Are your rogues not taking Expertise in Perception? Anyone can find traps and I like that since forcing a group into having a rogue was always lame. But if you have a rogue, he makes finding traps so much easier with Expertise Perception.
D&D 5E Favorite change and thing you like better before
- Thread starter Najo
- Start date
Are your rogues not taking Expertise in Perception? Anyone can find traps and I like that since forcing a group into having a rogue was always lame. But if you have a rogue, he makes finding traps so much easier with Expertise Perception.
Psikerlord#
Explorer
Favourite thing - Bounded accuracy.
Honourable mention - Random treasure tables.
Thing I liked better before 5e - all the little +1 and +2 modifiers. I like adv/disad, but reroll is too blunt a tool. I think 5e works best with both options on the table. And I am hoping, and expect, the DMG will reintroduce +1/+2 mods in the combat tactics section.
Honourable mention - Random treasure tables.
Thing I liked better before 5e - all the little +1 and +2 modifiers. I like adv/disad, but reroll is too blunt a tool. I think 5e works best with both options on the table. And I am hoping, and expect, the DMG will reintroduce +1/+2 mods in the combat tactics section.
fuindordm
Adventurer
Favorite: The new spellcasting system and the overall balance between spellcasters and martial classes.
Honorable mention: Monsters nicely balance simplicity, flavor, and utility in the game
Greatest disappointment: I'm sad that they gave spellcasting to nearly all classes because it means the implied setting is more magic-heavy than I prefer. The Warlord was my favorite innovation from 4th edition, and I still think the concept can easily support a full class that gets one extra attack at 5th level but otherwise does extra damage at high levels by granting extra damage, advantage, and bonus actions to allies (maybe a battlemaster/bard leadership hybrid without spells). And the Ranger really ought to have been a mundane class by default, with a 1/3 caster archetype comparable to the eldritch knight.
Honorable mention: Monsters nicely balance simplicity, flavor, and utility in the game
Greatest disappointment: I'm sad that they gave spellcasting to nearly all classes because it means the implied setting is more magic-heavy than I prefer. The Warlord was my favorite innovation from 4th edition, and I still think the concept can easily support a full class that gets one extra attack at 5th level but otherwise does extra damage at high levels by granting extra damage, advantage, and bonus actions to allies (maybe a battlemaster/bard leadership hybrid without spells). And the Ranger really ought to have been a mundane class by default, with a 1/3 caster archetype comparable to the eldritch knight.
Most aren't. Most don't have a jacked up wisdom either. They usually take expertise in one skill and thieves tools. Again, just feels like a "default" rogue should be better at finding traps without having to give up other options.
Our Halfling Rogue/Monk has a Wisdom of 16 and expertise in Perception. Passive perception of 19 at level 7.
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
Our Halfling Rogue/Monk has a Wisdom of 16 and expertise in Perception. Passive perception of 19 at level 7.
Last game I gave my players the chance to roll a perception check when looking at something that turned out to be a hypnotic pattern, and the people who made their checks had to save with Disadvantage*.
I may be a big jerk.
* this isn't something I'd do often, but it made actual sense in this one case. Everyone laughed after throwing stuff at me.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Likes and dislikes by edition
In general against all editions.
LIKE: All of the "lighter system / quicker to run / doesn't get in your way / trust the DM" stuff. Adv/disadvantage, theater of the mind, lighter rules, etc.
HONORABLE MENTION: I like the casting spells at different levels, I think that was originally back in a Wheel of Time expansion for 3.0 so I don't know if that counts as a change.
DISLIKE: Skills vs. tools.
DISHONORABLE MENTION: I love the concept of concentration but dislike the implementation in that it adds a lot of extra rolls in combat.
Vs. 4e:
LIKE: No more ridiculously large list of individually nuanced powers to be considered every action (at paragon or higher)
HONORABLE MENTION: Circles aren't square!
DISLIKE: Removal of some common standardizations, like Bloodied and other shorthand.
