Thac0 Elex It would appear you are correct about the spell slots. I forgot about that for a moment. I was aware of using the fighter's action surge to cast two spells in one round. It's very powerful when used on a caster, but I don't care for it. I prefer Wizard 17/Sorcerer 3. I will agree then, that from a standpoint of farming armor proficiency, 1 level of cleric dip is a superior choice over a fighter.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Is D&D 5th Edition shit?
- Thread starter Elex
- Start date
luj1
You're all shills
3.5ED > 2/2.5ED >>>>>>> 5ED >>> 4ED
I don't understand reasoning for 20 levels in a system like this.
might as well remove them and work with skill points or something then.
Sreggin Etah I
Savant
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2019
- Messages
- 694
i don't play tabletop but having played icewind dale 2 i complete agree with you, 3.5ED give you more freedom. i wanted to create a full halfling party in IWD1 but i can't make a hobbit mage/cleric/druid in 2/2.5ED. I also don't like the multi-class/dual-class from 2/2.5ED.
However, i dislike the skill system in IWD2.
Last edited:
Cryomancer
Arcane
No, every class needs to be the same. We should take out all cool stuff for arcane casters to make wizards having firebolt only. Because balance above everything else!!!! And my idea of balance. Doesn't matter if balance is 100% subjective and there are people crying all over the internet against BF1 shotguns, literally the least used weapons, but some people swear that is OP. A FPS is only balanced if everyone is using fast firing submachineguns and a RPG is only balanced if everyone is solving every problem with a fast swinging blade. From a guy in plate armor, a iron golem and a dragon /sarcasm
Now seriously. I said that magic is far weaker in 5e however, low level magic is far stronger. Being a lv 1/2/3/4/5/6 wizard on 2e was a CHORE. On 5e, having at will GOOD cantrips that scale with your character is a huge bonus to casters.
Note that on 5e, human fighters are already the most popular class by far https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/
But of course, balancefags will not be satisfied until over 95% of the playerbase plays as a human fighter...
Since 3e that divine casters can do everything that arcane casters can do with better saves, better hit dice, healing and on armor...
Peasants can fire a longbow outside of his frigtening presence. Correct me if I an wrong, but longbows on 5e has a max range of 600 feet. Right? Still far away from the range of a longbow IRL and the range which they could pierce heavy armor "Computer analysis by Warsaw University of Technology in 2017 demonstrated that heavy bodkin-point arrows could penetrate typical plate armour of the time at 225 metres (738 ft). However, the depth of penetration would be slight at that range; penetration increased as the range closed or against armour lesser than the best quality available at the time.[7]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodkin_point
Note that hiting a colossal creature at 250m is far easier than hitting a human at that distance.
----------------
On 2e, Peasants would simple not have enough strength to fully draw the longbow and her would be immune to weapons bellow +3...
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 8,363
Outside of Tiamat's frightening presence the peasants would have disadvantage on attack rolls anyway because of long-range penalties. With +3 to hit that means the peasants only hit on a double 20, so 1/400 peasants will hit per turn. At least that one hit will be a critical.
You'd need at least a thousand peasants (and a thousand magic bows) to even have any chance of overcoming her regeneration per turn, let alone make any real dent in her HP. Meanwhile Tiamat is killing peasants by the bucketload every turn.
If you can find sufficient numbers of fearless peasants (protip: use undead instead of peasants) and enough magi bows (no protip here, there's no way to mass produce magic items in 5e) then I guess you could kill Tiamat, but it's not a remotely realistic scenario.
You'd need at least a thousand peasants (and a thousand magic bows) to even have any chance of overcoming her regeneration per turn, let alone make any real dent in her HP. Meanwhile Tiamat is killing peasants by the bucketload every turn.
If you can find sufficient numbers of fearless peasants (protip: use undead instead of peasants) and enough magi bows (no protip here, there's no way to mass produce magic items in 5e) then I guess you could kill Tiamat, but it's not a remotely realistic scenario.
You are absolutely wrong. The second 600ft range on the bow is the range where you can take luck based potshots. You shoot at disadvantage per default for that, achieving the same effect as frightening presence for hitrate.
To circumvent the range penalty you need a feat, that noone below level 4 who is not a variant human hero will have. So to defeat her you need at the very least an army of lvl 4 fighters with magical weaponry, all trained as sharpshooters for the feat.
You are also wrong on the historical argument but that is off topic. A modern hardened carbon steel bodkin arrow can penetrate plate, historical arrows could not penetrate plate armor in 99,9% of cases. The lethal shots were slipping in between the joints through the chainmail, penetrating lesser armors or just killing the horse.
rusty_shackleford
Arcane
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2018
- Messages
- 50,754
don't know how someone could actually prefer 3e/3.5e to AD&D/2e
Cryomancer
Arcane
When people debate armor vs bows, people tend to be "will pierce" or "will not pierce", the reality is : Depends a lot. The bow poundage, the distance, angle of impact, where on armor hit, the type of armor, distance(...). Is like Firearms vs armor in our modern world. Can you pierce a armored vehicle with a rifle? Depends. A .22 LR obviously not. A 14.5x114mm depends on angle distance, armor model and thickness, angle of impact(...). Instead of "can bows pierce armor", the question should be "can this model of bow, fully drawed, with this type of arrowhead, hitting this specific model of armor at X meters pierce the armor?"
