D&D 5E Discussion

[Caim]

I remember how cool I thought Prestige classes were that first year...

If you take the right ones, you'd be surprised.

 

[J1M]

Monk in Pathfinder is broken due to its core design being broken in 3.5. It still has exact same problems it had before (poor feature synergy and MAD), making monk downright unplayable. Stealth nerfing through errata didn't help either. In comparison 5E monk seems way more attractive. Sure, 5E's martials are still a bit on the boring side, but at least they're not shafted as hard as in 3.5\PF.

While it is not as obvious a fit as resurrection or lock picking, there is room for the martial role to have a niche outside of combat. Personally, I like the idea of them as strong leaders and sources of inspiration.

Granted, that doesn't exactly help in a dungeon, but there should be nobody better to start a local militia or boost an army's morale to confront a dragon.

The rules don't exactly support this concept, as most influence skills are related to charisma.

 

[nikolokolus]

What would prevent a player from taking the "Noble" or "Soldier" background (for the persuasion or intimidation skill proficiency), giving that character a decent charisma score and then role-playing the inspirational/drill sergeant leader type? I just managed to pick my copy of the PHB today and I've only skimmed a little bit, but it seems like it's entirely possible to create the soldier/leader type of fighter you describe.

 

[J1M]

What would prevent a player from taking the "Noble" or "Soldier" background (for the persuasion or intimidation skill proficiency), giving that character a decent charisma score and then role-playing the inspirational/drill sergeant leader type? I just managed to pick my copy of the PHB today and I've only skimmed a little bit, but it seems like it's entirely possible to create the soldier/leader type of fighter you describe.

When I say the rules don't really support the concept I mean that anyone can do that and a barbarian can't eat the cleric's lunch by reviving people via a background choice and wisdom of 14.

 

[LeStryfe79]

So what's the most overpowered class? My vote goes for The Bard.

 

[FuriousGamer87]

So what's the most overpowered class? My vote goes for The Bard.

Onion Druid laugh at you

 

[Melan]

Some people who really don't like 5e think a necromancer with a skeleton army is overpowered as hell.

 

[nikolokolus]

If the game was strictly a tabletop skirmish game I'd worry a helluva lot more about what character class is more powerful than another. My only questions are these: A) Is every class fun to play and do they have interesting abilities and tradeoffs? B) Is there a role for every class in a cooperative game, where the focus is equal parts exploration, role-playing and combat? and C) is there any class which is going to make other class choices obsolete and put too much emphasis on a single player's character?

I don't have answers to any of those, having only just gotten my book the other day and having had no chance to actually run a game or play in one. TBD I guess.

 

[LeStryfe79]

So what's the most overpowered class? My vote goes for The Bard.

Onion Druid laugh at you

The Valor Bard can potentially cast any spell in the game and attack the same round. he can also do this while enjoying the best buffs from all schools of magic. The Moon Druid can wild shape and heal himself the same round he attacks, but in many ways this is more limited than The Valor Bard. Potentially, The Valor Bard could be invisible and hasted at the beginning of a fight, and cast Power Word heal or Meteor Swarm or Time Stop on the same round he attacks. Of course, The Moon Druid has more stamina over the long haul, but in a straight up fight against a tough opponent, I'd go with The Valor Bard. Then again, I might be missing something, since the game is still new to me.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

So, has anyone played this? How much does it differ over other games or even previous editions? Better, worse?

 

[ProphetSword]

I've been running a campaign in it since January using both official and playtest rules. In my opinion, it's the best edition to date. Easy to run, easy to play, lots of choices and it's easy to alter into whatever kind of system you want. Looks like 3E and plays like 2E.

 

[Irenaeus]

That's awesome to hear!

 

[LeStryfe79]

Finished reading the PHB front to back (my job is easy). Overall, I'd give the artwork a B+, the layout a C+, and the material an A. My biggest gripe with the layout is how skills/ proficiencies are explained. For a lot of groups, it's a very important part of the game, yet for some reason the proficiency rules seem to be spread throughout the entire book instead of being given their own section. I like the rules from what I can tell, but at first glance, one might think skills were skipped altogether and they'd be forgiven for thinking so. My other gripe is how several class and race abilities overlap and it's not always clear whether or not they stack. For example, Half-Orcs have abilities which mimic The Barbarian's, but they have different names. Several rules seem to be handled in case by case basis which means there will be lots of Errata in the near future. Overall, though, I'm really excited to get a game going with this, and this D&D should be a lot more playable through IRC or Skype with a dice roller than previous editions. By this I mean that I'm quite pleased that miniatures and grids are optional again.

Also, the SJW paragraph is pretty benign when you see it in context.

 

[Irenaeus]

The more I read Hoard of the Dragon Queen, the more I get excited. It is really well writen, don't know how it would play.

