Dungeons & Dragons 5e, does anyone else?

[The Eagle]

I just played my first session of 5th Edition on Roll20 yesterday, playing a Dwarven Cleric (War Domain) of Clangeddin Silverbeard.  Session ends, time to heal everyone up with Cure Wounds!  To heal myself, I roll a 1.  To heal another party member, I roll a 1.  We're told we've all leveled up to level 2.  Nice!  I roll my hit die. . . and roll a 1.  Three in a row, I was <redacted> livid.

[iamfanboy]

Yeah, the last, oh, 15 times I've leveled up in D&D I've just taken the flat HP upgrade rather than go for a chance - it's always 1 point higher than the median you can roll, so the chances of you rolling less than that is a straight 50%, and the chances of rolling higher than it ain't good odds either. The lower your HP die, the worse the odds are of beating that flat HP upgrade. You might ask your DM if you can retcon that? I'd be willing to give a player a second chance on such a lousy roll.

[The Eagle]

He let me take the 5+CON mod instead for this once. 

[PGB]

I was a part of play test up in WA about 4 years ago, all the things I liked went away in the playtest.   I found PFS and got to play again and had to learn new things. In the last 10 years maybe longer, It has been hard to find a really good game because life shows up no matter the system.  I know I need the fun for just right now as it is fleeting at best. so whether a wizard (arcanist wyrd-caster, bard-gnome on a pony with a whip, rogue-enforcer with a reinforced ironwood-quarterstaff, or even fighter with a spear and ancient-shield what mattered was having fun, and seeing "whom" else's fun I could support.  to buy pass ridiculous die-rolling, I think a point buy system is pretty paramount. Let the player create where they will, and then add 1 page of background double spaced, typed, 1 inch margins. for one more character point, 2nd page gets one more, and the limit is 3 pages.  I need to find one hook per page I can easily use as a GM. I even let them text me the stuff. My Bard got some extra points because I cut my own demo for my base song "Let the bodies Drop" and cut my own demo riff.  Mostly by splicing off the internet.  So you could only get 5 extra, but you had to work for it, the GM had to like it, it had to be a contribution to the storyline. The 5 points couldn't be added until the function was used and the GM awarded the individual points.  You will work for it.

[Matti]

When you introduce the actual factual presence of gods, many of whom have genuinely wicked goals and direct control of a given race (or significant portions thereof), the plausibility of 90%+ of a given race being evil to match their chosen god goes up. Why would Gruumsh or his priests allow a bunch of orcs to move into a city and live like humans, when what they SHOULD be doing is pillaging that same city? What would Lolth's response be to a hippy peace movement amongst the drow who are tired of the constant strife and hate?

BattleTech is about only 1 certain universe, which impose significant restrictions for game master and players. D&D5 Player's Handbook makes it very clear that game is about more than just one universe and players have free hands to create more. I understand it as player can have dark skinned elf character who comes from the desert instead from Underdark, and (s)he can worship a god(dess) who has not been named in any of the released books.

But about the gods iamfanboy mentions up there: do they ever actually do anything at all? Like strike lightnings from the Heavens? How do GMs deal with it?

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Generally, gods in D&D never directly involve themselves with the dealings of mortals.  That's what their clerics (read, the player characters) are for.

[iamfanboy]

Depends on the setting - it's one of the reasons that I liked Planescape, because gods were just another being. If you wanted to spend a weekend gambling in Tymora's pocket dimension or steal Hera's second-best brassiere, you could!

The 'traditional' D&D god is standoffish, though, preferring to work through clerics - which makes sense. If they're worshipped across multiple Prime Materials, each with a slightly different culture, then trusting their local reps to handle things appropriately is better than stomping in there with massive boots.

It's often about escalation, too - there's usually some kind of treaty between the gods that they don't manifest on the Primes because it would lead to direct confrontation. If God of Magic shows up and stomps on the temple belonging to God of War, then God of War would have to show up and fight God of Magic right there, which would lead to a lot of magical fallout and unbalance the Prime they fight on.

There's hints that a god's power grows directly with how many worshippers it has on a Prime, and those same worshippers dwell in their god's chosen Outer Plane after life - and the more souls in a given Plane, the larger and more powerful it is. Wrecking a Prime would lead to fewer worshippers for everyone and no doubt make ALL the gods who weren't involved very angry with the ones who were.

[Arkansas Warrior]

But once in a while they make exception.  Like when Rovagug decides to destroy a plane, everyone unites to imprison him.

