Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kadzar]

Also, it's sounding like peoples opinions might change quite a bit once the DMs guide is out. It's sounding like it will have a tonne of variant rules. In fact, I would be surprised if there isn't a carrying weigh variant in the DMs guide. For me, all in all, I'm loving the sound and look of 5e, especially as a newer DM. I'm looking forward to taking it out for a spin some time.

Carrying weight is actually in the Player's Handbook (including the downloadable Basic version). It's in the Using Ability Scores section under Strength. The default is such that you can pretty much ignore carrying capacity if you don't have a negative Strength modifier, whereas the Encumbrance variant just below it puts it at about what it was before.


But anyway, about Paladins, I haven't seen them in play, but from what I've heard they're pretty beastly. And from the DMG preview, it seems even the Oathbreaker option is none-to-shabby.

The only part of the paladin I have a problem with, and it's not even a major problem, is the Oath of the Ancients. The mechanics are great, but I don't really like the fluff that much, since it seems to imply that nature is a Good, rather than Neutral, force. And I personally really don't like the implication that the oath represents some ancient belief, considering it very much lines up with modern views, and I prefer my ancient beliefs to be considered barbaric by modern standards (so probably closer to the Oath of Vengeance). But that's minor nitpick, since there are two other great oaths, and I can just rename OotA to "Oath of the Warden", since it's good at keeping fey and fiends at bay.

[AlleeCat]

From the little I played of 5e, I didn't really find it that good. Maybe it was the class I was playing, or the DM, or what, but I'm honestly not thrilled to play another game of it.

[timferius]

What features put you off?

[Tawa]

Were there more pluses than minuses, perhaps?

[AlleeCat]

I dunno, I just wasn't really interested in the mechanics, and the PH also seemed kind of boring to me. Plus, character creation seemed kind of limited. I would probably play it again if someone asked, but I wouldn't go out and find another game.

[Flying Dice]

That's sort of what I was afraid of when I discovered that it was basically a blend of 3.x and 4e; sure, you lose some of the annoying stuff from 4e, but you also lose a lot of what made 3.x entertaining. My opinions is generally 3.5e > 5e >4e, with the reasoning being that in spite of 4e and 5e being less unbalanced, 3.5e still offers better opportunities for unique and interesting situations (in no small part because of how bizarre and unbalanced it could be), and in part because a lot of the balancing is done by making everything homogenous, samey, and casual EZmode akin to playing Skyrim on low difficulty vs. Dark Souls (huehuehue mostly kidding here). So I guess I'd say 5e for introducing people to DnD and maybe more mundane hack'n'slash adventure modules, 3.5e for anything that'll last longer than a few sessions/session-equivalent length and for more experienced players., and 4e if people want to play a MMO where the subscription fee is dealing with the other jackasses in your group instead of murdering your wallet.

TBH if I had my druthers 5e would have been a different sort of update of 3.5 with a couple difference balance dynamics: one which is basically 3.5 with the broken and stupid problems (Truenamer, Monk, ferex) fixed akin to how many houserules set things right; and then a couple different sets of guidelines for balancing games for high-tier high-magic parties vs. low-tier low-magic parties; and probably something akin to the book of weeaboo fightan magic from 3.5 (only more so) to add martial and skillful classes or class variants which have bullshit on par with primary casters, just done through non-spell bullshit instead of spell bullshit, so that you can have a mixed party for high-level campaigns.

[Tawa]

I'm going to say my favorite reason for liking 3.5 over 4 (that doesn't have to do with powers bullcrap) is the fact that whereas 4 tried to make everything not only fit into their default setting AND tried to make the game play like a heroic fantasy movie every time, 3.5 lets (and maybe even encourages that) you make creative games and characters, like the wider variety of classes (even though those got downright demented at times), rules to accommodate characters of all walks of life (e.g. player-accessible anti-good spells, monster listings for good outsiders), and presenting ways to do things other than solve problems with combat, like telling you how to calculate stats for environmental things or how far a jump roll lets you jump. You know, defining a world instead of defining exactly how many ways you can beat up all those mooks.

[Kadzar]

-snip-

I feel like you probably shouldn't make a judgment on 5e without having actually looked at the Player's Handbook yourself. I mean, yes, compared to the full run of 3.5, it's limited, but we only have the Player's Handbook so far, and it has a lot more options available for characters than the 3.5 PH did. It may not have as many Feats as 3.5, but that's because they got rid the idea from 3.5 that you need a feat for basic competency, so they made feats be things that are actually worth taking instead.

And the classes are designed in such a way that they are varied, like in 3.5, but somewhat balanced, like in 4e. But they're not as balanced as 4e. It's somewhere between 3.5 and 4, so that the wizard isn't just a glorified mook-smasher like in 4e, but he also isn't so overpowered he makes all other classes redundant, like in 3.5.

[scriver]

I'm not really sure why people are saying 5th ed is has more balanced classes than 3,5 - from what I've seen, it doesn't appear that way. For one, the old "casters rule supreme" tradition is still in full effect, but now "mundanes" don't even have the benefit of being stronger at low levels, seeming as casters have access to unlimited-uses-at-will cantrips that do as much or more damage than most weapons (except the highest damage two-handers) and have longer range than crossbows and increase in damage dice faster than fighters gain attacks/turn. They might've nerfed them somewhat from the early material I looked the closest at, but yeah. Fighters have even less of a (non-flavour) purpose than in previous editions.

[Arcvasti]

In 5th Ed though, casters only get 2-3 spells of higher then 1st level AT LEVEL 20. They do have ways to regenerate spell slots in short rests, but those are usually once per day abilities. They need the cantrips so they can do stuff when all their other spells are spent. No more spamming 8-9th level spells to melt encounters. You can do that ONCE and then you have to use cantrips/lower level spells to avoid wasting all the powerful spells at once.

And casters are strong as hell at low levels in 3.5e. Never experienced it myself, but apparently an elven wizard with a bow and Grease and Colour Spray can singlehandedly kill the average low-level encounter.

[AlleeCat]

Guys. Play 13th Age. It's way better than DnD, IMO. It was made by a guy who worked on 3.5 and a guy who worked on 4e. It's pretty great~

[Tawa]

Guys. Play 13th Age. It's way better than DnD, IMO.

No.

[Neonivek]

In 5th Ed though, casters only get 2-3 spells of higher then 1st level AT LEVEL 20. They do have ways to regenerate spell slots in short rests, but those are usually once per day abilities. They need the cantrips so they can do stuff when all their other spells are spent. No more spamming 8-9th level spells to melt encounters. You can do that ONCE and then you have to use cantrips/lower level spells to avoid wasting all the powerful spells at once.

And casters are strong as hell at low levels in 3.5e. Never experienced it myself, but apparently an elven wizard with a bow and Grease and Colour Spray can singlehandedly kill the average low-level encounter.

It is more that Fighters tend to be more universally useful at low levels.

While Wizards are the win button... but because of how limited their spells are, they cannot exercise it for every battle.

Truthfully I always thought that it was mid game when Martial characters COULD start to get an edge over spell casters (Ignoring Druids who are best in the mid game and actually have a small 2 level window where they can beat Wizards at their own game). Since it is after Spellcasters get their SUPER damage inflation of level 3 spells and before they get their broken spells of level 6... While Mid game is also where martial characters reach their maximum power.

[scriver]

Guys. Play 13th Age. It's way better than DnD, IMO. It was made by a guy who worked on 3.5 and a guy who worked on 4e. It's pretty great~

Well... What is it?

[timferius]

There's a place for many systems in my heart! Why pick one?