D&D 5E Which 5e innovations do you like the most?

[Mengu]

5e has innovations? The closest I've seen was the skill thing in the previous playtest, and they chopped that off in the current one.

There are a few mechanics I like about 5e, like the dice pool and the power points, but I don't think they are innovations, and I don't really know if we need innovations. There are a lot of existing mechanics to draw upon, that are good. Not every innovation is a good innovation anyway, as many previous edition hold outs will tell you about 4e.

 

[jrowland]

I want to say flatter attack math, but without high level play I think I'll wait. Flatter math levels 1-5 is underwhelming.

So CS dice for fighters is the best *so far* imo

 

[triqui]

5e has innovations? The closest I've seen was the skill thing in the previous playtest, and they chopped that off in the current one.

Define innovation. Was the first cell phone with camera an innovation? Was the first touch screen cell phone an innovation?

 

[Sadrik]

Combat Superiority and Damage/HP bloat

My favorite feature of the new game is the flat math. This keeps everything in scope and does not make things outstrip the relative power levels. It will allow for more variable power levels of monsters to be able to fight pcs. It also clears up several weird things too, where high level saves can make mundane things like fort saves in a drinking contest, 20th level guy vs 1st level guy. Poison is deadly not based on your level but based on if the poison is deadly. So I really like that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

5e has innovations? The closest I've seen was the skill thing in the previous playtest, and they chopped that off in the current one.

Define innovation. Was the first cell phone with camera an innovation? Was the first touch screen cell phone an innovation?

Interesting question. Does it have to be worthy of a new patent to be an innovation, or can taking an existing technology and using it in a different context enough? Digital cameras and touch screens weren't invented for cellphones. Was using them in cellphones an innovation? Was it innovative for 5e to take Storyteller's attribute + ability = dice pool and apply it to D&D a stat + skill = bonus? Mengu seems to think it's close.

I tend to agree. 5e has a mandate to be little more than a hybrid re-print of past editions. /Anthing/ that isn't clearly lifted from the game's history is boldly innovative in that context.

 

[triqui]

Interesting question. Does it have to be worthy of a new patent to be an innovation, or can taking an existing technology and using it in a different context enough? Digital cameras and touch screens weren't invented for cellphones. Was using them in cellphones an innovation? Was it innovative for 5e to take Storyteller's attribute + ability = dice pool and apply it to D&D a stat + skill = bonus? Mengu seems to think it's close.

I tend to agree. 5e has a mandate to be little more than a hybrid re-print of past editions. /Anthing/ that isn't clearly lifted from the game's history is boldly innovative in that context.

i agree. But I see more than a few things that are borrowed from other games or contexts and applied here. There are a bunch of digitak cameras and touch screens in DDNI

 

[triqui]

When they come up with at least two, I'll try to pick one...

But, I do like the CS fighter, I just don't find taking the 3.5 fighter (excellent design that it is), and migrating it from the BAB scaling-attack-bonus-based paradigm to a 'bounded accuracy' scaling-damage-based paradigm that innovative.

I have been thinking on this. While I see your point, that CS isn't in any way an alternate magic system as some have suggested, I don't think it is a fair comparison with 3e fighters. In 3e, the problem of fighters was they didn't get anything unique. Everybody had the option to disarm, fighters only had a feat that gave them a bonus while doing so, and avoided AoO in the process. In DDN, so far, they are the only ones who can parry, or trade damage to make people prone.

In 3e, feats often didn't have a resorce manegement. With weapon focus, you attack better. With Cleave, you get a free attack when you drop a foe. In DDN, those require you to spend a CS die, which means is a resource you don't have for any other use (like doing damage, or absorving it, or prone people). This makes CS far much better mechanic than 3e fighter, imho.

 

[Stasis_Delirium]

- Combat Superiority dice
- Ray of Enfeeblement (gone is the misery of fiddly math that this spell used to bring).
- At-Will spells.
- Backgrounds/Specialties
- Advantage/Disadvantage
- Possibility of players defining their role in a group rather than the system making that choice for them based on class.

I admittedly need to really playtest this round, but that's what I liked seeing so far. I'm really interested to see how combat superiority dice play out in the long run as well.

I wanted to add flatter math to that list, but its still hard for me to tell how it will do in the long run since we have so few levels to work with as of yet, so I'm reserving judgement.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have been thinking on this. While I see your point, that CS isn't in any way an alternate magic system as some have suggested, I don't think it is a fair comparison with 3e fighters. In 3e, the problem of fighters was they didn't get anything unique.

Technically, they had a couple of fighter-only feats, like Weapon Specialization.

Everybody had the option to disarm, fighters only had a feat that gave them a bonus while doing so, and avoided AoO in the process. In DDN, so far, they are the only ones who can parry, or trade damage to make people prone.

So far. And, anyone could improvise to trip, it'd just probably be an action, on it's own. That's also very much like the 3e approach: Without Improved Trip, tripping is an attack in it's own right that doesn't do damage, with Improved Trip, a successful trip let you follow up with an actual damaging attack, immediately.

In 3e, feats often didn't have a resorce manegement. With weapon focus, you attack better. With Cleave, you get a free attack when you drop a foe. In DDN, those require you to spend a CS die, which means is a resource you don't have for any other use (like doing damage, or absorving it, or prone people). This makes CS far much better mechanic than 3e fighter, imho.

Nod. There were only a couple of Fighter Bonus Feats that let you trade out BAB the way CS lets you trade out damage - though, sans feats, combat maneuvers often came at a penalty, anyway. CS is a nice system for what it does, but what it does is very much what the 3.5 fighter did. It's adapted to a new system, and, perhaps, that makes it a bit more consistent in how it does it, which is nice, but not, IMHO, really 'innovative.'

 

[tuxgeo]

Stealth (Non-)multiclassing: The "Acolyte" and "Magic-User" specialties each grant a pair of minor at-will spells to anyone having at least an 11 in the relevant ability score. After that, those specialties provide feats that require the ability to cast just such spells -- without also requiring class membership. That way, you get the benefits of multiclassing without having to have a special, separate "Multiclassing" system to do it. I think that's an innovation that's new to 5E.

A Skills system without a list of class skills. That's new, isn't it?

Herbalism as a feat (specialty) instead of a skill (background).

Ritual versions of some spells for flexibility of use.

Finesse as a weapon class instead of a feat -- except that it keeps some PCs from wielding daggers. The dagger used to be every PC's basic weapon.