Why is DnD 5th bad?
is it?
>>43907767
Because it isn't 4th Edition.
>>43907767
It's not.
There are reasonable arguments against it in this thread: >>4383990
>>43907767
It's better than Pathflounder at least
>>43907767
Why can't you form your own opinions?
>>43907767
You. It's bad because of you.
>>43907802
Trying again.
There are reasonable arguments against it in this thread: http://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/43839905/
>>43907767
People like shitting on new(ish) things.
People like shiting on DnD.
Through logical induction we can assume people will shit on 5e.
>>43907843
i love 4th, i love dnd, but for now i cant' like dnd 5th
>>43907855
>i love 4th
>i love dnd
Those are mutually exclusive.
>>43907815
If you're going to make a thread why not just actually outline what you want to say instead of posing a vague question and then referring to a deceased thread. You're welcome to use the arguments found in that thread in this new thread, I posted quite a few of them and I give you my consent (not that you need it).
But what you're doing right now is asking everyone to wade through other people's conversations so that they can start a poorly framed conversation with you.
Might want to try again again.
As in actually fucking get it right the first time.
Holy shit.
>>43907876
I dunno, I enjoyed 4e. I prefer 5e, but 4th wasn't bad.
It's not bad, personally it's preferable to 2e and vastly to 3.X.
It is not perfect, I don't like what they did to martials and the license ( not open ). Although that could invite bloat that was 3.5s more bigger flaws. Some expanding is desired.
The biggest merits it has are the streamlining, advantage/disadvantage and magic item changes.
>>43908033
>the license ( not open )
The OGL was a blight upon gaming, anon.
>>43908007
If you ask me, 4e had a lot of the same sorts of issues that 3.X had.
I fucking love how they recut it for Gamma World, though. A clean and straightforward reinterpretation of the rules with fast chargen.
And if you don't want to play Gamma World's setting, you can just have mutations be like feats and tech be magic items.
>>43907767
>Refusal to slaughter sacred cows and design focused on legacy mechanics
>Playtesters consistently watered down the classes instead of embracing interesting new ideas.
>Whole game is built, literally, around nostalgia, which makes it creatively empty.
That's why it's bad. The reasons for why it's good are much longer.
>>43908048
Would you care to explain why?
I always felt it was a mixed blessing. It led to a lot of really bad 3rd party content (including Pathfinder) throughout the 2010's but it did release a long beloved IP into the hands of fans--which is kind of amazing in this day and age, when every publisher and media company is lobbying for eternal copyright.
I suspect there would be fewer good games if it weren't for OGL.
>implying this is not a far more interesting topic?
>>43908291
What do you think of Call of Cthulhu? The rules have been essentially unchanged for decades.
Why is it necessary to reinvent a popular and successful product every 5 years? Why not just play a different game when you want something different?
>>43907876
I find like 4e more compatible with liking D&D than liking 3.5, but what do I know, I've just been playing since 2e.
>>43908632
I haven't played Call of Cthulhu.
The reason DnD gets these complaints, and other games do not, is because each edition of DnD is basically a new game. Which has its good points and its bad points.
>>43908602
Personally I'm a huge supporter of open-source, so naturally I'd support OGL. Yeah it led to shit like Pathfinder, but I'm not sure if that really qualifies as a mark against it.
Without OGL pathfinder wouldn't have Path of War, AKA weaboo fightan magic 2.0 where everyone realizes martials should probably not suck horsecocks and shouldn't arbitrarily have to follow the laws of reality when nobody else does, and then are subsequently banned for rolling a big number in combat in a party with three T1/T2 casters.
The point is that OGL itself is a good thing, whether or not it brings in good content.
>>43908641
>I played a different game
>this confers authority somehow
Especially before the internet, everybody pretty much made their own D&D. I never even played a dungeon crawl til 3e--it was all heists, military wank, swashbuckling, and other stuff typical to pulp fantasy.
>>43908673
That's kind of my point--why criticize it for being "nostalgia" when the industry norm is to revise rules incrementally?
Even 3e was essentially AD&D with streamlined stats; it's mistake was trying to replace DM discretion with encyclopedic rules and runaway stat bloat.
>>43908690
Yeah, 1-2e was pretty great for that. I still don't get why dungeon crawls became so much of a thing in 3-4 besides, like, the death of the settings that weren't made to do dungeon crawls at all (although even 2e FR and Darksun weren't very crawly)
>>43908729
5e is expressly nostalgia edition. By design.
3e actually did some interesting things. One central resolution mechanic, and the addition of feats. 5e, by comparison, *isn't* trying to do anything new.
>>43908679
Yeah; even now the OGL (as in the license itself, not the D20 System SRD that it's often synonymous with) is a tremendous and helpful tool for indie content.
It's a great content license, all baggage aside.
>everyone plays it so it's bad
Everyone would've played 2e/3e if it wasn't oversaturated with unnecessary shit.
>>43908765
The SRD is also a pretty fucking massive advantage to the OGL. Despite 3.5/Pathfinder being massive brick walls of shit, they're somewhat easy to get into because you can just look up all the shit you need to know for free.
>but it gives players easy access to overpowered 3rd party content
don't shoot the messenger folks
>>43908735
I think it was the strong implication that killing monsters = XP.
Yes, there's a blurb in every book that says the DM can give out XP for story milestones, or for completing goals... but that's pretty easy to miss when monster XP gets pages of detailed guidelines and rules.
So instead of being about getting treasure and going on adventures, it becomes about "having encounters". And the easiest way to break the game down into a series of balanced encounters is to place it in a nice, controlled dungeon.
>>43908755
>not trying to do anything new
Again, why is this an issue?
>>43908755
Not him, but you're still missing the point. 5e is a refinement of AD&D. Not a new game. That is what most new editions of rpgs are. That is why they are called new editions of a previously existing game instead of being called completely different games. You're complaining about 5e not changing enough, (and by the way, it actually changed more than most new editions of other rpgs change,) But it's not meant to be a new game, why does it need to change things? Why is it nostalgia for a new edition to just be an improvement as opposed to completely different?
Because it is a completely gameist by desing, and I prefer actual roleplaying games.
I won't say it's bad, in an objective sense, but after DMing a campaign I found enough things that I don't like. Of course these are personal, but those are reasons enough to leave 5e for other games.
Things I don't like:
>The principle of bounded accuracy. I want character progression to be reflected in stats. I want the characters to reach a point where their stats are high enough that they don't need to roll for common things. Level 20 chars threatened by town guards is not a playstyle that appeals to me.
>I hate that monsters are back to "multiattack plus a bunch of spell-like abilities". Too few of them have actually unique abilities to show off. This goes also to the player's side, looking at the recent Elemental Evil stuff.
>Also, if we are going to have 2-4 hp monsters in the book, why not just give us minions.
>The "three pillars of the game" thing was actually quite anemic in the book. I appreciated the codifying of some procedures, but they played it ultra-safe, when they could have done something more interesting with that (this observation can be extended to the game as a whole).
>There is not much to combat either. FWIW the martials in my party are still struggling with movement and positioning while the casters either solve encounters with one spell or spam cantrips. As much as my players are creative and try things outside of the box sometimes, 90% of the combats have been soulless rollfests.
>Advantage is a cool idea on paper, but there are times where more granularity would be welcome. In fact, there are a couple of instances in the books of modifiers popping up. It streamlines a lot, but in the long run it might be too much.
>The economy or lack thereof. Players are rewarded a decent amount of money, but there aren't many ways of meaningfully spending it within the timeframe of an adventure (that is, without taking months off), unless I punt in magic item shops, which I don't want to do.
>>43907767
It's not.
>>43907855
Child.
>>43909027
Not him, but I'm over 30, started with AD&D, and still prefer 4e to 5e.
I'd say 5e is bad because it's a fixed 3.5.
Which is to say, it's still probably the best version of AD&D there is but it's too conservative in it's design. There's lots of room for improvement.
>>43909027
Nice contribution to the discussion. Child.
>>43907767
No support, quality drop after PHB and Bestiary, no new books. Dead on arrival.
Its not bad but its hard to give a shit when Hasbro isn't either. Better off playing PF, at least that always has something going on, even if its shit.Because its still D&D
>>43907843
Will?
>>43909001
Some of your points I can't argue with. But
> I want the characters to reach a point where their stats are high enough that they don't need to roll for common things. Level 20 chars threatened by town guards is not a playstyle that appeals to me.
That is down to you as a DM. DM fiat is a thing you know? Who rolls what dice, and for what, is down to you at the end of the day. If you don't want your players to be threatened by town guard, how about "the town guard take one look at, sword glowing with magical energy, and dire-wolf at your side, and let you pass." It's that easy.
>The economy or lack thereof. Players are rewarded a decent amount of money, but there aren't many ways of meaningfully spending it within the timeframe of an adventure (that is, without taking months off), unless I punt in magic item shops, which I don't want to do.
Again, it's your world. Design it in such a way that your players have to spend their money. In my campaign recently, the last two sessions basically had my party questing to earn money to buy a boat that they needed.
>2nd and 5th point.
I agree that monsters have fewer interesting things to do, certainly. But the experience of my combat has been the opposite. With almost no homebrewing, my party always manage to have interesting combat. The solution I have found is to have fewer combat encounters, and to vary the types of enemy in each encounter. To keep things spicy.
