| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Sylrae |
Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 17:26:21
Having read through the 5e PHB and MM, I'm not all that impressed. I don't hate it, but there's nothing about it that makes me want to play it instead of any of the other systems I would consider playing/running.
At this point, I'll be looking at the various realms products they put out (adventures or setting supplements), and waiting to see if any rules supplement books make the system more interesting to me. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 20 Apr 2015 : 03:35:29
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I'm talking about the much LARGER number of smaller communities and towns and hamlets in between.
If you're seeing places where every Amphail and Hultail has high level NPCs, then I agree that that's a bad thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Ok, lets take 9 people (i used Kobolds as low-level example but CR 1 human commoners will do just as well)
I would reply the same way with CR 1 commoners versus kobolds, but I get what you're saying further down.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
This is what Advantage is for. As for synergies, they're not really needed when you look at the skill list.
Hrm. Advantage increases the RNG aspect, and I have mixed feelings about that. I like some randomness, but ya know... the line between enough and too much is a tricky thing. I suspect I'll learn to love it because I like other aspects of 5e. 
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
See for me, the character isn't just a collection of stats. They have purpose, ideals, goals, desires, dreams, pursuits, etc.
I agree that there's more to PCs than just the mechanics. There's also more than just their motives. It's not the case (for me anyway) that "the PCs are getting more powerful; therefore I have to find tougher things to throw at them." I mean yes, that's one way of looking at it, but it can be the other way around. The PCs are getting more powerful, so they're capable of tackling bigger things. There are always bigger things that need tackling, in a tabletop campaign, and that's part of what makes them this rewarding than MMO RPGs... there doesn't need to be a point where there's nothing left to do because we can already do everything there is to do in the game.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Basically even a high level PC should have a healthy fear of monsters, yes even kobolds.
Now I get what you were saying earlier. I disagree about the kobolds part (except when kobolds gain levels in PC classes) but I agree that there should be things the PCs fear at every level.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
And I'd say advancement doesn't necessarily HAVE to be a mechanical one.
I'm just saying it breaks suspension-of-disbelief (for me) when there's a point where the mechanical advancement stops. I agree that character development in non-mechanical ways can and should continue indefinitely.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I fail to see why they can't enjoy both?
Adult(ish) gamers can enjoy both. Not so sure about the average 10 year old boy -- and he's relevant because he's WotC's target demographic.
I agree that WoW is insanely repetitive and boring, and that it gets worse at max level. But I think that's due partly to lazy design... it's possible to have as much variety in video games as there is in TT gaming, and randomizing stuff is faster, so in theory everything has more replay value in video games than it does in tabletop gaming. But that's just in theory.
Anyway. I know level limits are probably unavoidable. I'd just prefer that they be kept fuzzy and theoretical, rather than saying "you no longer accumulate XP once you reach level 20." Because that means D&D shares a weakness of WoW. And it only offers 1/5 of the levels. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 18 Apr 2015 : 14:20:49
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Lets consider that the majority of D&D settings, PCs and NPCs with PC-class levels are something of a minority. With that assumption it begs to question how monsters exceeding the CR 12 range aren't totally destroying all but the strongest cities based solely on their numbers.
A minority, yes, but not absent. Population centers (pretty much any community with walls) inevitably has someone with a few class levels living within. Sure, Klauth could lay waste to much of the Sword Coast north if/when he chose to, but doing so would (1) require an investment of effort with almost zero return, and (2) spread the fact of his existence to an extent roughly proportional to the size of the devastation, due to those pesky survivors who always manage to escape. So... huge investment, basically zero return, and an unknowable long-term threat of reprisals. Klauth may not have worried much about reprisals a few centuries ago when he was feeling stronger, but that's just an example. Substitute any powerful and marginally wise antagonist into this picture and many of them will realize that there is usually a bigger fish in the pond and perhaps making your own presence known is not the best move. So things generally keep to themselves; they feed when they need to, hide the rest of the time, and plan contingencies for everything they can think of. It wouldn't make any sense for Klauth to openly try to burn or rule the north... but I'll admit that the argument would be stronger using something other than a narcissistic dragon as an example. The point is yes they could destroy some cities --and this has happened during Dracorages and various other dragonflights-- but there's little/no gain to be had from it so... why?
You can substitute Klauth for any mid- to high-leveled monster in the book. And I'm not talking about the "Major" cities like Waterdeep, Baldur's Gate, and Silverymoon. I'm talking about the much LARGER number of smaller communities and towns and hamlets in between. And the motivations of some monsters is just to be pure evil or even mindless. The point is the numbers of the system don't relate well to the majority of occupants in the setting.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Then we get down to the actual values. My 13th level Fighter (with plate armor, magical items, and features) can literally sit on the ground while being surrounded by 9 Kobolds who are attacking him repeatedly and only suffer being struck 5% of the time due to critical hits (even less with specific enhancements).
I'm not trying to insult you; I know you understand D&D... but this is misinterpreting the "to hit" roll. AC does double-duty in D&D as (1) how hard is it to hit something and (2) which incoming attacks are rendered harmless by the target's armor. 3e gives us "touch AC" and "flatfooted AC" and this distinction is brilliant. Your fighter is hit every time an attacker bests his Touch AC... at least 50% of the time given that your fighter shouldn't get any Dex bonus while sitting on the ground in plate armor ignoring his attackers. I would argue that the kobolds should get a significant bonus to hit him in this situation because their target is basically the broad side of a barn. However, the fighter only takes damage when they best his full AC... basically never, because they're (presumably 1 HD) kobolds and this dude is covered in metal plates supported by leather and chainmail padding. It's absolutely realistic and appropriate that he should almost never take damage in this scenario.
Ok, lets take 9 people (i used Kobolds as low-level example but CR 1 human commoners will do just as well) and give them clubs, spears, and daggers. Then put on full-plate and sit down with them hitting you. I'd bet you would be rendered unconscious in under a minute (10 turns of D&D time). I think it's totally unbelievable that someone can undergo significan trauma, even in full armor, and walk away without nearly a scratch.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I find that when Gods and demi-gods are statted, it's unrealistic.
