cbwjm
I can add a custom title.
Thanks, I'll have a hunt for the starter set and pick it up.
For the 1st time: I am the D&D target Audience!
- Thread starter dave2008
- Start date
Mikeythorn
Explorer
I am with the OP. I started with 1st edition AD&D, but bought very little beyond the core books after that. With 5e, I have bought most (but not all) books, and can see myself continuing to do so. I even started listening to Critical Role after the most recent book announcement! It was something I had tried in the past, but had never got beyond half of a single episode. But I am spending the (Southern Hemisphere) summer painting the house and have discovered it is perfect background listening material.
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).
Parmandur
Legend
Yeah, I seems good for what it is. I gave it a look-over and wasn't feeling it.
Fenris-77
Hero
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.
dave2008
Legend
As a big 4e fan myself, what do you feel has made you not the target audience?
To me 4e and 5e are very similiar, but 4e was very similar to 1e too IME, so I am probably an outlier.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
There are many things that put me off really here is one such.
Basically the games assumptions for me are just wrong from the very beginning.
Oh and yes I too saw the invocations of 1e too.
Sadras
Hero
That does look like an awesome combo - I still have to read those three properly.
I love how some of these APs connect with others so well.
Arilyn
Hero
Li Shenron
Hero
I like 5e more than any other edition, but I have only bought the core books + Volo, and I currently only plan to buy Xanathar eventually. But it's good to know other people are enjoying other published books.
Paul Farquhar
Hero
Starting from which edition?
dave2008
Legend
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.
Personally, I can understand how odd inconsequential things can set one off. I skipped 3e entirely pretty much because I couldn't stand the graphic layout / format of the books.
To be clear, I was saying 4e played like 1e for us.
atanakar
Adventurer
Famous last words.
What I keep saying about dice. I have enough gorgeous ones!
I know believe me. Still, I'm truly content with 5e. It plays like a better version of 2e, which is what I was waiting for when 3e and 4e came out. Now that I finally have want I want, I really don't need another edition of D&D.
Last edited:
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
I composed most of this at 4am my time I garantee its rambling
To me that snippet defines an assumption and a goal, remember concept first design for 5e that is the paradigm.
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 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.
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).
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.
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;
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.
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).
Last edited:
Sacrosanct
Legend
Entirely plausible though.Famous last words.
What I keep saying about dice. I have enough gorgeous ones!
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
Arilyn
Hero
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
dave2008
Legend
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.
So what your afraid of is magic vs martial balance? It is not an issue for my group as we have very little magic, but this has definitely been discussed before. From a DPR perspective they classes are pretty balanced. So I assume the issue you see is one or both of the following:
1) Too few non-magical options/too many magical class options. Definitely more magical options than I will ever use. However, I don't need a lot more than the fighter and the rogue for my martial options. I did have to homebrew a spell-less ranger though. However, as it stands with just the WotC Fighter and Rogue we have:
- Assassin
- Cavalier
- Champion
- Battle Master
- Inquisitive
- Mastermind
- Purple Dragon Knight
- Samurai
- Scout
- Swashbuckler
- Thief
2) Versatility (or lack their of): I think this is a stronger argument, for fighters at least. If you get past the class name some of the rogue archtypes make interesting fighters and rangers IMO and provide a degree of versatility. However, it doesn't come close to what is available with magic. That being said, the UA variant class features offer some very interesting options to provide more diversity and options for martial characters. I think we are likely to see those soon, so I think that will help.
Personally, I don't need or want the copy / paste re-fluff approach of 4e powers anymore, but I am always for more martial options. I don't think 5e is perfect, and the version of it we play would be virtually unrecognizable to someone who just started with the game, but I think the core is very strong and great for modifying. Also think WotC has done a respectable job balancing the classes while giving them different structure as well. Not something I necessarily need, but it is a tough thing to do well and they did a good job IMO.
My favorite part of 5e is how easy i find it to modify to something my group likes. In that respect I find it an improvement to 4e, which was an improvement to 1e (for us).