D&D 5E The Annotated PHB

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
That and a lot of fans apparently don't want things very well balanced at all. 4E solved the perennial problem of the linear fighter, quadratic wizard and fans largely rejected it. I honestly think a lot of the power gamers, munchkins, and fans of god-like wizards just got loud and consistent enough that WotC caved. Though, to be fair, you could easily breakdown the assumed resources of the classes and build something for the non-casters. The martial classes would look a lot closer to Matt Colville's illrigger than they do now. Lots and lots of resources to spend. The fighter needs something like 2-3x what they have to be on par with the wizard...if you eliminate things like forcecage, limited wish, and wish.
Hey, I'm a powergamer, and I want to solve the Linear-Fighter Quadratic-Wizard problem, as do all of my powergamer players and friends. Don't blame us, blame the suckers who can't bother to learn how to do more than roll 2 dice per turn for the problem coming back.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
It is generally positive - certainly for me.

The classes are very 3e, but with twists to lessen the caster disparity.
The magic items etc. are back to 2e (not easy to craft, set stat score items as opposed to just bonuses etc - not exact but certainly more like)
The roles are less defined than 4e, at least officially - they're still there but again not explicitly called out.
Those are the things that jump out immediately.
Yeah, we're definitely closer to 2e feel than 3e or 4e for a lot of things with 5e. The magic items are, of course, a major component of that. For all of its good intentions in getting crafting into the hands of the players, it really screwed the pooch on how D&D played and in turning full casters into amok monsters. Returning to a structure in which magic items are benefits, not expected components of developing power, and wands are specialty combat/weird utility items rather than capable of holding any spell for cheap really resets the expectations.
One other aspect that probably doesn't get enough consideration is multiple attacks. While the 2e rules imply that you can only get one attack if you have to close, it's not very explicit. I'd wager most players assumed that fighter-types with multiple attacks got them all no matter how far they moved in their turn. Allowing that in 5e gets D&D back to that style of playing martial characters.
Removing most of the niggling little abilities given by feats (like avoiding AoO while shoving someone, or allowing someone to split their move by making an attack) also pushes us more toward a free-form combat turn where the main unit of concern - the action and maybe bonus action - is the only thing we need to really focus on, not moving around the board - something also more in keeping with 2e as it was played.
All of this contributes to why 5e is, hands down, my favorite edition. While I liked 3e and PF's upgrade to it, 2e always stayed up near the top of my list. And an edition of D&D that has a mix of modern design takes on spells and classes with expectations more like 2nd is right up my alley.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
Yeah, we're definitely closer to 2e feel than 3e or 4e for a lot of things with 5e. The magic items are, of course, a major component of that. For all of its good intentions in getting crafting into the hands of the players, it really screwed the pooch on how D&D played and in turning full casters into amok monsters. Returning to a structure in which magic items are benefits, not expected components of developing power, and wands are specialty combat/weird utility items rather than capable of holding any spell for cheap really resets the expectations.
One other aspect that probably doesn't get enough consideration is multiple attacks. While the 2e rules imply that you can only get one attack if you have to close, it's not very explicit. I'd wager most players assumed that fighter-types with multiple attacks got them all no matter how far they moved in their turn. Allowing that in 5e gets D&D back to that style of playing martial characters.
Removing most of the niggling little abilities given by feats (like avoiding AoO while shoving someone, or allowing someone to split their move by making an attack) also pushes us more toward a free-form combat turn where the main unit of concern - the action and maybe bonus action - is the only thing we need to really focus on, not moving around the board - something also more in keeping with 2e as it was played.
All of this contributes to why 5e is, hands down, my favorite edition. While I liked 3e and PF's upgrade to it, 2e always stayed up near the top of my list. And an edition of D&D that has a mix of modern design takes on spells and classes with expectations more like 2nd is right up my alley.
I started a new thread for this topic.

 


We don't need a special annotated rule book. This is just what the regular rule book should do.

That was after all the intention wasn't it behind 5e, to put power back in the hands of the GM. So inform them about what the designers were thinking so they can make informed decisions. Explain the rationale behind how sneak attack is designed, rather than have people go to twitter for technical rulings by Jeremy Crawford.

13th Age manages to do this.

There isn't much point empowering the DM if they then make dumb decisions like playing hardball on the rogue getting sneak attack because they don't understand how the game is supposed to work and you didn't bother to tell them.
 

Some, sure. All, not even close. And how is WotC going to tell if a rando person on a survey is a martial player or a caster player, beyond self reporting? In our group, and several extended groups in our area, all enjoyed the balance and options of the "complex" fighters and other martials. 5E does some really good stuff, but there's a lot of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But sure, even if there's a need for simple fighters, that doesn't mean they have to be subpar. Which they are, currently.
Yes. And they can't even tell if the people filling in surveys are actually trying out the new rules in play.
 

Oofta

Legend
Yes. And they can't even tell if the people filling in surveys are actually trying out the new rules in play.
That's rather condescending. I participated in the surveys and yes, we did try a lot of the stuff out.

Just because other people prefer things you don't, don't belittle their opinions.
 

That's rather condescending. I participated in the surveys and yes, we did try a lot of the stuff out.

Just because other people prefer things you don't, don't belittle their opinions.
What is this? I did NOT "belittle" any one's opinion.

Spare me your misplaced moralism.

Whatever unstated implications you read into my posts are purely your responsibility.

I said that WotC could not tell if people played the class options, not that no one did. If you're going to go aroud berating people make sure you have actually read what was said.
 


Mort

Legend
Supporter
What is this? I did NOT "belittle" any one's opinion.

Spare me your misplaced moralism.

Whatever unstated implications you read into my posts are purely your responsibility.

I said that WotC could not tell if people played the class options, not that no one did. If you're going to go aroud berating people make sure you have actually read what was said.
Isn't there a + thread procedure now? Basically a specifically labelled thread where, don't have something constructive/positive to say, don't post
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top