D&D 5E Weighing in on 5e

[delericho]

Actually, one more thing about my proposed Artifice power source:

It allows you to model a character like Jarlaxle - he didn't create the items, he may not properly understand them, but he has collected a whole set of items that he can pull out and use as needed, and they represent a very large part of his power.

 

[CroBob]

hmm, we had a long-running 3.5E campaign that went from 2007 to early 2010 and took the players from level 1-18. One player in the group maxed out his Cooking skill and it was a big role-playing element for him - meet the King of Kingdomia and offer to cook him a meal, then go to the royal kitchen, meet some of the cooking staff there and get some juicy gossip from them... then, meet the Queen of Queensylvania and, after a solid, but bland meal, offer to give the royal chef some of his exotic recipes.

And, this guy made it a point of cooking for the party every time they set up camp for the night (he even bought masterwork cooking utensils) - so, it's not like he had no time to improve his skills.

similarly - if you have a player skilled in Dance or Acting or similar, that could also be a role-playing opportunity (i.e., show off your Travolta-esque moves to the pretty princess, or dance like Patrick Swayze with the comely bard, etc)

I also had a character like that. I'm not saying adventurers cannot be some of the best cooks on the planet, only that it's silly to make it so easy for someone who's primary job is to kill monsters. The role-playing the cooking and the practice is indicative that he'd be a great cook. But someone who lives their life for food and doesn't also spend most of their time wandering and killing would naturally be better, all things being equal otherwise. If iot's a major part of the character's, well, character, that's one thing. It's a completely other thing for someone to dabble in it, then level up a few times, right into a master chef.
And looking at it from the other way, if you decided to play an older man smith, who has been smithing his entire life and only adventures because something terrible happened, why was he unable to make a good sword until after he begins adventuring? Did he not understand his craft? If so, why did people keep buying from him?

 

[KarinsDad]

I think WotC should be very careful putting 5E out earlier than 5 to 7 years from now. There was a small stink in the community when both 3.5 came out and 4E came out because they came out so quickly after an earlier version. WotC should go back to the ~10 year model, not the ~5 year one. People actually start to look forward to a new version after 10 years. 5 years puts too much of a burden on the gaming community to re-buy brand new product.

74 original
77 to 79 first edition (or AD&D)
89 second edition
00 third edition
03 3.5
08 fourth edition
10 Essentials

WotC is re-vamping the system way too often.

 

[delericho]

I also had a character like that. I'm not saying adventurers cannot be some of the best cooks on the planet, only that it's silly to make it so easy for someone who's primary job is to kill monsters. The role-playing the cooking and the practice is indicative that he'd be a great cook.

Realistically, you're right. But the source material is full of characters who are adventurers first and foremost, and yet somehow find the time to be the absolute best in their (sometimes unrelated) field. That's just part of the fantasy.

And looking at it from the other way, if you decided to play an older man smith, who has been smithing his entire life and only adventures because something terrible happened, why was he unable to make a good sword until after he begins adventuring? Did he not understand his craft? If so, why did people keep buying from him?

If we look at the 3e skill rules for a moment, a first level character with maxed Craft generally would be able to make the DC for forging a decent sword at the outset of his career, and a masterwork sword after just a few levels. (Indeed, IIRC the default demographics would tend to indicate most villages would have a few Expert characters of higher than 1st level - so finding a village smith who could forge a masterwork sword wouldn't be all that difficult.)

However, in order to become the legendary swordmaker, Hatori Hanzo, you need more than a few levels under your belt. Only a decade or more of direct experience using such weapons would give the insight needed to make such a blade. (Or something. Or Hatori Hanzo is just an NPC with many levels of Expert or their equivalent.)

 

[delericho]

74 original
77 to 79 first edition (or AD&D)
89 second edition
00 third edition
03 3.5
08 fourth edition
10 Essentials

The bolded part is the flaw in your argument. Between the '74 original and 1st Edition AD&D there were at least a couple of revisions, and all through the 1st and 2nd Edition eras there was a parallel BD&D line running that also saw several revisions.

Additionally, it's arguable that "Unearthed Arcana" (or UA plus the "Survival Guides") for 1st Edition and "Player's Option" for 2nd Edition represented as significant an update as did 3.5e or Essentials.

(Here, "1.5 Edition" would be represented with the addition of several new classes and races, the reclassification of Paladins as a subclass of Cavalier, and the addition of Non-weapon Proficiencies. "2.5 Edition" would be represented by the point-buy options for races and classes, several variant magic systems, and detailed tactical combat, including Attacks of Opportunity, Knockback and Fatigue.)

