cbwjm
Hero
Thanks, I'll have a hunt for the starter set and pick it up.Yes, it’s from the Starter Set. It’s a solid adventure.
Thanks, I'll have a hunt for the starter set and pick it up.Yes, it’s from the Starter Set. It’s a solid adventure.
I have most of the 5e books.
I haven't bought dungeon of the mad mage but I am considering it.
The Eberron book I didn't buy in hard copy and I only have on dnd beyond because it was part of the sourcebook bundle.
On the whole, this edition is like every other edition I was into, a massive money sink that I shall continue sinking money into.
Side note, is lost mines of phandelver (spelling?) Found in the starter set? I've heard good things about it and was thinking of getting it.
Oh man I recommend the AqInc book very highly, even if you don’t care about the franchise.
the company roles stuff works just fine as nothing more than roles within an adventuring company, the followers and home base stuff are a great addition, etc.
To each his own. I love it as is, and I also really like it as a wonderful template for how to use downtime and NPCs to add structure and story options to a campaign. As-is I really like it for pulpy high-magic storytelling. Managing the satire element isn't a big deal IMO.Yeah, I seems good for what it is. I gave it a look-over and wasn't feeling it.
As a big 4e fan myself, what do you feel has made you not the target audience?This is the first time I felt like I wasn't the target audience.... and they made it obvious this was true during the playtest.
There are many things that put me off really here is one such.As a big 4e fan myself, what do you feel has made you not the target audience?
To me 4e and 5e are very similar, but 4e was very similar to 1e too IME, so I am probably an outlier.
IMHO WD: DotMM is the best, fullest AP in 5e by far, and it fits like a glove with WD: DH and TotYP (which I plan to get at a later date and an expansion to DW: DotMM which has connections at various levels to the adventures in TotYP).
Famous last words.I'm a sucker and bought many books, boxes sets and miniatures for each edition. But I feel 5e has just the right balance. This my last edition.
Starting from which edition?This is the first time I felt like I wasn't the target audience.... and they made it obvious this was true during the playtest.
I am not familiar with that snip. It sounds like setting information, not game information. What game assumptions are you talking about? It seems like you are implying the game requires magic, but that is definitely not true. My current group of 5 PCs has only one character that can do any magic (revised magic initiate), and the game works great. Actually, despite that snip I would say the game works better with less magic. However, maybe that is not what your talking about.There are many things that put me off really here is one such.
View attachment 118377
Basically the games assumptions for me are just wrong from the very beginning.
To be clear, I was saying 4e played like 1e for us.Oh and yes I too saw the invocations of 1e too.
Famous last words.
What I keep saying about dice. I have enough gorgeous ones!
It was a front and center to players in the player's handbook whatever you want to call it, and things like that set the stage for rewinding advancements for instance in what could be assumed accomplish-able by skills / without magic and this is the foundation for that DM adjudication combine that with mechanics as evidence - my fighter will get mechanical scrawny under - defined to poor advancement of 20 percentiles in something he is supposed to excel in (and no indicators really what having more skill really can actually do more at any level so you might as well call it a bust). Magic is supposed to be overwhelmingly more capable and it seems that way for non-combat at minimum.I am not familiar with that snip. It sounds like setting information, not game information.
Bounded Accuracy is a design "feature" which impacts martial characters outside of combat far more than casters they do not get advancement in area or number of targets nor really any of the things spell advancement provides what they do not get reinforces the flavor text.What game assumptions are you talking about?
4e didnt play like it for me but it enabled certain things that 1e seemed to be aiming for (perhaps if my 1e DMs had extra awesome of their own I would be saying the same as you) and also elements 2e seemed aiming for but didnt follow through on - I loved the blurbs about inspirational sources for what a class was for instance from that edition.To be clear, I was saying 4e played like 1e for us.
Entirely plausible though.Famous last words.
What I keep saying about dice. I have enough gorgeous ones!
Nah, real RPGers never die. They just roll up a new character!Entirely plausible though.
1e was my last official edition. Well, some 2e elements. Skipped 3e and 4e. And I was fully prepared for AD&D to be my last edition. 5e feels the same way. If I wait another 20 years like I did between my last edition and 5e, I could very well be dead. So...it could be a true statement![]()
I'm not a new player so maybe those comments have less of an impact on me. I don't think the mechanics back up your fears, but my fears and experience are not yours so I see things differently I;m sure.I composed most of this at 4am my time I garantee its rambling
It was a front and center to players in the player's handbook whatever you want to call it, and things like that set the stage for rewinding advancements for instance in what could be assumed accomplish-able by skills / without magic and this is the foundation for that DM adjudication combine that with mechanics as evidence - my fighter will get mechanical scrawny under - defined to poor advancement of 20 percentiles in something he is supposed to excel in (and no indicators really what having more skill really can actually do more at any level so you might as well call it a bust). Magic is supposed to be overwhelmingly more capable and it seems that way for non-combat at minimum.
To me that snippet defines an assumption and a goal, remember concept first design for 5e that is the paradigm.
Bounded Accuracy is a design "feature" which impacts martial characters outside of combat far more than casters they do not get advancement in area or number of targets nor really any of the things spell advancement provides what they do not get reinforces the flavor text.
4e explicitly said otherwise to that blurb many times and many places that the martial characters were able to accomplish analogous amounts of awesome via skill and discipline alone this is something they told both players and dms and it was pretty clear it was assumed and backed up mechanically by things like skill challenges and skill and utility powers (a great feature of 4e thrown away).
This blurb may be a small thing yes but it says up front you are supposed to aim low for non-magical ability and expectations for it; And my fighter can truly expect to be huge 20 percentiles better than I was entering heroic tier on a skill I am supposed to be good at and focused on.
AND its even seems like there is a less obvious yoke on combat.
You cannot evoke the 1 man army of Chainmail when the game assumes you need to be challenged by zero levels and zero level enemies or even zero level challenges. I can find various hunter and monk and even a few fighter powers that can harm as many enemies as a 20th level 5e fighter and those appear at levels 1, 5, 7 etc... I think making Swarms and minions and solos and the like are an acknowledgement that enemies do need handled different based on the relative situation and that high level even in 4e had advancement for characters that wasnt obvious. Making a swarm of 100s soldiers and fighting the players in paragon could be handled either that way or with skill challenges. Aren't you the one who went through and changed virtually every monster in 5e?
So to me it really looks like the mechanics match the flavor text from that blurb ummm yay they succeeded.
4e didnt play like it for me but it enabled certain things that 1e seemed to be aiming for (perhaps if my 1e DMs had extra awesome of their own I would be saying the same as you) and also elements 2e seemed aiming for but didnt follow through on - I loved the blurbs about inspirational sources for what a class was for instance from that edition.
More than the latest edition doesnt seem to have me as the target I felt each previous edition did things better than the last. (Someone asked for how long so yeh Bluebook - though recently going back investigating chainmail for inspiration)
5e is not better in my opinion it has bits that are better (backgrounds) but I do not trust that magic is even trying to remain balanced outside of low level combat (did they give up? Seems like it to me nobody plays high level and let the DM figure out non-combat balance seem not helpful).