I think Brotherbock's post hit on a point that I have noticed quite a bit in 5e (although, that was likely not his [assuming gender based on "Brother"] intention). Sorry if the following seems like a non-sequitur from the previous post... in my mind, they are related.
This edition relies on vagarities and implications more than most previous editions. A lot of hand-waving is done in the ruleset and the weight of ruling is placed on the DM. For those of us who grew up playing the basic set, master edition, expert edition, and then on to Advanced, 2nd, 3rd, [skip 4th], and 5th, the evolution is obvious. This edition, with its "reset to simpler times" is now going through what created the flurry of house rules for 2nd and the eventual evolution into 3rd - people want clearly defined rules.
The problem with on-the-fly DM adjudications is that a ruling today might be counter to a ruling yesterday for the same situation - not on purpose, but perhaps because the DM forgot his/her former ruling or perhaps because the DM had time to rethink their first ruling and modify it. That type of ever-changing rule structure is frustrating.
Moreover, the designers of 5e proudly state that this edition is an "exceptions-based" edition. That, in my professional opinion as an educator, is terrible. Many students, who already have anxiety over mathematics, become increasingly wary of the subject when they suddenly get their hands slapped for what seems to them as an exception. "In this situation, do that... Oh, but not in this other situation... in this other situation, do this other thing."
Like it or not, 5e will evolve to become rules-heavy due to a mature gaming population. The initial playtests were exciting and the shininess of the new ruleset was intoxicating enough to gloss over the lack of clarity, but the rubber has been on the road for a while and the evolution has begun.
i dont agree with evolution of the rulings, after all, none of the players handbook ruling has changed in 4 years of 5th edition. and jeremy crawford also said there was no change coming for rulings, erratas at first were fixed typos, but people reading them have started thinking and interpretting stuff as if they were changing the data. and up to this point, only 1 single spell has changed, that is the infectious spell. which i do not remember the name of. thats literally the only thing they changed, why ? because it was awefully badly written. while 5E is very fan centric, it is not the fans that directs which rulings gets in. they are not directly saying use this stuff because said fans said it. they are using fans to know what fans wants, not what should be in. all the optionnal rules were aded because they were in 3rd edition and 3rd edition was the most loved edition. so of course they'd put them in in case some 3rd edition fans came along.
that said, we're not talking about homebrews and fans leaving the official content, here you are talking about what designers wants... its amoot point since designers wants their game to be out there, so of course they'll check what people want. they wouldn't throw us a game nobody wants, exemple of 4th which they did just that. i think 5th edition success is purely based on the fact that people wanted a new version of 3rd edition that was less mathematical and rules heavy. and i do not think 5th is becoming rules heavy... mainly because there is no rulings that were added, up to this point, its all about the players handbook and the dungeons masters guide. there was no new additions to rulings. but there was added optionnal rulings which are still availlable to those who want them.
so yeah, i dont think the edition is evolving like say 3e... i think they are simply adding content while leaving the original rulings be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
@brotherbrock, reread my post, i answered that already !
the only devise i leave unlimited is coins. but obviously large sums like a dragons vault obviously do not get into one bag.
32 greatswords... i wonder how big your bag is, even i right there knows thats not even possible. as i said, i dont count things, but if its obviously going beyond your carrying capacity, then that means you can't do it.
by the way, just in case you didn't know... a strength of 20 gives you a carrying capacity of 20x15=300 pounds for a medium sized player. their pouch of coins holding that 150 gold pieces... thats 3 pounds... its next to nothing... but how do you manage hoards ? let's generate a random hoard for the players. at level 1, so its gonna be a hoard of 0-4.
Sorry if I missed the answer before. So you do have carrying limits. They're like mine--not counting up all the pounds, just using a 'reasonable' standard. That's cool. So that's my point then--in terms of grabbing stuff out of a pack, I use a similar 'reasonable' standard, based on real world physics and biology and such. I don't see that it's 'reasonable' that you could have more than one or two things in your pack in a place where they can be grabbed without taking a full action. And no one wants to take the time to specify what those few items would be, so I just go with the RAW of 1 action. Easiest way to go by far, no real suffering on the part of the player.
