Switch?

[DM Howard]

If the abdence of mechanical character options doesn't bother your group then I would check out Castles & Crusades. Love it.

 

[Ranes]

The more I've read and played 5e, the less I've been enamoured with it. The absence of rules for many things, touted as a strength by some, I see as a huge weakness, leaving the DM vulnerable to accusations of DM fiat when a ruling goes against a player (something I've already seen a fair amount of), and leaving too much to invent and track for the purpose of consistency over a long campaign. At least, I find it shallow and less than satisfying. What's worse, when you do get rules for something, they are all too often hideous (the amount of time and effort it takes to create a potion just being one example). It's an easy game to play and run, at first glance, and one that has brought some real and welcome innovation but which, on balance, falls way short of the potential of 3.x, in spite of that game's well-documented flaws. I think 5e is a triumph of PR (more than marketing) over design.

I'd say, stick with what you have.

 

[Greenfield]

My group is contemplating a switch. We may run a small adventure.

To that end I've been reading through the PHB with an eye towards creating a character.

<Tangent>I once wrote a super hero game. I thought it was complete and well written. My girlfriend (now my wife) was, among other things, a proofreader, and she offered to give it a read. I was confident in my work, so I gave her a copy.

She looked over the first section and announced, "This is terrible!". I was in shock and denial, my pride wounded deeply. Then she told me what was wrong and I was forced to admit she was right. </Tangent>

Applying the lesson of my own game design and review to this book, I can honestly say, it's terrible.

My work was overly dense, which the D&D Next PHB doesn't suffer from. Pretty much every other mistake I made, they matched and exceeded.

Terms and concepts are introduced without explanation of what they are (Proficiency Bonus being an example). Their use gets explained a few hundred pages later, if at all.

Layout wise, the page numbers are very hard to read. Why they print pale tan on off white paper is beyond me.

The Index is in 6 point type, which is very small. I brought a magnifying glass to the game table, and it got borrowed a lot.

Tables are pages away from the text that references them, and some things are left flatly undefined.

As an example: Skills have general names, but no place in the PHB does it describe what they cover. Is Forgery a Deception check or Persuasion? (And why the ability to copy a seal or handwriting would be based on Charisma instead of INT or DEX is hard to fathom.) There really isn't another Skill that comes close to covering it, and both of those are a bad fit at best.

I've used a character generator (found here in ENWORLD as a matter of fact), and that helps me prepare the sheet, but the book itself seems to be written for someone who already knows the system or the concepts.

Note that this is not a critique of the rules themselves, just of the way they're presented. I'm fairly certain there are skill descriptions in the DMG or some similar book, but it's hard for a player to prepare their character if they have to select their skills while blindfolded.

Odd observation: Some parts of common labor, such as sailors hoisting a yard arm aloft or weighing anchor can't possibly be done under the rules. 50 men together are no stronger than the strongest man there, because all they can do is grant that strongest man advantage on the Strength check. If he can't do the job on a roll of 20, no number of men pulling that same line will make a difference. Some tools, such as a battering ram or a windlass might give a bonus to the roll, but again, if the strongest person involved can't do it, everyone elses effort is wasted.

I haven't tried the Advantage/Disadvantage system since play test, but functionally it skews the results severely in the case of any difficult task. During play test, Advantage gave you a +2. Now it gives you a second roll. Disadvantage, as I recall, gave you a minus 2.

The rules describe Advantage and Disadvantage situations generally, but give no specifics, which again makes it hard for a player, in both a strategic and tactical sense, to plan anything.

I played the system once at a convention, during the play-test period, and it sucked. I'm told that many of the things I found to be a problem have been corrected in the final version.

I'll try to keep an open mind when we actually sit down to play, but at this point there is a frustration factor that's going to make that rather difficult.

 

[Greenfield]

Okay, a few corrections. Skills are more specifically described than I thought. Under a section on Ability Scores, later in the book.

So that particular complaint about rulebook presentation was misdirected. It's not absent, it's just located in a place where it's hard to find.

Also, it's a partial list of examples, not what I would consider playable rules.

