BOOKS MYSELF
>>48274940
>I'm pretty sure the net result, then, is combat will take more or less the same amount of time.
You are horribly mistaken.
>It's just that it's more fun to hit and chip away at a large amount of HP
No. This is game-ruiningly bad for me.
>>48274965
This is amazing. Tell me more.
>>48274969
>No. This is game-ruiningly bad for me.
Well, as the Romans used to say, you can't judge color or taste.
>>48274957
Somehow, massaging stat blocks or creating new monsters as a DM to make encounters interesting doesn't correlate to revamping the whole system in my mind. You're simply making an organic experience. I would strongly argue that blinders-on, RAW lawyers are missing the point of tabletop, but that's just my own personal views on the matter.
>T3-only 3.5
I have no idea what this means.
>>48275025
That means 3.5 where the only allowed classes are those considered "Tier 3" by the optimisation community, including Warblade, Swordsage, Crusader, Binder, Bard, Beguiler, Psychic Warrior, and the like, and not more powerful classes (Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Psion, Sorcerer, etc) or less powerful classes (Fighter, Rogue, Monk, etc).
>>48274939
Isn't part of the fun of combat encounters in tabletop the fact that no single character or build can handle every situation equally well? Why should trip/bullrush/grapple work equally well, all the time, with no penalties ever?
I think it's a sign of a bad DM if these mechanics can't be implemented well, even in 3.X, during setpiece encounters.
>>48274940
Well fire resistant rope. .. but yeah absolutely it's a fight that needs creativity beyond whack a mole slug fests which these discussions always miss when they just discuss raw numbers.
>>48274965
Except this isn't true.
With an attitude like yours I'm not surprised they kicked you out of the store for being a pretentious asshole.
>>48275100
>Isn't part of the fun of combat encounters in tabletop the fact that no single character or build can handle every situation equally well?
No. "Oh you picked wrong at character creation, FUCK YOU!" while the game turns around to give blowjobs to the Druid for doing nothing more than picking Druid and taking the Natural Spell feat is the least fun part of games like D&D. Spotlight balance where it's effectively four players playing four different games that have no real overlap is far worse than a game where the party works together but isn't locked out of doing anything they're not specialized in.
>Why should trip/bullrush/grapple work equally well, all the time, with no penalties ever?
Because you had to overspecialize in it to get it to work at all?
>>48275025
Tier-3 only classes. Basically every class in 3.5 D&D can be said to be part of a given Tier. Tier 1 is for things like Wizards and Erudites, who can do literally everything, usually better than classes that are supposed to specialize in that thing; or else have abilities that can invalidate entire encounters or challenges (i.e., why have a Rogue risk failing an Open Lock check when you can just have a wizard cast Knock? Why buy horses and travel overland when you can just Teleport?)
At the other end of the spectrum is Tier-6, the classes who are just terrible. This means most NPC classes (Commoner, Warrior) and the Complete Warrior version of the Samurai, which was just depressingly bad.
The "sweet spot" is thought to be Tier 3 and Tier 4. Tier 3 (beguiler, bard, warblade as examples) means that you can do everything pretty well (but not better than a specialist) and generally have one or two areas where you shine. Tier 4 (rogue, barbarian, spellthief, etc.) means that you can either do one or two things better than anyone else and aren't very good at other things; or else that you can do everything pretty well, but never really shine.
The main point about the Tier system is that it is about *options*, not power. Power is a side-effect. You're not looking at damage output or saves or something, you're taking Class X and asking, "in situation A, can this class do a thing? What about in situation B? C?"
>>48275072
Gotcha. That type of play-style and setup sounds abhorrent to me, but I can see the appeal for others.
The reason I'm interested in 5e is because it's new and has gained a lot of traction, meaning I'd probably have a better chance of finding a group I'm comfortable with. But I'm not familiar with it like I am 3.5 and Pathfinder, both of which I personally find enjoyable.
If I could snap my fingers and reassemble my old gaming crew, we'd probably just use Pathfinder rules and play an epic three-year-long campaign before considering any other systems. Alas, magic doesn't exist IRL.
>>48275008
>This is amazing. Tell me more.