Absolutely agree with this. This is perhaps the only thing I would put Gary Gygax "on blast" for. Assigning stats to deities was an utterly stupid decision. Unfortunately it's one that subsequent editions have supported. It needs to stop.
Agreed!
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
That's the point about magical weapons and has been a stated goal since the beginning of the entire playtest process. The point of magical items is to make you better, flat out.
This is a fair point. Magical items should be a big deal. I'm just not comfortable with eliminating circumstance bonuses, skill synergies, and perhaps other nonmagical bonuses which would become similarly huge when introduced to the barren field of 5e stats.
This is what Advantage is for. As for synergies, they're not really needed when you look at the skill list. Most non-combat options are ability checks, and if you have a skill that applies, cool add proficiency bonus.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
For me it's easier to calculate 3 attacks at the same modifier less than 20 with 3 rolls compared to 3e's multiple attacks, at different modifiers
Also fair. 3e does have a tendency to introduce a lot of variation, and playing with fewer+smaller numbers is quicker and has less room for errors. I don't mind the added complexity of 3e, and I appreciate its greater willingness to reward PCs (and monsters) but it's a "personal taste" thing.
Fair enough.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
When you've reached 20th level, why does the game need to suddenly stop?
It's not that the game stops. It's that it doesn't make sense for progression to stop. WoW for example... when I look at my played time on a max-level character, it says something like "84 days total, 72 days at current level." I haven't played in a while; I don't remember the exact wording, but that's the idea. It took me a little bit to reach level cap --to advance my character to the point where it's not possible to advance anymore-- and then... it's just coasting. Yes, gear can improve, and talents can be optimized, but the character (stripped naked) doesn't improve beyond that point. Until the level cap is bumped and ultimately that's just another step on the ziggurat of character advancement in WoW.
I find that very....unfortunate. See for me, the character isn't just a collection of stats. They have purpose, ideals, goals, desires, dreams, pursuits, etc. A 20th level Cleric of Lathander (or Amaunator) is still striving to rid the world of Undead. He's still striving to bring the shining light of the Morninglord to the darkest places in the world. To build churches that venerate the sun god. Just because he hit 20th level, these things don't just stop. There are still powerful undead and liches and dracoliches to vanquish. There's still a Gods work to be done. It's more than just a mechanical strive, it's a characters strive.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Level caps are unavoidable in video games. Infinite advancement would require monsters that scale up infinitely with player level. Particularly in WoW's case because each expansion is rebalanced, this is completely impractical.
But D&D isn't a video game. DMs have room to exercise much greater flexibility and creativity than designers have within the framework of a video game. Plus, when the DM is tired of making bigger/grander encounters the option is there to simply end the campaign and start a new one. Video games can't do that; they have to let everyone play as much as they want to, and players generally want to keep leveling up.
The idea that leveling up as the strongest or sole reason to play a RPG (in this case, TT versions) is a pretty boring one. I like to level my characters, sure. I like the idea of advancement. But it's getting there and being a part of the story as it unfolds that's FAR more important to hitting that next level for spells, feats, and stats. But maybe I'm not comprehending the message you're trying to get across? When it comes to leveling up, it becomes a treadmill of "I'm better so the monsters need to be better..." and that's really a problem I have with D&D (well, E6 is better and 5E is doing well).
Basically even a high level PC should have a healthy fear of monsters, yes even kobolds. If the game cannot foster that with the wide range of monsters in the Monster Manual, then I feel it's failed at some point at keeping things sensible. This is why I've gone to playing 3rd Edition with Epic 6 rules. The idea that my Fighter, who has magical plate mail, a magical sword, and comrades that are nearly unparalleled to those of the same race will still second guess dispatching a roving band of Trolls. In regular 3E and in 4E, by a certain level none of that is even relevant. To me, that's a shame.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
I'm saying that there should not be a point, in D&D, where a PC (stripped naked) cannot advance any further because there's no more game left to grow into. Raiding forever at max level does not provide the same gratification as meeting another XP milepost. Improving your character should never be limited to optimizing your feats and hoping for better gear.
And I'd say advancement doesn't necessarily HAVE to be a mechanical one. This is an area that D&D really needs to push because just more crunch doesn't cut it, and I say that as a guy who LOVES crunch. Again I think it comes down to that "video game" play. It's a TTRPG and the characters therein are far more than just a collection of mechanics and stats, or at least they should be.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
If it is, then tabletop roleplaying is doomed. Video games are far more compelling for many players, particularly the youngest generation. We will never be able to give them the brain food they need, when we're stunting character advancement. They'll play video games instead, which lack the depth (brain food) of tabletop rpgs but feature compelling graphics -- goodbye annoying character sheets, hello avatars that jiggle in all the right places and lightning bolts that visibly fry your opponents and sprays of blood everywhere!
I fail to see why they can't enjoy both? Not only are video games limited (unless your playing in a room with friends) to solo-mode, which is boring as hell, but it also gets terribly repetitive. There's a reason why I quit WoW and it was mostly because 1) the players were immature turds that cared more about the "lootz" I was carrying or using than actually playing the game and 2) it was farm, farm, farm, farm, farm, oh....and more farm. Hey cool, I made armor that I surpassed 4 levels ago and it's nearly worthless. YAY! I'll take TTRPGs and the interaction of real people who I can talk to and converse with in person every single time. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 17 Mar 2015 : 16:42:28
I think I may have already posted in this thread, but I wanted to reiterate how happy I am with 5e. Then again, as I always caveat, I am a D&D fanboy overall :D
I've had a lot of luck re-imagining old FR content. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 17 Mar 2015 : 15:26:03
I hadn't considered the frequency issue... excellent point. Since I'm thinking about the Realms for a good chunk of every day, I need maximum customization when building characters or encounters. For those who aren't as weird as I am, that might be unnecessary-at-best. |
| Dewaint |
Posted - 17 Mar 2015 : 15:01:55
Guess if someone is playing on a frequent basis .. let's say once or twice a week, will possibly get bored by the well defined rules sooner or later and more fond of 3.x/PF 'cause of the vast amount of options and maths-supported character customization.
