D&D 5E Considering "taking the 5th" (Edition); questions for those more experienced.

[the Jester]

Well, and Cavalier, Marshal, Knight, Scout, Warblade, Ranger, Warlord, Thief, Slayer, Knight (again), & Berserker if we're being less traditional and allowing in things from post-Essentials, Essentials, 4e, 3.5, 3.0 Miniatures Handbook, and, er, 1e UA.

You left out thief-acrobat.

 

[Staffan]

There were no "ability modifiers" as such in AD&D. Each ability had its own table (AD&D seemed to love making you look things up on tables) which listed the various effects modified at different levels of that ability, such as bonus spells, damage modifiers, defense adjustment, reaction, extra hit points, etc. Each ability had multiple modifiers that it affected, and when your ability was high enough to receive bonuses, there was always something different between each ability score; e.g. for STR, at 16 your damage adjustment went up, at 17 your damage mod stayed the same but your hit probability went up, etc. The table may have been a bit cumbersome, but they gave each level of ability meaning, as opposed to having all the odd scores feel meaningless.

I have to disagree there. For most stats, the middle of the span was mostly meaningless, at least if you weren't a class that was based around that ability score. For example, unless you were a thief or otherwise had access to thief skills, there was no difference between Dexterity 7 and 14.

So essentially, instead of putting the "dead" stat levels all in the middle, 3e and onward spread them out over the entire range. 3e also attached some meaning to odd stats - feat prerequisites were always odd, and spellcasting required a casting stat of 10+spell level or higher. There is some of this in 5e, but significantly less because feats play a smaller part, and most of them don't have prerequisites.

That all depends on starting stats - always adding 2 to an odd number means it remains an odd number. For some reason, whenever building a character in 3/3.5/PF with point buy, I always seemed to end up stuck with an odd ability score somewhere where it didn't do me any good. That always felt like wasted points, but at least once I hit level 4 I could correct it.

There's a subtle interaction between 5e's point buy and odd stats. Stats cost 1 point per, well, point up to 13. 14 and 15 cost 2 more points each. In other words, you can either buy 12, 12, 14, or 13, 13, 13. Many races give you +1 to one stat, which lets you put an odd value in one of those stats and have the race bump it up. Failing that, you can spread out your stat increases to get more bang for your buck.

 

[Blackbird71]

I agree that the way they established ability modifiers in 3e is somewhat unfortunate. Note however, that they only standardized the numbers which had been there since 1e and BECMI. The major advantage of 2e is that you used your entire ability score for ability/proficiency checks. The disadvantage of that method is that the roll-under situation makes it unwieldy--especially when you are dealing with supernaturally high scores.

I was thinking about this, and as I recall the roll-under mechanic was at least partially balanced by the fact that AD&D characters on the whole typically had lower ability scores - especially if you used the recommended 3D6 generation method. Average scores were in the 10-12 range, and it was not uncommon for a character to have two or even three stats below 10, and even characters without a single score higher than 14 weren't exactly a rarity. My how far we've come! Nowadays it seems that the general opinion of the modern player is if you don't have at least one score at 18, the character is somehow gimped.

I do appreciate that 5E rules that if using a point buy, the highest stat you can get is a 15. It does seem to be a bit of an effort to return to a lower curve, and to make godly stats more of a rarity.

Thank you for the reminder, it's been a while. Yes I see your point, but the AD&D system is unquestionably more convoluted, and--depending on the stat--some of the benefits at certain levels are questionable. For better or for worse, 5e (and d20 D&D before it), has chosen a more streamlined system. If they really wanted to, they could have made your ability score reduced to just the bonus (+1, +2...) and nothing would be lost (I think the True d20 system did so a while back); but not using the 3-18 ability score system would have made it "Not D&D". The point is that it doesn't matter if you have an odd ability score or an even one, taking an ability enhancement at level up increases you bonus by one. The only difference being that if you subsequently take a feat that gives you +1 ability score plus some other benefit, the odd ability score guy had his bonus increase again, while the even one did not. But the odd ability score "cost" more for point buy (if you were to use point buy), so there is that.

The AD&D system may have been convoluted at the start, but not having any sort of regular stat increases usually meant that you looked up what bonuses and/or penalties you got at character creation, noted them on your sheet, and then you were good to go as you rarely ever had to change it. I'll take a little complication at the outset if the tradeoff is that every ability score has value and meaning. Unfortunately for me, WotC disagrees, so I guess I'll just have to live with it (but I don't have to like it ).

