D&D 5E Non choices: must have and wants why someone that hates something must take it

[Dannyalcatraz]

With the exception of the short sword, most of those look like competitive weapons against one another, without a lot of work comparing them.

(But I know I am atypical.).

I wasn't exaggerating when I said i've used all 1-headed weapons except dagger as primary weapons for warriors, and simple 1 handers tend to be considered inferior choices for warriors. The Whip isn't exactly a powerhouse, either.

And the reason I haven't chosen a dagger for a warrior's primary weapon is be a use I see that as more of a rogue thing,

The cites seem to me like "this is what I had, so this is what I used", not paid mercenaries. The first comments on how unusual the crossbow as a weapon is. The second is the odd one out, while the others seem like "crime of passion" and hunting weapons were what they had available.

Mercenaries tend not to advertise that they killed people and how they did it. All we have to work with is crime reports.

No, but he would also not have the AC and hp advantage, would he? If he's taking non-proficiency penalties, then he didn't use feats on these items either.

To play to concept from first level, the PC essentially has to be human, have a Toad familiar (mechanically, the least valuable one in the game), and take one of the heritage feats and the spell-channelling feat associated with it. Additionally, once he can't channel spells, he's attacking at -9 to hit compared to a 1st level warrior with similar stats (1 less from class BAB; -4 to hit for non-proficiency with his Maul; -4 to hit from the ACF of non-proficient wearing of Scale mail).

Unless he subsequently multiclasses, he's going to be 5 levels away from proficiency in his armor and weapon, will be gaining d4HD and the worst BAB...and the gap between his attack rolls and real warriors will only grow.

So yes, a very non-optimized build.

Result - Hero has markedly pulled back, and their experience says those books don't sell very well. Their licensing opportunities aren't used all that often. Meanwhile, splatbooks by WotC and third party publishers are all over the place. Some of that is better market penetration, of course. But the splatbook obviously enjoys success in the marketplace. Adventures, meanwhile...they're not really great sellers, and WoTC doesn't do many, while Hero pretty much backed off from that market entirely.

HERO's decline isn't so much due to non-sale of supplements. Most of the people I know who play HERO tend to buy many supplements, as opposed to the big difference between the buying habits of DMs and players for D&D products.

HERO's decline is because HERO itself isn't all that popular. People tend to be turned off by the complexity of PC design, not realizing that gameplay generally runs pretty damn quickly & rules-light.

 

[Hussar]

This is so far off from reality that, once again, I question whether you've read the rules.

My group is at 3rd level now, and each PC has collected around 500gp each. They have a few potions, and one magic weapon.

And given I wrote the script here at EnWorld to use the treasure random generation from the books, I am probably the guy who knows the most about what treasure you should expect from the 5e playtest outside of WOTC and their consultants themselves.

10,000 between the entire party seems really far off, much less each individual having that! The treasure amounts are just nothing at all like 3e or 4e.

And to be totally fair a 3rd level party in 3e or 4e most certainly should not have 10000 go each. 3e pegs 7th level at 16000 iirc ( or was that 6th level?).

So yeah there's no way a 3rd or even 4 th level PC should have wealth like that.

 

[Argyle King]

And to be totally fair a 3rd level party in 3e or 4e most certainly should not have 10000 go each. 3e pegs 7th level at 16000 iirc ( or was that 6th level?).

So yeah there's no way a 3rd or even 4 th level PC should have wealth like that.

If we're talking strictly via adventuring, I might possibly agree.

In a living game world where I could take some of the loot gained from adventuring and invest it, it's not impossible to have more money than expected.

 

[Hussar]

That would be a hell of an investment to turn your 1500 gp or so total wealth into 10000 gp in a short time.

 

[Lokiare]

That would be a hell of an investment to turn your 1500 gp or so total wealth into 10000 gp in a short time.

go count up the treasure in each adventure in the playtest and then ask what the other characters possibly have to spend their gold on?

 

[Lokiare]

I somewhat understand that.

However, on a more personal level, it's hard to know what the feel of the game is (or what the intended feel is) without being able to accurately gauge the design direction of the mechanics, and without being able to gauge which aspects of the playtest are working as intended and which aren't. I'm very much a person who believes that fluff and crunch should have a coherent relationship; I likewise believe crunch can contribute to the feel of a game.

To me comments about feel without looking at the math are nonsense.

Tell me, how does a two handed sword that gets cleave on a successful hit that deals 3d6 compare in feel to a two handed sword that makes the character go last in the initiative order and deals 1d10 damage?

The math creates the feel.

This is so far off from reality that, once again, I question whether you've read the rules.

