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

[pukunui]

As I mentioned in my response to pukuuni, those "finicky +/- bonuses" never had the result of making critical successes more difficult to reach. There was always that 1/20 chance. I appreciate the streamlining and simplicity, but have to wonder if it could have been done in a way that didn't create this cost.

Bear in mind that having advantage (or being a halfling) similarly reduces the chance of rolling an inopportune natural 1.

 

[Jester David]

My chief concern is of how well the system will work with my campaign world. The campaign is intended to be low magic, a setting in which arcane casters and magic items are a rarity. Divine casters are somewhat less rare, but still a very uncommon occurrence. How well would 5E support such a world? As I understand it, 5th edition characters are a lot less reliant on magic items to maintain an appropriate power level (correct me if I'm wrong), so I'm not too concerned on that front. However, I have seen a lot of character examples in which classes that I would not normally associate with magic by default have some level of casting abilities. I understand that there are a lot of options with how characters are built, and taking different paths will give different abilities of different natures, but in not knowing the specifics I don't have a grasp of how prevalent these magical paths are. Would it be possible or even reasonable in 5th to have a party of six players with only one character among them who has access to arcane spells? And one with full access to divine, or maybe two with limited divine ability? Can rogues, fighters, etc. be played completely without any magical ability? Would placing such restrictions on a group severely limit character options, or does 5th give enough non-magical choices for characters to still offer some variety? This alone is probably the issue that will determine whether I convert over to using 5E.

While all classes but the barbarian have access to spells, they're not required to take them. It would be very, very easy to have a party with one or even no arcane casters, and no magic items. Rogues, fighters, and barbarians can be played with no real magic. And on the D&D website, there's an alternative for the ranger that removes its spellcasting. So you could have a party of five characters with those classes and the monk and the most magical character would be the dude playing the monk.

While not nearly as pressing of an issue, I did have another concern with one 5th Edition mechanic I had been reading about: the Advantage/Disadvantage system. I don't think I've read a single bad thing about this system, and from what I've seen it seems to be universally liked as a useful simplification over previous systems (which is a good thing). I understand the basic mechanics of it (roll 2d20, use higher or lower depending on situation), but I admit I don't have a good knowledge of what all determines advantage or disadvantage. That may color my perception, but as I see it the game loses something in this mechanic.

Anything you would give a +2 or a -2 you instead give advantage of disadvantage. Anytime, as a DM, you say to yourself "that should have worked" you can just have the players reroll.
Advantage works so nicely because you can apply it retroactively without having to remember what was rolled or do any extra math.

In my experience, some of the most memorable moments at the table, the sort of moments that you talk about for years, often include those times when the party is outmatched and in a bad spot, the villain has the upper hand, and everything comes down to one roll. The players know that their chances are slim, as the only way they can succeed is if they manage to roll a crit. It's a long shot, but it's their best hope. One player tosses the die, and... natural 20! Almost certain defeat has been turned into a victory! Yes, it is a rare situation, and even rarer that it works out in the players' favor, but at a 1/20 chance it is still enough within the realm of possibility to offer hope, and to be thrilling when it happens.

With the Advantage/Disadvantage system, I think that moments like this will be lost. It seems to me that if the players are in a tough situation, they are likely to be disadvantaged, and as such that 1/20 chance gets turned into a 1/400 chance - a near impossibility that a disadvantaged natural 20 would coincide with such a critical moment. Maybe I misunderstand how disadvantage will be used, or maybe I missed a change to the crit system. I'd be happy to be wrong about this, but if I'm not I feel that many potentially epic moments will be lost. It may not be enough on its own to turn me from 5E entirely, but I would mourn the loss of future memories.

You don't have to award adv/disadv, but those moments remain. The "bet it all" die roll where the first is a 1 and hopes sink and the second roll is a 20. Or double 20s, which does happen.
If you think the "we have to make this roll..." is tense, imagine how awesome things are when you have disadvantage on that and both succeed. Even if it's just an 18 and a 19 you still feel like a rock star.
And there's also the bargaining. When things are bad and they really, really need that good roll... and they get a 3. They can bargain for advantage. "If my sword breaks in desperation from the attack, could that have granted advantage?"