Sound interesting, but multiclassing can be very tricky to get right, as 3e's à la carte multiclassing showed. I agree with you in that I don't care for this style of implementation, it feels to me like trying to smash together a point buy and class based system, two things that are fundamentally different. One thing I do like is the pseudo-multiclassing you can do through feats such as magic initiate and ritual caster; enough to give you some flavor and ability of a multiclass without all the headaches that can ensue.

Part of what I intend to do by using AD&D style multiclassing is to limit exactly what class combinations are allowed. This was a part of the old system, and I believe it is important to maintaining some level of balance and control against potentially broken combinations. I will agree that the 5E system does offer some intriguing possibilities for "pseudo-multiclassing", and I'll have to explore this further.

Maybe a return to 1e and require a rogue/Druid/Fighter mulit-class? Or some of the multiclass like feats? Possibly with a certain background?

It's a thought; I'll consider it.

You left out thief-acrobat.

Heh, that one did cross my mind - looking at that list, I started having flashbacks to Saturday mornings as a kid and the old D&D cartoon.

All the discussion about old systems got me thinking, and I remembered another feature of 2E I liked - limited HP progression at higher levels. Once you hit level 9 or 10 (depending on class) you no longer got another hit die per level, but instead a flat increase in HP by class (as I recall, ranging from +1 point/level for Wizard up to +3 for Fighter), and no more CON bonuses . This provided a bit of a slowdown to the power curve which helped reign in the higher levels. I'm guessing that something like this probably wouldn't work too well if applied to 5E?

Last night I had some time to do a little more reading of the core books, and I dug a bit more into the magic system and caster classes. It was an interesting read that raised a lot of possibilities and questions.

A problem with casters has always been that they start out barely being able to do anything, but then at high levels can dominate a system. No one wants to play the level 1 wizard with only one spell per day, but the payoff is that after a point, that wizard's power is far above that of his non-magical compatriots. This may be thematically appropriate, but can be problematic from a gameplay perspective.

5E seems to have addressed the first part of this by dramatically increasing the number spells per day available to low level casters. Part of me instinctively wants to get away from this simply because it seems so radically different from what I've been used to (my mental dialogue was something along the lines of "a wizard with six spells plus cantrips at level three? That's so overpowered..."). But the more rational part of me recognizes that this may actually be a good thing, and I'll have to see how it works in practice.

What I am concerned of is how does this early acceleration work out once the players reach higher levels? Are high level 5E wizards any more powerful than their previous counterparts when compared to other classes? Less powerful? About the same? Has 5E done anything to correct the "quadratic wizard" problem, or has it worsened it? A rare but powerful caster could be fitting for my planned campaign, but at the same time, if there is a player caster I don't want the rest of the party to feel too overshadowed. I understand a lot of this will hinge not only on how many spells a wizard can cast, but also the spells available. Can anyone here who has had some experience with high level 5E wizards comment?

I also found it interesting that for wizard schools, the "extra spell" of past editions was dropped in favor of specific abilities. This does seem to streamline a bit of the bookkeeping of old specialist wizards ("which spell was in my extra school slot?"), and the extra slot mechanic seems a bit unnecessary given the number of spells available under 5E, so it seems a good way to add a bit of flavor to each of the schools. I'm not sure how I like the lack of any penalties for opposed schools, as there was supposed to be a tradeoff for being a specialist. I suppose though that it has to do with the fact that as far as I can tell there is no "generalist" wizard in 5E. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about that, and I may try to house rule a generalist subclass, especially if I decide to impose the 2E multiclassing restriction that a multiclass wizard cannot be a specialist. Does anyone know any good homebrew generalist rules out there?

I think I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I do like the idea of rituals; it's something that I felt casters always needed - the ability to cast a spell from recorded procedure rather than memory when time permitted. I do think that the flat 10-minute requirement is a bit lazy; I feel that more powerful spells are more complex, and therefore ritual casting time should reflect the spell's level. Would 10 minutes/level be too severe? An hour and half for a ninth level spell seems a bit on the long side, but not entirely out of the realm of possibility. I seem to recall in older editions the preparation of a spell requiring a significant amount of time based on level, and I suppose I'm looking to do something similar here. Any thoughts or suggestions?