YOU WANT TO HEAR MORE. I WAS TELLING THEM THAT THIS GAME COULD BRING IN SO MANY NEW PLAYERS AND THEY SAID "NAH IT DOESN'T LOOK VERY GOOD" AND I ENDED UP TELLING THEM TO FUCK OFF
They didn't ban me from their fucking store, thank fucking god or there wouldve been hell to pay, these motherfuckers really are gonna feel stupid when they find out, they are fucking with the wrong person
>>48275178
>That type of play-style and setup sounds abhorrent to me
Okay. Why?
>>48275180
The more you post, the more I think you don't actually like DW.
>>48275180
That's because people want to play Role playing games not a choose your own adventure book which is what Dungeon World is.
In fact I'm surprised Steve Jackson didn't design it.
>>48275178
Because classes that can contribute on an equal playing field are awful. Gotta rev up that sword and board Fighter who's doing 1d8+10 twice a turn and gets ignored by monsters while the Druid's bear companion is destroying everything instead, yup.
>>48275178
In all honesty, playing 5E is basically like playing Tier-3/Tier-4 3.5 D&D between levels 5 and 15. You become pretty powerful eventually but never world-shatteringly so like in 3E or Pathfinder. Like, at 20th level, if you walk into the King's throne room you'll probably be able to take everyone there, maybe even the entire castle if you're going room-by-room, but on an open field you're not going to be able to cut down an army.
Every class has lots of fun things to do without it feeling "video-gamey".
The major, #1 design goal it had was to *feel* like D&D. Seriously, during the open playtesting for Next that was the question the designers and developers asked the playtesters the most.
You'll enjoy it. Give it a whirl.
>>48275228
Of course he doesn't, he's Virt. Just ignore him.
>>48275245
>In all honesty, playing 5E is basically like playing Tier-3/Tier-4 3.5 D&D between levels 5 and 15
No, no it is not.
>>48275180
>"NAH IT DOESN'T LOOK VERY GOOD"
He's not wrong.
>>48275242
>not a choose your own adventure book which is what Dungeon World is.
That is not even close to what Dungeon World is, stop lying. You have never picked up a Dungeon World core rulebook or read it, so admit it, you lying little fuck. How dare you spread lies like this, about some small indie game that is just trying to do some good in the world, in the face of a game that hopelessly outmatches it in everything except for actual quality. Honestly all D&D players should be gassed if they are unwilling to at least try Dungeon World, they are substandard roleplayers and they are consuming resources that should be for the rest of us.
>>48275212
>>48275243
Simply put, the DM has a robust set of tools and options to control the flow of the game. Immunities and resistances are there for a reason, not simply to make a monster "tougher," but to modify how a party tackles an encounter. When I DM'ed, I strayed away entirely from pitched battles unless they were set-pieces (and those required a lot of care and preparation) because pitched battles always cater to the more robust classes. A solid DM can make any combination of classes work together and compliment each other well, but it takes time and effort (which is why I understand the appeal limiting class choice). Personally, though, I'd rather let players choose whatever they want and find creative ways to balance the game if I'm DMing. And if I'm playing, I usually go with a niche character that is usually support/specialist in combat with some major advantages out of combat. I never understood the dick-measuring between different PC's in combat because as far as I'm concerned, combat is only half of what the game's about.
>>48275245
Then it sounds worthy of my time to acquire the core and check out the nitty-gritty. Thanks for the informed post.
>>48275261
Why not?
>>48275467
What you're saying is nice but it's not how games like 3.5 work out in practice. You can try as hard as you want, but there's very little balancing a halfway competent CoDzilla against a Fighter that's trying to go Duelist in combat and even less ways to balance them out of combat.
>>48275467
Ok, now you've made me curious. How do you stop a wizard with spells like Invisibility and Knock from making a rogue obsolete?
>>48275528
How do you stop a Druid from making a Monk obsolete?
How do you stop a Fighter who thinks the Duelist PrC looks cool from making himself obsolete?
>>48275528
Invisibility gives advantage on stealth checks, the rogue still has a much higher bonus to stealth and succeeds more regularly.
Knock creates a loud sound and can't be used for subtle infiltration, the rogue can pick locks completely silently all day long.
