So is 5e good?

>>47423173
It's ok.

>>47423173
Yes.

Next question?

>>47423184
Does God exist?

>>47423200
Impossible to confirm or deny.

It's decent.

Bounded accuracy is nice but a be too bounded.

Stat cap wouldn't have been required if stat increases had been +1 to two instead of also allowing +2 to one. It's like building a faster car then instituting a lower speed limit to compensate.

Fighter is more of a real class now but it lost some of it's fun because of class's features instead of bonus feats. Plus fighter still can't really do that much.

Advantage and disadvantages are a neat idea but kind of lame.

>>47423173
Yes, it's good.

>>47423351

No it isn't. It's another example of why Wizards should fire Merals and his schizophrenic deign philosophy.

No, my PHB HAD A FUNKY SMELL!

>>47423173
It's the easiest edition in a long time to create new tabletop players with.

>>47423173
I really hate it. Other people love it. Whatever.
Look at the rules (pretty sure most of them are free?). Maybe run a session or two. It'll be much more informative than me griping or someone else swooning.
Unless you're trying to start some sort of edition war thread. In which case, shame on you, anon.

>>47423387

Except there are loads of other RPGs hpthat are objectively better for introducing new players too. Such as Dungeon World.

I like it, but I seem to have fallen into the trap of I'm the only person in my regular group who will run it and my other group's dms aren't reliable enough so I'm stuck DMing for them as well.

>>47423272
Fighter can fight.

What else do you want it to do? Summon demons? Shapeshift into a dragon?

>>47423200
I want to believe he does.

>>47423364
>>47423397
Why?

What's wrong with it? I'm genuniely curious to hear your critiques.

>>47423441
See
>>47423272

It's "fun" take that as you will

>>47423427
I think he might've meant he was hoping to have more ways to play Fighter. So "it can't do much", as in it's more limited than before

>>47423441

It doesn't have the options of 3.5 because those options fucked up so Wizards thought options and splats wee evil rather than admitting they tucked up.

It's a standard cycle for these retarded kikes. they try something, fuck it up, then decide that thing is bad and make the next version of he game completely opposite based on the "lessons" they learned, rather than improving on the thing they fucked up. As a result zero progress has been made. They did not learn any lessons from the good ideas in 3e or 4e, both of which had many flaws but also many good ideas.

TLDR wotc is retarded.

>>47423484
Sup Virt. Still haven't killed yourself yet I see.

>>47423441
When I look through most RPGs, I get ideas. Lots of them. 5e just didn't do that for me.

Moreover, I felt like it was unbelievably difficult to make a character mechanically differentiated from the pack. I liked the fact that it was really hard to fuck up a character - you're pretty much guaranteed to be reasonably effective unless you do something monumentally stupid. The way they handled it made character creation feel very limited, though, at least in my opinion.

I wish it'd have a greater content cycle. I would really enjoy more classes, not just archetypes for existing classes.

>>47423574
I don't know I'm sorta glad they did archetypes as opposed to the thousands of classes that no one would play.
Because all those different classes felt like a variation of the same four basic archtypes.

>>47423611
I'll agree with this.

Seriously, how many versions of thief/ninja/assassin/shadowdancer/rogue to we really need.

Just give us a template and let the player customise it from there.

>>47423200
Depends on the setting.

>>47423229
This.
though personally I believe he does.

>>47423568

Except it wouldn't have been hard to allow more options without compromising game balance. Just don't go back to the same retarded feat chain bull shit and things will be fine. Except feats are shit now despite ironically being better than ever because you give up your attribute bonus and some feats actually increase attributes. The whole thing is a god damn retarded mess from a company whose god complex is so severe that it thinks, if we fuckdd something up, then that entire thing must be bad, and thus we made a great discovery in game design.

Wizards of the Coast has not made any new ideas in game design since...ever. They are twenty years behind and are acting like being ten years behind is a great accomplishment.

>>47423200

Which one?

>>47423611

So ranger is just a rogue? Are you retarded?

I agree with your general point, though. That said I would love to see a scout and duskblade as their own classes.

>>47423898
>duskblade
Duskblade was a mistake.

>>47423918
why was duskblade a mistake? Overpowered?

>>47423898
No, you idiot, a ranger is just a ranged fighter.
But in all seriousness, in 2nd edition, the classes where broken into four basic groups:warrior, wizard, priest and, theives.
It kind has been like that for awhile. And what I was getting at is do you need a ninja when the could just a renamed rouge?
Though the worse offender of this shit is pathfinder which has both classes AND archtypes.

File: Flash_Sweat.png (80KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 225x225px

My only gripes thus far go hand in hand: lack of feats, and (eventual) caster supremacy. I find the simplest way to mitigate caster supremacy is to simply offer additional feats to martial classes, at regular intervals. Does it bridge the gap? Not entirely, but it helps, and makes the martials feel more useful and versatile. More options are needed, though.

>>47424010

> ranger is just a ranged fighter

Dude....what the fuck...

I agree about pathfinder though. There are far too many classes, particularly caster classes that I found boring and useless.

>>47424018

> tfw first edition where combat expertise like ability might actually be good

> tfw it won't happen

Would combat expertise break 5e?

>Most people are saying the Fighter is bad because casters do better
Does this mean Eldritch Knight is the best kind of fighter?

It's pretty acceptable, but whether 5e is "good" or not depends on what you're looking for.

Do you want a game centered around balanced combat, bringing the experience of a MOBA to the tabletop? That's not 5e, it's 4e.

Do you want something super-duper rules heavy, mechanically simulating every aspect of a fantasy universe? You might be let down, some older editions of D&D did more than that.

Do you want a rules-light system that provides a minimal framework of conflict resolution for freeform roleplaying; or do you want a power fantasy where you start the game a legendary badass? You do? Have you tried not playing D&D?

What 5e is...
>Moderate to heavy rules
Most things can be worked out mechanically, though part of that is that a number of mechanical consequences, notably advantage/disadvantage, have a very broad application.

>In favor of mixed roleplaying
During the playtest there was a lot of talk about the three pillars of D&D being combat, exploration, and interaction. 5e kind of expects you'll be doing all three, especially when it comes to who's handy how often.

>Moderatley Balanced
On one hand, there's disparity between classes and archetypes in terms of how much power they can bring to bear. They're not all created equal. However, unlike 3e, you have to be trying to make a character so incompetent that you'll feel locked out by power level disparity. If everybody sits down with the PHB and draws up people in a rough sense, no one's going to be a perennial bench warmer without something untoward happening.


All in all, it's pretty okay. I like it well enough, but YMMV.

>>47424085
>Does this mean Eldritch Knight is the best kind of fighter?
People will deny it but: generally, yes, EK is the most versatile and potentially strongest fighter.

>>47424111
I heard that the warmaster fighter with great weapon fighting does the highest dps. You just spam precision strike with the +10 damage attack, apparently.

>>47424092
nice & fair review

>>47423173
It's fun for the first couple of levels and then it gets really boring.
Caster supremacy is still a thing and is unfixable with the way DnD handles magic. 5th level is when the gap between casters and everything else becomes truly palpable, give or take a few levels depending on which casting class it is.
The skill system is absolute dog doodoo.
The game feels like it is designed with new players in mind. If you use it to introduce new players to tabletop they run the risk of getting attached to it and not wanting to play anything else due to how friendly it is. Though I guess the same could be said of other systems.

>>47424111
>and potentially strongest fighter.
>>47424130
Battle Master has the most damage over 4 turns of the three archetypes.
After 7 turns of combat, Champion does the most average damage average. (for rounds 5 and 6, battlemaster remains little ahead but now falling off due to being out of superiority dice.)
Eldritch Knight lacks the sheer weight of numbers that the other two have, but obviously gets minor spellcasting to shore up his abilities.

>>47424049
It was a bad joke on my part, Rangers were classified as a Warrior class in 2nd edition.
My bad.

>>47424336

Okay. Guess I shoulda caught that, I. Was about to go full butt hurt.

You have a valid point which I agree with,too. Sorry for calling you a retard.

>>47424333
Battle Master can also completely blow their load in one turn and wreck just about anything by using an action surge (And maybe dual wielding for that one extra attack) and dumping all of their superiority dice into damage boosts for those attacks.

>>47423200
In the absence of credible evidence, there is no reason to believe god exists. If some sort of god does exist, it's phenomenally unlikely to resemble our popular, laughably shortsighted, anthropomorphized conceptions of godhood. But we know that 5e exists, plenty of people have experience with it, and the workings of the system, itself, can be at least partially quantified, so I'm not sure what one thing has to do with the other.

>>47423398
Why is there always a Dungeon World Homer in these kinds of threads?

Both 5e and DW barely have rules that aren't just grognard bullshit, so simplicity of play isn't a selling point on either. Chargen on DW's side is simpler inasmuch as there are fewer options, but the starting option bit in 5e's class writeup achieves similar ends.

If you're going to suck PbtA cock, at least recommend World of Dungeons instead.

>>47423173
Why does everything have so much fucking HP?

>>47424740
Because you're not supposed to die. Heroic fantasy works fine, you need some fundamental changes via houserules to do something else unless you wanna keep the party level 1-2 a whole game.

>>47424764
Alternatively, if you meant monsters, it's because of the burst damage potential I think, even if it's short rest and such an encounter ending in one turn isn't desirable.

>>47424740
I GM a game of 5e and I pretty much halve all monsters' hp. Works juuuust fine.

>>47424780
>an encounter ending in one turn isn't desirable.
It's far more preferable to dragging an encounter out to 5 rounds with autoattacks, that's for fucking sure.

>>47424855
Hey I didn't say I like it, just what the designers / bad GMs that want to show of their special monster OCs want to be the case.

>>47424885
That made sense when the game had monsters that had interesting abilities. You know, in 4E, a tactical game.

In 5E, which is basically just a stripped down version of 3E, that is no longer the case, and instead it makes combat incredibly fucking tedious on top of it feeling like everyone is fighting with nerf bats. You can't use AD&D damage in a game with 3E HP.

>>47424927
I mean for GMs that make homebrew monsters and fall in love with them, most vanilla monsters do have quite boring abilities. Things like shadows though, if they die before draining any strength then they didn't do anything cool mechanically. Not that that's a bad thing.