You're right that the strongest characters will have a 300 pound carrying capacity. So that 300 pounds is 15,000 gp. Weight aside, what's the size of 15,000 gp? If this guy is to be believed, here's what 15,000 2p coins look:
I mean, I'd let one of my players carry 15,000 similarly sized coins. But that's going to require a bag as big as a backpack. And then you don't have a single pound of capacity for your sword, torches, armor, etc etc. :)
Fact is I don't really care much about money either, until it gets ridiculous. If they find a dragon horde, The Hobbit style, the need a plan to move it. And that's another adventure itself :) But otherwise, I just assume that there are different denominations, and that 15,000gp doesn't necessarily mean 15,000 physical coins. Not a big deal, again just using the 'reasonable' standard.
my players often get a ton of pouches, everytime they trade for 150gp or more, they obviously receives a bunch of pouches for the coins. otherwise how the hell are trades done if not just leaving the money ont he counter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
my players often get a ton of pouches, everytime they trade for 150gp or more, they obviously receives a bunch of pouches for the coins. otherwise how the hell are trades done if not just leaving the money ont he counter.
I mean sure, but where are you putting those pouches? :) 15,000 coins hanging off your belt? Take a look at that pile. Regardless of how you divide it up in smaller pouches, that volume of coins has to go somewhere on your person. You're a bit fixated on what bags things go in. That's not terribly important, as I see it. How you are going to carry it regardless of the number of bags you divide it into seems more important.
I posted something about 'weapon speeds' recently, an old 1st ed thing. One person that I gamed with that I can remember used weapon speeds. And half of that group of players did not approve.
Hah! I loved weapon speed because of the realism it brought to the table, but was just talking to some of my players today about the nightmare of a round in 1st and 2nd (segment-based combat). I realized when I was retelling how it used to work that the newer turn-based round is so much cleaner, despite the fact that you lose a lot of detail in it as compared with those previous editions.
and jeremy crawford also said there was no change coming for rulings, erratas at first were fixed typos, but people reading them have started thinking and interpretting stuff as if they were changing the data. and up to this point, only 1 single spell has changed, that is the infectious spell.
Just being nit-picky, but they actually changed an entire slew of things in the Monster Manual. Those who were immune to nonmagical weapons had to be changed to being immune to nonmagical attacks because of a classification of a monk's unarmed strike not being a weapon but being able to be used as a melee weapon attack. 5e seems like the most language nit-picky edition out.
My Mathematical Soapbox (directed, not with aggression, but with passion, at the continued comments by DnDPaladin centering on an implied irritation with mathematics and the lack of creativity for those of us who are quantitatively literate). I prefer mathematics and tables, but love to be creative and design worlds. I can understand why individuals who have a fear of, or who do not truly understand, mathematics would think mathematicians are not creative. It's a stereotype lauded by the uninformed; however, mathematics is one of the most creative disciplines in human history. What you refer to as not being creative is the current use of mathematics in algebraic and arithmetic structures by the common citizen. That is called accounting - not mathematics.
The fact that the designers thought arithmetic was too hard for people (yes, all the mathematics in all of the editions is arithmetic) is definitely supported by our quantitatively illiterate population (a.k.a. innumerate). Heaven forbid that we ask people to add and subtract. The good news is, there are plenty of high-paying jobs for those who can overcome their fears and embrace quantitative literacy. The bad news is the current trends in American education are doing exactly what the designers of 5e stated - removing math because it's too hard for our customer base.
End of Soapbox. Sorry... I love mathematics, it is definitely the most beautiful subject in human existence, and it is the only truth we have... everything else is statistics and opinions.
@thedungeonmathster simple arithmetics sure... but having a need to check for every +1 bonuses possible in order to have the maximum effectiveness is what made people go away from arithmetics. exemple...
ok i got a +4 to hit from strength, i need a +3 from my BAB. i got a +2 from my weapons and i got a +2 from you flanking it. am i missing something ? you forgot the +1 from you being on a table, the +1 from this and that, the bonuses from spells from the wizards, the bards inspirationnal speeches who gave you that one too. and the i think the monster has minuses to AC because of whatever. aside from that you are good to go.
its not the simple maths that made people angry, it is the fact that if you weren't optimised for maximum effectiveness, then the game fell apart pretty quickly. you8 just had to be effective at all times. in 3rd edition, the smallest of details was just punishing for the players and it forced the players to take much time trying to figure out if they were effective or not on that round ! and previous editions were just that as well. heck even warhammer has much less stuff to calculate then 3rd edition.
i'd not call that a small detail. at maximum in 5th edition... i calculate proficiency, my stat and my magic weapon... maybe, just maybe i have advantage as well. i dont have to calculate every little detail like the height of my character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
@thedungeonmathster simple arithmetics sure... but having a need to check for every +1 bonuses possible in order to have the maximum effectiveness is what made people go away from arithmetics. exemple...
