D&D 5E Discussion

[LeStryfe79]

The vast majority of campaigns never make it to level 20, so I really don't think it's a big issue. Also, high-level spellcasters have plenty of save-or-lose spells they can use; few if any will target strength, dexterity, intelligence or charisma, but that's a problem that's more worth fixing. And if you're a level 20 character who can't cast spells, just fall on your sword because you've utterly failed at D&D.

20th level open hand monk is extremely formidable without spells. There are also many nonspellcasters who can dish it out in the right party, especially if they take the right feats. I think you might be referring to 3.X, Night Goat.

 

[J1M]

In real life people can't turn into polar bears. What's your point?

1. Shape-changing druids are a meaningful part of the setting. Harmless lava is not.

2. When your rules contain too much nonsensical/unintuitive crap, playing the game becomes a contest in the knowledge of rules. I guess some get their fun exactly from that.

Druids having their hp set to full when they shapeshift is a meaningful part of the setting?

 

[Night Goat]

20th level open hand monk is still competitive. There are also many nonspellcasters who can dish it out in the right party, especially if they take the right feats.

High-level casters are gods - assuming they're played by someone smart, who doesn't waste his spell slots on evocations. They can control the battlefield, debilitate or neutralize multiple enemies with a single spell, and multiply the effectiveness of their allies - not to mention their many utility spells. Meanwhile the noncasters are still trying to whittle things down with HP attrition and still can't do anything outside of combat. Monks are a joke at every level and have no business even being in the same game as the other classes.

 

[LeStryfe79]

You're wrong. Also in Toee I beat St. Cuthbert solo with a rogue. The math simply doesn't support your claims. Look dude, I'm better than you at theorycraft by a country mile. I know where all of your arguments come from and you're a has been. Sorry.

 

[Night Goat]

Unsubstantiated claim of an alleged accomplishment in a video game that no one was talking about, followed by an ad hominem. Okay.

 

[Alchemist]

Each of you should roll up a level 20 party and have a PvP cage match to prove your points. Play-by-post style, with a referee...

 

[Night Goat]

Sounds fun, I may be down for that.

 

[Shannow]

With a DM who sets the parties in an anti-magic zone. Cause casters are always better and if you can't cast at lvl 20 you've failed at D&D.
Sounds good. I'm getting my pop-corn.

 

[LeStryfe79]

Yeah, Ulminati could "DM"

Night Goat I didn't say I accomplished anything. I said the rogue was more powerful than spellcasters. I gave him a high cha for umd and equipped him with both artifact swords and used wands for improved invisibility and giant growth.

 

[Kaucukovnik]

In real life people can't turn into polar bears. What's your point?

1. Shape-changing druids are a meaningful part of the setting. Harmless lava is not.

2. When your rules contain too much nonsensical/unintuitive crap, playing the game becomes a contest in the knowledge of rules. I guess some get their fun exactly from that.

Druids having their hp set to full when they shapeshift is a meaningful part of the setting?

There is no ingrained reference against which it would be unintuitive. It may very well be a stupid choice from mechanical/balancing standpoint, but you would want to consult the rules anyway, to see which of the animal abilities you gain, which human(oid) ones you retain, etc. There is mythology and modern fiction, but it's all highly inconsistent in its take on the supernatural.

Contrary to mundane lava, which you would expect to kill you if you tried wading through it.

Bottom line: good fantasy =/= making up completely random shit.


LeStryfe79: Seems like all you care about is the math, no matter how thin the fantasy paintjob is. Someone should really make a fantasy-themed accounting system. Time to put all you theorycrafters to meaningful use.

 

[Crichton]

Yeah, Ulminati could "DM"

Night Goat I didn't say I accomplished anything. I said the rogue was more powerful than spellcasters. I gave him a high cha for umd and equipped him with both artifact swords and used wands for improved invisibility and giant growth.

Screens or it didn't happen.

