DnD 5

Talk about nerdgames FOR NERDS.
User avatar
Cuthalion

DnD 5

Post by Cuthalion » Sat Aug 23, 2014 3:41 pm

I don't see a thread for this yet.

tl;dr: We started playing the new DnD this week. I give a long, boring account of my character creation decisions. Any thoughts, plans, or excitement you guys have about the new edition?

So, my brother just got the 5th edition DnD Player's Handbook in the mail and hijacked my game this Thursday. I was a bit sulky at first, since I'd been GMing (homebrew system) and wanted to figure out whether we were ready to wrap up my campaign and switch over to his planned one or not, and he didn't tell me (or anyone aside from his wife and the two guests he brought with him, also without telling me) that he'd "figured we'd play DnD today" until I showed up to look at the new book. But eventually I was having fun. We've agreed to wrap up my campaign in a couple weeks, since I won't be able to make next week.

Personal stuff aside, we all made characters and RP'd for a few minutes (despite the protests of those who had to get to bed -- we're really bad at ending on time). It's a big group, 6-8 players + DM, depending on which of the two new people can make it on a given week, and 8 of the 9 were there. I didn't get to actually look through the new PHB, but it looks pretty cool.

I didn't want to play a race anyone else had picked, which left me picking last with Human, Half-Elf, Halfling, and Gnome. I don't like playing a human in a fantasy game, never saw the appeal of half-elf, and didn't really want to play a halfling (I'm a jerk like that). So that left me with Gnome, having decided in advance that my next player character would be an illiterate barbarian, culturally if not mechanically. Great.

We already had a paladin in our group, a cleric, and a pair of monks (one of which would be likely to make every week), so we really didn't need more melee. Only one arcane spellcaster (sorcerer), and she might not show up often. Also, no rogue. Only one archer (ranger). Since I found that I enjoyed playing an archer warrior significantly more than a cleric, bard, or sorcerer (surprisingly), I didn't want to do another spellcaster. Despite the rogue being on paper everything I like (skill checks!), I wasn't interested in the archetype. With tons of melee already, it looked like I was cleared for archery duty -- hooray! Even if a balanced party would've required a wizard or something.

So, I was deciding between Barbarian and Fighter. I didn't really care for the rage mechanic, so that's a strike against barbarism. I'd really enjoyed playing a Dwarven archery Fighter in the playtest (Harbek Ungart, boisterous Transylvanian for the win), so I knew that could work well. But I'd already done it. Can you do a Barbarian bowman? We looked through the abilities. There was a fighter build designed for it, but the Barbarian mechanics were mostly based around being hard to kill rather than melee fighting specifically. Rage gave a melee-only bonus, so I'd be missing out on that, but it would apply even to dex weapons if I needed it to. Hm... Well, Barbarian it is, because I don't want to just repeat what I did last time.

So, I built a Gnomish Dex/Con Barbarian with good Wisdom, a little bit of Strength, and neutral Charisma. I rolled fairly well, but not spectacular. No penalties though.

Oh, crap -- I'm a Gnome. No longbow for me. Well, I'll figure something out for ranged and use a finesse weapon for melee. The rage damage bonus applies whether it's a dex or str melee weapon, if we read the rules right.

---------

One thing I really like about the new edition, which they hadn't fully explored in the playtest, is the roleplaying section of the character sheet. You're supposed to pick two specific personality traits, an ideal, a bond, and a flaw. Cool. Plus you get Inspiration points, which I guess are like Savage Worlds bennies, for acting according to your alignment even when it costs you. Alright, I can dig it. Most of the backgrounds I was interested in got picked, which is fine with me, as it helped me narrow down my choices. Outlander and Folk Hero were still available (Hermit and Noble were taken, though our DM did state he was ok with multiple nobles), and of course I went with Folk Hero. This apparently was not a surprise, as the DM laughed and noted that of course I would pick that.

He was probably referring to my Kobold Bard, Bardicus Maximus (II?). Or my aforementioned loud, goofily-accented Dwarven archer-Fighter, Harbek Ungart. Or even my Halfling Barbarian, Stout, who rolled very poor stats (I refused to reroll -- d'oh) and died early on in the dungeon one-shot. Or my (extremely poorly optimized) Goblin Ranger Noble, Stabs-and-Stabs.

