D&D 5E What will 5E's "signature line" be?

[MortalPlague]

Why not just keep the 3rd edition (yes, 2nd Edition AC in reverse )? If stacking, just be smart about the design, if you look at 5th then you will see they have a ton of AC bonuses from various sources, just that they don't have AC types.

They don't have the types because none of them stack. It must have been a nightmare for 3.5 designers when they wanted to make a new feat or class that affected AC; they would have to go through everything with a fine-tooth comb to make sure it wouldn't break the game. And sometimes they'd just miss something, a player would find it, and a new potent combo would bring a problem PC to someone's table.

Simplifying the AC numbers cuts down on the min/maxing game. Some people liked looking for bonuses that would add together, searching through various source books for the right combination of feats and items. Others, like myself, would prefer to just have a more streamlined system like 5th Edition.

 

[Morrus]

And one last thing, and I'm not sure if this is a Gygax qoute or not..."The first 4 levels played IS your background (story)".

In your game, maybe. Some of us like to skip the origin story.

 

[Ragmon]

They don't have the types because none of them stack. It must have been a nightmare for 3.5 designers when they wanted to make a new feat or class that affected AC; they would have to go through everything with a fine-tooth comb to make sure it wouldn't break the game. And sometimes they'd just miss something, a player would find it, and a new potent combo would bring a problem PC to someone's table.

Simplifying the AC numbers cuts down on the min/maxing game. Some people liked looking for bonuses that would add together, searching through various source books for the right combination of feats and items. Others, like myself, would prefer to just have a more streamlined system like 5th Edition.

It might be stream lined, but in the end it leaves more questions then older editions. "Whats my AC without armor?" "Why can't I wear armor as a sorcerrer and stack AC?", "...or as a barbarian?" "what happens if I put armor on creatures?", "why does Mage armor end if I don armor?".

These are major questions, that people who played the various editions know how to answer.

"Cause mage armor give an armor bonus"...thats were it ends. The barbarian and the sorcerer obviously recieve Natural armor. Now why the hell does it not stack with armor? Well cause the devs cuold not think of a more subtle solution then this hamfisted AC system we got.

Min/Maxing is a partial myth, it exists... but its not a problem if the DM knows how to manage it. Ya know, this is what the 15 pages of backgrounds should have been used for, helping to explain to the DM how to handle various situations.

 

[MortalPlague]

"why does Mage armor end if I don armor?".
...
"Cause mage armor give an armor bonus"...thats were it ends.

"Because different sources of AC don't stack." That's where it ends. It's just as easy to explain it in 5th Edition.

You and I like very different things in our gaming. You can have all the fiddly bits you want, I'm glad to be rid of them myself.

 

[Ragmon]

In your game, maybe. Some of us like to skip the origin story.

You misunderstand.

I think what the qoute entails is that, during play the characters are allowed to develop naturally thus creating a background in a much more natural manner. (And not that you have to play your origin story every time you play from level 1)
Since usually the characters were uninteresting individual before they started adventuring, and only once they get into interesting situations and adventures do they develop.
You know like in most books and movies and video games.

Example: What defines Gordon Freeman from Half-Life... that he a is a scientist? No, thats just an uninteresting side note, what defines him is his adventures (the first few character levels). Even if he became a store clerk after (and all future games would involve him managing a store), he would be still know as "The cross-dimensional hero of earth (who might or might not have been a scientist)".

 

[TwoSix]

The 5th edition version is very poorly implemented, and the developers could have done a much better job.

As always, the fact that a rule doesn't match your priorities doesn't mean it's poorly implemented. They created a system where you have one Armor Class, and bonuses to Armor almost always replace the old AC with a better one, rather than grant a bonus to an existing one. Seems pretty solid to me.

TLDR: The players and the DM provide the background fluff, its not needed in the PHB at all. All the crunch parts of the background could have fit on one page.

This may be shocking, but a lot of people like their books to have actual description, not a series of lists.

I doubt it, the best they can do is the usual heal a bit after resting and not fully...but why would such a rule not be a core rule in the PHB instead of the one we have right now?

Because they playtested on many thousands of people and healing (mostly) fully after a rest was the majority opinion? Why is your preference somehow better?

Yes I have some beef with these rules, AC has been dumbed down (I belive that the devs do not believe that the players can handle a bit more complex system).

I'm always amazed at people's continual insistence that a desire to streamline rules is due to a developer's condescension towards their audience's cognitive skills.

I just see people asking in 5th "so leather is 11+dex...but what is my AC without armor?"

And it's the developers who lack faith in the player's thinking skills? Really?

Backgrounds...again: For the past...I dono... 30 some years people in TTRPGs didn't need backgrounds to define their characters...they used their imaginations.

"Yes, no TTRPG has ever used a mostly fluff construction to help define characters", said the Malkavian.

 

[Ragmon]

"Because different sources of AC don't stack." That's where it ends. It's just as easy to explain it in 5th Edition.

You and I like very different things in our gaming. You can have all the fiddly bits you want, I'm glad to be rid of them myself.

But they don't explain it.... they just say "you have 13+dex AC....oh btw it ends if you don armor". They could have, but they didn't, that is the problem.

 

[Morrus]

You misunderstand.

I think what the qoute entails is that, during play the characters are allowed to develop naturally thus creating a background in a much more natural manner. (And not that you have to play your origin story every time you play from level 1)
Since usually the characters were uninteresting individual before they started adventuring, and only once they get into interesting situations and adventures do they develop.
You know like in most books and movies and video games.

Example: What defines Gordon Freeman from Half-Life... that he a is a scientist? No, thats just an uninteresting side note, what defines him is his adventures (the first few character levels). Even if he became a store clerk after (and all future games would involve him managing a store), he would be still know as "The cross-dimensional hero of earth (who might or might not have been a scientist)".

*shrug*

And a D&D character after their first adventure is probably the Dragonslaying Hero of Smalltown (who might or might not have been a farmer).

But so what? If having a PC background really bothers you, then don't have one. Nobody will care, I promise!

 

[Ragmon]

*shrug*

And a D&D character after their first adventure is probably the Dragonslaying Hero of Smalltown (who might or might not have been a farmer).

But so what? If having a PC background really bothers you, then don't have one. Nobody will care, I promise!

Look its not about if I like it or not. It about the mechanics of it and the wrong message it is sending players, and how it takes up space in the PHB that could have been used for other much needed things.

I only come in to play as the person who is pointing out these issues. If you want my subjective opinion on the PHB, just PM me.

Pre-TLDR: Just some thought on what I'm doing.
I'm just not sure what it will accomplish, just about everyone has bought the PHB, thus there is no need to convince anyone to not buy it. Most of them will defend their purchase to the bitter end. (psychology: people like to be right, thus they will not admit they made a mistake by buying something of bad quality, the higher the price the less likely people will admit they made a bad purchase. Since I did not purchase the PHB, I feel that I am not constrained by this psychological phenomenon, thus I can give an objective opinion, as much as its possible, on the contents of the PHB).

 

[Morrus]

Look its not about if I like it or not.

Sure it is. You've turned the whole thread into whether you like it or not.

Most of them will defend their purchase to the bitter end. (psychology: people like to be right, thus they will not admit they made a mistake by buying something of bad quality, the higher the price the less likely people will admit they made a bad purchase. Since I did not purchase the PHB, I feel that I am not constrained by this psychological phenomenon, thus I can give an objective opinion, as much as its possible, on the contents of the PHB).

Sure. That's the only possible explanation. Anyone who disagrees with you is psychologically impaired on the subject.

Dude. C'mon. This is turning into a Monty Python sketch.