This thread has certainly delved far deeper into my ideas, plans, and concerns than I had ever intended or imagined. For those who have followed me this far down the rabbit hole, thank you; your insight has been invaluable and is much appreciated. It is always helpful to be able to bounce ideas around and get experienced feedback. if it helps, I'm definitely feeling better about trying to use 5th edition for my purposes than when I started; at this point I think it's just a matter of hammering out the details. Please don't feel obligated to stick around as I pound away, but anyone who wants to continue the discussion is certainly more than welcome!

 

[Staffan]

What I am concerned of is how does this early acceleration work out once the players reach higher levels? Are high level 5E wizards any more powerful than their previous counterparts when compared to other classes? Less powerful? About the same? Has 5E done anything to correct the "quadratic wizard" problem, or has it worsened it?

I haven't played 5e at higher levels, but by looking at it it seems to be lessened a lot, though probably not completely gone. Some things that help:

* Spells don't auto-scale. Fireball deals 8d6 when cast using a 3rd level slot, regardless of whether the caster is 5th, 10th, or 20th level. If you want more damage, you need to pump it with a higher-level spell slot.

* Fewer high-level spells, at least compared to 3e. In addition to not getting bonus spells for high stats and/or specialization, spells per level cap out at 4 for 1st-level spells, 3 each for 2nd through 5th level, 2 each at 6th and 7th, and 1 each at 8th and 9th. By comparison, a 20th level 3e wizard will probably have 5 or 6 9th-level spells per day.

* Save DCs don't outpace foes as much as in 3e, so save-or-suck isn't as pronounced. Many of these also offer "recovery" saves each round.

* Concentration prevents casters from having multiple powerful spells in effect. A mid-level 3e wizard could easily maintain fly, greater invisibility as well as some other buffs, while at the same time having powerful debuffs in effect on the opposition. In 5e, you generally get only one of those effects at any one time. It also means that if they're keeping a powerful buff/debuff or continuous damage spell up, you can disrupt their concentration and break the spell.

 

[spinozajack]

You started with 2e? You didn't hate it? You were able to play 3.5 successfully? Yes, 5e should be just fine for you.

What a backhanded, insulting, sour-puss, snarky answer. Stopped reading after this. Whatever.

To respond to the rest of the thread by people without an obvious chip on their shoulder from being on the losing end of a recent edition war, 5th edition is pretty great for the reasons mentioned. Mostly because it emulates old school D&D but still fixes lots of its issues like quadratic scaling or wizards running out of magic after one round, and buff stacking.

They fixed all kinds of stuff that each edition innovated on, and picked the best parts of each one. But still made sure it felt and plays like D&D, despite some great innovations like advantage and concentration and spells scaling by casting them at higher slots. That is a straight up evolution and improvement from 3e metamagic feats or Arcana Unearthed by Monte Cook.

Personally, I think the best parts of 5e are:

0) fast combat!
1) bounded accuracy
2) advantage / disadvantage
3) spell scaling
4) move-attack-move for anyone
5) concentration
6) big feats (despite their issues and overpowered-ness)
7) dual wielding for everyone
8) multi attacks for all martial combat focused classes
9) no built in magic item dependencies

There are lots more but this forum pretty nailed it.

There's no real reason for true old schoolers not to migrate, because even if there are a couple issues, they are easy to contain and houserule. The bulk of the system plays fast, is reasonably balanced, and most of all, it's fun!

 

[GSHamster]

One thing about magic is that for the non-pure caster classes, a lot of separate abilities which used to be quasi-magical/supernatural got rolled into spells.

So don't dismiss the ranger/paladin/monk classes outright just because they have spells. A lot of those "spells" used to be straight abilities in previous editions.

 

[Blackbird71]

What a backhanded, insulting, sour-puss, snarky answer. Stopped reading after this. Whatever.

Maybe it's just my perception, but I didn't read Tony's response that way. I took it more as a "if you liked 2E, and handled the mechanical difficulty of 3E, then 5E is a good fit." 2E tends to get a lot of flak, even among old school D&D enthusiasts, so I took the initial comment as a bit of a tongue-in-cheek reference to that. But again, just my reading of it; the problem with text-based communication is the difficulty in conveying tone.

7) dual wielding for everyone

As I recall, every edition I've played has allowed dual wielding for everyone (not sure about 4th; I didn't get into the rules deep enough for that). It's just the degree of the penalty for doing so was mitigated by various feats/skills/class features. Other than that, a lot of good points and a nice summation of the system.

most of all, it's fun!

In the end, that's the most important feature of all.