I may have a problem.

So, anyway, I ended up picking a backstory that involved standing alone against a terrible monster and surviving, then being told by the village seer that I was destined to be the one to slay it and sent on said quest, with the flaw that I'm afraid of responsibility and don't think I can meet my destiny.

My DM required us all to be good-aligned, which honestly was probably a smart call. It's easier to get frustrated at non-good party members, in my experience, than when everyone's on the same page. It seems like otherwise, a couple people have fun, and everyone else is miserable.

Party composition:
  • Dwarven Cleric, Acolyte, misquotes favorite holy texts
    Dwarven Paladin, Soldier (we almost had him convinced to play a Charlatan who wasn't a real paladin at all)
    Elven Ranger, Noble, ranged build, flaw was, "I am flawless," because the player didn't like any of the ones available and we turned that into a flaw in itself
    Gnome Barbarian, Folk Hero, ranged build, CG, reluctant "hero" afraid of facing his so-called destiny
    Half-Orc Monk, Urchin, bad table manners
    ???, regular player who was absent this week
And the irregular players:
  • Dragonborn Monk, Hermit, plagued by violent thoughts
    Tiefling Sorcerer, Charlatan
We all are going to die.
Adeon_Hawkwood

Re: DnD 5

Post by Adeon_Hawkwood » Sat Aug 23, 2014 4:41 pm

I've been playing in a D&D 5 campaign. I'm playing a Mountain Dwarf Wizard with the Soldier background. Between the constitution bonus and the armor it makes for a rather tough wizard (and the ability to use some of the better melee weapons is nice).

Personality wise he's a bit grumpy and tends to dislike a subtle approach but he means well and will fight to defend his allies or those he feels needs his projection. He hates admitting error though.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: DnD 5

Post by Daemian Lucifer » Sat Aug 23, 2014 5:05 pm

A stuff-throwing barbarian is a pretty neat pick for a ranged guy.It also allows you to use some weapons that arent that common,like javelins and throwing axes.Or,you can do a mixed guy,one that throws in one axe,knife,and then charges in with another.Or one that throws a bolas or a net,then charges at the hampered enemy.

A gnome could even use a more interesting weapon,like a throwing pickaxe.
Cuthalion wrote:My DM required us all to be good-aligned, which honestly was probably a smart call. It's easier to get frustrated at non-good party members, in my experience, than when everyone's on the same page. It seems like otherwise, a couple people have fun, and everyone else is miserable.
You can easily incorporate a true neutral or a lawful evil guy into a good party as well.A true neutral can always justify stuff by saying he wants balance(natural or spiritual),and thinking that there is just too much evil,so he is going along with the good guys.A lawful evil guy can always say that he gave a word,or has a contract obligation,or is just using the group n some scheme he has.Heck,a lawful evil guy can work wonders if coupled with a paladin by goading him into slaughtering orc babies.You just have to put the restriction on others doing a sense/detect alignment on the evil guy,and everything can work out fine.

Its the chaotic evil guys that are frustrating to have in a group.I mean,I guess you can do a post mark of justice belkar and pretend to be working for the group,but sooner or later you will do something really assholish,and piss everyone off,or youll step too far into the good/lawful side to maintain your cover.

Anyway,how does 5 compare to the previous versions?How hard is it to get into for veterans and newbies?
Adeon_Hawkwood

Re: DnD 5

Post by Adeon_Hawkwood » Sat Aug 23, 2014 6:35 pm

Cuthalion wrote:The rage damage bonus applies whether it's a dex or str melee weapon, if we read the rules right.
The rules for rage say "when you make a melee weapon attack using strength, you gain a bonus to damage rolls". I would interpret that as saying that you have to use strength for the attack/damage rolls. If you use a finesse weapon and opt to use dex as your attribute then you don't get the bonus.
Daemian Lucifer wrote:Anyway,how does 5 compare to the previous versions? How hard is it to get into for veterans and newbies?
I like it so far. It avoids the issue that 4th had with having way to many choices at each level while at the same time making it so that you feel like you get something new each level (avoiding the issues 3rd edition had with the popularity of multi-classing) and still having some serious choices to consider (all classes have a spot at third level or earlier where you choose between two or more sub-classes).
User avatar
modus0