Groups playing occasionally - for whatever reasons not able to play more often nor able to let the game go ;) Let's say once every 6 weeks, pausing during holiday season, might experience hard times to remember the exact rules or location of such rules. Endanger game fun by delving into endless discussions, DMs house ruling this time that way, essentially trying to move forward the game; and maybe next time the other way 'cause he's desperately digging in his notes and pressed to make decisions.
I admit it's a constructed situation, but maybe one or the other knows about such gut feelings.
Depending on the sort of game you prefer I believe both variants might coexist extremely well, players able to choose the one or other style.
For me 5e feels more like an evolution of good old AD&D/2e, which benefits from elaborated enhancements and player feedback of 3rd and 4th editions.
To me it's an appealing approach and am looking forward to future publications, hopefully with tons of updated Forgotten Realms Lore  |
| ZeshinX |
Posted - 12 Mar 2015 : 16:31:34
As far as numbers go, it's more of a simulation vs. abstraction thing I find. While I love me some simulation (the sort of "realistic" feel I guess you could call it), I also like me some abstraction (achieve the fantastical without having to accomplish something akin to a mathematical proof).
While I find the bounded accuracy of 5e a bit confining, it does keep the focus away from numbers/builds and more on the character's character. So it's kind of a split between "Who they are" vs "What they are".
At least that's my take on it. I love the details 3e/PF can offer initially, but I find the numbers get to a point where they overtake the character and you can determine success/failure purely by looking at the numbers (it doesn't have to go that way, but the numbers can be overwhelmingly hard to ignore at times).
I loved that 3e/PF try to base rules on plausibility and explanation vs "because....game", but eventually they give way to "because....game" once the numbers reach a certain point.
5e certainly returned to a more "because....game" styled approach to rules, but I'm finding it's a pretty happy middle ground. I still have my grumbles about some things, but overall it's working for me. I just wish WotC would stop focusing near solely on storyline products and release some bloody sourcebooks (something like Pathfinder's Advanced Player's Guide and such). The current approach feels like the game died after the DMG was released...to me at least. I have no interest in their storyline nonsense. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 12 Mar 2015 : 16:04:01
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Lets consider that the majority of D&D settings, PCs and NPCs with PC-class levels are something of a minority. With that assumption it begs to question how monsters exceeding the CR 12 range aren't totally destroying all but the strongest cities based solely on their numbers.
A minority, yes, but not absent. Population centers (pretty much any community with walls) inevitably has someone with a few class levels living within. Sure, Klauth could lay waste to much of the Sword Coast north if/when he chose to, but doing so would (1) require an investment of effort with almost zero return, and (2) spread the fact of his existence to an extent roughly proportional to the size of the devastation, due to those pesky survivors who always manage to escape. So... huge investment, basically zero return, and an unknowable long-term threat of reprisals. Klauth may not have worried much about reprisals a few centuries ago when he was feeling stronger, but that's just an example. Substitute any powerful and marginally wise antagonist into this picture and many of them will realize that there is usually a bigger fish in the pond and perhaps making your own presence known is not the best move. So things generally keep to themselves; they feed when they need to, hide the rest of the time, and plan contingencies for everything they can think of. It wouldn't make any sense for Klauth to openly try to burn or rule the north... but I'll admit that the argument would be stronger using something other than a narcissistic dragon as an example. The point is yes they could destroy some cities --and this has happened during Dracorages and various other dragonflights-- but there's little/no gain to be had from it so... why?
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Then we get down to the actual values. My 13th level Fighter (with plate armor, magical items, and features) can literally sit on the ground while being surrounded by 9 Kobolds who are attacking him repeatedly and only suffer being struck 5% of the time due to critical hits (even less with specific enhancements).
I'm not trying to insult you; I know you understand D&D... but this is misinterpreting the "to hit" roll. AC does double-duty in D&D as (1) how hard is it to hit something and (2) which incoming attacks are rendered harmless by the target's armor. 3e gives us "touch AC" and "flatfooted AC" and this distinction is brilliant. Your fighter is hit every time an attacker bests his Touch AC... at least 50% of the time given that your fighter shouldn't get any Dex bonus while sitting on the ground in plate armor ignoring his attackers. I would argue that the kobolds should get a significant bonus to hit him in this situation because their target is basically the broad side of a barn. However, the fighter only takes damage when they best his full AC... basically never, because they're (presumably 1 HD) kobolds and this dude is covered in metal plates supported by leather and chainmail padding. It's absolutely realistic and appropriate that he should almost never take damage in this scenario.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I find that when Gods and demi-gods are statted, it's unrealistic.
Absolutely agree with this. This is perhaps the only thing I would put Gary Gygax "on blast" for. Assigning stats to deities was an utterly stupid decision. Unfortunately it's one that subsequent editions have supported. It needs to stop.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
That's the point about magical weapons and has been a stated goal since the beginning of the entire playtest process. The point of magical items is to make you better, flat out.
This is a fair point. Magical items should be a big deal. I'm just not comfortable with eliminating circumstance bonuses, skill synergies, and perhaps other nonmagical bonuses which would become similarly huge when introduced to the barren field of 5e stats.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
For me it's easier to calculate 3 attacks at the same modifier lesser than 20 with 3 rolls compared to 3e's multiple attacks, at different modifiers
Also fair. 3e does have a tendency to introduce a lot of variation, and playing with fewer+smaller numbers is quicker and has less room for errors. I don't mind the added complexity of 3e, and I appreciate its greater willingness to reward PCs (and monsters) but it's a "personal taste" thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
When you've reached 20th level, why does the game need to suddenly stop?
