D&D 5E What I want out of 5th edition and my thoughts on what we have so far.

[Ahnehnois]

This is one area of the game that I think could stand to be just a tad bit more fiddly for the sake of being interesting: undead are too uniform IMHO; instead of granting blanket immunities, I would toughen them up HP-wise and then grant unique vulnerabilities that befit the type of creature and provide "spotlight" moments. Define the spotlight by player ability, rather than inability.

EDIT: I might even go so far as to say that undead should require the kind of precision attacks that more befit an opportunistic rogue than a methodical fighter. But that's my personal mental schema, and may not translate to how other people envision the fight.

It's easy to come up with images of undead creatures that have body parts chopped off and keep coming. Holes in their heads, missing limbs, etc. It's also easy to think of zombies that have to be hit in the head in order to be killed, or dismembered skeletal parts rendering a threatening creature into a moment of comic relief.

The existing rules aren't nuanced enough to capture all this.

 

[fjw70]

This thread really highlights why I favor the modular approach 5e is taking. Have thge more controversial aspects of the game being optional for the groups that want it. If you don't want the undead to have blanket immunity to SA then it is in the rules. If you want undead to have blanket immunities to SA then it is in the rules. Each group and DM can decide for themselves which option they want to use and everyone is happy.

 

[Halivar]

It's easy to come up with images of undead creatures that have body parts chopped off and keep coming. Holes in their heads, missing limbs, etc. It's also easy to think of zombies that have to be hit in the head in order to be killed, or dismembered skeletal parts rendering a threatening creature into a moment of comic relief.

The existing rules aren't nuanced enough to capture all this.

I can see having an optional rules annotation for monsters like this. Let DM's dial in their preferred complexity. Avalon Hill took this approach in their board games, and I loved the a la carte nature of it.

 

[Mistwell]

2: Again, the rogue is still one of the most popular classes in the game. I run a Pathfinder Society game every week and that is the class that is chosen most often.

Again, one of the changes made by Pathfinder was to allow for sneak attack to apply to a lot more creatures than it applied to with 3.5 D&D. So...are you seeing maybe at least a correlation between the class becoming more popular with Pathfinder, and the fact that is probably the most major difference between those two versions of the game for that class?

 

[fjw70]

Which creatures does PF allow sneak attack on that 3.5 didn't? I have never played PF.

 

[Mistwell]

Which creatures does PF allow sneak attack on that 3.5 didn't? I have never played PF.

Unless otherwise noted, only these critters are immune to sneak attack and critical hits:

1) Elementals
2) Oozes
3) Incorporeals (not all undead)

 

[Derren]

Again, one of the changes made by Pathfinder was to allow for sneak attack to apply to a lot more creatures than it applied to with 3.5 D&D. So...are you seeing maybe at least a correlation between the class becoming more popular with Pathfinder, and the fact that is probably the most major difference between those two versions of the game for that class?

According to this logic, the rogue must have been the least played class in 3.XE because they are "useless" (your definition) against so many creatures.

Or maybe, the majority of players do not care all that much about their damage potential and don't count the total damage they do each session and start to complain when it drops too low...

 

[Mistwell]

According to this logic, the rogue must have been the least played class in 3.XE because they are "useless" (your definition) against so many creatures.

Why don't you quote where I say or imply they are useless. That is not my logic at all. I didn't even vaguely mention that. Maybe you have me confused with someone else? I note that Halivar used that argument, maybe you have me confused with Halivar?

Or maybe, the majority of players do not care all that much about their damage potential and don't count the total damage they do each session and start to complain when it drops too low...

My personal objection to sneak attack immunity has nothing to do with damage potential and everything to do with believability of the "anatomy expert" issue. Which I explained above.

I am merely observing that he's repeatedly cited the fact that rogues are popular in Pathfinder and trying to connect that to a concept of players are not bothered by sneak attack immunity, but he's failing to appreciate the fact that sneak attack immunity is one of the very things Pathfinder decreased. It's highly relevant if he's going to make that argument.

 

[Ahnehnois]

According to this logic, the rogue must have been the least played class in 3.XE because they are "useless" (your definition) against so many creatures.

Indeed. If how frequently a class is played is so important, than the 3.5 fighter must be the best class by a mile. If PF made rogues more popular than they already are, it must have overpowered them, because they were pretty popular already.

 

[Mistwell]

Indeed. If how frequently a class is played is so important, than the 3.5 fighter must be the best class by a mile. If PF made rogues more popular than they already are, it must have overpowered them, because they were pretty popular already.

Understand I am not the one that made the argument that frequency of play is important - it's the guy who agrees with you who made that argument. I have no clue which classes are popular, and why they are popular, and have made no claim to such knowledge. I just think if you're going to make that argument, and continually cite the PF version for it, then you need to consider the fact that PF made a major change from 3.5 to the very thing we're discussing.