Did Wizards do a good job with 5e? What are your thoughts

File: maxresdefault.jpg (291KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1920x1080px

It didn't fix all my problems with 3x and 4e, but assuming no splat books for either, I'd take 5e over both of those. I'm -still- bugged that they can't get arms and armor correctly named.

With splats I'm still using 3x/Pathfinder, but only because I'm /tg/'s hated enemy and like weird characters.

I know Wizoids are still the master race but are fightans at least useful to lug around at higher levels?

>>49339185
Level advancement doesn't do nearly as much as it did in older editions. Feats are more scarce, spells don't do as much(IIRC, splats may change this) and high level PCs and Monsters aren't that much stronger than low level PCs, so the difference between an overpowered character and an underpowered one is probably like a magical item or two.

>>49339185
Fighters are able to hold there own especially since they have limited a lot of power in the spells. There are no metamagic stuff except for sorcerer and even those are fairly limited, feats are scarce but more potent and no needing to take 30 to get that one feat you need to make your character work.

Another bonus is limiting active spells. Each caster can only maintain one spell at a time so you can't boost yourself to god levels, you can't cast more than one spell per round, etc.

Sure, casters are more versatile and able to blast damage but martials are not unplayable by and large anymore.

>>49339166
Considering they threw out everything they learned from 4e and hastily cut out anything that was even remotely interesting in the playtest, that's a big, fat NO from me.

>>49339327
What did they cut from the play test material besides martial superiority dice?

File: something like that.jpg (23KB, 223x224px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 223x224px

>>49339166
Pros:
+Classes are far more balanced, it's almost difficult to make a useless character.
+Wizards have been toned down
+Alignments are used for almost nothing and can be easily removed from the game entirely
+Advantage/Disadvantage makes gameplay go FAR quicker than keeping track of a 2 dozen different bonuses and stat boosts
+Magic items being limited to 3 at a time via attunement helps limit power bloat
+Less feats, and the feats that do exist are far more potent. NO FEAT CHAINS!

Cons:
-Some classes are one-trick ponies, at least in combat (Rogues and sneak-attack. Warlocks and spamming Eldritch Blast.).
-Wizards are still far more versatile than other classes, despite being toned down. That isn't to say they're the best in combat, but they can still mitigate many non-combat obstacles simply by having the right spell.
-Death rules are fucking stupid. Including being able to constantly revive someone who keeps going down simply by spamming a heal spell every turn.
-Humans are still objectively better than most other races in 90% of situations
-Cross classing breaks the game in several ways (see sorcerer-warlock with meta-magic eldritch blast, or rogue paladin with sneak-attack smite).
-Sword Coast Adventures existing and the only thing people taking from it being how to build exploity characters around the "Booming Blade" spell.
-Armor still feels like it does nothing at the higher levels
-Summoning, necromancy, beastmaster rangers, and any class that uses "pets" are still obnoxious to deal with for everyone at the table except the person playing the Pokemon Trainer.

>>49339361
>any class that uses "pets" are still obnoxious to deal with
I've never had an issue with the pet classes (I've even played them a few times). We all just accept it's part of the class and move on from that. I understand it gives them basically 2 characters but they are easier to handle than the druid polymorphing and needing to juggle stats and shit.

>>49339361
All things considered, since most of the cons existed in previous versions of DnD, I'd call 5e an improvement... but it's still DnD. People can still make the argument that better systems exist for specific types of campaigns. But since DnD is what everyone plays, if you actually want to play a game 5e is pretty fun.

>>49339185
Fighters are still probably one of the worst, but a fighter will probably never feel useless, and unless someone is trying to, he'll be the best a raw consistent damage by far.

Also bards are the real masterrace.

>>49339339
Backgrounds as a third mechanically distinguishing pillar of character creation instead of a grudging concession to RP as a half-assed afterthought.
I remember there being more, but I have banished the details to the far recesses of my mind to not stay quite as upset about this mess.

>>49339401
>People can still make the argument that better systems exist for specific types of campaigns

I would say 5e is probably the best dungeon crawl of the series, but the skill systems make intrigue look less appealing.

File: notice.jpg (31KB, 530x300px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 530x300px

>>49339418
>Fighters are still probably one of the worst

That's a weird way to spell Rangers, Monks, and Barbarians (at low level).

Also, in terms of "worst" class in the game... I;d probably give that to sorcerers actually. They're not really bad on their own, it's just that EVERYTHING they can do can be done better by a wizard. Metamagic feats are cool, but they don't make up for the school specialties the wizard gets or the larger spell list... and sorcerer bloodlines bonuses tend to be worse than most starting racial abilities, at least until the really high-level stuff. Even Non-prepared spellcasting kinda blows since other casters can use prepared spells multiple times now.

Sorcerer is COMPLETELY redundant and has no reason to exist other than being able to break other classes via cross-classing and using their metamagic on the OTHER CLASS's abilities.

Fighters are pretty bro. Definitely not the worst class. Proficiencies means they can even pick up non-combat skills now and not be penalized super harshly for dumping Int.

>>49339448
How so?

The skill system makes it easier to run skills.

It would have been nice if they could make monks a good class. Besides that I'm pretty happy with 5th, I've found it along with ad&d to be what I have the most fun with.

In what way is 5e fun?

>>49339482
How are games fun?

>>49339482
Easy to learn
Creating a character is easy
Combat and skill checks are easy
Setting up encounters as a GM is easy

Basically everything in 5e is focused around actually getting the game set up quickly and playing, instead of spending 80% of your time on numbers and stats like in previous editions, or 110% of your time on those things in... Pathfinder. *shudders*

>>49339501
Are games fun?