It's not that the game stops. It's that it doesn't make sense for progression to stop. WoW for example... when I look at my played time on a max-level character, it says something like "84 days total, 72 days at current level." I haven't played in a while; I don't remember the exact wording, but that's the idea. It took me a little bit to reach level cap --to advance my character to the point where it's not possible to advance anymore-- and then... it's just coasting. Yes, gear can improve, and talents can be optimized, but the character (stripped naked) doesn't improve beyond that point. Until the level cap is bumped and ultimately that's just another step on the ziggurat of character advancement in WoW.
Level caps are unavoidable in video games. Infinite advancement would require monsters that scale up infinitely with player level. Particularly in WoW's case because each expansion is rebalanced, this is completely impractical.
But D&D isn't a video game. DMs have room to exercise much greater flexibility and creativity than designers have within the framework of a video game. Plus, when the DM is tired of making bigger/grander encounters the option is there to simply end the campaign and start a new one. Video games can't do that; they have to let everyone play as much as they want to, and players generally want to keep leveling up.
I'm rambling. I'm saying that there should not be a point, in D&D, where a PC (stripped naked) cannot advance any further because there's no more game left to grow into. Raiding forever at max level does not provide the same gratification as meeting another XP milepost. Improving your character should never be limited to optimizing your feats and hoping for better gear.
If it is, then tabletop roleplaying is doomed. Video games are far more compelling for many players, particularly the youngest generation. We will never be able to give them the brain food they need, when we're stunting character advancement. They'll play video games instead, which lack the depth (brain food) of tabletop rpgs but feature compelling graphics -- goodbye annoying character sheets, hello avatars that jiggle in all the right places and lightning bolts that visibly fry your opponents and sprays of blood everywhere!
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 12 Mar 2015 : 06:27:00
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
1. Because bonuses ranging from +1 to +20 exacerbates the numbers to a ridiculous degree, causing multipliers and stats to rise astronomically compared to the averages of others in the system. Basically it leads to numbers porn where the AC of a monster of X level needs to be Y because......game.
Yes, the numbers in 3e can get bigger than they do in 5e. So? Problems can arise when they're not balanced properly, but the numbers themselves are not a problem. Barring a phobia of big numbers (I'm not making fun of anyone, just making a point) I think disapproval of 3e's numbers should actually be aimed at balance, not at the magnitude of the numbers.
I find that it's a problem overall when the numbers fail to represent what's actually being described within the theme of the game and setting. Lets consider that the majority of D&D settings, PCs and NPCs with PC-class levels are something of a minority. With that assumption it begs to question how monsters exceeding the CR 12 range aren't totally destroying all but the strongest cities based solely on their numbers.
Then we get down to the actual values. My 13th level Fighter (with plate armor, magical items, and features) can literally sit on the ground while being surrounded by 9 Kobolds who are attacking him repeatedly and only suffer being struck 5% of the time due to critical hits (even less with specific enhancements). I'm sorry but I find that completely ridiculous and stupid. At least in 5E a 13th level Fighter can still be hit, and more often, but relies more on their deeper pool of HP than other monsters and the like.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
How is it unrealistic for a level 20 fighter to "automatically hit" a target that a level 1 fighter has to put some effort into?
Because to-hit isn't the end all / be all of prowess in D&D or even in real life. Tell me, why is it impossible for a 1st level 3.5 Fighter to hit and damage an Adult Dragon even though he Slams his weapon into the monster's leg but a 20th level Fighter with the same equipment and a marginal increase in Strength Does? How does that, at all, translate well to keeping immersion?
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
3e might not be perfect
Well at least here we can agree, and eagerly I might add.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
but 5e's tiny progression is unrealistic. They may have scaled ACs down to fit it, but it still doesn't make sense.
It really depends on how you perceive realism. I find a Fighter sitting down for dinner while Kobolds wail on you and not worry a bit wholly moronic, yet it's easily achievable due to 3E's math. I find that a Monster who's AC is in the 30's and attack values in the mid-30's and 40's and hasn't destroyed a few hundred miles of civilization completely unrealistic. I find that when Gods and demi-gods are statted, it's unrealistic. I find the idea that a player can literally pump out +1,000's of damage per turn moronic. 3E is filled with things that literally make no sense, who's only reason for existence is....game.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
From a different angle, a smaller range of numbers makes each point more "powerful." In 3e, if a high-level character gets another +1 bonus from something, it's no big deal right? In 5e, it's a big deal. So a +1 upgrade to an item or stat is great from the 5e beneficiary's perspective, but it has more potential for unbalancing the group than it does in 3e.
That's the point about magical weapons and has been a stated goal since the beginning of the entire playtest process. The point of magical items is to make you better, flat out. No more "added progression due to X, Y, or Z." No more assumption of auto-matic stat bonuses by 14th level or the requirement to have a +X weapon by Z level or you will eventually die due to systemic math equations.
Not only that but smaller numbers are just frankly easier to deal with overall. For me it's easier to calculate 3 attacks at the same modifier lesser than 20 with 3 rolls compared to 3e's multiple attacks, at different modifiers with numbers exceeding 20.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
As for level capping, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they came out with a Epic levels handbook further down the road to supplement the epic style campaigns.
Maybe. With 5e's emphasis on simplifying, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't ever create over-20 rules.
It's not a big deal for me either way, really. I don't anticipate having a need for a new epic level handbook. If a campaign stretches past level 20 I'll make my own rules if there isn't a book for it.
Eh, I'm in the same boat as my games rarely achieve the 20+ mark. That being said because the system is so lite and simple, it wouldn't be hard to tack on rules that exceed what's already present. Same way Epic rules were created with 3E, a tacked on supplement that halfheartedly tries to mimic the genre. Throw in some epic level feats and class progressions or a simple Sub-Class system that is already in place or take straight from the Epic Destiny of 4E would be a cinch.
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
The key for me is how enjoyable playing is, at every level. If playing at level 1 is just as enjoyable as playing at level 20, then players have no resistance to ending a campaign and rolling up new characters for another. It's only when low levels stink that we want to keep going into higher levels, and that's been a problem (for me at least) in previous editions.