>tfw my friend thinks 5E is unbalanced while Pathfinder is not
Is he crazy?

>>47425146
That depends. Do you consider beaten housewives/people with Stockholm syndrome to be crazy?

>>47424642
Nah its cool,
I forget that on the internet it's hard to do sarcasm well.

>>47423173
Pandering to the lowest common denominator of unwashed fedorabeard scum for twenty years.

>>47423272
Well I don't agree on your point about Fighter. I basically made Solid Snake in my latest campaign. Took range and stealth feats, and combat maneuvers. Had a fighter who not only could tank, but also disarm, trip enemies at range AND stealth for scouting. Pretty versatile.

>>47423173
It's alright.

File: 1414881985011.jpg (167KB, 1599x664px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1599x664px

>>47425274
100% this desu.

>>47425274
>>47425380
So you guys hate D&D in general or just 5e?

What games do you play?

>>47425483
I hate anything that appeals to lower middle class retards who can't be bothered to read a book or peel themselves away from CoD 37.

I dig AD&D 1e, Hackmaster, Nobilis, Numenera, and GURPS in no particular order.

>>47425536
Oh, so you're just a shiteater.

Can you start using a trip? I'd love to filter all of your opinions from now on.

>>47425536

>I hate anything people likes and I don't

>>47425536
Numenera looks pretty cool sempai.

I'm digging the aesthetic.

>>47423173
Good enough.

>>47423484
>options
Most of 3.X's options were just there for show. Like the hundreds of feats, most of which were just there so there'd be hundreds of feats. E.g. Mounted Archery doesn't really give you anything new to do, it just reduces the arbitrary penalties that were added so there could be a Mounted Archery feat.

And there are more skills, but that means that if your character plays the trumpet, you have to put a rank into Perform: Trumpet (two if it's cross-class) instead of just saying "Oh, and my character knows how to play the trumpet."

And if we were to bring Pathfinder into it, it's even worse. Anyone should be able to start a rumor, but since it's a Rogue Talent, it'd be unfair to someone who took Rumormonger to let just anyone start a rumor. In a practical sense, 3.X having "more options" resulted in fewer options compared to early and later editions.

File: 1413990665546.png (309KB, 398x494px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 398x494px

>>47425536
You seem like a man of refined and excellent taste so I'm going to look into the games you listed that I didn't recognize. I will probably like them.

>>47425554
He did and he got permabanned for it.

>>47425683
Shh... almost had him...

>>47423461

Amazingly enough, the fighter for 5ed is probably the most diverse a fighter has ever been in D&D history.

Being able to move between attacks also is massive step up in terms of martial viability this time around too.

>>47425676
>>47425536
>look up Numenera
>Monte Cook
>Kickstarter
Nevermind you're a shit eater, fuck you.

>>47425730
GURPS, Nobilis, Hackmaster, and AD&D 1e didn't tip you off?

It's ok.
It's not terrible and it's not great. It's pretty much a vanilla, inoffensive version of modern d&d.
It's easy to houserule for though, so it can be a good game in the right gm's hands.

>>47425750
AD&D is alright.

>>47425603
The thing about 3.5 feats is that most were utter garbage never worth taking

But some of them could combine in ludicrous, unforseen ways to produce hilarious results

And that's what makes 3.5 fun, it's not about playing, it's about character building.

>>47425844
But that isn't really role-playing, is it? It shouldn't be marketed as a "role-playing game", it should be marketed as an "exercise in loopholes and manipulation of obscure material" which sounds like it'd appeal to the bad-guy defense attorney in every movie or TV show with a bad-guy defense attorney.

>>47425805
It's fine for what it was, but it's such an outdated system. It really just doesn't hold up.

Overall, each of those systems has its good points, but they're hardly the cream of the crop.

>>47425885
Hey, it's not like 3.5 being fun was intentional or anything

The intended product was dead on arrival, supported simply by being in the right place at the right time. But the ocean of material that followed turned it into something really fun and totally unforseen. Simply because of how busted it was at its heart

>>47425951
That' strangely comforting, yet terrifying.

>>47423229
>Impossible to deny.
Wut? we can prove no global flood happend, therefor the god from abrahamic religion does not exist, because otherwise there would have been a major flood a few thousands years ago.

>>47425951
It's weird that Millenials and Grognards enjoy this kind of revisionism. Kind of like the old "grandparents and grandchildren against the parents" kind of thing, where they both happen to be wrong but from two completely different angles.

The former is wrong because of spite and stubbornness, while the latter is wrong because of ignorance and the adolescent compulsion to rebel.

>>47425274
>This
Looking at the playtest material and what could have been makes me weep.

>>47426107
>where they both happen to be wrong
3.5 was cancer, get over it.

>>47425719
Nope, that highest fighter versatility goes to 4th ed, which also have a bit of attack-move-attack in it.

>>47426038
>therefor the god from abrahamic religion does not exist
Nah, that would only prove either:
1) The story's supposed to be a parable and not taken literally.
2) That the bible's wrong, regardless of any god's existence

>>47425168
Underrated

It's good.

>>47423173
As an aging grognard who thinks everything since Advanced Second edition has been dumbed-down and unplayably bad:

Fifth Edition is actually pretty good. It hits a perfect 'sweet spot' of balanced mechanics and character customization. I like it.

>>47423173
It feels artificial to me. Not like something a lot of love got put in but three ideas thrown together into an okay-ish working mix. It lacks soul.

It's still not bad, but I will not GM it again until they finally add some more monsters so that Lv 10+ I have more than fucking one to five per CR to choose from.

>>47426432
>3rd edition saved roleplaying games

It's a landmark title that revitalized a failing industry and has been used as the inspiration for hundreds of games after it, with accolades and awards showered upon it for aspects of design that many younger players now take for granted. It still remains as the second most played game (after 5e) even after all this time, is an essential part of any roleplayers collection if they plan on entering a discussion about roleplaying games, and with so many infinite ways to play and remix the system to your liking, I'm afraid I'm going to have to say that your opinion hardly outweighs the far more weighted opinion of industry experts and the larger gaming community.

It was a great game, is still a great game, and shitposting on the internet will hardly change that.

Get over it.

>>47426864
>>47426432
>different people have different tastes in different things and this upsets me
You'd figure that after like 30 pigfucking years of edition-warring you cats would get sick of this shit.

>>47424010

You do know that ninjas were separate thing from rogues in 2e right?

>>47426864
3.5 saved roleplaying because it got new people to play. But it also gave us OGL, which gave us shit.
I liked 3.5, but I know bad design when I see it.

>>47423427
>Fighter can fight
Everyone can fight. The wizard fights with spells, the rogue fights sneakily, the cleric buffs up and then fights, the druid turns into fighting bear, ect.
It's a game about fighting monsters. Being the fightguy in your party means dick because everyone can do your job as well as whatever they normally do. Sure they can't do it with a sword shield and armour but they can do a pretty bang-up job still.

Since every class gets scaling HP, Damage and multiple offensive options it's hard to see what makes a fighters job special. Even a slight increase in toughness and damage doesn't off set the massive loss in utility that comes from being physical-fight-specialist.

The class "fighter" only makes sense if no one else is that good at fighting. This was the case in OD&D where the wizard couldn't fight for shit, even with spells and the cleric was usually even with the basic monsters the party was going up against.

The 5e fighter is way more fun than the 3e version and the game does work. However I think the class is due for a serious update. Most modern D&D classes are based more around a theme than a mechanical role. They can do a bunch of neat shit linked to an archtype save the fighter who still just swings a sword all day.

>>47427150
No actually, I guess that was a bad pick.
It would be more like the barbarian or the amazon packages from complete handbook of fighter.

>>47427209
>save the fighter who still just swings a sword all day.

What exactly do you expect a fighter to do?

That's like rolling a wizard and complaining that all you do is cast spells all day.

Fucking martialfags... If you don't enjoy swinging a sword then may I suggest you roll a different class?

>>47427337
^This.
Ain't nobody's fault that the breadth of your descriptive power starts and stops with "i roll to hit" but you.

>>47427162
It had some bad design, but it also had a lot of great design.

The problem today is that some people enjoy exaggerating the system's flaws while ignoring its strengths just for the sake of argument, and that could be done to any system. 3rd edition just gets attention because of its popularity and continued popularity, alongside the bizarre idea that some people have that if people weren't playing 3rd edition, they would flock over to whatever game they're trying to champion for.

>>47423364
Your boss should fire you for not being able to check your damn spelling.

>>47423398
>Dungeon World
>ever

Why not just play freeform?

>>47427337
>What exactly do you expect a fighter to do?
Well let's see;

My Warlord can...
>Buff allies with morale bonuses to attack and damage
>Give allies extra out-of-turn movement and attacks
>Force enemy movement
>Counter attacks
>Use special moves to bypass armor/DR
>Oppose attack rolls against himself to negate them
>Intercept attacks aimed at allies

And that's just some of them.

>>47427383
It's mechanics are shit, it's business was fan-fucking-tastic. It didn't save gaming, gaming was saved by the other competing games, but it did turn the Satan panic NEETs only niche into a much more diverse audience.

It is now defended for that reason by people who refuse to acknowledge that once you leave for a while it is hard to get back into it because the flaws are that bad.

>>47427438
5e fighters can do all that, jackass.

>>47427462
Lul

>>47424010
Bonus round that Pathfinder Ninja is literally just a Rogue with ki powers instead of trap sense, and stuff like that. Sneak Attack, Uncanny Dodge, Rogue Talents/Ninja Tricks (each of which can be used to access the other). They're the fucking same.

>>47424018
>I find the simplest way to mitigate caster supremacy is to simply offer additional feats to martial classes, at regular intervals

Isn't that literally what 5e does?

>>47427438
A fighter is not a warlord.

5e is not 4e.

>>47427527
I'm not talking about 4E.

>>47423173
Fighting is still boring meatbag shit, and overly relies on DM to narrate effects, instead of actually making an interesting system.

3/10 for being an established brand with die-hard fans.

>>47427540
Really? Because you mentioned a fucking Warlord, and those only exist in 4e.