>>49339514
What is... fun?

>>49339327
the primary lesson from 4e was to not do anything even remotely resembling 4e so i'd say they learned that lesson p.well

>>49339451
Well, I did say one of.
But Barbarians get good.
Fighters have to do a full 20 for maximum efficiency which sucks.
A cleric can do similar damage if they do things a certain way.
I'm glad fighters don't suck skill wise, they really should have always had more points, fighter got ripped in 3.p.
>sorcerer
That's a funny way of saying Warlock, aka the dip class for CHA.

>sorcerer bloodlines bonuses
>Free mage armor
>Bad
Out of the full casters though, yeah sorcerer is trash. Metamagic isn't worth the lack of spells, spell recovery is okay, but wizard has something similar, and bards don't get a lot of cool special spell abilities, but they can take level 5 paladin spells

>>49339459
Easier, but less robust. I honestly think in retrospect 4e had the best opportunities for RP, and not because of skill marathons or whatever they were called but how utility powers worked. That or 3.p skill system (I forget did 4e use the same system more or less?(

>>49339520
F is for fire that burns down the whole town!
U is for uranium bombs!
N is for no survivors when you... something. I don't remember.

>>49339522
Spoken like a true zealot of Diablo edition.

>>49339522
They also took the worst lesson from 4e, the abysmal fluff.

>>49339524
Oh also forgot to say, mid level a cleric can possibly out damage the fighter.

>>49339590
Some of the fluff from 4e was pretty fucking rad.

>>49339166
Fuck you Bronnie you Fucking cow. Hope you're having fun on the back bench with the rest of your failed party you whore.

>>49339788
HAHA I forgot she got defeated HA.

>>49339788
>>49339827
Cool story bro?

>>49339361
>-Wizards are still far more versatile than other classes
More, but not far more, especially since "having the right spell" is certainly not guaranteed.

>-Humans are still objectively better than most other races in 90% of situations

Variant humans are, but standard humans are actually rather balanced or even under-powered.

>-Death rules are fucking stupid.

They could definitely be better.

>Including being able to constantly revive someone who keeps going down simply by spamming a heal spell every turn.

This is actually an improvement in my eyes, because it keeps players in the action, and it's kind of bad DMing to just keep knocking one player down.

Otherwise, I agree with your sentiments.

Way more balanced than 3.5
Less balanced than 4e
Casters are still boss

>>49339361
>sorlock
>broken
Does less damage than vanilla (no subclasses) fighter who doesn't spend any resource (action surge, etc), so, no.

And sorlock has to spend sorcery points or whatever. They're the casters that deal more single target damage though, but they don't outdamage most martials.

>>49339361
Multiclassing is shit in 99% of the cases, in the other 1% it's ok, yeah, I mean stuff like Sorlock, Palock, etc, they're ok, nothing game breaking.

>>49339361
>Beastmaster
>Obnoxious
Taking into account it's either the PC does action or the animal companion does action, why is this obnoxious? he doesn't get extra Actions neither drags the turn forever

I'm interested in why 5e is considered more fun than 4e or 3PF.

>>49340036
Maybe because some people find simple (than 4e) and more balanced (than 3.PF) fun.

>>49339945
>More, but not far more, especially since "having the right spell" is certainly not guaranteed.

Unless your GM is ruling that you can't swap a prepared spell or two during a short rest, it's pretty easy to get the spell you need assigned. You don't need very many of them assigned in the first place to be super versatile. Even the level 1 stuff is extremely powerful outside of direct damage-dealing.

>This is actually an improvement in my eyes, because it keeps players in the action, and it's kind of bad DMing to just keep knocking one player down.

Knocking down one player repeatedly is bad. However, going down in a fight should also be a serious thing. You shouldn;t be able to use 0hp as a "buffer" that protects you from death just because you know you can be stabilized and right back on your feet next turn with no risks or checks involved.

>>49340001
Sorlock is basically a sorcerer with Eldritch Blast. You can already make Eldritch Blast do insane extra damage with every ray, and push people back with every ray (of which you get multiples with every attack). Being able to add metamagic on top of that is kinda gamey.

>>49339361
>-Wizards are still far more versatile than other classes, despite being toned down. That isn't to say they're the best in combat, but they can still mitigate many non-combat obstacles simply by having the right spell.
Isn't this what a wizard is supposed to do though?
When I think of Gandalf I think of a wise man with contacts, knowledge and the right solution allways up his sleeve, not of a blaster-mage.

Is CR not a thing anymore? How is the GM meant to balance encounters?

>>49340060
Not the guy you're responding to, but it very much depends on what your source of inspiration is. If you're looking at wizards from old-school RPGs or MMOs, they're basically the class that deals AoE damage or focuses on massive buffs and debuffs. If you're looking at them from literature and such, they're closer to Gandalf.

As much as I'm going to sound like garbage for saying this, I actually prefer the videogame approach where wizards pick one thing they're good at and that's their thing, rather than being able to get good at everything. I frequently house-rule that wizards can't take spells above level 1 outside of their specialty school. It actually solves alot of the problems with Wizards feeling like they can excel at every mechanical avenue of the game that's not direct melee damage.

>>49340068
5e still has CR

>>49339166
I liked 5e overall, but I wish they've released books more frequently than one book per millenium.

>>49340052
>insane extra damage with every ray
42 damage at 17th level isn't insane, anon

A fighter without using champion's crit, battlemaster's maneuvers, action surge, etc deals 66 at the same level. Add a crit, or maneuvers and that number rises to 100+. At 20th level a fighter can deal easily 200+

So they honestly did a pretty good job? Why does PF continue to win awards?