But one rule that i really miss is that on BG2, Plate armor had way better AC vs slashes than blunt damage. On 3e and foreward, makes no difference using a mace of a longsword to fight a knight in plate armor +2.
--------------------------
But talking again about 5e. IMO instead of nerfing casters, why not separate casters than non casters?
What i mean by that? Look to world of darkness. Mages and werewolves are far stronger than vampires, so you don't have a mage and a vampire in the same party. If after everything done to 5e casters, people are still demanding more nerfs, i would rather not seeing casters or seeing separated adventures for casters than more nerf. 5e nerfs
- Fewer spell slots
- A lot of high tier magic removed
- A lot of mid tier magic moved to high tier
- Concentration requirement to anything cool
- Spells doesn't scale with caster level anymore
- No more OHK spells
- The undead which you can create with animate dead are far weaker
- (...)
- Balancefag : "I can swing a sword, he can shape the reality, not fair, NERF!!! Doesn't matter if i chose my char that way"
- My solution : "why not give the ability to you cut the space time, auras and other supernatural stuff or maybe look into Tome of Battle, in a world where magic exists, infusing magical energy in martial attacks makes sense. See overlord martial arts"
- Balancefag - "no, this is a anime BS. I wanna every class with only a basic attack!!! I have fun autoattacking for 666 hours, so everyone needs to have fun in the same way!!!"
I can't see another solution to appease this people.
I am sorry, this suggestion is collosally shit you get a retadred rating from me. This would kill the classical adventuring party, the nucleus around which DnD is built. If there ever is a version of DnD in which it is impossible by the rules to not play a fighter, rogue, mage, cleric party, than that version is in fact not DnD.
Cryomancer
Arcane
I know that is one of the stupidest suggestions ever. But people are demanding even more nerfs... Between that awful suggestion and even more nerfs, i would rather that awful suggestion. IMO : Buff martial giving cool stuff > Maintaining the game """unbalanced""" > Separating the campaigns > Even more Nerfs.
What makes D&D mages great is that they are great as in the novels which they are based from. If you wanna it, just take out all arcane casters. Is less awful.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
- Messages
- 6,169
It's a simpler, more streamlined game than it was in previous editions. Might have created more outage if hadn't been the the follow up to 4th edition, it looks like a Restoration in comparison.
5e tends to stream out the things that average players had problems with (like THACO in 2e, or feature creep in 3.5e) and streamline toward the things average players like (impactful feats). At the same time, it's more accessible nature makes it easier to teach, assemble, and organize new groups of players, which is a big barrier of entry problem for the hobby in general.
Most people aren't really bothered by this because even though some tabletop players think the hobby should stay "underground", there's a shared sense the D&D is really the entry-level tabletop RPG and that there are other, more hardcore RPGs to tool around with (or just make your own homebrewed version of D&D) once you've graduated to a high level of competence as a RPGer, so 5e carving out this identity for the brand isn't really an issue.
Last edited:
No, it's not shite.
However, it differs quite radically from previous editions (sans fourth one, that’s a different beast altogether) in its mindset. It’s, well, how to put it. Gamified. It plays gamey if you catch me meanin’. Why they chose to follow this route is quite obvious and was already pointed out competently in this thread. In previous editions, AD&D iterations most of all, melee classes were by several degrees worse than casters. They had less options, they were less fun, they had less to do and were severely restricted in their gameplay. BG2 exemplifies that to a great extent, even though it was just an adaptation of the system. Abovementioned ToB went a long way to amend some of these problems but core flaws of melee autoatackers remained. So they fixed that by further nerfin' casters and streamlinin' overall class design – and that by consequence made the game feel gamey.
In video games you usually have AWESOME BUTTONS, IMPACTFUL FEATS and USEFUL, VISIBLY EFFECTIVE SKILLS. Now it works like that for all classes so no one is really left behind. I know that there still exists a rift between melees and casters, but it can’t be effectively bridged IMHO, perhaps if you would implement some ToB solutions system-wide. But that on the other hand would make the system complicated, and fifth edition is above all simplified for general use. Just look at what happened with feats, class progression system (bye bye prestige classes), with skills, lethality of combat and so on. Fifth edition is more friendly for one who plays from Sunday to Sunday by month, and that was their goal IMHO – in this goal they succeeded. For all dissenters there’s Pathfinder (even though recent P2 is gamified as well, though in a different way IMHO) or just 3.0/3.5.
