Why does everyone recommend 5e?

It's pretty good.

>>55122160
It's the most accessible of all the editions

>>55122160
>I've been chastised for buying 3.5 books instead
Yes, you should value the opinion of people like that. Can't see a problem there

>>55122160
5e solves a lot of common complaints about 3.5.
But, if you prefer 3.5 and you either have your own solutions to those complaints or you never particularly cared about them, just do what you do.

>>55122170
>>55122175
Why is it good and accessible?
>>55122226
I didn't mean to be inflammatory, so I don't see why you need to be either.
>>55122266
Thanks, man.

>>55122160
It's easy, it's relatively hard to get wrong, and there are enough people playing that effort spent doing things specific to it are less likely to be totally squandered.

It's not some panacea, of course: if you want a game that features a complex character creation engine weaved into the rules regardless of baggage that can carry (3.PF, 4e, GURPS, etc.), then you would be better off with a different system.
And like anything else you should be open to trying new games, in general.

>>55122160
Despite what others will tell you it isn't good. It's playable.

You see 3.5 is playable, but not good as well.

5e is just blander, with not as much content with it.

I must recommend that you don't use d&d for your d&d itch, use muntants and masterminds.

Or a cool alternative thing like e6.

5e is popular because it is simple and works, as well as having the brand of d&d. It kind of is the most normie d&d

>>55123838
>I must recommend that you don't use d&d for your d&d itch, use muntants and masterminds.
>instead of using D&D for D&D-style fantasy
>use a D&D-derived superhero RPG
You know how dumb that sounds, right?

>>55123862
It's just better designed.

I've used it with those people who don't wanna use gurps.

It works marvelously because superhero settings are pretty kitchen sink. And it has the best use of the d20 system I've ever seen.

>>55123862
No, he legitimately doesn't. If he knew how dumb he sounded, he would never post.

>>55124525
M&M is literally the best thing to come from the d20 system and works better for d&d fantasy than d&d does

>>55123838
>want to play D&D
>lmao don't
???

Here's my reasons:

1. Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic
Taken from Cthulhu 7th, this is a great mechanic in both, I love it. It's simple, intuitive and you can still go places with it.

2. Small closed skill list
I'm a fan of those. The system gets around any incompleteness problem by using tool proficiencies.

3. Cantrips
I know those are hated by some, especially the attack cantrips. I still think they're great and they're causing people to stay in the game.

4. Personality, Ideal, Bond, Flaw
A mechanic that rewards rp? Why D&D, wanna come home with me?

I also like the customization via non-class feats and a ton of other things, especially the attempt of the PHB and the GMM to give you a ton of alternative rules to flavor the game just as you like it.

>>55124886
Why don't you just play a game with all of those plus better things like classlessness?

>>55124712
M&M doesn't even do capeshit well.
It's basically-amateur-level designers who knew nothing but d20, made their own not-great houserules for it, and published it to a critical reception of "meh."
Y'know when Kenobi is all "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced"?

Kind of like that, except with a thunderous, resounding "Eh, It's not even one of the better d20 homebrews."

Wait.
Is that you Stephen?
Man, fuck you, Stephen, I don't even gotta look to know you're the only guy who would try to push your Green Ronin shit. You guys gave a bad name for third-party content with all the garbage you published.

>>55125022
I did and will again, but right now it's a 5e campaign for us. It's not like I gotta keep using the system forever.

>>55125045
its better than 5e

>>55125022
Classlessness isn't an inherently good thing. Full customization removes a lot of options in the end.

>>55126580
Not really.

Especially if you play a big game like gurps

>>55122160

It's "Accessable"

Which means they dumbed it down by removing a lot of the crunch allowing casuals to play.

4e is still the best edition and only died because grognards couldn't handle something different.

>>55126773
"Board game"

>>55126744
I played 2 and 3.X and they bored me because to do it "right", you had to plan your character progression right from the start. But what I want is to let the story take my character places that I didn't know he'd end up at. 5e has stopped penalizing me for this.

>>55126903
Plus gurps

It's even better.

>>55126950
Play*

Man my brain

>>55126903

I honestly don't get people who play for story, at that point I'd either write a book or join an improv acting group.

I play for good old pen and paper crunch with lots of character customisation and a DM who knows how to challenge a party.

Cuz it's easy to create a character, dm, feel powerful, tell a story, have fun.

That's all, it's just easy.

And people will argue it you that it's too easy, not understanding that it works for others.

Gurps shills make me feel uncomfortable.

>>55123664

Pretty sure >>55122226 was being sarcastic OP.

>>55126990
I like the mix between improv acting and "let the dice decide", and arguably a good challenge doesn't have to be a skirmish.

On the other hand I'd say I honestly don't get people who play for skirmish, at that point I'd fire up a board game or turn on the computer.

>>55127049

Most board games don't have the range of character customisation TRPGs have, and once you beat a video game you can just have a GM make a new campaign like you can with a TRPG, you either have to wait for mods or
>DLC

>>55127008

At this point they've half convinced me to try it just so I can form an objective and informed opinion for occasions like this.

>>55127096

I just opened a book, saw a load of words and numbers paired together with seemingly no context, structure or formatting and threw it away.

The reason I like 5th edition is that the character sheet doesn't have all those "workspace" sections where you add up modifiers. It's just single numbers for everything, easy.

>>55122160
its more streamlined and its new

>>55127113

Actually when I took a look at it it really didn't seem that bad. Everyone talks about what a bitch it is to figure out, but it seemed like a fairly intuitive system, albeit with a lot of shit you'd have to memorize in order to use it properly.

>>55122160
3.5 is dogshit, 5e is improved dogshit. Play AD&D 2e or be a pleb forever

>>55127079
I guess that's true. I could propose cosims and other stuff now but honestly it's not like I don't build an effective character and wreck a dungeon once in a while, I get the appeal.

However I guess I'm actually more of the "casual" persuasion in that I enjoy how 5e lets me do one of those things without penalizing the other, probably at the cost of some crunch complexity (seriously though modifier tables need to lie down and die, that's some 90s tier barbarism).

>>55122160

It's recommended for two reasons.

1. It's much easier to play in that you don't get bogged down in lots of numbers/status effects etc happening simultaneously and getting in the way of actual roleplaying.
2. You've got a reason to play something other than a Cleric or a Druid now.

>>55127154
It literally is 3d6 vs target number

It's just that sjg is the most OCD writers in the world.

Reminder that gurps is more of the toolset than a game.

>>55125022
I like games with classes. Lets me worry about playing the character right, and let the game handle the mechanics of building the numbers.

>>55122160
It's a refreshing system that allows "pick up and play" as well as "Session 0 is just preparation" type play.

>>55122160
>Why does everyone sing praises of 5e so much?
Not everyone does. For those that do, they're just chalking up their good experiences with their friends to the work of the 5e design team.

RPGs are more about who you play with than what you play.

>>55126676
Full customization functionally means that everything but the best options can be completely avoided. Classes are good for niche protection.

>>55122160
It's basically what everyone wanted 4E or Pathfinder to be, but it doesn't yet have as much content as either of them.

Note that I say "wanted" 4E to be. The game we got as 4E is fine on its merits, it just isn't what a large number of people had wanted--hence the existence of Pathfinder. But Pathfinder didn't actually fix most of the problems that it claimed it would, it just papered over them by releasing more and more content while letting the wound fester.

>>55129391
That depends entirely on what "best" means, doesn't it? I would suspect people define that differently. See the > 80 points in Guns (rifle) pasta for an extreme example.

>>55123862
>>55124525
>>55125045
M&M is a better system for heroic fantasy than D&D, if only because you martials aren't hamstrung by shitty limitations and every power within the game has the potential to counter one another due to the fact that the power levels are equally high.

>>55122160
It's current, it's not bad, easy to find groups, decent art, currently supported edition.

It's hard to complain about the system, aside from AC issues.

>>55122160
It comes down from a person looking in, 5e is more open, yet limited, while 3.5 as a comparison, can have VERY special builds if they so desire. Some like that some don't.

One thing I like about 5e personally is that it is easy to get into and play, however it is hard to get really deep into a world, as crafting things are murky at best, and it is left to the dm a lot to come up with things sometimes, which doesn't always help when a dm is new perhaps.

>>55126990
Ugh, I mean, to each their own, but I hate math-hammery people who minmax and break the systems.

>>55129717
AC issues?

>>55129772
I think he means how the classes that don't specialize in tanking tend to top out around 17? So they feel a little samey if you're not a Fighter/Cleric/Barbarian/Monk.

File: Dungeon_Master_Profile.jpg (56KB, 200x315px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 200x315px

It's too hard for player characters to die, especially after 3rd level. Kinda boring, not really a game when there's no tension.

I played a moldvay B/X game last week and it was BRUTAL and fun as fuck.

>>55129768
Why? Breaking systems is only a problem if everyone else at the table isn't in on it, and you really should be in on it if you're playing a crunchy game like 3.PF or Shadowrun anyways.

File: wrongbutton18.jpg (28KB, 504x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 504x400px

>>55129772
It's a personal thing for me, but when your AC gets boosted by movement, or penalized for wearing armor, that drives me crazy.

I have no problem with fast/small characters being harder to hit.

But if I'm wearing plate, I think I should be more survivable when I actually get hit.

My group had a houserule which added damage reduction for armor, which kind of fixed the logical issues we had with speed adding to AC.

>>55129839
That's why gurps is so great

Yes one dude can never ever die for 100 points but the GM can just say "no, that doesn't fit the setting"

>>55129813
>too hard for PCs to die

GM problem. Difficulty is entirely set by the GM.

>>55129840
>AC gets boosted by movement
>speed adding to AC
What are you even on?

>>55129840
Speed doesn't add to AC, Dexterity is not the same as movement speed. And AC is supposed to cover glancing blows that didn't do enough to hurt you, anything that does damage already got through the plate.

>>55129868
You can do the same thing in D&D. Hell, I don't allow any of the races as statted in the PHB.

>>55125022
I like classes, and in my experience classless systems tend to more easily lead to twink characters. Turns out when there aren't restrictions on what you can build, you can find some pretty broken combinations of abilities. It also, ironically, tends to encourage even MORE specialization than just sticking to one class, since you'll probably have a role in mind and exclusively take abilities that enhance that role at the expense of others. Compare/contrast playing a rogue in D&D, where you're a striker for damage, yes, but that Dexterity plus all those extra sills means that you're probably going to be at least moderately competent in a variety of other areas without really intending to be.

>>55129813
>It's too hard for player characters to die

There's a few variant rules in the DMG that easily fix that and are probably faster to implement as compared to learning a whole new system AND finding players for said system.

>>55129840
Oh, the dexterity thing. Yeah, I feel you on that too, despite the official game rationale making an alright amount of sense. I've played in games with houseruled armor-as-damage reduction before (not 5e) and it was a bit clunky but not bad. Dexterity as a stat obviously covers a lot of ground but if that's a problem, it's one 5e shares with every edition of D&D ever.

>>55129872
Your Dex value adds to your AC.

Unless you are wearing heavy armor, in which case, it grants no bonus.

I have always felt that it was fair, heavy armour is going to take a lot more hits, it isn't mobile, but when you do get hit, you should survive it, ie, the point of armor.

Damage reduction helps with that, nimble characters still avoid damage, but hits hurt them. Tank characters take more hits, and more damage, but see the damage reduced by the armor.