>>47427562
And Pathfinder. Also 3.5 under a slightly different name.

>>47427437
Because it sounds like, but isn't DnD, so a contrarian faglord who doesn't actually play that stuff would think it's a good alternative
>>47427462
You could even do that stuff in 3.5 by the ass end of it's content

>>47427558
?
What part of maneuvers explicitly state I'm not allowed to narrate them as a player?
Please point me to the page(s) in the core books.

>>47427558
So it actually relies on the DM and players being creative instead of having everything described for them? Gotcha.

>>47427442
I don't even play 3rd edition anymore, but that doesn't mean I don't respect that it really was the next step upwards that 2e really needed to take, and while it's stricter and more rules heavy approach is now a bit dated, it helped provide a wealth of material that could later be trimmed down to its essentials.

2e had a lot of great things about it, but it had its share of awful mechanics and vague rulings that made it troublesome to play. 3rd edition refined aspects of it while greatly expanding its rules, 4e brought in new ideas and explored with simplification, and 5e takes the ruleset to the next level by refining the system further.

It's a system that still has room to grow and become better, but even as it stands now 5e is a fantastic system, and it would hardly be as good as it is were it not for 3rd edition.

>>47424802
what do you think of an across the board halving of HP in 4e with the goal of expediting combat and increasing lethality?

>>47424085
My group fucked around and made pirates, with all three types of Fighter. At the beginning the Champion dueled the Eldritch Knight for the position of first mate and soundly beat him. Level 11 characters.

>>47426434
Compared to other 4e classes, fighters are equally versatile.

Compared to many classes in other editions, 4e fighters are still extremely limited.

>>47425805
>>47425922
So AD&D is good in the way that Goldeneye is good.

>>47427614
>5e takes the ruleset to the next level by refining the system further.
Too bad the system was shit to begin with, so refining it just makes refined shit.

>>47427860
Cool opinion.

Wait.

No, wait, no, that's a dumb opinion.
You have to be a genuine idiot to hold it.

Oh god, oh damn, I'm so sorry, I didn't realize you were genuinely retarded.

I'm so sorry.
Fuck.
Sorry.

>>47427571
>And Pathfinder

via a 3rd party book. That's basically a 3rd party of a 3rd party of 3rd edition.

5e is an aggressively mediocre edition.
There's nothing super duper wrong with it, but in attempting to appease people that hated 4e, they threw the baby out with the bathwater. No more interesting martial abilities, they went back to fucking natural language (if you prefer this you're an idiot), they claim "oh you don't need a grid" while still keeping all the grid rules.

THere's nothing that 5e does that another game doesn't do better. It's not even a good beginner game, that's what Dungeon World is for.
Believe it or not, DW actually does have a pretty strict 'order of play' - people claiming it's 'just freeform no rules' are unlikely to have played or even read the free SRD.

File: 4ered.jpg (275KB, 1500x1338px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1500x1338px

>>47427916
or hey, even the old Red Box (or the 4e Red Box??) is a better intro to RPGs than 5e is, since both of those have had serious game design thought put into them instead of just "let's make it 'feel like old DnD' ".

>>47426408
What was the playtest material like?

>>47427916

/tg/, we really, REALLY need to talk about the recent surge in popularity of "Dungeon World" around here, especially the trend of recommending it as a good system for "introducing" players to our hobby.

I understand that there is an obsession with being subversive and finding the most super specialest alternative to D&D possible, but having finally taken the time to read into Dungeon World and the reasons why this game has caught on around here and other forums I feel the need to be frank: this NEEDS to stop. I try as hard as I can not to be a "badwrongfun" style curmudgeon, but this is not a role playing game. Full stop. This is not a role playing game, and this disingenuous promotion of it as such is legitimately dangerous to this hobby. This is an exercise in self-congratulatory free form group storytelling.

This is a "game" where the danger of literally any challenge is by design arbitrary, not just from encounter to encounter, but from action to action. There's no actual combat or tactics at play, everyone takes turns basically describing a "cool fantasy battle" and resolve everything through "dodge danger" and "hack and slash" rolls triggered at the GM's whim. This is a game proud of being anti-structure, where the goal is to explain to the GM how many cool things your players do instead of actively overcoming any challenges in your way.

It's chaos. Consequences of certain failures are decided collaboratively. The GM is encouraged to be more of an antagonistic player than an actual referee of any rules. At /tg/'s suggestion I watched a few videos of people playing this. At one point the *GM* asked the *PLAYERS* what rumors they had heard in town.

I get that the people involved in this game by admission shill it everywhere, but please stop pushing this as a system for beginners. It's dangerous to our hobby and the behaviors it promotes encourages entitled players with disruptive expectations for how parties are meant to work.

Stop.

>>47427968
>"let's make it 'feel like old DnD' ".

Isn't that the entire selling point of Dungeon World? An AD&D knock-off?

>>47427916
It more the "dm is smarter than us designers" edition. Seeing how the dmg is basically "do what you want dm, we won't judge."

>>47427462
In an incredibly shitty form that makes it worse than "I attack", sure, they can do some of them.

>>47427988
There's more than one way to play, and ultimately, all "challenges" are ultimately arbitrary.

I can agree with a lot of your sentiments, alongside the idea that the DW advocates basically rely on shitflinging to get people to even look at their system, but it's hardly worth decrying the idea that players can offer rumors to the GM when there's a potential for good fun to be had with the right group.

When most people end up complaining about bad players when they're trying to complain about a system, that's hardly an inherent flaw within the system.

Yes, DW is kind of gay and dumb, but a change of pace and exploring different styles of play is important to really coming to understand and appreciate roleplaying games.

>>47426864
>your opinion hardly outweighs the far more weighted opinion of industry experts
That's called an "ad ethos" argument. It's meaningless. It would still be meaningless even if by "experts" you didn't mean "you".

>it's popular
Also meaningless.

>with so many infinite ways to play and remix the system to your liking
You can play and remix literally any system to your liking. 3.5 just adds so many rules that are all so nonsensical and broken that changing the system is a necessity rather than customization.

>>47427988
It's called a "rules-light" system. And frankly, D&D is itself a terrible introduction to RPGs for newcomers. Way too many people play it first and never learn to set aside such clunky and restrictive ideas as classes and alignment.

Not to mention the tedious, endless rehashing of generic fantasy settings that it's led to over the decades since its introduction.

>>47427970
To make an imperfect, but quick summary everyone had some battlemaster-like stuff that tied into their class features (or maybe it was just the martials? I don't really remember). I prefer the way it is now myself. A monk having to roll how much bonus movement they can get and that sort of thing felt tedious. I think it works better the way it is now, but it would be nice if other classes had the mechanic as part of their archetypes

>>47427988

DW is also flawed in that it's a "rules light" game with 200 pages of rules

Also fighter and paladin are unstoppable war gods in combat and everyone else gets to eat shit.

>>47427970
Fighters were infinitely better than their final incarnation.

>>47427988
Waiter, this copypasta is stale.

>>47427522
It also significantly reins in caster power, getting rid of or nerfing save-or-die/save-or-suck spells to more reasonable levels, cutting spells per day, and instituting things like Concentration that prevent stacking a dozen spells. Just buffing 3.X martials wouldn't actually fix the problem--it'd kinda, somewhat, sorta to an extent fix the problem of casters outclassing martials, but casters would still be able to bend the game over a barrel.

>>47427899
Eat dogshit, John.

>>47428121
I liked the fighter's maneuver dice, and I really liked Path of the Gladiator more than how the Battlemaster turned out. (Specifically the "roll die to determine if maneuver works; if not, add to damage" thing rather than saving throws.) I can kinda understand why they didn't go with it in the final version, but alas, what could have been.

>>47428119

But DW actually has a lot of fucking rules, many of which are rather esoteric and arbitrary (such as failing to make a roll often resulting in "something bad"). It also uses classes and alignments much more restrictively than even DnD.

>>47428184
I can whip you up the socialism version?

File: 6a00d8342297e353ef00e54f22dcd68833-800wi.jpg (25KB, 267x326px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 267x326px

>>47427968
Moldvay Magenta Box Basic is superior to Mentzer Red Box. It's 64 pages vs. 111, and Mentzer's attempt to baby you through the process and only giving you bits of information at a time, scattering the rules throughout the book piecemeal, only makes it harder to learn (and much, much harder to reference).

>>47428130
The 200 pages are just the character sheets and examples. You can play the whole game without looking at the rules, assuming you've already read them, just by using the free download handouts.

>>47423173
Yes.

>>47428360
Eh sure, I'm up for that.

>>47428422
/tg/, we really, REALLY need to talk about the recent surge in popularity of "socialism” around here, especially the trend of recommending it as a good system for "introducing" workers to the economy.

I understand that there is an obsession with being subversive and finding the most super specialest alternative to captialism possible, but having finally taken the time to read into socialism and the reasons why this idea has caught on around here and other countries I feel the need to be frank: this NEEDS to stop. I try as hard as I can not to be a "badwrongfun" style curmudgeon, but this is not an economic system. Full stop. This is not an economic system, and this disingenuous promotion of it as such is legitimately dangerous to this country. This is an exercise in self-congratulatory, centralized planning.

This is a "system" where the setting of any price is by design arbitrary, not just from five year plan to five year plan, but from month to month. There's no actual market incentives at play, everyone takes turns basically describing a "proletariat economy” and resolve everything through "production” and “consumption” plans triggered at the party’s whim. This is a system proud of being anti-freedom, where the goal is to report how many boots you made instead of actively overcoming any challenges in your way.

It's chaos. Consequences of certain failures are decided collaboratively. The party is encouraged to be more of a CEO than an actual referee of any rules. At the state department’s suggestion I watched a few videos of planning sessions. At one point the industrialists asked the *GOVERNMENT* what the market needed.

I get that the people involved in this game by admission shill it everywhere, but please stop pushing this as a system for workers. It's dangerous to our economy and the behaviors it promotes encourages entitled workers with disruptive expectations for how markets are meant to work.

Stop.

>>47428383
>>47428130
Playing it is easy as hell. It's probably one of the easiest-to-play class-based games ever designed.
GMing it properly is extremely difficult and unintuitive as fuck. If you know how to GM dungeon world and you haven't done significant research online and spent hours trying to piece it all together, you probably don't know shit about how to GM dungeon world.