I have bolded the issue with players and DMs alike - it's not the edition. If a DM wants to run a game where everyone has to optimize (maximize damage while minimizing risk), then that's their poison. If players want to do that, then so be it. That's just never been my gig - nor has it been the focus of any of the players I have gamed with except one. That one player wanted to make an "optimum build" and I warned him of the issues it would likely present. He did so anyway and ended up becoming the target of most combats when they involved long-standing NPCs who knew the group. His character died four times and he was totally bummed. No matter what I said, he just didn't get it - if you build it, they will come. By it, I mean a powerhouse build. By "come" I mean, the NPCs will likely focus on assassinating you or taking you down first in any given combat.
A lot of the issues people have (or had) with 3rd centered around complexities brought on by powergamers. That is truly something DMs should nip in the bud at the outset. I reward character flaws. Those playing mega-builds generally do not get the same attention from me because doing something fantastic for them is much easier than it is for the guy who has one score at 15 and is playing an under-optimized monk.
I make a deal with my players at the beginning of a campaign - I will not optimize my NPCs and my monsters so that you don't have to optimize. Play a character with breadth and dimension. I will not have wild animals use intelligent tactics, I will make sure dumb monsters do stupid things, and I will make sure that creatures who have a sense of self run away when shit hits the fan.
ok i got a +4 to hit from strength, i need a +3 from my BAB. i got a +2 from my weapons and i got a +2 from you flanking it. am i missing something ? you forgot the +1 from you being on a table, the +1 from this and that, the bonuses from spells from the wizards, the bards inspirationnal speeches who gave you that one too. and the i think the monster has minuses to AC because of whatever. aside from that you are good to go.
All the stuff I crossed out exists with the same complexity in 5e.
The +1 from the table is now a decision to be made by the DM to grant advantage or not and, without a rule, will lead to a short discussion at the table.
The +1 from "this and that" also exists in 5e, but now it's "Your opponent is lying prone, so you get advantage from that, but you are under the effects of 'this or that' spell so you have disadvantage - so they cancel, but the bard is doing an inspiration, so you have another advantage.
Let's see...
3.5 Edition. 4 + 3 + 2 + 2 + 1 - 1 + 1... math is hard
5e (your example). 4 + 3 + 2 + 2 (this math is easier!) + adv + disadv + adv (wait... is that d + i + s + 3a + 3d + 3v?... how do you add d's and v's anyway?)
Okay, that last is tongue-in-cheek, but your example fell flat. All the computations in 3.5 still exist in 5e, but are hidden in the words.
its not the simple maths that made people angry, it is the fact that if you weren't optimised for maximum effectiveness, then the game fell apart pretty quickly. you8 just had to be effective at all times. in 3rd edition, the smallest of details was just punishing for the players and it forced the players to take much time trying to figure out if they were effective or not on that round ! and previous editions were just that as well.
That's called shit DM'ing and if you had a DM who ran an optimized, punishing campaign, you should have told him or her to shove it (with advantage). Some DM's couldn't help but be ***** because they felt the pressure of over-optimized PCs, but that's because the DM's didn't control the optimization from the get-go.
i'd not call that a small detail. at maximum in 5th edition... i calculate proficiency, my stat and my magic weapon... maybe, just maybe i have advantage as well. i dont have to calculate every little detail like the height of my character.
Umm.. wrong... see my example above. And calculating the height is your allowable tongue-in-cheek quip to mine.
I have bolded the issue with players and DMs alike - it's not the edition. If a DM wants to run a game where everyone has to optimize (maximize damage while minimizing risk), then that's their poison.
I have to disagree. 3.5 suffered from awful class balance and a huge gap between unoptimized and optimized characters. That's a problem with the rules, not the players. You can't expect players not to optimize; that's like asking someone to play chess with you, but they're not allowed to study it or learn any openings. Some people inherently view games as a puzzle to be solved.
A lot of the issues people have (or had) with 3rd centered around complexities brought on by powergamers. That is truly something DMs should nip in the bud at the outset.
Powergaming is a legitimate form of fun, and as long as the powergamers aren't ruining the fun for the people that want to roleplay or worldbuild or explore or just zone out, they should be allowed to do their thing. It's not like min/maxing is mutually exclusive with all those either things either.
All the stuff I crossed out exists with the same complexity in 5e. ... All the computations in 3.5 still exist in 5e, but are hidden in the words.
You don't have to look up numbers in a table in 5e because other than cover, you're always talking about advantage or disadvantage.
You also can't have as many concurrent spells going in 5e because concentration is a thing.
You can't have as many magic items active because attunement is a thing.
You don't have to worry about stripping out your Dexterity and Dodge bonuses if you're flatfooted.