Perhaps someone can answer this for me: I have a character who wants to have some skill as a jeweler. How is that represented in the game? None of the skills seem to apply.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Okay, a few corrections. Skills are more specifically described than I thought. Under a section on Ability Scores, later in the book.

So that particular complaint about rulebook presentation was misdirected. It's not absent, it's just located in a place where it's hard to find.

Also, it's a partial list of examples, not what I would consider playable rules.

Perhaps someone can answer this for me: I have a character who wants to have some skill as a jeweler. How is that represented in the game? None of the skills seem to apply.

Yeah it's not. I recommend also allowing the character's "background" to sometimes give proficiency bonus on certain tasks, like being a jeweler.

 

[Greenfield]

While looking at a Cleric build, I began to wonder: Are all the spell casting PC classes glass cannon?

The 1st level Cleric Spell Guiding Bolt (I think) does 4 dice of damage, no Save, at 1st level, to opponents who are ostensibly 1 HD.

This will bear some examination.

I did notice that Saves are very different. If it's one of your "Proficient" Saves, you get Ability modifier and Proficiency bonus, which means that it goes up in level over time. The other Saves (and there are six of them, one for each stat) never advance. So if you have a 10 Wis, for example, and your character class doesn't list that as one of your Proficient Saves, you're stuck at +0 on the roll forever.

The DC for Saves, on the other hand, continue to advance, since the target number is 8 plus Ability mod plus proficiency modifier.

 

[billd91]

Alright so i grew up playing base 3.0 rules and thats whats I've grown up on and played for the most part of my life. I recently started a group with some friends of mine, most of which have not played D&D but have done other table top rpgs. This campagin is the first serious campagin I've run and being that I'm older I've started looking at new ways to improve the game as I've noticed later editions have. So the group agreed that if we were to switch editions it would either be to 3.5 or 5e and I've heard that 3.5 can be broken and less fun as the levels get higher and they are interested in the branching paths classes can take in 5e. So im basicly just asking for a general opinion as to whether or not to switch and if so what edition. We have alot of the 3.0 books such as all the expanded class books, Book of Vile darkness, etc. so id hate to leave all of that stuff off the table unless i were to buy the 5e versions of the books. Thanks for answering

Since you already know 3.0, you already know most of how 3.5 and Pathfinder are going to behave. You probably really want to give 5e a little bit of a try before you make your ultimate decision. They're different, as other people have pointed out, in a number of a fundamental ways. The 3e family (including PF) give you a lot more detail for building your character. 5e harkens back to older play styles with respect to magic items and other treasure as well as DMing situations that are otherwise undefined in the rules. You may find you prefer one style of D&D over the other, but not until you at least give 5e a try.

As far as making recommendations, I generally recommend Pathfinder over 3.5 for a couple of reasons. Paizo has supported digital version and online tools far more aggressively than WotC did with 3.5. Pretty much all of the non-campaign specific rule content is available online for free via the open game license. WotC chickened out on the OGL too early and withheld most material from the OGL with 3.0 and 3.5 - and that leaves some significant gaps in game content that's easily available. Paizo also sells PDFs of the rulebooks for about $10 each via their online store and that puts them within easier reach if your budget is a bit tight - as long as you don't mind using PDFs for your game. I run from my iPad, so I'm content, but not everybody is.

I don't generally make a recommendation between 5e and PF. I play both and enjoy both. PF gives me my PC control freak fix while 5e gives me my simpler/faster D&D fix.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Keep 3.0. The things you need from 3.5 that are actual significant improvements are the rewritten Bard and Ranger classes (and probably the monk although it remains terrible), and the errata'd Haste and Harm spells. The other changes are fiddly and annoying. Or go to 5e because it's a lot more streamlined.

 

[Greenfield]

Okay, we played a game session. Not too enthused so far.

At first I thought that the two proficient abilities each class got applied to skill and ability checks. Wrong. They apply to Saves, period.

Things make a little more sense this way, in that the other approach essentially made a character proficient in a whole lot of skills.

Apparently the only way to learn new skills after 1st level is to either give up a Stat bump for the "skilled" feat, or multiclass. Bards have an option, but lacking that you're pretty much stuck with what you started with.