It tends to work very well for us, and makes tanking characters fun for their own reasons.

>>55129840
>but when your AC gets boosted by movement

Dexterity is hand/eye coordination, reflexes, and flexibility, not movement speed.

>or penalized for wearing armor

It's only penalized for wearing armor if you're a very agile person (DEX 16+) wearing armor that notably restricts movement and, thereby, that agility. Even then, even someone with DEX 20 (base AC 15) benefits from wearing either some light, non-restrictive armor (allowing an AC of up to 17) or else totally forgoing agility in favor of defense (with splint (AC 17) or plate (AC 18) armor).

Indeed, I think 5e manages to strike a pretty decent balance between "dodging blows" and "deflecting blows" with AC. And of course in either case your AC only gets better if you have a shield.

Yes, I know that a real knight in full plate could do handstands and somersaults if he were so inclined, but that doesn't change that he could do the same with less effort if he weren't wearing armor at all.

>But if I'm wearing plate, I think I should be more survivable when I actually get hit.

You are. That's why wearing plate confers an AC of 18, whereas a DEX 20 character in studded leather has at most an AC of 17.

>>55129940
I feel it might push things such that a tanking build becomes strictly better than a dodging build, however, unless that DR comes with a slight decrease to the AC that the armor grants.

>>55129870
No, difficulty is ultimately set by how easy it is to make a damaging blow vs. how easy it is to survive a damaging blow.

In Shadowrun, a pistol could easily kill a human in one hit if they don't have armor on to offset the worst of the attack, and even then, damage can easily spiral out of control if the penalties become large enough to affect your dice pool.

In D&D, an arrow will only ever do 1d8+STR, which will quickly fall off as PC's gain more HP to offset the damage that they'd be taking each round. There's no reason to ever be afraid of taking damage unless you are taking 50% of your maximum HP from a single attack and that generally won't happen unless you're fighting something that's vastly outside your weight class or you're going up against a higher level caster.

>>55122160
Because its good you stupid mong

>>55130003
>an arrow will only ever do 1d8+STR
I believe arrows and ranged weapons use DEX, actually

>>55130052
It depends on the bow actually. IIRC, composite bows operate off of STR but they're also treated as masterwork weapons.

>>55122266
What were the complaints?

>>55130104
In 5e, all ranged weapons use DEX besides thrown weapons, which use STR unless they're finesse.

>>55124886
>I love it. It's simple, intuitive and you can still go places with it.
Yeah unless your fucking barbarian wants to use reckless attack then it doesn't stack with anything else like battlemaster aid another maneuver. FUCK advantage. It's stupid shit for normoniggers who can't do math.

>A mechanic that rewards rp? Why D&D, wanna come home with me?
If you need mechanics to reward RP, you're a fucking piece of shit who shouldn't be playing RPGs.

>>55130134
caster supremacy and rules bloat

>>55130144
Ah, my mistake then. The point still stands that the arrow is still dealing only 1d8+Mod. damage
a hit though.

File: cat_wtf_expression.png (399KB, 478x476px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 478x476px

D&D 5e game sucks ass. The only difference between a commoner trying to climb a ledge and a level 1 rogue who trained for years at it, is 10%. Boy I love practicing for years to only get 10% better at something. 5e takes the d20 mechanic's biggest flaw and paints it bold and bright to make it obvious to everyone. This kind of stupid shit where a level 1 commoner can decipher a scroll that a level 1 wizard can't for some dumbass reason, is why d20 mechanic will forever be shit, the modifiers are small as shit and 5e makes them even smaller for "muh bounded accuracy" so a 20th level fighter can be hit by level 1 gnolls 25% of the time. But it's okay, he has a fuckload of hit points! Everything has a fuckload of hit points in this game, the monsters sure do because character damage is off the fucking wall. Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter are basically non-optional feats that obliviate two weapon fighting as a valid combat style. Ranger sucks so much shit it's unbelievable, they already errata'd it because the book was rushed into production. Advantage is retarded, a battlemaster fighter tries to aid another maneuver the barbarian in our group, and it has no effect because he is reckless attacking. Why? NO FUCKING REASON, BESIDES THAT WIZARDS OF THE COAST IS SHIT AT DESIGNING MECHANICS. Advantage / disadvantage is meant to make the game more palatable retarded normies who work at CostCo and can't do basic math. Also thanks to the proliferation of /tg/ greentexts on Tumblr, loads of normoniggers are seeing "lol haha funny nat20 story" and are being brought to the game by that, not by an actual interest in the creative part of RPGs that makes them actually fulfilling. Of course, since most RPG players are nu male cucks who are desperately hoping Stacy will want to play D&D with them, they lap it right up, and the quality of the community drops like a shit into a portable toilet. Fuck this dumbed-down Basic-D&D-tier crap.

File: 1387836091171.jpg (66KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 500x500px

>>55130215
>a level 1 rogue who trained for years
I don't think they'd only be level 1 if they trained for years. This just sounds like you wrote too much backstory.
>Advantage is retarded, a battlemaster fighter tries to aid another maneuver the barbarian in our group, and it has no effect because he is reckless attacking.
I guess this is a fair complaint, but it doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. More like a corner case.
>Also thanks to the proliferation of /tg/ greentexts on Tumblr, loads of normoniggers are seeing "lol haha funny nat20 story" and are being brought to the game by that, not by an actual interest in the creative part of RPGs that makes them actually fulfilling... rah rah rah fucking chads etc.
This doesn't have anything to do with 5e specifically, unless you're arguing that systems ought to be made intentionally obtuse so nobody picks them up. You're ranting. Calm down.

>>55130409
thats pasta

File: bacon.jpg (496KB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 1600x1600px

>>55122160
>I've gotten to the point where I've been chastised for buying 3.5 books instead.

I don't even like 5e and I'm going to chastise you anyway: Either buy 5e or Pathfinder because they are the two most mainstream games on the market right now, and enable you to find a game wherever you go.

Continuing to buy outdated books is a flat out mistake and waste of money on your part.

>>55123838
>use muntants and masterminds
Yes use a system that's just hamfisted wannabe 3.5 with a shittier convoluted damage system.

>>55129684 >>55123895
>It's just better designed
>M&M is a better system
It's really not at all. M&M is poorly balanced, convoluted, and completely lacks any originality or flavor. The only reason the system even survived to make another edition is DC throwing money at them.

>>55125119
This level of delusional fanboi is hilarious.

>>55131565
>M&M is poorly balanced, convoluted, and completely lacks any originality or flavor.
How so?

>>55130003
no in D&D 5e difficulty is set by how many monsters are coming after you bounded accuracy is key and any time the monsters out number the PCs they are on the disadvantaged side. that 1d8+DEX might not seem like much but consider taking it like 20 times (an exaggeration but you get the point) in one round. not to mention all the damage boosting effects monster have that can increase the damage like hobgoblins ability to increase their damage when there fighting together with hobgoblin allies.

>>55129813
If your dm throws only one hard or deadly encounter per day it is going to be easy, party is expected to fight like 3 or 4 times the adventuring day

>>55131582
>no in D&D 5e difficulty is set by how many monsters are coming after you bounded accuracy is key and any time the monsters out number the PCs they are on the disadvantaged side.
Hardly, after level 5, you get so many AoE spells and so much HP that most creatures will never be able to chew through even one PC if the PC in question is beefy enough. I know, my group ran a game of Curse of Strahd from level 3-10 and the wiped the floor with most encounters that featured a small group of encounters.
>that 1d8+DEX might not seem like much but consider taking it like 20 times (an exaggeration but you get the point) in one round.
It still wouldn't matter because there are plenty of ways to either avoid the damage entirely or mitigate it with resistances. Hell, there are more ways to resist physical damage than there is to resist fire damage in 5e.

>>55131654
>and wiped the floor with most encounters that featured a large group of enemies.

>>55129454
>everyone wanted Pathfinder to be
I wanted Pathfinder to be dumb high fantasy bullshit and that is what I got. Really enjoying gestalt PF atm

>>55131654
>Hardly, after level 5, you get so many AoE spells and so much HP that most creatures will never be able to chew through even one PC if the PC in question is beefy enough. I know, my group ran a game of Curse of Strahd from level 3-10 and the wiped the floor with most encounters that featured a small group of encounters.

your Dm's fault for running a pre-made adventure designed for adventure league. here a hint adventure league is was made to bring in new players so the adventures for it, and by extension all the pre-made ones WotC makes, are made so you are not in any real danger because if those new players' characters got killed they might not come back.

>It still wouldn't matter because there are plenty of ways to either avoid the damage entirely or mitigate it with resistances. Hell, there are more ways to resist physical damage than there is to resist fire damage in 5e.

if every single person in your party has physical damage resistance for slashing, piercing ,and bludgeoning all the time then your min-maxing and no matter the edition you will eventually after a certain level find it boring anyways it might take longer then level 3 or 5 in a old school version of D&D but it will happen eventually. also if your DM has not thrown different damage types at you like acid or what not because of your damage resistances to the three basic physical damages then your DM's sounds more and more like shit and does not what to give you a challenge.

>>55131841
>your Dm's fault for running a pre-made adventure designed for adventure league.
If the game was actually meant to be difficult then that literally wouldn't matter. I mean, Ravenloft is supposed to be one of the harder modules from back in the day and even tomb of horrors got neutered during the transition between 3.PF and 5e.
>if every single person in your party has physical damage resistance for slashing, piercing ,and bludgeoning all the time then your min-maxing
Blade ward is a cantrip that gives you physical resistance to slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning made with weapon attacks. Also, creatures like vampire spawn are naturally resistant to non-magical attacks, as are barbarians.
>if your DM has not thrown different damage types at you [...] then your DM's sounds more and more like shit
The point was to illustrate how weak weapon damage is in the long run since so much shit in the game is resistant to physical.

Way to move the goalposts.

File: Easy Probabilities.png (347KB, 816x1056px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 816x1056px

>>55130215
>The only difference between a commoner trying to climb a ledge and a level 1 rogue who trained for years at it, is 10%.

I wonder if this is true. Let's check.

>>55129768
To me, solving an actual puzzle in game is a fun challenge.

To most 3.PF players, combing homebrews and 3rd party feats to get this highest numbers on a skill check or attack roll is a fun challenge.

To each their own I suppose.

>>55132125
16% it looks like

>>55132070

>If the game was actually meant to be difficult then that literally wouldn't matter. I mean, Ravenloft is supposed to be one of the harder modules from back in the day and even tomb of horrors got neutered during the transition between 3.PF and 5e.

the dm job is to make the game challenging for his players so they enjoy it. going

>if the game was meant to be hard then all the adventures should be hard but since there not that means the games too easy

like i said before the adventure now are not meant for challenge they are there to draw new players that's it.

>Blade ward is a cantrip that gives you physical resistance to slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning made with weapon attacks. Also, creatures like vampire spawn are naturally resistant to non-magical attacks, as are barbarians.

blade ward takes up your action and last until the end of your next turn so for every combat it will take up half of the bards actions but hes free to do that but is seams odd he would. that barbarian is suppose to be a tank so him getting it makes sense but its tide to a limited resources rages what happens when he runs out? as for vampire spawn did your DM actually let a player become one?

my main point was the player characters should not have the physical resistances all the time yes they might have them some of the time but not all the time. and if they do somehow have them all the time they must be minmaxing (how i don't know) and frankly any game you play with that level of minmaxing is gonna be rough. not saying minmaxing is bad but too much can suck all the fun out of playing either for the minmaxer or other players and dm

>The point was to illustrate how weak weapon damage is in the long run since so much shit in the game is resistant to physical.

the point you responded to was just me saying your dm's shit nothing more and i have been saying since the start.

