D&D 5E Discussion

[Ulminati]

I'm curious what options feats give and just want some representative feats look like. Is it just standard stuff like power attack and cleave or do they open up new options in combat?

Grabbign a few examples at random from the book:

Great Weapon Master
(Prequisites: none)
- On your turn, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action
- Before you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty on the attack roll. If this attack hits, you add +10 to the attacks damage.

Durable
(Prequisites: None)
- Increase your Constitution by +1 to a maximum of 20
- When you roll a Hit Die to regain hit points, the minimum number of points you regain from the roll equals twice your Constitution Modifier.

Inspiring leader
(Prequisites: Charisma 13+)
- You can spend 10 minutesinspiring your companions. When you do so, choose up to 6 friendly creatures (including yourself) who can hear and see you and who can understand you. Each creature gains temporary hit points equal to your level + your charisma modifier. A creature can't gain temporary hit points from this feat again ntil it finishes a rest.

Mobile
(Prerequisites: None)
- Your speed increases by 10 feet
- when you take the Dash action, difficult terrain doesn't cost you extra movement on that turn
- When you make a melee attack against a creature, you don't provoke oppertunity attacks from that creature for the rest of the turn

 

[tuluse]

Why would anyone pick durable when you can get +2 con instead?

 

[Irenaeus]

Why would anyone pick durable when you can get +2 con instead?

There is a second bonus:
- When you roll a Hit Die to regain hit points, the minimum number of points you regain from the roll equals twice your Constitution Modifier.

 

[Ulminati]

Hit dice are essentially healing surges from 4E. you have a number of "hit dice" you can use to self-heal after taking a short rest. Durable makes them heal you slightly better.

Also, note that all abilities have a hard cap of 20 for players. If you already have 20 con, you can't get more.

And I mean HARD cap. the DMG isn't out, so I don't know if they removed +ability belts/gloves/boots and whatnot. But the Bulls Strength/Bears Constitution/Cat's Grace/Fox's Cunning/eagles Splendour/Owls Wisdom ability buff spells have been purged from all classes spell lists in the PHB.

Pick human for +1 to ALL ability scores during chracter generation and you'll probably hit the cap on 2-3 attributes during your adventuring career.

 

[ProphetSword]

People have bought into the hype for this thing, and now they're trying to convince themselves that it's good. Same thing happened with 4e.

It's not hype. I just finished a successful campaign with D&D 5th Edition that started in January. Unlike a lot of people who just hate the game because of what they read instead of having actually played it, I can assure you, it all works out pretty well at the table. I couldn't even finish a campaign in 4th Edition because it was so terrible.

 

[Ulminati]

5E is not terrible per se. It depends on what you're after in your game. That said, it is not really for me. If someone from my group wanted to GM it, sure, I'd roll up a (hideously streamlined) character. But given the choice, I'd pick another system over 5E any day. The exact system I pick would be dependant on what I felt like focusing on in my campaign. 5E is competent at most of what it attempts to do, but never excels in any area except maybe the illustrations.

 

[ProphetSword]

And I mean HARD cap. the DMG isn't out, so I don't know if they removed +ability belts/gloves/boots and whatnot. But the Bulls Strength/Bears Constitution/Cat's Grace/Fox's Cunning/eagles Splendour/Owls Wisdom ability buff spells have been purged from all classes spell lists in the PHB.

I thought I read somewhere that they had gone back to the 1st/2nd edition way of doing things, where certain items would give you a set score instead of a bonus to that score. So, wearing a Girdle of Hill Giant Strength might give you a Strength score of 22 instead of a +2 bonus to the attribute (or whatever bonus it might have given). If you already had a Strength of 23 somehow, it wouldn't do anything for you.

They did that with armor class too, where wearing Leather Armor gives you a set armor class of 11 (plus your Dexterity modifier). In AD&D, Leather Armor gave you an armor class of 8 (plus your Dexterity modifier). These ideas aren't new, they've just gone back to doing things the way it was done in older editions.

 

[Ulminati]

I thought I read somewhere that they had gone back to the 1st/2nd edition way of doing things, where certain items would give you a set score instead of a bonus to that score.

Hard to say. magic items are not in the player's handbook. We'll have to wait until the DMG is out before we'll find out. But if magic items replace ability scores they just make them even less relevant.

They did that with armor class too, where wearing Leather Armor gives you a set armor class of 11 (plus your Dexterity modifier).

12(armor)+dex vs 10(base)+2(armor)+dex. which is better and why?

 

[J1M]

The "less choices" options in 5e are intentional. They may not be there for you. I doubt anyone reading this would consider running a game without the optional rule to use feats.

Look at the path options for the fighter. One is very clearly for a first-time player. It offers great, but mechanically simple, bonuses. Another has the player picking 9 of 16 special moves.

The fact that two friends can use these options next to each other at the table without one player totally overshadowing the other is the whole point of 5e.

If you still feel the need for a more complicated character, then you are probably the intended audience for the warlock, bard, or sorceror.

