5th edition thoughts, opinions, whatevers

[Joseph Barros]

This is the place to post your thoughts on 5e. Love it, hate it whatever. I have no opinion at the moment as I haven't even done a playtest. The purported goals of it sound absolutely amazing. This will be the place to talk about how well those goals match reality as we get more info.

Also wizards is releasing a basic set of rules for free July 15. Only has 4 classes and only one subclass each, but it is 1-20 and otherwise supposedly complete. (20 being the level cap) Grab it when it comes out in case they change their minds.

[reiphil]

If you guys are planning on running 5e, also note that the starter set (the one releasing same day as basic rules) will have 5 classes, with the reference material to take the classes to level 5.

[Joseph Barros]

I am aware of that, but 20 bucks for something incomplete... I think the freebie will be better. To get your feet wet you'll only play one version of a class anyway and I don't think the group will mind if there's no long term story plan for a few sessions while the learning is happening.

Mostly, I'm hoping that 5e will be play like 3e or 2e in that you can more easily play with 2-3 players. 4, not counting the DM, I feel is the sweet spot for a combination of party dynamics and minimizing wait time in between turns, but to consistently maintain 4 players you have to have 5-6 total so absences don't result in game cancellations. I think it would be cool to have 4 players and still be able to play without major adjustments if only 2 show up. I remember in 3.5 Kyle running a game where we had a number of fun games with only two players. 4e combat, as fun as it is, just doesn't work well with that number.

Furthermore, I think i'm ready for a little more lethality. 4e it's pretty easy to not die. 3.5 I remember being pretty bummed about losing my naked grappler. But I also like the realism of it; life ain't always fair or balanced.

[earthwizard]

I also have fond memories of running smaller groups. I remember chasing you and Justin through a tomb with a swarm of beetles. You guys were holding them back with a torch. It was classic - and really fun.

Playing with 6 PCs can be fun, because you can make some elaborate battles and place some really big monsters on the table. At the same time, it really bloats the game. Each PC wants to do his/her own thing. It can be hard to get a sense of unity in the party. As a DM it is difficult to fit in a personalized story for every player of a 6 player group. Smaller groups can focus on character development much more, even if the battles get scaled back a little. I always felt like 4 PCs was the sweet spot, and running games with more or fewer PCs was a fun way to change things up every once in a while. But as a DM, I can't handle a table of more than 6 people. It's just too much.

Practically speaking, if the minimum number of players is lower, then it's easier to hold a session. However, if only one or two players are missing for a session out of 3 PCs in the campaign, then that's a problem.

Running a 4e game with 2 PCs would be very difficult. I think the math makes it so that you'd have to alter monsters quite a bit to make appropriate battles. Going out of the level range makes for a really ineffective encounter. With the new rules set, bounded accuracy makes it easier for a DM to use monsters at a range of levels. Encounters for 2 PCs might just feature monsters of lower levels (for lower damage, but the similar hit chances) than encounters with 5 PCs. Encounters with 6 PCs can feature higher level monsters (but fewer of them), because the PCs can gang up on them.

In short, I think the new rules will be more versatile for groups of various sizes.

Btw - I don't think you get monsters with the free Basic D&D rules until the PHB drops. I think it has a primary release with characters co-incident with the Starter Set and an update with Monsters co-incident with the PHB. I could be wrong, but I thought I read that . . .

[kore]

Jun 4, 2014 14:59:14 GMT -8 Joseph Barros said:

Furthermore, I think i'm ready for a little more lethality. 4e it's pretty easy to not die. 3.5 I remember being pretty bummed about losing my naked grappler. But I also like the realism of it; life ain't always fair or balanced.

As a kid, that's what I remember DnD being like in all editions prior to 4e.

Edit:

Jun 5, 2014 7:10:22 GMT -8 earthwizard said:

Running a 4e game with 2 PCs would be very difficult.

I remember a 4e adventure you started one week with me and Gabe that was pretty fun. The following session, I think it was JP who showed up and it was fun watching him try and follow our tracks that we explicitly made an attempt to cover. It wasn't a campaign, but it was extremely fun.

[The Keeper]

That was the game where I played a dragonborn defrosted straight from the Dawn War. He only spoke ancient draconic and Gabe royally screwed up teaching him Common. Huge amount of fun.

[gabe]

I liked a lot about 4e, but I started playing 2nd. I can see why they made 4e the way they did, mostly cause (at least to me) it seemed like the non-magic characters didn't have as much fun at higher levels. The playtests we did for 5e seems to me like they brought it back more to its roots, while trying to stymie the problem of martial characters being boring. Also, yeah, the 2 PC short adventure we did with Kyle was handled pretty well I thought. ....and I would like to point out that if my real life wisdom score was as high as the my PC's when meeting that Dragonborn, my PC would've handled that situation much better. -.-

[The Keeper]

So you say Argent.

[reiphil]

Ah yes... Then Neji scared off the dragon with his 1 fingered punch. Good times were had by all.

[Joseph Barros]

Looks like you're partially correct Kyle. In July, Basic D&D will not have monsters. When the player's handbook is realeased in August however, "essential monsters" will be added to the PDF. Rules and stats tied into Tyranny of Dragons will also be released as free pdfs over time.

[gabe]

"Give me your treasure!"
"...No...why don't you give me YOUR treasure?!"
"...I left it at home..."

Then the dragon shits himself and flys off.

Gotta love 20s.

[earthwizard]

You guys are making me pine for days gone by. Days of battle and glory. Where have all the heroes gone? Now there are only mutated and mindless beasts that roam the desolate land.

. . . I read today that there should be some digital tools for the new release. No idea what the time frame is for development, but at least it is being worked on. Also, after the 4e tool set debacle I have to be more than a little skeptical of this actually coming into reality. The good news is that it looks like it is outsourced.

www.codenamemorningstar.com/
www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1682-D-D-Licensed-Tools-Morningstar!#.U5ilOS-fsrU

[Joseph Barros]

Bwahahaha! I remember in 2008/2009 when WotC had given us "previews" of their virtual tabletop. Then they "cancelled" it in 2012.

[Brian Williamson]

Bryan: (and all interested)

Here's a copy of all of the playtest rules (credit to Phil for posting them first)
tinyurl.com/5theditionplaytest

[Joseph Barros]

"Bounded Accuracy" is the name for the new character and monster progression "math." It's explained here www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604%EF%BB%BF

I was hip to a lot of this, but after reading the article plus opinions from the tubes, I think I'm even more excited about 5e. I concede there are flaws, but no system is perfect. You pick a system in which the flaws are acceptable to you because the strengths outshine them, which is the camp I am in on the topic. That said I do see what the opposition is trying to say and what camp people most fall into is based on what they are looking for in RPG combat. I won't get into the arguments here, as they are easily googled, but as a DM and a Player I'm starting to have visions of much less predictable if significantly more "swingy" combats. Looking forward to seeing what encounters will end up looking like with the final product.