You don't have to worry about bonus types in 5e. I can't tell you how many times I'd accidentally stack some spell from the group bard because I forgot I already have an Enhancement Bonus.
You don't have to worry about negative levels, ability damage, EXP loss, or recalculating any of your stats.
There's no DR in 5e. You either take half damage or no damage.
There's no miss chance in 5e. Don't have to worry about that 20 or 50% chance to miss after you're done crunching the numbers on your attack roll.
Don't have to worry about Armor Check Penalty.
Don't have to worry about Arcane Spell Failure Chance.
Don't have to worry about Spell Resistance.
Don't have to worry all the variations of two-weapon fighting attack modifiers.
Don't have to worry about -5/-10/etc on additional attacks.
Don't have to worry about size modifiers.
There's no way you can claim 3.5e and 5e have the same level of complexity built into them.
The +1 from the table is now a decision to be made by the DM to grant advantage or not and, without a rule, will lead to a short discussion at the table.
It doesn't have to lead to a discussion. A +1 bonus or penalty is too small to bother with. The edition conversion guide even tells you to ignore small modifiers when adapting things from previous editions.
I also agree that 3rd had balance issues between the classes and within the mechanics, but I still stand by the statement that the DM should be able to control the optimization inflation. I get that many people play D&D to create the most kick-ass character that can do the most insane bad-ass things - I guess the people I game with are just not that type. It's a difference in play styles.
As far as my comment about "all the stuff I crossed out." That was referring literally to all the stuff I crossed out, so my point still stands. You are correct about the numerous conditions in 3.5 versus 5e, and the elegance of the advantage/disadvantage system lends itself nicely to streamline the circumstantial modifiers. My comment was not referring to the entire edition of 5th versus 3rd, just the example cited.
I also agree that 3rd had balance issues between the classes and within the mechanics, but I still stand by the statement that the DM should be able to control the optimization inflation.
You can try to curb the power level of the optimized players, but there's very little you can do about the huge power gap between the unoptimized players and the optimized ones. A fighter or rogue made by a new player is never going to be on equal footing with a wizard or cleric created by someone that knows what they're doing, even if you stick to the core books.
Heck, just the fact that making more than 1 attack requires a Full Round Action means martial classes are always at a disadvantage.
Inquisitive... Literally all newest players in 3e were at a huge disadvantage. Forgot to add stuff and all. Let alone try to add all the modifiers. Let alone explains the different bonuses.
Also the stuff you crossed out are still valid even if they are within 5e. Because... Proficiency not BAB and modifiers didnt always apply where in 5e they do. Advantage didnt exist in 3e. And also... I was making a direct comparision. For the whole sentence to make sense the crossed out part is necessary.
Having played 3e for 9 years. I tryed everything as a dm to balance out players. Nothing works ! Unless you completely remove spells and magic items or simply only use the phb and nothing else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Although I have DM'ed extensively in all other editions, I think the shock of the differences is getting to me. I'll not bother listing my complaints (as some are fairly massive), but it is fair to say they have their counterbalances (the things I truly like about 5e).
Since several of you sound like you have more experience when it comes to DM'ing 5e, does it remain balanced into the higher tiers? There has always been the shift towards casters being overpowered as compared to their non-casting counterparts in all editions at high levels. I think this is why the designers of 5e baked in magical (or magic-like) abilities into the martial classes.
I can say from experience that 3rd definitely became a nightmare of tactics and rolls beyond 10th level, and I have heard many say that 5e is faster in play than 3rd, but so far that has not been my experience as both a DM and a player.
I have my players roll initiative after each round of combat. It helps nullify metagaming in a sense of, "okay I know the healer goes before the dragon" to "guys, I'm last this round, what if the dragon is next?" of course, if you get the dragon going last, and then first in the next round, the players freak out lol in a fun way.
EDIT: Also, a natural 20, puts you at the top of the list, and a natural 1 puts you at the bottom. So a natural 20 with an initiative bonus of 0, will go before a 17 with an initiative bonus of 4. Just because I was tired of hearing my players saying, "I wasted my crit on initiative."
Rolling for stats, I have characters roll 4d6, dropping the lowest, but I do this 7 times, not 6, and I also drop the lowest there. If the total is not 70 or higher, you can choose to reroll.
We play on hexagonal boards, but we also use the flanking rules to give advantage, same goes for monsters attacking PCs.
How do you deal with abilities or spells that "last until your next turn?"
I have never played on hexagonal boards (only squares). Do you have a preference?
Also, I considered the variant flanking rules, but decided to go with a +2 instead. I was too afraid of the rogue's Sneak Attack getting out of control. How have you found the flanking variant with advantage?