>>49340097
Fair enought I guess.

>>49339166
Your system is shit

>>49339177
It's tradition to a fault. Even Classic Fantasy (supplement to Mythras for AD&D style adventures) changes longsword from the correct type of weapon to a bastard sword and makes a bastard sword a longsword. They even explain they do this.

>>49340917
Too many casterfags out there

>>49340917
Does it though?

>>49341481
Nah.

>>49341580
'Course, it is objectively the better system.

>>49339767
Feywild owned bones because the fucking faerie realm is staple of fantasy and it was a goddamned crime that D&D never had it before then

File: rogue.png (303KB, 500x526px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 500x526px

5e is absolutely the best version of D&D in existence.

The game balance is very good. It is not perfect, because that would be silly and impossible. All of the classes are functional and playable, all can contribute effectively to a party. The most broken class in 5e is better-balanced than the least broken class in 3.5. Of course, people are gonna bitch and theorycraft, pointing out that one class can do 15% more DPR in certain circumstances and is therefore too powerful. But in play, with friends around a table, it's great. Fighters are the best at fighting. Rogues are the best at skills. Wizards are the best at utility spells. Advantage/disadvantage is a quick, clean mechanic that plays very well.

3.5 was actually a fucked-up system. Pathfinder is for people who got used to it and liked it, liked the system mastery that's necessary to play a game that broken. If that's your thing, enjoy. But 5e is good on its own, no acquired tastes required.

>>49342223
Better at what?

>>49342406
At caster supremacy

>>49342443
And retarded reasons for balance changes. Weapon cords comes to mind.

>>49339524
>That's a funny way of saying Warlock
Warlocks do great consistent damage once they get CHA to Eldritch Blast.

>>49342494
I still don't understand the weapon cords...it takes the same time to pick a weapon from ground that to pick a weapon that is dangling from a weapon cord...I don't understand why spend money on them

>>49339166
5th edition is terrible and the only thing it seems to have going for it based on /tg/ is that "it's better than 3.PF". Big deal. So is literally any system that's not D&D 4th edition.

File: 1390430619557.gif (2MB, 458x334px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 458x334px

>>49342817

I'm a long time 3.5 player who dropped it years back and I would much prefer literally any edition to 5. 3.x has balance and bloat issues, those can be solved by limiting to a few non broken books. 4 has issues with bloat and long combats, you can again fix it by limiting your splats, but you have way more non broken options to choose from.

5 is just watered down 3.5 core so it has all the same problems but it's more homogeneous. It seems to have ignored 4e almost entirely, missing out on what I thought was an elegant balance solution (powers). It also is basically Autistic Homebrew: the Game, which is a huge issue with 3.5. Overall fuck 5e, I really tried to like it but it offers nothing new or special enough to draw me in.

>>49343402
>5 is just watered down 3.5 core so it has all the same problems but it's more homogeneous.
This always amazes me. Why do people like 5e and hate 3.PF just because the other is more balanced when neither of them is good anyway?

>>49343550

Cause shiny new thing. Also easier to switch to a new version of the same old shit than admit the same old shit wasn't very good to begin with and face the reality that they might have to play a non-wotc system. The horror!

>>49339185

When it comes to pure damage dealing, Fighters are basically the best. Wizards can blow their loads in one big spell but a Fighter is going to be dealing his damage consistently, constantly, and without any interruptions throughout the day. Fighters are great for combat, but depending on how your DM lets you interact with the environment may not be so great outside of it.

>>49342817
Confirmed for not playing any of them

>>49343550
>>49343610
Actually a big plus for 5e is that its intended as a unifying edition, and its both broadly acceptable and not particularly difficult to play and make characters for, doesn't require a backpack full of supplements (3e/4e), doesn't require judgment calls on what to exclude (2e), and doesn't require probable houserules (OD&D/1e).

So its pretty nice.

>>49343670

Not that wizards need to out damage them but they can easily. Any AoE spell is basically worth 4-5 rounds of fighter at least.

>>49339166
While initially sceptical I am quite convinced now that it's a great game. The monsters are somewhat bland but I use a bunch of homebrew ones anyway. Combat in general needs a bit spicing-up but I think we're getting there with our party.

Two very useful things I started adding to achieve this:
1) Magical items that can be activated a limited amount of times per rest (usually one) as a bonus action or reaction (depending on the item, some also as actions). More options for the players = more better.
2) Monster abilities that can be counterplayed via movement or target priority. It's a bit MMOey, but nobody has complained yet so I guess that's not an issue.

So, in conclusion I think it's great for games that involve a lot of homebrew as mine tend to do. Out of the box it is somewhat meh unless it's as an introduction for new players.

>>49339361
>Rogues and sneak attack

This isn't true at all, unless you go Assassin. Arcane Trickster has tons of things it can do in combat that's not "I attack and roll dice, i'm done" thanks to their illusions and enchantments, and Thief's Fast Hands and Use Magic Items opens up many many doors and avenues for play.

I guess Swashbuckler is sort of a "I swing and end", but they're supposed to be the best at swinging and ending, so that's fine.

>Humans are objectively better than most other races

Variant Human is good for every class, but it's not the best and it's definitely not 'objectively' the best.

>Wizards are still more versatile

as is their specialty, but even bards might be a better class than Wizard.

>Cross classing breaks the game

lol.

>SCAG as a con

Booming Blade's not that big of a deal.

