D&D 5E Discussion

[Lhynn]

Someone can tell me if the revised ranger is that different from the core one? I'm asking because a friend want to change midgame for the revised one but I'm not sure if it make sense to do that or if the class is balanced enough, if it is different enough, etc.

Revised is much better and in line with the other classes.
Core ranger is shit and shouldnt be used. Its basically the only class in 5e thats bad.

 

[Mystary!]

Look out for Primeval Awarness. It's pretty annoying for me as a Dungeon Master, or atleast it was in the beginning. Now I've gotten used to preparing numbers beforehand, it's still a bit of a chore thou.

 

[deuxhero]

I've seen "newer editions made wizards overpowered" thrown around yet I can find old Dungeon issues for pre-2E saying you'll need to up the difficulty if the party has lots of spellcasters.

Really any edition should pretend pure martial classes are for making gishes and NPCs

 

[Lhynn]

In AD&D martial classes were pretty amazing, especially with good attributes, they could easily destroy a caster of their level, mostly because casters didnt get spells per level, so character progression for most classes was tied to exploration, which is how it should be.

 

[deuxhero]

PVP has never really determined raw power in a game where most of the time you'll be fighting monsters, not specialized builds.

 

[Mystary!]

Jaesun one of the alternative rules for 2e was to determine initiative by weapon type. Big heavy damage weapons went after a guy hucking a dart. So a fighter with a bunch of attacks each round could just toss darts all day. People have made videos f this

Aye, and I bet they're totally action-packed...

 

[Lhynn]

Yeah, Casting times were extremely important in 2nd edition, and so was weapon speed. And there was this ruled that allowed to throw darts faster faster than you could attack. There were ways to protect yourself as a wizard, but none of them were cheap, and none of the were infallible, and all of them relied on an access to resources youd never get on your average campaign.

Wizards power in 2nd edition was exagerated by minmaxers, but in truth you never had an ideal scenario to take advantage of it. That was the beauty of the system.

 

[Andhaira]

Gygax liked a more hack and slash style of adventuring, with devious traps and really zany adventures. Which is, to me, the best kind of D&D. He relied a lot on random chance to create unpredictable situations, from which only the most prepared players could get out of, it wasnt fair or balanced at all, like life is, like games should be. The player/s need to struggle, without the struggle the game part of a game may as well not be there.

Yeah Dungeon Crawl Classics is actually the game Gygax was trying to make but never ended up exactly making. Only thing unlike Gygax may be the large number of charts for Wizards for spells, mercurial magic and patron disapproval's and maybe the critical hit charts, but otherwise...

I might add DCC's patron magic is the best iteration of sword and sorcery magic as derived from the Elric mythos I've seen. In fact Elves are actually Melniboneans with serial numbers filed off and iron weakness tacked on. Only thing which would make DCC even better IMO is adding in feats/talents, a few more classes and improving the mercurial magic system to make it more playable and forgiving. It's a cool concept but too much like wild magic; spellcasters already can suffer from taint. Fortunately it's easily houserules for now, but a better core system would be great. Also move away from d20 spells and more into sword & sorcery type of spells (i.e. no more magic missile, color spray etc but instead Scream of Shattered Souls, Kiss of the Medusa, Burning Sword of Asmodeus, Fiery Storm of the Sixth Hell, etc etc) And a demon summoning system to summon specific named demons (which can be as easy as making custom spell for each demon, or at the least a general demon summoning spell where you have to know the demons true name and can then summon and command it; trick being even lowest of the low wizards can summon mighty demons if they know the spell and a true name, so it gives them incentive to adventure to find true names and bind demons to their will)

Btw for any fans of DCCrpg the Hubris 3rd party sourcebook is fantastic and worth getting for players and DMs alike.

 

[Lhynn]

Im not a fan of feats, even the 5e iteration tends to take away more than it adds.

Feats should come naturally from narrative character development, not be something you pick at level ups.