I'm not going to suggest that you're a bad DM, but it sounds like you have been playing a different game to me (and the other DM's locally who've had good things to say about 5e) altogether.
>>43909171
>new free playtest material every month since February
>free mini-expansion of official races and spells released alongside one of the campaigns
>three 1-15 campaign books, one every few months
>setting guide with new player options released last month
>new small organized play adventures released for free every month
They threw out all the improvements 4th edition introduced and brought back shitty 3.5 edition shit for no reason.
>>43908765
All your arguments in favour of OGL based on it being a helpful tool falls kind of flat in my eyes, considering:
1) You can't copyright mechanics.
2) The intent was for 3.x to dominate the market and rake even more cash with less effort from WotC.
3) The effect was that practically no one new played any other game than 3.x and used a pretty crappy game system for everything though it hardly worked for high fantasy.
It's not a helpful tool for "indie game developers", it's a simple way to cut-and-paste for people who're lazy and want to cash in without much work. I believe we had enough of those on the market without WotC flooding the market.
>>43909271
Unearthed Arcanas are just trash in general and poorly thought out. The Elemental Evil companion is just terrible. Forgotten Realm was done to death 10 years ago. 15 years ago. 20 years ago too. 25 fucking years ago too.
>>43909343
You move those goal posts, man. Meanwhile, 5e's popularity has boomed in its first year of release and it does, in fact, continue to be supported, albeit at a slower and more careful pace than previous editions. Dead on arrival it isn't.
>>43909249
As I said, it's mostly a matter of personal expectations and playstyle, so I don't blame the system for being designed in a way that doesn't appeal to me.
However, leaving aside the example of the guards, bounded accuracy is a design principle that is at the core of the game, and has some effects in the emerging gameplay. As for the setting, I was playing in the FR, and that has some other expectations too.
And I can't agree on your view about combat, not after years of 4e. I can say that we tried to keep things moving on both sides of the screen, but the system didn't really help us in that.
>>43908679
Why did Pathfinder need to unshit the bed when it came out long after everyone knew that 3.5 martials were shit?
Why did they shit that bed in the first place?
>>43909364
While I think it's pretty clear that the release model of the last two editions was untenable in the long run, and is possibly what killed 4e in the end, folding down the D&D branch of WotC to 10 people total (including art and related properties) and outsourcing the modules isn't exactly a sign of success in my book.
>>43907767
It sounds like you've already decided. So just tell us your opinion that you desperately want to share.
>>43909397
>Why did Pathfinder need to unshit the bed when it came out long after everyone knew that 3.5 martials were shit?
This is only my interpretation, not any sort of official statement:
Tradition and bad habits. 3.x/PF seems to have fostered the idea that getting big numbers in combat makes a class overpowered. This is why you'll see people claiming Fighters are good despite it being only decent at combat. This is because it does good damage and gets lots of feats.
Lots of feats means they get more things than another class, so this makes them good, regardless of whether those things they get are good. Lots of damage means things die fast when they hit them. That's really strong too, after all why sneak around the dragon when you can cave its skull in. Of course most people who have looked into the system with any sort of depth can pick these apart effortlessly, but it's all a matter of perception.
The wizard ending encounters in a turn or two by farting rainbows isn't as strong as the guy who kills a single enemy in a round or two because he got REALLY BIG NUMBERS and the enemy had exactly zero tricks up its sleeve.
>>43909397
>Why did they shit that bed in the first place?
Ivory tower design philosophy and good old Monte Cook turning his preferences into rules.
>>43909476
Monte Cook wasn't on the Pathfinder team.
I'm saying that, PF came out when 3.5 was dead. So why does PF have the same major issues?
>>43907767
It lacks soul.
>>43909510
>So why does PF have the same major issues?
Jason Bulmahn is the OGL edition of Monte Cook.
>>43909510
Because they were deliberately attempting to grab the disaffected 3e crowd when 4e came out, so they kept the basic fundamentals of 3e.
But you knew that already.
>>43909529
Doesn't mean I'll stop being mad about it.
>>43908641
>PnP elitism
>>43909510
A system based on 3.5, designed to pander to 3.5 players, and designed by some of those very players is going to have many of the same pitfalls.
>>43909527
Also this. I'm sure somebody has the screenshot of Bulmahn nerfing weapon cords via errata because he couldn't do the equivalent of ball-in-cup with his computer mouse and a string.
>>43909529
>basic fundamentals
5e kept the basic fundamental of 3.5. PF is a reprint, with additions that actually managed to make the game slightly worse.
>>43909593
He's not being elitist. In fact the person he was responding to was being elitist.
>>43909597
>and a string.
I would assume he just used the mouse cable, anon.
>>43909597
IT WAS A FUCKING JOKE
THEY WERE GOING TO NERF IT ANYWAY, AND HE MADE A JOKE
>>43909665
C'mon anon, you know there aren't jokes on the internet. Either you're serious and an idiot, or you're a troll.
>>43907767
Immunity to non-magical damage sources on monsters gets out of hand after a while. This would be less of a problem if magical weapons weren't intended to be scarce, and the game didn't present itself as one where martials don't require access to magic eventually, but it would still need trimming down so more of these are simply resistant. HP bloat is still a major issue.
Continues to use Score/Modifier despite having an ever-shrinking reliance on Score for different abilities and the like. Either make Score matter or streamline it out.
Ranger a shit, mostly because all its niche abilities save one are things other classes can do well, and that one is a situational thing that limits campaign options or hinders the Ranger more than it helps them depending on what direction the GM goes.
Monk and Champion Fighter need some spicing up. Weakest Monk archetype was nerfed in errata.
Less reliance on spell lists is needed, with more of an emphasis on non-spell supernatural abilities. Warlock in particular suffers here, since the non-spellcasting magic of the character is supposed to be its strongest point, but it's crippled by its own limitations and lack of powerful options.
Being able to do more in combat without relying on spellcasting or being a Battlemaster Fighter would be beneficial. Similarly, a SMALL extention to the feat list allowing for different weapon types and fighting styles to have more unique combat properties is needed. Many weapons are literally only worth taking if the version that does the same thing for less weight/coin is somehow unobtainable (example: unless you need the slashing damage for the maybe one or two enemies with resistance to piercing but not slashing, there is no reason to take a scimitar over a shortsword other than fluff because the shortsword has the same damage and effects for less weight and less money).
That said, I like D&D 5E. I just feel like it needs work.
>>43909665
Considering how often errata comes out shitting on martial classes, you'd forgive someone for not believing that to be the case.
Hell, the gunslinger has been nerfed at least three times off the top of my head despite it being mid T5 from the start.
>>43909711
What were the nerfs? Only started looking into classes like Gunslinger recently, since I tend to lean towards beating shit up in close range
>>43909931
A few of them. A couple of the gunslinger's deeds were changed so that they can't be reduced in cost by signature deed, keeping with that Signature Deed was changed to only apply once-per-round. There was an errata that altered multi-barreled firearms, but I couldn't give you the details since I don't really know them.
Abundant ammunition was also nerfed so that it doesn't apply to alchemical cartridges, which is a hard kick in the testicles for a class that has the most frustrating ammo management in the system, though RAW this does not apply to paper cartridges.
Given these changes, Gunslinger is now a very strong contender for "5 levels then drop it". And what it boiled down to is that Pathfinder Society is shit, and Paizo only "balances" for Pathfinder Society.
>>43909988
>Made deeds unaffected by Signature Deed
Why? Is the idea that they could do something spectacular regularly too powerful?
And Alch. Cartridges speed up reloading, right?
>>43910015
>Why? Is the idea that they could do something spectacular regularly too powerful?
I wish. No, it's because at-will is a curse word and being able to do ANYTHING at-will is bad. The nerfs were totally arbitrary.
>>43910015
>And Alch. Cartridges speed up reloading, right?
Correct. The primary reason you want alchemical cartridges is because when you combine them with rapid reload you get reloading down to a free action, which lets you almost be as good as any shmuck with a longbow and a two-feat investment.
>>43907767
Because its 3.5 with a fresh coat of paint.
To be more accurate and less trollish it tries to crib ideas from 3.5 and 4e and fails at delivering both.
Its slightly more balanced than 3.5, yes, but the classes are all boring as hell to play and it still has 3.5's 'I hit it with my sword for martials' with the addition of 'you can do something cool once or twice a day before going back to hitting it with your sword' because short rests are now too long to ever happen.
It doesn't have 3.5 or 4th's crazy amount of customization and character options, it doesn't have 3.5's unlimited wizard power or 4th's balls-out combat fun.
Its a middle ground edition, and it shows.
>>43909303
>1) You can't copyright mechanics.
There's a lot more to media licensing than just trying to have singularly proprietary mechanics.
>2) The intent was for 3.x to dominate the market and rake even more cash with less effort from WotC.
>3) The effect was that practically no one new played any other game than 3.x and used a pretty crappy game system for everything though it hardly worked for high fantasy.
Not really relevant to OGL being a useful license. As I said: "all baggage aside".
>It's not a helpful tool for "indie game developers", it's a simple way to cut-and-paste for people who're lazy and want to cash in without much work.
Again gonna redirect you to the post you're replying to: "the license itself, not the SRD that it's often synonymous with". The license is a content license, d20 SRD content is published under that license. That doesn't mean that only d20 stuff has to be published under that license.
