D&D 5E First experience with 5th edition and Lost Mines of Phandelver (no spoilers)

[thecasualoblivion]

Do you really not see how each and every one of those things might be effected by the factors I pointed out? Really?

They might, but in my judgement they don't.

I will also add to the list the fact that you are comparing a system that is still developing versus one that has been "fully developed", or are you playing 4e core without errata?

We're 18 months in, it's mature enough.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This one I admit I have very little to respond to without more info. What about 5e's core mechanics aren't "modern" to you? What do you consider qualifies a game as having a "high powered aesthetic"? Because, short of examples, I think 5e handles both complaints in spades.

Naruto as opposed to Howard's Conan for example. A D&D example would be 3.5E's Tome of Battle.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Naruto as opposed to Howard's Conan for example.

Exalted just released their 3rd edition. You should check it out. Seriously. It's exactly what you seem to be looking for. Super-powered fantasy. Quite literally. It's actually very fun. (The setting I mean, I only ever played 1st edition. Never got around to 2nd. But I'm looking forward to checking out this new one.)

A D&D example would be 3.5E's Tome of Battle.

I don't know what that means? Are you saying you want more splat? How does that have anything to do with "modern" or "high powered"?

Or are you implying that you desire power creep? Is that it? If so, why do you think that is?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Exalted just released their 3rd edition. You should check it out. Seriously. It's exactly what you seem to be looking for. Super-powered fantasy. Quite literally. It's actually very fun. (The setting I mean, I only ever played 1st edition. Never got around to 2nd. But I'm looking forward to checking out this new one.)

Im a little hesitant on the subject of Exalted. I played some 2nd Edition Exalted and mechanically that system was an utter disaster. So much so it kind of soured most of the people I gamed with on Exalted, and I'd have an uphill battle getting anyone else interested.

[opinion]In any case, I found 4E accomplished what I was after from level 1, and splat heavy 3.5E could manage it by level 3 depending on class. Looking at the 5E PHB, characters don't seem to get there before double digit levels, if at all. AKA, before 5E I was able to get the D&D aesthetic/feel I wanted just fine. [/opinion]

I don't know what that means? Are you saying you want more splat? How does that have anything to do with "modern" or "high powered"?

Or are you implying that you desire power creep? Is that it? If so, why do you think that is?

I was speaking specifically of the feel and aesthetic of that particular book, not splats in general. It's a rather (in)famous book of the 3.5E era, you might not be that familiar with it.

Or to put it this way, I'm not really fond of the traditional AD&D-era aesthetic in general, or with OSR-style aesthetics in particular. Gimme splat heavy 3E or 4E any day of the week.

 

[happyhermit]

They might, but in my judgement they don't.

But that judgement would need to be completely hypothetical as opposed to direct comparison.

Like you say, they can and they might effect those factors. I would argue that it would be very difficult to conceive of a situation where the two types of play we are talking about wouldn't effect them to some degree. It is easy to see how they could have a huge difference though.


Unless you played the two in remotely similar situations, and with remotely similar emotional baggage, then "pretty much direct comparison" seems like the wrong way to describe what you are doing.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

But that judgement would need to be completely hypothetical as opposed to direct comparison.

Like you say, they can and they might effect those factors. I would argue that it would be very difficult to conceive of a situation where the two types of play we are talking about wouldn't effect them to some degree. It is easy to see how they could have a huge difference though.


Unless you played the two in remotely similar situations, and with remotely similar emotional baggage, then "pretty much direct comparison" seems like the wrong way to describe what you are doing.

I didn't know that having an opinion had so many requirements.

 

[happyhermit]

I didn't know that having an opinion had so many requirements.

And now you are completely miscategorizing my statements as well as your own.

You said that you were able to make a direct comparison because you were playing both. I pointed out that you have said that pretty much everything about the way you were playing the two systems was different/opposite in a way that has nothing to do with the systems themselves.

You then said that the differences in how you were playing the two systems might make a difference but doesn't in your judgement. I pointed out that your judgement on whether or not they would make a difference is hypothetical because you haven't actually tried it, and have made it clear that you don't plan to.

Trying to turn that into me putting qualifiers on someone having an opinion seems... problematic.

 

[Tony Vargas]

what can you do with 4E that you can't with 5?

Nothing. You just mod 5e to be exactly like 4e. Now, what could you do in 4e that you can't in 5e, without re-writing 5e from the ground up to be a completely different game, that's another question. But not worth answering in this context (see the 3e/4e powergamer thread, or the Warlord-discussion ghetto, if you are that interested).

It's the spirit of 5e, not the specifics of it's mechanics and what you might theoretically do with or to them, that make it great.