Re: DnD 5

Post by modus0 » Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:17 pm

Cuthalion wrote:One thing I really like about the new edition, which they hadn't fully explored in the playtest, is the roleplaying section of the character sheet. You're supposed to pick two specific personality traits, an ideal, a bond, and a flaw. Cool. Plus you get Inspiration points, which I guess are like Savage Worlds bennies, for acting according to your alignment even when it costs you. Alright, I can dig it.
Just what are the Inspiration points for? (I have no knowledge about Savage Worlds beyond the obvious.)

And from my perspective, just what is the benefit of making roleplaying a required part of the rules? What about that makes the game better? And what do you do if there isn't a personality trait that fits better with your character concept than any other?
Adeon_Hawkwood wrote:I like it so far. It avoids the issue that 4th had with having way to many choices at each level while at the same time making it so that you feel like you get something new each level (avoiding the issues 3rd edition had with the popularity of multi-classing) and still having some serious choices to consider (all classes have a spot at third level or earlier where you choose between two or more sub-classes).
Just wait a few years, once there are a dozen or more splat-books out, the game will be back to the issue of having way too many options.
User avatar
Cuthalion

Re: DnD 5

Post by Cuthalion » Sun Aug 24, 2014 11:56 pm

modus0 wrote:Just what are the Inspiration points for? (I have no knowledge about Savage Worlds beyond the obvious.)

And from my perspective, just what is the benefit of making roleplaying a required part of the rules? What about that makes the game better? And what do you do if there isn't a personality trait that fits better with your character concept than any other?
I don't remember exactly, but I think you can turn them in to give yourself bonuses or rerolls. In Savage Worlds, that's basically what bennies are for (that and turning them in to avoid losing your turn when you get hit).

You can make your own personality traits. They're meant to be really specific things that give you ideas for how the character might behave generally. A couple of the pre-made options, if I recall correctly, are "Frequently quotes sacred texts incorrectly and out of context," and, "Misuses long words to sound smart." Little quirks that give you a feel for who this person is.

As far as rules for roleplaying, there seem to be two schools of thought:
1. Rules about roleplaying get in the way of the roleplaying, restricting it unnecessarily.
2. Rules about roleplaying prompt creativity and remind people that roleplaying is a focus of the game.

I've shifted from the first to the second school of thought over time. Games are basically unnecessary restrictions we use to get ourselves to think tactically or creatively or run around and stuff, which we enjoy. It's also a lot easier to be creative when you have some initial options presented to you or when you're provided with "constraints" that narrow the field of things you have to consider and, counterintuitively, prompt you to do things you wouldn't have thought of otherwise.

I tend to prefer fairly light rules about roleplaying, but having some there serve the crucial purpose of reminding people that, "Yes, you can do something other than attack." My homebrew players told me once that they often felt like there was nothing available for them to do in a given situation because there was no equivalent of diplomacy, bluff, etc. The options before them were lists of spells, equipment, some physical attributes, and a few non-social skills like disarming traps. I responded by streamlining and abstracting the skills and adding three new ones: charm, wits, and learning. Since then, while we really haven't had a lot of NPC interaction that charm would matter for, they've been a lot quicker to do things and respond to situations outside of combat.

Besides, the new-to-DnD ones (personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws) aren't really rules so much as prompts you always have in front of you.
User avatar
Cuthalion

Re: DnD 5

Post by Cuthalion » Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:13 am

Daemian Lucifer wrote:A stuff-throwing barbarian is a pretty neat pick for a ranged guy.It also allows you to use some weapons that arent that common,like javelins and throwing axes.Or,you can do a mixed guy,one that throws in one axe,knife,and then charges in with another.Or one that throws a bolas or a net,then charges at the hampered enemy.

