Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FireLance" data-source="post: 6330951" data-attributes="member: 3424">[SBLOCK=Disclaimer For 5e Fans]The OP is a snarky 4e fan, and it shows. Read at your own risk! The post contains several unfavorable comparisons of 5e to 4e, and may cause symptoms such as nerd rage, telling the OP that he doesn't understand 5e, telling the OP that he should play 4e instead, and accusing the OP of trolling.  The OP is not responsible for any consequences arising from failing Intelligence saves, Wisdom saves or Sense of Humor checks.[/SBLOCK]So, the weekend after the Basic 5e rules were released, my old gaming group got together to play. We'll get to the actual races and classes after a while, but I mostly remember the adventuring party as The Soldier, The Folk Hero, The Criminal and The Sage. (They provide ... leverage.) Backgrounds were probably the highlight of the evening, as The Soldier got Inspiration for experiencing PTSD after hearing what was apparently the sound of a child in trouble, and The Folk Hero also got Inspiration for deciding to go back and put to rest a family of farmers that had been animated as zombies (The Soldier did so, too, for a reason that I can't remember at the moment). Apart from that, however, very little else stood out about the characters. The Criminal was a wizard because he spent most of the adventure casting either ray of frost or magic missile (and mage armor at the start of each adventuring day, after which he would recover the spell slot). The Folk Hero was a rogue because he attacked enemies at range and in melee and occasionally asked the DM if he had sneak attack. The Soldier was a fighter because he attacked enemies in melee and didn't ask about sneak attack. The Sage was a cleric because it said so on his character sheet (more on that later).Races were less obvious, but for the record, The Soldier, The Folk Hero and The Criminal were humans and The Sage was an elf. So, first the positive bits. Backgrounds, and their associated personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws, made great role-playing hooks. They are also mostly system-neutral, so I can import them pretty much wholesale into any edition of D&D, including 4e. However, what I found to be the biggest flaw in Basic 5e (at least, from the play experience in my first game) was this: I was playing an elven cleric, and it didn't feel like I was playing a cleric, or an elf.Perhaps it was because I was playing in conservative, my-spells-should-only-be-used-when-we-really-need-it mode, but my decision tree for the adventure can pretty much be summarized as follows:1. Are we in enough trouble that I need to use a daily spell slot? (The answer was usually no.)2. If no, do the creatures we are fighting seem to be resistant or immune to piercing damage? (The answer was usually no.)3. If no, fire my light crossbow. (Firing a light crossbow is usually better than casting sacred flame.)4. Repeat.4e has been criticized for having "yo-yo hit points", but the fact that one or two PCs would normally drop to half hit points or less in a standard fight meant that healers had plenty of opportunities to heal. Encounter powers, even at low levels, gave you some scope to vary your actions in a fight, and class and racial encounter powers had the additional benefit of helping to emphasize your class and race about once per fight or so. Well, the DM asked us to level up to 2nd level, and we'll be playing again this weekend, so The Sage will now have an encounter power and one more daily 1st-level spell slot. Will this make a difference?  (To be continued ...)</blockquote>

Verification