D&D 5E Discussion

[Night Goat]

Just house-rule it the way you want.

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy

The Oberoni Fallacy (also called the Rule 0 Fallacy) is the erroneous argument that the rules of a game aren't flawed because they can be ignored, or one or more "house rules" can be made as exceptions.

The argument is logically unsound, because it supposes something isn't broken if it can be fixed. If the rule is not broken, it shouldn't need to be fixed

People buy goods so that they don't have to make those goods themselves. I would never run 5e, but if I did I would not relish the task of coming up with prices for every magic item.

 

[Night Goat]

Are you sure this isn't being exaggerated in some way?

I got it from this thread, and these people generally know what they talk about.

 

[tuluse]

Are you sure this isn't being exaggerated in some way?

I got it from this thread, and these people generally know what they talk about.

I don't care to read the whole thread, but early on someone said the DMG is still a mystery and then I remembered that they moved magic items to the DMG. So that's probably where the prices are.

 

[nikolokolus]

If they move magic items back to the DMG then I count that as a step in the right direction.

 

[Night Goat]

Why? Players will want to know what magic items do, so why make them look in the DM's book? At the table, you'll probably have multiple Player's Handbooks and only one DMG, and making everyone pass it around will waste a lot of time.

 

[primordial]

Why? Players will want to know what magic items do, so why make them look in the DM's book? At the table, you'll probably have multiple Player's Handbooks and only one DMG, and making everyone pass it around will waste a lot of time.

The only magical items they need to care about is the ones the DM decides to give them. At that point the DM can hand them a piece of paper with the magical item written on it.

 

[primordial]

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy

People buy goods so that they don't have to make those goods themselves. I would never run 5e, but if I did I would not relish the task of coming up with prices for every magic item.

Telling someone to change game design decisions that are based on core design goals is not a fallacy. Magical items and the creation of magical items are not apart of the core game. There's nothing broken with it just because you don't like the decision they made when they opted to balance all the math around not having a single magical item.

 

[Night Goat]

The core design goal is to minimize player choice, and that's terrible. That the Usual Gang of Idiots at WotC is destroying verisimilitude by doing so just makes it worse.

 

[primordial]

The core design goal is to minimize player choice, and that's terrible. That the Usual Gang of Idiots at WotC is destroying verisimilitude by doing so just makes it worse.

In your opinion not letting players treat the magical item list like it's a Fall/Winter catalog is terrible. To others, it is a very good design element.

I am not sure what appearance of truth you think WotC is destroying.

 

[Night Goat]

5e is set in a world where magic items have a value of infinity or zero, depending on whether the player characters are trying to buy or sell them. How is that not fucked?

Also, I never said that players should get to treat the magic item list like a catalog. Obviously the availability of magic items should depend on where they are in the world, but the players should have some influence over what magic items they get. That's just my opinion, though - I'm not one of those neckbeards who uses DMing as an excuse to power-trip against anyone needy enough to put up with him.

 

[primordial]

5e is set in a world where magic items have a value of infinity or zero, depending on whether the player characters are trying to buy or sell them. How is that not fucked?

Magical items have a value set by the DM depending on if he wants them common, rare, or non-existent in his world.

Also, I never said that players should get to treat the magic item list like a catalog. Obviously the availability of magic items should depend on where they are in the world, but the players should have some influence over what magic items they get. That's just my opinion, though - I'm not one of those neckbeards who uses DMing as an excuse to power-trip against anyone needy enough to put up with him.

That is certainly your opinion. Crafting a story and creating a world is not power tripping. If you don't want someone to determine if there is a monster with a magical item in the room, or someone that decided to create a world that has magical items or not, you are free to play an adventure board game like 'Dungeon!' or some other similar type game.

 

[Night Goat]

5e is set in a world where magic items have a value of infinity or zero, depending on whether the player characters are trying to buy or sell them. How is that not fucked?

Magical items have a value set by the DM depending on if he wants them common, rare, or non-existent in his world.

Not in 5e, they don't. That is the subject of this discussion.