And it's nothing like learning to GM a normal TTRPG like D&D or WoD or something. It's entirely different and backwards.

>>47428213
5e casters still reign supreme, since they can access a whole bunch of noncombat abilities that martials can't.

In combat? Things are ok, mostly. Everyone meets the required baseline.
Out of it, it's still the caster show. Rogues literally have no niche, since they're effortlessly replaced by a Bard that took the Criminal background.

>>47423272
Agree mostly, but
>class's features instead of bonus feats.

Fighter gets more feats than any other class.

>>47427911
yes. and this, at least, answers to the tards sperging about the evil OGL. Yes, there is a lot of OGL shit. But the gems are worthy it.

>>47428534
>>47423272
Don't treat it like 3.5e's "+1 to hit with one weapon" feats are the same as 5th edition's chunky feats.

In fact, don't fucking treat it like 3.5e feats were ever remotely fun. You were stuck in particular "feat trees" and everything else was a trap option, so despite there being a ton of "technical" options, all decent martials were nearly identical.
And the vast majority of the feats you took were boring math bumps that you should've gotten automatically anyway.

>>47428507
The rogues have a larger pool of skills and a larger pool of expertise skills than bards have access to. The rogue is still unmatched when it comes to raw amount of skill bonuses. The way proficiency works generally helps martials as well, since they'll at least be decent in the skills they have proficiency in.

Casters noncombat spells generally require an opportunity cost of not picking or using combat spells. With the reduced amount of spells, this is a more noticeable tradeoff for casters. If you compare to 3.x, the spells themselves have been nerfed in general.

Caster supremacy is still a thing but not nearly as bad as theorycrafting types think it is. The difference is that it starts to become a noticeable problem in unoptomized parties at level 15+ in 5e rather than 10+ in 3.x. The difference between unoptimized and optimized parties isn't as big a gulf in 5e as well.

>>47428534

Yeah, and that worked out wonderfully for them in 3.5, didn't it?

>>47428507
The rogue gets Reliable Talent, which with expertise makes it essentially impossible to fail any check with a DC under 20. Plus, Cunning Action effectively doubles your speed for free (Dash as a bonus action) while still letting you do whatever. Not to mention the Thief's UMD.

I'm not gonna deny the Bard is probably the game's most powerful class, but the Rogue is by no means invalidated.

>>47428621
The high amount of feats also means higher stats than any other class. When looking at the fighter, you have to take in mind that in addition to class features; they usually have the highest raw ability scores of any class in the game.

>>47428644
I was led to understand that Druid was the biggest, swingingest dick in 5e.

>>47425719

The Basic fighter was far more versatile and deadly than they are in 5e. Hell, they're better in 1e and 2e, simply by dearth of their amazing saves, best armor, best weapons, AND weapon specialization skills that make them an HP-destroying monster.

3.5 fighters suck because martials suck in 3.5; 5e fighters suck because they're not Bards. 4e fighters are a different beast altogether, and require good teamwork and party-play to get the most out of them (and any class, really).

If you want to be the King of Fighters, you're not going to get it out of 5e.

>>47428666

Raw ability scores typically don't make up for the lack of spellcasting. Caster supremacy is in full effect in 5e, just not to the same audacious level as 3.5 (yet, anyway).

>>47428685
Moon druids kick ass until about 5th level, then martials start securing their job with extra attacks and class features and such. Their damage scales poorly, and barbarians end up being better damage sponges overall.

They're still pretty damn powerful, but they overshadow other classes for very long.

>>47428685
At lower levels the druid is awesome but drops hard at higher levels.
Everyone plays up the shapeshifting but it's strictly inferior at tanking to a barbarian, inferior at damage output to a fighter, etc.
The druid whips all kinds of ass till mid levels and then other classes start to catch up.

>>47428685
Well, the Circle of the Moon druid becomes a problem at 20th level when they essentially get infinitely regenerating HP. Before that, not so much.

Bards, in addition to having full spellcasting progression and a great assortment of skills and non-spell functionality, get Magical Secrets, which lets them take the spells reserved for 17th level Rangers and Paladins at 9th level (if I recall correctly; if not, it's either 7th or 11th).

Not game-shattering, but definitely scale-tipping.

>>47424065
do you mean using dex to attack with melee or is this some pathfinder thing?

>>47428477
kek

>>47427357
If you pop into /5eg/ you'll see there is a nearly daily argument about caster and martial balance.

The general consensus is that unlike previous editions, 5E has balanced them in combat now.
But there's still a debate as to how useful purely martial characters can be outside of combat (in the so-called exploration and social pillars of the game), particularly because while spells can have a number of reality-warping effects that trivialize non-combat encounters or can be used imaginatively, martials are bound by physics limitations and rules which a casting class can also utilize. Essentially, anything you can do outside of a fight with your Fighter, any other class can attempt more or less as well, or exactly as well if they have the same physical stats. Pumping your Str/Dex/Con to a Fighter's gives you the same non-combat capabilities, but you can't dump Int into your Rogue or Fighter to let them transmute walls into mud or teleport.

>>47428599
>>47428621
Er, I don't know why you two are so rustled, I was just pointing out that 5e fighters get more feats than any other class.

That said, it does make them some of the most flavorful and adaptable characters in game. Sure, a wizard can still do more, but... that's always been the case and you REALLY shouldn't be playing D&D if wizards being wizards is a problem for you.

>>47428714
Caster supremacy starts to set in at level 15+ but the thing a lot of people miss on the fighter imo is that they can survive being MAD because of their ability scores. EK being better in actual play than predicted since it's about the only gish that can get its ability scores high enough to fulfill the role, that sorta thing.
The fighters chassis allow it to always keep its role as a martial but the extra feats make it extremely versatile if built right. It can fufill more combat roles than other martials or even muscle in on rogue territory with a skilled feat(dex battlemaster is particularly fun with that feat imo), get some spellcasting at low levels, etc. Most other classes have to multiclass to be okay at roles outside their class but extra feats allow a fighter to diversify without fucking their ability score advancement.

That's really what folks mean when they say 5e fighter is versatile. It doesn't have a versatile chassis but its able to muscle in other roles easier than other classes.

>>47428477
Thanks mate.

>>47428767
I'd agree with you to an extent, but that's the idea behind limiting ability score improvements. Pumping a wizard's Str/Dex/Con to the fighter's level would have to come at the cost of increasing Intelligence or Wisdom.

File: 1463441591388.jpg (18KB, 200x314px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 200x314px

I dislike 5e, but only because there are so few options; both in combat and in character building. It's not shit, but I find it boring and lackluster.

I'll expand on this: I played a few classes and read through all of them, and one thing they have in common is that outside of archetype and whether to choose feat or ASI, there aren't any choices at all (other than multiclassing). Furthermore, while the feats are definitely better than 3.5e, there are very few in the book and you get far too few. Of course, I mostly play Fantasy Craft, so there's a bit of bias.
In combat, I noticed that there are just about no options unless you're a battlemaster fighter. What's the Barbarians choice? Reckless attack y/n, and so on. Many of the options, like shove or grapple, are really bad compared to just attacking. The action economy isn't too favourable either in my opinion, but again, thats because I play Fantasy Craft and therefore compare everything to it.
Weapons in 5e are straight up boring. Simple and easy to learn, sure, but all the weapons do the same damn thing, with the only real differentiation being reach and finesse. Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master are the only feats tied to weapon style, which kinda whomps. I'd also shittalk how bad many of the classes are from an RP perspective and my dislike of bounded accuracy, but I must go and nobody is going to read this anyway.

>>47428767
Most of that "debate" is just a troll and people still stupid enough to fall for his bait.

>>47428685
Oh it is. I didn't really get the power bloat of 3.5 until I had a Druid turn into dire tiger and just rape the board... then got mind-controlled and wiped the group.

Then again, in the 5e game I'm running I am giving the Dragonborn druid a "Dragon" form, for plot reasons.
>Our Dragons are different!

And that, I think, is why I like 5e. It really is a great base set to which to modify for your world. I don't care if the math gets funky at higher levels, or if this class is fundamentally stronger than another. I'm here to have fun with my friends, and 5e allows us to do that.

>>47426564
Seconded.

>>47428940

Really, 5e just doesn't offer anything new or exciting. Everything it brings to the table, you can find in a lot of other systems, often free to boot--and probably better, too.

File: god exists.jpg (181KB, 759x1135px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 759x1135px

>>47423200
yes

>>47428959
I wonder sometimes that those falling for bait know what they are doing, they just decided to feed the troll for something to do.

It's what I tell myself at night, at least.

>>47428848
Casting stats are no longer entirely necessary to pump, since there is no requirement of having 18 Int to cast 8th level Wizard spells or anything like that. You can be throwing out Wishes and making your clone armies with 8 Int if you want.

They improve DCs and increase the number of spells you can have memorized at any time, that's about it. Considering the spells you're most likely to use out of combat don't have DCs (or, when used purely for their imaginative purposes, like Grease to slide boxes around, have DCs that are irrelevant) this isn't much of an issue.

It also doesn't help that the difference between a 20 Dex Rogue and a 16 Dex Wizard (which is actually something you may want to pursue and is easily reachable) is a big fat TWO as far as passing any ability checks. The average DM doesn't look at a 20 Strength Barbarian trying to bash down a door and say, "Okay, you are clearly strong enough to do it, you break down the door," he asks for a Strength check, and neither the PHB or DMG says you might want to do the former. One the Barbarian might make at advantage if he has the right feature, but maybe not. And he rolls like shit and can't pull it off, but the 16 Str Cleric or 10 Str Sorc bonks it over in one go because d20s have such a massive range. If you're using Take 10 rules, there's not going to be an instance where your Barbarian could succeed 100% of the time there but the frail Wizard never could even if he rolled and was gunning for a 20. And if you're not using Take 10 but your DM is a smarty who actually remembered that part from the PHB/DMG where you shouldn't be making checks for things that have no dramatic consequence and can be repeated indefinitely (say, bashing down a door when you have no time constraints and no enemies are around to hear it), any DC equal to the caster's Str mod+20 is equally achievable for them as it is for maxed out Barb.