Also, both spells consume a limited daily resource so opportunity cost.
>>48275565
We're talking about 3.5, not 5E.
It's also possible for a Wizard to go Unseen Seer and then you're fucked because he has the same set of skills a Rogue does, probably even more due to much higher INT, but is also a full-on Wizard.
>>48275528
Don't let them cast infinite spells every day ?
Have npcs use see invisibility, dispel magic etc.
>>48275515
The pragmatic answer: Slap on some heavy restrictions that are explainable both in-game and in the meta.
The honest answer: Twink scum makes me rage and I can't stand people like that in a group, so I'd either leave the group or remove the offending player.
>>48275681
They don't have to cast infinite spells, a mid-level wizard will have more than enough slots for a simple heist. Also what kind of place uses See Invisibility and Dispel Magic, but doesn't use Alarm to fuck over thieves as well?
>>48275717
>Slap on some heavy restrictions that are explainable both in-game and in the meta.
Which is why people were suggesting T3-only instead of trying to do stupid shit.
>The honest answer: Twink scum makes me rage
Picking Druid and picking cool options is not the same thing as twinking, not even close.
>>48275763
The Wizard could be using wands to supplement their spells, too. Good luck with that one.
>>48275528
>>48275528
>>48275546
These problems don't arise overnight, by the way. A DM on top of his or her game will address issues of imbalance *before* they become a problem. Also, I'm of the opinion that not all PC's need to, or should, shine every moment of every session.
>>48275808
>A DM on top of his or her game will address issues of imbalance *before* they become a problem.
Only if they know there is a problem ahead of time.
Which is why same-tier games are suggested, not stupid bullshit.
>>48275808
The problem is that the guy that took monk or duelist probably won't get a chance to shine during any moment of any session.
>>48275808
They arise as soon as the characters get to certain levels or get certain common spells. A DM on top of his game will address the imbalances right at character creation by restricting the list of playable classes.
>>48275768
>Picking Druid and picking cool options is not the same thing as twinking, not even close.
I'm not implying that it is. But a player with a broken character usually didn't generate it by accident. Also, this a bit of a bad example for me because I've never played with a PC Druid. Also, it's been about four years since I cracked open my rulebooks, or have given much thought about tabletop in general other than "Damn, I miss doing that."
>>48275892
>Also, this a bit of a bad example for me because I've never played with a PC Druid.
A Druid without a single feat can turn into a bear that has a bear animal companion and always has the option to convert spells into summoning spells for animals. Add in Natural Spell, a core feat, and suddenly they're casting their spells as a bear. Even at level 1, a Druid has an animal companion that is as durable as a Fighter in combat, trips for free, and is better than a Fighter out of combat on account of actually being able to spot/listen things on top of scent.
>>48275834
>>48275870
>>48275879
Again, I understand the logic behind the decision to play T-3. I never said it was a bad method of smoothing out imbalance, only that it's not the method I would ever use if it was up to me. I only seriously gamed with an amazing group of people years ago and none of this was a problem for us.
>>48275977
>I only seriously gamed with an amazing group of people years ago and none of this was a problem for us.
Meanwhile, the first time I played 3.0 I got fucked over completely on accident because Fighters were terrible, sword and board was terrible, and Druids were broken.
You can have a great group and STILL end up with a fucked game if your group doesn't know 3E's problems ahead of time.
>>48272832
So, you like complexity, but only when you use it against the players, not when they use it.
5e is very much Mother May I unless there is a specific spell, so you'll do fine.
>>48272861
What encounter does a Fighter shine in that an animal companion or summoned entity not trounce them?
Anti-magic fields were common in your game, weren't they?
>>48276011
And your DM didn't address the problem in any way? That kind of nulls the definition of "great group."
>>48275941
>>48276011
This is starting to seem like a conversation in which I'm defending a system instead of the assertion that a good DM can fix wonky rules if needed. I'm not a system elitist, I just know what I like and what (historically) has worked for me.
>>48276061
Using splats for flair and customization
=/=
Using splats to break the game
>>48276147
You don't need to use splats to break the game.
>>48276108
>And your DM didn't address the problem in any way?