 

[Spectacle]

20th level open hand monk is still competitive. There are also many nonspellcasters who can dish it out in the right party, especially if they take the right feats.

High-level casters are gods - assuming they're played by someone smart, who doesn't waste his spell slots on evocations. They can control the battlefield, debilitate or neutralize multiple enemies with a single spell, and multiply the effectiveness of their allies - not to mention their many utility spells. Meanwhile the noncasters are still trying to whittle things down with HP attrition and still can't do anything outside of combat. Monks are a joke at every level and have no business even being in the same game as the other classes.

In 5E the concentration mechanic and the revamping of many spells means that buffing and battlefield control with spells are a lot more restricted. If your wizard doesn't have any evocations he'll be standing around watching much of the time while the fighter and rogue kills the bad guy.

 

[Ulminati]

rocks fall. Lestryfe dies.
The party finds a +2 buttplug (used) on his corpse.

 

[LeStryfe79]

 

[ProphetSword]

So, all this talk about the shape changing druid got me to looking at some spells to see how easily one could be dealt with. I'm thinking a "Sleep" spell cast from an 8th or 9th level slot is probably all it takes. While in a different form, the druid has to rely on the hit points of the beast, and at 9th level, the "Sleep" spell will automatically put a creature into magical slumber with the lowest hit points (which the druid is sure to have). It affects 21d8 hit points, which averages to right around 88-100 hit points, and the druid is likely to be around that.

Druid shifts. Enemy casts "Sleep." Enemy throws druid off a cliff.

Of course, if the druid is an elf, this whole plan goes to hell.

 

[LeStryfe79]

5ed Half-Elf Eldritch Knight.

 

[Spectacle]

So, all this talk about the shape changing druid got me to looking at some spells to see how easily one could be dealt with. I'm thinking a "Sleep" spell cast from an 8th or 9th level slot is probably all it takes. While in a different form, the druid has to rely on the hit points of the beast, and at 9th level, the "Sleep" spell will automatically put a creature into magical slumber with the lowest hit points (which the druid is sure to have). It affects 21d8 hit points, which averages to right around 88-100 hit points, and the druid is likely to be around that.

Druid shifts. Enemy casts "Sleep." Enemy throws druid off a cliff.

Of course, if the druid is an elf, this whole plan goes to hell.

Or more likely, enemy casts Sleep, friend kicks the druid to wake him up again. Enemies are down one action and one high level spell slot, friendlies are down one action, possibly two if the druid was unlucky enough to sleep through his turn.

 

[LeStryfe79]

I need to draw another character before I get the Monster Manual next week and switch gears. Any ideas?

 

[mediocrepoet]

I always liked female human paladin. Maybe that's boring for you, though.

 

[LeStryfe79]

I always liked female human paladin. Maybe that's boring for you, though.

Nah. I'll do that next. Thanks!

Edit: It will be better than that Eldritch Knight. That was the first thing I've drawn in years.

 

[Kaucukovnik]

Your drawing has more personality than most of the 4th and 5th edition art combined. Maybe a little bit short legs (slightly exaggerated are always better, IMO).
And I was obviously wrong about you.

I saw a D&D board game (Wrath of Ashardalon I think) the other day, and the tiny black & white illustrations on monster cards also looked a lot better than the color digital-painted ones they put in the main D&D game these days. I guess they just want full color for the lowest price.
The board game also has surprisingly well done miniatures. All in all, the huge box doesn't disappoint.

 

[Night Goat]

Credit where it's due: some of 5e's art is pretty great.

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

So what's the consensus, bros?

Is this shit worth my money or should I just get drunk and rent Conan?

 

[Night Goat]

I don't think there is a consensus. We can all agree that it's better than 4e, but I don't think it's as good as 3. I'd play it, but I wouldn't DM it. My impressions from another thread:

Spoiler

I can at least confirm that it's fun with the right people.

