Newfag here. What does /tg/ think of D&D 5e? PS: Sorry

It's fine. Out of the Abyss and Curse of Strahd are fun modules.

Positive qualities:
It's not 3.5/PF.
Negative qualities:
It's still D&D. Twincast Bardic Horse

>>48766419

It has all the basic flaws of DnD. It's a marginal improvement over 3.5e and 4e but it still sucks.

If you like the idea of a skirmish wargame-lite in a fantasy setting, play a wargame that does that. If you like the idea of an RPG, play a proper RPG and not this shit.

>>48766419
> Sorry for being a newfag.

Where the fuck do you think you are? /v/? Everybody was new once and if people give you shit about it it's because they are immature fuckheads who would do anything to get a semblance of power in their tiny-cock life.

5e is awesome lots of fun stuff to play with and definitely streamlined so it's easier on newer players.

>>48766534

>thinks D&D can only skirmish wargame
>it's a shit system

/v/ plz leave

Quick question:

Does 5e enforce one class per character, or somewhat strict multi- / dual-classing rules like 2e did, or does it continue the whole "any character can take levels in any combination of classes they want" mechanic of 3e?

File: 1468731384604.png (104KB, 1200x947px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1200x947px

>>48766419
>PS: Sorry for being a newfag.

This isn't /b/, don't apologize for that.

5e is a decent system. Most classes are useful or at least fun (the ranger being a notable exception). Bounded accuracy means that lesser enemies always pose some threat. If 5e has a major flaw, it's that it lacks its own distinct identity, a product of its conservative development. Of course, it still suffers from being d20, and from being a class based system, but your mileage may vary on those issues.

>>48766606

Any combo of classes

It's decent if you want a very...D&D...game.

It's nothing fancy and clings hard to basics of D&D that have been about forever. If you go in not expecting innovation, you'll be fine.

I personally like it less than 4e for that very reason but it's not a bad game. Just nothing really new.

File: 1466826322243.jpg (91KB, 515x683px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 515x683px

>>48766664
>liking 4e
Why do you have such shit taste?

>>48766419
It's pretty good.

>>48766419
If you want cliche ridden dungeon fantasy, there are MUCH better systems to do it in.

>>48767026
Name 80.

>>48767026

Name 81

>>48767026
Name: 82

>>48767026
Name 83

>>48766419
So far I like it. It has some interesting aspects in encouraging roleplay, with the background system and inspiration.

/tg/ doesn't care about newfags

I like it, it's pretty solid for getting people into ttrpgs because of its near-simplicity. It's still much fun to keep going with. If you really want to get into in-depth character development try 3.5 or Pathfinder. Be wary of special snowflakes and Mary/Gary Stu's though.

Don't be afraid to try other systems out, even ones with different settings like Call of Cthulhu, Traveler, or Shadowrun.

File: happy-oh-stop-it-you.jpg (16KB, 600x500px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x500px

>>48767221
>>48766542
>>48766619
OP here, thanks for being such cool guys.
And to everyone else, thank you too, I appreciate your input.

>>48767026
Name 84

>>48767026
Name 1 that people actually play.

>>48767026
Name 2 that people actually play.

File: Laughing Elf Quest.png (6MB, 1836x3264px) Image search: [Google]

6MB, 1836x3264px

>>48766692
>not liking 4e

Why do you have lower than whaleshit taste?

>>48767055
>>48767096
>>48767138
>>48767175
>>48767406
What the fuck just happened? Is this some Unknown Armies shit going on?

compared to other DnD systems so is it easier to get into and is probably the most played system out there, making it easy to find player for.

some of it's flaws is that is still DnD, it narrows customization/character generation down a lot.


it's a decent system to start with, even if there are a lot of "simpler" systems does is the fact that it is so popular mean it gets more support, tools and players, making it much easier to whip up a group on the fly.


lost mines, out of the abyss and strahd are are pretty fun adventures.


what i will say is that once you start getting comfy in it that you might want to look around for something else.

>>48766419
Half-assed, boring as fuck and already abandonware.

File: 1452823953011.jpg (281KB, 1024x1663px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1024x1663px

>>48766419
I can't speak for /tg/ in general but I personally like it.

>>48768148

>generic insulty comments
>stating opinion as fact
>abandonware
>ware
>not were

/v/ plz leave

Why even ask, OP?

You're going to play it no matter what because the brand is heavily advertised.

For the love of god, just lurk. Please. It's not hard. Honest.

>>48766664
>It's decent if you want a very...D&D...game.

I feel this is probably what people who pick up a game called D&D are looking for.

>>48768279
People who pick up D&D do so because they have no idea what makes a good system and because that's the only name brand they're heard of. Most people don't want D&D games, they want dungeon fantasy roleplaying. D&D is not a good dungeon fantasy roleplaying game. It is an awful one.

>>48767615
>>48767684
This is a D&D thread. If you post any competitors I will scream at you and call you a shill. Okay?

File: 1388170236244.jpg (30KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 512x384px

>>48768325
>People who pick up D&D do so because they have no idea what makes a good system

5e is a great system for people who aren't deeply versed in the last 40 years of RPG systems and want to have a fun time playing a game. Which really, is the basic reason for playing any game, to have fun.

People who want to be "immersed in rules" the way you do are barely suitable for social gaming anyway.

>>48766606
>>48766638
The way class abilities and attribute stat increases (ASI) work, however, reinforces sticking in one class rather than spreading yourself out.

The effect of this on actually reducing multiclassing is limited, although it is tough to deduce just how much. That said, going twenty levels into any class is usually completely viable and enjoyable. There are just some interesting builds that dip into another class, or build into multitudes, in order to enable a certain strategy.

It's pretty flexible, really. And it hasn't been completely solved yet, for those who like to brew builds.

>>48768406
>There are just some interesting builds that dip into another class, or build into multitudes, in order to enable a certain strategy.

>Playing a social roleplaying game and building a character who's sole purpose is to execute some "strategic attack" you read about on a forum.

This is what Pathfinder is for.

>>48768438

>when you multiclass all you get are combat abilities
>when you multiclass you only do it for combat abilities
>jumping to conclusions

/v/ plz leave

>>48768397
>You can have fun with any system.
ANYTHING IS FUN WITH FRIENDS. This argument is banal and substance-less and gets repeated every damn D&D thread.

However you can have more fun with less effort using unobtrusive and common sense systems.

>>48768517
> more fun with less effort
>believing in some kind of fun efficiency equation to judge how fun something is

/v/ plz leave

>>48768517
>>48768572
It's easier to get a social game running if the system isn't some overburdened chart-beast like Pathfinder. This is simply factual.