>>47429059
Martials can only run or jump as far or carry as much as the book says they can when it discusses jumping rules or encumberance. There's lines in there about allowing them to roll to exceed those flat capabilities, but again, this option is equally available to every class. To actually get around this and let the martial players perform physical feats that casters simply cannot touch, the same way that casters can invoke magical effects a martial cannot, you need a DM who is willing to say, "because you are MARTIALCLASS you can do this ridiculous superhero thing and Jeff the Cleric with the same amount of Strength just can't," which is something a lot of people find offensive (either because "way we have the same ability score, we should have the same ability" or "wah how dare you let characters do superhero shit without the aid of magic, they're boring mundane characters, normal humans, they shouldn't be able to leap 60 feet or punch through a wall or throw an entire wagon").

So a lot of this is on players and DMs to stop being faggots and allow for fun at their table. D&D was based on stories that had non-magical characters doing all sorts of ridiculous shit, and its lore and literature full of non-magical characters who also do ridiculous shit or are famed for nothing more than their fighting skill, but if you tried to have any of that stuff played out at the average DM's table, Conan or Drizzt would get chumped by some nameless Wizard and die in a ditch before page 52.
>the party encounters a locked door
>Bruenor attempts to smash through it and fails
>Elminster, not wanting to waste a spell slot, attempts and succeeds to break through
>h-h-ha... i... i loosened it for you.....

>>47428078
This just lets everyone know that you never played 5e.

>>47428700
Another person who never played 5e. I'm seeing a theme.

File: HOTDQ_SeekTheKeep_CommonerStats.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Hey since this is a 5e related thread may I contribute this PDF I made for HOTDQ, I plan on making more crap like this for this adventure and maybe inspire other anons to help create supplement content for it or other adventures.

>>47429210
Ok I did something wrong lol

>>47429118
Yeah, seriously. If you want to be completely mundane with your fights, go LARP. You can happily spend your day thwacking someone in the head, just like in real combat. OOOOOOOR, you can remember that this is a fantasy game.

>>47429118
That stuff always pisses me off, what's worse is those guys who hate when martial get some nice things like paladins and try to take it away from them wit bullshit, but never do it with like clerics or druids.
Or even better, when people think 3.pf monks are scary.

>>47429209
Is it the butthurt 4e players?
>>47429210
I'm not sure what that's supposed to be, but you migth want to try the /5eg/ instead

File: 1461794197836.jpg (299KB, 576x741px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 576x741px

I've been tasked as the DM for my friends (who are fairly experienced with previous systems) but I've never run a D&D campaign before this. Would 5e be a good starting point for a brand new GM or should I begin with 3.5/Pathfinder?

>>47429233
In my experience, Paladin players are whiny little attention whoring shits that throw child-like tantrums when someone else gets to do something cool or the spotlight shifts off them.

Totally agreed about Monks, though.

>>47429314
This has to be a troll post. Literally no one will tell you to start with 3.pf

>>47429314
Nah, 5e is going to be ever so slightly easier for you to wrangle.
Neither game is exactly 'simple', most games aren't, but 5e does have a slight edge in terms of streamlined idiot-proofness.

File: dragonqueen.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Ok second attempt...

File: fantasy craft.jpg (101KB, 612x800px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 612x800px

>>47429314

>>47429314
Loaded question.

It's a matter of prefrence and you might have to shop around. Some people like the 3.5/Pathfinder micromanagment stuff. Some people like the more freeflow 5e. 4e gets a lot of flak, but it is an usable system... just not D&D (the great undefinable).
Really, I have a 15 year old that joined my group and he absorbed the 5e book in a week. Though YMMV.
it's really about finding the system (or systems) that work best for you and your group. Take advise but make your own choices.

>>47429342
>5e is going to be ever so slightly easier for you to wrangle.
I think you mean significantly

>>47429358
>fantasycrunch
>good starting point

I think something else like pathfinder would be better.

>>47429364
I also find 5e much easier to mold into what you want. but I never... NEVER play ANY rpg totally "Rules as Written".

>>47429314
If you go with Pathfinder, you're gonna have to set aside the entire first session to making your characters. In 5e character creation takes a couple minutes.

>>47423173

TL;DR Yes.

If you're not into combat simulators or whatever it won't change your mind, but the books are greatly improved in regards to acclimating new players, diversifying builds without overcomplicating, and avoiding the pitfalls of previous editions (both for crunch and fluff).

Most of its flaws are avoidable, but still indicative of D&D. Monsters remain shaky in regards to balance, Rangers are pretty shit, and the division in roleplaying and combat is still noticeable. If you don't like Vancian magic, 5e doesn't fall far from the tree.

The biggest plus in my eyes is its dedication to customization. Its soft throwbacks to old editions, where rules were treated as 'parameters', or its more varied, diverse character artwork, or its numerous suggestions and concepts in the DMG are excellent for encouraging new players to come up with something all their own.

Is it the best RPG ever? Probably not. But for D&D--a gateway for new players, and a well-worn path in need of an update--I'd say it's the best yet.

>>47429361
He said as a brand new DM. Pathfinder is difficult to GM once you know the system, let alone going in cold.

GURPS takes less work.

>>47429435
....GURPS? Really? Why not just through him among the heap with Paladium?

>>47429462
I-I like Palladium and Rifts, I just don't like doing calculus to get the arc on my characters backflip.

>>47429480
Only reason I know Palladium is because of the Robotech rpg.

I was in highschool when toonami started playing the 'toons again. I brought a Robotech rpg book to school and within a week I had friends and a gaming group.
but still, fuck Palladium.

>>47429209

So are you going to counter my points or just continue to gloss me over with accusations based on zero evidence?

Hint: I played 5e. I've played just about every edition, save 1e (though I've read it). Fighters in 5e are not particularly good, especially compared to pre-3.5 ones.

>>47429599
Gloss you, duh.

>>47429599
On the flip side, paladins are great. In every 5e group I've been it, someone's looked at the fighter, said "oh" in a disappointed way, and then had a great time being a paladin.

If only every class was designed with interesting powers. But apparently "all character types should have interesting abilities" is a concept anathema to some people.

>>47429626

Well, sorry to insult your edition then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>47429640

Yeah, I didn't really expect anything from Mike "30d20 rats" Mearls. Dude is pretty shit at game design.

>>47429599
>>47429640
>>47429655

Paladins are good, but they don't light my fire. I think Battlemasters are a blast, but only so many variations of their abilities are fun/useful. And heaven help you if you play a Champion; their growth is way too damn slow to maintain interest.

Eldritch Knights are fine, but I don't see them winning over many fans with so many other options available.

>>47429645
Not the original guy, just stating the obvious that the other guy isn't here anymore. Myself, i don't get into math debates. This half-grognard (I've only been playing since '96) saw the shift in 3.0/3.5 to "Character Builds" and away from "Characters". People obsessed with "balance" and then those obsessed with breaking the game in order to "Win". Again, this is just personal opinion from a guy that lived through it. The tale end of 2ed, the rise and fall of 3.x, the "Exalted" Version of 4e. Are fighters fundamentally flawed? perhaps. Do I have fun playing one? Yes, yes I do.

>>47423173
Neither good nor bad, it just is

>>47429716
this guy knows what's what.

>>47429712

I don't see much use for Eldritch Knights when you have the Bard, who really does that schtick better than the EK.

>>47429716

I mean, I'm kinda in the same boat here? I like fighters, and most melee classes, but I like to have mechanical weight and cruft to them to make them viable, fun, and interesting.

Balance is a tricky subject in RPGs because it's so group and DM-driven, and people will tweak and change the rules to suit their taste. If you vocally worry about balance and sound mechanics you have a not-inconsiderable section of the RPG fandom who come out and scream against it, which is just madness in my eyes. If a video game is imbalanced, you have a whole lot of people demanding the devs go and fix it, but RPGs can't be held to that same standard for some reason.

You should always have free reign to fuck around with the mechanics of an RPG, but you shouldn't have to do it to fix the mistakes that the developers left in there. If that makes sense.

>>47429868
it's a hell of a lot harder to IMPLEMENT those changes in RPG's. Reminds me of Castles & Crusades. It has how many editions now? Each one tweaked from the last. I don't have the cash flow to keep up with it, so I don't play it. Errata is obtainable, and they (Suposedly) are working on major issues (The changes to Ranger comes to mind, another class they just can't get just right).

>>47425146
>my friend thinks 5e is unbalanced...
Well, he's right
>while PF isn't
Yep, he's crazy

>>47429963
I meant that they are working on the issues in 5e.

>>47429716
Weird, because I took part in plenty of roleplaying tournaments long before 3rd edition's release, and discussions of builds and strategies were vital to that scene.

The whole "3rd edition is when people started trying to break the game" myth is almost embarrassing to hear, like the nature of man can somehow be changed in twenty something years.

Do you understand WHY 3rd edition had so many rules telling you what you could and could not do? Because people had torn 2e to shreds and found just about every exploit you can imagines, every loophole worth using.

>>47429963

Well yeah, it's a lot harder, but not insurmountable. Having your game be playtested to hell and back, and be as mechanically sound as possible before release, will help prevent several of the annoying problems that crop up afterwards. It's easier if your book is online-only though, as you can then just release updated PDFs every so often (which is even easier for ebooks, iirc).

Rangers are tricky, and I think 4e is the only time that they really got the class right. Making it a light skirmish class whose whole schtick is dealing a ton of damage and being mobile really seemed to work in a way that didn't overshadow the Rogue. Shame that they didn't learn their lesson with 5e.

>>47426434
But, AD&D fighters were better than any post AD&D fighter.

>>47430051
again, ymmv. Also, I just use to call them Min-Maxers....now it's just how you play the game. Perhaps it's simply that we have the internet now and the internet breeds crazy like fungus breeds Orcs.

>>47430066
Did they get ranger's right in 4e? Don't know, my players never ran one.

>>47424740
>>47424802
What the fuck are you two talking about? My players are fucking chainsaws against anything that I throw at them.

>>47430151
Oh? What do they play? Do they actually use....what's the word... tactics? or are they Solo Murderhobo's that travel in groups?