>Beastmaster Rangers listed as a con

they get one companion, but Druids spamming Summon Nature's Ally or Wizards with 5-6 skeletons are really annoying. Seriously though, you're going to complain about Beastmasters?

>>49340068
5e has CR but you balance encounters with an XP budget.

>>49343707

It's only that way because they only released 3 official books and only plan on making modules. This has lead to a grotesque and unbriddled use of homebrew in a game that only has a vaneer of balance. Once you start making your own splats, all bets are off. I think it would have done them well to plan at least a few extra books for more classes/races/archetypes. And again, it's just the same old shit from 3.5 in a different package. I really really tried to like 5e but holy shit it's boring and tired in 2016. They fucked up a nice working version of NEXT during the playtest to make this uninspired shit.

>>49343731
>unless you go Assassin
Even then, Rogue has a fair spread of non-archetype features and Assassin still gets a couple of special skills.

>>49343714

Yes, but they're limited by spell slots and in a single target nova fight the Fighter will win as the fight drags on and the Wizard loses his best spells. Hell, there's not even really a lot of great things to cast for damage past level 5 not named "Meteor Swarm". I guess you can Wish for a Tidal Wave or Earthquake, but Meteor is still probably more damage.

Wizard has a lot of power, but a lot of that power is out of combat shit too. The Fighter is still great at killing things, much like his name suggests. I'm not going to say there's NO power imbalance, but your martials will definitely have their place.

>>49343690
Confirmed for not playing anything but them

>>49343830

That's true, even though those skills aren't necessarily very good, since they're pretty niche and IIRC one of the backgrounds has one of the same assassin abilities but better for some reason.

But still you're right even Assassin gets some nifty shit, although it's still my least favorite Rogue path alongside Mastermind.

>>49343796

We will get more crunch though. Volo's guide to monsters will include playable races and eventually we will get the first major rules expansion to the game (probably next year, if I had to guess).

>>49343796
>It's only that way because they only released 3 official books and only plan on making modules.

Yes anon... you require far fewer books to play 5e because there are far fewer books... you gt a gold star.

>And again, it's just the same old shit from 3.5 in a different package.

Kinda boggles the imagination how anyone could think them similar. Being an effective single classed fighter without having to do the equivalent of filing taxes, for example, is something 3e never got right. Not needing to multiclass like a whore further dispels similarities. Likewise, the minimal scaling by comparison removes the perception that they're alike as a DM.

I'm just not seeing it.

I dislike that character customization is almost non-existent and that rule-wise, your options in combat are very few. The feats are all boring, the classes are way too specific, weapons are meaningless and in some cases almost all characters of a certain archetype will use the one that is distinctly superior such as the rapier.

>>49343714
You need a level 5 spell slot to kill CR 1/2 plebs reliably, dude. Doesn't seem like a winning use of resources.

>>49343940
And I forgot to say anything about the magic system, it's shit too. They really need to drop vancian casting, it only makes sense in certain settings and is overly confusing and out of place.

It is good which is why it is no played by every one except evil cucks

>>49343967
You fucking have a spell point system if you want it

>>49344017
It is garbage and poorly integrated into the system. Instead I play a game where the entire magic system is built with spell points in mind.

>>49340204
But i heard they are fucked up somehow

>>49344047
3e CR is a flimsy guesstimate that you can casually abuse and that few use as intended. A monster of x CR is supposed to be a decent encounter for a whole party, but in reality a PC who can kill one such foe a round is often considered too weak to even consider worth playing.

5e CR is a harsh mistress.

>>49344085
>mfw a single roper (read as raper) fucked (litterally) a level ten death cleric just by grappling
>player too afraid/overconfident in their DPT to just kill the tentacles then hit the roper
>tentacled.com
knocked him down to 0 hp and I told him he woke up all sore with a single rose laid at his feet.

>>49344137
What CR is a roper in 5e?

>>49344226
6

>>49344262
>>49344137
Nice. Yeah, you definitely wanna be careful in 5e.

>>49344085
I think you're just being unnecessarily harsh, possibly because of some kind of bias, probably because you're not really familiar with how fluid the systems are, and largely because you're one of those guys who just repeats old complaints over and over again without really understanding them.

>>49344085
>tfw had a GM that limited us so fucking much we only were able to deal with CR-2 if lucky
For him power attack was "too OP"

Nobody liked casters because "lol low BAB and low HPs" or "Healbot heal heal!", I played a conjuration wizard, 4 sessions later wizard was banned in the table, repeat for Druid and Cleric. After that I just left that awful group till they changed GM or learnt how the game worked, none of which happened.

>>49344299
I especially like 5e monsters because every time someone makes a character and talks about how great it is you show them something with a slightly lower cr and they think "haha im sir jimmy jim james knight of the round I can fight anything I have a +1 sword and 21 ac!!"
nigger no,you aren't even pissing uphill in a stiff wind at this point you are pissing down a a wind tunnel.
>MFW his rouge got fucked by a drider casting hold person
>mfw he failed his save three rounds in a row.
>mfw to this day thinks he is powerful enough to solo it inside a monsters lair

>>49344329
>I think you're just being unnecessarily harsh, possibly because of some kind of bias

Wh-what? Bias for or against what? I love OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3.5, 4e and 5e, but I love them for what they are.

If you think I'm being harsh about 3.5's CR, then you're mistaken, as tier 5s being not so great is not just my opinion.

>>49344376
Rolls will fuck you always, and monsters designed to fuck your weaknesses will always win even if you're several levels above this has been the norm in DnD since always.