There are a lot of people who don't find accounting/math homework incredibly fun.

Maybe it would be good if you guys could list games you think would be better for Dungeon Fantasy Roleplaying than D&D 5e. I personally like B/X D&D and its derivatives like Labyrinth Lord and Basic Fantasy Roleplaying. Both are free online OP and are VERY simple games that you can literally pick up, read and play within an hour, make characters in 10 mins. Much better for beginners.

>>48768636

>hyperbolic statements slipped into seemingly reasonable claims
>acknowledging the personal preferences of people only in the most insulting way

Truly a fine specimen of /v/ermin.

I realize now that responding to you will only fuel your irrational hatred that you have no doubt convinced yourself isn't trolling. Or maybe you are aware you are a troll? Either way I've already fed you enough.

I hope that this board starves you.

>>48768729
You really aren't cut out for the internets.

>>48766419

Not as good as 4e, but I've had fun playing it. I rank it about even with 3.5, though those two have different strengths.

File: roll20 q2 2016.png (182KB, 500x731px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 500x731px

It's a great game, OP. It's light enough to get into easily and it is getting more popular every day.

>>48768572
For a newcomer to role-playing, D&D does an outright bad job of introducing you to the role-playing part. It's systems don't inherently beget good play in that regard, so you as a player have to put the effort into forcing the role-playing in yourself instead of it coming naturally through a couple healthy mechanics.

D&D is also just downright janky in general, so if you want it to work better you have to houserule it to hell and back, which requires time and effort from the players. A sort of trial and error as you slowly learn more and more about the flaws of a system by playing it, until you get to the point that you drop it entirely and hopefully pick up a different system, if not discarding the entire hobby.

>>48768840
This is pretty depressing.

>>48768277
>You're going to play it no matter what because the brand is heavily advertised.

More like because everyone and dog is playing the damn thing. It has 90% chance of being played in any game store you go to and according to >>48768840 it holds majority online as well.

>>48769226
Between real life friends, Roll 20, and Gamefinder threads, you can fill a (voip) table for pretty much any decent system. In the internet age, you don't have to bow down to popularity to enjoy something. It's wonderful.

>>48769159
>D&D does an outright bad job of introducing you to the role-playing par

Homie, every new person I've introduced to roleplaying could pretend to be a character if their life depended on it. The stats were all that they had and as they started to play and interact with the system the character came out.

>coming naturally through a couple healthy mechanics

Like backgrounds? Or the lore of races? Or the lore of classes? Yeah it'd be great if you had stuff like that to help you figure out what kind of person your character is.

>so if you want it to work better you have to houserule it to hell and back

I started with 3.5 and we never houseruled shit. If there was stuff to break then I guess we were too stupid to find it and so did everyone else we played with so I don't see what the problem is.

Really all your argument breaks down to is "I don't like the system and neither should you." So once again I say

/v/ plz leave.

File: smug anime 8.png (602KB, 1280x738px) Image search: [Google]

602KB, 1280x738px

>>48769159
>you as a player have to put the effort into forcing the role-playing in yourself instead of it coming naturally through a couple healthy mechanics.
You mean like backgrounds?

>>48769159
I'd certainly say 5e is one of the best editions about that sort of thing, if not the best. The inspiration mechanic and how it keys into character traits is effective, plus the starter set characters have well integrated backstories that help illustrate good habits like that in a way you'd (probably) approve of.

>>48769226
>brand is heavily advertised.
I'm not sure I've seen an advertisement for D&D 5e outside of a few banner ads for Neverwinter, which in my eyes only half counts because of adventure season tie-in stuff. Well, also a placard or two saying an FLGS did organized play.

>>48769362
>/v/ plz leave.
If you can't stand to talk to people who disagree with you, maybe you're the one that should take a walk.
While I have your ear: >>48768572
What, you think nobody can look back on time spent and consider it not having been worth it unless they're from /v/?

>>48769362
>>48769393
They work for experienced players, but for newbies backgrounds are entirely fluff with no mechanics to enforce or encourage it. In that regard I think gurps does it very well and simply.

>>48769491
>I'd certainly say 5e is one of the best editions about that sort of thing
Baby steps. Still not what I'd call worth playing.

Most games are good out there if you know what you're shopping for and what each system is selling. 5E is generic to the point it's the swiss army knife of fantasy RPGs. It can be used to create and handle a wide variety of settings if at least the GM has a shred of creativity.

I'm in two games now, one is low magic one is high magic, and both are fun in their wildly different ways, but admittedly that's more the GMs' merit than the system's. At the end of the day, it's the quality of the people you gather that matters. The system is just a tool, and like every tool it's as good as the one who wields it, so we're back to how good your GM/group is.

>>48769552
>GURPS
Ah yeah, as a group of newbies trying out GURPS we all loved floundering around hoping that the points we spent on character background stuff didn't cause us to be god-awful at other stuff that might actually be important in the game.

>>48769609
What? Did you read the book right? Negative character aspects like greed reward you with points you can spend on positive character aspects. The only background stuff that costs points are stuff that give you rewards, like (presently) being a millionaire or being a special snowflake who has ~a rare power~. It's pretty hard to mess up in this regard. Either way I just think it does that right. I don't want to derail this thread. Not that it would matter, this thread is pretty bad.

>>48766534

>improvement over 4e

it's not really even and improvement over 3.5 because at least 3.5 had some options

>>48769552
>with no mechanics to enforce or encourage it
>doesn't give skills
>doesn't give superpower related to the background
>doesn't literally have the player roll a personality for their character
>completely ignores statement about newbies not being able to pretend to be someone else
>completely ignores statement about broken shit not being found, implying that breaking the game requires system mastery which newbies do not have
>"Still not what I'd call worth playing"

/v/ plz leave

Or if you are going to stay don't ignore a point just because it proves you wrong.

>>48769643
Oh right, flaws or "disadvantages" or whatever. Do you grab a bunch so you're a near-braindead quadruple amputee that can use computers AND shoot a gun? Or do you only grab a few and hope that no one asks you to do anything more complicated than tie your shoelaces if it's not directly related to that one skill you dumped your points into?

>>48766561
>>48766561
>>48768228
>>48768460
>>48768572
>>48769362
>>48769667
Y'know, signatures aren't considered kosher on this site.

>>48769552
>but for newbies backgrounds are entirely fluff with no mechanics to enforce or encourage it
The Traits/Ideal/Bond/Flaw system and unique Features are hardpoints that are immediately contingent on roleplaying and character development. That is to say, they're not intrinsically mechanical, but they directly translate into mechanical bonuses and benefits--but only if you're actually roleplaying.