Not him, but so what if he did? A session was already messed up and somebody already had to roll a new character just because the book fucking lies in your face about classes being equal.
And then maybe SnB fighter decided to roll a finesse rogue, and realize that he can't pick up weapon finesse until 3 levels in, and then needed another fucking houserule.
I mean, unless your measure of "good" is "how thick his 3.5 houserules binder is" even pretty good DMs can walk into system bullshit like that, repeatedly.
>>48273363
>Martial Daily and Encounter powers are immersion breaking
Prima facie, they very !much are.
The implication was not that you could only take those actions a limited number of times, but rather that the opportunity for them to be taken only came up every so often. The narrative nature of that mechanic, while everything else had a simulationist explanation for at-will, encounter, or daily was not well presented and felt counter intuitive.
I personally like the A/E/D system even for martials, but it could have been presented better.
>>48276108
>This is starting to seem like a conversation in which I'm defending a system instead of the assertion that a good DM can fix wonky rules if needed.
But why would he, when he can just pick a system that has less or more easily fixed flaws?
>>48276082
I don't know. Fighters are boring as fuck. None of my PC's played a pure fighter. I think one was a ranger/fighter multi IIRC.
Anti-magic fields existed in appropriate locations. Certain areas (nodes) of cursed lands, treasure vaults, a dungeon theme, etc. There weren't any "spontaneous" anti-magic fields.
>>48276147
CoDzilla doesn't need a splat to break the game. As they were there at inception, that makes the game broken from the start.
>>48276157
Already covered it.
>>48275977
>I never said it was a bad method of smoothing out imbalance, only that it's not the method I would ever use if it was up to me.
Then what method would you use? I still haven't heard you suggest a concrete solution to the numerous problems listed in the thread.
>>48276205
A Ranger/Fighter is just as shitty.
Druids make them look pathetic.
Seriously what did a Ranger/Fighter do that could not be done better by a Druid?
>>48274940
>>48274940
>1) Hide so that the balor has to get close.
If he doesn't know you are there why'd he get close...?
>2) Lasso the balor with your rope
>3) When tries to fly away, you can come with him!
>4) this works a particularly well if you're a Thief and so can, among other things, a) move as a bonus action, and b) climb at your full speed.
It can literally at-will teleport you stupid fuck. It could also fly away, use one attack to smack you in the face with his whip, then the other to cut the rope.
You are fucking retarded and have no idea what you are talking about, trying to be smart without even knowing the situation.
>>48276257
A ranger/fighter is slightly less shitty just on account of getting 6 skill points, more feats, better saves, some actual class features, and even spells so he can use some spell trigger items (I think it can use wands of CLW at least).
Of course, the fighter levels dilute the spells and make your animal companion a fucking joke, but w/e, those 2 feats must have been real worth it.
>>48276163
A system is at fault when the game gets screwed up.
A DM is at fault when a problem isn't creativity and effectively solved in agreement with the players.
>>48276193
I think you are overlooking the fact that when I last played, 3.5 was "the improved" 3.0, which was "the improved" AD&D. I was a kid in high school and wanted to play D&D, 3.5 was what stores were selling, so it was what we played. Eight years later, the landscape is completely different. In fact, this thread originally addressed that changed landscape.
I agree that it would be a waste of time and effort for someone to correct a system when others are available. The point is that a good DM *could* do so.
>>48276295
Skills are bypassed by spells in most situations.
The few that aren't, do not show up on the Ranger list.
Ranger class features are mostly shit, coming too late to be useful.
As for spell trigger items... again, Druid does it better... and can make magic items to cover any weaknesses.
And you still have not given any examples of these scenarios where this character shined. That's the part that makes me think you are just making shit up.
>>48276318
But a smart DM wouldn't.
Why modify a motorcycle to fly when there are more cost and time effective aircraft available? Sticking with a game system, regardless of how flawed it is, while there are better options available, is the act of a fool.
>>48276318
A good DM would spend time developing adventures and planning in game stuff, time you suggest should be wasted correcting the system.
Your first priority seems to be polishing a turd. A good DM prioritizes running a good game.