>>49344436

Yes, but what throws people off is they see CR 10 and are reminded of how it works in 3e (ie. a level 10 PC will almost certainly obliterate it unless their defenses are shit), or say something like "level 10 monster" to themselves, making them think its in any way comparable to a level 10 PC, and then get destroyed.

Its not about bad luck or being designed to fuck your weaknesses in this case.

>>49344436
No he minmaxed and multiclassed in such a way that "ayy lmao NO one can cast a spell on me XDDDDDD"
also this >>49344479

>>49344479
>a level 10 PC will almost certainly obliterate it unless their defenses are shit
See>>49344341
Depends on the game

I always try to play smart, even if I'm level 40 against a CR 1/2 kobold, because rolls will fuck you up (example my 10th level char with Fort 22 and Will 20 died against a combo of spells with DCs no higher than 15 because two nat1)and even if sold as it, DnD was never fantastic, heroic or epic, is just a grind fest of disappointment and anticlimatic PC deaths.

>>49344486
>Multiclassed
>In 5e
>Rogue
>He thought he was tough shit
He clearly doesn't know how the system works, I bet he sees a 13/13 for 13 in mtg and he thinks is the best thing since sliced bread

>>49344557
It was some rouge warlock meta prebuild bullshit with devils eyes+darknes/hold person combo

>>49344570
That sounds weak as fuck. Warlock is only worth shit for EB spam and as a dip for Paladin or Sorcerer, anything beyond that is shit.

>>49344528
>Depends on the game

Unless otherwise mentioned, its always safe to assume system related comments on RPGs refer to the RPGs, not Joe McFucktard's Happy Houserule Hour.

>DnD was never fantastic, heroic or epic, is just a grind fest of disappointment and anticlimatic PC deaths.

"Fantastic" and "heroic" do not even slightly mean "you win forever." Offhand I don't know if any of the things on the inspiration list for D&D are that.

>>49344588
when you are a drow warlock who can cast darkness at least three times a day which nothing can see through except you THEN get free sneak attack crits because "le cheeky rouge crit dice+summoned warlock greatsword i'm proficient with :^))))))" you would be surprised what you can pull off

>>49343911
>>49343911

>wow anon nice point, I don't even need to refute it because it's so DUMB

Ok

>I don't see how it's like 3.5 at all it's slightly more balanced!! Like how could you even say that?

Ok

>>49343903

Well that's good, but the original plan was only modules/adventures and let the community pick up the slack

>>49343830
the assassin's non-combat features are almost insulting

>>49344647
Thats how I feel about champion fighters its like "wow this shit is something fighters should just passively get PLUS their archetype" like barbarians. tho there is a simple joy in making a simple man with a simple sword who always ends up saving the day

>>49344047
5e CR is reasonably accurate assuming no magic items or feats. Those bring the player's effective abilities up, and instead of CR being "think hard about going with a CR above the average party level" you can probably boost that up a bit.

The XP budget, adventuring day recommendations, etc from the DMG are solid. The adventures are all crazy dangerous (ranging from "that was close" to "Thankfully, I can run faster than the slowest party member")

>>49344618
There was nothing to refute.

Point 1 was "it only has fewer books because it has fewer books." Well no shit.

Point 2 was "I like to use shittily balanced homebrew and can't help myself," inherently self refuting.

Point 3 was a never elaborated upon comparison to 3e. Yes, it omits all the things I like about 3e and that I dislike about 3e, so its just like 3e.

Points 1 and 2 apply exactly as well to 1e AD&D: it has far less variety in chargen and customization than 5e, and yet I don't feel the irresistible need to homebrew up massive amounts of poorly balanced bullshit and then cry about how my homebrew is poorly balanced bullshit.

>>49339520
What is fun?
That guy don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

>>49343837

But even after the fighter has exhausted his resources the wizard has plenty to spare oh and cantrip does similar damage but with no need of putting yourself at risk. I mean yeah it's not the disparity that 3.5 had but you still need to bargain to convince someone the fighter even comes close to outdamaging a wizard, which should be the fighter's domain without question (which isn't even the REAL problem considering a wizard can nullify an encounter entirely with one or two spells)

The short rest solution was a sloppy bandaid that they should have worked on better. Also should have kept the 4e martial cantrips. Or really juat paid attention to anything useful from 4e. I'm not the kind of guy who goes to threads to bitch about 5e, but I am not going to make excuses for wotc going literally backwards in development from the playtest. NEXT felt like its own thing. 5e feels like warmed up leftovers put very nicely on a plate.

>>49344615
>sneak attack
>greatsword
RTFM, familia

>>49344703

Naw you're just being reductive and defensive over your favorite lil edition. No point in trying to explain anything else to you because you'll dismiss it with reductive greentext so I just did the same to you and now you're upset. Crashing this reply chain with no survivors

>>49344376
>rouge

>>49344747

Cantrips don't do comparable damage to the fighter, full stop.
Wizardly attack spells only deal competitive damage if there's a lot of enemies to hit with area damage.
All complaints about them omitting lessons learned from Tome of Battle and 4e are valid, but burning precious high level spell slots so you can kill a CR 1/2 enemy instantly is not a serious tactic.

>>49344618
>wow anon, you made a point that doesn't actually say how it's only partially balanced by limited splat.
You don't actually make an argument other than implying core 3.5 is balanced.

>All I can see is 3.5 despite having entirely different classes, spells, magic casting, DMG options, combat rules, etc.
There's about as much different between 3.5 and 5e as there is between 4e and 3.5. If anything 4e and 5e are closer together than either are to 3.5.