>Way to move the goalposts.

way to look for points that are't central to my argument

File: drow rogue.jpg (40KB, 736x556px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 736x556px

>>55132157
Depends on the Strength score of the Rogue. A STR 10, 1st-level Rogue has a 65% chance of hitting a DC 10 "Easy" check assuming training, verses a Commoner, who has a 55% chance. So the 10% thing pans out in that case. For the sake of transparancy, I played a STR 10 rogue in 5e myself.

However, this critique fails to account for a few things. Firstly, a 1st level character is explicitly brand new at adventuring. If human, the rogue is probably somewhere between the ages of 16 and 19 (assuming that starting ages are roughly like those of 3rd edition and earlier, wherein the base age of a rogue was 15+1d4 years) and has literally done NOTHING yet. You haven't been in any battles, except maybe to run away from them. You haven't slain even the weakest kobold. You start with 0 Experience, which means that you haven't done anything to GET experience.

Secondly, a 1st-level rogue may be only marginally better at climbing than a Commoner, but that fails to account for the fact that the rogue is far superior in every single other respect, from armor class to hit points to attack and damage rolls, and so on. Bluntly, there are only so many hours in the day during which you can learn to do a thing, and yet over the same course of time the rogue has become superior to the commoner in most every measurable way. They have been more efficient in their learning curve, basically.

>>55132290
> You start with 0 Experience, which means that you haven't done anything to GET experience.

I want to touch on this for a moment. As a DM and as a player, when I look at character sheets, two things piss me off more than anything else.

1) A 1st level character that has globe-trotted, participated in major battles, met dragons, hung out with kings, etc. Even something relatively low-key like, say, "my character was that kid soldier Aragorn says has a good sword in the Battle of Helm's Deep".

2) High-level characters who seemingly have done nothing to earn their experience. Standing on guard duty, meditating under a waterfall, researching ancient spells, or praying a whole lot, don't get you experience. Going out and DOING shit gets you experience. Anyone who rolls up a 10th level character who hasn't delved at least a few dungeons and participated notably in averting (or causing...) one or two kingdom-level disasters, isn't a real 10th level character.

>>55132275
>my main point was the player characters should not have the physical resistances all the time yes they might have them some of the time but not all the time. and if they do somehow have them all the time they must be minmaxing (how i don't know) and frankly any game you play with that level of minmaxing is gonna be rough. not saying minmaxing is bad but too much can suck all the fun out of playing either for the minmaxer or other players and dm


I meant all of the player characters in the party i should reread my post more often

>>55132275
>the dm job is to make the game challenging for his players so they enjoy it.
And that process becomes more and more difficult when the game goes out of its way to suck out as much challenge as possible from any balanced encounter you could create.
>like i said before the adventure now are not meant for challenge they are there to draw new players that's it.
And this philosophy obviously extends to the rest of the game as well.
>my main point was the player characters should not have the physical resistances all the time yes they might have them some of the time but not all the time.
There are plenty of ways to offset physical attacks resistances are just one of many options available.
>the point you responded to was just me saying your dm's shit nothing more and i have been saying since the start.
You can't blame the DM when the game neuters the difficulty as much as possible, there's only so much you can do without accidentally causing a TPK.

>>55132365
No one encounter in 5e is dangerous, but 5e's system is designed around the idea that a typical adventuring day will have around 5-7 encounters in a day. It's a game of attrition and resource management.

The point isn't to make things "easy". The point is to force players to learn to think like adventurers and make judicious use of their limited abilities.

Of course, the DM is also well advised to add the additional factor of time to all of his adventure designs, i.e., "okay, there's nothing stopping you from taking a short rest here, but you know that if you do Lord Badguy is going to get an extra hour ahead of you, right?"

>there's only so much you can do without accidentally causing a TPK.

Eh, fuck 'em. In my experience 90% of TPKs are caused by player stupidity, not the DM, nor even bad luck. Yes, you do get the occasional unlucky die roll or DM who has decided he hates his players and wants to sic Tiamat on them.

But most of the time they come down to instead:
1) The players were too stupid to run away; or
2) The players were stupid enough to pick a fight they couldn't win (and should have known they couldn't win).

The latter almost happened to me over this past weekend; the players were trying to negotiate with some duergar guards to enter their city of Gracklstugh, and the damn bard tried to Intimidate his way in by intimating that the party could trivially slaughter all 18 duergar surrounding them if they didn't do what he wanted.

A number of expended spells and one hasty retreat later...

>>55132365

>And that process becomes more and more difficult when the game goes out of its way to suck out as much challenge as possible from any balanced encounter you could create.

sigh... prove it. I'm sorry, I know most if not all the rules of the game (not necessary every class option and spell of the top of my head though) and have read the GM's guide almost front to back. So my take from it was you could create a balanced encounter that also offers a challenge. It's usually is a matter of how much you throw at the party between each long rest but you can also do other things as well like like using terrain or tactics as well as extra monster abilities.

>And this philosophy obviously extends to the rest of the game as well.

I disagree, I feel like that philosophy is for adventures league only. I see no indication that that philosophy is in anyway shape or form a core part of the game.

>There are plenty of ways to offset physical attacks resistances are just one of many options available.

Such as? genuinely curious here i want to see all the options your talking about.

>You can't blame the DM when the game neuters the difficulty as much as possible, there's only so much you can do without accidentally causing a TPK.

Again I disagree you DM sounds like shit and you cant but the blame on me for thinking like that your the one who makes him sound that way.

>>55122160
It resembles the ideal of 3.5 that people loved, but isn't quite as retardedly broken as the reality of 3.5.

It's also got a lot less retardedly specific crunch (I'm looking at you, PF, where there's a feat for being able to harm someone's reputation with social skills- implying it isn't something you can do normally), and made the very wise decision of listing most things as variants: It's much easier to add things on to a system than to take them off.

There's certainly better systems out there, but 5e plays quickly enough and has a low entry barrier.

>>55129637
I agree, my argument isn't that systems with classes are better, it's just that classes systems aren't inherently better and there are good reasons for classes and similar limited choice systems.

It doesn't take a whole lot of time for people to find the best choices and ignore large amounts of material and combinations for the best choices which will always exist. It's a whole lot less of a problem in RPGs compared to video games and other competitive games though, so classless systems are still a lot of fun.

Practically I'm mostly just complaining about stuff like when Only War and Black Crusade opened up advancement to a freeform system and advancement generally collapsed to a fairly homogeneous rush for the strongest skills and talents.

I like things about both systems.

>>55132365
How the fuck does it neuter difficulty? YOU are the game, YOU are the master, YOU decide the numbers. The dice are there because you like the sound they make. Stop being such a cuck.

>>55122160
It's probably the easiest modern edition to play, it's really easy to find the books for, and while it has points that suck, they don't suck hard enough to turn away most people.

All editions of D&D are shit.

>>55126990
Playing for crunch only is extremely autistic. You might as well masturbate to a spreadsheet.

File: IMG_4423.jpg (353KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 1080x1080px

>>55122160

Because it's popular.

>>55122160
>I've gotten to the point where I've been chastised for buying 3.5 books instead
That's probably because 3.5 is shit.

I would rather recommend nothing than 3.5. Why the fuck anyone would play that unbalanced shit is beyond me.

>>55134599
But muh hundreds of splatbooks with thousands of options. Who cares if 99% of them are shit!

>>55127167
Pfft. Dilettante.

Play Chainmail if you want a proper D&D experience.

>>55129887
Wat

>>55122160
3.X had a big problem with feats. It is sort of like like WoW. You used to have all these choices for talents, but you gimped your character if you need pick certain ones. 5e fixes this (sort of).

If you like 3.X, you are not alone. Pathfinder is just D&D 3.X's response to D&D 4e. There are plenty of people who play and love PF. If that is your gig, try PF? You'll have a lot more support.

>>55130155
>Mechanics that reward RP
If you think that having the system actively support roleplaying with mechanical rewards is a bad thing, you're a fucking piece of shit who shouldn't be playing RPGs. Flamebaiting faggot.

Nobody says that you _need_ it, but damn is it nice to get bonuses for playing to my characters' personality. Limitations breed creativity, which is why having limitations on a character makes for better roleplay, especially from inexperienced or bad roleplayers. And, damn is it nice to see your backstory, even a simple one, have some mechanical repercussions.

Also, having mechanical rewards for roleplaying helps to ensure that even murderhobo players and minmaxers will have some actual fucking incentive to think about their characters' actions. I will bet you dollars to donuts that there are more than a handful of shitty games or shitty situations that could have been prevented by the GM saying "Isn't that contrary to your character sheet? If you go ahead anyway, that'll have consequences."

There are so many players who just want to murder shit via dice, and won't do something if there isn't some mechanical reward, and roleplaying is one of those things that they'll just not do. If there are mechanics that make those players fucking tolerable, and reward players who already roleplay well, why fight it?

>>55132290
A boot camp graduate is far far better at shooting a rifle than an untrained novice. The gap between proficiency and nonproficiency is far too small.

File: open.jpg (84KB, 576x764px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 576x764px

5e is the Tesla, simple to use, does what it has to do fine, not the best but quite balanced, simple and elegant design.

3.PF is the car on the top, a huge mess full of non core books (full of horrible powercreep btw, a lvl 5 character made with all the books available can kill 2 or 3 lvl 5s only made with core books, all characters optimized), addons, huge need to house rule, HORRIBLE balance, but more "user customisable" and "for the hardcore user" who wants more depth.

Yeah, by the way 3.5 is especially bad, at least go for PF which is the closest thing you can get to polishing a turd.

>>55127167
As someone who played 2e for 10 years, 5e is good.

3.X is by far the worst edition of this game.

>>55139591
>car analogies
Also that's a troll image, the Teslas are open source

>>55132591
t. My obscure ttrpg is better and you haven't even heard of it

>>55139591
>(full of horrible powercreep btw

Actually, for all the things wrong with 3.5, this wasn't one of them. The most unbalanced shit in the game was in core, going both ways. Adding more splatbooks actually gave kind of balanced options.

Of course, you could instead play a system that isn't a broken piece of shit out of the box, but banning the core books is the best way to play 3.5.

>>55122160
5e lacks the rulse bloat of 3.5, the developer and self-fellating attitude of PF, and isn't as far a departure from other editions as 4e was. 5e is the grand compromise of fantasy RPGs, which most find preferable to the various extremes of offense that are the alternatives. It is the least bad on every axis of quality.

>>55125022
What can you recommend me?

>>55140601

The thing about 4e was that it was a departure from 3.5e.

3.5e was a toxic mess that was horribly balanced and cultured a community built around felating casters and breaking the game.

5e, like an abused spouse, jumped right back into that mess, thinking that things could be different this time.

It's not going to be different this time.

>>55124886

Tool proficiencies don't have any real mechanics attatched to them though, so they only solve as many problems as you're willing to create.

>>55122160
>Why does everyone sing praises of 5e so much?
because WOTC can still leverage a good viral marketing campaign. get people to initially sing praises about a game and most of them will sing the same tune years later.

>>55129391
>Full customization functionally means that everything but the best options can be completely avoided. Classes are good for niche protection.
classes mean that whole suboptimal classes aka non-wizards are to be avoided.