Backgrounds do have other mechanical elements, though: namely, it's where most characters will get half their noncombat proficiencies.

>>48769667
can you reword this

>>48769696
Dang it Anon your ridiculous strawman has left me wanting to play a 0 point game with no disadvantage limit. In regular games with sensible point limits, what you're saying isn't ever a problem, but you know that.

>>48769721
>but you know that
Eh, he might not. They could easily have had their first GURPS experience curbstomped by someone who either pretended to know what they were doing or severely overestimated their own cleverness and thought they were doing something interesting by subverting the game's design.

>>48769721
You keep wanting, you know that there isn't a single campaign idea worth the time and effort required by players and GM to make GURPS worth anyone's time versus a system actually designed for it in the first place.

But you know that.

>>48769761
Look, if you want in on my games that much, just ask.

>>48769761
Look I think his GURPS argument is silly but this is just typical "I don't understand GURPS" drivel.

>>48766606

Enforce no, suggest yes. Pretty much all classes and archetypes are 1-20 viable if "best at what they do," although some of them are *very* niche. (In some parties, a Beastmaster Ranger is worth their weight in gold. In almost all parties they trail every other build when it comes to damage and every other Ranger build when it comes to utility. Plan accordingly.)

They did not, however, completely nerf multi-classing. There are some strictures involving minimum attributes and pick order, but for the most part the multi-classing is still powerful and rewarding in its own right and produces some distinctly fun and interesting builds.

The main thing now is to figure out where you are trying to go and then figure out how to get there, not the other way around. Canned Cleric, Eldritch Knight, and Fighter 1/Wizard 19 are all viable but very, *very* different from each other. It's up to you to figure out what you're actually trying to build before you build it.

(Also weird stuff like STR rogue and DEX barb are oddly viable, too, so we're seeing multiple new build ideas within existing classes, as well.)

>>48766419
Peraonally i dislike it a lot. Recently we have been mixing the skill syatem of 3.5 and the core rules of 5 and its way way better. You regain controle over your skills which is fantastic, because you get defaulted skills in 5e so thats the main downside for me.

File: Here's Some Fuckin' D&D.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>48766419
Play Dungeon World instead

>>48769721
You say it doesn't give mechanics

Backgrounds give a bunch of skills and proficiencies, they give the character a unique (usually) roleplaying specific power, and even a handy list to roll on to form a personality.

>>48769697

I just want people on /tg/ to stop being such fuckheads for no reason.

>>48769912

Well, Dex barb is pretty shit compared to Str barb due to most of it's features only working on strength attacks.

It's actually a bit of an issue I have with 5e. After 4e where every class had variable secondary stats based on build the 5e classes feel a bit locked in. Like how every single melee class runs on dex or strength. 4e had melee options for literally every single stat but for some reason even Bladelocks don't get Cha to hit with the magic blade.

>>48770138
In regards to that, some systems have you do "self-control" checks if a personality flaw would overtake or more overtly influence your decision making. That's a mechanical role-playing thing, to remind those that find it hard to act it out themselves (Typically new players) that they should keep their character's personality in mind.

>>48770150
People have a right to disagree. D&D hate isn't exactly a foreign concept if you haven't noticed.

>>48770183

People have the right to disagree.

People also have the right to call you out if you are a fuckhead twat.

I think I'm nice to tell them to go to a place full of fuckhead twats so at least they can be in friendly company.

File: 1448979992841.jpg (142KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 600x450px

>>48770235
Chill.

>>48770173

You see, for me that's training wheels.

And that's all good and fine, but I personally find them insulting and useless because of the infinite interpretive possibilities of any given personality trait. If anything I'd just say "choose from this list of hyper specific things, there are some general things, and boom there you go" if that.

And in my opinion, putting restrictions on things that are infinitely interpretive is the definition of insanity and causes way more problems than it will solve.

From what I know, there are no statistics to prove things either way so it's all opinions anyway.

Which is why it's stupid to say shit like "X is terrible for roleplaying" because there is absolutely no way to prove that beyond interpretations and opinions.

>>48770262

I am chill, homie. That's why I come to /tg/ and have never gone back to /v/. And that's why I'm going to tell people who treat /tg/ like /v/ to go back to /v/

File: 1445816267500.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>>48770282
Just... lol.

>>48770171

DEX barb is about defense, not offense. It's about being able to play deeper into the enemy line to pick off or disrupt key targets and setup teamwork plays while still dealing enough damage to not be completely ignored. Not every party is going to want to send someone with Mage Slayer in deep or need someone to play Frank who Flanks, but some parties do strongly benefit from it and DEX barb is very good at those roles.

But while not exactly terrible at damage compared to some gimmick builds, it's way behind the damage curve with easily the lowest damage-per-round of any of the melee builds (for that you want a DPR battlemaster or a champion)

Everything is about carving a niche. The lion may be king of the jungle, but drop him off in the arctic and he's just some penguin's girlfriend.

>>48770173
> "self-control" checks if a personality flaw would overtake or more overtly influence your decision making. That's a mechanical role-playing thing...
If you ask me, that's not 'roleplaying', that's a mechanical hook that usurps an opportunity for roleplaying. While it addresses their characterization, I don't see a PC failing a check meaning the player is getting more involved.

>>48770235
>>48770282
Being shitty isn't going to stop them. It's just going to make you worse, and bring out the worst in other people.

>>48770314

Yeah but you are still getting a LOT of your features simply not functioning. It can sorta work but you give up a lot for not really a heap compared to a heavy armour character or a monk.

>>48770372
It's for bad RPers. As they fail checks, they learn to actually role play their disadvantages so the GM doesn't have to make them do obtrusive self control rolls. It's like training wheels. You don't make good players constantly do self control rolls because good players know to act out their disadvantages even if it leads to some trouble.

>>48770372

Nah, I'm confident in the system of

>point out their pointless acts of shittiness
>point out logical fallacies
>tell them to go back to /v/

And I'm feelin like I could do for a little "worsening". Keeps me on my toes.

>>48770388
>>48770314
Also, a bear barb in heavy armor has the same AC but will be dealing more damage.

File: 1430730157470.gif (621KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 500x281px

Rules are rules, and a group that cares about them enough will be able to twist them and change them with homebrewed rules anyway. Finding a good group that you enjoy playing with and roleplaying with is worth far, far more than what mechanics you're working under.