 

[DavidBVal]

Yeah, Casting times were extremely important in 2nd edition, and so was weapon speed. And there was this ruled that allowed to throw darts faster faster than you could attack. There were ways to protect yourself as a wizard, but none of them were cheap, and none of the were infallible, and all of them relied on an access to resources youd never get on your average campaign.

Wizards power in 2nd edition was exagerated by minmaxers, but in truth you never had an ideal scenario to take advantage of it. That was the beauty of the system.

Ah, those 4 darts/round at level 1...

One thing I believe kept the power scale in check in old editions was stats never going up and no point-buy system. You had a character with a 16 on your best stat and plenty of 9-11 rolls, and you had to be a man and deal with it. Damn, they even gave Raistlin a 17 INT on sourcebooks, he couldn't even cast level 9 spells. After 3rd edition every mage is guaranteed to end up being a 20 INT genius at high levels, making stats meaningless. 5ed is even worse because it keeps the stat increases and adds a cap of 20, making sure every character of a class ends up with the same stats.

 

[Lhynn]

Yup, which is why im going back to AD&D while porting some of the best stuff 5e has. like skills, magical items, concentration, bound accuracy and class features. Feats too, in the form of weapon and non weapon proficiencies depending on wether they are combat or non combat feats.

Old dual classing but for all races too.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Yup, which is why im going back to AD&D while porting some of the best stuff 5e has. like skills, magical items, concentration, bound accuracy and class features. Feats too, in the form of weapon and non weapon proficiencies depending on wether they are combat or non combat feats.

Old dual classing but for all races too.

It's funny that you say this. I'm running an on again off again 5E campaign that's currently off again. After playing a bunch of Infinity Engine stuff lately, I started seriously considering backporting the whole thing into 2E.

 

[DavidBVal]

We should design a 2.5e ruleset with the best of both worlds...

 

[Andhaira]

Yup, which is why im going back to AD&D while porting some of the best stuff 5e has. like skills, magical items, concentration, bound accuracy and class features. Feats too, in the form of weapon and non weapon proficiencies depending on wether they are combat or non combat feats.

Old dual classing but for all races too.

Why would you do this, or even think about it? 5e is actually considered to be an evolution from AD&D2e, i.e. what a possible AD&D3e might have looked like rather than D&D3e. It contains some of the better elements from all editions, especially 1e, 2e & 3e with smatterings from 4e.

It's also far easier to port forward than back; just look at your own list of things you would have to port. Why would you want to go back to Thaco, needlessly complex subsystems (thief skills anyone?) and so on. Not to mention 5e has the best iteration of D&D magic ever, by a long shot.

If you miss 2e just use the old 2e sourcebooks and campaign settings and convert whatever you need to convert like NPC & monster stats, assuming they don't have equivalents in 5e already.

The only thing I prefer in 2e than 5e is the lower amount of hitpoints overall, making fights faster.

 

[DavidBVal]

Yup, which is why im going back to AD&D while porting some of the best stuff 5e has. like skills, magical items, concentration, bound accuracy and class features. Feats too, in the form of weapon and non weapon proficiencies depending on wether they are combat or non combat feats.

Old dual classing but for all races too.

Why would you do this, or even think about it? 5e is actually considered to be an evolution from AD&D2e, i.e. what a possible AD&D3e might have looked like rather than D&D3e. It contains some of the better elements from all editions, especially 1e, 2e & 3e with smatterings from 4e.

It's also far easier to port forward than back; just look at your own list of things you would have to port. Why would you want to go back to Thaco, needlessly complex subsystems (thief skills anyone?) and so on. Not to mention 5e has the best iteration of D&D magic ever, by a long shot.

If you miss 2e just use the old 2e sourcebooks and campaign settings and convert whatever you need to convert like NPC & monster stats, assuming they don't have equivalents in 5e already.

The only thing I prefer in 2e than 5e is the lower amount of hitpoints overall, making fights faster.