The main issue I had with 4E was that everyone used magic (how else do you explain a fighter's "Come and get it").

C&GI is a take on a standard-issue genre trope. The gang of minions come at the hero one at a time and he rapidly cuts them down (cf. Inigo Montoya). It was not magic. It explicitly was not magic - like all martial powers, some of which may have been superhuman or extraordinary, but never supernatural.
It was also open to re-skinning, though, so if you wanted to, you could assume it was 'magic' (in some sense) - though it still wouldn't have been affected by Dispel Magic, nor anything that keyed off a magic-associated keyword like Arcane, and still would have been affected by things that keyed off 'Martial.'
That's one of the things about 4e, it was very clear and consistent, and could be re-skinned easily enough, but that very clarity and consistency made modding it unattractive.
5e doesn't have those issues.

5e, OTOH, every class /does/ explicitly use magic. Spells are explicitly magic, and every class but Monk and Barbarian can actually spells (using spell slots), while the Barbarian can use rituals, and the Monk's Ki is also, like spells, explicitly magical.

So your main issue with 4e didn't actually apply to 4e, but does actually apply to 5e. Ironic, that, but not uncommon - the edition war fostered a great many misunderstandings.

I hope you won't hold that against 5e, though, since, as a DM, all you have to do is ban a few-sub-classes (EK, AT, maybe TB, but really, it's just a few nature-oriented rituals) and change the definition of Ki to fix it up to your liking!

You think 2E is better? THAC0 anyone? What makes it "better"?

No, he found 2e closer to what he wanted in some ways. That's just a preference, and only for aspects of the system, not the system as a whole - probably not THAC0, for instance.

How does the game system affect your campaign?

In a lot of ways, but a good DM will leverage them to get what he wants out of the campaign.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Im a little hesitant on the subject of Exalted. I played some 2nd Edition Exalted and mechanically that system was an utter disaster. So much so it kind of soured most of the people I gamed with on Exalted, and I'd have an uphill battle getting anyone else interested.

You seem to be a very selective and picky gamer. Not that there is anything wrong with that. It's just that, if you are so very particular about systems, I can see why you are having so many issues with so many games and playstyles.

[opinion]In any case, I found 4E accomplished what I was after from level 1, and splat heavy 3.5E could manage it by level 3 depending on class. Looking at the 5E PHB, characters don't seem to get there before double digit levels, if at all. AKA, before 5E I was able to get the D&D aesthetic/feel I wanted just fine. [/opinion]

Hrm. Okay. I'm still a little fuzzy on what exactly you are driving at with "aesthetic" though. Again, having played them all, I get that they are different, but in so many ways I don't know where you are running into problems. Is it caster superiority of 3.x? Is it the homogeneity of 4e? Because those are at complete odds with each other. How do you lump them together like you are?

I was speaking specifically of the feel and aesthetic of that particular book, not splats in general. It's a rather (in)famous book of the 3.5E era, you might not be that familiar with it.

Subtle. But I have it. I just didn't see the point of you mentioning it as vaguely as you did. At least in the context of this conversation. And you still haven't explained your comment. What is it about the "feel and aesthetic" of that book that you want to see in 5e?

Or to put it this way, I'm not really fond of the traditional AD&D-era aesthetic in general, or with OSR-style aesthetics in particular. Gimme splat heavy 3E or 4E any day of the week.

Okay. There it is. You want splat. Why do you think that is? Are are saying, "I want more options!"? Because that is a sentiment that can never be truly sated. There's always another potential splat book around the corner. Besides, 5e is already so chock full o' option in its initial round of books, it's like the first few splat books that would have normally been published in previous editions, were already included.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

And now you are completely miscategorizing my statements as well as your own.

You said that you were able to make a direct comparison because you were playing both. I pointed out that you have said that pretty much everything about the way you were playing the two systems was different/opposite in a way that has nothing to do with the systems themselves.

You then said that the differences in how you were playing the two systems might make a difference but doesn't in your judgement. I pointed out that your judgement on whether or not they would make a difference is hypothetical because you haven't actually tried it, and have made it clear that you don't plan to.

Trying to turn that into me putting qualifiers on someone having an opinion seems... problematic.

In that case, I didn't know it was required to have to use language precise enough to withstand legal scrutiny to post on this forum. I also didn't know that opinions themselves would be subject to legal type scrutiny.

Seriously, I play 4E and 5E. That's plenty enough to know I prefer the combat or whatever of one to the other, to form opinions, or to compare how I feel about the two in comparison to each other. If that isn't enough for you, than I don't think I can do anything more for you.