However, it differs quite radically from previous editions (sans fourth one, that’s a different beast altogether) in its mindset. It’s, well, how to put it. Gamified. It plays gamey if you catch me meanin’. Why they chose to follow this route is quite obvious and was already pointed out competently in this thread. In previous editions, AD&D iterations most of all, melee classes were by several degrees worse than casters. They had less options, they were less fun, they had less to do and were severely restricted in their gameplay. BG2 exemplifies that to a great extent, even though it was just an adaptation of the system. Abovementioned ToB went a long way to amend some of these problems but core flaws of melee autoatackers remained. So they fixed that by further nerfin' casters and streamlinin' overall class design – and that by consequence made the game feel gamey.
In video games you usually have AWESOME BUTTONS, IMPACTFUL FEATS and USEFUL, VISIBLY EFFECTIVE SKILLS. Now it works like that for all classes so no one is really left behind. I know that there still exists a rift between melees and casters, but it can’t be effectively bridged IMHO, perhaps if you would implement some ToB solutions system-wide. But that on the other hand would make the system complicated, and fifth edition is above all simplified for general use. Just look at what happened with feats, class progression system (bye bye prestige classes), with skills, lethality of combat and so on. Fifth edition is more friendly for one who plays from Sunday to Sunday by month, and that was their goal IMHO – in this goal they succeeded. For all dissenters there’s Pathfinder (even though recent P2 is gamified as well, though in a different way IMHO) or just 3.0/3.5.
rusty_shackleford
Arcane
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2018
- Messages
- 50,754
I know. I addressed that.These issues were already addressed in 3.5e.
rusty_shackleford
Arcane
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2018
- Messages
- 50,754
Fighters only having basic attack was a mistake anyways. They could have researched some historical European martial arts for inspiration, along with adding called shots.
Just having "attack" is like if casters only had the ability to "cast spell" without specifying what type of spell or the intricacies of spellcasting altogether. Sounds silly, doesn't it?
Just having "attack" is like if casters only had the ability to "cast spell" without specifying what type of spell or the intricacies of spellcasting altogether. Sounds silly, doesn't it?
Precisely. That’s the direction they tried to go in with ToB in my opinion. Comparison is quite apt: yes, a melee class just attacks while casters cast spells in many different ways. There is no balance here. And indeed with that in mind they tried to streamline stuff in fifth edition. Now everyone has BUTTONS OF AWESOME. Just like in D:OS, PoE or WoW.
EDIT: On the other hand... No treatise will help you when an enemy summons legions of devils from Baator and you're just a swordmaster who knows some moves. There's some inherent inequality between casters and melees, in concept not in systems. Some systems try to address that by makin' all classes casters, for example in WoW or D:OS most melee abilities are just spells. In WoW rogue stealth is magic and so on and so on.
Last edited:
Cryomancer
Arcane
The "book of weaboo fightan magic" seems way better than "i attack, i attack and i attack"...
Magic is TRASH in all games that you mentioned. Last time D&D took wow as inspiration, we got 4e...
What is good about D&D magic is that it is based on literature, so don't fell full of BS like cooldown. Pandelume on Dying Earth, the novel which inspired the magic on earlier D&D versions, was able to create artificial lifeforms. What we can discuss is if Wizards(NOT ALL CASTERS, ONLY ONE CLASS) needs to be more specialized. Clerics are limited on their deity domains, warlocks has a tiny spell selection and their patron can teach and increases a little, sorcerers too very limited spell selection. Druids, depends on the circles, but a wizard on 5e can be specialized or not and has book with 200+ spells
About martial classes, i know that a lot of people hate anime here but IMO a mid level barbarian should be amazing AT least like Guts from Berserk.
You really are quite somethin', aren't ye.
I don't know if 5e is "trash". I only played low levels of one campaign. I have no idea if it is balanced a higher levels. What i do know is that it gaves few options (relative 3.5ed or Pathfinder) in building and customising the characters. In my book that makes it... not terrible but compared to 3,5ed mediocre. On the other hand it was easier for the DM who, although somewhat experienced, never DMed a d&d game. I'm sure he would be lost in 3,5ed or Pathfinder. This might be a plus for some. Just not from a player who likes to munchkin perspective.
PrettyDeadman
Guest
b/x >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.5ED > 2/2.5ED >>>>>>> 5ED >>> 4ED[/QUOTE]
Sykar
Arcane
That was not the point but thanks for the math. The point is that a god is for any sane GM un-killable by mere mortals even if they were armed with the best magical weapons in the realm. Gods in their home plane have quite literally control over reality. I would not even bother to roll, you get a couple of hundred or even thousands of morons to attack a god on their home plane? And peasants at that? Pff I would rule them all dead in a split second regardless of level or gear because the idea alone is so fucking stupid.
I agree.
However, I think 5ED is a very good entry system for those who are easily threatened by lots of crunch.
You create characters blazingly fast and the rules, especially with that silly advantage/disadvantage system, are so simple it is impossible not to get it.
Of course, you pay for it with a lack of depth in... well, in pretty much everything, really.
This also makes it more suitable for those who just want to sit around and tell each other stories. It's not really meant at all for the classic PnP player who likes their crunch and wants to invest some actual time in their character building and advancement and wants some options to play with during combat.
It really is a 3.5 light, IMO.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.