I guess the question is at that point is leveling even something that matters? When you've reached 20th level, why does the game need to suddenly stop? Why not continue to adventure and do daring things? Is it because you're no longer getting even more powerful and strong mechanically? Superman, by comparison, still has adventures and I'd say he hasn't "leveled" in a LONG time. Maybe campaign specific events fuels the characters motives and continue to let them grow instead of just adding a few more bonuses, feats, and magical items. |
| Delwa |
Posted - 11 Mar 2015 : 17:03:57
LOL. You make good points. My own experience with high level DMing in 3.5 didn't break down because of in-party fighting (most of my long-time players are post-college age.) But I'm probably not the norm. A lot of the "let's burn down the town because we can" stuff is policed by my own PC's because that's not what many of them want out of my games.
It broke down for me in providing challenging encounters at high levels that I could manage. That's just as much my fault as anything else. Like you said, it remains true as long as nobody gets to practice.
I think what the playtest did for me was give me that extra boost of practice. I got to see how this edition was designed from the ground up. Why they went XYZ way instead of ABC, and that helped me learn the system. I didn't have that when I learned 3.5. If I had, I may not have ever switched.
Another added benefit, again, is the trimmed down system. I had trouble juggling all the things a Colossal Red Wyrm could do, was resistant to, had Damage Reduction from, was Immune to, etc. It's a lot more trimmed down in 5E. The same Colossal Red Wyrm provides just as big a challenge when run correctly against an appropriately leveled party, but there are fewer things for me as DM to remember, and that has helped me a lot. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 11 Mar 2015 : 15:53:26
I think a moderate portion of the reason why many campaigns don't get past a certain point is an assumption that every campaign should begin at level 1, or at a low level at least. What if you make a new 15th level character for Lord of the Iron Fortress and the adventure doesn't end because the DM has a campaign that follows from it? (tricksy DMses!)
Unusual, yea, but possible and potentially awesome.
A lot of players I've talked to have only gotten to 15th level once or twice, and have never played to 20th level, and the stories look something like this:
they always start at level 1
boredom and "one-up-man-ship" become apparent around level 6
by level 8 drama between the players is threatening to break the group apart
by level 12 the group is hemorrhaging players and the newbies get intimidated by the simmering aggression
the DM vanishes and changes his phone number
That's not necessarily a weakness of the game. It suggests several possible observations about the players and the DM and how tedious and unrewarding the game might be at low levels, but it doesn't mean that nobody wants to play higher levels.
A player who realizes that he's never played a 20th level character has a challenging situation. The DM has to have high-level adventures available, and be confident running them. The other players have to share this player's desire to play higher levels. The group has to have some cohesion, some motivation to cooperate and ignore drama, etc.
Those things also have to be present in higher doses than when the characters are lower levels because playing a higher level character demands more focus and more roleplaying -- you have more abilities to understand and use properly, and a typical teenager with the capability of wiping out the town militia and forcing his will on the peasants has to expend more willpower to resist the urge.
I'm just saying it's tough for many players to just pipe up with "hey let's play high level characters." The usual response seems to be "uh, let's not." Because many DMs have few/no positive (and maybe several negative) memories of DMing higher level groups. Also, many DMs might accurately predict that the current group of players are unlikely to deal with it well.
You want the high levels? You can't handle the high levels!
The problem is, that remains true as long as nobody gets to practice.
This rambling rant has been brought to you by me. We now return you to your regularly scheduled... ranting by everyone else.  |
| Delwa |
Posted - 11 Mar 2015 : 14:59:21
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Yes, the numbers in 3e can get bigger than they do in 5e. So? Problems can arise when they're not balanced properly, but the numbers themselves are not a problem. Barring a phobia of big numbers (I'm not making fun of anyone, just making a point) I think disapproval of 3e's numbers should actually be aimed at balance, not at the magnitude of the numbers.
Agreed. I will say that 3E's numbers were daunting to me, and I ran that edition for years. My brain always shuts down when you throw several (meaning more than one) double digit numbers and tell me to math them. I kinda feel like this guy. Having smaller numbers helps from a playablity standpoint. It makes the game more appealing to a wider range of people because they aren't daunted by the numbers. I do agree, however, in terms of debate, your strongest argument is going to be focused on game balance.
quote:
How is it unrealistic for a level 20 fighter to "automatically hit" a target that a level 1 fighter has to put some effort into? 3e might not be perfect, but 5e's tiny progression is unrealistic. They may have scaled ACs down to fit it, but it still doesn't make sense.
It does to me in a sense. Like you point out, a smaller bonus is a much bigger deal. Your training in this edition doesn't mean bigger numbers, it means more options. Look at your fighter. Sure, his proficiency bonus scales the same as everyone else, but he gets more options on how to use it in melee combat.
quote:
Maybe. With 5e's emphasis on simplifying, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't ever create over-20 rules.
It's not a big deal for me either way, really. I don't anticipate having a need for a new epic level handbook. If a campaign stretches past level 20 I'll make my own rules if there isn't a book for it.
The key for me is how enjoyable playing is, at every level. If playing at level 1 is just as enjoyable as playing at level 20, then players have no resistance to ending a campaign and rolling up new characters for another. It's only when low levels stink that we want to keep going into higher levels, and that's been a problem (for me at least) in previous editions.
Right on. Most games I've been a part of don't get more than ten levels before the story wraps up. I don't see levels beyond twenty being a priority simply because most games don't get that far. If they do, great, and if an ELH is published, I'll pick it up for ideas, but like you said, I don't need it. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 11 Mar 2015 : 14:30:28
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
1. Because bonuses ranging from +1 to +20 exacerbates the numbers to a ridiculous degree, causing multipliers and stats to rise astronomically compared to the averages of others in the system. Basically it leads to numbers porn where the AC of a monster of X level needs to be Y because......game.
Yes, the numbers in 3e can get bigger than they do in 5e. So? Problems can arise when they're not balanced properly, but the numbers themselves are not a problem. Barring a phobia of big numbers (I'm not making fun of anyone, just making a point) I think disapproval of 3e's numbers should actually be aimed at balance, not at the magnitude of the numbers.