[Matti]

There's hints that a god's power grows directly with how many worshippers it has on a Prime

Incidentally in a certain anime episode released just recently, one goddess says the same thing. She isn't among the most worshiped ones, so she doesn't have significant power when she is stomping around among mortals. Most people think she is archpriestess.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Gods Need Prayer Badly is not a new idea.

[Matti]

Which of us are of opinion: familiar RPG edition > new edition

In Finland AD&D Second Edition was still going strong lately, but 5th Edition and Pathfinder have surpassed it where I play. I don't own any old edition RPG books (all 3 systems I have in print are newest editions), so I have hard time to relate. What about you & gamers nearby? Do you (or them) want to stick with D&D3 or other old edition because it works for them and/or they don't want to invest effort and resources (money) for the 5th edition?

[Arkansas Warrior]

I prefer Pathfinder to DnD, so it isn't something I've had to confront, but if I did go 'back' to the progenitor, I'd prefer 3.5 since it's the foundation Pathfinder built on, rather than having to learn a new system as I would with 4 or 5.

[monbvol]

It is a tough one for me I admit.

Pathfinder edges 5th out for me mostly because the extra numbers/details help me pull off slightly more with characters and campaigns.

[Kit deSummersville]

I prefer Pathfinder for the greater variety of choices but I'm enjoying playing in 5th Ed. Don't ask me to go back to 2nd edition or 4th.

[Matti]

iamfanboy sums up some of the 5th edition changes in this topic. In addition I'd like to point out that spellcasters can wear metal armor. HOWEVER spells cannot be used while wearing metal armor! That isn't necessarily a problem for a character with spells that aren't typically used in combat: druid could dress up in metal armor for combat, strip armor off as dust settles down, and then cast create water & purify food & drink ( = removal of poison from killed monster as preparation to cook it).

Level 0 cantrip spells can be used indefinitely, and there are attack spells too. That makes magic heavy classes (wizard, sorcerer) way more useful than they are in AD&D2.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

iamfanboy sums up some of the 5th edition changes in this topic. In addition I'd like to point out that spellcasters can wear metal armor. HOWEVER spells cannot be used while wearing metal armor! That isn't necessarily a problem for a character with spells that aren't typically used in combat: druid could dress up in metal armor for combat, strip armor off as dust settles down, and then cast create water & purify food & drink ( = removal of poison from killed monster as preparation to cook it).

Not true.  A spellcaster of any class can cast any spells they know while wearing any sort of armor that they are proficient with.  Druids have proficiency with light and medium armors but refuse to wear metal armor.

[Matti]

Not true.  A spellcaster of any class can cast any spells they know while wearing any sort of armor that they are proficient with.

Right. I just checked the manual. It seems I had memory fail. Still can't cast spells when character has armor he isn't proficient with.

Druids have proficiency with light and medium armors but refuse to wear metal armor.

Yup, it is written in parenthesis in Classes chapter.

[iamfanboy]

So I'm trying to think of a way to say this nicely. This is my personal feeling, and is flavored by past encounters with some absolutely horrible gamers, so try not to take it too personally.

While there are plausible excuses trotted out to stick to older versions of a game, like having spent time on rules retention or invested a great deal of money (sunken cost fallacy), I think that some people prefer older versions of games because it's more exclusionary.

It's HARD to calculate THAC0 with its "AC goes from 10 to 0, with 0 best, and some ACs are negative numbers, which are better than that, and your character has a number to hit Armor Class 0 (called THAC0), and if the number is positive you subtract it from your THAC0 to see what you need to hit, and if it's negative you add it to your THAC0 to see what you need to hit..." Compared to 3rd version and beyond's "Roll the dice and add your bonus to it, if it's equal or over the AC you hit," there's no contest. 3e is just better. Quicker in combat scenarios, easier to use, and even an average 10 year old can understand it.

But sticking with the older system makes that person feel superior for being able to 'get it' where other people just get bored or confused, and when newer versions come out which don't have all the complicated and contradictory rules that superior feeling is threatened.

I don't game to feel better than other people. I game to play with other people, and that makes me feel better, period.

[monbvol]

My group plays both Pathfinder and 5th Edition.

[TigerShark]

So I'm trying to think of a way to say this nicely. This is my personal feeling, and is flavored by past encounters with some absolutely horrible gamers, so try not to take it too personally.