5e is a playable game, and that's more than I can say about its immediate predecessor. It is missing a lot of the depth of 3.5/Pathfinder, and the player doesn't get to make as many choices. Ability scores are a lot more important, since all d20 rolls seem to be influenced only by your ability score modifier and a meager proficiency bonus. I felt pigeonholed when it came to choosing my race and buying my ability scores; you'll probably spend all your points in your spellcasting ability score, Constitution, and either Dexterity or Strength, depending on what kind of armor you wear. The feats you can choose from are much better than those of 3.x, but you won't get nearly as many - every fourth level, you'll have to make a very difficult decision between +2 to an ability score or gaining a feat.

Spellcasting is different. One change I like is that you can spontaneously cast from the spells you have prepared, instead of memorizing each in a specific slot. Many spells now have a duration of "concentration", meaning that the spell ends if you cast another concentration spell or take damage and fail a Constitution check. One change I really don't like is that spell effects only scale if you cast them in a higher-level slot, instead of doing so automatically; no one who knows what he's doing will ever actually do this.

My favorite thing about 5e is the backgrounds. These help you determine your character's personality, and also what skills your character has. This also means that no one's forced to play a Rogue anymore, since any character can choose the Criminal background and get proficiency with thief skills. Due to the smallness of the proficiency bonus, however, there isn't a huge difference between a character with proficiency and one without it; at level 4, the proficiency bonus only gives you +2 to your rolls, and only gets up to +6 by level cap. I feel like no character will ever be truly great at anything, just moderately better than others.

Overall, my impression of 5e is that it's okay. It takes some steps forward, but for each it takes two steps back. I'd play it if it were the only option, but if given the choice I'd pick 3.5 or Pathfinder.

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

I don't think there is a consensus. We can all agree that it's better than 4e, but I don't think it's as good as 3. I'd play it, but I wouldn't DM it. My impressions from another thread:

Spoiler

I can at least confirm that it's fun with the right people.

5e is a playable game, and that's more than I can say about its immediate predecessor. It is missing a lot of the depth of 3.5/Pathfinder, and the player doesn't get to make as many choices. Ability scores are a lot more important, since all d20 rolls seem to be influenced only by your ability score modifier and a meager proficiency bonus. I felt pigeonholed when it came to choosing my race and buying my ability scores; you'll probably spend all your points in your spellcasting ability score, Constitution, and either Dexterity or Strength, depending on what kind of armor you wear. The feats you can choose from are much better than those of 3.x, but you won't get nearly as many - every fourth level, you'll have to make a very difficult decision between +2 to an ability score or gaining a feat.

Spellcasting is different. One change I like is that you can spontaneously cast from the spells you have prepared, instead of memorizing each in a specific slot. Many spells now have a duration of "concentration", meaning that the spell ends if you cast another concentration spell or take damage and fail a Constitution check. One change I really don't like is that spell effects only scale if you cast them in a higher-level slot, instead of doing so automatically; no one who knows what he's doing will ever actually do this.

My favorite thing about 5e is the backgrounds. These help you determine your character's personality, and also what skills your character has. This also means that no one's forced to play a Rogue anymore, since any character can choose the Criminal background and get proficiency with thief skills. Due to the smallness of the proficiency bonus, however, there isn't a huge difference between a character with proficiency and one without it; at level 4, the proficiency bonus only gives you +2 to your rolls, and only gets up to +6 by level cap. I feel like no character will ever be truly great at anything, just moderately better than others.

Overall, my impression of 5e is that it's okay. It takes some steps forward, but for each it takes two steps back. I'd play it if it were the only option, but if given the choice I'd pick 3.5 or Pathfinder.

Hmm... This actually sounds kind of good to me. The group that I'm thinking about DMing it for is a bunch of relative PnP noobs (they've all only played for less than 6 months), and so far in our Pathfinder campaign they seem somewhat overwhelmed by the amount of char dev choices available in the Corebook alone.

I assume meta-magic feats are out then, based on your magic description? A shame if so; there was a lot of fun crunching to be had there.