>>49344781
>favorite edition
I don't even like 5e and have never played it.

>because you'll dismiss it with reductive greentext

Truly sorry for hurting your feelings. Next time try an actual argument?

>>49344769
>standing behind a blind person and smashing a magical weightless greatsword you summoned out of thin air is impossible
yeah Its retarded but the only characteristic the weapon they summon takes on is the hit dice and weather or not they need two hands they are also instantly proficient with it.
>>49344784
I also get triggered every time I see the rouge section of the PHB open.

>>49344792

And I did point out that a wizard doing damage wasn't even the problem but the fact that it's not an overwhelmingly bad option is indicative of wotc not learning their lesson. Also I don't even know the math on cantrips vs a standard fighter attack, but just from playing it seemed like cantrip was comparable. I'm interested if you have the numbers on hand but don't feel the need to dig it up if you don't.

>>49344821

>I don't like 5e and never played it

Here's your (You)

>>49344850
You can't deal sneak attack with a greatsword only with light, finesse or ranged weapons

>>49344853
Cantrips scale worse than attacks, only specialized blaster builds add ability scores to the damage, and by the time the third attack comes around fighters start getting ahead on burst and consistent damage period.

>>49344885
Oh my it appears you are correct.
Next time I see that faggot do it i'm going to Throw a perfectly level combat encounter at him and then interrupt his short rest with another slightly toned down level accurate combat encounter that will show him.

>>49344805

I never implied 3.5 was balanced but rather that they were so traumatized by the shit show that was 3e and 4e expansion that they just decided to abandon the idea entirely and made a weak attempt at making a balanced core which even still has a gimped Ranger and Monk.

>4e and 5e are more like eachother than 3.5 and 5 are

Kek well I don't have the energy or autism levels necessary to write the essay I want to drop on you right now so you just go ahead and keep thinking that

>>49344853
>but the fact that it's not an overwhelmingly bad option is indicative of wotc not learning their lesson

5e wizards are definitely the weakest iteration of the class, ever. I don't see much of a need to take issue with it. "Overwhelmingly bad" is exactly how I would describe a wizard trying to muscle in on DPR.

>I'm interested if you have the numbers on hand but don't feel the need to dig it up if you don't.

The fighter benefits the most of magic weapons, so his performance greatly varies depending on whether they find something good or not for him (it is not guaranteed you will EVER find anything even vaguely useful for your PC), but one of the more ubiquitous adventures results in the PCs getting a greatsword that gets +2d6 added damage per hit. The great weapon fighting feat is also amazing due to its power attack effect.

Them getting a total of four attacks (more if they dick around with it) plus diet power attack and magic weapon multiplier blows cantrip damage out of the water. Offhand we'd be looking at something like, what, potentially 20 damage a hit by the end of the first dragon queen module? That's a lot for 5e. Then keep in mind they can wind up with 4 attacks a round whereas most only get 2 attacks.

>>49344606
>"Fantastic" and "heroic" do not even slightly mean "you win forever."
Never implied that, I implied this though: grind fest of disappointment and anticlimatic PC deaths, which is 100% true

>>49339166
Pretty decent overall, definitely better than 3.5/4, only real downside is that there isn't as much supplemental material yet, though that could be viewed as a good thing..

>>49344995
Yeah, anticlimactic PC deaths are perfectly in genre. They are also highly expected in 3e.

As far as grind fests though, if you take too long to level in fucking 3e of all things that's just an issue with the DM.

>>49344747

>even after the fighter has exhausted his resources

WHAT resources. Extra attack is something he can do every turn all fucking day long and it will outdamage fireball single target.

>cantrip does similar damage

no it doesn't. Not even close. A GWM Fighter not using any resources will do 8d6+60 damage every turn. A wizard using firebolt will do 4d10(+5 if evocation). It's nowhere NEAR comparable.

>Without putting yourself at risk

Being anywhere near combat is a risk for someone who dies to two or so hits. My wizard has almost died the past 3 sessions, just from taking a little bit of aggro. One time I got an Assassin who dealt most of my HP, another time a stirge swarm crit me for most of my HP, and another time I just took thee hits in a row that all dealt decent damage and was already "bloodied".

>>49344995
All my characters live by this philosophy "run like a bitch you die like a bitch"
I had a level 7 fighter get surrounded by 3 level five or six necromancers who all three had some sort of demon with them,I spun around and crit the shit out of one the crit the other they both died and the last one cast hold person on me which after two rounds caused me all but two of my life then I got back up 360 facefucked him and died screaming a warning to my party who was just outside.
You have to make the heroism and climax

>>49345038
>are perfectly in genre
Really? because when I read the novels I don't see anticlimatic anything, I see fantastic, heroic and epic stuff though.

Anyone else houserule 5e to use proper Vancian casting?

>>49345065
See >>49344528
>example my 10th level char with Fort 22 and Will 20 died against a combo of spells with DCs no higher than 15 because two nat1
That's not epic, rolling bad Ini, monster going first and fucking you (which supposedly can't but for nat1 rules) at your strong suit is not epic neither climatic, my character died without noticing shit.

It's like the main hero, after defeating the plane devouring demon, dies at a mosquito bite. It wasn't my mistake, it wasn't that I played dumb, no, it was fucking rolls that ruin everything because the system cares more about random rolls than the skills your character has.

>>49345074
Getting cucked so hard you get mind controlled and led into the ocean he didn't die but its still a failed save he could have easily made, being stabbed to death by your own sword, committing suicide because degenerates keep harassing you for hitting their boss in the head with a boat are all things from the recommended reading list for D&D, just for starters.