I have to say I deeply dislike 5e saves as well, namely how they made saves fail most of the time but "balanced" it with spells rarely killing you outright, so it all comes down to losing hp (which you have tons of)

No coup de grace, for instance. the only way to kill someone now (even asleep) is going through all of his hps, like felling a tree. "Houserule in coup the grace" you will say. Perfect, now level 3 spellcasters have a decent chance to sleep a level 20 warrior, because of how saves work.

Stats: no racial penalties, capped at 20 and increases constantly, the result is every lvl 16 barbarian will be the same, every lvl 16 wizard will be the same, etc. So they made stats count a lot more with the new proficiency bonus being small, but who cares if everyone will end up with a 20 on their primary stats anyways?

Spell interruption was a great mechanic and a great tactic, it's gone.

5e overall is great, but for me it's far from perfect. I listed the bad things, it doesn't mean I don't see the things that are great, but after having tried it I am a bit disappointed. I still have to say that I expected far worse, however. It might objectively be the best edition, taken as a whole, but still. Muh 2e!!1!!!11

 

[mediocrepoet]

Why would you want to go back to Thaco, needlessly complex subsystems (thief skills anyone?) and so on.

You find 2E thief skills complicated? Somehow I'm simultaneously surprised and not surprised.

Anyway THAC0 isn't complicated either, assuming you have even a passing knowledge of elementary school math.

For the rest of it, 5E picked up some lame things from 4E like every class fights as well as any other. One of the nice things about 1-3E is that you can have a wizard that sucks at fighting. If you want them not to suck at fighting, there are spells for that or multi/dual class options, depending on the edition.

Saves as mentioned aren't really changed for the better.

There aren't really any sudden death/screwover mechanics either: save or die spells, deck of many fuck yous, etc. That's an aspect of the game I've missed since 3E was released and started toning random elements like that down or removing them entirely.

5E is a decent game and vastly superior to 4E, but there are things that were changed that significantly alter the feeling of the game.

 

[Lhynn]

Why would you do this, or even think about it? 5e is actually considered to be an evolution from AD&D2e, i.e. what a possible AD&D3e might have looked like rather than D&D3e. It contains some of the better elements from all editions, especially 1e, 2e & 3e with smatterings from 4e.

It's also far easier to port forward than back; just look at your own list of things you would have to port. Why would you want to go back to Thaco, needlessly complex subsystems (thief skills anyone?) and so on. Not to mention 5e has the best iteration of D&D magic ever, by a long shot.

If you miss 2e just use the old 2e sourcebooks and campaign settings and convert whatever you need to convert like NPC & monster stats, assuming they don't have equivalents in 5e already.

The only thing I prefer in 2e than 5e is the lower amount of hitpoints overall, making fights faster.

What i would keep from 2nd edition:

Almost everything related to magic. Everything related to race bonuses and restrictions, everything related to experience, both earning it and to level up, everything related to hit die per level, everything related to gear and how it interacts with bonuses from attributes, how much rounds lasts, saving throws, weapon and non weapon proficiencies and how you acquire them, dual classing, no spell selection on level up.

What i would add from 5e

0 hp mechanics, bounded accuracy (meaning attack), action economy (meaning movement + action + bonus action + reaction + free action), concentration (meaning you can only keep 1 spell active at the time, the rolls only to keep spells active, interrupts happen on 1 point of damage), non combat feats to become non weapon proficiencies, skills, classes and most of their features, rarity of magical items. Memorization mechanics from magic, not number of spells memorized but how you pick a bunch and can cast any of them as many times as your slots allow it.

Its basically a point between the two where the sweetspot is, and its just as easy to port one than to port the other.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

I can see where he was coming from. Wizards have button-awesome solution to most problems that could normally be solved in a more creative way. "A hug chasm? Lol, I'll just fly over it. An important NPC is dying and we need to get him to a healer? Haha, I'll just teleport this fucker. We are in an unknown location and need some way to find out where? I'll just scry or whatever. We found a mysterious powerful sword, should we use it right-away or maybe find someone know might know something about it. After all it can be cursed. Just let me identify this junk". I understand that he could look down on players who instead of relying on their wits when travelling through dungeons just preferred to shout "I cast fireball!".