How is it unrealistic for a level 20 fighter to "automatically hit" a target that a level 1 fighter has to put some effort into? 3e might not be perfect, but 5e's tiny progression is unrealistic. They may have scaled ACs down to fit it, but it still doesn't make sense.
From a different angle, a smaller range of numbers makes each point more "powerful." In 3e, if a high-level character gets another +1 bonus from something, it's no big deal right? In 5e, it's a big deal. So a +1 upgrade to an item or stat is great from the 5e beneficiary's perspective, but it has more potential for unbalancing the group than it does in 3e.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
As for level capping, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they came out with a Epic levels handbook further down the road to supplement the epic style campaigns.
Maybe. With 5e's emphasis on simplifying, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't ever create over-20 rules.
It's not a big deal for me either way, really. I don't anticipate having a need for a new epic level handbook. If a campaign stretches past level 20 I'll make my own rules if there isn't a book for it.
The key for me is how enjoyable playing is, at every level. If playing at level 1 is just as enjoyable as playing at level 20, then players have no resistance to ending a campaign and rolling up new characters for another. It's only when low levels stink that we want to keep going into higher levels, and that's been a problem (for me at least) in previous editions. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 11 Mar 2015 : 05:19:45
quote:
Originally posted by Tamsar
My main issue with 5th edition from what I've seen so far is a level 1 (novice adventurer) has a +2 proficiency bonus whereas a level 20 (pinnacle of mortal achievement) has +6, a difference of only +4 (or 20% on a d20)? Also why does a level 20 wizard with equivalent strength have the same chance to hit as a fighter? It's just too incongruous for me. Not going to explore 5th edition beyond the starter set for me, system isn't compelling enough for me to switch.
1. Because bonuses ranging from +1 to +20 exacerbates the numbers to a ridiculous degree, causing multipliers and stats to rise astronomically compared to the averages of others in the system. Basically it leads to numbers porn where the AC of a monster of X level needs to be Y because......game.
and
2. Its more important that a Fighter gets 3 attacks per turn (6 with action surge) compared to a wizards 1 attack, ever. Even if the attack modifier is the same (which I'd speculate that 90% of the time it won't be), the fighter is always attacking more and having higher damage output compared to wizards weapon attacks.
and
3. Weapon proficiencies. Fighters get proficiency with ALL weapons while wizards selection is extremely limited. So yeah a 20th level wizard is getting +6 to attack with his Quarterstaff, dealing 1d6 + Str mod damage compared to a Fighters +6 to attack (3x) with a great sword dealing 2d6 + Str damage or more depending on feats choice.
As for level capping, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they came out with a Epic levels handbook further down the road to supplement the epic style campaigns. |
| Delwa |
Posted - 10 Mar 2015 : 17:14:30
Another thing to keep in mind is that 5E is a very flexible ruleset. You could easily go on gaining levels after 20 if you wanted to without breaking things too much, though you would have to multiclass if you didn't homebrew higher levels.
If my games proceed that far, I do plan on giving players options. If they are already multiclassed, they may continue until they are level 20 in each class. If they are single classed, they may multiclass as per the multiclassing rules in the PHB until their second class hits twenty. They may also gain Epic Boons.
The DMG also provides the proficiency bonus progressions through level 30. You can tailor something around that, as well.
It's not like you run out of options that are built into the official material at level 20. You merely have to start really getting creative. To my mind, if you've made it that far, creativity isn't a resource you lack. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Mar 2015 : 16:04:44
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Artemas Entreri
Can't remember the name of the sourcebook, but one of them showed experience charts through level 30 for all classes. 2E I believe.
Pretty sure you're thinking the of the 3e Epic Level Handbook... it's awesome in some ways, but I think it's the source of some folks' complaints that 3e numbers got too big. And to think I was disappointed with how weak and unimaginative the "epic" advancements were. 
As I recall, the Forgotten Realms Adventures hardcover also provided advancement thru level 30, and I believe that the Anauroch book gave spellcaster advancement thru 40, because of the phaerimm.
That doesn't change the fact, though, that in pretty much all versions of D&D, the basic, core material caps levels at 20. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 10 Mar 2015 : 15:09:57
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Artemas Entreri
Can't remember the name of the sourcebook, but one of them showed experience charts through level 30 for all classes. 2E I believe.
Pretty sure you're thinking the of the 3e Epic Level Handbook... it's awesome in some ways, but I think it's the source of some folks' complaints that 3e numbers got too big. And to think I was disappointed with how weak and unimaginative the "epic" advancements were.
Ahh yes that's the one! People are going to complain about something with any edition of D&D. The key to RPG happiness to to pick and choose what you want to incorporate into your own rule set.  |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 10 Mar 2015 : 14:54:01
quote:
Originally posted by Artemas Entreri
Can't remember the name of the sourcebook, but one of them showed experience charts through level 30 for all classes. 2E I believe.
Pretty sure you're thinking the of the 3e Epic Level Handbook... it's awesome in some ways, but I think it's the source of some folks' complaints that 3e numbers got too big. And to think I was disappointed with how weak and unimaginative the "epic" advancements were. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 10 Mar 2015 : 14:44:56
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Artemas Entreri
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Just a confirmation that PCs are capped at level 20.
DMG, page 38, top of the 1st column: "Characters who reach 20th level have attained the pinnacle of mortal achievement." In the next paragraph: "Characters gain no more levels at this point..."
The point is made that this isn't the end of the game. "Chapter 7 details epic boons you can use as rewards for these characters to maintain a sense of progress." These boons basically resemble epic feats, or what epic feats should have been in 3.5.
As already stated in this thread, a lot of folks don't care about levels above 12 or 15 or 20, and it's not a big enough issue for me to pan the edition either, but there it is in black and white.
Why are they trying to force a level cap on players? That would be the first thing I'd remove as a DM.
Capping players at level 20 has long been a D&D thing.