Is the Advantage/Disadvantage system a part of the rules that can be omitted in favor of something else? Or can anyone who has played the system offer some encouragement or clarification as to why it may not be as bad as I am expecting?

Advantage and disadvantage is pretty baked in. But you could easily replace it with a +/-2 with little hiccups in play. 5e is meant to be hacked and customized in that manner.

 

[pukunui]

While all classes but the barbarian have access to spells, they're not required to take them.

Technically even the barbarian has access to magic, although it's limited to two nature-based spells that a totem barbarian can only cast as rituals.

 

[Staffan]

I cut my gaming teeth on 2nd Edition (I know, 2E gets a lot of flak, but I enjoyed it).

So did I, a lot.

However, I have seen a lot of character examples in which classes that I would not normally associate with magic by default have some level of casting abilities. I understand that there are a lot of options with how characters are built, and taking different paths will give different abilities of different natures, but in not knowing the specifics I don't have a grasp of how prevalent these magical paths are.

The following classes are more or less entirely about spellcasting: bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, wizard.

The following are martial classes with spellcasting abilities: paladin, ranger. They generally cast about half as well as a dedicated caster, and many of their spells are in support of their specific niche - for example, paladins get a bunch of spells called (something) Smite that lets them deal extra damage with an attack and inflict some kind of condition on the opponent.

Monks are a bit of a special case. By default they have some abilities that are magical-ish, but generally more "wuxia" in nature than actual spellcasting. Their sub-classes add various levels of mysticism to the class: Way of the Open Hand has things like using ki to heal oneself. Way of the Shadow gives the ability to cast some sneaky-type spells, eventually teleporting through shadows, and the like - think "mystic ninja". Finally, Way of the Four Elements is overtly magical, using ki to produce various elemental magic effects. Think benders from Avatar (though not limited to a single element).

Fighters and rogues each have a sub-class that's about a third caster, the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster. They get a limited selection of spells, and limited amount of casting as well (they max out at 4th level spells at 19th level). They each also have two subclasses that are entirely martial.

Finally, barbarians are the class with the least magical potential. Barbarians have two subclasses: berserker which is entirely non-magical, and totem warrior which gives some semi-magical abilities. They get the ability to "cast" beast sense and speak with animals as rituals, and gain abilities flavored as channeling the spirits of Bear, Eagle, and/or Wolf.

While not nearly as pressing of an issue, I did have another concern with one 5th Edition mechanic I had been reading about: the Advantage/Disadvantage system. I don't think I've read a single bad thing about this system, and from what I've seen it seems to be universally liked as a useful simplification over previous systems (which is a good thing). I understand the basic mechanics of it (roll 2d20, use higher or lower depending on situation), but I admit I don't have a good knowledge of what all determines advantage or disadvantage. That may color my perception, but as I see it the game loses something in this mechanic.

Advantage/disadvantage is generally used instead of situational modifiers - e.g. when an opponent is prone you get advantage on attacks against it instead of +4. Shooting someone at long range gives you disadvantage. Pretty much the only situational combat modifier left is cover.

In my experience, some of the most memorable moments at the table, the sort of moments that you talk about for years, often include those times when the party is outmatched and in a bad spot, the villain has the upper hand, and everything comes down to one roll. The players know that their chances are slim, as the only way they can succeed is if they manage to roll a crit. It's a long shot, but it's their best hope. One player tosses the die, and... natural 20! Almost certain defeat has been turned into a victory! Yes, it is a rare situation, and even rarer that it works out in the players' favor, but at a 1/20 chance it is still enough within the realm of possibility to offer hope, and to be thrilling when it happens.

With the Advantage/Disadvantage system, I think that moments like this will be lost. It seems to me that if the players are in a tough situation, they are likely to be disadvantaged, and as such that 1/20 chance gets turned into a 1/400 chance - a near impossibility that a disadvantaged natural 20 would coincide with such a critical moment.

IME, being at a tactical disadvantage rarely means having mechanical disadvantage. You may be outnumbered three to one, but you still roll regular attacks without disadvantage.

 

[redrick]

So it sounds like there are other mechanics in place to help mitigate some of these extremes; that is good to know, thanks.
I had thought I had seen Arcane Trickster mentioned as a casting Rogue variant?