>>55141391

Only if you're playing 3.5e mate.

File: 19665355.jpg (34KB, 789x960px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 789x960px

>>55123838
>don't use d&d for your d&d itch, use muntants and masterminds.

>>55123664
>Why is it accessible?
Probably because it's the best selling rpg system of all time currently

>>55132290
>Firstly, a 1st level character is explicitly brand new at adventuring
Not necessarily, plenty of backgrounds are focused around the fact that you have already done shit. You had to hit "1st level" somehow

Soldier background for instance, you've taken part in wars
Variant noble - Knight. You're a fucking knight
Variant sailor - Pirate. You're a fucking pirate, people are too scared of you and you can fuck around stealing things right in front of them.

Some traits/flaws/bonds have you with things that could probably have a whole campaign built around if everyone was into it. Acolyte's whole "I'm being hunted down by fanatics from another faith thing for a holy artifact"

>>55129813
There are ways to fail that aren't death.

>>55122160
It's more like fantasy craft than any other edition.

>>55126990
The advantage of playing at least partially for the story is that now you have stories and memories to share with your teammates that you've all actually "been through"

>>55126990
I don't get why you'd play exclusively for the combat, there's so many better things out there if you want to exclusively roll dice and kill bigger things.

>>55142192
It's solid advice, as you can easily build fantasy characters with the game.

>>55140699
The Burning Wheel is pretty good. It is certainly better than 5E.

>>55145282
There is more to it than just combat. Though to be honest, a properly run and challenging dungeon crawl probably doesn't need that much in the way of rules. In the end if you want to play for the story there are better games for that than D&D.

>>55143508

Dumbing down and viral marketing.

Everyone's fucking doing it nowadays.

>>55122160
It's not that 5e is that great. It's not. It's more that 3.5 is shit and 5e does everything it does better. If you wanted to do what 4e does, or what some not-D&D does, that would be a different story. But compared to 3.x, 5e is a straight upgrade in every way. Unless you just want to masturbate to anime monstergirls, in which case 3.5 still has more options but for that, Pathfinder is the go to these days.

>>55139440
Rifle? So Dexterity-based. A 1st-level Fighter can reasonably be expected to have a 16 Dexterity, for a total of +5 to attack, compared to the Commoner's +0. Against an AC of, say, 15, the Commoner has a 30% chance to hit, and the fighter a 55% chance to hit, or a 25% higher chance.

Sounds about right to me for a game that is not particularly granular and has not claimed to be a Real Life Simulator.

>>55143607
There are a considerable number of ways that you can take part in wars without actually being on the field of battle or directly taking part in killing any one guy. For most of human history, war has considered of two masses of spearmen basically shoving against one another until one side gave out. The guy in the rear ranks isn't going to get much experience, if any.

Being a knight doesn't require any fighting at all.

Most acts of piracy involved sailing up upon ships that couldn't resist and having them stand down and give you what you wanted without a fight. Edward Thatch (Blackbeard) only fought maybe thirty people in his entire pirating career.

>>55123838
>It kind of is the most normie d&d
This is literally the reason people recommend it.

Lots of people play it. Lots of people already know the rules or are learning them.
What part of this is difficult to understand?
It's not a particularly deep or good reason but it's enough for a gateway RPG.

Chill.

Yeah, like if you're an experienced RP'er and want to run a fantasy game then we can talk about what the best options are for the tone you're going for. and in that discussion 3 out of 5 times, I'd be remiss for suggesting 5e to you.

But generally speaking for a beginner DM or a newcomer to the hobby?

The ENTIRE advantage is the circlejerk built around the game. It's not pretty or noble but it's the truth. Once people have cut their teeth on it then we can start talking about alternative systems for whatever the hell you want to run.

>>55147131
the difference between a 30% chance to hit and a 55% chance to hit is like an 83% increase--nearly double the hit chance. (sure it's only 25% compared to 100, but that's neither here nor there when comparing a professional's shooting to a commoner's)

I'd say that that's actually a pretty decent representation of the effects of training.

>>55127008

I love GURPS but I'm in a 5e campaign and having a fun time. It's just a nice, fun, tight set of rules. A vast improvement over 4e, and fixes most of the problems in 3e.

>>55147202
>There are a considerable number of ways that you can take part in wars without actually being on the field of battle

Except a good number of the traits/bonds/flaws are directly things that you've done on battlefields.
>I'm full of inspiring and cautionary tales from my military experience relevant to almost every combat situation
Implies you've been in a large number of combat scenarios
>Someone saved my life on the battlefield. To this day I will never leave a friend behind
Implies you've been on the front lines of a battlefield
>I made a terrible mistake in battle that cost many lives, and I would do anything to keep that mistake secret
Could be either way. For an officer? Sure you made a tactical error and the men under your command died for it. But one of the options is just a plain old infantry, he wouldn't be in control of any more than MAYBE a small group of soldiers, and he'd be right up there with them
And for equipment soldier starts you with
>A trophy taken from a fallen enemy
You've killed someone before

Or there's folk hero
>I stood alone against a terrible monster
>I led a militia to fight off an invading army
>I broke into a tyrant's castle and stole weapons to arm the people
>Recruited into a lord's army, I rose to leadership and was commended for my heroism
>I trained peasantry to use farm implements as weapons against a tyrant's soldiers

All of these are important things that have happened in your past, that made you become an adventurer. You didn't just wake up and become one, something came out and forced you to do it

>>55146622
Good lucking getting anyone to play it. I've tried getting Burning Wheel and Burning Empires games off the ground from /tg/ and Game Finder multiple times and people don't want to play it.

>>55147919
My group was pretty receptive to the idea, especially with the built in encouragements to roleplay as they love that shit. Just sell it as Earthsea but with dice and you should be fine.

>>55135352
What about that is confusing? Statting up races for a campaign isn't that much more work for a DM to take on.

File: kobold_soldier_by_commissarkinyaf.jpg (307KB, 800x861px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 800x861px

>>55140517
>>(full of horrible powercreep btw
>Actually, for all the things wrong with 3.5, this wasn't one of them.

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Pun-Pun

>>55148445
Pun-Pun doesn't actually work unless the DM bends over backwards to make it work, such as having you encounter the proper form of djinn at a very early level, and allowing you to *defeat* said thing.

It's also an unintentional, broken combo from several different splatbooks.

3.5 actually only got better over its run, introducing some reasonably balanced subsystems like psionics and incarnates. Not to say they hit it every time (see: truenamers), but it's better than core's "every single class is either top tier or bottom tier"

>>55148481
The more shit they add to a broken system, the more ways there are to break it. This has always been true, and will continue to be true.

>>55122160
>I've gotten to the point where I've been chastised for buying 3.5 books instead.
I mean, with respect to that, a lot of really bad experiences with 3.5e are why I personally do that.

>>55148998
That's true, you really shouldn't play 3.5. Fantasy Craft, GURPS, some World Engine game (except DW, but that's another matter entirely), 5e, or pretty much any other system does it better.

I'm just saying that the power creep thing isn't all that true, since psionics, incarnates, ToB, etc. were all actually okay, unlike the shit in the core book.

Just play pathfinder. 5e is good if your DM isn't a human calculator or has a life outside of rpgs otherwise your game will suffer from being too slow and frustrating mechanically compared to 5e. 5e is only good if you stuff campaigns full of homebrew and add in all the books including UA.

>>55149050
Core isn't even that power-creepy by itself. Druid gets a free fighter, sure, but the main power-creep problems of core don't really show up until about level 10-12. Mind you, they ramp the fuck up really REALLY hard from that point on, but the early levels of Core are mostly broken from characters starting off weak and most of them getting weaker. The shit doesn't get broken until you pile on builds from outside sources that combo unintentionally with a ruleset that wasn't made to be combo'd with.

>>55149126
Druids don't just get a free fighter, they are a free fighter. Which gets a free fighter. Also, they can cast spells when they aren't a fighter, and even when they are for the small investment of one feat.

So the druid is equivalent to two fighters plus one wizard. Or, in other terms, twenty monks and a wizard. Starting at level 5.

The Ranger is a fighter, but also gets a free but kind of shitty fighter. The ranger also gets actual class features and a couple of spells. The Paladin is in a similar boat.

The Monk is a fighter, but with more limitations, smaller bonuses, and less damage. In exchange, they get a bunch of money they can't use.

I'd say the problems really compound around level 6-7, when the caster can reliably end an encounter in one round multiple times per day, the half-caster is still a credit to their team, and the martial can... miss with their second attack if they stand still.

File: 1418713159182.jpg (88KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 800x600px

>>55122160
The combination of two facts
>Because 3.PF is simultaneously well known as a broken piece of shit, and also the most popular TTRPG in the world.
>Because it's better than 3.PF, but it still basically feels like 3.PF.

>>55122160
> 1E, What do you mean I can't be a dwarven thief
> 2E, near god-tier brilliant, shit skills
> 3E, Near unplayable, completely unrunnable clusterfuck
> 4E, We do not speak of this
> 5E, All the OSR goodness of 2E, with properly done skills and feats if you want them, but played by normie fuckbags because it's actually good

I think that about sums it up

>>55151253
Damn, I meant to say basic not 1e.

I'll get my coat.

>It's a game of attrition and resource management.

This. By the way, since we had problems with the encounter structure as it, for our latest campaign we redefined "Long Rest" as "you get to sleep in a real bed away from danger and have access to medical care and whatnot" and "Short Rest" as everything else.

This helps us make the ressource management more of a factor.

>>55151336
Oh: This also helps us up the value of the non-Wizard classes dramatically, since the Wizards typically need a Long Rest to replenish their shit.

>>55122160
I don't recommend it. In fact, I try to steer people to games that are actually good.

>>55131580
Damn boi, you shut that idiot up Fast.

File: Tell Lies.jpg (59KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 600x450px

>>55151253
>5e is anything like 2E
You haven't actually played it have you? You just listened to 2e grognards wax poetic about "how much more hardcore gaming used to be." As someone who played actually played AD&D 2e during the TSR erra, it played NOTHING like 5e. If anything the other edition that best captures the "feel" of 2e is 4e... just look at the surviving 4e community: it's half composed of 2e grogs. 5e is more similar to 3e than anything else, with MAYBE some hints of other editions. That's not a bad thing necessarily, it's what the largest money-spending segment of the market.

>>55122160
Because they're unimaginative hacks that can't stand to do a little work.

>>55126990
I get where you're coming from. To me, the story is mostly just a backdrop to the game we're playing in order to provide context. TTRPGs will always be crunch first, fluff second for me.

>>55151532
....you are talking out of your ass. 4e is nothing at all like 2e, in the fucking slightest.

File: catsup.jpg (27KB, 566x242px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 566x242px

>>55152186
It's closer to AD&D 2e Revised than the 3.5000000001 they call 5e.

>>55130002
I'll be honest, a high dex character already has a lot going in their favour over the tank. Their armor is dirt cheap, vs say Plate, yet they derive almost the same benefit from it. Add to which, they are almost certainly a flanker, getting high damage shots in, while the tank doesn't have the opportunity to do the same unless in close combat, and even then tank builds tend to lack sheer damage output.

To make things fun for those of us who enjoy wearing a carapace of steel, the DR let's us laugh at hits that would have killed others. We get the satisfaction of knowing our investment in Plate, and sacrifice to dex/movement/whatever, pays off by being able to Vanguard the rest of the party.