 

[Alchemist]

Yeah the featless builds are definitely aimed at new players and also a segment of old-school players who hate the concept of feats with a passion. One of the biggest complaints about 3E and 4E D&D editions in the old-school community was all the feats. The idea is that you should be able to just describe cool actions you want to try without needing a feat (or skill or whatever) to say you can do it. And have the DM adjudicate accordingly. It's a "rulings, not rules" approach. So I think it's cool that 5E provides an option to do that, for those who want to play that way.

 

[ProphetSword]

Hard to say. magic items are not in the player's handbook. We'll have to wait until the DMG is out before we'll find out. But if magic items replace ability scores they just make them even less relevant.

I don't see how going from, for example, a 16 Strength to a 22 Strength would make the magic item less relevant, but if that's what you believe, that's fine. For the record, I'm basing what I'm saying about magical items on some of the things Wizards of the Coast have said in blogs and other places.

12(armor)+dex vs 10(base)+2(armor)+dex. which is better and why?

I'm not sure one is necessarily better than the other. I was just using it as an example of how they've gone back to the old way of doing things and are using set numbers to keep the inflation under control versus allowing bonuses to be stacked endlessly on top of each other. It's really a matter of preference.

That being said, I prefer the way 5E does it.

 

[Monstrous Bat]

Hard to say. magic items are not in the player's handbook. We'll have to wait until the DMG is out before we'll find out. But if magic items replace ability scores they just make them even less relevant.

I don't see how going from, for example, a 16 Strength to a 22 Strength would make the magic item less relevant, but if that's what you believe, that's fine. For the record, I'm basing what I'm saying about magical items on some of the things Wizards of the Coast have said in blogs and other places.

Pretty sure he was saying that the magic item made the ability scores less relevant.

I risk angering Lord Mondblut by saying this, but I too like how there's less character options in 5e. When it comes to PnP I prefer my character creation simple and not force the players to think too much about minmaxing.

 

[Ulminati]

Yep. If it replaces one of your abilities regardless of what it was, people will just dump the ability if they're certain to get it. (EG: starting at a higher level and being allowed to buy items; 3-CHA <CHARNAME> in BG2 + ring of human influence from circus).

It's interesting to see how many people like the rulings-not-rules approach of 5E. I feel that it sits in an uncomfortable spot where it's too dumbed down to scratch the crunchy munchkin itch the way Pathfinder does. Bu it is also too complex to work as a quick and dirty game. There are plenty of indie games out there that work better for that.

Anyway -- if anyone who has actually sat down and played a few sessions of 5E would chime in, I'd love to hear their impressions for the review I'm working on.

 

[ProphetSword]

Yep. If it replaces one of your abilities regardless of what it was, people will just dump the ability if they're certain to get it. (EG: starting at a higher level and being allowed to buy items; 3-CHA <CHARNAME> in BG2 + ring of human influence from circus).

That would be a problem if 5E assumed the party had magical items. Thing is....magical items are completely optional, not required, and any granted to players are supposed to be found while adventuring. The rules clearly state that there are no magic shops. DMs who allow that are asking to break the system. The days of players getting to pick the items they want is over...and good riddance.

So yeah, if you play it like 3E, then the abilities won't be relevant. But don't blame the game for not following its rules, though.

 

[Ulminati]

Where exactly do the rules state that? Page # would be extra nice? I'm not saying you're lying. If it's the case—if I can point to a page and call it canon—then it's pretty relevant info for my review. I was assuming the magic item info was up in the air until DMG hits

 

[ProphetSword]

Where exactly do the rules state that? Page # would be extra nice? I'm not saying you're lying. If it's the case—if I can point to a page and call it canon—then it's pretty relevant info for my review. I was assuming the magic item info was up in the air until DMG hits

Starting with the Player's Handbook:
"Selling magic items is problematic. Finding someone to buy a potion or scroll isn't too hard, but other items are out of the realm of most but the wealthiest nobles. Likewise, aside from a few common magical items, you won't normally come across magic items or spells to purchase. The value of magic is far beyond simple gold and should always be treated as such." (Player's Handbook - Page 144 - Under the heading "Selling Treasure").


In the DM's packet of the Basic Rules, we also see that the emphasis is on finding rather than buying:
"Every adventure holds the promise—but not a guarantee—of finding one or more magic items." (DM's Basic Rules - Page 59 under the heading "Magic Items").



We can also use the final playtest packets. While there have been some mechanical differences between the packets and the final products, the basic rules and intentions haven't changed. We can probably assume we will find this information in the upcoming DMG:

"...magic items are, by and large, so rare that no market exists for them." (Page 1 - Magic Item Packet - Final Playtest - Under the heading "Buying Magic Items")

"If a player wants to sell a magic item, the lack of established market makes doing so difficult." (Page 1 - Magic Item Packet - Final Playtest - Under the heading "Selling Magic Items.")