The spells continue the same way, but if your turn comes back within 3 turns of your last turn, you can use a bonus action to extend the spell to "until the end of this round".
I have largely played on squares, but after many arguments of what to do when the 2, 4, 6, and 8 squares are occupied and you're in one of the corner squares (1, 3, 7, 9) trying to attack, and with cover, it's much easier with hexagonal boards because then you have 6 spaces that are all connecting to the target, it makes flanking less frequent as well as you have to be at.
For flanking in Squares, you have to be at 1 and 9, 2 and 8, 3 and 7, or 6 and 4 to gain advantage on attacking 5. Any other combination doesn't grant you advantage.
For flanking in hexagons, you have to be at 1 and 4, 2 and 5, or 3 and 6 to gain advantage on attacking 7. Any other combination doesn't grant you advantage.
Luckily, I haven't had a rogue since I swapped to hexagons, however, one of the other ways to get sneak attack is to have another ally within 5 feet of your target. So they would get sneak attack anyways, but the advantage just gives them a higher chance to get a critical.
I have my players roll initiative after each round of combat. It helps nullify metagaming in a sense of, "okay I know the healer goes before the dragon" to "guys, I'm last this round, what if the dragon is next?" of course, if you get the dragon going last, and then first in the next round, the players freak out lol in a fun way.
How do you deal with abilities or spells that "last until your next turn?"
There's no real need to deal with it at all. Sometimes your spell will start at the end of one round and only last until the beginning of the next. Sometimes it will start at the beginning of one round and run all the way through the end of the next round. It tends to balance out. And I agree new init each round helps to limit metagaming, and add a small and easily produced element of chaos to a situation (combat) that should be chaotic. I have never found it more difficult or more noticeably time consuming.
Plus, it puts a lot less importance on a single roll. If this is going to be a big battle, and I roll a 1 for init, I'm stuck there for the whole thing. Rolling every round mitigates one bad roll. Nothing else is handled by way of a single roll for the entirety of combat--combat starts, make your to-hit roll that we'll apply to every one of your attacks! Now your one save roll! :(
EDIT: Also, a natural 20, puts you at the top of the list, and a natural 1 puts you at the bottom. So a natural 20 with an initiative bonus of 0, will go before a 17 with an initiative bonus of 4. Just because I was tired of hearing my players saying, "I wasted my crit on initiative."
I "borrowed" a House Rule from either this thread or somewhere else concerning initiative. A natural 20 gives advantage on your first attack action (if you choose to take one during the first round) and removes the surprised condition (if you were surprised). A natural 1 gives disadvantage on your first attack action.
@thedungeonmathster it is much better as the power level is being seen near level 13. But you have to know that 3e was heavy on magical items while 5e is a low magic item game world. Meaning all calculations are calculated without any magic item whatsoever. So each items you add might break that balancing. Also 5e has hard caps on different things. Like players spell dc will never exceed 19. While monsters can get up to 24-25 ! This is how they balanced it out. By putting caps on players and monsters. So with to hit that will never get beyond +11.
But ill say this... Calculating CR for player characters of level 20... There are major balancing issues in the classes. Exemple of a spellcaster having a total CR of 25 or so. While a barbarian has a total CR of like 20. Though when you check both cr for attack and defense you realise the barbarian as a cr of 30. While the wizard hits 30 on attack but not defense. Still the total CR of a monk is barely 16. Thats a huge gap there.
Maths aside... Classes are balanced toward what you choose so they are all great to choose. The balancing they done is definitely on point. Just need more tweaking for next edition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
i dont agree with evolution of the rulings, after all, none of the players handbook ruling has changed in 4 years of 5th edition.
and jeremy crawford also said there was no change coming for rulings, erratas at first were fixed typos, but people reading them have started thinking and interpretting stuff as if they were changing the data. and up to this point, only 1 single spell has changed, that is the infectious spell. which i do not remember the name of. thats literally the only thing they changed, why ? because it was awefully badly written. while 5E is very fan centric, it is not the fans that directs which rulings gets in. they are not directly saying use this stuff because said fans said it. they are using fans to know what fans wants, not what should be in. all the optionnal rules were aded because they were in 3rd edition and 3rd edition was the most loved edition. so of course they'd put them in in case some 3rd edition fans came along.
