Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 5th ed. things you think are improvements
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist

USA
11686 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2014 :  01:43:52  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote  Delete Topic
I imagine that many of us are slowly perusing through the 5th edition player's handbook and slowly drawing opinions. Myself, I'm not immediately turned off, and I'm seeing some things that make me actually go "I like that better". So, I figured let's discuss just that.... what things have YOU found that you felt were an improvement to the game so far.

One of the first things I'm seeing is the proficiency bonus that applies to attack rolls. It goes from +2 to +6 for ALL characters. This means that wizards and fighters both have the the same attack bonus. However, the fighter will likely have twice this amount due to his str or dex bonus, plus better weapons, PLUS he'll get more attacks. However, what this means is that an orc will probably still have a decent potential to stab even a high level character (assuming of course that there isn't some way for players to get insanely high armor classes).

I'm also noting that they got rid of various things like rogues getting their sneak attack bonus on every hit (and thus, them getting the drop on someone when they dual wield doesn't turn them into a Cuisinart).

I also like that they give fighters an option that basically encourages the enemy to focus on them instead of others. I speak of this in terms that they have the ability to make it such that their opponents face disadvantage if they don't attack the tank and instead attack someone else nearby (and by disadvantage, I mean that they'll need to roll 2 d20's and take the lowest roll). I'm not quite sure how that works if you have 2 tanks both trying to draw aggro (it would seem to nullify the effect, but basically make ALL enemy attacks have disadvantage.... sounds great to players, but when they face the same issue when the enemy does the same trick, it could prove nasty.... especially if one of the party fighters drops).

I'm not sure yet how I feel about the skill system. It seems they've simplified it drastically. However, the old skill system in 3.5 did have a little bit too much in the way of points (i.e. in 3.5, your low level sage could not be a wealth of history knowledge.... which he should be able to be if he's not spending all his time adventuring).

I also like some of the optional character archetypes. For instance, having paladins who take 3 different types of oaths was a good improvement. I liked that they also tried to incorporate elemental benders into the monk class (not sure how successful they are, but the attempt is at least interesting and can be improved upon). I also liked that specialist wizards are essentially the norm (minus the bonus spells) and that they don't have opposition schools <though they can obviously introduce "more focused" specialists later and introduce something akin to opposition schools... hopefully if they do, they use the pathfinder take of simply raising spell levels>.

So, what have you found so far that would be an improvement? (and please guys, improvements only... I know some may be chomping at the bit to complain, but at least let those of us who are just getting our first glimpse a chance to peruse and consider the options before shooting things down)

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas

Delwa
Master of Realmslore

USA
1268 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2014 :  03:19:51  Show Profile  Visit Delwa's Homepage Send Delwa a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'll start with some specifics.
The Spell system I love for its flexibility. Baking the metamagic into the system by making you drop some spells like Magic Missile into higher level spell slots to deal more damage was simply a cool idea.
I like the skill system because its not tied to character class anymore. The backgrounds have more impact on your skills than your class. Backgrounds are extremely flexible, and easily tailored to your Campaign, or Character concept.
The Subclasses help customize your character even more, without having to multiclass.
I'm thrilled with the way feats are meaningful. A single feat grants you the equivalent to an entire feat tree from 3E, and instead of focusing on numeric character build, I can focus on the roleplaying aspect of my character.

Overall, I love the way the numbers are boiled down to smaller digits, which are easier to manage. The bonded accuracy system keeps your to hit and AC numbers rather small and easy to manage. It makes the type of armor you wear have a much more significant impact on gameplay all the way to level twenty, and a simple +1 weapon is actually a very valuable item, instead of a bump on the road to an artifact level item.


- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!

"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus
Go to Top of Page

George Krashos
Master of Realmslore

Australia
6638 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2014 :  03:35:01  Show Profile Send George Krashos a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I liked the concentration mechanic for spellcasting effects. It smoothly gets around the issue of PCs having 5 or 6 buffs in place at one time and being uber as a result. Now you have to really think about what spell buffs you want/need.

-- George Krashos

"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus
Go to Top of Page

Renin
Learned Scribe

USA
290 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2014 :  04:12:41  Show Profile Send Renin a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Like Delwa, I highly enjoy the Feats options. A great way to make your character have some significance in some areas that will make them just a bit more defined in progression. And as sleyvas points out, I think the character archetypes are rather interesting, and a neat way to continue to develop your character. I look forward to seeing more 'Handbooks' that detail more archetypes and Feats options.