I think this is a good thread to ask.
I have never played a table-top game (apart from simple board-games, I mean) like Dungeons and Dragons before and I'm interested in trying it. What troubles me is that I don't know how to find a group to play with, and what the general rules are.

>>48770173
That's the worst example of a "roleplaying mechanic" you could have given. That's not about guiding new roleplayers, that's about taking control of a character's actions away from the player and giving it to random chance. It's telling a new player "you don't have to roleplay, just let the dice decide what you do" and it's stupid.

>>48770578
>What troubles me is that I don't know how to find a group to play with
Local LGS, facebook groups, gamefinder threads, sites like Roll20. You'll probably run into a lot of shitters, just don't give up.
>and what the general rules are.
Read the book, or read the SRD, or just have the DM explain it to you if you can't even be fucking bothered to do that.

>>48770623
thanks anon

>>48770628
You are welcome. Player's handbook should be in the 5e general thread opening post mega links.

>>48770531

A STR bear is 2 AC behind a DEX bear at the cost of a half feat. Barb's don't get heavy armor proficiency and plate is a flat 18 ac versus a 20 for a fully-leveled unarmored defense.

>>48770388

Yeah, it's not going to suit every group. Unless you're sitting around going "man, I wish we could trade a bunch of damage for a nearly-unhittable frontline pseudo-rogue" you probably have no use for them. There's a surprising amount of builds that are viable in the sense that they are very, very good at something that is sometimes very, very useful, but trade away a lot of more generally useful things to get there. Nice to know, but rarely worth putting into play absent a group composition already tilting towards "unwise."

>>48770531
>>48770820
Barbarians can't even rage in heavy armor.

>>48770820
Yeah, by the time you hit 20 CON and 20 DEX, the armored guy will have a +1 or +2 plate.

And, ya know, he had 18 AC since about level 4.

>>48770971
You can. You just usually don't get any benefits. Bear totem, however, doesn't have the stipulation about heavy armor,

>>48770820

The armour guy also does a load more damage and also has the ability to wear magic armour.

Right now there isn't any magic armour equivalent for naked people.

>>48766419
Imo it's ok, didn't take any rist, so isn't really bad neither awesomely good. It has some minor problems, and like always Wotc refuses to fix, but is a good system for beginners.

>>48771208

DEX can come into play with 16 UD and a +2 shield, and bump up to a 17 UD at 4, pocketing the money instead of burning a half feat. At level 8 they're dead even and at lvl 12 the DEX pulls ahead. They both have access to magic shields, so it really comes down to the STR barb needs access to an extra magical item just to catch up. Or, to put it another way, the DEX barb can get the same benefit as +2 armor just by pumping their two primary stats.

>>48771272

However stats are a very, very rare resource. You don't really get a whole heap of them.

Bro tip: If your GM wants to translate any game from any system ever (that isn't already 5e) say NO, if he insists, punch him and flee to never return

>>48771247

Barbarian-type naked people don't need it. As they max their primary stats they get the equivalent of a very rare +2 armor for free. The only way to out-AC them is to get your hands on a legendary +3 armor. If we're talking free legendaries, they could just grab a Defender rapier and shift it all to AC to be 2 AC ahead again.

>>48771272
>At level 8 they're dead even and at lvl 12 the DEX pulls ahead

By 1 point of AC.

Meanwhile, the bear totem had been dealing more damage for the better part of the last 11 levels, and still continues to do so.

>so it really comes down to the STR barb needs access to an extra magical item just to catch up

Considering WBL doesn't exist in 5e, it's more like "the bear totem can actually use all these really good armors you may find, while the dex-barb can't without downgrading his AC".

>>48771297
>Talking about levels 99.99% of people will never see
There should be mandatory to talk only till 13-14th level, as 1001 official polls proved, average game dies before 12th level

>>48771282

Barbs get two at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19. That's enough to go from 16-20 twice and still pick up 1 full feat or two halves (not that there's any good halves for this build, mind.) Plus the free con boost at lvl 20.

>>48771316
Different guy but I agree, 5e is still D&D and dealing damage is still the best defense, I prefer, and in every game I ever played (and my friends and GMs played) killing the enemies faster is better than having 1 or 2 points more of AC.

5e is really safe and as a result is incredibly bland. 2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions are all better depending on what you prefer. I just can't see the situation in which someone who was familiar with the previous systems would willingly choose 5e over them.

File: 10-shia-labeouf.w750.h560.2x.jpg (46KB, 1499x1120px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1499x1120px

>>48768325
>>48766664

So, what you're TRYING to say is that fun things are not fun?

>>48771320

Hey, if you want to cap it at level 1 that would suit the DEX build just fine. Barbs don't have heavy armor proficiency and don't get free armor or shields at creation which means the DEX comes into play with a 16 ac. It's only after the STR build has had time to grab the Heavily Armored feat and raise cash for splint that it has the chance to temporarily pull ahead.

It's pretty self serving to say the only parts of the race that counts are the part after you pull ahead but before you fall behind again.

>>48771396
I'm not the anon you're arguing with, but using 20th level features is silly, fuck even 17th ones.

That doesn't give wotc the right to make some capstones absolutely worthless though.

>>48771338
To be fair, in 5e it's easy to trick out such a high AC that low-medium level enemies only hit you on a roll of 15+; and at that point, having +1 AC means at least +20% health, especially if you combine it with shit like adamantite armor to negate crits.

It's really stupid how good player defenses can get, and NPCs attacking non-AC defenses (excuse me, I mean using saves) is actually not common at all.

I had the life cleric just turtle up with dodge+use angelic horde (or whatever the fuck it was called) and spam healing word and get wailed on by like 10 enemies, and he had lucky to reroll on the off chance somebody gets like a double 20, or rolls well enough on an assist. We were playing PotA and I had basically no way to challenge my players before they got to the deeper temples (but the game seems to have died before that anyway so w/e).

That said... plate barb is even or ahead for 11 freaking levels in AC and always ahead in damage. If you don't start at level 11+, there's little mechanical/charop reason to do DEX barb. Especially if you can multiclass and start as fighter with proficiency (or pick up a level of life cleric).

>>48771338

Damage per round works well except when it doesn't. 5e doesn't let anyone be good at everything and you can't always rely simply being able to out-attrition every encounter.

>>48771362

I was the guy there saying it wasn't a bad game.

Nah, it's fine to play. Just don't go into it expecting to be surprised by anything. It played the development very, very safe.

>>48771446

Alright, when doesn't it work in a situation where dex-barb would actually have the advantage?

>>48766534
What are some "proper" rpgs then?

