D&D 5E Blog Post by Robert J. Schwalb

[mudbunny]

I am not sure how appropriate it is to copy/paste an entire blog article into a post. Sure, you linked it, but it would be more appropriate to post an excerpt or two, along with your thoughts on his blog as opposed to posting the whole thing.

 

[Blackbrrd]

As if you can't charop 5e.

I think that playing gridless, which seems quite possible in 5e is going to be pretty interesting. If you don't have a grid, or a miniature to move around, you will have to describe what you do. That might get people more into the role playing aspect of the game, since it gets them used to actually describing what their character is doing. Something that's more or less missing from my game.

In other words, I think that simple game rules (which I think 5e has) will make more room for actual role-playing. At the same time, they have kept the "feel" of D&D combat, which I really enjoy.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Maybe it's cynical, but I have a very "heard it all before" feel from this article. Same old arguments, of which others will have the same old disagreements. Eh. Nothing new here that I saw.

So here we are, at the dawn of the next edition, an edition I, in some part, helped to create. When I was brought onto the team, it was with the understanding that I would fly the 4th Edition flag, a game I had worked hard to support through the countless articles and supplements throughout the life of that game.

[SNIP]

As I worked on 5th Edition, I shed my 3rd Edition and 4th Edition influences.

Well, this part makes me want this guy to not be hired again. And I'm far from a big fan of 4e.

 

[Agamon]

As if you can't charop 5e.

Not really. You can make yourself more or less effective to a degree, but not nearly as much as in last couple iterations of the game.

Then again, I'm forgetting the playtest multiclass rules, which I read and promptly said, "Nope." I know they were changing them, I guess we'll see if I go back to allowing them.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Not really. You can make yourself more or less effective to a degree, but not nearly as much as in last couple iterations of the game.

Then again, I'm forgetting the playtest multiclass rules, which I read and promptly said, "Nope." I know they were changing them, I guess we'll see if I go back to allowing them.

This edition seems pretty comfortable with "broken" being defined on a table by table basis.

And that's pretty cool.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Not really. You can make yourself more or less effective to a degree, but not nearly as much as in last couple iterations of the game.

Then again, I'm forgetting the playtest multiclass rules, which I read and promptly said, "Nope." I know they were changing them, I guess we'll see if I go back to allowing them.

I am reading a full 180 turn in your argument from paragraph one to paragraph two, since you already want to house rule something from the PHB, or maybe even basic rules.

In my current campaign we have a Hybrid Paladin/Sorcerer. Really solid defenses (20/15/15/14 at level 1), really strong attacks (at will close blast 3 1d8+8 damage at level), a really good defender aura that locks targets in so he gets to use his close blast power a lot on 2+ targets. The only weakness was a bit low hp. It's strong, but not overpowered, but it sure was a bit of charop to build the character. I bet you can do something similar in 5e.

Anyway, I don't think there is anything wrong with a bit of charop. Sure if someone brings in pun-pun just say no. It's pretty easy. If someone has an overpowered spell, ban it, or adjust it. I have done it a lot, so now my players often bring it up for discussion before it's a can become an issue.

To sum it up, I think 5e is charop-able, but I think the design of the game will make it mostly a non-issue.

 

[Blackbrrd]

This edition seems pretty comfortable with "broken" being defined on a table by table basis.

And that's pretty cool.

Thaumaturge.

It's pretty easy in 4e as well. Just ban the dragon magazine stuff, and don't let the players select magic items. That cuts down the charop material by 95%.

3e was more or less "broken" from the release of the PHB, but it worked fine up until level 9 or so. I usually only played it from level 3-7.

 

[jrowland]

This edition seems pretty comfortable with "broken" being defined on a table by table basis.

And that's pretty cool.

Thaumaturge.

Agreed. Consider yourself XP'd in spirit

 

[Emerikol]

Maybe it's cynical, but I have a very "heard it all before" feel from this article. Same old arguments, of which others will have the same old disagreements. Eh. Nothing new here that I saw.

Well, this part makes me want this guy to not be hired again. And I'm far from a big fan of 4e.

I think in fairness that he might be referring to game goals. 4e like 3e was not focused as directly on a rules light streamlined game at it's core. That doesn't mean either game is bad. They just had different goals. So he had to adjust his thinking when working on 5e to include the necessity to keep it simple as much as possible in the baseline.

It's not necessarily anti-3e,4e. I do believe he personally though harkens back to a playstyle more engendered by 1e/2e then 3e/4e. It's not edition hate though at all.

 

[Agamon]

I am reading a full 180 turn in your argument from paragraph one to paragraph two, since you already want to house rule something from the PHB, or maybe even basic rules.

Thus the, "then again" qualifier. I kinda forgot about the rules in the playtest because I don't use them. That said, I have no plans to house rule anything because I haven't seen what they came up with yet. I would prefer multiclassing to be more about concept and less about ability-stacking. But with background and feats already letting a PC dabble in non-typical areas of their class, both mechanically and fluff-wise, I'm not sure multiclassing is necessary.