While there are plausible excuses trotted out to stick to older versions of a game, like having spent time on rules retention or invested a great deal of money (sunken cost fallacy), I think that some people prefer older versions of games because it's more exclusionary.

It's HARD to calculate THAC0 with its "AC goes from 10 to 0, with 0 best, and some ACs are negative numbers, which are better than that, and your character has a number to hit Armor Class 0 (called THAC0), and if the number is positive you subtract it from your THAC0 to see what you need to hit, and if it's negative you add it to your THAC0 to see what you need to hit..." Compared to 3rd version and beyond's "Roll the dice and add your bonus to it, if it's equal or over the AC you hit," there's no contest. 3e is just better. Quicker in combat scenarios, easier to use, and even an average 10 year old can understand it.

But sticking with the older system makes that person feel superior for being able to 'get it' where other people just get bored or confused, and when newer versions come out which don't have all the complicated and contradictory rules that superior feeling is threatened.

I don't game to feel better than other people. I game to play with other people, and that makes me feel better, period.

My THAC0 is 17. Target's AC is 3. 17-3 = 14. I need a 14 or better to hit on a 1d20. How is that "hard"? 3rd Edition/Pathfinder has a whole litany of addition/subtraction for each attack, not to mention an innumerable amount of Archetypes for which unique bonuses stack atop the Core bonus. 43 Archetypes for Fighter alone. So if THAC0 is tough, I can't imagine how you calculate an attack bonus for a Pathfinder Dwarf Bloodrager fighting with an off-hand weapon. lol Show the math for that one. ;-)

So if you're looking for "simple," 3.5 ain't it. Especially not when holding 1st/2nd up to it. If you prefer 3rd, that's cool: Go with it. It's all roleplaying and we're all having fun! :) But I choose 2E for that reason: It's simple and challenging. You don't have endless surges, or saving throws, or needing to roll 3 times to check for death after going below 0 HP. The game doesn't coddle you. Once you're at 0, you're dead. Roll a new character. :) For our table, that meant people took care with their characters and actually RP'ed. They didn't rush into combat, since it was a risk. Perhaps it's just the DMs I've had, but I don't get that out of 3.5 or 4E. I got a lot of min/max'ed characters with ridiculous bonuses and people doing their best to game the system. And every new book encouraged that behavior. See "Panache" points for a Swashbuckler, for example:

Opportune Parry and Riposte (Ex): At 1st level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack. The swashbuckler makes an attack roll as if she were making an attack of opportunity; for each size category the attacking creature is larger than the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler takes a –2 penalty on this roll. If her result is greater than the attacking creature’s result, the creature’s attack automatically misses. The swashbuckler must declare the use of this ability after the creature’s attack is announced, but before its attack roll is made. Upon performing a successful parry and if she has at least 1 panache point, the swashbuckler can as an immediate action make an attack against the creature whose attack she parried, provided that creature is within her reach. This deed’s cost cannot be reduced by any ability or effect that reduces the number of panache points a deed costs.

That's at first level. :-\ So would you really say that's easier to figure than THAC0? lol

Pathfinder wasn't for me. Perhaps it is for your group and that's cool! But 3e isn't "just plain better." It might be for you, but not across the board.

[Scotty]

My THAC0 is 17. Target's AC is 3. 17-3 = 14. I need a 14 or better to hit on a 1d20. How is that "hard"?

Because the terminology is non-intuitive, and all you've done is bake the calculations into a derived attribute.  That was then named in completely non-intuitive fashion.  Roll to roll it might be simpler on paper (and only on paper), but explaining it takes significantly longer, and you run into questions like "Why can't I just add a bonus to my roll and figure it out that way, so higher armor class is better?" which is to no great surprise what we ended up with.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

And don't even get me started about multi or dual-classing in 2nd Edition.

[TigerShark]

And don't even get me started about multi or dual-classing in 2nd Edition.

...Which isn't complex either. Gygax wanted humans to be the center of his game. And that's exactly how 1E and 2E were designed: Humans can dual-class, everyone else can multi-class. And they had limits to their power, while Humans did not.

Later editions had people running around as half-dragons, Tieflings, etc., with bizarre job combinations that made no sense, in-universe or out. It catered to the unfettered imagination which led to base exploitation. The only purpose was to get the best attack bonus possible and best combinations. There are entire sites and forums dedicated to min/maxing your way through these editions. And, IMO, it makes it entirely unfun. I've yet to find a table of Pathfinder players without this hangup.

