D&D 5E Sell me on 5th…

[pukunui]

There's nothing to say that a fighter/rogue wasn't trying to pick locks in her youth long before she started taking rogue levels (as an example). Background and backstory can do a lot of heavy lifting when it comes to adding a sense of realism to a character build.

Or it’s just something they’ve been quietly but actively working on in the background.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Also, wouldn't everyone in the minor leagues be considered at least proficient in the sport?

Yes, and probably in the top 5% of participants, globally. But even within that 5%, there’s MASSIVE differences in skill levels. And MJ is still a good illustration of the problem.

Think of him as a 19th level single-class Basketball player character who took a level of the Baseball player class for his 20th, and he takes a new skill. Call it…”Hit curve ball”. He definitely could NOT hit a curve ball as well as a 20th level Baseball player, as he would in 5Ed.

There's nothing to say that a fighter/rogue wasn't trying to pick locks in her youth long before she started taking rogue levels (as an example). Background and backstory can do a lot of heavy lifting when it comes to adding a sense of realism to a character build.

That’s a good way to model Brian May & astrophysics for example. But it’s terrible for modeling MJ & baseball.

3.5 could model both. Sir May continued to invest in astrophysics as a cross-class skill while focusing on being a god of rock & roll. Meanwhile, MJ simply relied on his natural athleticism to make up for his lack of batting practice until he jumped into MLB’s minors.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes, it is like 4e, you are either trained or not in a skill. Multiclassing only grants a single new skill and only if you multiclass into bard, ranger, or rogue. Some classes (bard, rogue) also allow you to train more skills at certain levels and those all become trained and you add your total character level based proficiency bonus to the check (instead of 4e's flat +5).

Yeah, I wasn’t a huge fan of 4Ed’s skill system or multiclassing either.

That said, 100% of my 4Ed PCs (played or not) were multiclassed.

 

[Older Beholder]

Yes, and probably in the top 5% of participants, globally. But even within that 5%, there’s MASSIVE differences in skill levels.

And MJ is still a good illustration of the problem.

Think of him as a 19th level single-class Basketball player character who took a level of the Baseball player class for his 20th, and he takes a new skill. Call it…”Hit curve ball”. He definitely could NOT hit a curve ball as well as a 20th level Baseball player, as he would in 5Ed.

Yeah, totally.
The skill thing never really bothered me, as the difference between a level 1 character and a level 20 character is a +4, never seemed that big a deal. And, as someone else mentioned, there are a limited number of classes that actually get skills when taking the 2nd class of their multiclass.

You could always take a generic skill like 'perception' for example, that might not feel as immersion breaking?

I had a much bigger issue with the fact that cantrips scaled by total level rather than class, meaning you could take a 1 level dip of sorcerer as a 19th level barbarian and get Produce Flame as 4d8 damage. I believe this was changed in one of the playtest packets (?) and I wouldn't be surprised to see it updated when the updated core books come out in a few months.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And, as someone else mentioned, there are a limited number of classes that actually get skills when taking the 2nd class of their multiclass.

…which bugs me more.

I had a much bigger issue with the fact that cantrips scaled by total level rather than class, meaning you could take a 1 level dip of sorcerer as a 19th level barbarian and get Produce Flame as 4d8 damage.

That was an issue for me as well, for similar reasons, but stuck with the skills for convenience.

 

[Clint_L]

Yes, and probably in the top 5% of participants, globally. But even within that 5%, there’s MASSIVE differences in skill levels. And MJ is still a good illustration of the problem.

Think of him as a 19th level single-class Basketball player character who took a level of the Baseball player class for his 20th, and he takes a new skill. Call it…”Hit curve ball”. He definitely could NOT hit a curve ball as well as a 20th level Baseball player, as he would in 5Ed.


That’s a good way to model Brian May & astrophysics for example. But it’s terrible for modeling MJ & baseball.

3.5 could model both. Sir May continued to invest in astrophysics as a cross-class skill while focusing on being a god of rock & roll. Meanwhile, MJ simply relied on his natural athleticism to make up for his lack of batting practice until he jumped into MLB’s minors.

I feel like athletics is for more generalized skills. Something like “hit curveball” would probably be under the purview of his class specific abilities, at which he would only be a level 1baseball player, per your example. Not that 5e is ideal for real life simulations, but I do think you’re mixing apples and oranges a bit.

For example, a level 19 fighter/level 1 rogue only gets to add 1d6 sneak attack damage. They are nowhere near as good at at rogue stuff as at fighter stuff. Presumably the same would be true of your hypothetical baseball/basketball multiclass.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

but I do think you’re mixing apples and oranges a bit.