that said, we're not talking about homebrews and fans leaving the official content, here you are talking about what designers wants... its amoot point since designers wants their game to be out there, so of course they'll check what people want. they wouldn't throw us a game nobody wants, exemple of 4th which they did just that. i think 5th edition success is purely based on the fact that people wanted a new version of 3rd edition that was less mathematical and rules heavy. and i do not think 5th is becoming rules heavy... mainly because there is no rulings that were added, up to this point, its all about the players handbook and the dungeons masters guide. there was no new additions to rulings. but there was added optionnal rulings which are still availlable to those who want them.
so yeah, i dont think the edition is evolving like say 3e... i think they are simply adding content while leaving the original rulings be.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
my players often get a ton of pouches, everytime they trade for 150gp or more, they obviously receives a bunch of pouches for the coins. otherwise how the hell are trades done if not just leaving the money ont he counter.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I mean sure, but where are you putting those pouches? :) 15,000 coins hanging off your belt? Take a look at that pile. Regardless of how you divide it up in smaller pouches, that volume of coins has to go somewhere on your person. You're a bit fixated on what bags things go in. That's not terribly important, as I see it. How you are going to carry it regardless of the number of bags you divide it into seems more important.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Hah! I loved weapon speed because of the realism it brought to the table, but was just talking to some of my players today about the nightmare of a round in 1st and 2nd (segment-based combat). I realized when I was retelling how it used to work that the newer turn-based round is so much cleaner, despite the fact that you lose a lot of detail in it as compared with those previous editions.
Just being nit-picky, but they actually changed an entire slew of things in the Monster Manual. Those who were immune to nonmagical weapons had to be changed to being immune to nonmagical attacks because of a classification of a monk's unarmed strike not being a weapon but being able to be used as a melee weapon attack. 5e seems like the most language nit-picky edition out.
My Mathematical Soapbox (directed, not with aggression, but with passion, at the continued comments by DnDPaladin centering on an implied irritation with mathematics and the lack of creativity for those of us who are quantitatively literate). I prefer mathematics and tables, but love to be creative and design worlds. I can understand why individuals who have a fear of, or who do not truly understand, mathematics would think mathematicians are not creative. It's a stereotype lauded by the uninformed; however, mathematics is one of the most creative disciplines in human history. What you refer to as not being creative is the current use of mathematics in algebraic and arithmetic structures by the common citizen. That is called accounting - not mathematics.
The fact that the designers thought arithmetic was too hard for people (yes, all the mathematics in all of the editions is arithmetic) is definitely supported by our quantitatively illiterate population (a.k.a. innumerate). Heaven forbid that we ask people to add and subtract. The good news is, there are plenty of high-paying jobs for those who can overcome their fears and embrace quantitative literacy. The bad news is the current trends in American education are doing exactly what the designers of 5e stated - removing math because it's too hard for our customer base.
End of Soapbox. Sorry... I love mathematics, it is definitely the most beautiful subject in human existence, and it is the only truth we have... everything else is statistics and opinions.
@thedungeonmathster simple arithmetics sure... but having a need to check for every +1 bonuses possible in order to have the maximum effectiveness is what made people go away from arithmetics. exemple...
ok i got a +4 to hit from strength, i need a +3 from my BAB. i got a +2 from my weapons and i got a +2 from you flanking it. am i missing something ?
you forgot the +1 from you being on a table, the +1 from this and that, the bonuses from spells from the wizards, the bards inspirationnal speeches who gave you that one too. and the i think the monster has minuses to AC because of whatever. aside from that you are good to go.
its not the simple maths that made people angry, it is the fact that if you weren't optimised for maximum effectiveness, then the game fell apart pretty quickly. you8 just had to be effective at all times. in 3rd edition, the smallest of details was just punishing for the players and it forced the players to take much time trying to figure out if they were effective or not on that round ! and previous editions were just that as well. heck even warhammer has much less stuff to calculate then 3rd edition.
i'd not call that a small detail.
at maximum in 5th edition... i calculate proficiency, my stat and my magic weapon... maybe, just maybe i have advantage as well.
i dont have to calculate every little detail like the height of my character.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I have bolded the issue with players and DMs alike - it's not the edition. If a DM wants to run a game where everyone has to optimize (maximize damage while minimizing risk), then that's their poison. If players want to do that, then so be it. That's just never been my gig - nor has it been the focus of any of the players I have gamed with except one. That one player wanted to make an "optimum build" and I warned him of the issues it would likely present. He did so anyway and ended up becoming the target of most combats when they involved long-standing NPCs who knew the group. His character died four times and he was totally bummed. No matter what I said, he just didn't get it - if you build it, they will come. By it, I mean a powerhouse build. By "come" I mean, the NPCs will likely focus on assassinating you or taking you down first in any given combat.