A gnome could even use a more interesting weapon,like a throwing pickaxe.
I'm hoping to figure out something interesting. Gnome Barbarian is admittedly not that far off from Belkar Bitterleaf, though I'll probably be using daggers less often and short bows or something dex-based more often. :P My AC is through the roof though (16 with no armor!).
Daemian Lucifer wrote:You can easily incorporate a true neutral or a lawful evil guy into a good party as well.
True, but at least when everyone's good no one feels upset when the less-good one does something bad to somebody outside the party. Everyone can be goody-two-shoes, no-civilian-casualties types that way. Which is more fun than it sounds. You're right of course, that as long as everyone has a reason to stay together and not tick each other off, it can work regardless.
Daemian Lucifer wrote:Anyway,how does 5 compare to the previous versions?How hard is it to get into for veterans and newbies?
It feels like a less clunky 3rd edition to me. Note that I've only played 3.5 and its spinoffs, plus a bit of Baldur's Gate II (2nd ed?) and am mostly familiar with 4th from podcast actual plays. So I can't say a whole lot about the older editions, but it's definitely more 3rd than 4th.
modus0 wrote:
Adeon_Hawkwood wrote:I like it so far. It avoids the issue that 4th had with having way to many choices at each level while at the same time making it so that you feel like you get something new each level (avoiding the issues 3rd edition had with the popularity of multi-classing) and still having some serious choices to consider (all classes have a spot at third level or earlier where you choose between two or more sub-classes).
Just wait a few years, once there are a dozen or more splat-books out, the game will be back to the issue of having way too many options.
I admittedly never played much 4th ed (though I'm a regular Critical Hit listener), but I say there's no such thing as too many options!

Ok, so there's a limit somewhere, and my homebrew probably passes it (37 races and 14 classes!), but I love customization. That said, I'm satisfied with the number of options I have for character creation in the 5th ed PHB. Not so many that I'm stuck in analysis paralysis, especially since I let other people decide what they were first and only wanted to do something not already taken. But several little choices, like the RP ones discussed earlier, that let me flavor things from the start.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: DnD 5

Post by Daemian Lucifer » Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:36 am

modus0 wrote: And from my perspective, just what is the benefit of making roleplaying a required part of the rules? What about that makes the game better? And what do you do if there isn't a personality trait that fits better with your character concept than any other?
I think thats a good way to introduce a newbie to the game,showing them how to roleplay,giving them ideas,etc.
User avatar
modus0

Re: DnD 5

Post by modus0 » Tue Aug 26, 2014 3:08 am

Cuthalion wrote:
modus0 wrote:Just what are the Inspiration points for? (I have no knowledge about Savage Worlds beyond the obvious.)

And from my perspective, just what is the benefit of making roleplaying a required part of the rules? What about that makes the game better? And what do you do if there isn't a personality trait that fits better with your character concept than any other?
I don't remember exactly, but I think you can turn them in to give yourself bonuses or rerolls. In Savage Worlds, that's basically what bennies are for (that and turning them in to avoid losing your turn when you get hit).

You can make your own personality traits. They're meant to be really specific things that give you ideas for how the character might behave generally. A couple of the pre-made options, if I recall correctly, are "Frequently quotes sacred texts incorrectly and out of context," and, "Misuses long words to sound smart." Little quirks that give you a feel for who this person is.

As far as rules for roleplaying, there seem to be two schools of thought:
1. Rules about roleplaying get in the way of the roleplaying, restricting it unnecessarily.
2. Rules about roleplaying prompt creativity and remind people that roleplaying is a focus of the game.

I've shifted from the first to the second school of thought over time. Games are basically unnecessary restrictions we use to get ourselves to think tactically or creatively or run around and stuff, which we enjoy. It's also a lot easier to be creative when you have some initial options presented to you or when you're provided with "constraints" that narrow the field of things you have to consider and, counterintuitively, prompt you to do things you wouldn't have thought of otherwise.

I tend to prefer fairly light rules about roleplaying, but having some there serve the crucial purpose of reminding people that, "Yes, you can do something other than attack." My homebrew players told me once that they often felt like there was nothing available for them to do in a given situation because there was no equivalent of diplomacy, bluff, etc. The options before them were lists of spells, equipment, some physical attributes, and a few non-social skills like disarming traps. I responded by streamlining and abstracting the skills and adding three new ones: charm, wits, and learning. Since then, while we really haven't had a lot of NPC interaction that charm would matter for, they've been a lot quicker to do things and respond to situations outside of combat.