There's a nontrivial amount of content under the OGL that has nothing to do with the d20 SRD or 3.X.
>>43909988
>There was an errata that altered multi-barreled firearms, but I couldn't give you the details since I don't really know them.
Wording was murky on those (basically all 3 double barrel weapons had different wordings) and they went with the one that's the worst for rapid firing (basically a vital strike for -4).
Also, musket master lost the ability to free-reload muskets, becoming basically worthless to use muskets.
>>43910103
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/gunslinger/archetypes/paizo---gunslinger-archetypes/musket-master
>Fast Musket (Ex)
>At 3rd level, as long as the musket master has 1 grit point, she can reload any two-handed firearm as if it were a one-handed firearm.
With rapid reload + alchemical this lets you get it down to a free action. Still stupid, but at least it can still be done. Musket master is probably the only way to even use a two-handed firearm past level 5 without being an embarrassment.
>>43910153
I just remember the errata that removing that option somehow, but I'm probably misremembering.
>>43909700
>Immunity to non-magical damage sources on monsters gets out of hand after a while. This would be less of a problem if magical weapons weren't intended to be scarce, and the game didn't present itself as one where martials don't require access to magic eventually, but it would still need trimming down so more of these are simply resistant.
You know what you, as a DM don't do at that point?
YOU DON'T USE THOSE FUCKING MONSTERS. You control the goddamn game! If you're not giving people the ability to overcome resistance, don't use the fucking monsters with said resistance! Simple as that!
And HP 'bloat' is a total non-starter. There isn't any. The monsters have higher HP so the fight isn't over in a single round, but even then you're looking at 4 rounds at most.
Champion is totally fine as it is, it does exactly what it's meant to do: Let people have a simple achytpe and watch the numbers go up.
>>43910072
>because short rests are now too long to ever happen.
It's utterly hilarious to see this lie repeated ad infinitam.
Oh, wait, no, it's trite, boring, and stupid.
>>43910193
There was another way to do it involving paper bullets and quick-draw mechanics, but it got nixed. Instead you have to have a special class ability.
You also can't use rapid reload to turn reloading, say, a revolver into anything less than a move because reasons. It's just bullshit, most people ignore those rules.
>>43910692
>And HP 'bloat' is a total non-starter. There isn't any. The monsters have higher HP so the fight isn't over in a single round, but even then you're looking at 4 rounds at most.
The game forces all the other numbers low and has to even out the thing somehow. This is a conscious design choice, but not necessarily a good one.
>>43910719
>It's utterly hilarious to see this lie repeated ad infinitam.
Oh, lie is it?
Do you often have adventures and dungeon crawls where monsters leave you alone for thirty fucking minutes at a time after each fight?
The world just grinds to a halt in 30 minute intervals after your encounters?
>>43910719
FWIW in the premade modules I've seen PCs have very rarely the chance to set aside one hour to rest without making things worse, unless the DM runs the dungeons as if they're frozen while the PCs are not there.
>But you're the DM, kape up your own adventures!
Right, but big modules have been the selling point of 5e until now, so you can't really dismiss them.
>>43910779
*make up
I don't know how that came out.
I've been playing and running 5E for a while now. It's great, but here are some things I hate:
1. Initiative. Initiative can fuck right off. It makes sense in Basic D&D, because it's like a competition every round to see who acts first. You can tell video games like Final Fantasy and Pokemon were inspired by this. It's more of a question of, "In this round of combat, who hits first?" rather than, "What specific order does everyone act in?"
For some reason time stops for everyone not currently taking their action, which I really don't like.
2. Saving throws. Why are they tied to ability scores? If you don't want something specific like "Save versus Turn to Stone" then Fortitude, Reflex, and Will were fine. Plus it's confusing to new players when the character sheet has two sections labelled "Strength", "Dexterity", etc. with different values next to them. What even is a Strength saving throw?
3. Hiding and stealth. It's split into three different sections and sidebars across the Player's Handbook. Mechanically it's quite simple, but the way it's organized in the book is a mess. Took me a while to realize if and why you'd get advantage on attack rolls when you're hiding.
4. Specific distances. Makes gridless combat a pain. Even with the DMG guidance, everything is still in five-foot increments. Say a random encounter happens, how far away are the enemies? Again, Basic D&D had some nice rules on this. 5E offers no guidance. You're just walking along, suddenly there are three ogres. Where? Who knows. The DM just has to guess. Maybe you see them from a hundred yards away. Good look doing that turn-by-turn and/or on a battle grid. Or maybe you are sixty feet away. How you missed those ogres, I have no idea.
5. Monster stat blocks. Someone made an image comparing 4E and 5E stat blocks (maybe 3E too?). I have to flick back and forth between two books to know how how the Lich's Thunderwave spell works. In 4E it was all one block. In the early editions, it was one LINE.
>>43910762
You know what an hour is? It's taking a bit to have a piss, cook something up, eat it, and patch the worst of your wounds.
It's called finding a little area just a bit out of the way, and keeping an eye open just in case while you do the above.
The fact that only a tiny group of people have some sort of freakout over this should show that perhaps YOU are the problem, not the game mechanic.
Congrats on avoiding the hissyfit refrain of "B-but if you can rest for an hour, you can rest for 8!" bullshit after its been torn down for the last 20 times in a row, though.
If you want to keep this up, however, let's step over to the 5e thread. We won't, because you know your asshole won't survive. But it's still an option on the table.
>>43910837
>You know what an hour is? It's taking a bit to have a piss, cook something up, eat it, and patch the worst of your wounds.
>It's called finding a little area just a bit out of the way, and keeping an eye open just in case while you do the above.
This in no way answers the question. In what adventure is it feasible for the world to grind to a halt for 30 minutes, let alone a fucking hour, each time a combat ends for short rest abilities to recharge?
>
The fact that only a tiny group of people have some sort of freakout over this should show that perhaps YOU are the problem, not the game mechanic.
An argument ad populum isn't an argument at all. A lot of people don't have a problem with the way fighter works in Pathfinder, that doesn't make fighter good.
>Congrats on avoiding the hissyfit refrain of "B-but if you can rest for an hour, you can rest for 8!" bullshit after its been torn down for the last 20 times in a row, though.
I don't even know what this has to do with our discussion.
>
If you want to keep this up, however, let's step over to the 5e thread. We won't, because you know your asshole won't survive. But it's still an option on the table.
>Step into my hugbox because I can't argue properly on my own!
No thanks fuckstick, let's actually have a discussion. Explain to me how it is feasible to expect 30 minutes to an hour of downtime after every single encounter.
>>43910914
>every single encounter
You're expected to have two short rests at most in a day. You find an easily-secured room, bar the doors, and take a nap or eat some lunch. You find a rarely-used side path, cover your tracks, and keep quiet, then do the same. It's honestly not that difficult.
>>43910914
>In what adventure is it feasible for the world to grind to a halt for 30 minutes, let alone a fucking hour, each time a combat ends for short rest abilities to recharge?
Very few. Like >>43910779 said, most of the official adventures wouldn't let you rest for an hour. Goblins would simply wander into the room you're resting in. There are specific areas where you can get away with it, like a cave outside the bandit camp or the woods outside the goblin cave (because an hour isn't THAT long, it's not like they search every location every hour).
The main benefit is that it once again teaches player characters they can run away. If a fight is difficult or impossible to win without the benefits of a short rest, they can leg it and recuperate somewhere.
>>43910951
>You're expected to have two short rests at most in a day
So then 'you do something cool once or twice a day before going back to hitting it with your sword' was completely accurate?
Why are we having an argument if that's the case?
You find an easily-secured room, bar the doors, and take a nap or eat some lunch. You find a rarely-used side path, cover your tracks, and keep quiet, then do the same. It's honestly not that difficult.
Nothing breaks through the door? Nothing finds you napping, smells your lunch cooking? For an -hour-? That sounds like a static world, anon.
>>43910974
>The main benefit is that it once again teaches player characters they can run away
This is one of the things I'd say is positive about 5e, though. The lower health and bounded accuracy ensures combat with anything can be dangerous.
>>43911010
>This is one of the things I'd say is positive about 5e, though. The lower health and bounded accuracy ensures combat with anything can be dangerous.
The flipside is that with all the specific rules on movement and speed and such, it's difficult to handle "running away". There are chase rules that I like for two specific areas (general wilderness and an urban environment), but if you have speed 25 and those monsters have speed 30, they're going to get lots of opportunity attacks.
I don't like how combat feels like a mini-game compared to the other two pillars of adventure. And it would be nice if there were some proper rules on running away. "Stuff to hide behind? Opposed Dexterity checks. Running as fast as you can? Opposed Constitution checks." It's easy to come up with this stuff on the fly, but it doesn't feel like something directly supported by the game system. In the game system, those bandits are getting opportunity attacks every few rounds, or firing crossbow bolts until you're hundreds of feet away.
At least its not Gurps
>>43911067
>I don't like how combat feels like a mini-game compared to the other two pillars of adventure. And it would be nice if there were some proper rules on running away. "Stuff to hide behind? Opposed Dexterity checks. Running as fast as you can? Opposed Constitution checks." It's easy to come up with this stuff on the fly, but it doesn't feel like something directly supported by the game system. In the game system, those bandits are getting opportunity attacks every few rounds, or firing crossbow bolts until you're hundreds of feet away.