A lot of the issues people have (or had) with 3rd centered around complexities brought on by powergamers. That is truly something DMs should nip in the bud at the outset. I reward character flaws. Those playing mega-builds generally do not get the same attention from me because doing something fantastic for them is much easier than it is for the guy who has one score at 15 and is playing an under-optimized monk.
I make a deal with my players at the beginning of a campaign - I will not optimize my NPCs and my monsters so that you don't have to optimize. Play a character with breadth and dimension. I will not have wild animals use intelligent tactics, I will make sure dumb monsters do stupid things, and I will make sure that creatures who have a sense of self run away when shit hits the fan.
All the stuff I crossed out exists with the same complexity in 5e.
The +1 from the table is now a decision to be made by the DM to grant advantage or not and, without a rule, will lead to a short discussion at the table.
The +1 from "this and that" also exists in 5e, but now it's "Your opponent is lying prone, so you get advantage from that, but you are under the effects of 'this or that' spell so you have disadvantage - so they cancel, but the bard is doing an inspiration, so you have another advantage.
Let's see...
3.5 Edition. 4 + 3 + 2 + 2 + 1 - 1 + 1... math is hard
5e (your example). 4 + 3 + 2 + 2 (this math is easier!) + adv + disadv + adv (wait... is that d + i + s + 3a + 3d + 3v?... how do you add d's and v's anyway?)
Okay, that last is tongue-in-cheek, but your example fell flat. All the computations in 3.5 still exist in 5e, but are hidden in the words.
That's called shit DM'ing and if you had a DM who ran an optimized, punishing campaign, you should have told him or her to shove it (with advantage). Some DM's couldn't help but be ***** because they felt the pressure of over-optimized PCs, but that's because the DM's didn't control the optimization from the get-go.
Umm.. wrong... see my example above. And calculating the height is your allowable tongue-in-cheek quip to mine.
I have to disagree. 3.5 suffered from awful class balance and a huge gap between unoptimized and optimized characters. That's a problem with the rules, not the players. You can't expect players not to optimize; that's like asking someone to play chess with you, but they're not allowed to study it or learn any openings. Some people inherently view games as a puzzle to be solved.
Powergaming is a legitimate form of fun, and as long as the powergamers aren't ruining the fun for the people that want to roleplay or worldbuild or explore or just zone out, they should be allowed to do their thing. It's not like min/maxing is mutually exclusive with all those either things either.
It really doesn't.
There's no way you can claim 3.5e and 5e have the same level of complexity built into them.
It doesn't have to lead to a discussion. A +1 bonus or penalty is too small to bother with. The edition conversion guide even tells you to ignore small modifiers when adapting things from previous editions.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I also agree that 3rd had balance issues between the classes and within the mechanics, but I still stand by the statement that the DM should be able to control the optimization inflation. I get that many people play D&D to create the most kick-ass character that can do the most insane bad-ass things - I guess the people I game with are just not that type. It's a difference in play styles.
As far as my comment about "all the stuff I crossed out." That was referring literally to all the stuff I crossed out, so my point still stands. You are correct about the numerous conditions in 3.5 versus 5e, and the elegance of the advantage/disadvantage system lends itself nicely to streamline the circumstantial modifiers. My comment was not referring to the entire edition of 5th versus 3rd, just the example cited.
You can try to curb the power level of the optimized players, but there's very little you can do about the huge power gap between the unoptimized players and the optimized ones. A fighter or rogue made by a new player is never going to be on equal footing with a wizard or cleric created by someone that knows what they're doing, even if you stick to the core books.
Heck, just the fact that making more than 1 attack requires a Full Round Action means martial classes are always at a disadvantage.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Inquisitive... Literally all newest players in 3e were at a huge disadvantage. Forgot to add stuff and all. Let alone try to add all the modifiers. Let alone explains the different bonuses.
Also the stuff you crossed out are still valid even if they are within 5e. Because... Proficiency not BAB and modifiers didnt always apply where in 5e they do. Advantage didnt exist in 3e. And also... I was making a direct comparision. For the whole sentence to make sense the crossed out part is necessary.
Having played 3e for 9 years. I tryed everything as a dm to balance out players. Nothing works ! Unless you completely remove spells and magic items or simply only use the phb and nothing else.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Although I have DM'ed extensively in all other editions, I think the shock of the differences is getting to me. I'll not bother listing my complaints (as some are fairly massive), but it is fair to say they have their counterbalances (the things I truly like about 5e).
Since several of you sound like you have more experience when it comes to DM'ing 5e, does it remain balanced into the higher tiers? There has always been the shift towards casters being overpowered as compared to their non-casting counterparts in all editions at high levels. I think this is why the designers of 5e baked in magical (or magic-like) abilities into the martial classes.