Its not supposed to be a game where you win without risk or using your brain, you are never entitled to a smooth, easy ride.

>>49344931
I'm currently playing an Arcane Trickster with GFB and BB and using my familiar to grant me advantage (when I reach enough level my invisible hand will do that job), so far so good, but I'll never brag of my char build because I know what happens when you brag, karma fucks you in the ass.

Maybe I can't devil's sight+darnkess, but I think I have more spells than multiclassing with warlock.

>>49345160
3e has too much emphasis on spells, and indeed in S&S spells almost never kill the protagonist (certainly I can't think of any), but taking on a greater foe in no way immunizes you against weaker foes in S&S.

>>49339524
4e used almost the exact same system 5e does. You're still either proficient or you're not. The only difference was in 4e proficiency was a flat +5 bonus, but you also added 1/2 character level to your skill checks.

>>49345160
You are free to remove or reduce the effects of crit hits and fails. The reason they are there is to add some spice to the game.

My group would probably die laughing if they died like you did. You honestly have to just adjust your frame of mind. Laugh instead of getting angry and it's more fun for everyone.

>>49345160
>it was fucking rolls that ruin everything because the system cares more about random rolls than the skills your character has.
That's a big problem with D20 systems, rolls will always matter more than whatever bonus you have.

>>49345225
I play stuff like CoC or other "have no feels for your character" games, my problem is when they advertise me something that isn't there, or when, after knowing how the game rolls I behave exactly like that and people get mad at me for treating my PCs like cannon fodder.

>>49345266
It's just a game, bro, and if your group gets mad because you treat it like a game, fuck them and find a better group

>>49345124
As in...?

>>49342525
Yeah, and so do bards if they take 2 levels of warlock, that's why I said dip class. A bard can take 2 levels of warlock and get about half of what makes a warlock good throughout the game

>>49344938
It's OK, I already knew you had nothing to back yourself up with besides memes :^)

>>49344618
the 4e player when faced with any argument

>>49339166
Whether or not you like it, it's been an unqualified success. By most metrics and according to a large group, they've done at least 'alright' so far.

>>49345213
Yeah, the skill system's essentially the same aside from the numerical scaling (which is largely window dressing anyways in this case).

Plus there's Expertise and a few features that add half proficiency to untrained skills, but that's not really central to the skill system in itself.

>>49345468
>>49345541

he did make a point desu but I still like 5e and think it's a lot different from 3.pf

>>49345192
Be the unsung hero of the party and you will have my blessing.

File: read the gospel.png (2MB, 1083x1156px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1083x1156px

>>49339166
>Did Wizards do a good job with 5e?
Yes.

>What are your thoughts on the system?
It's pretty good.

>>49339166
By virtue of trying hard to be simpler it loses a lot of the terrible design from 3e, but at the same time it also doesn't get a lot of the good design from 4e.

It really bothers me when people act like 5e is the savior of D&D and the one true edition which is the best ever printed when it still suffers from a lot of issues that were fixed and fixed well with 4e, but for some reason folks like to pretend that never existed or was fatally flawed in some nonexistent way.

4e, despite its real and imagined sins, is a better game than 5e, whether people play it or not. Maybe 6e will recognize this.

>>49345449
You prepare one specific spell choice in a slot

5e has most of what I liked about second edition without none of what I hated about it. My only complaint is the HP bloat.

>>49347625
>4e, despite its real and imagined sins, is a better game than 5e, whether people play it or not.

Depends what metric you go with. I'll take simplicity and ease of function over anything 4e had (inb4 some ridiculous strawman where you suggest I should play Risus for having different tastes).

I like it.

Its much more streamlined to allow players to keep the story and progression through the dungeon and combat much more smooth.

I am a huge fan of the advantage/disadvantage system over the insane modifiers we got with 3.X and I enjoy that the combat is basic enough that we're not reading through a god damn atlas of abilities copied from your standard MMO video games, like we had with 4th edition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCV3IZJz75k
Mfw necromancer wizard asking cleric for 25GP so I can copy a spell
>mfw they say no

File: Pathfaggots.png (198KB, 772x473px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 772x473px

>>49342406
At being salty.

File: sylveon 1.png (383KB, 600x749px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 600x749px

>>49347990
Absolutely disgusting

>>49345160
it is a dice game, faggot

>>49347990
What the glorious fuck, this can't be serious.

File: What the actual fuck.jpg (238KB, 1349x386px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1349x386px

>>49349472
Pathfinder breeds brain-damage, homie.

No. It's so bad that I would rather play literally any other edition of D&D over it, even 3.5, and I hate 3.5.

Fifth Edition best Edition.

>>49347990
>asshat screencaps a falseflag

Any you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

>>49339166
5e is pretty good.

>>49351142
>>49350923
How's that?

>>49351271
???

>>49351997
Why though?

This is a good thread.

>>49339166
For people looking to play the modern version of D&D, I think it’s a good update. I don’t like it personally because I’m not a fan of combat heavy superhero games, but it’s at least a step up from 3.5.

>>49339166
It's pretty decent for a chassis, but it needs more content. There's a lot of concepts that I want to build, but can't even get a decently functioning version of. Alas. It definitely seems like Wizards is concentrating on putting out shitty Forgotten Realms adventure instead of doing splatbooks, which is horridly disappointing. Because Forgotten Realms is the most boring setting I've ever played anything in. Fuck it hard.

Almost everyone feels like they contribute pretty well. There's a few pathways that people keep insisting on taking that just aren't good. It's been too long since I played 5e to really remember what was bad and what was good.