"When you create your own adventures, it's up to you as the DM to determine where magic items are located. Such scarce commodities are usually hidden in deep dungeons, sealed inside trapped chests, buried in ancient treasure hordes guarded by monsters, or wielded by powerful foes." (Page 1 - Magic Item Packet - Final Playtest - Under the heading "Encountering Magical Items.")


There was also a blog by Mike Mearls on Magic Items on D&D Insider, but it seems to have been removed since WotC changed their homepage, so I can't provide a link. In that blog, it was clearly stated that magical items are completely optional to the game. It isn't assumed that players will gain magical items, and if they do get a +1 item, it just makes them more important due to the low numbers, as that +1 is significant. You will have to take my word for it, but maybe someone else here can confirm it if they read it as well.

 

[Ulminati]

Thanks. I'll update my review accordingly when I get home.

 

[Caim]

So if they are so rare that nobody will sell their magic items yet at the same time few people are rich enough to buy them... what, trading magic items has become akin to our world's market for art of long-dead masters?

 

[nikolokolus]

Sure, a little like the black market for high valued art, but probably a little closer to the black market for nukes and chemical weapons. A smart referee will play up that angle.

 

[ProphetSword]

There's a good reason for there not being able to just go out and buy magical items that inflate the numbers. The emphasis is for DMs to create unique magical items. Instead of handing out a measly +1 longsword, DMs should be creating items with unique abilities that enhance gameplay without necessarily adding numbers. This adds a ton of flavor to the items and makes them useful. Here are some examples of items I've created in my own campaign that don't add to the number inflation and were still useful to the party:

Ring of Quick-Action:
When attuned to the user, the Ring of Quick-Action allows the user to gain advantage to initiative rolls at the beginning of combat. In addition, the user can move an additional 10' when not encumbered.

Rapid Fire Bow:
The Rapid Fire Bow functions as a normal bow until the user has attuned to it. Once attuned, the Rapid Fire Bow will automatically create a mundane arrow when the possessor pulls back the bowstring. These arrows disintegrate into dust five seconds after hitting their target and cannot be recovered. Once per long rest, a person attuned to the bow can command the bow to fire six arrows at a single target simultaneously on a single attack roll.

Chain Mail of Stealth:
This seemingly normal set of Chain Mail has been magically enhanced to remain quiet. A user wearing Chain Mail of Stealth does not incur a Disadvantage when attempting to stealth.


I still include +1 items in my games, but I don't call them "Longsword +1" anymore. Now, they it's an "Enchanted Longsword." Rumor has it some artifacts in the DMG might go up to around +3, but I think those would be exceedingly rare and hard to get. And in no case should players be allowed to just go out and buy that kind of stuff. I saw enough of that in Pathfinder, and I never liked it...but then again, I come from the days of Basic and AD&D where a magic shop wasn't even a concept most DMs considered anyway. I'm glad to see the game return to that, where magic items are precious, rare and useful.

 

[Irenaeus]

I'm liking this stuff.

 

[LeStryfe79]

Here's the deal. 5ed depends far more on the quality of the DM than 3ed or 4ed. There are times when you get fucked and times when you're overpowered. Historically, I'm 75% player and 25% DM. My teenage gaming group had the most talented storyteller I've ever seen, but many times he'd get weird and show extreme favoritism, wipe our party, or simply quit. So, the rest of us would try our hand at running the show when he became a liability. I've always been decent, but I'm a bit of a push over when I run things since I'm looking for more stability than what I got when I played. What's so funny to me now is that our old DM is far more functional in real life than me. He earns 5 times the money I do, yet I had to buy him the new PHB because his father in law peddles Chick Tracts. It's cool because it's taboo and who knows where it will lead. I think 5ed has something to it, a magic if you will. It brings my life into perspective in ways that are hard to describe. It's mostly a redux of 3ed with elements from other editions sprinkled in and I get that. I can't however ignore that something greater is going on here.

Ulminati Although a first impressions at this point would be a good idea, I'd personally like to see the release of the other two core books before a definitive review is written. I still have concerns about HP bloat and the validity of the modular system WotC advertised and I think the other two books will go a log way to answer these questions. I have personally played a couple of small adventures over skype and am super close to putting together a tabletop group IRL with a mix of people of varying experience. I still feel like I'm making things up at this point, though, and can't really give an accurate view of the complete package at this time.

 

[ProphetSword]

Here's the deal. 5ed depends far more on the quality of the DM than 3ed or 4ed.

To be fair, any edition of D&D sucks if the quality of your DM is awful. No system can make up for bad skills behind the screen or a table tyrant.

 

[Ulminati]

Would there be any interest in doing a one-shot or mini-campaign in 5E using an online tabletop like Roll20 or RPtools? I wouldn't mind GMing a preconstructed module if the players learned the rules on their own. I'm intersted in whether the issues I had with 5E were because of the system or because my group is staunch defenders of the True Church of Paizo. I was thinking possibly Sunday 14th, around 1pm Central European Time.

 

[Tzaero]

You can count me in.