The arcane trickster is indeed a casting rogue variant, but if you don't want to allow it at your table, it's easy to ban the subclass.

5e does offer more casting character builds than non-casting character builds, but that doesn't mean that you have to use them. Removing all the caster subclasses, you get 2 fighter subclasses, 2 rogue subclasses, 2 ranger subclasses (if you use the alternate non-casting ranger), one monk subclass, and I guess both barbarian subclasses. (One is more magical than the other, but you can ban that one or refluff it if you want.) Are you banning a big part of the game? Sure. But that's not any different than any other edition of D&D, except maybe 4e, where almost every magical ability had a refluffed "martial" variant.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I cut my gaming teeth on 2nd Edition ...

I've been asking myself whether 5E might be right for me and my campaign.

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.

My chief concern is of how well the system will work with my campaign world. The campaign is intended to be low magic, a setting in which arcane casters and magic items are a rarity. Divine casters are somewhat less rare, but still a very uncommon occurrence. How well would 5E support such a world?

It depends on to what extent you want that 'low magic' - more importantly 'few casters' - aspect to be reflected in the party. If you would have not trouble with everyone in the party being a caster - their 'uncommonness,' perhaps, brought them together - then 5e, with it's default assumption of few magic items, tightly controlled by the DM, and most PC options being casters, should be just fine.

However, I have seen a lot of character examples in which classes that I would not normally associate with magic by default have some level of casting abilities.

Yes. All classes have at least one sub-class (typically chosen at 3rd level), that innately uses magic in some way. There are 5 PC options, out of 38, that don't have any magical abilities at all: the Berserker, Champion, Battlemaster, Thief & Assassin.

Would it be possible or even reasonable in 5th to have a party of six players with only one character among them who has access to arcane spells? And one with full access to divine, or maybe two with limited divine ability?

Possible, yes. You could have a party of all Champion fighters - anything is possible. So is a party who all cast arcane spells. Like I said before, there are 38 sub-classes. 17 of them cast arcane spells. If you aren't careful to coach players against choosing those sub-classes - or don't just ban some of them outright - it seems likely you'll get a couple.

Can rogues, fighters, etc. be played completely without any magical ability?

Yes. They have the most non-magical options, at two each.

Would placing such restrictions on a group severely limit character options, or does 5th give enough non-magical choices for characters to still offer some variety? This alone is probably the issue that will determine whether I convert over to using 5E.

No magic at all does bring it down to the 5 sub-classes I mentioned. Magic, but not actual casting, opens up the Totem Barbarian and Open Hand Monk - possibly the Shadow & Elemental Monks, as well, if you don't consider their use of spells (powered by Ki points) identical to casting.

It's not like 3.x or 2e is a lot better. In 2e, you had fighters & thieves not using magic - basically the same boat as 5e. In 3.x, you added the barbarian, and, later, Knight and Scout. Still only adds up to about 5 non-casters, though, obviously, you have a lot of build options.

What you do have in 5e is Backgrounds (very like 2e Kits). A different background can make two Champion fighters more distinct from eachother - if one's a woodsy Outlander and the other's a lofty Noble, for instance.

While not nearly as pressing of an issue, I did have another concern with one 5th Edition mechanic I had been reading about: the Advantage/Disadvantage system. I don't think I've read a single bad thing about this system, and from what I've seen it seems to be universally liked as a useful simplification over previous systems (which is a good thing). I understand the basic mechanics of it (roll 2d20, use higher or lower depending on situation), but I admit I don't have a good knowledge of what all determines advantage or disadvantage.

That's largely up to the DM. 5e is very like classic D&D in that the DM makes a lot of round-to-round rulings on the fly. It's not quite as codified as 2e C&T, let alone 3.x/Pathfinder. In general, you could rule that anything that formerly deprived a creature of DEX bonus to AC would grant attackers advantage (and give disadvantage on REF saves, for that matter). Except flanking, though that's also an optional rule in the DMG.