As a whole, I rather highly enjoy all that I'm reading about it. I don't have the vision currently to see how it can be broken, or become unwieldy or poor, but I love the simplification.

I'll also define it as simplification, and not a dumbing-down either. While I truly enjoy 3.5/PF, at high levels, well, it's extremely ridiculous. Fun! Just very ridiculous as well. A friend of mine made a statement I think to agree with~"It's like seeing an old friend after a 20 year absence. Still the same guy, but different too, through experience. But it's still the guy you remember."

So yes, there are things about it that do hearken back to 2nd edition for me.

Ability scores! They are the crux of it all. Skills are utterly tied to them, and not to skill bumps/boosts through leveling. Totally dig it.

(Although, I wonder how easy or fast it will truly be to get several maxed ability scores of 20s in the game).

2nd Ed non-weapon proficiencies are back...somewhat. At least in a manner that seems crossed with Feats/Skill points from 3.5/PF. I'm cool with that.

Combat seems far more streamlined, and a bit at ease with itself. Go hit something; run around to do it, jump and be heroic! If you say you can do it, you can do it. (To a degree). Not all movement is governed or determined by a Skills check to determine distance/height, nor do you really need a playmap to do this. I LIKE that.

I enjoy the looseness of spellcasting. How powerful do you wish to be some spells? Will some 1st & 2nd level spells be ones that you continually bump to higher levels for greater use? How do you wish to utilize your magic? An interesting system, I say.

(Although, my dwarf armored cleric cries for the loss of Magic Vestments. OH, how I loved thee).

I like how ACs and hps will not simply run away into the hundred upon hundreds of numbers.

I can honestly say that I am not complaining. At all. I am starting a new adventure set/campaign around the Sea of Fallen Stars using PF (as we really haven't explored any 'Ultimate' books options/feats/rules at high levels yet), but at some point (maybe with a side adventure set), I think I will definitely look forward to using 5th.

Of course, this won't be in this year, as all 3 books won't be finished being published until December. OR November. Can't remember off the top of my head.
Go to Top of Page

silverwolfer
Senior Scribe

789 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2014 :  07:21:22  Show Profile Send silverwolfer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'll drop my hat in ...


1st, the system is very much seems friendly for theater of the mind, versus having paper out wiht map grids.

2nd, this system is friendlier for playing on forums , less rolling, less looking up things.

3rd, I like the subclass system instead of using the PRC system of 3e, no more wierd build to do things, this is what your class can do and what options it has for it.

4th, Power goes back to the DM, everything relies heavier on the DM to lit and choose what happens and what is allowed.

5th the skill system , battle system, is simpiler Instead of everyone getting extra attacks at a certain BAB, extra attacks is now a class feature.

6th, the PHB just feels complete, It feels like they stuffed more things in this editions starter book , then they have in any previous effort.

7th, the animal companions are a joke and should have been allwoed to do morethings.

8th, The subclass system is easy to adapt and make things happen from the PRC's of previous editions.


9th I REALLY hate the ranger...
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
4425 Posts

Posted - 27 Aug 2014 :  14:20:12  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
So, what have you found so far that would be an improvement? (and please guys, improvements only... I know some may be chomping at the bit to complain, but at least let those of us who are just getting our first glimpse a chance to peruse and consider the options before shooting things down)



While I admit that I feel 4E is a better system, D&D:Next does a lot of things that I think were really good or otherwise better than 3E or Pathfinder. Here's my list:

• Spell system is versatile while remaining a bit more true to pre-4E editions. For some, this was an almost necessary to make it "feel" like D&D (I'm not in that camp, but I understand the notion). Further, I like the idea that spells scale with level rather than caster level, which cuts down on Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard syndrome prevalent with 3E and Pathfinder.

• Bonds, Flaws, and the like are a really awesome tool not only for 5E but for any RPG. I could install this into any edition and it would be awesome.

• Proficiency Bonus - One of the key elements of Bounded Accuracy is this gem right here. First, I like that if I'm playing a wizard and I pick up a sword (and proficiency with it) it won't be a complete waste of time actually using the thing. Unlike in 3E/PF who's BAB was SOO low that hitting any creature with a weapon at high levels was nearly impossible.