My group is at 3rd level now, and each PC has collected around 500gp each. They have a few potions, and one magic weapon.

And given I wrote the script here at EnWorld to use the treasure random generation from the books, I am probably the guy who knows the most about what treasure you should expect from the 5e playtest outside of WOTC and their consultants themselves.

10,000 between the entire party seems really far off, much less each individual having that! The treasure amounts are just nothing at all like 3e or 4e.

Isle of Dread:
3. Oyster Beds: Treasure: Every day the characters dive, they can recover 1d4 pearls (50 gp each).
5. 700gp, 1,300gp,
7. 2,000cp, 5,000sp, 1000ep, 1,700gp.
9. 9,000gp 300gp.
10b. 300gp.
11. 650gp, 500gp.
12. 1,000sp, 500gp, 10gp.
13. 600gp.
14. 30gp, 300gp.
17. 50gp.
18. 1200gp.
19. 2,000gp, 9,000gp, 6,000gp.
20. 40,400sp, 2,000gp, 18,000gp.

Sub-Total: 59,350gp.

I'll stop there because we can see its well over 10,000gp each for a 3rd level adventure. Feel free to add up the most recent adventure for the play test and see what it yields.

I'll take that bet.

Trimming the sails, plotting a course, running the tides, discerning the weather, rationing resources, noticing the ship following you on the horizon would all be Wisdom or Intelligence checks.

Trimming the sails requires strength, unless you are on a modern vessel with motors and pullies. Running the tides is just a memorization problem. I'd say that's an automatic if you are trained in sailing. Weather is the same thing. It doesn't really require skill so much as memorization. Rationing resources would entail more than a single check, unless you are talking about figuring out how much each person is going to eat and how long the journey is, then its just basic math. Something a trained sailor wouldn't even have to roll for. The following ship would be a spot check, not something that has to do with sailing. A non-sailor would have just as much chance at that as anyone else.

A lot of those things you mentioned would either be automatic or such a low DC that they wouldn't be a challenge. There are a few you mentioned that might be an Intelligence or Wisdom check, but they would only be done by the captain, which means a sailor would not necessarily even know them.

Maintaining good order among the crew, swinging into battle ostentatiously along a rope might be Charisma checks.

So I was right. You think charisma covers physical activities.

Holding the sails in position throughout a storm, staying awake during a watch might be Constitution.

You don't hold the sails in position, that's what knots are for. You trimm the sails or let them out based on the wind you are trying to catch.

Those are all more or less mundane examples. Previous versions of the skill rules represented the diversity from professions better, I feel. But who knows what the final package will hold?



Which is why the post immediately after you indicated which documents you were reading, I gave you a specific page and column number.



This was my point; we agree.



Sure, we "can" -- just as we "can" call it a rapier. Let the player decide! There's no one right answer: the player has a concept, and decides for herself whether short sword or rapier fits that concept. My point is you do not need to straightjacket your case.

I'm sorry, but a player can't call a claymore a short sword, why would they be able to call a small stabbing sword that is the same length as a short sword a rapier which is as long if not longer than a long sword?

So we're moving on now? We agree that swashbuckler is viable? Good.

Nope, its acknowledging that we all disagree and aren't going to change our positions. Its adding new data to the discussion to further prove my point. Its called the discussion process. You should do some research on it.

You are right that "the light armoured fighter that has to use strength" is going to be less effective than one that can use Dex. I might question whether that's an archetype, but you've defined your case so that it's not even a question.

The Rogue who has to use Intelligence (e.g. "Gentleman Thief") or the Mage who has to use Constitution ("not really an archetype but it my concept") are also less effective than some alternatives. That proves nothing.

You mean other than the problem is endemic to the system rather than isolated to the Fighter?

Personally I would love to play a high Con low Int Wizard that is a defender, but the game as seen so far doesn't even come close to supporting that.

Sadly all it would take is a few Cantrips, one that throws up a magical shield on the caster (temp hp), and a charm spell that forces a save and on a failure the target has to attack the Wizard. Then spells like Mirror Image, Blur, etc...etc... could be used to mitigate damage and attacks. Maybe some kind of feat that allows a high Con character to have more HP based on level (+1 or +2 hp per level).

You've presented hypothetical cases. What about your play experience? Have you played or DM'd fighters that have died? Were their builds optimized or not? What did you learn from that experience?

Having played various editions of D&D since early 2E, I can look at something and see how it plays out. I do have some experience with 5E play testing, but I wasn't able to test out the last public packet. I'm willing to play online with anyone if they want to run through the latest adventure and play test packet to prove a point.