>>48276257
>>48276295
There's a simple explanation for this:
It's the character he wanted to play.
>>48276240
So I haven't DM'ed or thought about DM'ing in a long while, but my rusty cogs suggest things like this:
1.) Civilized society would be generally terrified by a hulking bear shuffling around a party of adventures. So at early levels, shapeshifting and a bear companion would need to be left at the door so to speak until the party has the reputation to "get away with it."
2.) Quantity of summons should be capped for pragmatic purposes ("Okay Mike, how would you like to handle your 37 summoned wolves?"). Quality could be limited depending on how imbalanced it becomes, strong summons limited to certain types or terrain or specific areas, etc.
The game is suppose to be organic, not fixed RAW.
>>48276351
I should mention that this group did not have a Wizard, nor a Druid. So the ranger/fighter did all of the outdoorsy stuff. I don't think I need to list what all that entails.
>>48276394
Confirmed troll.
>>48276435
Part of running a "good game" is dealing with imbalance. They are one and the same. Obviously one would not choose a system that needs to be optimized at every turn if he or she could help it.
>>48276240
>>48276351
I guess I need to reiterate that thinking of methods to address such specific issues after years away from the source material is like asking me to find the steady-state solution to a PDE when I haven't even looked at an ODE for a year and a half. Not impossible, but I'm struggling because my understanding of the source material is not as strong as it was. I never claimed to be some prophetic, super-DM, only that many people ITT have seemed to undervalued the role of the DM to "the human computer."
>>48276654
>undervalued the role of the DM to "the human computer."
Almost all players do anon. It's part of what makes being a forever DM miserable.
>>48276750
I loved DM'ing when I did it. But I'm starting to think that the group was more responsible for that than anything else.
>>48276823
It always boils down to the group as a whole. One bad apple will spoil the whole damned barrel.
>>48276467
>There's a simple explanation for this:
>It's the character he wanted to play.
Was being outclassed by the druid was part of his character concept? Or was having "Fighter/Ranger" on the top of his sheet that important?
>>48276885
Exactly. This is why I bounced out of so many group where I live now and I'm starting to worry that the same thing is going to happen when I move back (though the city I'm moving to has a much larger gaming culture, so I haven't given up hope).
>>48276969
Issues like these are why the majority of experienced roleplayers prefer old school dungeon crawls as opposed to large expansive political campaigns. It makes it easier to pick up and drop games as needed.
Hi gayz
1) Does the unseen servant fly? It's a force so i don't see why not but the PH does not specify it.
2) My wizard got his spellbook destroyed. Can he still cast his ritual spells (not currently memorized)??
>>48277013
1) I think yes
2) Nope, needs spellbook
>>48277013
>1.
Not by RAW, but ask your DM
>2.
By RAW he cannot cast or prepare spells he does not have memorized.
>>48277039
>2) Nope, needs spellbook
FFFFUUUUUUUUGGG
>>48277067
or on hand in his spellbook.
sorry it's early here and coffees still kicking in.
>>48277009
I can see that. If I ever find a group I click with, though, I'd only leave if there was an emergency or some special circumstance. I felt awful almost every time I'd leave a group. Mostly because it was that uncomfortable the-group-loved-me-but-I-disliked-the-group situation. Which is perplexing to someone like me who usually attempts to please others over myself.
>>48277088
You seem to spend a lot of time talking about yourself and how good of a person you are.
Just food for thought.
Ok, here's another one:
If you cast Tenser's Floating Disc while being 60 feet above ground, will the spell fail or will a disc appear within 30 feet of you floating 60 feet above ground?
>>48277169
It would fail.
>>48277169
think it'll fail, it needs to be a few inches above ground level (which actually could be liquid IIRC).
I think it even has something about dissipating if it would ever be forced away, so you'd probably summon it and then it would poof out.
>>48277159
Hmm. Not sure where you're going with this. I certain wrote a lot anecdotally. I wrote that I felt bad about leaving groups. Is there something I'm missing?
>>48277290
Your mindset seems to be centered on you and how good you are.
When you say you felt bad about leaving a group, why did you feel bad?