>I feel it might push things such that a tanking build becomes strictly better than a dodging build
That's sort of the point. A pure dex build already gets most of the benefits of the tank, with the added bonus of ranged damage/flanking. The tanking build SHOULD be better at drawing and taking fire, that's the role of the tank.

>>55144768
Love me some fantasycraft, 2.0 will be amazing when it drops, since they plan on abandoning the 3.5 wreckage that ruined FC. (Namely retard hp levels at anything higher then lvl 10)

Most of FCs mechanics are great though, it is one of the few systems where a martial character can really fucking shine.

>>55153234
>with the added bonus of ranged damage/flanking

The thing is that melee builds deal more damage than ranged builds; as well, being a ranged character is only particularly useful if you're guaranteed to be able to stay *out of* range, which doesn't always pan out, particularly in combat taking place indoors or in otherwise cramped spaces (a dungeon, the Underdark, a castle, etc.)

>>55149126
>Core isn't even that power-creepy by itself.

In fact 90% of the problems with 3e D&D are in the core rulebooks. The most broken thing you can do is abuse Wish chains, and the best way to do that is you get your hands on a Candle of Invocation which, with a price of 8,400 gp, is considered a Medium wondrous item.

>>55153827
>The thing is that melee builds deal more damage than ranged builds; as well, being a ranged character is only particularly useful if you're guaranteed to be able to stay *out of* range, which doesn't always pan out, particularly in combat taking place indoors or in otherwise cramped spaces (a dungeon, the Underdark, a castle, etc.)

Melee only deals marginally more if there are no feats.

If there are feats, it deals more but ranged doesn't have to deal with enemies closing in, they can just crossbow into melee.

>>55148481
The DM doesn't need to bend over backwards for Pun-Pun, he just needs to agree that Pazuzu exists in the world as he has in previous editions of D&D (specifically, the Forgotten Realms, which is the specific setting Pun-Pun needs to operate in to get the Sarrukh). Then after that you just roll up a Lawful Good kobold paladin with maximum ranks in Knowledge (religion) so that you can make the DC 25 Knowledge to check to know that a paladin who invokes Pazuzu's name three times will have Pazuzu appear before them and grant them a 100% consequence-free wish. Even if you fail it, you can try it again at later levels, but a 1st-level kobold paladin could have as high as a +13, or more: +4 ranks, +4 Intelligence, +3 Skill Focus, +2 Aid Another. So right off the bat he's got a 45% chance of hitting it. He can make the check again at each level after 1st, too, where his chances of hitting it only ever increase.

The mere act of summoning Pazuzu makes the kobold paladin fall (which is why Pazuzu guarantees the free wish in the first place, he likes making paladins fall), but he can then use his free Wish to get a Candle of Evocation.

After that what you do depends on whether the DM had your alignment shift for summoning Pazuzu (it could be argued that as it was a means to an end, that end being functional godhood, it's not enough to force a shift from LG to LE, although you still fall for consorting with Pazuzu either way).

If your alignment shifts to LE, then you summon up an efreeti noble and get three wishes. If your alignment remains LG, then you summon up a Celestial wyrm (17th level caster) or great wyrm (19th level caster) gold dragon, who can cast Sorcerer spells, Cleric spells, and spells from the Law, Luck, and Good domains, meaning that even if it doesn't know Wish as a sorcerer (and why would it not?), it does know Miracle from the Luck domain, which can be used to get another dragon when the current one is about to leave.

>>55153904
By the way, note that the above combination still works in other D&D worlds besides the Forgotten Realms as long as Pazuzu exists, it's just that in that case there's little point in being specifically a kobold because then you can't be a Sarrukh, which is what gets the Pun-Pun combo going.

In that case you MERELY have access to unlimited wish/miracle chains at level 1, and only needed a single thing from outside of core to be true.

If you are the patient sort, you don't even need Pazuzu - you can just wait until you can either find, buy, or craft a Candle of Invocation yourself.

>>55123664
It's in print (easily available)
Exposure
It's simpler than 3.X, which has overcomplicated characters, due to high customizability, a low density of usable options, a heavy requirement in having the right kind of equipment for your class and level in order to keep up, and everything has prerequisites that must be planned for in advance.
5e also has much easier enemy creation, but shittier than what 4e had.
It has weaker spellcasters, which makes how pathetic a character with no special abilities beyond stabbing things, less obvious.

In game they play very similarly, but because of low bonuses, skills are crazy swingy in 5e until well after level 10.

Sorry people are dicks about it. But it's the customizability better (though still flawed) game.

>>55123838
>M&M
Gross. I'd rather try to run an x-men campaign in d&d than play more M&M. Never again.

>>55123895
>GURPS
I could actually go for a GURPS D&D Dungeon Fantasy mod.

>Give me a large converted spellbook for sorcery (like universal eggplant, but in a single large book, and with a focus on d&d spells).
>Give me all the converted racial templates.
>Prebuild all the major class features and monster abilities as powers.
And I will happily print it out and bind it, stick it on my shelf, and use it every time I want to run a d&d campaign.

I wouldn't mind a quality converted monster manual pdf, either. You could start with the ones on that repository.

>>55142002
Only playable fighter is battlemaster, and it's lacking. Monk is lacking. Rogue is lacking. At higher levels, they all still suck.

>>55153827
>The thing is that melee builds deal more damage than ranged builds

Not really, in my experience people with bows are putting down incredible amounts of damage especially when feats get involved. Throwing daggers, light armor, and high dex is equally good in and out of melee.

Meanwhile, a bone standard fighter in plate is going to be eating hits, failing dex saves, etc, throughout the battle, while having a limited utility in the battle. Damage sponge isn't fun if all you rely on is AC.

People like to think they are smarter and need validation.

>>55154162
>>55142002
>>55141391
Caster supremacy is alive and well in 5e still. There's barely any reason to level up as a fighter, rogue, or monk. Even Paladin drops off super hard after level 6.

>>55154240
>There's barely any reason to level up as a fighter, rogue, or monk

Excepting that you can have a tremendous amount of fun in those classes. The gap is not nearly as wide, and you're not dead weight anymore.

I played a thief from levels 1-15 and had an absolute blast. Second-Story Work and Cunning Action are the best things ever.

>>55132125
>Two 20 ability scores
Are they expecting people to ignore every feat or something? Especially when martial classes can't function without some.

>>55154266
This math is clearly assuming the game is being run without feats. Even though fucking nobody does that.

>>55154293
>>55154266

Yeah feats are kind of essential for any non-caster. Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, etc. are absolutely needed for the classes to keep pace with casters.

>>55154266
That's a chart I made myself, and yes, I assumed that there would be no feats, because feats are an optional variant rule and weren't relevant to the point anyway. You'll also note that I limited myself to just 5 ASIs, none of the extra ones that rogues or fighters get, as the game is presumably balanced around the idea that most characters only get 5 ASIs.

The point of the chart is to dismiss the notion that makes the rounds every now and then that a DC 10 "Easy" skill check is hard to pass, and that there isn't much of a difference between playing a Commoner with no skill specializations, and playing someone who has specialized in a skill.

>>55129245

This is the answer. I've noticed that how much fun people have with a system has almost nothing to do with the quality of the system itself. That only seems to matter if it's a dedicated group that's been playing for years and goes through all sorts of different rulesets.

>>55154403
It's true to a degree, but systems have managed to be either so underwhelming that my groups have been asking each other "Why are we playing this and not one of a billion alternatives?"or even so positively bad that we threw out the system and finished the campaign with a system we like, or even just abandoned the effort.

5e has made a positive impression on us.

>>55130215
there are legitimate concerns abt DnD 5e's system but it generally helps if you don't gripe about "nu male cucks" when discussing them hth

>>55154366
>optional rule
One which literally everyone uses. But whatever.

The difference between a level 1 trained character, and a level 1 talented commoner (same array) is too small. (+2). That's generally the complaint.

Frankly I'm of the view that if you have a high ability and are trained, you should only fail an easy check on a 1, and should only have to roll when under stress.

I just changed up the math in my own game. It was easy enough to fix.

+3-+5 + +2-+6 (possibly doubled)
Becomes
+3-+5 + 5 (possibly doubled) + roundup(lv/4) (no +numbers magic items)
Less varied math, skewed toward upper level ranges, and adding in the bonuses from a magic item automatically.

>>55122160
The general opinion in my group is that 5e is mostly a better 3.x and we liked 3.x

>>55129637
>> 80 points in Guns (rifle) pasta
Source, please?
I did not read that one.

>>55124886
Honestly, point 4 is just ignored in every game I play. People just do their own thing.

>>55129772
In practice, I find the high AC and health pools of 5e characters drag out an already uninteresting base combat system, which is annoying.

>>55129813
I don't find it too hard for characters to die but I do feel like combats drag out a bit.

>>55154921
I do like it- it's 4 lines on your sheet you can look over when you can't instantly decide what your character would do, and chances are one of them serves to inspire you in that moment.

And in general you got players who wouldn't have their characters do stupid things - but I like if characters have flaws and act on them. And to those players, the introduction of the Flaw mechanic says "it's cool to act a little dumb now and then, and the GM may even give you a cookie for it". It's not something my group actually needs but it helps me play with people I don't know so well.

>>55122160
It solves the completely bland non-identity problems that 4e had without resolving to the super-bloated "crunch" that was used as a crutch in the past.

The base rules are neat, concise, and quick to learn while managing to have plenty of depth. If there is not a explicitly written rule for something, the core rules--especially the DMG--provide a codified, designer-approved process for creating virtually any kind of rule or system that is going to immediately fall within the boundaries and balance of the core system. That doesn't even begin to touch all of the supplementary splat, errata, and OGL content that exists.

It still suffers from the DnD-specific issue of divorcing roleplaying from mechanics that has existed extensively since 3e, but I use that term "suffer" incredibly loosely. IMO, if you can't figure out how to roleplay without a codified system to do it for you, maybe these games aren't for you.

>>55153275
2.0? Did they ever even get the spell splat out?
But yeah, fc is top tier except for bookkeeping, hp bloat, and the lack of support.

>>55154921
I like point 4 conceptually.

I don't like the lists tied to a d6 or that many backgrounds have none.

I made a much larger (mostly universal) list, with some backgrounds having a few unique ones.

It really helps people communicate the major details of their character with me in a way that helps me run and they say it's a useful reminder to them that helps them keep in character.

I allow a short write-in if they want one.

>>55156667
>I don't like the lists tied to a d6 or that many backgrounds have none.
Wait, people actually roll on the lists instead of using it as guidelines/inspiration? Next thing you say someone actually uses background proficiencies instead of making you own according to guidelines.

>>55153827
No one cares about abusing wish chains, balance when you can cast wish is irrelevant. 99% of the people don't lvl to that point.

Unless you are a plebbitor and enjoy your "muh lvl 20 one shot killing gods".

>>55151532
This is not true.

I played 2e for 10 years and it feels close to 5e, 4e is much more contrived and like a "sport". 3.5 is just a broken brick of rules.

Using nostalgia googles:

2e = 9.5/10
3.XX = 2/10
PF = 3.5/10
4e = 3.5/10
5e = 8/10

In reality if all the games would have been released at the same time 5e would be the best, and 2e second.