• Scaling Numbers - The second element of Bounded Accuracy is keeping the numbers relatively low. This is crucial to maintain longevity with monsters at later levels. For one, I don't like that at a certain point a party just scoffs at the notion of taking care of Trolls because it's "beneath them". Trolls (and other creatures like Vampires or even a Warband of Orcs) should be scaring the players regardless of level and BA helps with that. The idea that a high level Fighter's AC is hitting the very low 20's is something of a reprieve from 3E/PF and 4E's numbers bloat.

• Concentration spells is something I really enjoy too. One of the bigger problems I felt 3E/PF had was that someone could pre-encounter buff to the point where they were an unstoppable Juggernaut (clerics and druids especially) and it trivialized encounters for them. That they now have to pick and choose which spells to support in combat AND the possibility of that failing due to being hit makes them really consider a particular's spells usage and provides a different sort of tactical play.

• Versatile Weapons. Finally they got the idea that weapons need not conform to a LENGTHY list of similar-yet-different weapon lists. I like that a Longsword is still 1d8 but if you grip it in two-hands, it becomes 1d10. Makes using one-weapon a more dynamic and, heh, versatile style. Along with the weapons, I like that there aren't "Exotic" or "Superior" weapons. I'm sure we'll see them appear later as splats come out but to have the basics be THE basics, I think it's a step in the right direction.

• The resolution mechanic seem solid. If you want to attempt something, it's often just an Ability check or Contest with a specific DC list. Keeping things simple is a better way to go than being super-granular with a minutia of "+" and "-" to any single roll.

• No more heavy penalty for Two-Weapon Fighters. I've come to like D&D:Next's TWF rules. They're not perfect (I'd have allowed the feat to let you use two One-handed weapons) but it's a far improvement over 3E/PF LOADS of penalties or 4E's "Must have a specific power" approach. That I can grab two short swords / scimitars and, with some investment, make those options better is really nice. And I've no problem with just re-flavoring the off-hand to be another one-handed weapon that deal less damage due to it being in their off hand.

• Advantage / Disadvantage is simple and easy without all the paper work of tracking the situational modifiers and what stacks with what OR the often "Until the end of your next turn" that was littering 4E's options.

• I like that feats are now BIG options that have quite a few qualities that go along with them rather than something small and specific. Further, that they're tying Feats into Ability Score adjustments means as a class feature gives more nods to non-spellcasters for a higher degree of customization and improvement.

• Ability scores cap at 20 (22 with magic items or 24 with magic items and Rage). Which is nice considering that Barbarian's Rage/Frenzy in v3.5 could bump it into the high 30's and low 40's.

• Healing. To be honest, this was one of the things I was really afraid of. I like that I can self-heal with HD (though I think Surges were better) and that certain classes get the feature from their class like a Fighter's Second Wind or a Paladin's Lay on Hands. I've loved the notion that we don't need a Cleric with every single party since 4E's Warlord (which is a non-spellcaster) so I had hoped to see the trend continue.

• Simple action system. One of my complaints about 4E was the sheer number of interrupt / Minor / Immediate Reaction things that were occurring in the game and how it started to bog down game-play. Now it's much easier to get through a round without people doing stuff on every round. Further, limiting bonus actions keeps down shenannigans like Hastened Charge-Pounce warriors.


Well that's it for now. The list was surprisingly longer than I had anticipated. I'm not entirely sure if I want to delve into another edition of the game, despite the amount of things I feel they did right. I'm still happy playing v3.5 and Pathfinder (at low levels or using E6) and I still love playing 4E continuously so I'll have to talk it over with my group if this is a game we should invest in down the road. Only time will tell.
Go to Top of Page

sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist

USA
11686 Posts

Posted - 28 Aug 2014 :  01:00:21  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos

I liked the concentration mechanic for spellcasting effects. It smoothly gets around the issue of PCs having 5 or 6 buffs in place at one time and being uber as a result. Now you have to really think about what spell buffs you want/need.

-- George Krashos



I haven't gotten that far yet, but please dish more on this George. Obviously, with my past history, this will be something of great interest to me (I've actually built NPC's that I had trouble figuring out how to kill them myself.... 2nd edition drow liches were just plain nasty if they played the long-term buff game... thank god 3e kind of got rid of some of that).