Also, I never said that players should get to treat the magic item list like a catalog. Obviously the availability of magic items should depend on where they are in the world, but the players should have some influence over what magic items they get. That's just my opinion, though - I'm not one of those neckbeards who uses DMing as an excuse to power-trip against anyone needy enough to put up with him.

That is certainly your opinion. Crafting a story and creating a world is not power tripping. If you don't want someone to determine if there is a monster with a magical item in the room, or someone that decided to create a world that has magical items or not, you are free to play an adventure board game like 'Dungeon!' or some other similar type game.

I didn't say anything about crafting a story and creating a world.

Not every setting needs to have magic items, but D&D comes with a set of assumptions, and one of those is that magic items exist. D&D already has a problem with casters being better than everyone else - a problem that will continue in 5e - and since noncasters rely on magic items the most, removing them or the players' ability to choose them would fuck those characters even harder.

 

[Magellan]

That's awesome that they included Gygax's original Appendix N. Might be quite eye-opening for some of the younger players. Bonus points for adding Clark Ashton Smith and China Miéville.

More bonus points for adding Michael Moorcock. *thumbs up*!

 

[primordial]

Not in 5e, they don't. That is the subject of this discussion.

Yes, they do. Magical items are completely in the realm of the DM. That is why they will be in the DMG. They can be as common or uncommon as he wants. He can price them for anything he wants.

I didn't say anything about crafting a story and creating a world.

Not every setting needs to have magic items, but D&D comes with a set of assumptions, and one of those is that magic items exist. D&D already has a problem with casters being better than everyone else - a problem that will continue in 5e - and since noncasters rely on magic items the most, removing them or the players' ability to choose them would fuck those characters even harder.

Fourth edition had such an assumption because all its monster math assumed the players were getting the optimal number of magical items. Fifth edition makes no such assumption. The math is balanced around the idea that players won't get any magical items. Any magical items they do get are above and beyond what the players are assumed to have.

 

[Night Goat]

I haven't played 4e, but I will concede that 3e's wealth-by-level system is very flawed. However, I think the cure is worse than the disease.

Ask yourself: why do players enjoy getting treasure?

It's because treasure can be used to improve their characters, primarily through magic items. Money can be spent to buy them, and any magic items they won't use can be sold to get more money. If players can't buy or sell magic items, than any money and magic items they can't use becomes effectively worthless, and the excitement of finding a treasure hoard will be gone.

"Great, another pile of this useless yellow metal. I can't even be fucked to put it in my bag."

 

[TigerKnee]

Maybe they can sink it into crafti...

Oh, actually I heard they removed that too

Well, wealth is its own reward I guess.

 

[Caim]

So what, gold has been reduced to points that players get as they adventure?

"This dungeon got us 80k gold! We're so awesome!"

That's just... bizarre.

 

[Alchemist]

Are you sure this isn't being exaggerated in some way?

I got it from this thread, and these people generally know what they talk about.

Ok, I read most of the relevant parts of that thread and now I wonder where they're getting their info from, with which to declare the economy system broken. The only concrete info on the magic item economy is a short paragraph in the Basic PDF stating that magic items and spells are rare and not found in every corner shop in town. This is a good thing. Making magic actually "magical" and mysterious again is a good thing, and represents classic fantasy literature better. It moves away from the video-game-like approach that 3E and 4E took where magic items were systematized into banality. How often did Conan waltz into a shop and just pick out his next +2 sword upgrade? How many magic items in Lord of the Rings were purchased?

And most likely we won't see a complete system for running an economy until the DMG hits. At this point declaring it broken is a bit premature since only 1 of 3 core books is out. Analysis based on an outdated alpha document or the playtest doesn't count.

 

[J1M]

Are you sure this isn't being exaggerated in some way?

I got it from this thread, and these people generally know what they talk about.

Ok, I read most of the relevant parts of that thread and now I wonder where they're getting their info from, with which to declare the economy system broken. The only concrete info on the magic item economy is a short paragraph in the Basic PDF stating that magic items and spells are rare and not found in every corner shop in town. This is a good thing. Making magic actually "magical" and mysterious again is a good thing, and represents classic fantasy literature better. It moves away from the video-game-like approach that 3E and 4E took where magic items were systematized into banality. How often did Conan waltz into a shop and just pick out his next +2 sword upgrade? How many magic items in Lord of the Rings were purchased?