5e to me feels like a remake of an old game that used to be hard and now it is full of get out jail cards (and to make it challenging you have to fix it in a stupid ways), yes I know that as a DM you can make your game harder but there is too much cheese about how easy is to get someone up again with stuff like healing word or how non punishing is to drop to 0 hp. It really bothers me, also dex giving you more damage to your bow is dumb too.

>>55156755
Yeah, instead you have to deal with Druid animal companions at their most potent relative to martials, Clerics having a whole 1 BAB and 2 HP separating them from the Fighter in raw statistics, and Sleep and Color Spray raping half the encounters you'll see at low levels.

>>55156751
They don't typically roll it. But they often choose one from that very short list, and choose from the list more often than inventing a unique flaw or bond. Hence bigger lists.

>proficiencies
*Everyone* I've met sticks to the proficiencies though.

>>55122160
Having played both it and 4th edition for at least a year each, i can recommend not playing DnD.

>>55156889
>I played 2e for 10 years and it feels close to 5e
The retarded HP totals when compared to damage, numbers scaling like a paraplegic up a staircase, and the prevalence of not-encounter abilities make it feel nothing like 2E. What the fuck are you on?

>>55122175
>It's the most accessible of all the editions
Still leagues behind B/X.

>>55122160
5e is the goto RPG for "LE NURD XD" losers who watch crap like Critical Role and TBBT. Anybody who's even halfway serious about p&p plays Pathfinder™

>>55157141
I think you misunderstood me a little bit, I meant customizing background proficiencies according to p.125 phb
>choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds.
Or do you mean people don't actually do that?

>>55157172
>numbers scaling like a paraplegic up a staircase
Did you play actual 2e? Your ability scores didn't go up much lol
>prevalence of not-encounter abilities
Now I know that you never played 2e, in 2e you avoided fights if you could, you'd twist the world and the odds in your favour as much as you can because dying was extremely easy, people had to be smart in order to not die randomly so players used a lot of not encounter abilities all the time, avoiding a fight was usually as good as fighting because gold and magic items gave you EXP, why fighting orcs that are worth 15 exp if you can sneak and take their gold?

Yes, HP is very high, combats are a bit longer than in 5e but the simplicity of the system is what it reminds me to 2e, 3.XX is just a brick of rules and 4e is some sort of wargame made to have fair, super interactive combats that take hours unlike 2e or 5e.

>>55157558
Obviously I meant that combats are longer in 5e than in 2e

>>55157133
Oh don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you there. The thing is when people use the wish chain to explain why 3.xx is broken it is like saying that the 600 lbs landwhale over there is ugly because her shoes don't match. Hardly relevant when you look like Jabba the Hut.

>>55141391
I can't take your complaints about caster superiority seriously if you get them wrong.

CoDzilla was the ultra-bullshit in 3.5.

Of course, I play 5e with non-autists so I just don't worry about that because it's a non-issue for them.

File: 1433251233192.gif (2MB, 245x276px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 245x276px

>>55156889
>3.XX = 2/10
>PF = 3.5/10
>Actually rates 3e and PF, which are literally the same game, differently

aaaaand you've undermined your entire argument

>>55154240
My party consists of a Wizard, a moon druid and a sorc 4/ warlock 2 cheese, I gave them a champion who follows them, same lvl as them. I thought, oh well they'll need a meatshield and he is not really a DMPC because of not higher lvl, he is just a dwarf who wants to smash stuff and he is controlled by them in combat. Also I thought of /tg/ telling me how much better casters are in 5e than martials, you were plan wrong.

Half the fights the 20 AC lvl 6 dwarf ends up doing the most damage, I hope he dies but my party likes him.

>>55157558
>Your ability scores didn't go up much lol
Your THAC0 and your AC sure as fuck did. Well, AC went down, but you get what I'm saying.
>players used a lot of not encounter abilities all the time
I'm talking about how short rest abilities are literally just relabeled, shitty versions of encounter powers from 4E.

>>55157794
It's not that different from rating 3.5 differently as core vs. with splats. Yeah, it's fundamentally the same game, but there are incremental differences which can make for an altered play experience.

>>55157794
Nope, PF fixes some of the mistakes of 3.5. It is an improvement. But yeah is like changing the roof of your hut made out of dogshit from dogshit to hay, yeah the roof is better but you still live in dogshit.

Maybe 3.5 was too generous, let's give it 3.0.

>>55127167
That's a funny way to spell 1e AD&D

>>55157809
Damage doesn't mean anything if a wizard can cast one of his 20+ spells to immobilize someone and immediately win any fight.

>>55157823
Your AC going down depended on magic items, plate plus shield was 0 AC. Reaching something like -4 or -5 required a really generous DM.

Also THAC0 also went down, the lower your THAC0 the better but at most it was one every level (for warriors).

>>55157889
Well that's what they are using the dwarf for now when facing a single powerful enemy, or single powerful enemy with minions.

Bonus action: Shield master, shove to make it prone
Attack action, one hit with advantage
Drops weapon
extra attack, grapple.

So yeah the dwarf has inmobilized in one turn the powerful monster on the ground and the bladesinger and the druid gang up on it and the dwarf keeps hitting it using the shield as an improvised weapon.

>>55147202
>For most of human history, war has considered of two masses of spearmen basically shoving against one another until one side gave out
No

>>55126990
Video games and proper wargames do crunch better

>>55152350
no

>>55127079
Play a different video game, idiot. There are more games than you could ever finish unless you're jobless and friendless swine.

>>55129840
>But if I'm wearing plate, I think I should be more survivable when I actually get hit

You're defining hit weird. The High AC doesn't mean weapons aren't striking you. It means it's doing fuck all. The plate is so good that a huge proportion of hits just get shrugged off by your juggernaut ass.
So the sword or arrow plinks against your sick plate, but you just laugh about it, kill the enemy, and rape his woman a little.

>>55157889
All of that does rely on the save failing though. Finally busting out your 3rd level Hypnotic pattern you've been saving for the fifth combat of the day wont mean anything if the entire otherside makes their saves. Let alone if the enemy isn't just straight immune.

Meanwhile the damage dealer just has to hit an at best AC of 20. Assuming generic ranged fighter they'll have a 50/50 shot each time.
Easier the lower the AC

Might sound fucked up, but I honestly believe 5e is NOT a caster edition. They're strong, but at the higher levels Martials simply end combats single handedly and can do that unlimited times of day. Meanwhile the casters have to pray for failed saves with very limited resources (especially with higher level spells)

File: IMG_4364.jpg (114KB, 1024x614px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1024x614px

>>55130215

>>55154175
So true. Fighters really do suck in 5e, doubly so if you are trying to play as a knight.

File: 1491832302607.gif (313KB, 300x182px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 300x182px

>>55157832
>3e
>3.5
>PF
>different play experiences.

Honestly asking: have you never played anything outside the OGLd20 oeuvre, because that's genuinely the only way I could see someone actually being able to consider the differences between the different flavors of 3e noticeable, much less significant. Either that or you're just a troll who enjoys edition wars.

>>55122160
Basically because it's a dumbed down version of D&D and was what replaced 4e. I personally prefer 3.5/pathfinder over the other editions. My issue with 5e comes from the lack of customization in character creation and the proficiency system and the advantage/disadvantage system.

Oh? i have advantage from catching someone off guard? roll 2 d20s and take the better
Oh? i have advantage from catching someone off guard, having them being nearly blinded, [insert more conditions here]? roll 2 d20s and take the better.
Doesn't matter how different the advantage or disadvantage of a situation is it's still the same chance, whereas in 3.5/pf there are differing amounts to the bonuses or penalties one gets

>>55130215
Don't you fucking hate on Basic D&D you tasteless jerk.

>>55126990
A lot of what backed me off 3.5 was just how hard it was to play for the crunch. Martials in particular were so straightjacketed to "just as good as a wizard but can keep going forever - at this one task" that D&D went from being beer-and-pretzels 4v1 fantasy wargame sessions, which I love the crunch of, to flat RL diplomacy checks trying to convince the DM to give us specific enemies and make my character a god rather than utterly useless.

>>55157553
I have yet to see anybody attempt that, unless they were trying to homebrew a new background to fill something not covered already.

>>55122160
It's one of the two normie games that are appropriate for play with total normies who want a textbook tabletop game experience.

>>55158575
Archetypes are much more flexible than 3.5 prestige class progressions, and means all the classes you are liable to take get updates in every book, rather than some having 5ons of content and some having next to nothing. The exception to this, of course, are the "unchained" classes which are unsupported garbage even when they improve on the original base class.

>>55159844

it doesn't even need to fill something not covered, you're allowed to tweak the proficiencies as you see fit, and keep the rest of the background as is.

>>55158300

Still weird how AC from dex and AC from armour is AC nonetheless.

>>55160210
No weirder than HP from brute toughness and HP from martial training being HP nonetheless.

>>55156755
>99% of the people don't lvl to that point.

Leaving aside that just a post or two down from the one you responded to, I outlined a way to get your hands on a Candle of Invocation as early as level 1, you can still find said Candle, which is a Medium magic item, in a randomly-generated treasure pile as early as level 6. And that's merely the easiest way to get a chain of infinite wishes going, not the only way.

Sure, it's not terrifically likely, but it's nothing remotely resembling impossible, either. Which backs up my original point, which was that 90% of the truly broken stuff in 3.5 is found in the Core Rulebooks, not the splats. The splats were merely insult on top of injury.

>>55160210
D&D is not a Real Life Simulator.

>>55161097
Oh, as an addendum: at a mere 8,400 gp in cost, a Candle of Invocation can, by RAW, be found in any community of Small City (gp limit 15,000) size or larger.

Before you say something along the lines of "only if the DM allows it", I will direct you to pg. 137: "anything having a price under [the gp] limit is most likely available, be it mundane or magical. While exceptions are certainly possible [...], these exceptions are temporary; all communities conform to the norm over time."

Using the default starting gold, a character could begin the game with a Candle of Invocation as early as level 5. By level 7, the 8,400 gp cost would only be one-third of their total starting wealth.

I want to go on record as saying that I am NOT encouraging this kind of gameplay. I'm merely pointing out that wish chains are fucking easy to start, and they're right there in core, and they're the most broken thing you can possibly do in the game.

>>55160142
I am aware. I'm saying I have yet to see anyone use it for that purpose,they all take whatever proficiencies come with a background by default.

>>55161236
And yet so easy to houserule away

>>55161813
And once again, with feeling - the ability to fix a problem with a game, doesn't change the fact that THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE GAME.

>>55154618
So?

>>55154913
>100 point character in GURPS
>leave all stats at base
>set aside 20 points for peripheral skills
>put 80 points into Rifles
>now have DX+21 in Rifles since skill cost doesn't escalate
>can take a couple minor disadvantages to have DX+25 if I feel like it
>now I have a 35 in Rifles skill
>WITHOUT aiming I can headshot a running target at 200 yards and still be rolling against 17
>with aiming I can do it even further out, or in darkness

That is what is wrong with pointbhy systems. 100 points is on the low end for characters too by the way.

File: 1e-sucks.pdf (191KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1x1px

>>55159253
D&D basic is lame crap.

>>55161876
>missing the point.
Its not that wish chains aren't a problem because you can fix them. It's that they're so obvious a problem that they take no effort to fix and thus the problem never sees play. Nobody cares about wish chains because they never actually come up.
Martial-caster disparity, on the other hand...

>>55161955
150 is far more likely. But yes.

However, chargen in gurps is never an unsupervised affair. No DM will allow that degree of specialization in a new character.