Perhaps we just have different experiences. ::shrug::

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

...Which isn't complex either. Gygax wanted humans to be the center of his game. And that's exactly how 1E and 2E were designed: Humans can dual-class, everyone else can multi-class. And they had limits to their power, while Humans did not.

Yes, class level limits.  That "balancing" mechanism that did absolutely nothing to affect game balance.  It just meant that non-human characters were overpowered at lower levels and then stopped being able to learn new things despite having ten times the lifespan humans did.

[monbvol]

Which does bring up one of my favorite changes introduced by 5th Edition, the incongruity of some races being drastically older but not any better than much younger races is now officially gone.

But I think that's enough of the edition wars for this thread.

[HobbesHurlbut]

...Which isn't complex either. Gygax wanted humans to be the center of his game. And that's exactly how 1E and 2E were designed: Humans can dual-class, everyone else can multi-class. And they had limits to their power, while Humans did not.

Later editions had people running around as half-dragons, Tieflings, etc., with bizarre job combinations that made no sense, in-universe or out. It catered to the unfettered imagination which led to base exploitation. The only purpose was to get the best attack bonus possible and best combinations. There are entire sites and forums dedicated to min/maxing your way through these editions. And, IMO, it makes it entirely unfun. I've yet to find a table of Pathfinder players without this hangup.

Perhaps we just have different experiences. ::shrug::

And I should point out that having playable races is a PURELY optional one. It's up to the group to agree on whenever certain races should be playable or not in their sessions.

[TigerShark]

And I should point out that having playable races is a PURELY optional one. It's up to the group to agree on whenever certain races should be playable or not in their sessions.

It's "optional" in the sense that the DM could limit the campaign to whatever he wants. But that's true of every edition ever published. In 1E and 2E, the core races were it. Humanoids were explicitly labeled as "DM discretion," while the core were "player's choice."

As for level limits, yes. They make sense. A Halfling could NEVER be as good a fighter as a Half-Giant, Mûl, etc. It would be like Yoda in Episode II. lol It makes sense that these races could have limits based on physical abnormalities or intellectual barriers. Giants are dumb. They wouldn't make good Wizards, which rely on INT scores. ::shrug:: That makes sense if you care about the fluff of the universe. Some don't and only want what they want, regardless of whether it makes sense. "Warforged with draconic heritage playing a Warlock-Cleric-Fighter combo!" lol

Also, there were alternate rules established for level limits within the DMG and PO books: Increasing XP for non-Humans. Again, up to the DM and the rules are there for you to get around it, if you wish.

[Kit deSummersville]

As for level limits, yes. They make sense. A Halfling could NEVER be as good a fighter as a Half-Giant, Mûl, etc. It would be like Yoda in Episode II. lol It makes sense that these races could have limits based on physical abnormalities or intellectual barriers. Giants are dumb. They wouldn't make good Wizards, which rely on INT scores. ::shrug:: That makes sense if you care about the fluff of the universe.

Like humans being superior wizards to elves with the same INT that have lives ten times as long? That makes sense?

[Matti]

Like humans being superior wizards to elves with the same INT that have lives ten times as long? That makes sense?

Certain manga has the most plausible explanation I have ever seen about it.

[TigerShark]

Like humans being superior wizards to elves with the same INT that have lives ten times as long? That makes sense?

Yes. It's all in The Complete Book of Elves. As are the rules for expanding level limits and certain Kits and abilities unique to Elves which are not available to Humans. Read the source material. :)

For example, they detail that elves mature at a slower rate due to their culture and long lifespans. Living over centuries can bring "crushing boredom", so they've created ways to enjoy life through "relaxation and merriment." The average Elf isn't Legolas, running around with a bow and slaying Orcs; most of them don't bother to leave home.

Out of that 750-year lifespan, they really only show interest in adventuring during their adulthood (age 110+) and tend to "cease adventuring" around the age 170 (PHBR8, page 38), as they've traveled and gained as worldly a knowledge as they care to gain. They become susceptible to disease and don't wish to endanger themselves. It states that there are exceptions to this, but that they are not the norm, and instead are the stuff of legend.

Page 38-39

"Many elves cease adventuring at this point. More than 60 years of one's life devoted to pursuing fleeting treasure and fame is quite enough for most elves. The priests settle in one community, the wizards retire to perform magical research full-time, the warriors train others, and the thieves establish their own guilds."