If skill challenges hadn't been garbage this is something I think they could have handled if they were ported and fixed up from 4e.
>>43911094
DMG2 skill challenges were pretty OK for 4e.
>>43908679
>follow the laws of reality
>fantasy game
Magic users follow the laws of reality within the fantasy setting they're found in. Unless you need your martial classes to have super special magic (meaning, create your own setting where every-fucking-thing gets magic), there's nothing wrong with them "following laws of reality".
>>43911121
Or, Ooooorrr.
The fighter can just get strong enough to crack a moon in a blow.
No, fuck you. It's not magic. He's just that strong.
Fuck you, and fuck your retarded horseshit about "ONLY MAGIC USERS GET FUN THINGSSSSS"
>>43909343
What's wrong with adventuring in the forgotten realms setting?
>>43910974
>If a fight is difficult or impossible to win without the benefits of a short rest, they can leg it and recuperate
Doesn't that assume NPC stasis?
>People think taking a short rest grants you invincibility
>implying my DM doesn't roll to see if wandering enemies find us
>implying he doesn't adjust the DC of them finding us based off our surroundings or if we're in a "hot zone" or dangerous territory
>>43911286
Well you've legged it. You could be miles away. As I said:
>an hour isn't THAT long, it's not like they search every location every hour
So no Morrowind nonsense where you leave the cave and rest outside the door for an hour, but you could probably get away with those nearby woods/caves/whatever or putting sheer distance between you and the enemies.
Usually I roll for it. Give the enemies a Survival check, the DC depends on the player characters' actions. If they fled in haste they aren't covering their tracks, maybe it's a DC 10 check to find them in the woods, but it'll still take about an hour of dedicated searching.
>>43911121
Well, given the fact dragons, giants, and various monsters that make no sense biologically following real-world physics exist even without magic in the setting, it also stands to reason that nonmagical feats in such a setting are at a much higher bar than what's achievable by us level 1 chumps in real life. I don't see why it's so wrong that a human fighter in Pathfinder, who can survive a fall from ORBIT into lava and still kill a dinosaur singlehandedly upon emerging, can't jump higher than a normal-ass human in the real world can because realism.
But at other times, it's not even reality, it's arbitrarily biased game mechanics. I refuse to believe it's easier to cast fucking Time Stop than it is to hit someone with both of the swords you're carrying, but one is a standard action and one is a full-round action, and it's not the ones you'd think.
>>43910833
>4. Specific distances. Makes gridless combat a pain. Even with the DMG guidance, everything is still in five-foot increments.
I lol when people start shouting "THEATUROFDAMIND" when the implication that you are using a grid is baked right into the rules.
>>43911150
I don't think I can get through to you since you clearly have a vidya game-oriented mindset when approaching d&d. If you want all of your characters to be super special magical animu demigods, I can't help you.
I prefer engaging stories, not griping about what's on a character sheet and in the tables of the phb
I could take a classless commoner into a session and have more fun and be more impactful than you
>>43911508
>I prefer engaging stories, not griping about what's on a character sheet and in the tables of the phb
Stormwind Fallacy in full force over here, jesus.
>>43911519
I suspect it's virtualoptim on his daily trolling run. Pay him no heed.
>>43911067
The Pillars of Adventure was marketingspeak for "people bitched that 4e had no noncombat". The actual rules are what, two pages of guidelines each? Compare that to how other modern games (like the One Ring) handle different important sections of a journey.
>>43911476
I agree with you on that last bit. It's one of the reasons I've been going through each and every spell and making adjustments where necessary so that the super OP shit requires more than just "I use my action to win the game lol"
>>43911508
I'm. Just going to point and laugh at you.
Sure. Have fun and be more impact when you are literally unable to do anything, and die to a sneeze.
Sure. Suuure.
Also, I wasn't aware Irish myth was Animu.
>>43911529
Or, you know. 4e. Which actually has skill challenges that are actually tied to those things. And skill powers and stuff.
>>43911094
Skill challenges had two things that didn't work:
1. The DC tables.
2. 3.5fags who didn't know how to set one up.
1. was more or less fixed in later releases. For 2. there's still no cure.
>>43907767
Well, the rulebook was made by some sort of retards. For me this is more than enough reason to play something else, which has much, much more streamlined rulebooks.
Like 4th. Or 3.5th. Or some other system.
>>43911539
>Also, I wasn't aware Irish myth was Animu.
Cu Cuhlain is weaboo as fuck what are you talking about. And everyone knows that faggot Beowulf was invented by the Japanese.
>>43911584
>3.PF
>Streamlined
>>43911489
It would have made sense if they did the opposite approach.
Attacking with a sword? Melee range.
Hitting someone with a dagger or charm person? Short range.
Light crossbow (without disadvantage) or magic missile? Medium range.
Longbow or fireball? Long range.
Then the DMG could go on to give exact distances or perhaps distances each range covers (e.g. short range might be "from 10 feet to 30 feet"). Just in case you want to use minis or the specific distance comes up.
I know some people are really good at this kind of visual thinking, but it is very difficult without miniatures or some other kind of aid. What the DM says and what the player sees could be entirely different. And that's not the fault of either of them.
>>43911539
>I think d&d is all fighting monsters during a dungeon crawl
Ok
>>43911393
Take the first module that came out, Hoard.
In chapter 1 it's explicitly said that if you take a short rest you will miss one of several objectives, and that means villagers dying, and not everybody is going to put aside roleplaying for gaining some HPs.
Chapter 2 is talky and sneaky stuff with possibly no combat but a timeframe of one night.
Chapter 3 is the first actual dungeon, and it's small and packed, with a ton of kobolds and NPCs going around, and again you are on a strict timeframe.
Not all the module goes like this, but the places where the PCs can get out of the way in a safe place for long enough are not a lot.
>>43911624
>I can't defend my shitty opinion, so I shall build men of straw!
>>43911625
Hoard is widely acknowledged as utter dogshit by near everyone, not really the best use for any sort of example.
>>43911508
>I prefer engaging stories
So, the Chanson de Roland, Hercules' labors, the Odyssey and the Ulster Cycle are not stories?
Kay.
>>43911625
And after all that intensity the party does nothing but travel for months.
"Oh no ettercaps and giant spiders!"
"Don't worry, we'll get ten short rests after this."
I love that 5E has a lot of between adventuring downtime rules, but those don't apply so much while travelling. And the actual adventuring parts while travelling are fairly meaningless, since they're not as resource-depleting and exciting as that first night, or that time the group snuck into a raider camp.
>>43911646
Those goddamn weebs, stealing our culture via time-travel!
>>43911645
>Hoard is widely acknowledged as utter dogshit by near everyone, not really the best use for any sort of example.
Yes it is, but the argument is not based on the availability of short rests. Also, it's been the first impact with the game (and possibly RPGs in general) for a lot of people. And I don't think later adventures are that much different in regards of time structures.
But please, keep moving your goalposts.
>>43911539
>Irish myth was Animu
>Irish myth
>myth
Demigod, gods, etc
Yes
Trying to make your ttrpg adventurer a demigod during a campaign is textbook weebshit
Take bilbo for example. What magical God-powers did he have? Was his story boring?
>>43909700
>Score doesn't matter
Even at level 17+, you're only looking at +6 from modifier, anon. Most games aren't even going to reach the levels where modifier > score, and even then score is like 45% of your bonus.
>>43911684
Well Lost Mines of Phandelver was a lot better and felt more structured around 5E mechanics like the different rests.
I feel like it was written later? Or at least checked and edited before publication. Hoard of the Dragon Queen still makes mention of playtest terms, and has quite a few glaring mistakes.
>>43907767
They ignored all the good shit we got in the playtests.
>>43911646
>I just finished my high school lit class
>elightened
>nothing personnel
They're stories about demigods. Single player stories, to put it in game terms, appropriate for vidya games. Not your average adventuring party story fit for d&d
>>43911698
>Every RPG character has to be Bilbo and stories must be Lord of the Rings or else its boring weebshit
>>43911744
>Not your average adventuring party story fit for d&d
The shit adventuring parties get up to in the actual DnD books published by WoTC is crazier than 90% of mythical demigod adventures anyway.
War of the Spider Queen has some of the characters kill a God with a speshul sword, while another one becomes a God.
Drizzt need not be mentioned.
Time of Troubles is self-explanatory.
Elminster.
Those terrible Dark Sun books where they kill the Dragon and beat up Rajaat.
>>43911698
>Immortal set came out in 1986
>Damn weebs!
Oh sweet summer child.
>>43911646
>>43911766
>>43911787
Stop falling for the bait FFS.
>>43911744
>Roland
>demigod
Right.
Are you the same fucker who was complaining that wizards in 4e don't feel protagonist enough?
>>43911766
Well yes, more or less. It's hyperbole but yes.
How is cracking moons in half fun? Where's the struggle? Good stories often feature normal or slightly above normal people doing extraordinary things. Accounts of gods doing God-stuff is for myth. It's an interesting read, I love mythology myself, but not fun to play out.