What I've learned (relevant to the subject of the thread) is that a diversity of builds are equally effective, and that the system lets me create a more diverse level-1 character than any previous system (using core materials). That's what excites me -- the fact that apparently suboptimal builds can work just fine. When characters die, it's not because they were poorly built, but that bounded accuracy means a lucky roll or two will hurt anyone, optimized or not.

My dog goes to the door and barks half the time when they want to use the bathroom. That's good I should stop training them right?

I'd rather they finish making the game the best game they can instead of stopping at 'a few more options than any other edition'. Which is in contention, because you can play quite a few types of Fighters in 4E right out of the PHB1.

And when I've run sessions, it's shown me that players get jazzed and pick up nuances in their characters that help create immersive rp in a way I've not seen before. I've seen better and worse characters die, but death has on the whole been pretty low. (That's just an observation, and may or may not be typical).

I've seen immersive role playing in any edition. That is not dependent on the mechanics of the game. That is a player and DM choice.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Trimming the sails requires strength, unless you are on a modern vessel with motors and pullies. Running the tides is just a memorization problem. <snip>

Memorization? Like as if there are tide books or a website. Please.

The hard work of sailing is mental -- anyone can do the physical.

So I was right. You think charisma covers physical activities.

Please read: "ostentatiously". Yeah, that's charisma. "might": context matters. Ugh.

I'm sorry, but a player can't call a claymore a short sword, why would they be able to call a small stabbing sword that is the same length as a short sword a rapier which is as long if not longer than a long sword?

Now you are being silly. See the many pictures posted by Mistwell. Flynn was your example, and now it has to be a sort stabbing sword? Ugh. There's a reasonable range here, and room for more than one opinion. You know it, I know it.

(and we can imagine where a smile or (in the future) tiny PC race would call a glades his claymore; but you weren't trying to make a real point, now, were you?)

Nope, its acknowledging that we all disagree and aren't going to change our positions. Its adding new data to the discussion to further prove my point. Its called the discussion process. You should do some research on it.

Classy.

<snip more snide, condescending things> Which is in contention, because you can play quite a few types of Fighters in 4E right out of the PHB1.

Absolutely true. Never said otherwise.

Happy gaming.

 

[Lokiare]

Memorization? Like as if there are tide books or a website. Please.

The hard work of sailing is mental -- anyone can do the physical.



Please read: "ostentatiously". Yeah, that's charisma. "might": context matters. Ugh.



Now you are being silly. See the many pictures posted by Mistwell. Flynn was your example, and now it has to be a sort stabbing sword? Ugh. There's a reasonable range here, and room for more than one opinion. You know it, I know it.

(and we can imagine where a smile or (in the future) tiny PC race would call a glades his claymore; but you weren't trying to make a real point, now, were you?)



Classy.



Absolutely true. Never said otherwise.

Happy gaming.

So no actual facts or numbers to make me want to change my opinion? Ok. Next...

 

[Argyle King]

That would be a hell of an investment to turn your 1500 gp or so total wealth into 10000 gp in a short time.

A rogue based around Bernie Madoff doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility considering some of the people I game with.

 

[Mistwell]

Isle of Dread:
3. Oyster Beds: Treasure: Every day the characters dive, they can recover 1d4 pearls (50 gp each).
5. 700gp, 1,300gp,
7. 2,000cp, 5,000sp, 1000ep, 1,700gp.
9. 9,000gp 300gp.
10b. 300gp.
11. 650gp, 500gp.
12. 1,000sp, 500gp, 10gp.
13. 600gp.
14. 30gp, 300gp.
17. 50gp.
18. 1200gp.
19. 2,000gp, 9,000gp, 6,000gp.
20. 40,400sp, 2,000gp, 18,000gp.

Sub-Total: 59,350gp.

I'll stop there because we can see its well over 10,000gp each for a 3rd level adventure. Feel free to add up the most recent adventure for the play test and see what it yields.

Why would I care what the totals from a 1e module that was loosely adapted to 5e so people had something to play early on says about actual 5e rules for treasure? I have the actual rules from the playtest document itself and those rules saying nothing like that. I am sure that 1e module has magic weapons and armor you can find as well in larger quantities, and those are also clearly not part of 5e at such a level.

I've said it before and I will say it again - if you're going to be so vehement in your opinions, you need to actually read the rules you're debating. Go read them, and argue based on what's actually in them rather than this weird cobbled-together half-wrong information you seem to utilize between older versions of the playtest rules and earlier 1e adapted modules and stuff you've heard on message boards and earlier development articles and speculation.