>>48768325
So what system is better for running a D&D style game than D&D?

>Heroes are main characters in an action movie
>video game health mechanics
>some role playing
>some roll playing
>killing monsters
>getting loot
>casting magic
>sort of videogame like world rules

D&D fulfills its promise pretty fucking well. especially 5e, 4e might as well too, I never played it, I think 5e shouldn't have gutted feats and skills from character generation so much. Fuck balance, balance isn't nearly as important as having tons of interesting options to make your character feel unique.

>>48771396
Start as 1st level fighter.

OR

Use money from background for equipment

OR

Realize you'll have enough money for an armor/shield by level 2 invariably, and medium armor is enough to catch up to DEX barb.

OR

realize that at those levels you however still get the benefits of barbarian rage on your attacks, making the average STR barb deal almost 2x as much damage than the average DEX barb.

Basically, DEX barb has an advantage in AC at: very first level (IF you can't shop and IF you can't multiclass), and level 12+. So, 9 levels, assuming you find no magic fullplate armor.

Has a disadvantage in damage: always.

>>48771436
Grapple and shove prone -> 0 Movement, Dodge is not possible, attack with advantage. BAM.

>>48771423

It is silly, but I wasn't the one who brought it up, there are ways to temporarily get ahead of the DEX barb on AC but they all rely on out-spending on equipment and fade fairly quickly over time. It's the opposition trying for "but I can get legendary armor" and ignoring the +3 AC sword and the +2 unarmored AC capstone.

>>48771486
Depending on tastes: Strike!, Fantasy Craft, Legend.

>>48771512
The cleric is trained in athletics and has STR at 16. Actually 18 cause he has the gauntlet of ogre might from LMoP.

How many NPCs do you think will be able to beat him at grappling and shoving prone? Especially since IIRC one of those needs an attack roll anyway. And he still has lucky 3 times a day in case he messes up.

>>48771518
I'll take a look at Fantasy Craft and Legend, I'm not sure about strike! I couldn't find how thick the rulebook is. I generally don't play games where the rulebook is shorter than at least 200 pages. They might be fine for some people but I tend not to like rules light systems.

>>48771486
Neverwinter Nights

>>48771595
>neverwinter nights
>Dragons Age
>Kotor
>Path of Exile
>Baldurs gate
>DDO
>Neverwinter

Why won't they just make a fucking grid movement turn based game that's literally fucking D&D instead of an action or pseudo real time non grid RPG?

It's ok, but whoever made the Magic: The gathering suplements didn't even spend 5 minutes reading the lore, or the cards, or anything for that matter beyond the name of the booster pack

>>48771538
Strike! core rulebook is exactly 207 pages long. I think you probably won't like it though. The impression you give me makes me think you'd like Fantasy Craft the best out of that list.

>>48771538
let the NPCs help each other so they have advantage.

>>48771462

The most obvious, borderline trope-namer, is against heat metal. Runner up is rust monsters. Every game? God I hope not, but some games. DEX barbs don't take sneaking penalties. Again, not every game but some games. DEX barbs are highly equipment-light, requiring less cash outlay at the beginning and offering enchanted armor AC without requiring the actual enchanted armor. Longbows. They don't have to worry about donning and doffing times or situations where armor would be awkward. They can rage to raise their strength, but a STR barb can't rage up their DEX. They have excellent DEX saves in general. They get a bonus to initiative. DEX abilities, for that matter.

None of these things are going to show up every game. But they do, on occasion, show up and they all add up. A variant human with Mage Slayer with a 16 AC who can stealth with proficiency at lvl 1 isn't going to be a huge matter in every fight but they can be a factor from the get go. 10gp later it's an 18 AC. Another 50gp and they've picked up a longbow and are basically best-in-slot on mundane equipment already.

Does this make sense for every group? No, it actually doesn't. It doesn't make sense for a lot of groups. Not every group needs a deep flanker, or a high AC bowman. Not every group needs a "bodyguard" who needs literally no equipment (just swap tavern brawler in for mage slayer and dress up pretty) or a bare-chested gladiator or a high AC acrobat or a slight of hand expert who only needs to smuggle in 1 dagger to fight at fully equipped.

But if you need any of those things, the game *does* have them tucked away in a non-obvious place. It's not as high-damage as a pure THF build but it does "play," and can cover a lot of neglected areas in an already lopsided group. But if your group needs pure damage, hauling capacity, or a grappler totally go STR and mazel tov.

>>48771794
>. Not every group needs a deep flanker, or a high AC bowman. Not every group needs a "bodyguard" who needs literally no equipment (just swap tavern brawler in for mage slayer and dress up pretty) or a bare-chested gladiator or a high AC acrobat or a slight of hand expert who only needs to smuggle in 1 dagger to fight at fully equipped.
>But if you need any of those things, the game *does* have them tucked away in a non-obvious place.

It's called a monk. You don't even need the dagger.

>tfw 3rd level Str naked Goliath Barb with 17 AC
Rolling 17, 16, 16, 9, 11, 12 was pretty great

Goint to pick GWM as my first feat

>>48771794
>They can rage to raise their strength
???

>>48771829
Probably means for the advantage on str throws.

>>48771815

Monks are good but they don't get an AC from both their combat stats, they're a d8 versus a d12, and they don't get the option of martial weapons or shields. You're still basically picking from defense and flexibility versus less much higher damage, just from a different angle.

>>48771853
>Defense
They aren't that great in defense, they're pretty meh in fact

>>48771840

Exactly, which works out to about a +5 depending on the target on both STR checks and STR saves. It's not a world-breaker but it's still very nice to be able to compensate for a dump stat in 10-round blocks.

>>48771878
Barbs in general already have advantage to Dex on saves always on.

>>48768148

Bullshit, the devs put a lot of work in to making it balanced and streamlined. Most of the hate comes from butthurt power-gamers who miss the absolute brokenness of 3.5.

>>48771868

The dex barb is defense because of the aforementioned double combat UD and the optional shield, the damage dealer is the monk with the constantly improving martial arts die and the ki expenditures. They're basically an unarmed defender versus an unarmed attacker.

>>48771887

But they don't usually have a +3 DEX with their sights on a +5 DEX by lvl 8.

>>48771899
I meant the monk, which isn't also that great at damage, like at all.

>>48771896
>Bullshit, the devs put a lot of work in to making it balanced and streamlined.

It's less balanced than 4e, but more streamlined.

It's also infinitely more boring.

So, I guess add at least one butthurt 4e player to the mix.