>>43911121
Subtle caster supremacist is subtle
Similar shit happens in 5e
>I'm a caster, therefore I can have both hands occupied with shieds and weapons and still cast because I'm a caster
>I'm a martial, I can't for the love of God load a hand crossbow with my shield hand, I can't even stow the hand crossbow in my shield hand and load it with my now free main hand, I can't even put the damn crossbow in under my shield arm...yet the fagget caster can't hold all his shields and weapons and still cast
This is the problem with martials follow the """"""""""""""""""""laws of reality""""""""""""""""""""" and casters don't
>b-but spellcasting focus
Martials follow and casters don't
>b-but
Martials follow and casters don't
Also don't get me started with Barbarian thowing 2 ton rocks at you for dagger damage while the same rock deals 4d10 if you're caster
>>43911787
Right, I won't try to defend some of the official campaign paths or whatever
Gotta homebrew your stories and possibly settings to fit your group
>>43909303
>2) The intent was for 3.x to dominate the market and rake even more cash with less effort from WotC.
I think that it is time for the elephant in the room to be called out. Around the time 3.5 came out, summer of 2003, it was the best mainstream product on the market.
Classical world of darkness had just ended production and by that time herd of sacred cows that makes 3.5 look small time. New world of darkness had great ideas, but its math and balance were shit. Balance issues inside free build systems generally have a bigger end effect then inside a class system, at lest in my experience. Exalted 1e and no idea were it was going and Exalted 2e is rule wise the worst system I have ran. Shadowrun 3e was and is the worst version of that game. Shadowrun 4e was much better, but that fucking core rule book was a pain in the ass to use and read. L5r 2e was okay, but lets just say that the setting meta plot jumped the shark by the time 3.5 was a thing in the market. 2e D&D was better then 3.5 if the guy running it had a lot of experience and well made list of house rules. However by the days of late 2e if you had not run that system before and did not get couching to do so it was a nightmare.
Sure, there was some lesser known gems out there during the rise of 3.5, like 7th Sea or Deadlands. However they were not well know back then, and hindsight is 20/20.
I have read a great many posts here and elsewhere that blame the OGL for causing for the mono culture of d20 RPGs in the mid 2000s. I have also heard people say the same thing in person. They are wrong. 3.5 D&D was so much of a better game (and or better supported) people stopped playing the other options for a time. Because by the standards of the time it was great game.
Not to say that 3.5 is other thing other then a P.O.S by modern standards. Game design has come a long way.
>>43911822
>>>>>Hercules
>>>odyssey (gods everywhere)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>lelelelele
>>43911842
I never said casters weren't niggers. I'm saying fighters shouldn't get to shoot lasers and kick a hole in the moon
>>43911891
>fighters aren't allowed to be as good as casters
Is all I'm getting out of this sentence anon
Care to clarify exactly what you want out of martials vs casters? How powerful they're allowed to be?And do you prefer Casters or Martials when playing or making a character
>>43909700
>>43910072
>>43910833
These replies hold the jist of why I dont care for it. After gorwing up playing 2e and 3.5e, coming back from years of other roleplaying games I find dnd5e to be watered down. The backgrounds are a nice touch for roleplay but they feel handholdie and stop more interesting characters from being realized.
>>43911834
Thats an opinion bro. A valid one. One many smart men share. It is unfortunately just an opinion.
>>43911869
You are missing two things here.
1. the fact that the OGL was meant to choke out the market for the competition has been stated by some of the proponents, such as Ryan Dancey. Now, Dancey has not exactly a stellar reputation, but it's something he said.
2. A lot of companies with existing games tried the stunt of publishing a d20 version of their game, and generally failed. For a couple of years, before some of the good d20-based games came out (and I count among them M&M and Spycraft), there was a real glut of badly designed products, because everybody tried to put out a game.
>>43911945
My favorite class is bard. I'm currently playing an abjurer (wizard). My other classes that I lean towards are rogue, fighter, and sorcerer (I played a divination sorcerer for a while).
Ideally power level between martial and magical would be similar, but I think it should be "nerf wizards" and not "buff fighters"
>>43909988
Well, also the "only 3 free actions per turn", which makes impossible to reload some weapons and you end having more attacks due BaB than real attacks.
>>43911869
I like you. I disagree but I like your argument. Its compelling.
I would argue D&D's stranglehold on the RPG medium comes from some deeper name recognition. It is the only role playing game that is a household name.
I think it is sort of how Monopoly keeps outselling Settlers of Catan.
I started Roleplaying with D&D 3ed purely because when I tried to find a book it was what I was pointed to.
I agree that 3.5 D&D is a better game than it gets credit for, and I think you might have a point, but I don't think nWoD is all that bad really in comparison.
Then again I've only been playing for the last 10 years or so.
>>43908291
I would say that being based around nostalgia isn't inherently bad, but that it's important to capture the impression of the old and not the actual experience.
For example, The Artist is a modern black and white film that done's the impression of a vintage piece, but they didn't go and film it with a hand-cranked camera.
With games it's harder because the guts are all laid bare. The experience of playing the game can perfectly emulate the old impression of games before, but you can look at the meat of the system and see what's different, and it breaks the illusion.
>>43911991
Now this sounds more reasonable anon.
I wonder why so many anons here seem to prefer low powered games compared to the stuff offered in late game 3.5 and 4e?
>>43910837
>The fact that only a tiny group of people have some sort of freakout over this
You know it's actually the oposite, right? a lot of people complain about this in every 5eg ever
As a GM I change it, but when I'm a player there're tons of situations in which short rest for one fucking hour is impossible
>>43912068
I hate high-powered games.
I mean there's only so much you can do with 1st-level adventures (it's either goblins or kobolds) but I like the fact that you're still hitting things with swords and running out of spells.
4E was fun but I don't like the idea that people start out as heroes with powers. I prefer the idea that a low-level fighter might be equivalent to a member of the town guard. It's just that he happened to go raiding dungeons instead of defending a town.
>>43911698
Well, then Atalanta, Cadmus, Diomedes, Oddyseus, Ajax, Castor, etc, 100% humans who said fuck you to the "laws of physics"
>>43911698
Reminder that Beowulf was a regular fucking dude who tore Grendel's arm off with his hands, fought underwater for hours at a time, and killed a dragon without magical aid.
>>43911834
>Where's the struggle?
That there're scarier shit out there than moons, you can beat an army, that doesn't mean you can beat gods.
If wizards can create planes, reshape galaxies and fuck gods in the ass, why martials have to swing a sword more or less ok? and don't even think on swing 2 at the same time, that would be crazy.
People have been playing with overpowered wizards since decades ago, why not give some nitche tricks to martials? why fly at will is ok if you're a caster but jump more than 120ft if you're a martial isn't?
>>43912204
Sorry, didn't watch fate/state whatever.
>>43912068
Crap, I typed out a response but it got eaten
To recap:
I dislike high level stuff because it feels like it's just "more dice". You rolled 12 dude this turn instead of 3, good job. The monster had 4x the hp though. We accomplished nothing.
As a DM, I'm not trying to beat my players. And I don't expect my players to try and "beat the game". We all win when a good story is told. My job is to help them feel like heroes and have an impact on the adventure. This can happen at any level with any class, so why bog things down with extra numbers?
>>43907767
Lack of content for character customization, ambiguously written rules, overly simplified skill list.
They really fucking phoned it in with 5E. The system is simple which makes it popular with casuals / newbies but otherwise the lack of content makes it utterly boring.
>>43912103
>low level fighter might be equivalent to a member of the town guard
Then go play another system. DnD is meant for heroic fantasy.
>>43912103
>I prefer the idea that a low-level fighter might be equivalent to a member of the town guard.
But the rulebook literally says that even at level 1 the PCs are supposed to be above normal humans.
>>43912258
I dislike fly as a gm and as a player. I never said what wizards do is cool, I'm saying fighters need not be gods to be useful.
And fighting against a God isnt interesting. At that point, you've escalated things far beyond anything remotely relatable or engaging. Big numbers, exploding planets, etc. making things more 90s x-treeme doesn't mean more fun or interesting.
>>43912350
Yet wizards still do it.
>>43912350
Maybe if you are shit at it, but you can make an engaging story fighting against Gods and shit.
>>43912312
>>43912330
Well in terms of stats and such. A veteran from the Monster Manual is better than a level 1 fighter. I suppose a level 1 fighter is better than the guard monster, but he should be a guard who has only just gone beyond being a guard. The 5E backgrounds are perfect for this.
You're heroic but it's what you do throughout the course of the game that should prove that. Not the fact that you have a class and the Reaping Strike power.
>>43912391
Then it literally doesn't matter what system you play, as long as the heroics are defined by deeds in the story, as you specified in your post. But then you say that a mechanic like 'backgrounds' fits it perfectly and it really makes me think you have no idea what you want, other than to bitch to strangers on the internet about hating 'high' number games.
Again, there's better systems for that sort of playGURPS. DnD ain't it, bub.
>>43912369
I've bumped up fly by one level when I DM to discourage horseshit. I only have one munchkin player who likes doing that sort of thing anyways. He's also equally problematic when he powergames with martial classes.
Which brings me back to my roleplay vs vidya gaming argument. You can call stormwind fallacy but it doesn't change the fact that munchkin mcpowergamers are the problem. It's easy to have a balanced party of martial classes and mages so long as your players aren't being faggots
Rather than complaining about the math and the wasted playtests, why not use the OGL, SRD, Path of War and Spheres of Power to make a 5e retroclone that addresses these problems?