>>49347812
>I'll take simplicity and ease of function over anything 4e had

Like..simplicity and ease of function?

Does anyone actually think 4e was a difficult game to figure out? All the math was blatantly spelled out for you and it was a pretty simple game to pick up. Hell, even the biggest 3aboo will admit no other edition matches 4e when it comes to ease of GMing.

>>49350923
I wouldn;t call 5e bad. It's a functional game that's not too difficult to pick up.

I just don't see any reason to play it over other editions. Not that it's bad, there's jnust not really anything that jumps out to me as a reason to play it.

If I want a balanced game of D&D, I'll play 4e.
If I want to go full autism with epic character builds, I'll play 3.PF.
If I want a good game, I'll play not D&D.

>>49353491
I suppose that's where all the homebrew comes into effect.

>>49353388
What do you play?

>>49354340
care to mention a game that isnt dnd? and that is good?

>>49354694
Admittedly havent branched off D&D too much since 90% of the groups I find these days are "Pathfinder or nothing."

But I have enjoyed Mutants and Masterminds. Superspeed is a little silly when you can circumnavigate the globe 3 times in a single move action, but other than that it's pretty fun and simple once you're out of character creation.

The DM of my good group(that stopped playing Pathfinder because as fun as the games we played were, he was sick of having to bend over backwards to get it to function properly by the time we were getting higher leveled) made a pretty decent homebrew system that took inspirations from Dungeon World and bits of D&D he thought wasn't complete garbage, though Ill be damned if I could remember where I saved the pdf of it. I should see if he's made any progress on it since last year.

>>49354753
i would love to see that homebrew, also how does mutants and masterminds plays? i have been interested in trying it but i dont want slow combats

>>49354782
Pretty quickly actually, since everything is determined by making a d20 roll, or making a d20 roll against someone else also making a d20 roll.

>>49354782
As for the homebrew, here's the general gist I remember off memory.

>Every character is constructed via Gimmicks. Namely, a Major Gimmick and 2 Minor Gimmicks.
>Major Gimmicks are basically like classes. Got your Fighter Gimmick, a Wizard Gimmick, Druid, Summoner, etc. Not those names exactly mind you.
>Minor Gimmicks add a bit more customization and tend to be a bit narrower in scope. Like a combat expert gimmick, alter-ego(superheroes, Kamen Rider, etc), sidekick gimmick, magic using gimmick etc.
>Mix and matching is easy, so you could have a Fighter that dabbles in magic, or a Wizard with a secret identity and a sidekick.
>Each Gimmick has a primary Feat you get for free, and has a bunch of side Feats in them with EXP costs. EXP gains and costs are relatively low, the msot expensive Feat I can remember is becoming a Lich costs 20XP, for example. You can buy any Feat from any gimmick list so long as you have enough EXP. EXP can only be spent during rests.

Thats really all there is to character building..off the top of my head at least. There's ability scores and stuff, but it's pretty similar to D&D, just scaled down a little, so I won't go into that much. brief description of magic system next post.

>>49354953
Magic in this game works on a Word system. As in, depending on what sort of caster you are, you have a certain number of Words, and arrange them to create spell effects. Wizards have a good number of words by default they know innately and can pull from them at any time, purchasing more words with EXP. Sorcerors know 2 words innately, then have a deck of 30 Magic Word cards that they draw from, holding up to 3 max at a time. So as an example...

>You have the Gravitate, Floral, Fire, Pull, and Bolster Words.
>You can use Gravitate and Floral to levitate plants.
>Add Pull and you can cause them all to go towards a specific spot like a floral black hole.
>replace Floral with Fire and cause nearby fire sources to get pulled to the target spot.
>Use Bolster Fire instead to make them brighter and harder to extinguish.

Once you and the DM work out what exactly you're trying to accomplish, you roll a Magnitude Die to determine how successful it was. 3-10 are successes to varying degrees, 2 and the spell fizzles, and 1 has it backfire somehow.

Something that happened once. The first time we fought an enemy spellcaster, they stepped out of their hut, and pulled up the Push, Fire, and Water cards, basically causing water to boil and get shoved in our direction. Rolls a 1 and the spell backfires, causing her to get blown back into her hut, right into her potion table. DM rolls what happens when she knocks over everything on it.

As far as we see, the witch steps out of her tent, yells at us, explodes and goes flying backwards into her tent, which also explodes about 5 or so times, followed by bits of witch raining down the battlefield. The every first time we fight a spellcaster (we had 2 in the party) and they kill themselves.

I'll see if I can find the pdf, or get a new one from the DM sometime.

>>49339230
>Another bonus is limiting active spells. Each caster can only maintain one spell at a time so you can't boost yourself to god levels, you can't cast more than one spell per round, etc.
This isn't quite true, it's only certain spells that you can only have one of at a time, those that specifically have a duration of Concentration. Most of the buffs are concentration, though, so you don't have the issue of "Let's spend 5 rounds to buff up for a combat encounter that's going to be over in 1 round."

A lot of the buffs, as well, are now better to put on people who are already good at things, rather than using them on yourself to let you do their job. Invisibility is the big one that comes to mind: you still need a good Stealth skill to use it properly, since it just allows you to sneak without providing a bonus, so it's better to make the Rogue invisible, rather than letting a mage replace the Rogue by turning invisible themselves.

Also, you can technically cast more than one spell per round, but only one non-cantrip spell, and the cantrips are at best your bread-and-butter attack spells, so that does still cut down on caster supremacy by quite a bit.