>>48771644
Because Infinity Engine and MMOs. They could definitely do the grid based vidya thing and sell that. Tactics Ogre is a beloved franchise, so is Fire Emblem. People really liked Final Fantasy Tactics (kind of a TO clone but different) and Disgaea. People are also really enjoying the new XCOM and Shadowrun games.

I think WotC is just a retarded out of touch company that makes money shilling thick laminated paper with low resolution pictures printed on it to children and manchildren.

And BG wasn't even designed to be a D&D game.

>>48771896
>the devs put a lot of work in to making it balanced
HAHAHAHAHA hahha ha no, they completely ignored balance problems and the opinion of testers during the betatest

Look moon druids at low and half levels and compare them with actual martial classes. Look at ranger, specially Beastmaster, look at wot4E monk, etc. There're still balance problems, way less than 3.5 but more than 4e. When some of the playtests were way more balanced than your final product you can't say "they put a lot of work" on making it balanced

>>48771896
And yet is still less balanced than lots of systems out there that fill the same type of play. Makes you wonder, are they incompetent?

>>48770388
Or you just make the conscious choice that you take a penalty in strength to improve your defense. Just because DEC is higher doesn't mean you can't attack with your 14-16 strength.

>>48770531
You can't rage in heavy armor.

>>48771929

I dunno dude, 5e is undeniably a lot more balanced (i.e. class v. class) than 3.5e.


Don't take this to mean that the classes are actually balanced - they aren't, as any wizard player can tell you - but the classes sure aren't as polarised as they used to be. The one major exception is the Beastmaster (yeah,I don't know what the fuck they were thinking).

>>48766419
I like it, it's a causal system though.

>>48771959

I think that's what he said. It's more balanced than 3.5 but still a step down from 4e in balance.

File: Screenshot 2016-01-29 12.57.46.png (442KB, 635x391px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 635x391px

>>48771943
>You can't rage in heavy armor.

You can tho. Look.

>>48771981
You can rage, but it offers no mechanical benefit for the first 2 levels of it

>>48771941

Yeah trying to balance the classes out is never gonna work, it's just not
possible without making them all identical (which from what I've heard is something they tried to pull with 4e, but I stand to be corrected since I've never played it)


>>48771915

I don't find it any more boring than 3.5e - you now get fun features at every levelup with most classes and the spell balancing means the wizard can no longer trivialise most encounters (most of the time...).

Really though the fun of the game is entirely down to the GM and the players, not the ruleset. It's easy to treat 5e as a grid-based wargame and yeah, if it'splayed like that then it sucks owlbear dick. I keep trying to get my group to play differently from "I place my fireball so it doesn't quite hit the guy in combat with the ogre" (how the fuck does that work, outside of video game logic?!) and "I cast Banishment! I cast Banishment! I cast Banishment!"

>>48772011
>which from what I've heard is something they tried to pull with 4e, but I stand to be corrected since I've never played it
The carcass/main structure of 4e classes is very similar, yes, but they're pretty different once you take the time to read and learn how they play.

>>48766619
Not OP, going into first game since 3.5 on Monday, playing Rogue, but always enjoyed Rangers - what's up with Ranger these days?

>>48772011
>I don't find it any more boring than 3.5e

If you compare it to 3e core (or even possibly 4e core; got late into it, so I always used the char builder); sure. If you compare it to those editions after a few years of materials? It blows 3.5 out of the water in the streamline and balance department, and I really like the streamlied numbers compared to 4e, but holy shit anything that isn't a wizard/cleric/druid/sorcerer/bard/possibly warlock or some kind of weird multiclass monstrocity is boring as fuck/basically pointless to play.

>>48771981
Good luck finding a Gm that lets you use bear totem with heavy armor though, it's clear the intention is to replace the resistance to pen/blud/slash which doesn't work in heavy

>>48772042
>what's up with Ranger these days?
Literally outclasses in any field ever by a Outlander Fighter. They don't have anything unique or special that makes worth it picking the class.

Also beastmaster (one of the subclasses) is pretty damn underwhelming, you have a weak as fuck pet that dies if someone looks at it funny, and your turns are either you do something or the pet does something, you can't both do something.

>>48772049
Is it?

Because it's quite clear compared to the eagle totem that it gives resistance to everything even in heavy armor.

That's literally what it says. If it said "give resist to all non-slashin/piercing/blunt" then why doesn't it say that?

>>48772011

>it's just not possible without making them all identical (which from what I've heard is something they tried to pull with 4e, but I stand to be corrected since I've never played it)

Nah, they played very differently.

Lets go to just 3 different ways to build the same class, let alone multiple classes.

>Open Hand Fighter: Find one guy, make him your immobile bitch as you choke him out.
>Polearm Fighter: Lock down an entire area with more reach than anyone else.
>Sword and Board Fighter: A lot of immediate interrupts, pushes and knockdown, being near unkillable and interrupting attacks with your shield.

>>48771715
Thanks I'm looking through the fantasy craft PDF right now and I like it a lot. I don't get to play many RPG's but I like buying books and reading them. At a quick glance I immediately popped a boner when I saw Paladin wasn't a basic class. You should rarely see a Paladin, instead in 5e/Pathfinder there's been one in every game for my like past 10 groups. And like one of them actually played a Paladin, the others were not-paladins with Paladin statsheets. By that I mean only one of them played his character such that was a light shining defiantly against the darkness.

>>48772063
don't worry
most GMs don't read the book so they won't know the intentions

>>48768397
thank you

>>48771518
>Strike!
Literally the worst written book ever published, and the character sheet is eye rape. It's super swingy (all rolls are a d6) for no reason, and expects your heroes to fail most of the time so that they eventually succeed. Some people like that, but it's pretty dull.

>Fantasy Craft
FC is a hardcore martial wank mirror to Pathfinder's wizard wank in superheroes-as-fantasy stories. If you like the idea of anime or comic badasses this is a good game for it.

>Legend d20
This is probably the best of the "3.5 is the only D&D, and thus D&D is shit" alternatives people throw out - and by a wide margin. It's the only one of these three I would recommend with 5e

Mythras/RuneQuest 6 with Classic Fantasy is literally the ultimate crunchy D&D experience though. If you want the best "D&D" rules no matter how many there are no game comes even close.

>>48771981
It says you gain resistance to more damage types while raging, and you lose your damage resistance while in heavy armor. Of those only Wolf doesn't get affected by heavy armor.

>>48772063
It's modifying and existing ability, eagle is a new ability.

>>48772063
>Gain more resistances while you rage
>This some how makes your feature to work in heavy armor
Why? the base doesn't work with heavy armor, why gaining more resistances gives you this benefit? is English your first language?