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas
Go to Top of Page

Delwa
Master of Realmslore

USA
1268 Posts

Posted - 28 Aug 2014 :  01:04:47  Show Profile  Visit Delwa's Homepage Send Delwa a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos

I liked the concentration mechanic for spellcasting effects. It smoothly gets around the issue of PCs having 5 or 6 buffs in place at one time and being uber as a result. Now you have to really think about what spell buffs you want/need.

-- George Krashos



I haven't gotten that far yet, but please dish more on this George. Obviously, with my past history, this will be something of great interest to me (I've actually built NPC's that I had trouble figuring out how to kill them myself.... 2nd edition drow liches were just plain nasty if they played the long-term buff game... thank god 3e kind of got rid of some of that).


Basically, some spells require concentration. You cannot have more than one spell active at a time that requires concentration. You can cast any spell that doesn't require concentration and keep a concentration spell active without making a roll unless you take damage.

- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!

"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus
Go to Top of Page

sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist

USA
11686 Posts

Posted - 28 Aug 2014 :  01:43:36  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Just wondering, where did the below come from (if you can find it easily)? This is an interesting piece as well. Does this mean that there's a max you can have with an item, OR does it mean items never give more than +2? Just wondering, because I could see +3 and +4 items for stats (I could see limiting things going to the degrees it did in 3e).

• Ability scores cap at 20 (22 with magic items or 24 with magic items and Rage). Which is nice considering that Barbarian's Rage/Frenzy in v3.5 could bump it into the high 30's and low 40's.

On the healing front, I'm on the other side of the fence, I'm glad to see the self healing of 4e gone (no offense). It made no sense at all to me, so this was another improvement. However, let's take a multi-classing example since you've made me think about it. Let's take the classic gish that I'm apt to play who does either 2 levels in paladin or ranger or even bard and then goes wizard or sorceror. All three of those classes gets cure wounds on their list. With the bard, the wizard doesn't really suffer much in spellcasting, and even with the paladin/ranger he still gets a 1/2 level per level in the class.... so these warrior/mages that in previous editions wouldn't have been able to help healing can now at least offer minor healing using say their lower level spell slots (and they can do "almost" lots of healing in a pinch with their higher level slots).

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas
Go to Top of Page

Delwa
Master of Realmslore

USA
1268 Posts

Posted - 28 Aug 2014 :  01:53:52  Show Profile  Visit Delwa's Homepage Send Delwa a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

Just wondering, where did the below come from (if you can find it easily)? This is an interesting piece as well. Does this mean that there's a max you can have with an item, OR does it mean items never give more than +2? Just wondering, because I could see +3 and +4 items for stats (I could see limiting things going to the degrees it did in 3e).

• Ability scores cap at 20 (22 with magic items or 24 with magic items and Rage). Which is nice considering that Barbarian's Rage/Frenzy in v3.5 could bump it into the high 30's and low 40's.

On the healing front, I'm on the other side of the fence, I'm glad to see the self healing of 4e gone (no offense). It made no sense at all to me, so this was another improvement. However, let's take a multi-classing example since you've made me think about it. Let's take the classic gish that I'm apt to play who does either 2 levels in paladin or ranger or even bard and then goes wizard or sorceror. All three of those classes gets cure wounds on their list. With the bard, the wizard doesn't really suffer much in spellcasting, and even with the paladin/ranger he still gets a 1/2 level per level in the class.... so these warrior/mages that in previous editions wouldn't have been able to help healing can now at least offer minor healing using say their lower level spell slots (and they can do "almost" lots of healing in a pinch with their higher level slots).



PHB pg 173, Ability Scores and Modifiers, second paragraph. "Adventurers can have scores as high as 20" There are some magic items that have a +3 bonus, or at least there were in the final playtest (which isn't that drastically different from the final rules.) The DMG is still in production, so we probably won't hear the final word on magic bonuses until then. As it stands, a few spells and magic items can boost your ability scores beyond 20, but I'd have to dig to find them. I don't recall off hand what they are.

- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!

"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
4425 Posts

Posted - 28 Aug 2014 :  06:58:38  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

Just wondering, where did the below come from (if you can find it easily)? This is an interesting piece as well. Does this mean that there's a max you can have with an item, OR does it mean items never give more than +2? Just wondering, because I could see +3 and +4 items for stats (I could see limiting things going to the degrees it did in 3e).

