Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Darkholme

D&D 5th Edition

Recommended Posts

I was curious what the other folks at BRP central have to say about 5e.

 

I think 5e is in a much closer category to d100 than 3 and 4 were. I feel it's particularly close in function to MagicWorld, or perhaps OpenQuest.

  • It's no longer magic item collection focused. Magic items are a rare and cool thing, rather than par for the course.
  • They reigned in the upper levels of magical power significantly.

Magic is a bit less pervasive in 5e than it is in most of the d100 fantasy games, since most of the d100 fantasy games seem to suggest that everyone should have some kind of magic when magic is an option. They've gone back to a similar feel 2e had in many ways.

 

Personally, I have yet to be convinced I want 5e; we'll see about that in the future, however (and if they're any good this edition -I think they did a poor job with the setting in 4th-, I will likely still go out and pick up the forgotten realms books, even if I'm not using the system).

 

In short, it looks alright, but I've not seen anything about it that says to me "Pick me! Pick me!", unless I really wanted to run a 2e D&D setting (I wouldn't want to go back and replay 2e itself).

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I downloaded and printed out the basic 5th edition rules.  They are maybe a bit too streamlined; I couldn't see how the instructions for making a character lined up with what was on the character sheet -- and I was attempting to make a plain vanilla human Fighter.  I've never played D&D on a regular basis, but I have done characters for retro-clones and near clones such as Mazes and Minotaurs and Mutant Future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I downloaded and printed out the basic 5th edition rules.  They are maybe a bit too streamlined; I couldn't see how the instructions for making a character lined up with what was on the character sheet -- and I was attempting to make a plain vanilla human Fighter.  I've never played D&D on a regular basis, but I have done characters for retro-clones and near clones such as Mazes and Minotaurs and Mutant Future.

I think the premise of 5e was a good one.

 

Going back to supporting 2e style settings rather than 3e/4e style settings means they don't have to compete with Pathfinder as much. Streamlining things also made some sense, some things in Pathfinder and 3.X take too long.

 

However, I'm not a fan of the way they baked a lot of the progressions into class features or the very sparse selection opportunities for feats. The former is a slap in the face if your concept doesn't fit into one of the the existing classes without multiclassing, and the latter means you're only going to get a couple of feats for your character spread over 20 levels.

 

D&D 5e Basic Rules

 

Yep. There they are. There are many character options from the PHB not included, but its enough to get the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm running the 5E Starter Set at the moment (in fact just I spent the entire weekend doing it!). It's pretty cool for D&D, possibly my favourite edition as far as RAW goes. I actually miss the 3.0E / 3.5E / Pathfinder skills, though, which I thought were the best bit in the whole reboot. In fact I'll be trying out some house rules that more or less get rid of levels and turn it into a skill-based system (although classes are still there in a way as a setting thing, which is very rigid in terms of guilds and the church). Still, if you like D&D you sgould have a high probability of liking 5E.

 

There are a lot of clever things to speed up play. For example there are very few bonuses and penalties, they are just replaced by a simple advantage / disadvantage system - roll two d20a, and pick the higher (for advantage) or the lower (for disadvantage). Much better than all the different modifiers from the old days (of RQ as well as D&D).

 

Anyway, I'd recommend running or playing in the starter set game, that will quickly make up your mind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13th Age is a pretty cool D20 game, and feels very D&D to me. I picked it up in case the only players I had available insisted on doing D&D, as it feels like a good stand in with some modern concepts. Its all self contained in one hardcover book, slightly slimmer than the BGB, so no buying the old trifeta of Players, Dungeon Masters, and Monsters handbooks in order to be able to play the core rules.

I have the free pdf of the rules for D&D 5E, which is a great set of free rules you'll ever find, regarding value of content. However I thought it felt quite bland in comparison to 13th Age, and I doubt I'll ever GM it, as it just doesn't appeal that much to me.