And most likely we won't see a complete system for running an economy until the DMG hits. At this point declaring it broken is a bit premature since only 1 of 3 core books is out. Analysis based on an outdated alpha document or the playtest doesn't count.

Yes, the hyperbolic thoughts of those that can barely read are rarely a good source of information. Watching the supposedly prestigious people here freak out over and over based on third-hand rumors is getting tired.

 

[Spectacle]

5 years of 4E d&d, 0 character deaths
1 session of 5E d&d, 1 fighter killed from full health by a critical hit from a wolf, followed by rolling 1 on the death save.

Liking the new edition so far

 

[nikolokolus]

I hope your player cried.

 

[J1M]

I received my copy of the PHB yesterday and read the character creation portion of it last night. The majority of classes are largely unchanged from the last playtest packet with the exception of the Bard.

The multiclassing rules are quite sensible. You must meet a related ability score requirement of 13 in both your current class and the class you want to multiclass into. Additionally, the proficiencies that you gain are less than if you had taken the class at first level. For example, you cannot pick up Heavy Armor Proficiency for free by dipping into the fighter class. If you want to be a Wizard that casts spells in full plate armor, it will also cost you a feat. The multiclass Extra Attack rule is consistent with the Channel Divinity rule now.

The most striking thing about the class changes since the last playtest is that you probably wont need these multiclassing rules in order to play your favorite flavour of gish character. The Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster class path options do a better job at supporting those concepts than the old prestige classes did. The Bard and Warlock classes support gish types that lean more towards magic.

Additionally, the Bard, Warlock, and Sorcerer classes look almost like they were plucked out of an advanced classes supplement. All of them provide a rather large number of character choices either during creation or per turn. For example, in addition to the spells from their own spell list, Bards get to pick at least 6 spells from any other class spell list. Mystic Theurge eat your heart out.

The Warlock doesn't get access to the highest level of spells, but they can gain non-cantrips as at-will abilities. Between their path choices and invocations they have a large amount of flexibility. The Sorcerer is also flexible, but in a different way. He has a resource that allows him to apply meta-magic to spells. This resource can be converted to and from spell slots.

With these changes, I would not be surprised if the majority of character concepts that formerly required dipping and prestige classes could be represented by a 20 levels in a single class. I'm not really interested in a damage-per-round analysis at this point. More importantly, these variant spellcasters look like they will play differently than the Wizard and offer interesting choices.

Dislikes:
-The previous "damage on a miss" rule for Great Weapon Fighting Style should have been included as a variant rule.
-16 different combat moves for a single fighter path is a little ridiculous. Probably there for some sort of perception of parity with spell list length.

 

[Raghar]

5 years of 4E d&d, 0 character deaths
1 session of 5E d&d, 1 fighter killed from full health by a critical hit from a wolf, followed by rolling 1 on the death save.

Liking the new edition so far

Does it still use that flat roll? Normally GM were adding a confirmation roll against Thaco. Aka goblin would need to be really lucky, or get situation modifier. Dragon not so much.

 

[Spectacle]

5 years of 4E d&d, 0 character deaths
1 session of 5E d&d, 1 fighter killed from full health by a critical hit from a wolf, followed by rolling 1 on the death save.

Liking the new edition so far

Does it still use that flat roll? Normally GM were adding a confirmation roll against Thaco. Aka goblin would need to be really lucky, or get situation modifier. Dragon not so much.

No confirmation roll, a 20 is always a critical hit. But crits are weaker than in 3rd or 4th ed since you only roll double the dice, not double the static modifiers as well. The wolf just rolled really well on damage, and the fighter was only 1st level.

 

[Night Goat]

5 years of 4E d&d, 0 character deaths
1 session of 5E d&d, 1 fighter killed from full health by a critical hit from a wolf, followed by rolling 1 on the death save.

Liking the new edition so far

What makes you think the players want to get one-shotted at full health? And why the fuck would anyone play 4E for 5 years?