 

[Gadget]

What I am concerned of is how does this early acceleration work out once the players reach higher levels? Are high level 5E wizards any more powerful than their previous counterparts when compared to other classes? Less powerful? About the same? Has 5E done anything to correct the "quadratic wizard" problem, or has it worsened it? A rare but powerful caster could be fitting for my planned campaign, but at the same time, if there is a player caster I don't want the rest of the party to feel too overshadowed. I understand a lot of this will hinge not only on how many spells a wizard can cast, but also the spells available. Can anyone here who has had some experience with high level 5E wizards comment?

I also found it interesting that for wizard schools, the "extra spell" of past editions was dropped in favor of specific abilities. This does seem to streamline a bit of the bookkeeping of old specialist wizards ("which spell was in my extra school slot?"), and the extra slot mechanic seems a bit unnecessary given the number of spells available under 5E, so it seems a good way to add a bit of flavor to each of the schools. I'm not sure how I like the lack of any penalties for opposed schools, as there was supposed to be a tradeoff for being a specialist. I suppose though that it has to do with the fact that as far as I can tell there is no "generalist" wizard in 5E. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about that, and I may try to house rule a generalist subclass, especially if I decide to impose the 2E multiclassing restriction that a multiclass wizard cannot be a specialist. Does anyone know any good homebrew generalist rules out there?

I think I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I do like the idea of rituals; it's something that I felt casters always needed - the ability to cast a spell from recorded procedure rather than memory when time permitted. I do think that the flat 10-minute requirement is a bit lazy; I feel that more powerful spells are more complex, and therefore ritual casting time should reflect the spell's level. Would 10 minutes/level be too severe? An hour and half for a ninth level spell seems a bit on the long side, but not entirely out of the realm of possibility. I seem to recall in older editions the preparation of a spell requiring a significant amount of time based on level, and I suppose I'm looking to do something similar here. Any thoughts or suggestions?

Thanks for the discussion! In addition to the concept of Bounded Accuracy, 5e really set out to tackle the "Quadratic Wizard, Linear Fighter" or (QWLF) problem. As you noted, lower level wizards tend to have a bit more ommph in their pocket, but that comes at a cost. Higher Level spell slots are not as plentiful as in any other edition. You only ever get one 9th level spell per day. And eighth level spell for that matter. Spells no longer auto scale as you level up. As has been previously mentioned, that fireball has to be cast in a higher level (and thus more rare) slot to do more damage. Many of the spells that could be layered on to the party and radically alter their combat power are limited by the concentration mechanic. You can only ever have one concentration spell up at a time, and if you take damage you have to make a save to maintain it. No longer can you be invisible, flying, stoneskinned, fireballing machine of death. This is very limiting. Many of the spells, though with similar names and effects, have been reduced in power by requiring multiple saving throws (some every round) to take effect or get the full effect. Save or Die (and its little brother Save or Suck) spells have been toned down quite a bit. Many of the traditional 'broken' spells have been adjusted (Polymorph, etc.). There still may be broken things or combos, but it is not nearly as bad as it was.

Now that said, wizards get the benefits of specialization and they don't have to prepare spells into specific 'slots' to cast anymore. Want to cast fireball more than once? Just prepare it and cast it as many times as you have 3rd level or higher slots. Or not at all if you use those slots for another spell of 3rd level or higher. They are kind of like 3e sorcerers who get to change their 'spells known' list every day. So wizards and magic definitely plays a little different in this edition.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

By "rare magic," my main intent is that arcane magic in general is very rare - wizards and the like are all but extinct in most of the world, with magic only being practiced in certain isolated locations or within secret societies. To the average inhabitant, even the existence of magic has almost faded into a myth or superstition; it is something feared and reviled by the common man, and so its few practitioners exist largely in hiding. Any magical objects encountered tend to be relics and artifacts of a bygone era, and they will be extremely rare. *snip*

For an example of a mechanics issue, I was rather disappointed (but not at all surprised) to see that 5th still uses attribute modifiers. I've had a problem with these ever since 3.0, primarily because they emphasize the importance of even-value attributes and make odd attributes practically worthless. In older systems, each attribute value had a purpose and a distinction from those above and below it; a 15 STR was mechanically different from a 14. But when attributes are reduced to modifiers, for all the difference between attribute scores we may as well cut all attributes in half to use a 1-10 scale instead of 1-20, and roll d10s for our attacks and skill checks. Can I live with a system that uses attribute modifiers? I suppose; I have before. I just feel that it devalues half of the available attributes and promotes "gaming the system" in attribute selection (particularly if using a point-buy system).