>>47430129
>now it's just how you play the game

Except that it varies from group to group, player to player. People have been complaining about min-maxers since time immemorial, and will continue to do so until the sun grows dim.

>>47430142

In my opinion, yes. 4e Rangers are all about mobility and damage, able to re-position themselves to a more optimal location and have a number of multi-attack powers that let them pour on damage. They don't gave spells, but they don't really need them when they're raining down enough arrows to block out the sun, or eviscerate an ogre with a pair of blades.

To counter-balance this, they're not very tough, and will usually crumble when focus-fired. They also only really shine when they stick to a single target, so spreading out damage doesn't suit them terribly well (barring a couple of exceptions).

>>47430142
They got the single most powerful at-will in the game, even post-errata. That's what most people tend to discuss.

Otherwise, they're a pretty standard striker. The biggest thing when compared to other editions is that they don't have magical powers anymore, since that got moved to the poor, poor Seeker.

>>47430189
Hmmm... okay, so (and I know you've expressed distaste for "Fixing" problems in rpgs) how would you address the ranger problem in 5e? How would you do the implementation of mobility and damage in the 5e structure?

>>47427850
That's actually a pretty good metaphor.

I'll add that a good OSR system is to AD&D what Perfect Dark is to Goldeneye: it makes some smart changes and feels like how people remember the original through rose-tinted glasses.
And, if you're not familiar with that sort of design, it'll feel awkward and a little arbitrary now regardless.

>>47430223
The ranger's problem in 5e is less about them being underpowered (though that is a problem) than it is about them being boring. Their capstone ability is "you can add your Wis modifier to either the attack roll or damage roll of an attack once per round" for God's sake. Compare that to "unlimited rages" or "automatic success per rest"; it's functional, but dull.

>>47427850
Endearing glitches?
https://youtu.be/SP5c_MEs9mo

>>47430142
Depends on what you mean by getting rangers right. The ranger has some big conceptual differences in every iteration, after all.

>>47428940
>I dislike 5e because there are so few options
Why don't you just play Magic instead? There's tons of options for character buffing and building there

>>47430223

You might be confusing me with the other guy. I'm pro-fixing.

As for fixing the Ranger in 5e: I'm honestly not sure how I'd go about it. A lot of fundamental issues exist in 5e that'd need to be tackled first before I could even consider the Ranger, but off the bat I'd probably ditch their spell list entirely and make the good spells they have just abilities they can do X amount of times per day. This could probably be dependent on the kind of build you're going for (Hunter has one set of spell-like stuff, Beast Master has another), and make them robust enough that either option works.

Remove Favored Enemy as it is and make it more like the 4e psuedo-mark ability: declare an enemy your favored enemy and do +X damage whenever you attack the target, until either combat ends or the enemy (or you) is dead. Much more flexible this way and will guarantee use rather than a situational thing. Toss Foe Slayer into the trash while we're at it.

This is all off the top of my head and I'd have to sit down and play around with it, which I don't have any real inclination to do if I'm going to be honest.

>>47430399
Magic what? The Gathering? I don't really like that kind of game.

>>47430151
>What the fuck are you two talking about?
Basic facts? It's not hard to notice that 5E has 3E HP values but has much lower PC damage values.

>>47430365
And I think that's what I was getting at. Everyone
(designers on down) has different visions of EVERYTHING, from Rangers to Warlocks to one of my players who is running a 1 Ranger/1 Bard/2 Fighter/1 Paladin. So how do you find a happy medium? I'm deffinatly not saying "just give up", what I'm saying is "Nothing is Perfect" and "If you don't like DnD.... DON'T PLAY DnD!"... but in a more polite way?

>>47426038
Ah but a large flood did happen in the fertile crescent centuries prior to the writing of the Bible. To ancient peoples, they may have considered it the end of the world and the story would have mutated over the years.

>>47429059
This is exactly why my group has switched over to d12+d8 for ability checks etc. All my players like it because it lets them really be the specialist in whatever area they focus on

>>47430443
once you go back far enough, everything is allegory and hersay. only winners write the history and most of that time was less about winning and more about surviving.

>>47429435
He wasn't recommending GURPS for this guy,, he was saying that GURPS is easier to DM in comparison (which is absofuckinglutely true)

>>47430430
But that sounds wrong. Monsters generally have lower constitution scores and very few higher than 20 now, and aside from power attack charging stuff and multiple attack sneak attack builds damage done is probably higher now since movement doesn't cost extra attacks anymore, and static damage isn't just for strength weapons

>>47430419
The problem is, if you notice, everything that you're talking about is combat applications and abilities.

The Ranger isn't a hard damage-dealing or even combat-oriented class. They've got good burst damage through Hunter's Quarry and the like, they've got decent utility either by being able to fuel their attacks from halfway across the field with an animal companion or by attacking multiple opponents at a time.

What their biggest asset to a team is, though, is their versatile skill contingent and their good array of utility abilities. Their ability to take an animal companion isn't an in-combat bonus; It's the ability to have an unusual beast that might have unique abilities compared to their party - Scent, tracking, flight & message delivery, that sort of thing.

That's why Favored Enemy doesn't give combat bonuses anymore - It's not about the combat for the class. While that's an unusual choice, considering the Ranger's usual role as a damage-dealing martial character, it's what the Ranger's role is - Effectively a slightly more combat-oriented Bard.

If it wasn't for the fact that the Bard is a utility monster and that having a rogue and a fighter effectively makes the Ranger obsolete it'd be a better class. As it is it doesn't do much that isn't either also done by another class or that's done better by other classes.

>>47430523
>But that sounds wrong.
Well congratulations, you're wrong.

>>47425483

I don't hate DnD 5e. It's just with systems like Fantasycraft I wonder why it exists. The only thing that vaguely appealed to me in 5e are archtypes (Cutting down on the amount of classes is a good thing) and Sunsoul Monk (Thematics, and I like being able to shoot hadokens)

>>47430569
>>47430430
>>47430169
I'm >>47430151. My players are the dumbest murderhobos you will ever meet, and any enemy that goes up against them in a fair fight is toast.

I really have no idea what you guys are talking about. Maybe in the upper levels this becomes more of a problem, but Looking at the HP values for most monsters I'm not really impressed, especially considering the damage output that high level characters can do.

If you have any numbers to back up your assertion, then I'd love to see them, but right now I just don't see it.

>>47430531
>As it is it doesn't do much that isn't either also done by another class or that's done better by other classes.

Agreed. That's pretty much the whole crux of the issues people have with the Ranger for almost every edition, and it's really kind of a struggle to find a useful niche for it that isn't overlapped by another class (or spells. Fucking spells.)

In a game where combat is a major factor, having a class that isn't combat-focused means it has to be utility-focused. And if it's not good at either, why even waste the paper printing it?

>>47430634
I only have issues with HP during Boss fights... so right now i'm running a Green Dragon fight where every few rounds he jumps into a nearby pool while low CR creatures swarm the group for the next few rounds, then when they run through the minions, the dragon pops up for a few rounds more. Makes for a hella fun fight

>>47430523
>Monsters generally have lower constitution scores and very few higher than 20 now,
Counteracted by enemies having higher amounts of hit die.
>and aside from power attack charging stuff and multiple attack sneak attack builds
Which are the builds that should be talked about. "5E martials are better at doing damage than the shittiest martials from 3.5" isn't proving your point.
>since movement doesn't cost extra attacks anymore, and static damage isn't just for strength weapons
Your damage wasn't relevant if you didn't have pounce or swift action movement as a melee, both of which were fairly easy to acquire. On top of that, static damage from stats in 5E is capped at +5, slightly more if you're a Barbarian. Compared to the insanity you could get up to with non-STR builds, that's a drop in the bucket.

File: 1459843442593.jpg (286KB, 1920x2560px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1920x2560px

I'm going to be playing D&D for the first time at a friends house and I'm pretty sure he said it was the fifth installment (which I'm assuming 5e means)
Ive never touched any role-playing tabletop game before and all the rules are pretty daunting and intimidating at first glance.
Im honestly kind of scared of the situation, don't want to look like an idiot so I'm trying to brush up on it as much as I can prior to Friday night and I can barely make heads or tails of anything.

>>47430677
So, okay it's a Young white dragon rebranded with green and posion breath. Not that it matters, in my world the size and power of a dragon depends on it's power and hoard size, not age. A dragon can get knocked so far down in power it becomes one of the Mortal Races, then become strong enough again to be "Ancient". Funfun

The biggest issue that no one talks about is that there's nothing to do with your money since there's no magic item economy.
5e desperately needs good rules for domain management, mass combat, running churches, and other ways to usefully money sink imo.

>>47430759
If your friends know what they're doing and aren't fuckheads, they'll ease you in just fine. You'll get a handle on it pretty quick and have a fun time.

>>47430759
Read the book? The DM would love you. Forever. Just read the book, watch the others play and get a feel for the flow. Don't be afraid to either partisipate or just watch. Either works. Above all, try to have fun. If you have fun, then you're playing the game right.

>>47430759
Don't worry, it's baby edition and I'm sure he'll show you the ropes.

>>47430759
Make a character that seems fun. Do what seems like a good idea at the time. Roll whatever dice the dm tells you to roll and add what he tells you to add.
5e is honestly kinda hard to fuck up as a player.

>>47430728
You're ducking retarded. Only legendary monsters and creatures with extremely low AC have bloated HP.

High damage creatures have low HP and middling AC. Hp is is used as intended in 5e, which is why this is an only on paper issue quoted by faggot.

>>47430759
Also, every group is different. It may be that you like the game but don't like the group, even if they are your friends. Be flexable but don't put up with bullying and the like. Oh and figure out if there is a signal for IC (in character) and OC (out of character) Conversation.

>>47430798
100% agreed as long as there remains no magic item economy. It's an untapped design area.

>>47430634
>I really have no idea what you guys are talking about.
Stick a decently built 3.5 Fighter with a big two handed weapon next to a big enemy, he's going to kill them in two rounds with very little if any resource expenditure, period.

Stick a decently built 5E Battlemaster next to an equivalently big enemy, he's got to blow absolutely everything he has to take them down in two rounds and has a good chance at failing.