I can say from experience that 3rd definitely became a nightmare of tactics and rolls beyond 10th level, and I have heard many say that 5e is faster in play than 3rd, but so far that has not been my experience as both a DM and a player.
I have my players roll initiative after each round of combat. It helps nullify metagaming in a sense of, "okay I know the healer goes before the dragon" to "guys, I'm last this round, what if the dragon is next?" of course, if you get the dragon going last, and then first in the next round, the players freak out lol in a fun way.
EDIT: Also, a natural 20, puts you at the top of the list, and a natural 1 puts you at the bottom. So a natural 20 with an initiative bonus of 0, will go before a 17 with an initiative bonus of 4. Just because I was tired of hearing my players saying, "I wasted my crit on initiative."
Rolling for stats, I have characters roll 4d6, dropping the lowest, but I do this 7 times, not 6, and I also drop the lowest there. If the total is not 70 or higher, you can choose to reroll.
We play on hexagonal boards, but we also use the flanking rules to give advantage, same goes for monsters attacking PCs.
Published Subclasses
How do you deal with abilities or spells that "last until your next turn?"
I have never played on hexagonal boards (only squares). Do you have a preference?
Also, I considered the variant flanking rules, but decided to go with a +2 instead. I was too afraid of the rogue's Sneak Attack getting out of control. How have you found the flanking variant with advantage?
The spells continue the same way, but if your turn comes back within 3 turns of your last turn, you can use a bonus action to extend the spell to "until the end of this round".
I have largely played on squares, but after many arguments of what to do when the 2, 4, 6, and 8 squares are occupied and you're in one of the corner squares (1, 3, 7, 9) trying to attack, and with cover, it's much easier with hexagonal boards because then you have 6 spaces that are all connecting to the target, it makes flanking less frequent as well as you have to be at.
For flanking in Squares, you have to be at 1 and 9, 2 and 8, 3 and 7, or 6 and 4 to gain advantage on attacking 5. Any other combination doesn't grant you advantage.
For flanking in hexagons, you have to be at 1 and 4, 2 and 5, or 3 and 6 to gain advantage on attacking 7. Any other combination doesn't grant you advantage.
Luckily, I haven't had a rogue since I swapped to hexagons, however, one of the other ways to get sneak attack is to have another ally within 5 feet of your target. So they would get sneak attack anyways, but the advantage just gives them a higher chance to get a critical.
Published Subclasses
There's no real need to deal with it at all. Sometimes your spell will start at the end of one round and only last until the beginning of the next. Sometimes it will start at the beginning of one round and run all the way through the end of the next round. It tends to balance out. And I agree new init each round helps to limit metagaming, and add a small and easily produced element of chaos to a situation (combat) that should be chaotic. I have never found it more difficult or more noticeably time consuming.
Plus, it puts a lot less importance on a single roll. If this is going to be a big battle, and I roll a 1 for init, I'm stuck there for the whole thing. Rolling every round mitigates one bad roll. Nothing else is handled by way of a single roll for the entirety of combat--combat starts, make your to-hit roll that we'll apply to every one of your attacks! Now your one save roll! :(
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
I don't roll initiative for summoned creatures - they act on the caster's initiative count -1.
I "borrowed" a House Rule from either this thread or somewhere else concerning initiative. A natural 20 gives advantage on your first attack action (if you choose to take one during the first round) and removes the surprised condition (if you were surprised). A natural 1 gives disadvantage on your first attack action.
Hmm... I might talk to my players about that and see what they think. It sounds interesting.
@thedungeonmathster it is much better as the power level is being seen near level 13. But you have to know that 3e was heavy on magical items while 5e is a low magic item game world. Meaning all calculations are calculated without any magic item whatsoever. So each items you add might break that balancing. Also 5e has hard caps on different things. Like players spell dc will never exceed 19. While monsters can get up to 24-25 ! This is how they balanced it out. By putting caps on players and monsters. So with to hit that will never get beyond +11.
But ill say this... Calculating CR for player characters of level 20... There are major balancing issues in the classes. Exemple of a spellcaster having a total CR of 25 or so. While a barbarian has a total CR of like 20. Though when you check both cr for attack and defense you realise the barbarian as a cr of 30. While the wizard hits 30 on attack but not defense. Still the total CR of a monk is barely 16. Thats a huge gap there.
Maths aside... Classes are balanced toward what you choose so they are all great to choose. The balancing they done is definitely on point. Just need more tweaking for next edition.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)