Likewise, I'm not entirely fond of systems that include regularly increasing attributes, as it drives a continuing increase in power level, but also gives the feeling that at lower levels, characters are not that special or unique in the world as they have so far to grow. I prefer a system that gives the players the feeling that they can be great heroes even at 1st level, not that they have to "grow up" first. Can this be accomplished with an increasing attribute system? Certainly; it just doesn't seem to encourage it (at least from my perspective).

Hi Blackbird,

FWIW, your campaign sounds exactly like the kind of campaign I enjoy best too. 5E supports it about as well as AD&D. Slightly better, really, because there aren't so many monsters that "require +X or better weapons to hit." Aside from werewolves, mostly only the really high-end 20th-level stuff requires magic weapons to damage; for the most part even magical creatures are only resistant to normally weapon damage (they take half damage), not immune. The main difference in terms of magical access is this:

Whenever a specialist reaches a new spell level, he automatically gains one spell of his school to add to his spell books. This spell can be selected by the DM or he can allow the player to pick. No roll for learning the spell need be made. It is assumed that the character has discovered this new spell during the course of his research and study.

Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots, as shown on the Wizard table. On your adventures, you might find other spells that you can add to your spellbook (see the “Your Spellbook” sidebar).

The 5E wizard gets twice as many spells per level as even a specialist wizard from AD&D, and he can pick them from any school. And he never has to roll % to learn new spells, nor does he have a maximum number of spells knowable. In short, in 5E, magical spells are commonplace, not rare and hard-to-acquire, so if you want the Vancian flavor of wizards coveting knowledge of spells--if you want players to jump for joy when they finally find a scroll with a rare spell on it like Simulacrum, or Wish, or Planar Binding--if you want wizards to power up through gaining knowledge instead of toys, 5E isn't as good at that as AD&D was. You could change it, but so far I'm just coping with it and occasionally handing out "new" spells in treasure from the Book of Lost Spells. (Well, once so far, but I expect to do so occasionally on an ongoing basis.)

I agree with you about attribute modifiers. In fact, your post has inspired me to think hard about possible ways to make raw scores important once more. I'll chew on that. Edit: there are occasional "roll under" mechanics in 5E as well. Intellect Devourers perma-stun if you fail fail an Int save and then roll over your Int on 3d6, so Int 11 is significantly better than Int 10. And of course, Str 15 lets you carry 15 pounds more than Str 14, and wear heavier armor without slowing down. After some thought, I think I'll adopt the "roll under your attribute on 3d6" for more kinds of checks, like cliff-climbing and code-breaking. It's kind of GURPS-ish but that's not a bad thing. It imposes more of a bell curve than d20 does.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

As far as cleric domains...I'm personally a fan of the relatively small number of domains. What you have to realize is that they are supposed to be both broad and significant. The pantheons at the back of the DMG give you examples of which domains work well for which deities. If you read the intro paragraphs for each domain you will see how they are supposed to be more or less comprehensive. Knowledge includes (amongst other things) magic and crafting for instance, and is appropriate for the dwarf god Moradin. Trickery covers fortune and luck sorts of concepts, as well as darkness, along with other tricksy things. Light hits beauty, and truth, as well as fire. For your elements in general, you could use Nature for any or all, and Tempest can give you water, air, cold, Zeus, Thor and more. The other domains are similar--and even the ones I listed have more example uses. The Death domain in the DMG is broad enough to be appropriate for many stripes of evil, and it also works as a non-evil domain for gods of the dead like Kelemvor. It isn't set up with the same level of fine granularity that 3e had, where they would just make a new domain whenever they wanted. Instead, the domains cover everything with a little bit of thought. And they give you substantial stuff. Clerics of two different domains can almost look like completely different classes. It's more along the lines of 2e specialty priests than 3e domains.

I think this is overstating things. 5E domains remind me more of 3E domains than 2E specialty priests, because post-Tome of Magic, the spheres your 2E priest got from his god were a big deal. (That's why priests who got Spheres: All were ridiculously strong.) In 5E, all priests have access to a common core of cleric stuff, and the domain is just a sprinkling of bonus stuff on top--but in 2E, if you choose the god of war, you might get some really cool priestly powers but have no access to healing spells or Raise Dead, let alone cool/weird stuff like Mental Domination and Dimensional Folding.

(Man, I really want to bring Dimensional Folding back into my 5E game... temporal "slippage" via aging is so cool.)

Some 2E specialty priests were as different from each other as 5E druids are from clerics.