>>48277405
Well I suppose I should say that some of the groups I played with disbanded mutually because of the people in the group itself. These were my first few attempts; I was desperate to play during that period so I would just blindly jump into any group that formed.
Then, when I realized that wasn't ideal, I started looking for groups outside the on-campus "Gamer's Guild." These were the groups I felt bad about leaving, specifically. About half of them were in-progress, so the group graciously accepted me when it was a slight burden on their part.
Really what it boiled down to was the fact that I generally liked the people I played with, but I found the mechanical approaches they took to be incredibly dull and limiting. The dissonance between liking the individuals playing and disliking the activity with those individuals, coupled with the fact that I felt like I was betraying the hospitality of those guys and girls, is what made me feel bad. There were never any hard feelings, but that doesn't mean it didn't wear on me.
>>48272754
Is life worth living?
>>48277587
You weren't betraying anyone. They were being nice and trying to make you feel wanted. Reality is they moved on and didn't give a shit after a few sessions.
>>48274788
Improved Trip + Knockdown was weak? I do not think so.
And you need to use creativity. Quickdraw and trip with bolas in the right moment can make wonders.
>>48277953
Knockdown is a 3.0 feat, and yes, tripping starts to get really really bad because you fight more things with size bonuses and more legs as you go up, not to mention enemies that are just outright immune to it.
>>48272796
Just ignore him, everyone knows 4rries are too retarded to talk to.
>>48277774
lol. It's not like I ever lost sleep about any of this or anything. I still talk to two of them every now and then when I drink with mutual friends. Occasionally, I get a little ribbing about it (which is a little awkward because this all happened three years ago now), but it's playful. They basically do the vidja and MTG now, neither of which appeal to me as a means of social interaction.
>>48277998
4e would have been kind of interesting as its own game. It didn't elevate D&D, though, and I found it to be incredibly regressive.
>>48277983
never updated and was in Deities and Demigods.
You can find it in the SDR
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm
Strike, deal 10 damages, strike again can be deadly.
And a buffed/equipped fighter is not so scared by 4 legs. True that you cannot trip ALL, but even a Zhentarim Soldier Dungeoncrasher fighter with a 2H polearm (guisarme), Shocktrooper+ Combat brute, and IT+Knockdown had plenty of stuff to do.
Is like?
3 feats IT + Knock+ CE
2 feats for dungeoncrasher
4 feats for CB + ST and prereqs
add quickdraw for stuff like a bow or bolas
You have an answer to a lot of stuff. Yes, is not a wizard but still.
>>48278107
There's a huge difference between a Fighter and a Dungeoncrasher Fighter. Dungeoncrasher gets features that make combat maneuvers worth the hassle.
>>48278156
Come on, let's be intellectuall honest. Dungeoncrasher is 2 feats, no more than that. Is a fighter. Same the Zhentarim soldier. Is trowing a free bone at fighters.
>>48278084
>regressive
Okay, that's the first I've heard that. I've heard it progressed in the wrong direction, but never heard that it'd be regressive.
>>48272754
>So what does /tg/ think of 5e?
You done goofed OP asking /tg/ that.
5e is fucking tits. The only reason I play TTRPGs over any other game is immersion. Thinking about game mechanics ruins my immersion. You can almost play 5e without a character sheet. Seriously, you have like maybe 10 numbers to remember for 90% of the situations you'll be in. I make my players use the double sided one on the wizards website, and if they don't fill out the fluff on the back, I call them a faggot and tell them they can't play till it's finished. Seriously, do you want to get to the fucking part where you pretend you're a dragon person swinging a battle axe at flying squid monsters as quickly as possible? Play 5e. Do you want a "long combat" to essentially be 10 minutes of you and your friend talking about how fucking cool your sword is as you gouge out some monsters eyes? Play 5e. Think the game isn't hard enough? Use the slow healing rules in the DMG. Fuck the haters. 5e is my second favorite roleplaying game. Right after the new Chronicles of Darkness and right before the short lived Marvel Heroic Role Play. You numbers and combat fags need to fuck off and go play GURPS or Chaosium or some other gay crunch filled bullshit like that.
>>48275100
>Isn't part of the fun of combat encounters in tabletop the fact that no single character or build can handle every situation equally well?