Besides, the new-to-DnD ones (personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws) aren't really rules so much as prompts you always have in front of
you.
Eh, sounds rather unnecessary to me.

Mind you, I've only looked over the free Starter rules, but it would seem that if someone wasn't able to understand the non-combat part of a tabletop RPG, then maybe they aren't a good fit for that kind of game (I blame Congress and video games ;P).

Or maybe I'm an aging curmudgeonly luddite who doesn't see the need for rules related to non-rules/mechanics parts of the game.

I don't see how including all that actually makes the game "better."

Especially when they're charging the same price as the Pathfinder Core Rulebook while only having about half the content...
Daemian Lucifer wrote:
modus0 wrote: And from my perspective, just what is the benefit of making roleplaying a required part of the rules? What about that makes the game better? And what do you do if there isn't a personality trait that fits better with your character concept than any other?
I think thats a good way to introduce a newbie to the game,showing them how to roleplay,giving them ideas,etc.
I could be wrong, and am probably horribly biased, but the game never needed that before (or, before 3rd Edition at least), so why does it need it now?

That thought, and WotC's decision to "reboot" the Forgotten Realms "Because there's too much history for anyone to memorize, which is intimidating to new players" makes me wonder if WotC aren't aiming for the ADD crowd and/or the non-RPG crowd that wouldn't otherwise give their game any attention.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: DnD 5

Post by Daemian Lucifer » Tue Aug 26, 2014 3:52 am

modus0 wrote: I could be wrong, and am probably horribly biased, but the game never needed that before (or, before 3rd Edition at least), so why does it need it now?
No,the game never HAD that before,and therefore wasnt much newbie friendly.
User avatar
Lachlan the Sane
Location: I come from the land down under, where women blow and men chunder

Re: DnD 5

Post by Lachlan the Sane » Tue Aug 26, 2014 4:23 am

I haven't really looked into how D&D 5 applies it, but I do know that in the tabletop RPG that I'm writing in my head right now, in the numbered "How to build your character" list, "Character details" shows up second (rather than last as it is in every other tabletop RPG I've ever played). The only reason I didn't put it first is because the RPG has wildly physically divergent races, and I don't want people picking "black hair" and then winding up as a bald race. If I were writing D&D, I'd probably have it 3rd on the list (after race and class), but my RPG is classless.
Steve C

Re: DnD 5

Post by Steve C » Tue Aug 26, 2014 5:27 am

No,the game never HAD that before,and therefore wasnt much newbie friendly.
D&D 3rd ed definitely had a simplified starter adventure with really basic rules. I'm 100% certain. I remember it clearly.
User avatar
Ygor
Contact:

Re: DnD 5

Post by Ygor » Tue Aug 26, 2014 10:35 am

Steve C wrote:
No,the game never HAD that before,and therefore wasnt much newbie friendly.
D&D 3rd ed definitely had a simplified starter adventure with really basic rules. I'm 100% certain. I remember it clearly.
If I understand that correctly, they were talking about the inclusion of roleplaying as part of the rules, not about the simplified version :)

And to that I would add that it's a nice idea, if you are starting from scratch. It introduces to new players the concept of roleplaying, and that is a pretty giant barrier to overcome. Imagine that you are the only new person in a group that plays regularly. Even if I liked the idea, I would probably feel really strange if other people around me start narrating, or even showing those weird things they are supposed to be doing. Keep in mind that people don't like making fools out of themselves yet most people play activity or charades and haven't problem with it- because those are the rules.

And if you don't like it, you can scratch it or homebrew it as you see fit- the beauty of PnP lies in this. :)
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: DnD 5

Post by Daemian Lucifer » Tue Aug 26, 2014 11:13 am

Steve C wrote:
No,the game never HAD that before,and therefore wasnt much newbie friendly.
D&D 3rd ed definitely had a simplified starter adventure with really basic rules. I'm 100% certain. I remember it clearly.
Starter adventures are a good way to get the hang of combat and skills,but not roleplay.I always maintained that d&d was good for introduction of the mechanical part.And now its a good introduction to roleplaying as well.