>>43912471
This, powergaming ruins everything
>>43912471
>powergaming with martial classes
That's called optimizing, powergamers don't use weak options, they always use the best options, martials aren't the best options.
Optimizing, for example, a monk is not only ok, but desirable, unless he sorta likes to play comic relief characters who die in the first encounter and the group is ok with babysitting him and lacking one member in the group.
There're subtle differences between muchking, powergamer, optimizer and minmaxer, people like to use them as if they were synonyms, but they aren't, it's like saying special snowflake, weeaboo and mary sue are the same word.
>>43912471
>Oh, this druid class looks cool, and I like bears, well, seems like I can have a bear while turning into a bear, that sounds rad. Lets see feats for my class...this nature spell seems like it's meant for my class, lets pick it.
>Suddenly without even trying the guy is 3 martials in one, while also casting.
With T1 classes you outclass 90% of the other classes without even trying.
>>43912471
Oh dear, are we going to talk about this stupid bullshit again?
What about the girl that played a druid, and took natural spell? The fighter is now FUCKING. WORTHLESS.
>>43912571
What is it with grills and Druids anyways? I've played with 4 different girls in different groups and all of them were Druids
At any rate, Druids may be OP in the sense of damage output, but how about a game that consists of more than monsters in a corridor? Maybe a social task that the Druid isn't cut out for, either by personality or by some special Druidic law/custom
>>43907767
Because D&D is bad
>>43912627
If the druid isn't cut for it I tell you the fighter isn't either.
>>43912627
Yeah, I'm sure those 2 skillpoints per level will really mean the Fighter is totally rocking the situations.
>>43912286
There's a lot more to 4e progression than that though. But to each its own.
>>43912706
Can you guys take your dicks out of the splat books for 5 seconds and realize that you can and should interact with things that aren't explicitly written on your character sheet?
Druids flip their shit over metal, right? What if the party needs the king's help, but first the king wants one of them to participate in a ceremony that requires wearing traditional plate armor or something. I don't know, I'd have a better example if I gave myself time to think, but you can't pretend that a Druid is literally superior in all aspects once you put the dice down.
>>43912789
>My dude with zero ranks in Diplomacy should be better than the Bard who has like 20 because
In cases like that you get a bonus of +2, period, good luck rolling Diplomacy +2 and not insulting the king.
>>43912789
>muh roleplay beats mechanics
Why the druid can't roleplay in this case?
>>43912789
Mechanically speaking Druid >>>> Fighter, there's absolutely no way, without tons of DMfiat, a Fighter can do something better than the Druid, srly, no fucking way unless stupid shit like
>Lets have a match of "who can wear metallic armor"
>Lets have a match of "who can die faster"
>Lets have a match of "who can't find food for shit in these woods"
>Etc
You coming up with a scenario in which the Fighter has a chance is already proof enough of the caster supremacy
Not talking about 5e though the moon druid at low levels can be really overpowered compared to martials
>>43912863
I already gave you one shitty example in the post you quoted. Brainstorming further examples is left as an exercise to the reader.
>>43911953
>Ryan Dancey. Now, Dancey has not exactly a stellar reputation, but it's something he said.
That is true that he said that. He also said a number of other things that paint a different outlook on the same subject. We just do not really know for sure one way or the other. Even if that was the case could it if done so if it 3e was a bad product by the standards of the time? When TSR was bought in 1998 D&D had lost its star status. It was the RPG of 'greybreads'. Most of the newer gamers played White Wolf products or Shadowrun. A good number of the long time gamers had turned to gurps because hurt over product lines being cancelled or because of OP splat books.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/122647-Torment-Writer-Officially-Apologizes-For-Complete-Book-of-Elves
Please watch the video.
Anyways the point that I am trying to make is that even if they were trying to do what you are saying they did not do so from a strong position and only achieved that goal based on product merit.
>A lot of companies with existing games tried the stunt of publishing a d20 version of their game, and generally failed.
This may hurt some feels, but there was a reason why they mostly failed. Many of the gamer designers of the era were unskilled. One may even call some of them hacks. For example I was part of a small community effort to make a d20 based version of VtM.
One of the first issues to come up was the level one HP/ scaling damage of weapons issue. Our fix was to give adult humans 4d10 racial hit dice in addition to there first class level. Meaning the bare minimum normal person would have is around 28 plus 5 times con bonus hp. Damage expressions were then based around how lucky the roll needed to be to put the target into the negative for a given weapon. If I remember a shot gun had like a 30 percent chance to do some were as a knife needed to crit and roll near max. That right there is a bigger innovation then most of the d20 remakes had
>>43912835
>gets asked to ignore character sheet
>immediately references something on the character sheet
>>43912789
No.
I don't have to PRETEND IT. The druid is better.
Also, why isn't the druid allowed to roleplay? Also, why is the game made such that you have to fiat excuses for the druid to suck, why not just make the fighter actually good?
>>43907767
>Because it isn't 3.5th Edition.
>>43912950
Your shitty example is that, shitty, because, for example, the bard of the group can sweat talk to the king and make him understand who stupid that petition is.
>I need your help, adventurers, but only if you can don full plates
Also Ironwood.
>>43912950
>I gave one really contrived excuse that exists purely because the druid is better in literally every way.
Let's try for not horrifically contrived this time, omea.
>>43912968
>Guys, guys, if you don't use this system, and ignore this classes shittiness, this system and class become good.
Here some crazy idea, why not play a better system? Like Anima, in which fighters can do stuff and awesome stuff without needing the GM to come up with bullshit to make you feel useful
>>43913013
Druid isn't literally better in every way, for example, Fighters have more consonants in their class name, take that, Druid fags. What if the King wants to talk with someone who has more consonats? eh? bet you didn't see that coming.
>>43912989
>every party has a bard
I'm not always a player. So they're not always going to have a bard.
>ironwood
Well it's a damn shame that the ceremonial armor isn't made of ironwood, isn't it?
And yes I'm fully aware of how shitty of an example that was.
But what about: a friend or relative of the fighther has means to seek an audience with the king. The fighter has to RP his way, leveraging his relationship(s), to speak with the king. The Druid will get her chance to shine later.
The DM should make sure every character has their turn being important.
>>43913042
Probably because he'd have a spastic convulsion.
>B-but. How are they doing it?!
>IT'S NOT REALISTICCCCCCc
>The King needs your help, but only if you can throw these shurikens with full proficiency
Monks are useful!
So it feels like 5e is trying to return to its roots by refocusing on the roleplay and less on the rules, and this is coming off as a disappointment to veterans who have moved beyond that.
>>43912960
You know there's a d20 World of Darkness? Made by Monte Cook no less?
That said, it's true, most d20 conversions were badly designed. However, it's hard to buy that the d20 glut is caused by a temporary disappearance of other quality games on the market.
>>43913071
Oh damn dawg, you got me.
They also have, uh. A d10 hit-die over the d8. Please pretend that the existence of wildshape doesn't totally negate this.
>>43913080
>Well it's a damn shame that the ceremonial armor isn't made of ironwood, isn't it?
It's a damn shame casters can't turn stuff into other stuff with some sort of incantation that needs vocal/movements and/or material components, a spell if you want.
>>43913114
>refocusing on the roleplay and less on the rules
This means absolutely nothing.
>>43913131
Fuck up the priceless ceremonial armor? Yeah that will go over swimmingly with the Big Guy
>>43913080
>I'm not always a player. So they're not always going to have a bard.
Then let the druid talk because DRUIDS HAVE DIPLOMACY AND FIGHTERS DON'T!
>>43913171
>Cast polymorph
>Cast illusion
>Cast polymorph again to return it to its original state
Or
>Cast polymorph/illusion on druid to make him look like he's wearing the armor
>>43913212
But what if the King wants to talk only to people who doesn't have diplomacy and have more consonants in their class name? eh? bet you didn't see that coming either.
Seems to me you all are unimaginative GMs, not like myself.
>>43913212
Maybe the king is a xenophobe. Maybe the fighter is a human and the Druid is a half-merfolk snowflake-kin.
But good job being literally incapable of saying something without referencing a stat block
>>43913139
I mean they seem to be streamlining the game to recapture the spirit of the old game by focusing more on imagination and letting players and DM bend rules to make compelling story rather than focis on numbers.
>>43913232
>implying the armor isn't kept safe, only to be donned in the royal fitting room the morning-of, with no outsiders invited
This retardedly contrived example is beginning to get entertaining though
>>43913262
>But good job being literally incapable of saying something without referencing a stat block
Again, if you're going to ignore the system, why not play freeform?
>>43913310
Because without a teensy bit of structure, it becomes a game of Mother-May-I?
>>43913262
Then the druid uses his shape-changing to become a fucking human, dipshit.
>>43913293
>Thank you, Fighter, for doning this armor, your name will be remembered for centuries...also thank your friends for stopping the infinite hordes of demons, I guess, not like I pay attention to unimportant shit like that, here, have candy. Now, Fighter, please, do it again in front of my people
>>43913387
I never said the king was bright
>>43912011
>I like you. I disagree but I like your argument. Its compelling.
Thanks, I like you too.
>I would argue D&D's stranglehold on the RPG medium comes from some deeper name recognition.