>>55153904
>>55153963
Why would Pazuzu, a powerful demon prince, provide a 100% consequence free wish? What the fuck kind of reasoning is that? That's fucking retarded.

>>55162665
The consequence is 'paladin falls'. That's why he does it

>>55162665
Paladins fall if they willingly associate with someone they know to be Evil. Pazuzu, being a demon prince, is Evil, and anyone who knows that they can summon him, would know this.

Pazuzu loves making paladins fall. As such, he's put the word out that if any paladin says his name 3 times, he WILL appear before them and grant them a Wish that will not be corrupted or twisted - that is, he guarantees that he will grant the wish to both its letter and its spirit (no, say, "I wish for my loved one to come back to life", "Okay, congratulations, she's a vampire now."). The idea is that paladins will therefore always be tempted to summon up Pazuzu for their chance at doing something Good with Pazuzu's wish.

This goes back to 1e/2e lore, when Paladins use to be a lot rarer, and a Paladin falling was SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS on a cosmic scale since each one falling represented a fairly significant loss for the forces of Good. Their proliferation in late 2e and onwards kind of undercuts the original intent, but making Pazuzu petty and just like making paladins fall still fits with the kind of thing a demon prince would do; and in any event, it's never been decanonized (and his general love of corrupting good things was indeed re-confirmed in Fiendish Codex I)

>>55122160
I'm kinda half way between both.
I'm a big fan of skills and feats in 3.5, but you were too weak in the beginning
But 5e feels more dynamic and fluid in combat. It removes a bunch of numbers for ease of use. It does lack the breath of customability that the 3.5 library has and I don't like that it had expected wealth gain tables. I would always give under in 3.5. I've also had player complain money is useless since you can't buy magic items.
Tl;dr for me, each has their pros and cons

>>55154162
Have you actually played the system?

For me, the attraction boils down to "simple but flexible".

Character creation gives me an acceptably broad range of potential characters (especially with the website material going into the new book) without forcing me to cross reference six books and create a spreadsheet to track my exact Class/Skill/Feat progression for the next 15 levels so I can get into the Prestige Class I actually want to play. I can also do the level up bookkeeping in less than five minutes.

The game engine, once you get under the hood, is really just three questions. What ability do I roll? Do I have Proficiency on the roll? Do I have Advantage/Disadvantage on the roll? That lets you quickly slap together interesting checks depending on the situation. "Yes, you can roll Cha with proficiency from Smith's Tools to try and impress the blacksmith by talking shop, but you have disadvantage because you're dressed like a foppish nobleman who's never worked with his hands in his life."

It feels like D&D when playing it, which is the test 4e failed for me. It's simple to use without being as bare bone as most OSR systems are. Overall it's the best version of the game I've played in the 25 years since I first picked up D&D.

>>55162831
>>55163168
He's going to twist your wish to make it fail. You don't get unlimited power and your soul belongs to him.
He won't give you an uncorrupted wish, what the fuck kind of delusion is that?

If your DM allows that he's fucking retarded.

>>55124712

>>D20
>>best

D20 is a poor system. Far too crunchy, sessions come to a grinding halt when it comes time for combat.

>>55163690
>Far too crunchy, sessions come to a grinding halt when it comes time for combat
>Too stupid to do 12+7

>>55163657
>He's going to twist your wish to make it fail.

He explicitly is not by the lore. Pazuzu's big thing seems to be focused around the idea that if you give people power for free, they'll corrupt themselves with a limited amount of effort on his part needed. Pazuzu exemplifies the whole "power corrupts" thing, basically.

You have to remember that Pazuzu is OLD. He is by a significant margin older than any of the Demon Lords that appear in Out of the Abyss (Demogorgon, Grazzt, etc.). He pre-dates the tanar'ri coming to the Abyss, in fact. And unlike them, he isn't interested in conquering layers of the Abyss, instead focused on just generally spreading corruption and evil into the Prime Material.

He's patient, he's not in a rush, and he knows that if he just gives people power, they'll corrupt themselves and eventually come to the Abyss of their own volition. Whether they specifically come to Pazuzu or some other demon lord doesn't matter to Pazuzu.

>>55163830
For the record, as an example of the kind of long game that Pazuzu plays - you know that Ruby Rod that Asmodeus, the Lord of the Ninth, King of Hell, and Master of the Baatezu, has and is famous for?

Who do you think helped him make it? Who do you think he still owes a favor to for that help?

>>55163377
Yes.
5e skills are underwhelming and very swingy, and those classes all have a significant lack of utility and a lot less variety for options than a spellcaster.

What part of that are you disputing? Or are you just making vague ad hominems to be a dick?

>>55123838
Or just play something like oD&D.
Holmes is fine. AD&D is even fine with a little work.

I've read through DCC and I love the aesthetic, but I've never played it so I don't know if it's any good.

5e is ok, but it does feel a little...soulless.

>>55163830
Then you aren't playing him as Pazuzu but a fucking retard who would bend to the whims of an autistic player. That's not the system's fault.

>>55163830
He still wouldn't give you what you exactly want, that's the point. It's not going to be 100% uncorrupted else you aren't playing him at all to the lore.

>>55126950
>T. Steve Jackson

>>55163937
Sure you have, and did calling you out as an autistic retard upset you because it's true.

If you actually played 5e, you'd know the skills system isn't as flawed as you overstate it to be. And the other classes do have utility, you'd know that if you have actually played the system.

Stop your sniffling.

>>55126990
As a grognard who began with the Red box, I can tell you that you're smoking from the ass here. RPGs were never about 'builds' or 'customization'. Hell, we did fine with just four classes. Nah the fun came from role-playing- not acting- but putting yourself into your character's shoes. Seeing what *you* would do in that dungeon- how *you* would try to check for traps- how *you* would try to open that hidden door.

That's how we did it back in the day. None of this "crunch bullshit". I mean there was less acting

>>55164609
The corruption is "if you're a paladin, you fall automatically" and "he's willing to show up any time." Like I said, Pazuzu takes the view that power corrupts in and of itself. He doesn't need to put particular effort into twisting wishes. The kind of people who even know his name and his bargain are the sort who are likely to abuse the power anyway.

>>55164586
> who would bend to the whims of an autistic player.

In what way would he bend?

>>55164664
Gotcha. More unsubstantiated name-calling. Good on you. Truly shows your caliber good sir.

I'm running out of the abyss for my longtime group right now. The class disparities (particularly in utility) are less than they were in 3e, but are still there.

And skills are still the shitty alternative to having relevant spells or class features, but now your skill bonuses are smaller so they're less reliable, than 3e's "build up the list of tasks you autosucceed at where other people would have to roll".

And the equivalent to the "take 10" rule in 5e is about equivalent to a "take 5" if you do the math.

>>55122160
it's better than 3.x and 4th.

2nd stopped being produced before most players were born.

>>55163491
>That lets you quickly slap together interesting checks depending on the situation. "Yes, you can roll Cha with proficiency from Smith's Tools to try and impress the blacksmith by talking shop
I'm kicking myself for not thinking of something like this before

>>55165633
>2nd stopped being produced before most players were born.

What? That can't be right, because I was in high school when-

...

...What have I been doing with my life?

>>55165631
>Gotcha. More unsubstantiated name-calling. Good on you. Truly shows your caliber good sir.
If you can't take it when you dish it out, don't act tough and then immediately act like a snivelling little bitch. Stop being a disingenuous little bitch when you started the name calling.

Are the class disparities significant in 5e? No, they're not, everyone is useful. You'd know this if you had actually played the system.

The skills are designed such so that everyone can contribute, and the Cha skills can be likened to effects as produced by charm spells.
There is still a difference between those proficient in the skills and those who don't have proficiency. Again, you'd actually know this if you had actually played the system.
You must also realize that in some areas, certain PCs/classes would autosucceed on something right?

Have you actually done the maths?
You can also take 10 in 5e and it still works in that way.

>>55151532
Grew up on 2e and I can agree that 4e captures the flavor of 2e, even if it eschews most of the Gygaxian "fuck you" mechanics (that many DMs houseruled out anyway).

I could make a 4e character that came straight out of any of the fantasy novels and tie-ins and have it actually play almost exactly the way the fiction panned out without DM fiat.

>>55165682
It's really quite fun, once you get used to thinking outside the default combinations. Want to design an obstacle course? Int + Athletics. Trying to weather a harsh night outside? Con + Survival. And so on.

>>55166317
>"can't take it when you dish it out!"
>he started the the ad hominems back when he chose to claim I must be ignorant and retarded to think martials are less versatile than casters in 5e.
>he didn't like that I called his response out as immature so he threw a tantrum, making himself look like he has no valid points to make at all, only insults to throw.
>he thinks I'm sad that he has been calling me names this whole time.
I couldn't make this shit up. This is gold.
Nah man. I called out your childish behavior and asked you to talk like the big kids and you got mad, ruining any ability I or anyone else had of taking you seriously. I'm not upset, you've been very entertaining.

And sure. We're all convinced that fighters are just as versatile as wizards in 5e. Okay. Quality arguments good job.

>everyone is useful
Great. Some are still more useful than others. Spells are still better than skills, generally speaking.

I've done quite a bit of math calculating how various things work in 5e. Sure.

I understand that if you allow a bunch of individual rolls for most knowledge checks, the trained guy has minimal impact on the team's success unless the target DC is 23 or higher - odds are it'll be someone else on the team who succeeds if you have a dm who runs the checks that way, simply because of the number of rolls being made. In such a campaign the smart move is to cut back on knowledge skills to focus on more Punishing skills, like stealth, or bluff.

So what's your point exactly?

>>55166876
Holy shit are you severely autistic and delusional. Yeah, you can't make this shit up that you're acting completely autistic and screeching out.

Fighters are as versatile as casters in 5e, if, you know, you actually bothered to play the system rather than autistically screeching out and making yourself look completely idiotic.

If you're done quite a bit of calculating, then post that shit. What's the use in you just saying so? Also, you must also know that calculating numbers in a whiteroom is completely redundant and autistic. It more often than not has no bearing on actual play, you'd know this if you had actually bothered to play 5e rather than just talk shit.

No one has been saying skills can replace spells, you fucking retard. Do you actually comprehend English? What point do you have in saying that?

Do you understand it's not just knowledge skills, yeah? The thing applies to all skills. For example, the fact that the Str guy opening a porticullis as opposed to the weedle little shit Wizard opening the same porticullis means a potential roll as opposed to just doing it.
Do you understand that?

>>55166876
Not him but are you actually fucked in the head? How are you this delusional?

>>55167045
That all classes have utility rather, stop moving the goalposts.

>>55166876
The discrepancy between the things you're trying to autistically screech about aren't as overblown as you overstate them to be.
Have you considered not trying to win at D&D and not being so severely autistic.

>>55167045
Dig through the archives in past 5egs if you want the math on how skills work. I've gone through it. Other people have gone through it.

I don't think you know what screeching is. Screeching is not calmly dismissing the nonsense from the guy getting angry and name-calling. Screeching is the name calling and emotional investment over people not agreeing with you.

>fighters are as versatile as casters in 5e.
What do non battlemaster fighters have (let's not move the goalposts from your original tantrum) that is as versatile as 9th level spellcasting? Because that claim seems patently absurd to me.

>crunching numbers is redundant
If you're trying to figure out what the cause of a thing your players are complaining about is, and confirm suspicions, and calibrate houseruled math, taking the time to do the math makes sense.