As for weather its a good system to use once you become proficient with stuff,I doubt it.But seeing how previous ones were not,5th is probably bad later too.
User avatar
Ygor
Contact:

Re: DnD 5

Post by Ygor » Tue Aug 26, 2014 11:21 am

Daemian Lucifer wrote: Starter adventures are a good way to get the hang of combat and skills,but not roleplay.I always maintained that d&d was good for introduction of the mechanical part.And now its a good introduction to roleplaying as well.

As for weather its a good system to use once you become proficient with stuff,I doubt it.But seeing how previous ones were not,5th is probably bad later too.
Have you seen a system that while teaching gives a greater focus on roleplaying? I've tried to filter out those few starting adventures that I know of and I'm drawing a blank here. Granted, I'm not that well read in starting adventures, since I tend to come out with my own.
User avatar
Lachlan the Sane
Location: I come from the land down under, where women blow and men chunder

Re: DnD 5

Post by Lachlan the Sane » Tue Aug 26, 2014 12:11 pm

Ygor wrote:
Daemian Lucifer wrote: Starter adventures are a good way to get the hang of combat and skills,but not roleplay.I always maintained that d&d was good for introduction of the mechanical part.And now its a good introduction to roleplaying as well.

As for weather its a good system to use once you become proficient with stuff,I doubt it.But seeing how previous ones were not,5th is probably bad later too.
Have you seen a system that while teaching gives a greater focus on roleplaying? I've tried to filter out those few starting adventures that I know of and I'm drawing a blank here. Granted, I'm not that well read in starting adventures, since I tend to come out with my own.
Paranoia maybe? I've had "starter adventures" in that where the GM just ran off some sheets from a random Paranoia character generator and threw players into the worldspace. Paranoia is almost all roleplaying. Granted, you're roleplaying a clone in a completely insane and illogical world, and your clone is likely to act illogically, but I'm quite proud of some of the roleplaying I have achieved with this (in the Paranoia PbP on these forums, I roleplayed by creating a list of delusions that Loki-R suffered from -- "Mr. Scrubby is my bestest friend ever", "I can't find my hygiene equipment because the communists stole it", "The BRRRZT-O-Matic is a communist device which hypnotises us into wasting time" -- and applying those delusions as consistently as possible).
User avatar
Cuthalion

Re: DnD 5

Post by Cuthalion » Tue Aug 26, 2014 3:07 pm

D&D 5 didn't really introduce rules for roleplaying, so much as it asked you to think about your character's personality and history and offers a rules reward ("inspiration") to roleplay accordingly.

I think having a prominent section of the character sheet where you have a couple personality traits, an ideal, a bond, and a flaw keeps those aspects in the players' minds and is tremendously helpful. An experienced roleplayer will probably have those in their head anyway, but new players or players who are not used to roleplaying (which I think is true of many, many D&D players) may not.

In my opinion, these additions don't restrict roleplaying. They stoke it.

As some podcast guy once said (Ryan Macklin on "Master Plan"?), your game is about whatever the rules focus on. In the case of roleplaying, I'm all in favor of not making it very systematic (unlike combat), but focus needs to be brought to it somehow, and what better way to help players feel like it's ok to roleplay than to put it on the sheet and give them a place to start?
User avatar
modus0

Re: DnD 5

Post by modus0 » Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:53 pm

Daemian Lucifer wrote:
modus0 wrote: I could be wrong, and am probably horribly biased, but the game never needed that before (or, before 3rd Edition at least), so why does it need it now?
No,the game never HAD that before,and therefore wasnt much newbie friendly.
The rules were newbie friendly enough to make D&D a widely known thing, and the best selling tabletop RPG in the world until 2011.

And I think some people are underestimating a person's (especially a younger person) ability to understand and get into roleplaying. With the ubiquity of Hollywood and TV, everyone that has access to D&D knows what acting is. It isn't some mystical thing that people have a hard time comprehending. If a person has ever played, as a kid (or with a kid), any kind of "make believe" or "imagination" game, then they've already done roleplaying (just without any rules for anything).