Then why did pathfinder out sell 4e for a number of years? Before anyone calls me a pathfinder apologist I am not one. I am merely pointing out that name recognition is not that strong of a factor in the RPG market. The reason I would give for it is that most customers in that market are long time customers. Most the time the people who buy the books are the DMs. In turn they cause the players to see the products if they feel like talking about a given product or using it.
>nWoD is all that bad really in comparison
I love nWoD. I was very active on the old white wolf forums for a number of years. However has very real math issues starting around a dice pool of 9. Which with armory and or the use of powers that is not hard to hit. Some of the powers were just not useful buys till you were 3 levels into it, like say Resilience. The merit could of have been better balance with each other. The most powerful fighting style in the game, boxing, was in the core book. Lastly defense was a bit hard to use at the table if there was more then two npc stat lines being used. Remember it could be upped in reaction to being attacked. This can easily lead to confusion.
>>43913262
>Druid: I try to sweet talk the King by appealing to his good nature and his wisdom *rolls*, nat20 on diplomacy plus my ranks 35
>GM: Doesn't work
>Fighter: I...
>GM: The King gives you everything, his castler, his 5 daughters, his wife, whatever you ask, he also start sucking your dick without forgetting to caress your balls...see, Druid? the fighter is better!
>>43913387
I thought ceremonial armor was just a cosmetic thing to tell people apart on the battlefield.
For allies
>Get over here you fuckers!
For enemies
>I'm over here you fuckers!
>>43913275
>Streamlining?
Yes.
>Recapturing the spirit of old?
They stated this, and I can concede it too.
>focusing more on imagination and letting players and DM bend rules to make compelling story rather than focis on numbers
Have you actually seen the books? There's a couple of nods, maybe, but they're mostly the usual D&D schlock. Less content != more roleplay.
>>43913518
>Then why did pathfinder out sell 4e for a number of years?
It didn't, until Wizards stopped putting out books for 4e, though.
>>43913524
Jokes aside something like that happened to me, I was playing a monk in 3.5 and the DM couldn't stop throwing me stuff like immortality (the one you can't die even if a nuke explodes in your face), hypermagical punches that could ignore all DR, immunity to half the spell list, being the living walking macguffin, having all the pussy in that plane, etc. It was awkward as fuck
Couldn't you just make a 5E-like from the d20 SRD?
Like say you copy-pasted everything but replaced the specific DCs with the 5E "Moderate", "Hard", etc. and flat out did a "find and replace" on the different action types (replacing Standard Actions with Actions, Swift Actions with Bonus Actions etc.). Overall you just whittled 3.5 down to something that resembled 5E.
Would it be a good game? I feel like in some ways it might be better than 5E, especially when it comes to hit points and magic items. The only thing really missing is advantage and disadvantage.
>>43913595
Did it make the stupid class any more fun to actually play?
>Obsolete, useless and bland as fuck option is better than any other because feudal lord fancies it
So Katanas > any other weapon?
>>43913080
>>43912789
I hope that King is a central part of the campaign and appears every session ever at least 4 times per day.
>>43911744
>Demigods
Hey, Fuckstick, try being literate.
Odysseus is at most 1/8th Divine. He's not by any means a Demigod in Greek myth.
>>43911698
He had a magic ring that made him invisible forged by Satan.
He had a magic Sword, forged in the ancient times.
Oh, yeah, and he traveled with a Dwarven KING and A FUCKING ANGEL.
Alternatively, you're right. The Lord of the Rings is a great example of D&D.
>Need 13 fucking martials to match the power of one full-caster.
>Frequently lose encounters, get trapped, etc.
>Half of them die anyway.
Angel Summoner and BMX Biker is still the best explanation for why a lack of balance between classes is dogshit, and you assholes never seem to get it.
>>43907767
Because it has HP numbers similar to 3E's and damage numbers similar to AD&D's. It's more padded sumo than 4E even thought about being.
>>43913670
you can still keep advantage and disadvantage though. They can't copywrite mechanics.
Even if they raised a stink over the exact naming of advantage and disadvantage you can easily change that.
I don't think it's bad, but I think some elements of the design could have used some work. They could have put more effort into toning down the full casters and they could have put more effort into making non-casters mechanically interesting.
As it stands, my main complaint about it is that I can't find any ground to justify playing it over a retroclone, which is simpler to run and quicker in play.
>>43912485
>>43913670
I would sooner want to see an SRD for 5e so that we can make compatible 3pp.
>>43911548
Skill challenges were an abomination that was actually intended to help you SKIP everything that wasn't combat. They're the tabletop equivalent of a QTE. Instead of roleplaying problem solving and using skills when appropriate, or having actual interesting and involved mechanics for non-combat, you just roll a bunch of meaningless dice so you can feel as if your're doing something interactive, even though you really aren't.
>>43908735
It's easier for the company to sell encounters in that format and it's easier for lazy DMs to stitch together campaigns using that model (whether it's just having an easier time balancing your custom dungeons or dropping premade material into your world). Non-dungeon-based games probably aren't much less common but the products are going to be geared towards the easier sale.
>>43909001
>why do my high level adventurers that would want magic items not have anywhere to spend their money when I don't put magic shops in the world?
Really?
>>43913530
Ceremonial armour was never worn on the battlefield. It was, as the name suggests, worn during ceremonies. Coronations, parades, that sort of thing.
>>43918719
Amusingly enough, the best way to run skill challenges was to not tell the players they were.
I ran a mass combat situation as a number of dice rolls that collectively resolved a situation, ie a skill challenge, but the players never realized it.
>>43914133
A magic ring that didn't actually hide him from the dragon, and was in no way helpful in combat.
A sword that turned blue.
Kings, even dwarven ones, don't have superpowers, so I don't know why you mentioned that
Gandalf is an npc who almost never uses his powers.
And no one here is actually arguing in favour of unbalanced classes. Just that if someone is going to have superpowers, they should probably have some kind of explanation as to why they have superpowers. which is, you know, not exactly unreasonable.
>>43919863
>gandalf is an npc
Completely off topic but Gandalf is the closest thing to a proper protagonist the series had, the hobbits took center stage but none of them held the focus for the entire duration and they were only ever involved on his behalf making them more like Robins than Batmen.
>>43919863
LotR is also like a 3rd level campaign.
>>43908291
>Playtesters consistently watered down the classes instead of embracing interesting new ideas.
I call bullshit. When they were testing martial combat dice playtesters on the forums absolutely loved it, myself included. Then they turned it into a Fighter-only character option, which is exactly what we didn't want to happen.
It was going to be awesome, man. Imagine every martial character getting a handful of dice per short rest to spend on either raising attack damage or using cool combat maneuvers. Martial classes with actual DEPTH that wasn't just getting spellcasting. Sacred cows getting butchered left and right, casters no longer having the lead with DPR... good times.
>>43910833
>1. Initiative. Initiative can fuck right off.
Now I'm reminded of a game where each side alternated taking an action each turn, and when one side got reduced to 1 guy then EVERYONE on the other side got to act before he did. I really wish I remembered what game that was.
>2. Saving throws. Why are they tied to ability scores?
The main problem with saves tied to ability scores is that there's also Proficiency. It really should just be + Attribute, and if you're proficient you have advantage or something. Too many numbers ruins the math.
>3. Hiding and stealth
Yeah, the exploration part of the game needs a boost, as does the social.
>4. Specific distances. Makes gridless combat a pain.
13th Age does gridless combat really, really well. It's based on the idea that characters are either engaged in melee or hanging back, and that spells and ranged weapons can reach people pretty much wherever they are. It's cool.
>5. Monster stat blocks.
Oh yeah, 4E did an AWESOME job with stat-blocks. The main problem is spellcasting monsters, they're a HUGE pain.
All in all solid complaints!
It's not "bad". In fact, it does combat-based dungeon delving fairly well. I just don't like it being the flagship game for fantasy RPGs.
>>43920482
>1
Banner Saga?
>>43920549
>Banner Saga?
YES. Oh man, that game was awesome. I wish 5E was more like that, only with dice rolling of course instead of the pure math and resource management (Willpower, Armour, Exertion, Break, and Strength).
It's a pity that the martial vs caster superpowers discussion always turns instantly to shit because of people talking at cross purposes about different things without realizing it.
So i'm going to try and clear up some misunderstandings:
Some people think martials shouldn't have superpowers because they don't think anyone should have superpowers.
Some people are okay with PCs having superpowers, but only if they have an explanation for it, a.k.a. magic.
Some people want PCs to have superpowers even if they don't have an explanation for it.
To unpack those last two viewpoints, let's use the example of Superman. His super powers are explained by his alien nature. But his secret identify isn't. How come he can hide his identify by wearing glasses? No explanation is given. It's basically a running joke at this point. It's something they get away with because it's just a comic book, and people aren't expecting gritty realism. This is an example of how unrealistic elements in a story can be acceptable without breaking immersion in one of two ways. First way: fantastical elements are explained as being different from the real world in specific ways, like having kryptonians or magic, while the rest of the story can still be realistic and gritty. Second way: the fantastical elements are just one symptom of the works overall lack of realism. The whole thing is campy or cartoony.
You can even do mix and match, as the Superman example shows. Neither the first or second way is better, they're just different.
The thing is, some people really only want that first way of doing things, and that is a valid preference, so telling them they should just do things the second way, or acting as if the first way doesn't exist and there is only the second way, is not a valid counter argument. Because, really, it's not an argument at all, it's just a difference in opinion. Some people want D&D to be campy, and others want it to have fantastical elements but be otherwise fairly realistic
>>43920809
>something they get away with because it's just a comic book, and people aren't expecting gritty realism.