Is the BM better than the 3E Fighter? Yes, but that's due to things that are completely unrelated to damage, like not being a total sack of shit out of combat, not keeling over to the first save or lose thrown their way, and having (very) limited utility.

If you've ever seen the DPR charts for 5E, you'd notice that DPR at higher levels is generally double digit and very rarely triple digit. That is not even remotely the case for 3E.

>>47430855
>Only legendary monsters and creatures with extremely low AC have bloated HP.
Bullshit.

>>47430798
Those are all in the DMG except for running churches. Well, running churches is in there but it's kinda tacked on to the "buying businesses" thing.

File: 14159293_1.jpg (61KB, 640x434px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 640x434px

>>47430806
>>47430808
>>47430821
>>47430823
>>47430872
Appreciate it, I think I get the general way to go about it now.
That being said, I have to make a character before heading over and hes left that up to me, understandably.
Is there some sort of general method to making a character?
Like, a sheet I can fill out that covers everything I need to establish?

>>47430798
I took a page from old school rpgs and had money spent the main way to get exp. Things flowed from there pretty easily

>>47430967
A character sheet, yes. There are lots of different types of sheets, from the official ones on the web site to fan-made ones. Check out the Wizards of the Coast site for a lot o that stuff, or a /5eg/ trove thread.

>>47430962
Have you tried using them though?
Mass combat on the level of over 40 combatants just doesn't work well without houseruling.
The economics and pricing is nonsensical which is important for anything involving domain management. The business rules are barely there. Satisfying to casual as fuck players maybe but lacks any of the depth needed if that's going to be a serious money sink for the players.

>>47430925
Oooooooooooooh, I think I see the problem here

>you're upset because enemies that are supposed to be powerful can actually take a decent amount of damage before keeling over
>you're upset because minmaxing isn't as great of an option as in previous editions, so you can't break the game with your bullshit
>you're upset that you can't solo incredibly powerful monsters anymore, and might need to work with a TEAM to stand a chance at victory

I thought you might have a legitimate point there, thank god I was wrong. Stay assblasted faggot.

>>47430991
>fighting with nerf bats is good for the game

>>47423376
Spoony, what happened to you, man?

>>47430728
Okay, I'm sure that's all very interesting for theorycrafting, but compared to the majority of characters that actually saw play in 3e it's not very relevant.

Lots of people played two weapon rangers or sword-and-board fighters or other builds that did shit damage, and those are the characters the game was actually balanced around. 3e HP wasn't designed with the expectation of uberchargers.

>>47431013
>and those are the characters the game was actually balanced around.
No it wasn't.

>>47431011
>Bringing a SAW to a paintball fight is good for the game

>>47430991
>upset

People pointing out that 5e monster HP is very high and PC damage is very low doesn't mean they're "upset" it means they're making a fucking observation.

Same as how pointing out that fireball/lightning bolt damage scales way faster than hp in OD&D, nearly as fast in 1e AD&D, much slower in 3e, virtually not at all in 4e, and not at all in 5e doesn't mean one is upset.

You, on the other hand, seem upset.

>>47430989
That's fair. I can see that being a concern.

>>47431013
Combat does start to slow down significantly after around level 5 or 8 in 5e though.
I just upped damage and reduced hp desu when I ran a campaign of it.

>>47431076
Would make for an interesting splat book at least. As long as it's not the Castlebuilding guide from the 3.0 era. Oie, was that a clunky mess.

>>47431076
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that they had more downtime rules than they did in the 3.x or 4e dmg's but being strong in that design space is more important to 5e since magic items aren't the money sink they used to be.

>>47429599
>Basic fighte/1e fighter/etc more deadly and versatile than 5e
This is flat a lie. 5e fighters are likely to be dealing the most damage, have the best saves, and backgrounds alone are more versatile than basic.

Not only that getting into AD&D you are using every splat and comparing it to core which is retarded, or you are lying.

>>47431041
There's basically no way for PCs to get pounce in core, and in fact the main way of getting it easily comes from a very, very late splatbook.

But keep telling me how the designers always intended for all characters to have pounce.

>>47431066
This

Monster HP acting like this in 4E is fine because 4E is a highly tactical game.

Monster HP acting like this in 5E is fucking retarded. It's not tactical, so having HP and damage values that line up with what 4E had makes it completely out of line with every other edition of D&D with ZERO justification for it.

>>47431124
>5e fighters are likely to be dealing the most damage
Only in the sense that 5E Fighters have higher absolute numbers. That means nothing when they're fighting enemies with more HP relative to their damage than AD&D Fighters are.
>have the best saves
Fuck no.

>>47431195
>less damage relative to HP
This is a meme
>fuck no
They have the highest stats, most feats, and get to reroll saves. You are literally retarded to think otherwise.

>>47431105
I do remember about midway into the playtesting process Mearls said there were going to be a lot of extra-rules splats, for DMs who wanted to include something extra but which weren't universal enough to include in the core books.

Bloated HP faggots can't name examples to support their shitty meme.
>inb4 thug with its 11 AC

>>47431229
And you are retarded to think that calling someone's opinions retarded will get anywhere.

As shown by the fact that me calling you retarded has done nothing to stop the name calling.

>>47431131
Yes, and? That doesn't change shit - 3E's CR system was 'balanced', insofar as you can call it balanced, around a two-handed Fighter being in the party.

>>47431243
And that is what has me excited. Like the early days of 3.0 before the bloat and the mess, when I hadn't heard of all this complaining mess and just played a game with my friends. oh well, back to shouting at people I don't know about a game i will never play with them.

>>47431243
And we have got jack and shit of any of that and we are almost two years in.... This is starting to get frustrating

>>47431248
Do you know how much HP Lolth had in AD&D? I don't think you do.

>>47431124

Uh, no. HP values are very low in AD&D. A two handed sword does 3d6 to large monsters. A lance does something like 3d6 to 6d6 on a charge to large monsters. An unusually tough monster has 10d8 hp (45 on average), a balor has a mere 38.5 hp on average.

A level 10 enlarge spell gives you double damage, haste gives you double attacks, and by then or around then you get 2/1 attacks, so 42 average damage a round by level 10 is not remotely unusual.

>>47431301
Personally I blame Hasbro over WoTC on that. They're basicly treating D&D like the half-horse stepchild I keep in my shed.

>>47431243
d&d gurps edition had me so hyped when it was announced.
The rules have compartmentalized design too so it's not like it's hard to add things to it.

>>47431229
Str and con saves are among the worst.

>>47431321
Also, in AD&D, to hit the Tarrasque you had to roll a 1 and hit only on to bonus. wtf was that about?

>>47431335
Yeah. Another problem being that the stuff they DO release (i.e the adventures) are all stuff that is just rehashed from older additions. We haven't got really anything new at all.

>>47431396
I like the Sword Coast book, though I know it wasn't all that popular. I don't even Forgotten Realms but it gave me a lot of ideas.

>>47431286
It was balanced with the expectation of that possibility, yes. >>47430728 was claiming that the baseline of comparison should be a character with pounce, thus negating the obvious fact that 5e characters can move and attack more freely. I think that's ridiculous.

Point is, there's a big difference between a two-handed fighter and a hyper-optimized two-handed fighter with every splatbook.

>>47431124
>Not only that getting into AD&D you are using every splat

Core AD&D Fighters are fucking monsters. You don't even really need splats because they get everything they need right there in core. This includes their tremendous saves and high-damage weapons, multiple attacks, and the various buffing spells that the wizard can throw on him as detailed by >>47431331

>>47431335
I was really hype on release but it's been years and no Eberron still. Keith Baker even said that if WotC give him the nod he would be happy to write D&D material even just for DM's Guild and there's a bunch of Eberron stuff in his head he wants to print. Goddamn it WotC.

>>47431465
I get that the low quality supplement treadmill fucked up 3.x and 2e but this is ridiculous.
If you're looking for eberron stuff, there's some eberron material on unearthed arcana at least.

>>47431465
You want Eberron, I want Mystara. I think you're more likely to get something than me

>>47431321
I expected this much from this crowd. Literally nothing to do with anything.

>>47431429
Pounce SHOULD be baseline in 3E because all the full attack mechanic does is punish martials, but even without Pounce it's still clear which of the two does more damage even if you account for the Fighter not doing much until he's in full attack range. 3E has higher bonuses to damage, it has a much more favorable critical hit system, bonuses to hit are weighted in 3E's favor while 5E characters are going to have a significant chunk of their damage lost to misses at basically any level, and there's more room for action economy abuse because extra attacks aren't locked up in bonus actions the way they are in 5E.

5E also isn't competing against core 3.5, it's competing against all of 3.5. I was just being charitable by keeping it limited to Fighters - even an unoptimized Warblade makes 5E's Fighter look like shit in every regard and that's the class it should be compared to.

>>47431531
All the tastes in the world, and you went SoggySalt?

>>47431356
I'm pretty sure that was the designers going full retard and including something that doesn't make any sense since this mechanic doesn't exist anywhere else.

>>47431352
>I can't read

>>47431494
Yeah, it's not the end of the world and I'm actually going to run some Eberron one-shots starting with Murder on the Orient Express with the numbers filed off. It'd be nice to have an official supplement though not just because of the ease of use, but because more people would be interested and running games!

>>47431565
So... perhaps we should all just except that there is no "Definitive" D&D... or RPG in general?

>>47431531
It has everything to do with the discussion if you aren't cripplingly retarded.

>>47431559
When the response to "provide an example of HP bloat" and the response was "do you know the stats of a deity WotC didn't stay for 5e?"...

>>47431124
I disagree with the other guy's sentiment that 5E Fighters are bad (in combat--they are certainly bad outside of combat), but he's spot on with older editions treating them much better. 5E is still immensely improved from 3X as far as caster:martial balance goes, but the ability for Fighters to put out sicknasty amounts of damage doesn't really shore up all their other failings. It also doesn't cover Rogues and Barbarians, who have much different power spikes, and are generally included when we talk about "martials" or use Fighter as a catch-all for the group.