I don’t agree, but it would depend on precisely how 5Ed “Sportsball” designed the classes. If hitting a curveball was a character level or class level based ability, you get different answers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As 5th comes into focus for me, I can see a conundrum. I might be happier playing the game with the maximum number of character building options available. But given my dislike of certain mechanics, I might not be interested in spending money on buying the books to have those options at my fingertips.

I’ll just have to evaluate this more fully if/when it becomes a real issue.

 

[pukunui]

As 5th comes into focus for me, I can see a conundrum. I might be happier playing the game with the maximum number of character building options available. But given my dislike of certain mechanics, I might not be interested in spending money on buying the books to have those options at my fingertips.

I’ll just have to evaluate this more fully if/when it becomes a real issue.

If you use D&D Beyond, you can purchase the player options piecemeal and save some money. (Or potentially have someone else who has already bought them all share them with you.)

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm late to the thread but understand you haven't started playing 5e yet. It is one of my favourite editions so I'd like to see you try and hear how it goes. For the record, my favourite editions are BECMI, 3.0 and pre-Tasha 5e, very different from each other

Most of my favorite RPG systems over the years are pretty crunchy.

I do not consider 5e very crunchy.

First of all, I find 5e much easier to DM than previous editions, especially if you have a "rules as a toolbox" approach to the game and always keep Rule 0 in mind. If you have a heavy RAW approach to the game and want rules for resolving everything, you are going to encounter troubles when dealing with exploration and stealth, which are purposefully left more open than previous editions.

Also from a player's POV the game is lighter than 3e, but it can still be fairly crunchy if you want. The point is that 5e was designed to accommodate both players who want it to be simple and players who want it to be complex. I can't say it succeeded spectacularly, because IMO there aren't many character options that are truly simple beyond low levels, and at the same time there aren't options as complex as in 3e, but the range is fair and most importantly the game doesn't penalise players who choose simple options.

On a single character, 5e offers less "building blocks" and dials than 3e, but 3e was probably the most extreme editions with regards to this. 5e tends to offer bigger building blocks with more dramatic effect, think Duplo instead of Lego.

Across all characters, 5e offers a much smaller amount of published options than 3e. But because they are bigger options in smaller amount, 5e options actually feel more important.

The irony is, that 3e had smaller building blocks because it was meant to be played by people interested in creating their own material (see DMG notes on Prestige Classes) and ended up selling tons of books with ready-made ones because most players rejected homebrew material in favour of "official" one.

I’m looking to see how 5Ed supports concepts that are distanced from the core D&D PC designs of the past 40+ years.

That is tricky. 5e offers new concepts since the start, both narratively and mechanically, not necessarily entirely new but at least uncommon or previously non-core. For example Totem Barbarians, Paladins of the Ancients and GOO Warlocks felt quite fresh to me (not saying they were truly new to everyone, but I haven't seen them before myself). Wildshape and Combat Superiority mechanics also felt fairly new to me.

On the other hand, I don't think 5e makes it easy for you to create novel material by yourself. 3e seems to be a lot easier to break down to numbers, which is probably boring on one hand but makes it easy to create homebrew stuff balanced with the rest. In fact, even official 5e supplementary character material is few and often mechanically repetitive (bonus damage, advantage and extra proficiencies make up for most special abilities).

After more than 45 years in the hobby, I’ve played most of the stereotypical race/class combos from pre-2Ed that lingered on even afterwards. So when I sit down at a gaming table to start a new D&D campaign, I have those character concepts ready to go and can generally create one pretty quickly- I’ve even played some in 3.5 while I was still generating the character (I was late for the first session). But I’d much rather try something askance from the same old same old.

So being able to create and play things like a full caster in heavy armor, a “Paladin” with arcane spells, or a 2-headed bipedal fey dog-man engages my creativity at a different level. I invest more in the PC.

So 5e offers some of those possibilities already since its core. If you start by choosing a subclass that piques your interests, possibly multiclassing (5e has the best multiclass spellcasters rules if you want) and choosing non-obvious feats, you have the potential to create original characters (I woouldn't give backgrounds much mechanical importance though), but probably can't go very far before you start looking for supplementary books. Even there, I find the amount of available feats and spells still lacking after 10 years.

People just don’t learn like that. It’s divorced from reality in a way that really bugs me. A bridge too far. It pushes me out of my willing suspension of disbelief.*

Such feeling won't be easily overcome. 5e is less concerned with realism than you may like. Certain 5e tenets were chosen for gameplay reasons at the expense of realism, and the proficiencies mechanics is one of them. Another example is the full healing on a long rest. There is no other way around them than to house rule them if you don't like them. But OTOH with 5e being less crunchy, house ruling that kind of thing can be done without fear of having to rebalance other things.