No.
Because you have some classes that can only do one job (Fighter), classes that can only do everything (Druid), and classes that cannot even do their own job effectively in comparison to other classes (Monk).
It's shit, especially when it only allows like half the available classes to contribute to combat while the other half are relegated to glorified NPC roles once the wizard gets enough power to end every other encounter with one spell and the clerics/druids can easily switch melee/ranged/spells/etc. without sacrificing any of their power or versatility.
>Why should trip/bullrush/grapple work equally well, all the time, with no penalties ever?
Because you have to invest multiple feats into performing these maneuvers well and any option that you're expected to keep for the rest of the campaign should get more powerful as you progress through the campaign, not FUCKING WEAKER!
>I think it's a sign of a bad DM if these mechanics can't be implemented well, even in 3.X, during setpiece encounters.
Yes, because players absolutely LOVE being worthless for 98% of the campaign, only to be thrown a bone by the GM every once in a while like a shitty tabletop equivalent to a QTE.
>>48276542
>Part of running a "good game" is dealing with imbalance.
Actually, part of running a good game is having everyone contribute equally and have fun.
Which is kinda fucking hard when one class can do everything while another class is lucky to be useful once every other encounter.
>>48273233
>Dissociated mechanics
>>48273242
>Name one
The entire encounter/daily structure.
I'm not saying it's a bad game, but if you want immersive role-playing, and want mechanics that can be explained from an in-depth character perspective, 4e doesn't provide that.
>>48272754
5e is 3.5, but with a few tweaks, such as a smaller number balance, less fiddly modifiers to track, fast monster creation rules, slightly less pathetic martials, and less reliance on wbl/magic items in order to keep up with the enemies, and less of a learning curve because there aren't as many shit options to avoid. Down side: very little character customization opportunities, and next to no mechanical support.
TL;dr: 5e is an easier to gm version of 3.5 with very few character options and even fewer opportunities to use them to customize your character.
If I were looking to play a rebalanced 3.5 with no mechanical support or cross compatibility to other 3.x materials, I'd play fantasy craft or t20.
There are lots of groups for it and for pathfinder available though, if your looking for a group.
>>48272796
Considering it's the only edition of modern DnD to not have casters be objectively better than martials, I agree.
>>48281003
>5e is 3.5, but with a few tweaks
This is really disingenuous, especially since you follow it with massive changes and even say outright that they're not compatible. Outside of resolution being "d20 + modifiers" they're hardly alike.
>>48281003
>if you want mechanics that can be explained from an in-character perspective, 4e doesn't provide that.
Whoops. Fixed.
>>48273063
And yet 4e never had a vidya adaptation and 3.shit had several including the only MMO.
>>48281110
It's a rebalanced 3.5.
On the player side its got a lower learning curve, and slightly more effective martials, but otherwise plays like a shittier core only 3.5.
On the GM side it runs like a better core only 3.5 - it could use more bestiaries, but making new monsters is quick and easy, instead of slow and tedious.
>>48281227
If you mean a 3.5e completely gutted with all of its internal workings and outward appearance replaced save for a few names, then sure, I guess it's a rebalanced 3.5e in the same way 4e is.
>>48281227
>>48281110
As for the lack of compatibility, that's a negative.
It means you can't rely on old materials (like pathfinder did in its early days) to make up for having little mechanical support.
And that would be something I could ignore, if I thought it would fix itself if we just have it a year. I'd simply put it down, play something else, and come back once it's got a decent amount of character options.
But, here's the thing. WotC made it clear their intention is specifically to *not* add much in the way of character options.
So as a GM? 5e is great. But as a player, I've got minimal interest. Id tolerate it if I liked the group specifically, but otherwise I'd prefer 3.0/3.5/4/pf/fc/m&m
>>48281188
4e *is* the vidya. No adaptation required.
>>48281552
4e plays like a Disgaea type tactics game, with little to gameplay outside of its admittedly very gamey combat, which is fine, but sometimes not what I'm looking for.
>>48281615
So does 3.x, but slightly less so.
>>48281775
By slightly you mean "not at all" as SoD and SoL effects rule the day and positioning/teamwork don't matter near as much.
