Switch?

[Greenfield]

Okay, let's look at Adv/Dis: I need a 16 to hit, but I'm at disadvantage.

On a straight roll, I have a 1 in 4 chance, not great odds, but workable. With Disadvantage, that goes to 1 in 16. Still not impossible, but not anything I'd ever bet on.

The inverse is also true. Consider Saves. My character needs a 6 or better, and has advantage. 1 in 4 failure becomes 1 in 16. Thin chance edging towards certainty.

As for "Glass Cannon": My Wiz can cast Magic Missile all day. At first level I throw 3 missiles per shot, at a D4 per missile. Average is 7.5 points of damage, which will drop the typical level 1 Wiz.

Good for as many encounters as I need, per day.

D&D 3.* play was described as "Rocket tag" for higher level spell casters. In 5.0 you don't seem to need to wait. It starts at level 1.

Regarding Saves: Spells like Sleep and Hold Person are still low level death spells, if the caster happens to own a weapon. Fighter gets a second save next round? Neat. Will he be alive to make one? Not so neat.

I can understand the "Rulings not Rules" philosophy. That, however, presumes that all DM know, intrinsically, how to rule fairly and consistently. How are they to learn that if there are no rules, or even clear guidelines in the rule books?

That leads us straight into the part about the authors presuming that everyone already knows the system. The assumption that everyone is, well, operating under the same assumptions, if you will, is a huge leap. In my experience, it's a bad one.

On another forum (the 5e one) it was clarified for me that picking locks is a straight Dex check, and isn't covered by Skills like Sleight of Hand. You need to own thief's tools but not be proficient in them.

I'm currently questioning the absolute insanity of this. Lockpicking/opening doors is one of the basic traits of a core class, going back to three saddle-stitched books based on chainmail. Suddenly they think its a good idea to orphan that function?

Anyone can own artisans tools and instantly be as qualified as anyone else in that trade. Proficiency helps, but is in no way required, for anything.

Like I said, not at all thrilled.

 

[zabom]

It all comes down to the DM. For me, and the way I DM I like 5.0 and will be converting over from 3.5 for the next campaign. I like it because it feels less restricting in what the players can do. It does however require more work for the DM because you have to get good at setting DCs on the fly. Some people however prefer a more accurate mathematical representation of events. While I find those players to usually be the weaker role-players, a good DM must make choices based on what the players want. If you have a lot of people in the group who think this way they might prefer good old 2.0. What has worked well for me, is using a strict adherence to numbers in 3.5 until the players get a firm understanding of the world and vivid picture of this imaginary reality. Then as that gets them immersed into the game by forming a structured reality, I start simplifying the rules and streamlining the process to make more room for role-play and creative combat actions. Our game now is closer to 5.0 than 3.5. Remember the DM can change the rules as you go as long as everyone agrees and that change is stated before the players are put in a situation where it will come into play.

 

[GMMichael]

General opinion, huh?

1) Hold your breath until Zweihaender comes out.

2) Upgrayedd to 3.5. You'll be happy to not have to deal with facing, enjoy some new animal companions, and not see so many dead levels. Don't worry, your 3.0 books are 95% compatible.

3) Go LARPing instead. Call it "exercise."

 

[Emerikol]

While I'm not a big 5e fan, I do think fewer rules and more rulings is a superior philosophy. DM's are going to have to make judgments so they need to learn. If everyone buys into the idea that the DM is not an adversary, then it works fine.