Vs. 3.x:
LIKE: Ease in creating high level foes and NPCs. And getting away from crazy prerequisites for feats/paragon classes.
HONORABLE MENTION: Take the super-flexible multiclassing system and make it much less abusable by changing what you get at 1st for skills/proficiences and moving a lot of class abilities to higher levels.
DISLIKE: Standard monster abilities (all undead are immune to mind effecting, etc.) Consistancy made hard-learned player lessons more applicable.
DISHONORABLE MENTION: More casting differences between wizard and sorcerer made them more unique.
Vs. AD&D 2ed:
LIKE: More flexibility in character creation. (Alternate: No rampant power creep like Skills and Powers).
DISLIKE: Hmm.
Vs. AD&D:
LIKE: Much more balanced.
DISLIKE: Not getting exposed to this with childish eyes full of wonder to Gygax.
Vs. Red-box BASIC:
LIKE: PC flexibility and spells.
DISLIKE: 5e takes slightly longer to run combats.
In general against all editions.
LIKE: All of the "lighter system / quicker to run / doesn't get in your way / trust the DM" stuff. Adv/disadvantage, theater of the mind, lighter rules, etc.
HONORABLE MENTION: I like the casting spells at different levels, I think that was originally back in a Wheel of Time expansion for 3.0 so I don't know if that counts as a change.
DISLIKE: Skills vs. tools.
DISHONORABLE MENTION: I love the concept of concentration but dislike the implementation in that it adds a lot of extra rolls in combat.
Vs. 4e:
LIKE: No more ridiculously large list of individually nuanced powers to be considered every action (at paragon or higher)
HONORABLE MENTION: Circles aren't square!
DISLIKE: Removal of some common standardizations, like Bloodied and other shorthand.
Vs. 3.x:
LIKE: Ease in creating high level foes and NPCs. And getting away from crazy prerequisites for feats/paragon classes.
HONORABLE MENTION: Take the super-flexible multiclassing system and make it much less abusable by changing what you get at 1st for skills/proficiences and moving a lot of class abilities to higher levels.
DISLIKE: Standard monster abilities (all undead are immune to mind effecting, etc.) Consistancy made hard-learned player lessons more applicable.
DISHONORABLE MENTION: More casting differences between wizard and sorcerer made them more unique.
Vs. AD&D 2ed:
LIKE: More flexibility in character creation. (Alternate: No rampant power creep like Skills and Powers).
DISLIKE: Hmm.
Vs. AD&D:
LIKE: Much more balanced.
DISLIKE: Not getting exposed to this with childish eyes full of wonder to Gygax.
Vs. Red-box BASIC:
LIKE: PC flexibility and spells.
DISLIKE: 5e takes slightly longer to run combats.
Dex is usable with Thieves' tools. Didn't seem sensible not to take Perception and Stealth to start with. That is the essence of the rogue. Stealthy killer that sees his enemies before they see him.
Pickles JG
First Post
Our Halfling Rogue/Monk has a Wisdom of 16 and expertise in Perception. Passive perception of 19 at level 7.
My rogue has expertise perception & 16 Wis & Observant, 21 passive perception at level 1.
My biggest like is the way abilities have become more absolute rather than being reflected in lots of small bonuses or access to rolling skills others cannot.
Examples include Ranger tracking, rogue cunning disengage(for tumbling), many monk abilities power attack (hidden in great weapon master) being fixed at -5 to hit +10 damage & "big feats" in general. I would also include advantage/disadvantage in this though I feel it's a blunt tool if it's given out too freely.
I also like the way they have sneaked in 4e style abilities through the spell system rather than by creating new sub systems, specifically for Rangers, Warlocks & Paladins.
Shout out to the background stuff which I was very sceptical about pre release.
I am not sure about overall style of game, or was not until I played it - I just think it is a very different animal to 4e or even 3e so I play it with a different expectation.
The limited customisation could be an issue though if the default characters are fun to play that is less of one. I would like less reliance on divine healers & the return of warlords - probably the only thing I really miss. Overall so far it has been fun.
Similar Threads