It's a long shot, but it's their best hope. One player tosses the die, and... natural 20! Almost certain defeat has been turned into a victory! Yes, it is a rare situation, and even rarer that it works out in the players' favor, but at a 1/20 chance it is still enough within the realm of possibility to offer hope

With the Advantage/Disadvantage system, I think that moments like this will be lost. It seems to me that if the players are in a tough situation, they are likely to be disadvantaged, and as such that 1/20 chance gets turned into a 1/400 chance

Adv/Dis is a binary state, so if you can come up with one source of advantage, you negate any amount of disadvantage.

Is the Advantage/Disadvantage system a part of the rules that can be omitted in favor of something else?

Everything is. You could very easily replace it with a simple +2 modifier for Adv, -2 for Dis. You could keep it non-stacking/binary, or you could let those mods stack. It's not even mathematically /that/ different (Adv/Dis is a little complicated to analyze, but it works out to being equivalent to about a +/-5 if you were 50/50 to start, down to a +/-1 if you need a natural 20 to succeed or 1 to fail).

1) Does 5th Edition work well with a low magic/rare caster campaign

Low magic (or low wealth, BTW), yes. Rare casters enforced against PCs, no. In addition to the emphasis on magic in the PC options, healing requires a reasonable amount of magic - though that should be familiar from the other editions you've played, which is, perhaps, why you didn't ask about it. 5e actually has a few options that let you get by on non-magical healing: If you use the optional feats, there is a feat that lets a healer's kit restore hps instead of just stabilizing and another that gives a bonus to healing during a short rest. You have 'Hit Dice' (the same HD you use to generate you hps) that you can spend after a short (1hr) rest to heal yourself. And, by default, 'natural' healing restores all your hps overnight. So out-of-combat, you can get by without a caster able to toss healing word or CLW around. Effective in-combat healing still comes almost entirely from magic. The one exception I can think of is a single-use, rest-recharge fighter power, Second Wind, that heals 1d10+level damage as a bonus action.

and 2) does "Disadvantage" really rob players of those epic "one crit saves the day" moments?

Seems unlikely it'd do so. If the party was desperate and at disadvantage, they could still have one character do something to give the 'hail Mary' attempt advantage, and thus negate the disadvantage.


On balance, I'd encourage you to give 5e a chance.

 

[Agamon]

There have been some good answers to the OPs question, so it's funny anecdote time!

The rogue in the party is hasted and gets a second attack. Meanwhile, he also grappled and restrained by a roper (as are the other two members of the party). This combination of factors means:

a) he gets two attacks
b) he has disadvantage from being restrained
c) he can sneak attack, thanks to the other party members also being grappled next to the roper

Also, the player is new to the game, and gaming in general.

So he attacks the roper (and it's AC 20) with disadvantage and manages to hit. He then announces, "I only get sneak attack once a turn, so I'll save it for the next attack."

Both me and one of the other players looks at each other in surprise and then explain to him that he should use it now, because there's a good chance he'll miss with the next attack. "The only way it would benefit you is if you crit with the next attack...which is really unlikely because you have disadvantage."

And guess how the story ends? Second attack, double 20s. And that was just one of the crazy things from that fight. Will be a memorable one, I think.

 

[Gadget]

Now I find myself preparing to start a new campaign, and looking for a good system to support it. while I have enjoyed my time with Pathfinder, it has its issues. Personally, I've always felt the mechanics of the 3.0/3.5/PF system were better suited to computer games than tabletop, as they have so many calculations and fiddly bits which are handled so much easier by a computer than a player or DM. Also, the heavy reliance on vast amounts of magical gear annoys me.

Amen. So far, sounds like 5th edition is right up your alley.

I've been asking myself whether 5E might be right for me and my campaign. So far, my only experience with 5th has been reading through the free PDFs as well as several reviews and discussions online. I've never actually played with any of it, so while I could say I have a passing familiarity with the basics, I'm still missing a lot of detail which could make a big difference. So now I turn to online forums in hopes that those who know more than I can help.

If you have the Basic pdfs, you should have a pretty good idea of what the game is like. It is not a sample, really, but a fully playable, 20 level game. It is limited in some of the options like only the core four classes with one subclass built in, feats, some spells and Monsters, but it is a fully playable game.