Paladins really aren't slouches in the 5E damage department either, and have a host of neat abilities to use. The majority of a Fighter's ridiculous damage comes from Action Surge and blowing a bunch of Battlemaster maneuvers, but those are short rest recharges, rely on a specific archetype, and are available to any class with a 2-3 level dip. Surprise, Fighters are a hugely popular dip, because most of their unique and non-scaling features (styles, surge, second wind) arrive right at the start and are useful in the hand of any character. The rest of the sentiment that they're fantastic in combat comes from eventually getting three and then four attacks, but these come in so late in play that the average player is never going to see them. Why discuss the class balance around the state of things at 20 (where Wizards own the world anyway)? Most groups fall apart before reaching 9 or 10, and Fighters have to wait til 11 to get their third attack. They're good for a single extra feat up to that point.

They desperately need some nice ribbons for non-combat shenanigans. Barbarian is the only martial class that gets close to having utility that isn't dependant on having a backpack full of shit (anyone can do this) or interacting with the environment creatively (anyone can do this), and it's still just one archetype and not very far-reaching.

>>47431615
Eh, just trying to keep to my Quirk "Enjoys debates" and my Flaw "Hates Arguments"

>>47431286
I think they assume:
1. you can't get pounce,
2. that you can't get around the to-hit penalty of power attack,
3. that the divine caster will heal,
4. that the arcane caster will use evocations.

That really seems the only way to compare 3e CRs to 5e.

>>47431549
Competing? I have no idea what you're even fucking talking about anymore. I thought it was math balance and hp/damage ratios, but apparently it's just which fighter has the bigger dick? Whatever.

>>47431615
Lolth has 66 HP in 1E.

If you can't figure out how HP bloat factors into this, you may be retarded.

>>47431644
My main issue with 5e fighters etc. is that how in the ever loving FUCK is a 5e martial type supposed to deal with aboleths and vampires and shit? No way he can kill it in time, and he's very unlikely to pass his save.

>>47431321
>muh non sequiter
You should probably be a little less smug, because that guy you replied to is literally the first person to quote a number this entire argument.

Let's settle this now, for all groups involved: We're not talking about AD&D. We're not talking about 3.5. We're not talking about 2e or 4e or any other edition of D&D besides 5e.

The numbers are differnt in 5e. Nobody has shown that there's any significant amount of HP bloat so far, just said "that number was smaller in AD&D!", which doesn't actually help because those numbers were in a very different context.

>>47431674
Grognards really are the dumbest motherfuckers around.

>>47431694
It's like legendary monsters take a team of heroes planning how to take them down or something.

>>47423173
It's the best version of D&D.

>>47431674
She also has a fucking absurd AC.

Llolth was a weird monster design even at the time, and should not be considered representative of anything.

>>47431695
Ok, your reading comprehension seems to be pretty bad.

Discussions of HP bloat across editions are solely within the context of HP to damage ratios.

THAT is why people mock 5e and 4e (though 4e's HP bloat is more that some builds scale horribly) for HP bloat.

>>47431697
yeh, i know. playing an rpg instead of getting girls. supporting the industry through the witch trials, through the hiccups and the first collapes on the industry. wading through all the crap so you youngins have something to complain about in superior tones

>>47431724
>a very intelligent, evil monster that can just make more whenever it feels like it should be beyond the ability of HitThings classes to deal with

ok

Or we could just get more casters?

>>47424085
It depends on what you want your Fighter to do. You want Fighter Classic, you go Champion. You liked ToB: Nine Euphemisms for My Dick, you take Battlemaster. You want to take advantage of the fact that Armor Proficiency negates Arcane Spell Failure, you go Eldritch Knight. You want to make a ranged fighter, you make a Ranger. You want to be a powder keg of justice, you go Paladin

>>47431695
>which doesn't actually help because those numbers were in a very different context.
They're in exactly the same context. This is how much damage you have to do to kill an enemy. Take the average amount of damage your Fighter type is going to do per round and divide HP by it. You do this and you find out that oh look, 5E past level 3 is less lethal than every edition prior to 4E, which should come as no surprise to anyone who actually played them.

>>47431674
And a great sword in AD&D hit for 1d10 hp, without including STR mods.
What's you point?

>>47431674
That's very nice.

You might not realize this, but math in 5e is actually significantly different than math in 1e.

Did you know that a first level wizard has 6+CON mod for their health? Did you know that now swords and daggers deal different amounts of damage? Did you know that a rogue now deals sneak attack damage anytime they have advantage on an attack?

This is because THEY'RE DIFFERENT FUCKING EDITIONS YOU MORON.

The math works differently in every edition, so saying "Lolth (who doesn't even have stats in 5e) has really low health in 1e, so monsters in 5e should have lower health doesn't make ANY GODDAMN SENSE.

>>47431724
A single Wizard at the level to fight an aboleth could rig any number of environmental effects to destroy the fucker or put its soul in another dimension somehow. The Fighter's kind of just got to stab it or run around buying a shitload of explosives or somethign to kill it in a way which any other character could also do.

>>47431766
I have yet to see any of those ratios discussed in this thread, just idiots being inexplicably smug about things that have yet to be demonstrated

>>47431790
>You want to make a ranged fighter, you make a Ranger.
You make a Battlemaster who took the Archery fighting style, actually, then pick up Sharpshooter.

>>47431800
Against large monsters, it hits for 3d6. A lance hits for 6d6+1 on a charge. Enlarge at level 5 multiplies it by 1.5, haste multiplies it by 2, and for most of the game you will probably have 1.5 attacks a round, so in a pinch you can expect most AD&D fighters to deal 47 damage a round, less if you factor in missing, more if you factor in any ability bonuses, weapon specialization, magic weapons, etc. etc. etc. whatsoever. Quite possibly more.

>>47431781
A single caster wouldn't be able to take on an aboleth or a vampire either. Nobody can solo a legendary monster (except unicorns)

>>47431818
Comparing "boss HP" vs "normal PC damage" is 100% on the nose across editions, dude, especially if like us you assume a very low power level on part of the PCs.

>>47431781
It should be beyond the ability of any single character of equivalent level (barring extreme luck or expenditure of non-renewable resources.) Because it's a team game.

>>47431861
ACTUALLY you do whatever you want and call it fun.
>>47431841
so don't play fighters? some of us like having to think of things to do instead of a win button spell

>>47431876

Nobody's talking about "a single anything." If its two melee guys, round one it mind controls one guy, round two it mind controls another. Not much you can do.

>>47431818
>but math in 5e is actually significantly different than math in 1e.
No shit, it's much closer to 3E's. The point I've been making the ENTIRE FUCKING TIME is that compared to AD&D, HP went up and damage didn't increase anywhere close to as much as HP did in terms of % increase compared to the original values, which is why 5E is considerably less lethal than any edition prior to 4E and is why it has HP bloat.

>>47431841
Legendary monster automatically save versus spells and their environment acts on a 20 initiative to fuck with the party. Don't bring that tired 3.pf argument to this.

>>47431844
We keep talking about it and you keep ignoring it. Notify me when you wish to have a real discussion.

>>47431876
A Diviner Wizard who has a willing patsy (who can sit at home for all it matters) can more or less force failures on saves, burn Legendary Resistance, drag a vampire's stats down to zero, then body swap until he IS the vampire and the vampire's soul is stuck in a shiny rock.

>>47431917
Fine. 5e Has HP bloat. You win. Happy? Did you get a warm fuzzy? I hope so.

>>47431921
Show me the posts. Reply to this post with the posts where people are talking about the numbers, because I haven't seen them.

>>47431927
No he can't. He would be dead trying.

>>47431898
>there's an imbalance here
>so don't play the sucky one, problem solved
What? Here's the deal: thinking of interesting ways to work around problems and your lack of magical ability is fun. But magical characters can do the exact same thing you can, solve problems with magic, and think of interesting ways to work around problems USING their magical ability to solve situations that your Fighter will never, ever be able to do because he cannot levitate trees with his mind or reshape solid stone.

>>47425844

What's the point of building characters if the game itself is built like a soggy outhouse made of toothpicks and mud?

I mean, if I wanted to spend the bulk of my time theorycrafting optimum strategies, I'd play a card game, not a tabletop RPG where I'm expected to play with my friends.

>>47431890
It's not on the nose at all.

Maybe you think that there's a precisely optimal damage to HP ratio, but that's totally subjective. It's no secret that combat started taking a lot longer in 3e compared to base 2e. Is that a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not. One of the stated design goals of 4e was to make each turn take less time, but have the combat last for more turns, thus making total combat time essentially a wash. Maybe you think they succeeded and maybe you don't, but that's not a question damage/hp will get you close to answering.

>>47431917
Just meming doesn't make you right. When called on it you are only able to quote AD&D, because you flat out don't know anything about 5e while being smug about it.

Also, lethality is about how easy players die. In 5e PCs are in the most unforgiving position since AD&D because each size increase from medium doubles damage, and high CR creatures can one-shot wizards of the DM was a dick about it.

>>47431963
So your solution is to play the overpowered one instead? Or, maybe, not play D&D? I don't know and I'm starting not to care. No one is convincing anyone of anything and we're all running around in circles, yelling at nothing.

Coming from RuneQuest D&D 5e is fun for what it is, but AD&D is shit.

>>47431917
But, see, you're trying to claim that AD&D and 3e are similar in this respect, and that just makes me think that either you're completely full of shit, or damage/hp is a poor metric to talk about time per combat.

>>47432015
>thus making total combat time essentially a wash.
At the cost of the impact of each action, hence nerf bat combat.

It's subjective, but subjectively it ruined the game's combat for me outright with minimal at best positives. I have no idea why you think someone wouldn't complain about this.

>>47432015
>Maybe you think that there's a precisely optimal damage to HP ratio

HP bloat conversations are SOLELY on the basis of "hey, damage to HP ratio is lower over yonder." Denying that it exists is delusion.

>Maybe you think they succeeded and maybe you don't, but that's not a question damage/hp will get you close to answering.

Maybe you shouldn't suffer a fit of nerd rage when people point out the hp/damage ratios then? If you actually believed that, then you wouldn't have your feelings hurt by people bringing up hp/damage ratios.

>>47431949
>>47431331
>>47431873

>>47432074
Nobody was talking about time per combat until >>47432015

>>47423173
It's the best D&D there is. But it's still D&D.