Can't remember the name of the sourcebook, but one of them showed experience charts through level 30 for all classes. 2E I believe. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 10 Mar 2015 : 14:44:11
quote:
Originally posted by Artemas Entreri
Why are they trying to force a level cap on players? That would be the first thing I'd remove as a DM.
I'm thinking the same thing, but I can see a point to it.
From the angle of encounter design, there needs to be a maximum level. There needs to be at least a handful of different monsters, of each type, at each CR. This is easy for the first 10 CR values, but it becomes mathematically impossible if there's no upper limit.
It's possible to create higher-level encounters by simply doubling up on your max-CR monsters. Need a CR 24 encounter in 3.5e? A group of ten CR 17 creatures works just as well (in theory) as a single CR 24.
But what if the PCs are level 50? This scenario should be covered by the ELH but... it's really not. There probably are a few creatures with appropriate CRs, but mostly you're limited to (A) advanced dragons, (B) creatures with class levels or advancement, or (C) very large groups of much-lower-level monsters. Gaming with these limits gets stale quickly.
Then there's the issue of treasure. A CR 50 encounter (just to continue being extreme), if you were to extrapolate the tables in the DMG/ELH, should contain a ridiculous amount of coins and gems, and a pile of crazy magical items. Some DMs start dumping multiple artifacts on the party because generating treasure takes hours and inevitably comes out looking stupid. What are PCs supposed to do with billions of coins and hundreds of +10 swords? What does this imply about the game world?
I think that's the point behind limiting level advancement... it makes encounter design more manageable, and the eventual outcomes less extreme.
Ultimately, though, I agree with removing the level cap. They feel limiting and spoil the fun even in video games, and I don't want that in my pencil & paper rpg experience. When I reach the point where I feel like combat encounters are becoming awkward, I'll give the PCs an epic finale and start a new campaign, rather than capping them at a particular level. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 Mar 2015 : 14:23:45
quote:
Originally posted by Artemas Entreri
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Just a confirmation that PCs are capped at level 20.
DMG, page 38, top of the 1st column: "Characters who reach 20th level have attained the pinnacle of mortal achievement." In the next paragraph: "Characters gain no more levels at this point..."
The point is made that this isn't the end of the game. "Chapter 7 details epic boons you can use as rewards for these characters to maintain a sense of progress." These boons basically resemble epic feats, or what epic feats should have been in 3.5.
As already stated in this thread, a lot of folks don't care about levels above 12 or 15 or 20, and it's not a big enough issue for me to pan the edition either, but there it is in black and white.
Why are they trying to force a level cap on players? That would be the first thing I'd remove as a DM.
Capping players at level 20 has long been a D&D thing. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 10 Mar 2015 : 14:21:43
quote:
Originally posted by Tamsar
My main issue with 5th edition from what I've seen so far is a level 1 (novice adventurer) has a +2 proficiency bonus whereas a level 20 (pinnacle of mortal achievement) has +6, a difference of only +4 (or 20% on a d20)? Also why does a level 20 wizard with equivalent strength have the same chance to hit as a fighter? It's just too incongruous for me. Not going to explore 5th edition beyond the starter set for me, system isn't compelling enough for me to switch.
I will not defend most of 5e's features, because I still favor the greater variety and resolution of 3.5e bonuses, but there are a couple of responses to your concern.
The first is that fighters have proficiency (and therefore advantage) with Strength checks and wizards don't. This means (if I'm reading correctly) not only do fighters get to roll all their melee attacks twice and take the better roll, but they also get to add their proficiency bonus (ranging from +2 to +6) to those attacks, while wizards don't get either of those bonuses because they don't have proficiency with Strength checks.
There's also the Extra Attack feature of the fighter class, which means that a level 20 fighter can make 4 attacks each round. The wizard doesn't get this class feature.
This does not mitigate the fact that the best attack roll a level 20 fighter can get is 26, but within that range the fighter is more likely than the wizard (due to advantage) to get a better attack roll.
5e has different design goals from earlier editions. It's aimed at simplifying the system. Some people call it "subtractive design" -- basically remove as much as possible while still covering the bases. Fighters, over a period of time, will deal more damage than other classes using melee attacks. That base is considered covered, and they did it in spite of removing "base attack bonus" and most other bonuses as well.
5e isn't an improvement on any previous edition, because it doesn't build on anything before it. It wipes the slate clean, sets some priorities, and builds something new. I think every edition has kinda been that way; it's just more obvious this time because the numbers throughout the system have dropped dramatically. AC, to-hit rolls, saving throws... all much smaller numbers than they used to be. So it feels... not just different like previous editions have felt different, but weaker. Level 20 characters seem like pansies compared to previous editions... especially since some previous editions have allowed level 30 and level 40, while 5e characters are stuck at 20.
But the monsters are scaled down too. Level 20 fighters have four attacks per round and can get up to 26 plus their Str bonus on an attack roll, and the Tarrasque's AC is only 25. It's still doable.
Whether it's more challenging, or less... whether you enjoy it more, or less... that's for each of us to find out, rolling dice and saving the world.
|
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 10 Mar 2015 : 12:57:35
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Just a confirmation that PCs are capped at level 20.
DMG, page 38, top of the 1st column: "Characters who reach 20th level have attained the pinnacle of mortal achievement." In the next paragraph: "Characters gain no more levels at this point..."
The point is made that this isn't the end of the game. "Chapter 7 details epic boons you can use as rewards for these characters to maintain a sense of progress." These boons basically resemble epic feats, or what epic feats should have been in 3.5.
As already stated in this thread, a lot of folks don't care about levels above 12 or 15 or 20, and it's not a big enough issue for me to pan the edition either, but there it is in black and white.