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

I think WotC should be very careful putting 5E out earlier than 5 to 7 years from now. There was a small stink in the community when both 3.5 came out and 4E came out because they came out so quickly after an earlier version. WotC should go back to the ~10 year model, not the ~5 year one. People actually start to look forward to a new version after 10 years. 5 years puts too much of a burden on the gaming community to re-buy brand new product.

74 original
77 to 79 first edition (or AD&D)
89 second edition
00 third edition
03 3.5
08 fourth edition
10 Essentials

WotC is re-vamping the system way too often.

This. I know our group would be extremely disappointed if our current 2.5 year campaign, now at level24 epic, wasn't even *finished* before a new version, 5e or whatever came out.

If this happens, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see our group call for a vote to switch to Pathfinder...for the next campaign (which is already being set up since we're so close to the end of the current campaign)

 

[KarinsDad]

The bolded part is the flaw in your argument. Between the '74 original and 1st Edition AD&D there were at least a couple of revisions, and all through the 1st and 2nd Edition eras there was a parallel BD&D line running that also saw several revisions.

Meh. Semantics. There was additional source material added between '74 and '77 like the blue book. And the parallel line was merely a watered down version of the more advanced game.

Additionally, it's arguable that "Unearthed Arcana" (or UA plus the "Survival Guides") for 1st Edition and "Player's Option" for 2nd Edition represented as significant an update as did 3.5e or Essentials.

(Here, "1.5 Edition" would be represented with the addition of several new classes and races, the reclassification of Paladins as a subclass of Cavalier, and the addition of Non-weapon Proficiencies. "2.5 Edition" would be represented by the point-buy options for races and classes, several variant magic systems, and detailed tactical combat, including Attacks of Opportunity, Knockback and Fatigue.)

If you want to nitpick minor additional optional sourcebooks as new versions, I cannot stop you. But, it is the flaw in your argument. They do not equate to a release of a full blown version.

I don't consider Essentials to be a revamp, but I do consider 3.5 to be a partial one since it had so many changes.

In reality, there is original, AD&D, 2E, 3E, 3.5, and 4E. When these versions came out, edition support for earlier releases diminished. Those other optional rules and boxed sets that you mention did not remove edition support from TSR/WotC for the main editions, so they are white noise.

People could still play the core edition and still find support and new product out for it until the next version came out. People didn't really complain when 2E or 3E came out, but 3.5 and 4E came out so quickly after earlier editions that many people did complain because earlier edition support dried up.

 

[blalien]

You realize that by making this thread, you're just feeding the problem.

 

[Skyscraper]

I agree with SpydersWebbing that the entire ascending math is really useless and burdensome. I mean, each PC regularly increases his attacks and defenses of a certain value while all monsters increase their attacks and defenses about the same rate. But the PCs' math is only relevant compared to the monsters' math, so as a consequence: this is an exercise in pure futility.

Everyone, cry out for this injustice to end! (Or come with me in my secret anti-useless calculations cult.)

p.s. to the OP: the shot at Mazzanoble was pretty cheap, calling her irrelevant. You might not like her writing, but you could remain respectful nonetheless. Then people wonder why the WotC employees don't read and post on the boards anymore. Duh!

 

[blalien]

While I'm at it, I'm really sick of the complaints that Wizards doesn't listen to its real fans, aka you and the particular people who agree with you. The people who complain on forums make up about one percent of the fan base, and that's being generous. I can guarantee you that Wizards thoroughly market tests every book they release. If Wizards makes a major decision, they did it because that's what the majority of the market asked for. Since 4e was released, Wizards hasn't made any truly bad decisions. The way they handled Essentials wasn't perfect, but they did it because that's what people asked for, a version of D&D that was more similar to 3.5 and more accessible to new players. If Wizards isn't doing what you want, stop complaining and go make your own RPG that's exactly the way you like it.

As for the ascending math, when 4th edition first released, I questioned the point of the +1 per 2 levels bonus. If the players had it, and the monsters had it, it just cancels out. But that assumes players only face monsters that are their own level. What if the DM is running an open-world game, and the players have a choice of fighting goblins or demons? There has to be some mechanical indication that the demons are going to be a harder fight than the goblins.

If it really bothers you, there's an easy fix. Get rid of the +1 per 2 level bonus. Ban all feats that provide a flat bonus to attacks, defense, or skills. Equipment still have their special abilities but do not give a bonus to attack or defense. Then for every monster, subtract a value equal to the party level from their attacks and defenses. You will end up with something that is mechanically identical to 4e but with smaller numbers.