You can gain proficiency with tools during downtime, but not skills. This leads to a paradox, in that you can learn to play an instrument, but not b proficient at performance. You can be proficient with thieves tools, but not in the sleight of hand skill that lets you pick locks.

It goes on. We'll play a few more times, I'm sure, but I don't see a real future in characters that are half frozen in time, with no advancement for half of what they are.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Terms and concepts are introduced without explanation of what they are (Proficiency Bonus being an example). Their use gets explained a few hundred pages later, if at all.
Tables are pages away from the text that references them, and some things are left flatly undefined.

5e was striving for a more 'natural language' feel after the jargon-dense 4e and RAW-litigation of 3.x/PF.

the book itself seems to be written for someone who already knows the system or the concepts.

The target audience for 5e, as just came up in another thread, was 'everyone who ever loved D&D,' so, yeah, between that and having a free basic PDF for people to try first, it's not completely unreasonable to assume some familiarity. I'm not sure the PH really does that, but I've been playing D&D since 1980, so I've lost any ability to judge...

Odd observation: Some parts of common labor, such as sailors hoisting a yard arm aloft or weighing anchor can't possibly be done under the rules.

The assumption is that the DM would make a ruling. Like, if the 20 STR hero wants to hoist the yard-arm himself, he makes some difficult check, if the usual number of able seamen do it, there's no check.

I haven't tried the Advantage/Disadvantage system since play test, but functionally it skews the results severely in the case of any difficult task.

Not so much. Mathematically, Adv/Dis has the greatest impact on even-money checks. If you need to roll an 11 to succeed, advantage is like having a +5 bonus. But, if you need a 20 to succeed or a 1 to fail, advantage is mathematically equivalent to about a +1.

The rules describe Advantage and Disadvantage situations generally, but give no specifics, which again makes it hard for a player, in both a strategic and tactical sense, to plan anything.

It is mostly up to the DM to rule on things like that. Players will get to know a given DM over time, though...

Also, it's a partial list of examples, not what I would consider playable rules.

Another nifty 5e developer catch-phrase is 'rulings not rules,' 5e is meant to run on the DM's judgement more than adherence to the letter of the rules.

Perhaps someone can answer this for me: I have a character who wants to have some skill as a jeweler. How is that represented in the game? None of the skills seem to apply.

Probably in the character's background, like Guild Artisan or something, and proficiency in the tools of that trade.

While looking at a Cleric build, I began to wonder: Are all the spell casting PC classes glass cannon?

No & Yes. No, casters can be reasonably tough, not made of glass or glass-jawed. And, Yes, spells are powerful, but because they're a limited resource that must be managed over a 6-8 encounter day.

I did notice that Saves are very different. If it's one of your "Proficient" Saves, you get Ability modifier and Proficiency bonus, which means that it goes up in level over time. The other Saves (and there are six of them, one for each stat) never advance. So if you have a 10 Wis, for example, and your character class doesn't list that as one of your Proficient Saves, you're stuck at +0 on the roll forever. The DC for Saves, on the other hand, continue to advance, since the target number is 8 plus Ability mod plus proficiency modifier.

Yes, that was an unfortunate design choice, IMHO. One variant I like is to add a +1 to +4 bonus (ie Proficiency -2) over 20 levels to non-proficient saves.

OTOH, saves are rarely save-or-die in 5e, so failing saves constantly even at 20th level isn't entirely untenable.

It goes on. We'll play a few more times, I'm sure, but I don't see a real future in characters that are half frozen in time, with no advancement for half of what they are.

Advancement in terms of checks is intentionally limited in 5e, a design doctrine called 'Bounded Accuracy' that's gone over pretty well with the community (as has Adv/Dis, which you also seemed leery of), in general. The idea is that, regardless of level, PCs/NPCs/Monsters will always be able to interact on the same scale, thus you can run in a fairly stable world, rather than moving the PCs from low-level to high-level 'areas' or even to other planes to challenge them, and you can use the same stable of monsters & NPCs for a whole campaign.

Thus, while PCs don't advance in everything, they don't 'need' to.