• Ability scores cap at 20 (22 with magic items or 24 with magic items and Rage). Which is nice considering that Barbarian's Rage/Frenzy in v3.5 could bump it into the high 30's and low 40's.


Basically your scores stop at 20. Rage pushes it up 2 more (if I recall) and certain magical items gives you a Str score of 22.

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

On the healing front, I'm on the other side of the fence, I'm glad to see the self healing of 4e gone (no offense). It made no sense at all to me, so this was another improvement.


I'm not sure I understand, self healing is plenty evident in 5e. The Fighter has Second Wind (1d10 + Ftr level) that recharges on a short rest. They then get regeneration at higher levels. And everyone can spend Hit Die to regain hit points. While it's not as prevalent as 4e, it's still there and in the system.

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

However, let's take a multi-classing example since you've made me think about it. Let's take the classic gish that I'm apt to play who does either 2 levels in paladin or ranger or even bard and then goes wizard or sorceror. All three of those classes gets cure wounds on their list. With the bard, the wizard doesn't really suffer much in spellcasting, and even with the paladin/ranger he still gets a 1/2 level per level in the class.... so these warrior/mages that in previous editions wouldn't have been able to help healing can now at least offer minor healing using say their lower level spell slots (and they can do "almost" lots of healing in a pinch with their higher level slots).



That's cool, though with the multiclassing requirements it might be hard to accomplish that.
Go to Top of Page

Gary Dallison
Great Reader

United Kingdom
6350 Posts

Posted - 28 Aug 2014 :  08:29:35  Show Profile Send Gary Dallison a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hey, they stole my idea for eliminating buffs.


Although i explained it that one caster couldnt have overlapping fields of magic on a single person (and therefore it didnt require any concentration checks). Basically you could cast buffs on many people and many people could cast a buff on one person. But a single caster could not have more than one persisting magical effect on one single person.

Instantaneous effects are not included, so most damaging spells are unaffected.

The same applied to area effect spells. You can cast an area effect spell in multiple places. But should they overlap the most recent one cancels out the older one. Of course multiple people can cast buffs in the same area. And again this in no way affects instantaneous effects.


Oh well, i shall just have to hope no one accuses me of stealing 5E ideas when i finish and release my rules manual.

Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions Candlekeep Archive
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 1
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 2
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 3
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 4
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 5
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 6
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 7
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 8
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 9

Alternate Realms Site
Go to Top of Page

sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist

USA
11686 Posts

Posted - 29 Aug 2014 :  02:41:16  Show Profile Send sleyvas a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa

quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas

quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos

I liked the concentration mechanic for spellcasting effects. It smoothly gets around the issue of PCs having 5 or 6 buffs in place at one time and being uber as a result. Now you have to really think about what spell buffs you want/need.

-- George Krashos



I haven't gotten that far yet, but please dish more on this George. Obviously, with my past history, this will be something of great interest to me (I've actually built NPC's that I had trouble figuring out how to kill them myself.... 2nd edition drow liches were just plain nasty if they played the long-term buff game... thank god 3e kind of got rid of some of that).


Basically, some spells require concentration. You cannot have more than one spell active at a time that requires concentration. You can cast any spell that doesn't require concentration and keep a concentration spell active without making a roll unless you take damage.




Ah, yes, I just got to that section. Personally, I think they went a little overboard here, as it looks like you couldn't have up a stoneskin and a greater invisibility at the same time (and I just barely got into the spells, but it looked like having a summoning up and a defense would also be out). That being said, there could be a feat introduced later that might allow a person to have "divided" concentration. They might also institute something where you could have a familiar hold one spell up on you and have another at the same time. Similarly, an intelligent item might be able to help you maintain concentration.

Still, the base idea to decrease the number of active spells a person could have is one that has merit. I guess most people would be surprised to hear me say that after seeing over the years how much I'm into strategic spellcasting. However, I was glad to see the feat system limit the types of "spell storing" or "contingent" type effects people could do. I personally hope they do offer some kind of means to introduce the strategic spellcaster into this edition, but it can come a bit later after they work through the base mechanics better.

Alavairthae, may your skill prevail

Phillip aka Sleyvas
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000