File: Screenshot.jpg (119KB, 493x642px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 493x642px

>>48772093
>Literally the worst written book ever published, and the character sheet is eye rape.

If you think that, you are really not well versed in RPGs.

>>48772113
>>48772105
That's not what it says though. You can houserule it because "it's not the intent" or "it doesn't feel right" but it plainly says, you just get resist:all but psychic.

It doesn't say this is an upgrade. Because it doesn't have to. Resistances don't stack anyway, so it'd be a waste of space, unlike saying this only works in light-medium armor which would clarify if that's the intent.

So if one of the designers actually communicates intent to that effect (say, in an FAQ), go ahead, but as is it is now you are imagining rules that aren't there.

>>48768840
>people have access to D&D5e
>D&D 4e
>AD&D2e
>D&D basic
>OD&D
>all the OSR systems

>and yet 68% of players stil fucking playing D&D3.x or pathfinder

This is the most depressing chart I have ever seen.

>>48772171
Stockholm syndrome plus retards that really believe magic should beat all

>>48772171
>>48772201
I'm pretty sure the data shows anyone who "plays/played 3.5/PF", not those who are currently exclusively playing it. Plus many don't want to switch mid campaign. Most of them probably play 5e now.

>>48770623
>Local LGS
isn't LGS alreayd "Local Game Shop"?

>>48772171
This accounts for overlap. Pretty much everyone who is in a 3.5 game will gladly play Pathfinder instead, and vice versa.

>>48772264
ATM machine

>>48772171
Yeah, it's been proven to be he same group that plays either. The bigger deal is the number of games. That's the important stat.

>>48772093
>Mythras/RuneQuest 6 with Classic Fantasy

Anyone has a pdf of this? Sounds interesting.

File: image.jpg (377KB, 1122x1696px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1122x1696px

>>48772128
Who gives a shit that my hyperbole isn't accurate? It's obvious hyperbole.

More seriously, look at this character sheet.

File: 1467600519020.jpg (11KB, 270x285px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 270x285px

>>48772323

>>48772348
Check the pdf share threads

>>48772362
ew
disgusting

where that one anime girl vomiting gif when I need it?

>>48772170
That's your interpretation, so when you DM you play it that way. Some people also read paladin to fall like 3.5.

I'm not adding anything to that sentence to say it modifies an earlier ability, and your parsing text in the way that benefits your idea the most.

>>48772093
>It's super swingy (all rolls are a d6)

Swingyness has nothing to do with die size FFS, only if crits and crit fails (or min and max rolls) are spectacularly important.

If you have 50% chance to pass a test on a d20, and 50% chance to pass a test on a d6, it really doesn't matter which one you roll.

What a single d6 loses is granularity, and a d20 has more round probabilities (5% increases instead of 16.66%).

If I wanted a single dice system I'd actually probably use a d10 instead for these reasons. Okay amount of granularity, easy to calculate with, numbers only need to go half as high as a d20.

>>48772362
There's actually an online generator now.

https://hyphz.github.io/StrikeGen.html

Still not that pretty, but way better than that abomination.

I personally just made power cards for my players.

>>48766419
Best D&D since 3E, otherwise it doesn't stand out in any particular way.

>>48766619
>This isn't /b/, don't apologize for that.
Yes he fucking should, because he should fucking lurk until he finds this shit out.

>>48772778
Since AD&D 2E, I mean.

>>48772408
Anon most people can't into mathematics and at best look at the number of sides of a die and go "there are only 2 sides of that die that I can succeed on!" when it's a fucking d6. It's why dicepool and XdY systems get toted as superior probability generators cause they can't wrap their head about the numbers they put out. There can be argument on auto miss and auto hit/critical chances in these systems but the people don't' talk about that, they talk about how it's less swingy or has a bell curve and that makes it better, when you look at the probability for base tasks the non dice pool systems (which have a fucked probability ideal for success half the time and just want people to roll 10 dice) tend to go towards 50% hit or miss when you have no advantage or disadvantage cause table top games love situations where you can wiff for 3 turns regularly.

What the XdY systems excel at is inflating your success or failure chances. A +1 in D&D is a 5% increase in success a +1 in these XdY systems varies but is typically larger, and gents increasingly larger for every +1 stacking on it. Which gives a very real skew of "I do better under this system cause d20 is shit and swingy" as long as they are doing a task where they have the advantage, AKA whatever they shot for. You could do something like double or tripple the bonus to the dice roll in a d20 system for these people and they'll still complain how swingy the system is or how the dice dictate everything poorly when they have approximately the same or better odds than their 3d6 system.

>>48772733
I told my group the same review I will always have of Strike!

If they want to play 4e we will play Strike! instead, I'm not learning how to play 4e when there is a more modern toolbox right there.

>>48772408
Dude, I wrote a sentence talking about issues in the game. You will be missing a lot in Strike! And each face has a different result, making for 17% something real bad happens and 17% chance something real good happens every time.

I like RuneQuest 6 d100 where 98-100 is a fumble 95-100 is a failure, 1-5 is a success and 10% the skill value is a critical. The only reason to prefer a d20 is that is has a single physical die to roll, and is the largest reasonable dice to be able to roll.

>>48772910
>You will be missing a lot in Strike!
You will be missing, if you have no source of advantage (which you can get by just flanking, among others, which is to encourage tactical positioning) and no attack modifiers (such as Snipe or Duel), at worst 1/3rd of your attacks, and each miss gets you a miss token, reducing the chance of your next attack missing to 1/6th (and opening up the possibility to improve it to a crit).

You have worse chances in 5e if you are fighting something level appropriate that isn't a "low AC but high HP" type. I mean, if an enemy is wearing just plain normal plate, and you have +10 to attack (+5 from prof and +5 in stat) you already have more chance to miss than 1/3rd (admittedly, only by like 1.6666%).

>And each face has a different result, making for 17% something real bad happens and 17% chance something real good happens every time.

The real good is only supposed to be about 67% better than just plain good (a success), and real bad is only 67% worse than plain bad (a twist) by the creator's own maths (although, you may question the validity of boiling down situational shit like that into a single number). They happen often, but they aren't as substantial and game warping.

I don't know how fumbles work in RQ, but if you have something like "you crit yourself" in there, that's a lot worse, even with a 3% chance.

This guy >>48772843 seems to be spot on.

Ignoring the math, none of the complaints make Strike! worse than any edition of D&D for >>48771486's criteria.