Unless you're starting the new player right after they've gotten out of diapers (which I wouldn't recommend), then they have likely done imaginary play, and would thus understand the non-combat part of roleplaying.

Now, granted not everyone will embrace role-playing over roll-playing, but I don't think introducing rules will change their play style.


Change of Subject: What's the deal with the "Short Rest" and "Long Rest"? And what does spending Hit Dice to recover some abilities mean regarding your HD (aside from sounding like a very, very, bad idea)? Does the PHB explain more than the Starter Rules about that.

Another Change: I did notice that fighters seem to be able to make iterative attacks as a standard action in 5E, and if actions are the same as in 3.5 and Pathfinder, that seems like a very nice change to make fighters more powerful at higher levels.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: DnD 5

Post by Daemian Lucifer » Tue Aug 26, 2014 9:22 pm

modus0 wrote: The rules were newbie friendly enough to make D&D a widely known thing, and the best selling tabletop RPG in the world until 2011.
Yes,for combat,not for roleplaying.
modus0 wrote: Now, granted not everyone will embrace role-playing over roll-playing, but I don't think introducing rules will change their play style.
But if the first game you introduce focuses mostly on roll playing,thats probably the thing a newcomer will associate with an rpg.
modus0 wrote: Change of Subject: What's the deal with the "Short Rest" and "Long Rest"?
Theway I understand it,short rest is used to reset your abilities from encounter to encounter,while long rest is used for more difficult stuff.So for example you can detect traps once every 10 minutes,but you can disarm any trap without a fail once every day.
User avatar
Cuthalion

Re: DnD 5

Post by Cuthalion » Wed Aug 27, 2014 2:20 am

modus0 wrote:Change of Subject: What's the deal with the "Short Rest" and "Long Rest"? And what does spending Hit Dice to recover some abilities mean regarding your HD (aside from sounding like a very, very, bad idea)? Does the PHB explain more than the Starter Rules about that.

Another Change: I did notice that fighters seem to be able to make iterative attacks as a standard action in 5E, and if actions are the same as in 3.5 and Pathfinder, that seems like a very nice change to make fighters more powerful at higher levels.
It looks like -- and keep in mind we haven't even played more than half an hour yet, and even though I switched from Barbarian to Fighter after all, I didn't look through the rules super closely -- every several levels, fighters get an extra attack per attack action. If that's what you were asking. In the playtest, I played an archer-oriented dwarven fighter, and it worked very, very well. I'm planning on playing the most similar fighter branch in this game too, as it gives you extra dice you can spend to do cool things.

Short rest I think is an hour or more and lets you spend (i.e. roll) your hit dice to heal yourself. Long rests I think are 6+ hours long (or 8?) and probably heal you all the way. At least that's what I remember from the playtest. Your total hit dice is determined by your class and level. Fighters get 1d10 per level, so a level 4 fighter would have 4d10 hit dice. Spending them is only temporary, as you recover them I believe after a long rest. They're basically 4th ed healing surges reworked, I think.

I honestly never understood what "hit dice" were in older editions, except as a way to randomize monster HP. I know certain things only worked against X hit dice or fewer? I guess they weren't an expendable resource back then, but some measure of power? In this version, they're like "heal yourself" spells per day that everyone gets and can only use during a rest.
User avatar
krellen
Location: The City in New Mexico
Contact:

Re: DnD 5

Post by krellen » Wed Aug 27, 2014 2:25 am

Hit Dice were basically monster levels. It's not any more complicated than that.
User avatar
Cuthalion

Re: DnD 5

Post by Cuthalion » Wed Aug 27, 2014 2:07 pm

Ohhh... well, it sure looked like it was.