My chief concern is of how well the system will work with my campaign world. The campaign is intended to be low magic, a setting in which arcane casters and magic items are a rarity. Divine casters are somewhat less rare, but still a very uncommon occurrence. How well would 5E support such a world? As I understand it, 5th edition characters are a lot less reliant on magic items to maintain an appropriate power level (correct me if I'm wrong), so I'm not too concerned on that front. However, I have seen a lot of character examples in which classes that I would not normally associate with magic by default have some level of casting abilities. I understand that there are a lot of options with how characters are built, and taking different paths will give different abilities of different natures, but in not knowing the specifics I don't have a grasp of how prevalent these magical paths are. Would it be possible or even reasonable in 5th to have a party of six players with only one character among them who has access to arcane spells? And one with full access to divine, or maybe two with limited divine ability? Can rogues, fighters, etc. be played completely without any magical ability? Would placing such restrictions on a group severely limit character options, or does 5th give enough non-magical choices for characters to still offer some variety? This alone is probably the issue that will determine whether I convert over to using 5E.

5E seems much more suited to your world than 3e. Once again, you could make valid 5e characters from the basic pdf you have, the figher you have is the champion subclass (there are two more, the Battle master, which is a little more complex but not 'magical', and the Eldritch Knight, which is a magical subclass that gets spell casting abilities to make a sort of 'gish' class without the need to multiclass); the Rogue you have is the thief subclass (there is a non-magical assassin subclass and a magical magical Arcane Trickster which, once again, is to help alleviate or enhance the Rogue/wizard multi class option). The Cleric and the Wizard are somewhat self-explanatory. The only place that 5e has 'upped' the magic factor is with the number of classes and sub-classes that have access to magic, if desired. So in addition to the classic Cleric, Wizard, & Druid, you have the Sorcerer, Warlock (very different casting mechanic), and Bard (a full caster in this addition) that largely depend on spells and spell casting. In addition Paladins are 'half-casters' with the ability to convert their spells into smites when they hit, and Rangers are half-casters (with a non-casting version available on WOTC web site). Monks have the traditional kung-fu Ki abilities to shadow magic ninjas, to elemental benders type of vibe depending on what subclass you want. Barbarians are largely magic free, depending on how you interpret one of the sub class's totem abilities, and Fighters and Rogues each have a subclass to help with adding a magical dabbler varient to the class.

So the only area you would have to adjust more than 3e is that you might have to ban more subclasses (but that concept did not exist in 3e, so it is not an apples to oranges comparison, it would be more akin to banning multi classing combos in 3e). And there are more caster focused 'base' classes out of the box that you may have to restrict (i.e. Warlock in addition to the Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, Bard, Druid of 3e).

While not nearly as pressing of an issue, I did have another concern with one 5th Edition mechanic I had been reading about: the Advantage/Disadvantage system. I don't think I've read a single bad thing about this system, and from what I've seen it seems to be universally liked as a useful simplification over previous systems (which is a good thing). I understand the basic mechanics of it (roll 2d20, use higher or lower depending on situation), but I admit I don't have a good knowledge of what all determines advantage or disadvantage. That may color my perception, but as I see it the game loses something in this mechanic.

In my experience, some of the most memorable moments at the table, the sort of moments that you talk about for years, often include those times when the party is outmatched and in a bad spot, the villain has the upper hand, and everything comes down to one roll. The players know that their chances are slim, as the only way they can succeed is if they manage to roll a crit. It's a long shot, but it's their best hope. One player tosses the die, and... natural 20! Almost certain defeat has been turned into a victory! Yes, it is a rare situation, and even rarer that it works out in the players' favor, but at a 1/20 chance it is still enough within the realm of possibility to offer hope, and to be thrilling when it happens.

In my experience, it is more common that your opponent will have Advantage against you than you having Disadvantage, ymmv. Without a specific example, it is hard to answer this concern though. If you are ever in a situation when you have to get a crit (for whatever reason), and you are attacking at Disadvantage, then yes this would be mathematically less likely. But I don't see that happening very much at all. First, 5e is much more Rulings not Rules, so the DM is more free to adjudicate when Advantage/Disadvantage applies, but they are not supposed to be given out like candy, and players can try to maneuver to get an Advantage to cancel out a disadvantage. Secondly, with the concept of Bounded Accuracy in 5e, you are much less likely to need to roll a twenty in the first place. Even making a 15 with Disadvantage is quite an 'Oh Yeah!' moment.