>>48769924
is there a /tg/ mega with all the Dungeon World stuff? I hear about it so fucking much I'd like to read through the material.

>>48771896
This is just the blind fanboy-speak we've seen regurgitated a thousand times before. The devs couldn't even be fucked to provide rules for anything except combat, and haven't really done anything in the two years since it was released (the adventure paths are outsourced to Mearls' friends in other companies).

>>48767738
4e made every class feel like spell casters

>>48769603
Great, underrated post.

>>48766419
Second worst edition ever. It's only better than 3.0.

>>48769924
>here some D&D

>no attributes
>no magical loot
>no alignment
>no vancian magic

this ain't D&D

>>48774435

Even if what you're saying was true, at least I could play a Fighter or a Monk and not be benched once we reached level 5.

That alone puts it above the rest of the WotC era D&D games in my opinion, though 5e still has a chance to surprise me considering we're still relatively early in it's life cycle.

>>48771518
>>48772408
>>48772843
>>48773264
Stop shilling Strike!

Why does /tg/ keep shilling Strike!?

>>48771467
Homebrew that you make yourself

>Vancian Casting
It's less than dog shit.

>>48774435
Everyone who wasn't a spellcaster became a wuxia hero.

File: sofbook.png (1MB, 1596x1419px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1596x1419px

>>48772093
>Literally the worst written book ever published
About that,

>>48776879

I don't know, 4e Fighter felt more like Beowulf (especially grab-n'-stab fighter) or Perseus than Wuxia.

Not that I have a problem with my dungeons and dragons being wuxia and wizards flavor, just sayin'.

>>48769362
you really are retarded , aren't you?

>>48777228
>>48772128
and on this day anon learned to never misuse "literally" ever again

>>48777703
>literally
It's an intensifier. It's been used that way for longer than you or your parents have been alive. Combined. You can trace its figurative usage back to the 17th century, and more "recently", you see it being used in a figurative sense repeatedly in works by none other than James Joyce and Charles Dickens. "Literally" doesn't even literally mean its "proper" definition to begin with, since its etymology deals with letters alone.

Now, I'm not saying this is you, but anyone getting upset over literally's figurative use or smug about correcting people doesn't know what they're on about. This fight was waged and won before we were even born. Arguing about it further is a moot point.
fun fact: "moot" originally meant something very much worth discussing, to the point that you'd call a meeting over it. now we use it to mean "completely pointless and irrelevant"

How do I roll a stoneforge mystic for a zendikar game?

>>48777630

>just says an insult

/v/ plz leave

>>48777703
I didn't misuse it. Hyperbole is a common rhetorical device, and using "literally" is a hyperbolic statement has been done for generations only for the Internet to expose some people's incorrect sperging.

Basically: >>48777844

I've also already said it was hyperbole up thread.

>>48768148
>abandonware
see >>48768840

>>48766419
It's alright.

>>48767761
Of course not, anon, pay no attention to such silly things. Everything is OK.

>>48773875
Check the odd share thread and prepare to be underwhelmed!

File: Read Nigga Read.jpg (320KB, 500x572px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 500x572px

>>48766474
>still pushing the Bardic Horse meme

Even after it was disproven as impossible? What a grand shitposter!

>>48773264
AC in 5e is typically between 10-18 giving a level 1 character between a 40-75% chance of successfully hitting and a level 20 character between a 65-95% chance to hit. You don't miss most of the time while fighting and typically have the AC advantage, making 5e much more satisfying unless you are one of those people that like to miss constantly - and there are people with bad taste. The statement about Strike! being swingy is because the creator likes it that way, and I know 2hu has criticized him for his love of failing forward. Not even Dungeon World wants you to fail forward often.

>>48766419
It's fantastic

>>48778511
Appropriate challenge for level 20 characters includes shit like Balors and Pit fiends (both 19 AC) and Adult/Elder dragons (19/22 AC on average).

Against these enemies you have less than 65% chance to hit. Or, in other words, less than 1 in 3. Which is the chance you have in Strike! to hit (not even counting miss tokens, which essentially half your miss chance on subsequent rolls until spent). The only way 5e is more satisfying in, is that you can crush non level appropriate, weak enemies more easily (although they will of course still have a chance to make you waste some HDs because your AC won't be that stellar either).

>>48769924
That's the only D&D I'm considering to play from now on

>>48779034
Ok? You basically just admitted there is a larger swath of combat challenges in 5e than "this is the next story encounter point, do what you always do."

Strike! is not bad, it's just written terribly and plays like BloodBowl - another game I really like.

>>48777703
Literally can't literally be misused now. It can literally mean figuratively now. It's now just a nonsensical word that means the opposite of itself, it can't describe anything so it can't be misued.

>>48779562
The book didn't even have an editor, which is both crazy and explains a lot.
I feel like a revised edition could be great, but until that happens I can see why people would be put off by it.

>>48772789
This isn't /a/, either.

>>48768148

You have no idea what abandonware is do you

It's not -ware that players abandon, its -ware that the devs have abandoned. And it's clearly not abandoned.

>>48783928
I think he was trying to make a dig at 5e's intentionally slow content release schedule. Well, character options are drip fed anyways--they also have those fuck-huge modules and a dozen or so single adventures that tie into those that they sell digitally.

>>48772789

/v/ plz leave

>>48778501
Googles giving me nothing, whats the bard horse meme?

File: 1409590070081.jpg (176KB, 859x470px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 859x470px

>>48788925
Early in 5e's tenure there were people claiming that a caster can freely duplicate most cone, line, and radius spells using Find Steed, by willfully ignoring and misinterpreting a big chunk of rules.

The caster is supposed to consider themselves to be a target of the AoE, yet for some reason take no damage, while directing it at enemies who are supposed to *not* be considered targets while still taking damage.

Then the mount from Find Steed would duplicate the spell, which somehow would be directed at the same enemies and not solely target the caster, itself, or both.

Even ignoring any and all common sense problems, the idea falls apart because of the use of language in Prismatic Spray. It makes it explicitly clear, rather than being largely implicit, that the targets are who the spell is directed at.

Pic related, it's one of the ones that would accompany posts arguing for it.

>>48788925
People being retards and not realizing Self (60-foot cone) is not the same as Self without a following clause.

File: 1421396823522.jpg (54KB, 500x534px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x534px

>>48766419
Not a fan, not a fan at all. It's essentially 3e, with patches, but then again, 3e with patches is what most of the internet was yelling for, so I imagine most of the internet is happy.

>>48766474
>It's not 3.5/PF.
But anon, yes it is.

>>48789377
>>48789203
Thanks chums