Which is probably D&D's biggest weakness. It's not actually that complicated, but it sure looks like it is. Someone mentioned in this thread that plenty of people knew about D&D, but I disagree with that being because it was newbie-friendly. I think it's in spite of it being newbie-unfriendly. It takes a certain relatively high threshold of investment to even try, and you have to like the people who are teaching you to play. Fortunately, it's inherently interesting enough for many people that they get over the lump. But just because D&D is a household name doesn't mean it's a household game. It's a household name in the same way that, say, Buddha is in the US. Everybody's heard of D&D, but not many people are into it, and a lot of them think, probably unfairly, it's for people who are a little strange.
User avatar
modus0

Re: DnD 5

Post by modus0 » Wed Aug 27, 2014 11:30 pm

Cuthalion wrote:It looks like -- and keep in mind we haven't even played more than half an hour yet, and even though I switched from Barbarian to Fighter after all, I didn't look through the rules super closely -- every several levels, fighters get an extra attack per attack action. If that's what you were asking. In the playtest, I played an archer-oriented dwarven fighter, and it worked very, very well. I'm planning on playing the most similar fighter branch in this game too, as it gives you extra dice you can spend to do cool things.
It actually wasn't a question, but an observation of something I actually liked, mostly to show that I'm not totally biased against 5E/D&D Next/whatever they've decided to call it.

I really like the idea of fighters getting to make extra attacks as a standard action instead of needing to use a full-round/attack action to do so. It would serve to make them more effective at higher levels and against mobile opponents. That is, unless I read the ability wrong...
Short rest I think is an hour or more and lets you spend (i.e. roll) your hit dice to heal yourself. Long rests I think are 6+ hours long (or 8?) and probably heal you all the way. At least that's what I remember from the playtest. Your total hit dice is determined by your class and level. Fighters get 1d10 per level, so a level 4 fighter would have 4d10 hit dice. Spending them is only temporary, as you recover them I believe after a long rest. They're basically 4th ed healing surges reworked, I think.
But what does spending your hit dice mean for, well, your hit dice? Does it effect the character in any way (like giving them a negative level, or reducing their abilities), or is it just WotC shoehorning an existing mechanic into a role it was never intended to fit? Why include the spending of hit dice when it would be simpler rules-wise to just state that you heal 1/2 your hd (so, 5 points for a fighter) and recover any abilities that require a short rest to recover?
Daemian Lucifer wrote:
modus0 wrote: The rules were newbie friendly enough to make D&D a widely known thing, and the best selling tabletop RPG in the world until 2011.
Yes,for combat,not for roleplaying.
Maybe because it was felt that rules for the acting portion of the game were unnecessary?
modus0 wrote: Now, granted not everyone will embrace role-playing over roll-playing, but I don't think introducing rules will change their play style.
But if the first game you introduce focuses mostly on roll playing,thats probably the thing a newcomer will associate with an rpg.
Okay, I'll give you that.

Though I think if one is trying to introduce new people to a tabletop roleplaying game, that they should have the first session be a mix of roll- and role-playing, to let the new players know that the game isn't just a hack-n-slash game.

I just don't think the game needs rules for role-playing, and won't actually benefit from that. But no one can prove either view right now.

Though I do worry that having those rules will result in people denigrating others for "playing wrong" if they decide not to use them, or don't use them in the same manner.

Which would be just as close-minded as the 4E dev who said "When was the last time you used a Profession skill? If it was recently then you probably aren't having as much fun as you could be."
Steve C

Re: DnD 5

Post by Steve C » Wed Aug 27, 2014 11:47 pm

I don't think there's a big barrier to entry to D&D. Not with all the video games that use the rules or one of the variations. It eases people into it. There's the obvious ones like Neverwinter Nights or Baldur's Gate. Then there's the not so obvious ones like KotoR. KotoR was the d20 system under the hood in a rather 'pure' way. Then there are the competing rpg systems like Fallout's S.P.E.C.I.A.L. which 3rd ed D&D lifted a lot of ideas from. And as for teaching people to roleplay... well if you played pretend as a little kid you pretty much get it. For the setting the starting point is Tolkien fantasy all the infinite variations of fantasy created by authors who came after. Then there's all the movies and video games on top of those that be used as mental pictures. The biggest hurdle is finding a group of like minded people to play with on a regular basis.
User avatar
Trix2000
Location: California

Re: DnD 5

Post by Trix2000 » Thu Aug 28, 2014 5:41 am

Don't think of them as 'rules' for roleplaying, but more like 'guidelines'. Sounds a lot better that way I think.
Post Reply