Thing is, thats not how you played wizards, not even at high level. The castings were far more limited, you were defenseless without them, you couldnt really take a hit and even your best spells could be saved against. Saving throws went up meaning your spells actually got weaker against strong opponents instead of scaling to an ever growing stat. Even a single point of damage while casting would interrupt it and youd lose the spell, you didnt get spells per level, so you had to actually go out there and explore, and it was entirely up to luck what you got.

Playing a wizard on OD&D and AD&D was very, very different, it relied on staying on your toes and constantly relying on your team mates for even the easiest of tasks, even at high levels. Today playing a wizard is easy mode and requires no thought at all.

I'm not saying that wizards are invincible and always have right solution to every problem. I'm saying that they provide easy, supernatural solution to a problem that would usually require some creativity from the players, which might've made Gygax look down at players who wanted to be Wizards. Sufficiently advanced wizard can make most problems outside of actual combat trivial.

 

[Lhynn]

I'm not saying that wizards are invincible and always have right solution to every problem. I'm saying that they provide easy, supernatural solution to a problem that would usually require some creativity from the players, which might've made Gygax look down at players who wanted to be Wizards. Sufficiently advanced wizard can make most problems outside of actual combat trivial.

Except this isnt true. Even a well played level 20 wizard with contingency and other crap can still fall to a level 5 fighter under the proper circumstances, and it isnt even a hard scenario to set up.

 

[DavidBVal]

I'm not saying that wizards are invincible and always have right solution to every problem. I'm saying that they provide easy, supernatural solution to a problem that would usually require some creativity from the players, which might've made Gygax look down at players who wanted to be Wizards. Sufficiently advanced wizard can make most problems outside of actual combat trivial.

Except this isnt true. Even a well played level 20 wizard with contingency and other crap can still fall to a level 5 fighter under the proper circumstances, and it isnt even a hard scenario to set up.

He is talking about out of combat situations, you know.

Every DM knows how magic can disrupt the environment challenges once players hit mid-level. for a level 1 party, a narrow mountain pass bordering a cliff in a stormy night can be a challenge. they may need to use ropes, scout for an alternate pass, improve light conditions, etc. MAybe the mountaineering background of the dwarf will show up. And they'll be wondering if goblins will show up while they pass. Overall, potential for an interesting scene with a dramatic rolls. Magic? OK, we fly, or we teleport, or even control weather. And if we fall, we feather fall. I think that's what he means.

 

[Lhynn]

I guess theres some utility like fly, invisibility, charm person, that is almost all purpose and does make things a lot easier. But on the same breath they still cost a slot, and they still usually only help one character.

Reminds me of the limitations to teleportation from 5th that ill definitely be enforcing in AD&D.

 

[deuxhero]

Hey guys, I don't know, but this survey can be interesting. Darksun and Planescape all the way! http://sgiz.mobi/s3/36e018baf04e

What's the deal? Is this an official Wizards of the Coast survey?

Yeah. Non-direct link: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/dd-survey

There's a section about cRPGs. Stuff it with as many demands for actual turn based stuff as possible.

Actually, better idea: Demand they make Atari let Tim Cain release the ToEE source code.

 

[Lhynn]

5E being toothless has to do with the kinda forgiving death saving throw mechanics and the frankly embarrassingly bad monster manual.

 

[Sacibengala]

5E being toothless has to do with the kinda forgiving death saving throw mechanics and the frankly embarrassingly bad monster manual.

What is bad about the monster manual? Sorry for the rookie question.

 

[Lhynn]

Mostly that the overwhelming mayority has no real defense against ranged attacks, and that their only good attacks are melee. Besides the fact that player characters are in average stronger than monsters, instead of being weaker like it was on AD&D.
In AD&D even characters with heroic abilities were simply canon fooder at low level. in D&D at level 1, regardless of ability scores you can be considered heroic and able to perform great feats.