Why are they trying to force a level cap on players? That would be the first thing I'd remove as a DM. |
| Tamsar |
Posted - 10 Mar 2015 : 12:54:53
My main issue with 5th edition from what I've seen so far is a level 1 (novice adventurer) has a +2 proficiency bonus whereas a level 20 (pinnacle of mortal achievement) has +6, a difference of only +4 (or 20% on a d20)? Also why does a level 20 wizard with equivalent strength have the same chance to hit as a fighter? It's just too incongruous for me. Not going to explore 5th edition beyond the starter set for me, system isn't compelling enough for me to switch. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 14 Dec 2014 : 23:35:35
Just a confirmation that PCs are capped at level 20.
DMG, page 38, top of the 1st column: "Characters who reach 20th level have attained the pinnacle of mortal achievement." In the next paragraph: "Characters gain no more levels at this point..."
The point is made that this isn't the end of the game. "Chapter 7 details epic boons you can use as rewards for these characters to maintain a sense of progress." These boons basically resemble epic feats, or what epic feats should have been in 3.5.
As already stated in this thread, a lot of folks don't care about levels above 12 or 15 or 20, and it's not a big enough issue for me to pan the edition either, but there it is in black and white.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 12 Dec 2014 : 14:06:30
Well, then, I would say FR has a 'bright future' in store for you.
Or should I say... 'Bright Past'?
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
Dude, don't you think I know that?
I understand why they made the mistake - the other campaigns are named after the continent they're set in - but they called the *land* Al-Qadim. To me, that's like calling the Hordelands 'The Horde boxed set'.
Sorry - I mistook what you wrote. I thought you had never heard 'Al-Qadim' before (many FR fans don't bother with the 'satellite settings'). My bad. 
I see what you mean now. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 12 Dec 2014 : 13:35:40
Yeah 2e was kind of a 'golden age' for DnD and the Realms. I know we can't expect that at the moment as the game has taken some serious hits. But lately, the more I play the more I just shrug off thoughts of rules and revamping the setting. I still play in the 1e/2e era of the Realms and don't follow canon in the games that I run because I don't want to be constrained by it. I'm just hoping for the return of the myriad plot hooks, interesting locales, wondrous magical discoveries, etc. that seemed to be in every piece of Realms material that hit the shelves 20 years ago. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 12 Dec 2014 : 05:27:23
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
Perhaps as they release more material that will change
I think this is huge. Back in the 2e/3e days, by the time the rules were published we already had a release calendar in our hands or on the website, and at least every other month would feature a new Realms sourcebook on the shelf, along with other potentially interesting material like Birthright or Al-Qadim or Spelljammer or whatever. They're publishing much more slowly, at least for right now, and it's probably going to be just the Realms and Eberron for a while, so we just don't have as much support as we did earlier. I think patience is key.
The counterpoint is that this Twilight Zone presents us with a wide-open world for the first time since the Gray Box. Bust out your old 1e/2e maps... for the most part, that's what Faerun looks like, with all the additional places added from 3e and 4e. Most of the NPC names are different now, and monster CRs have changed, but there's no reason to change the political infrastructure of the world unless you want to. So plug in new NPCs and you can run old adventures again, or --if you're so inclined-- you can scrap everything and write your own world. It won't be contradicted officially for a while... definitely long enough to run a campaign or two.
I'm actually kinda excited for the slower pace. Which feels really weird. I just hope they're playtesting the bejeebus out of the 5e Realms setting material, and I hope the testers are non-employees, and I hope they're vicious. And with luck, they're taking the criticism of the Tyranny of Dragons books seriously and moving in a better direction. |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 11 Dec 2014 : 19:19:29
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
Just skimming through the 5e DMG. They called Zakhara Al-Qadim...
Zakhara is the name of the land; 'Al-Qadim' is the name of the setting.
Just like we have 'Faerûn' and 'The Forgotten Realms'.
Dude, don't you think I know that?
I understand why they made the mistake - the other campaigns are named after the continent they're set in - but they called the *land* Al-Qadim. To me, that's like calling the Hordelands 'The Horde boxed set'. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Dec 2014 : 17:50:54
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
quote:
I will note, however, that I saw a lot of opposition to the 4E rules, when they came out. Much that I personally saw of the rules turned me off to them, and there was a lot of negative commentary here and elsewhere. I've not seen any of that, this time. Sure, there have been individuals commenting about aspects they don't like, but I don't think I've seen anything approaching, even in the small scale, the animosity I saw to the 4E ruleset.
I was thinking about this earlier and I have to agree 5e isn't meeting with the...vitriol...that 4e was met with. That said, I don't see any real enthusiasm for the ruleset either. I can live with 5e and it has its merits, but I'm a player/DM who likes choices and so far I still prefer my 3.x/PF system just fine. Perhaps as they release more material that will change but given the recent history of the game and our favorite setting, I'm rather ambivalent. Time will tell though and my main concern is what happens with the Realms more than the rules. If they really make me happy with the direction they take the setting then I'll almost certainly invest in their rulebooks (even if I don't use them) just to support their efforts.
I've seen a good bit of enthusiasm, though I don't recall seeing the "I want to marry this ruleset and have its baby!" enthusiasm I've seen in the past. This is not necessarily a bad thing. |
| The Arcanamach |
Posted - 11 Dec 2014 : 17:33:26
quote:
I will note, however, that I saw a lot of opposition to the 4E rules, when they came out. Much that I personally saw of the rules turned me off to them, and there was a lot of negative commentary here and elsewhere. I've not seen any of that, this time. Sure, there have been individuals commenting about aspects they don't like, but I don't think I've seen anything approaching, even in the small scale, the animosity I saw to the 4E ruleset.
I was thinking about this earlier and I have to agree 5e isn't meeting with the...vitriol...that 4e was met with. That said, I don't see any real enthusiasm for the ruleset either. I can live with 5e and it has its merits, but I'm a player/DM who likes choices and so far I still prefer my 3.x/PF system just fine. Perhaps as they release more material that will change but given the recent history of the game and our favorite setting, I'm rather ambivalent. Time will tell though and my main concern is what happens with the Realms more than the rules. If they really make me happy with the direction they take the setting then I'll almost certainly invest in their rulebooks (even if I don't use them) just to support their efforts. |
|
|