 

[nikolokolus]

The more I read Hoard of the Dragon Queen, the more I get excited. It is really well writen, don't know how it would play.

Here's somebody's long-winded opinion: http://tenfootpole.org/ironspike/?p=2514
tl;dr: too generic and railroad-y. Poorly organized. Probably par for the course for a module built for organized play.

(I have no skin in the game; don't own it, haven't read it)

 

[Irenaeus]

To be fair, I was missing generic stuff with dragons, so I'm enjoying reading it. Can't wait to recieve Rise of Tiamat.

 

[Keldryn]

It was similar with 3e. The PHB was the first to debut (with a small GM's appendix), then the DMG and the MM. Might have something to do with the massive production runs these kinds of flagship titles have. I assume we are talking at least a hundred thousand PHBs and tens of thousands of the other two on the initial print run.

The AD&D 2e books also had a staggered release. My dates might be off, but I think these are correct:

Player's Handbook was Feb/Mar 1989
Dungeon Master's Guide was May/Jun 1989
Monstrous Compendium Vol 1 was Jul/Aug 1989
Monstrous Compendium Vol 2 was Aug/Sept 1989

MC 1+2 were both needed to form the "core" set of monsters.

I believe that the 3e core books were staggered at roughly 2 month intervals through the 2nd half of 2000.

4e and the 3.5 revision were the only editions of the AD&D lineage where all three core books were released at the same time.

So yes, massive production runs of 300+ page books will generally proceed more smoothly when you focus on finalizing one book at a time. Yes, there will still be errors, but most likely there will be fewer errors than if all three are being wrapped up at the same time.

 

[Alchemist]

Hey it could be worse - 1E AD&D's Monster Manual came out several months before the Players Handbook.

 

[Melan]

Yeah, and I think the DMG took an incredible long time to come out. But the 1st edition MM was also meant to be used with OD&D, so it was kind of a bridge product.

 

[ProphetSword]

Yeah, and I think the DMG took an incredible long time to come out. But the 1st edition MM was also meant to be used with OD&D, so it was kind of a bridge product.

Hey it could be worse - 1E AD&D's Monster Manual came out several months before the Players Handbook.

Several months is right.

AD&D Monster Manual - Released September, 1977.
AD&D Player's Handbook - Released June, 1978.
AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide - Released May, 1979.

Imagine if we had that kind of release today. That was 9 months between the Monster Manual and Player's Handbook (in those days, it was assumed that players could use the Monster Manual in their existing games from previous versions of D&D), and 11 months between the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's Guide. In all, a 20 month release period.

 

[Dangersaurus]

Several months is right.

AD&D Monster Manual - Released September, 1977.
AD&D Player's Handbook - Released June, 1978.
AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide - Released May, 1979.

Imagine if we had that kind of release today. That was 9 months between the Monster Manual and Player's Handbook (in those days, it was assumed that players could use the Monster Manual in their existing games from previous versions of D&D), and 11 months between the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's Guide. In all, a 20 month release period.

Yep. It's not like nowadays where they have to bury the old edition rather than build on top of it. The Monster Manual was on its 4th printing by the time the DMG came out, so they must have been doing something right. It only had about 30 new monsters, but the big deal was that they were all in one place for the first time.

To expand on Melan's comment, The AD&D Monster Manual conforms more to the LBB+Supplements or Holmes boxed set than it does to AD&D. The AC scale tops out at 9. Demi-human leaders conform to the level limits from OD&D instead of AD&D. Spellcasting monsters have their spells/day from OD&D instead of AD&D. The alignment system is a a hybrid of the five-point system from Holmes and the nine-point system from The Dragon /AD&D Player's Handbook. There are other things too, but they're not as consistent across the whole book (one monster gets a hit bonus for magic missile, for example, and a couple get Dex scores for figuring initiative a la Holmes).

 

[Melan]

The MM also had incredible production values for its time - it was the first ever RPG hardcover, it had binding that can last a few generations, and it was lavishly illustrated. Compared to the LBBs and supplements, which were fanzine-tier physical products, it had an undeniable wow factor.

 

[Dangersaurus]

Yeah, TSR's printers specialized in children's books and textbooks, and it shows. My first MM lasted through over 30 years of playing off and on. Finally had to replace it just a couple years ago.

 

[LeStryfe79]

I'm not liking pure Ranger builds at the moment, but I'm thinking a Ranger/Wizard might be fun. This combo brings back some 1st edition Ranger feels as well.

 

[Keldryn]

Yeah, TSR's printers specialized in children's books and textbooks, and it shows. My first MM lasted through over 30 years of playing off and on. Finally had to replace it just a couple years ago.

And then came Unearthed Arcana...