Somebody hasn't seen Christopher Reeve's reveal to Lois in Superman.
Glasses, changes of hair, changing the way you hold your jaw, changing your posture, all of them can completely change the way you look.
>>43920809
Personally I believe that it's fine for martial characters to be limited to mortal and mundane abilities... at low levels. Once you get to the mid to high levels your martial characters better start doing impossible feats of strength and skill, because they've got to keep in line with the kind of fantastical bullshit casters can pull off.
If the players and/or GM want a grittier game where Fighters are just trained soldiers and not Achilles, that's what the lower levels are for. If the party starts to climb higher, they've got to give some leeway.
In my games I justify awesome martial abilities by having the soul be the source of magical power, and any sufficiently powerful 'mundane' hero eventually -becomes- inherently magical.
>>43920204
>>43920274
Actually talking about The Hobbit, not The Lord of the Rings.
And the thing about Gandalf being a protagonist is completely wrong. Gandalf is a mentor character who happens to also be a walking deus ex machina. I would think this might be obvious due to him being an angel and also being dead or absent for large chunks of the story. Protip: if the story can keep going without you, you're not the protagonist.
The protagonist of The Lord of the Rings is Frodo with Aragorn as a secondary protagonist due to it essentially splitting into two stories partway through. I'm not sure you know what protagonist means. Put simply, it's the person who is trying to do a thing. Frodo is the one trying to destroy the ring. Aragorn is trying to prevent the armies of Sauron destroying the kingdoms of Men before that happens. Everyone else is just helping. Gandalf is just helping. And occasionally he just comes out of no where to save the day.
>>43910833
The complaint about stat blocks is reasonable, but it's also understandable why they did it the way they did. If they included spells in the stats block then the monster manual would have been like 50% reprinted spells. Spells take a lot more words to explain than 4e powers did.
Definitely something they should fix in 6e.
>>43921118
The Hobbit is also a low-level campaign.
>>43920898
Naw man, that's bullshit. Like, his performance is great, he does a fantastic job of selling it, but it's still campy as anything. Donner's superman is a great example of camp done really well.
>Started as an edition war
>Ended as caster supremacy
This thread is garbage and I'm glad its going to die in like 60 posts. People with any degree of intelligence can figure this shit out without shitposting about it on 4chan.
>I don't like 5e!
Then fucking change it
>I don't want casters to be stronger then martials!
Then fucking change it
>I like casters stronger then martials!
Then keep doing it IN YOUR OWN FUCKING GAMES and letting everyone else fuck off and do their own thing
You are all shitty, stupid people. Please die.
>>43921460
This is the most immature and counteractive post imaginable.
If literally "then fucking change it" is all you can say to people who have problems with game design then here's the best goddamn game in the world for you:
LOOK AT ALL THIS FREE SPACE FOR YOU TO CHANGE.
>>43921460
why even buy D&D! lets just pirate the parts we like and write in the rest!
>>43921066
>they've got to keep in line with the kind of fantastical bullshit casters can pull off.
Like I said, some people don't think anyone should get superpowers, at any level. Wizard's don't have to be superpowerful. Magic can have whatever limits you want it to.
Another aspect of this discussion is that PCs can be powerful without being useful in a fight. Or at least they could be if the game hadn't become progressively more focused on combat being the main event. If out of combat was just as important as in combat then wizards magic could be useful in a fight but powerful outside of one. But when the game is designed to have combat as it's core activity everyone has to be good in a fight. Which unfortunately means the guy who's only good at fighting becomes sort of pointless, since everyone else is also good at fighting and other stuff as well. this is one of things that leads to martiall being less powerful and versatile compared to others because as martials, they are defined as only being good at something everyone else is also good at.
When everyone one's a fighter, no one is.
>>43921497
I've been using homebrew systems for years, reading roleplaying blogs and talking to my friends about their own heavily modified or created systems. I've seen house rules out the ass for DnD and other games to support various styles of play and campaigns. I've seen people on /tg/ make games from video games or books or television shows using existing and non-existing systems.
The advantage of tabletop RPGs, and what brought me too them over video games, is the expansive mental field you CAN play in, and the fact that anything can and will be changed by those who play it.
So then why the FUCK do people think its ok to argue about the rules as written of a game that actually tries to sell and is 40+ years old? Do you have any idea how much my game systems and tones have changed in just 3-5 years I've been in the hobby, much less 40 fucking years over multiple developers?
It's seriously not that hard. Rub some brain cells together.
>>43921518
I'll raise you one step, go download one of the myriad of free DnD houseruled/homebrew mixture games out there from the open gaming license and find the one you like the most, and then when you've done that change whatever is left you don't like and you'll find your perfect system.
Every single book, movie, television show, video game AND tabletop game all have parts that people may or may not like. You know what you can do uniquely with tabletop games? FUCKING CHANGE IT
>>43921276
I was just clarifying.
But now i think I see what you meant. The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are not low level, they're an entire campaign. They feature dragon slaying and the banishing of demon lords. That doesn't sound low level to me.
Which is to say, just because D&D has the concept of PCs becoming more powerful that does't mean they're meant to end up as demigods and superheroes. A character can go through an arc of weak to strong without ending up at god-like super strength.
Again, this is really just another thing that comes down to preference. Some people want PCs to just be heroes, and not ever need to become superheroes. Some people want PCs to start out normal and become superheroes. Some people want PCs to start as superheros and become even more so.
>>43912292
>Casuals
This. 5E was targeted for these faggots. That's why it's such shit. Take a look at the Steam Tabletop Simulator community - you have a bunch of whiny faggots who say they have 'no experience' with D&D and want to play. They, almost to a man, prefer 5E. Why? Because they are casual faggots who want the system to generate a character for them - they don't want to actually have to consider options, except for a few useless choices, like 1 or 2 feats. Faggotry. Pic related.
>>43911869
Even if you don't believe that 3.x is an overly-complicated, unbalanced mess, it's a niche game. Rigid classes, extreme power arcs, and heavy, combat-centric rules filled with idiosyncrasies simply do not make for a good system to apply to every other game on the market. The end result of the popularity of 3.x, which was primarily a result of brand recognition, is that you had a bunch of game settings that were forced into the D20 system mold for commercial reasons, even though it was only appropriate for a tiny portion of them. I actually like the idea of the OGL a lot, and I think it's had some positive long term affects on the game market (making games feel more communal and encouraging people to get more involved with game design), but in the short term, it drastically reduced the diversity and quality of the systems being made and played.
>>43921118
Gandalf is trying to both destroy the ring and stop the armies of Sauron and he started working on those things well before the two sidekicks you mentioned ever even knew there was a plot to get involved in. Being offscreen some of the time doesn't nullify the driving role he plays any more than a parent playing peekaboo actually ceases to exist. Or to put it another way, if there were a Star Wars movie about some minor citizen in the galaxy putting them center stage in the narrative doesn't mean the jedi are no longer the protagonists of the larger plot.
>>43922070
>3.5 hasn't aged well
Right. because the majority of TTRPG players aren't balls deep in PF.
>>43921846
As D&D is the first tabletop most people play, it should be a good introductory system. It's really misdesigned if it isn't. Now, that still gives you a fair amount of leeway when it comes to the rules, but 5e is the first edition in a while where D&D at least somewhat fits its actual niche.And if you want something that doesn't try to accommodate casuals, maybe you shouldn't play the RPG that owes the most to brand recognition. There are many, many other systems on the market. 5e is doing what it's supposed to do.
>>43922177
Fair enough. 5E is marketed properly to its target audience. However it's even worse than its previous iterations.
>>43922169
I never said "3.5 hasn't aged well". I really don't know what aging has to do with anything.
And popularity does not equal quality. Many people were first introduced to role-playing through 3.x (where brand recognition and availability played huge roles) and have grown accustomed to it, not wanting to switch to a different system they either don't know, or at least are much less familiar with. And the very complexity of 3.x can act as a deterrent, because many expect all other systems to be as daunting to "conquer".
So you have those people who want to stick with the game they started on, and many others who play 3.x or Pathfinder because it's what's available (thanks mostly to the first group). And popularity because self-reinforcing at that point. There are many people who would prefer something else who have been essentially forced into playing Pathfinder. And this continues to bother some of them, while others just settle down and get used to. We are, after all, creatures of habit, and we have a tendency to see the good and overlook the bad in things we are familiar with.
But none of this makes Pathfinder a good game or suggests that there aren't better alternatives.
>>43922344
Whoops, should've been directed at >>43911869
,my fault. The '3.PF = bad system because muh balance' is a shitty argument - this has more to do with DM allowance and power gamers than any actual balance issues in-game. I've had clerics and wizards play right alongside barbarians and ninjas without any true in-game balance issues.
>>43912989
>sweat talk
Hey baby, let's go exercise so I can chat you up. You sexy bitch.
>>43922457
Because you lucked out, faggot. That's all it is.
You fucking lucked out.
>>43922130
I'm sorry, but you are just completely wrong. You do not even begin to know what you are talking about. You just flat out don't know what a protagonist is.
>>43923041
This. Gandalf is definitely not the protagonist.