 

[Blackbird71]

The bard is a full caster in this edition, as are, obviously, Wizards, Warlocks, Sorcerers and Clerics. (Paladins are still Paladins as well, but they're no more or less cast-y than their predecessors.) Banning casters outright will certainly mean taking a bunch of classes of the table, but you don't need them.

Bards as full casters may be a problem - I've been having enough trouble wedging them into the setting as partial casters.

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.

Yes, I greatly enjoyed 2E; although to be fair, it was rare that my experience involved much of anything beyond the core books (for quite a while it was just the PHB and DMG; not even a Monstrous Manual/Compendium). I attribute much of my lack of dislike for the edition to this, as it seems like a lot of the problems with 2E arose from the mass of additional material tacked on over the years. I've honestly considered going back to 2E for my planned campaign; it's been a few years, but it's familiar enough that I feel I have a good idea on how to make it work.

Also, unless you are counting Pathfinder, I never actually played 3.5 tabletop; just in computer games where a lot of the number crunching was taken care of, so I don't know how much that counts. Still, PF has it's share of excessive math. Personally, I don't mind the math too much; I've always been pretty good with running numbers in my head (probably also why I never had an issue with Thac0). But I have seen it affect others at the table, and I recognize that it can significantly slow a game.

It's not like 3.x or 2e is a lot better. In 2e, you had fighters & thieves not using magic - basically the same boat as 5e. In 3.x, you added the barbarian, and, later, Knight and Scout. Still only adds up to about 5 non-casters, though, obviously, you have a lot of build options.

At least in 2E, rangers gained casting at a high enough level that in most of our games, it rarely came into play, and the class may as well have been non-magical for all intents and purposes (as I recall, in those early years the highest any of our games ever got was ~level 12-13, and there were no rangers in that particular party).

Again, there have been a lot of wonderfully helpful responses, and I have to thank everyone for their opinions and information. I do have to say that you've convinced me to try out 5th. I'm not exactly anxious to buy up the books right away, but I may see what I can do with the PDFs, or maybe pick up the starter kit (~$12 on Amazon right now; hard to say no to that price). I still have some concerns, but we'll see what happens.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Bards as full casters may be a problem - I've been having enough trouble wedging them into the setting as partial casters.

Backgrounds to the rescue! There's an entertainer background, tack that onto a Rogue with the right skills, and you've got a non-casting bard. He can even take the "Inspiring Leader" feat - it just helps you heal during a short rest, but it's inspiration.

Yes, I greatly enjoyed 2E; I attribute much of my lack of dislike for the edition to this, as it seems like a lot of the problems with 2E arose from the mass of additional material tacked on over the years.

I gave up on 2e about 5 years in, for that reason. Nowadays, the community calls it 'bloat.'

Also, unless you are counting Pathfinder, I never actually played 3.5 tabletop; just in computer games where a lot of the number crunching was taken care of, so I don't know how much that counts. Still, PF has it's share of excessive math.

If you're OK with the way Pathfinder handles d20 rolls and multi-classing, you should be fine with 5e. If you hated 3.x/Pathfinder MCing rules, 5e might have given you pause.

At least in 2E, rangers gained casting at a high enough level that in most of our games, it rarely came into play, and the class may as well have been non-magical for all intents and purposes (as I recall, in those early years the highest any of our games ever got was ~level 12-13, and there were no rangers in that particular party).

Yeah, the Ranger started casting much earlier in 3e, and 5e retained that (4e, in contrast, had a ranger with no spells, but added two builds with primal casting later). There's at least two ways around it. A variant non-casting Ranger is outlined in a recent UA article on the Wizards site (a good choice as it has some significant non-magical healing); or, you can just play a fighter and take the Outlander background, which makes him fairly woodsy.

I do have to say that you've convinced me to try out 5th. I'm not exactly anxious to buy up the books right away, but I may see what I can do with the PDFs, or maybe pick up the starter kit (~$12 on Amazon right now; hard to say no to that price). I still have some concerns, but we'll see what happens.

Just give it a fair chance!