>nobody is saying skills can replace spells
If you didn't mean skills, just what non-battlemaster fighter accessible features are you insisting are as versatile as 9th level wizard casting? Exceptional claims require exceptional support and whatnot.

>knowledge rolls
That was just an example of having determined a thing by running the numbers.

>>55167176
You don't win d&d when you DM.
I am also actually autistic. So, can't really change that one.

>overstating
Well, that remains to be shown. I said initially there's less discrepancy than in 3.5, but that fighters-particularly non-battlemaster fighters still have less versatility than casters. Angry Joe there then threw a tantrum and insisted I must be retarded because they're just as versatile as wizards. I asked him to back up his position, and he hasn't. And since then he has done nothing but move goal posts and namecall, so I dismissed him as an idiot unable to talk like a rational adult or back up his claims.

>>55167251
Post your calculations, have you actually calculated the numbers or were you just talking shit again?

>>55167251
No, post your calculations, I'll even wait.
Screeching is also delusionally making shit up, which you seem to be utterly flawless at doing.

My original point was that all classes have utility, which was the addressed point and which they do.
This was my original statement: >If you actually played 5e, you'd know the skills system isn't as flawed as you overstate it to be. And the other classes do have utility...

Before you make absurd assumptions, actually learn to understand 5e as its own system and not a continuation of 3xe/PF/4e. Actually understand the system before you make stupid shit up because you'll find you don't need to introduce houserules at all and that the concerns you have aren't actually concerns at all. If you've actually played the system as you claim, you'd know this.

The champion has remarkable athlete, which gives it utility. The point was that all classes have utility, which you absurdly seem to think they don't based on your original severely flawed premise.

Post the numbers of your Knowledge skill checks.

>>55167266
Post the calculations on what, specifically? What are you wanting me to show? Presumably something to do with the skill system, but what, specifically?

And what does anything skill system related have to do with you proving your claim that non-battlemaster fighters are just as versatile as wizards?

>>55167343
> knowledge skill checks.
Sure. I'm not at home, but I think they're all online. I'll see if I can find them.

>>55167345
>I've done quite a bit of math calculating how various things work in 5e. Sure.
What is it that you've done calculating on?
Why are you balking at posting this this much?

My claim was that everyone has utility, do you understand this?
>>If you actually played 5e, you'd know the skills system isn't as flawed as you overstate it to be. And the other classes do have utility.
Here, I'll even reproduce it for you.

The skills give it utility beyond anything that isn't combat related, you'd know this wouldn't you.

File: 1493185202302.png (69KB, 548x1365px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 548x1365px

>>55167408
Heres the knowledge check math.

I didn't want to have to search for it. I'm in a hotel on the other side of the country because my dad died and my pc is back home, so I'm phone posting. Looking for it on a phone was annoying.

Basically, if your DM allows individual rolls from everyone on perception or knowledge checks, the odds that the party *wont* succeed even without having someone trained in it are low enough that you can often get away with having nobody take it, except for particularly high DCs.

The net result is also that a DC 15 knowledge or perception check is much harder than the same DC for something that can only be attempted once or bust.

As I said. It was just an example of having run math for stuff, since you demanded an answer to the question of "have you even looked at any of the math in 5e".

I never said they had *no* utility at all. All I ever said was that they were lacking in utility and variety in comparison to spellcasters. You can go check the posts.

Anyways. I'm going to bed. 4am. If the thread is here in 8h I will reply to any responses.

>>55167567
http://anydice.com/program/b75a

>>55167567
And if the dm doesn't use the group check rules and has everyone roll stuff like stealth separately, the odds that someone will fail look and the party will have to face those consequences looks like the third one.

>>55167567
You said they have a significant lack of utility which simply isn't true, and a lot less variety for options than a spellcaster which also isn't true. You can go back to check your posts once you've stopped moving the goalposts so much.
Also work on your hyperbole it's outstandingly absurd.

>>55167567
Your graph has undefined variables, so accuracy is irrelevant.

>>55164664
>If you actually played 5e
I did play 5E. Pretty much my entire experience with the skill system was untrained fucks succeeding with flying colors while the people with appropriate stats and proficiency failed. That's the exact opposite experience I want out of a game.

>>55169005
That's completely anecdotal.

>>55169017
Yes, and?

>>55169023
So it's not the system's fault at all.

>>55169028
Yeah, that happening because of how low skill check bonuses are relative to the die totally isn't the system's fault. Do you even understand mechanics?

>>55169028
False Logic.

>>55167251
>I am also actually autistic
It shows. Just stop arguing, you're literally autistically screeching over bullshit.

>>55169055
No it's not, your completely anecdotal experience aside, it doesn't mean every experience is like that, especially because it's your fault for rolling low all the time.

Do you even understand what anecdotal means?

>>55167567
>>55167626
Are you illiterate? Go and read the group check rules, because it presents a middle ground you conveniently ignored

File: you are mother fucker.jpg (22KB, 423x287px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 423x287px

>>55169080
>especially because it's your fault for rolling low all the time.

>>55169089
Do you actually understand what anecdotal means, you autist.

>>55169105
Better than you understand probability, at least. Go ahead though, keep trying to say that low bonuses and a large die don't lead to that kind of thing happening way more often than it would if it were 3d6 or dicepool or even if it had twice the space for bonuses.

>>55169123
Since you completely have no idea what anecdotal means, which is exactly lacking in reliability and truth, then your understanding would be the same. Ie, you have no idea how probability works at all.
If you keep rolling low that's your own problem, not the system's.

>>55169143
You could've just said you had no idea how probability or systems work. Please learn what a bell curve is.

>>55169143
>lacking reliability
Yes.
>lacking truth
Wrong.

>>55169191
Please learn what words mean, it'll help you to not look like a retard. And again it's your fault and not the system's fault. Blaming the system just makes you look severely autistic

>>55169143
>it's not possible to fail a check if you roll high or medium with low bonuses
You're an idiot. The larger the die, and the lower the bonuses, the more swingy and more possibility of failure occurring every roll, regardless of the individual penchant for low rolls.

File: Screenshot_20170901-210745.png (349KB, 1440x2960px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1440x2960px

>>55169205
You were saying.

>>55130003
>In Shadowrun, a pistol could easily kill a human in one hit if they don't have armor on to offset the worst of the attack, and even then, damage can easily spiral out of control if the penalties become large enough to affect your dice pool.
You take damage+hits less damage soak, and have a track of body + blah.

You are actually very unlikely to die from a single pistol shot in Shadowrun.

>>55169213
Again I'm pretty sure having low bonuses relative to the flat die's sides is, in fact, the system's fault. You know that the chance of that kind of thing happening in Shadowrun or GURPS or whatever is an order of magnitude lower than it is in 5E, right?

>>55169123
Different dude, that's what people call "swingy", is just high standard deviation, which is the amount of variation or dispersion of data values.

With low bonus and hice die you can't reliabily expect a certain result, some people like this (like some people like nat1 and nat20 on skills because it adds unexpected randomness) I do not, I expect a certain degree of competence and certainty, you know, to know if my character is able to do something and not leave everything in the hands of fate

>>55169219
>>55169219
You realize for certain classes where it crops up, you don't get them to roll at all, don't you?

Is that how probability works?
Your continuing to roll low, and which is only according to you, with failure is your own fault and not system's. I and my friends usually roll high and we sometimes consistently roll low all the damn time, we don't blame the system because we're not autistic.

>>55169269
How does it work in those systems?

>>55169315
You're not blaming the system because you don't even understand what the fuck you're talking about.

>>55169315
............where the fuck did you get that rolling low comes into effect when probability is the entirety of what I was talking about? From someone else's arguments clearly; but that just makes you more of an idiot for trying to insist bad probability math in 5e is surely the fault of the player.

>>55169339
Like you don't understand what anecdotal means?

>>55169352
Tell me why you think continuing to roll low, based on your unreliable evidence, is exactly the fault of the system's.

>>55169249
>You are actually very unlikely to die from a single pistol shot in Shadowrun.
Spoken like someone who has never played the game before.

>>55169055
>Have +4 dex and double proficiency on sneak
>Roll a 1
>Trip and get caught while the wizard remains hidden because he rolled more or less poorly
>Come to /tg/ to whine about how bad luck should never be a problem if you are focused on a skill

>>55169324
GURPS is 3d6 and Shadowrun is dice pool.

It is nearly fucking impossible for a skilled character to fail a check an untrained character has a reasonable chance at succeeding at in either of those systems and the opposite is true too. For comparison: for a level 20 Fighter's Athletics and a completely untrained guy against DC 15, the Fighter has a 85% chance of succeeding that check while the untrained guy has a 30% chance of succeeding under d20. You make that 3d6 and the Fighter goes to 99.53% and the untrained fucker's chance is now 16.18%. The chance of untrained chucklefuck succeeding while the Fighter fails is just a little under a natural 20 under 1d20 while it's a fucking rounding error that will almost never, ever be seen in play under 3d6.

>>55169440
Or you make it how non-autistics do it and have the trained PC not roll at all.

>>55169470
Except you're supposed to roll for him when he has a chance of failure.

>>55169487
Except they don't need to, that's the point.

>>55169589
Except they do. 15% is not 0%. This is also discounting that +11 is the highest you're getting a skill without Expertise. When it's +7 or +8 it's an even bigger deal.

>>55169624
Only autists make them roll. Again, there are times when rolls aren't even necessary.

>>55169663
DC 15 checks are not one of those times.

>>55169672
Yes they are, especially if the PC is a 20th level fighter needing to best a DC 15 Athletics check.

>>55169697
If you didn't need to roll there wouldn't be a chance for failure in the first place.

>>55169712
Yes, now you understand the point.

>>55161978
An assortment of ass-pulled b/s and "why can't 1e be 3e instead" sentiments. You retards went to SUCH lengths to pull every minuscule flaw of the system, but it is clear you don't know what are you talking about

>>55169697
Sadly your homerule isn't well spread among the playerbase, maybe try calling the devs so they can implement it in the actual game

>>55170094
You realize what automatic success (DMG p239) is don't you? "A character automatically succeeds on any ability check with a DC less than or equal to the relevant ability score minus 5".
Maybe you should actually read the entry, severe autist. If you called the devs up, they'll call you a severe retard.

>>55170143
Not him but nobody uses that I want to know why!

>>55170143
>ability check

>>55170169
>ability check
Are you actually fucking retarded? What the fuck do you think an Athletics check is? Don't even pretend to be retarded.

>>55170169
In 5e skill checks are included in ability checks. Ability checks in 5e are any roll that uses an ability score that isn't attack or a save. Yep, initiative is an ability check and you can get bonuses to it from example by being a Bard

>>55170169
Are you fucking retarded? Fucking read the manual before you make completely idiotic statements. Can you actually read?

>>55170203
>ep, initiative is an ability check and you can get bonuses to it from example by being a Bard
I don't think you can do that, anon

>>55170265
>Jack of All Trades
>Starting at 2nd level, you can add half your proficiency bonus, rounded down, to any ability check you make that doesn't already include your proficiency bonus.
Initiative is an ability check.

>>55170143
I'm going to show this to my GM, the fucker never told us anything, my 3rd level monk with 20 on Dex gets fucked by DCs 15 every time

>>55170327
>>55170163
If your DM is an autistic retard that's not going to help you, you need reasonable people. But be sure to blame the system!