But then again, I discovered BRP/RQ in the 80s before I even played in a D&D game, and I've always felt D&D was not a great system compared to many other rpgs. Even other level/class based games such as Rolemaster seemed to do gamist rpg playing much better.The new rules haven't shifted my thoughts all that much I'm afraid

Although as far as 'generic fantasy' goes, the Forgotten Realms setting is one of the best, and I'm glad that D&D has shifted its focus back to that instead of that god-awful Ebberon (a WoW clone, IMO). I also enjoyed Kyrnn (the world of the Dragonlance series) back in the day, I'm not sure why WotC didnt grab it off TSR when they produced D&D 3E. I'ld consider picking up an updated Krynn or Forgetten Worlds gazetter if it captures the flavour of the 80s/90s D&D setting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13th Age is a pretty cool D20 game, and feels very D&D to me. I picked it up in case the only players I had available insisted on doing D&D, as it feels like a good stand in with some modern concepts. Its all self contained in one hardcover book, slightly slimmer than the BGB, so no buying the old trigfeta of Players, Dungeon Masters, and Monsters handbooks in order to be able to play the core rules.

13th Age is a d20 game? I had not realized that. I do prefer the approach of PHB+DMG in a single core book. It's one of the things Pathfinder definitely improved upon from D&D.

 

I exclusively went back and forth between Vampire the4 Masquerade and D&D 3.X for a good 8 years, mostly 3.X. I wasn't all that interested in 2e D&D, and I had almost no experience with other systems. D&D 3/4/PF are the only fantasy games I've seen which have the steep power curve from "stupid teenagers" to "expert demigods", and I guess I've grown rather accustomed to "setting where everyone has the potential to grow into superhuman capabilities through training" fantasy, which most other systems don't do–either you start out super powerful, or you stay within "human potential". That power curve is the biggest reason I haven't found another system which I can use to replace D&D entirely.

 

I like the d100/BRP/RQ System, but to me it fills a lower powered niche (to do otherwise I would have to make skills and monsters scale much higher and introduce scaling hit points and much more powerful magic), which means I don't see it as a replacement for OGL3eBasedd20, but an alternative game for when I don't want characters getting to such high power levels.

 

From what I understand, they intend to make the 5e Realms much closer to the realms as it was in the late 90's up to what it was in in 2007 at the end of 3e, I've also seen hints that they're going to deliberately support play in multiple time periods, which would be a very nice improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13th Age is indeed very much D20 OGL, and its authors previously worked for WotC on D&D 3.5E and D&D 4E. The interesting thing is that 13th Age feels like it captures the spirit of the earlier D&D editions (pre D&D 3E), as well as having some interesting tweaks that would be more commonly seen with new rpgs like FATE or other 'indie scene' rpgs.

The game mechanics are simplistic in a gamist sense, yet the system is novel enough to have some richness from a narrative sense.

Its not really following Pathfinder style complexity; rather its more like a very well produced D&D retroclone, with some new indie tweaks to the rules. It does not feel bloated at all, and its all contained under one hardcover. It manages to feel fresh, yet retains the charm of old school D&D, as if played by the FATE kids

IMO much better than D&D 5E

It has its own setting, but could easily work with Forgotten Realms, or indeed, most fantasy settings (hence the 13th Age Glorantha kickstarter)

I prefer BRP/RQ, but 13th Age is the closest I will get to GMing D&D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I'll have to take a look at it.

 

A heavily-houseruled Pathfinder is one of my go-to systems, simply because IMO it's in a different category than all of the other fantasy games I've played, in the fact that is supports high powered magic once you hit the 12-18 range. That, plus the mountains of supporting material and character options.

 

When I look at lower magic RPGs, the most fun I've had thus far was with RQ6 and MRQ2/Legend.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll check out the free rules. I may end up sticking with 4th edition though. Of all the editions I've played/ ran it has been the easiest, and felt the most balanced.

Hmm. I'll give you that. 4e definitely handles inter-character power balance well. I have objections to it for my own games, but character balance issues are not among them. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the premise of 5e was a good one.

 

Going back to supporting 2e style settings rather than 3e/4e style settings means they don't have to compete with Pathfinder as much. Streamlining things also made some sense, some things in Pathfinder and 3.X take too long.

 

However, I'm not a fan of the way they baked a lot of the progressions into class features or the very sparse selection opportunities for feats. The former is a slap in the face if your concept doesn't fit into one of the the existing classes without multiclassing, and the latter means you're only going to get a couple of feats for your character spread over 20 levels.

 

D&D 5e Basic Rules

 

Yep. There they are. There are many character options from the PHB not included, but its enough to get the idea.

Part I appears to be missing, all they have is II & III.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. I'll give you that. 4e definitely handles inter-character power balance well. I have objections to it for my own games, but character balance issues are not among them. :)

I just found I've run my best D&D games using that edition.  Not my best games necessarily, but definitely some of my best fantasy games.  Balance among the classes was always a concern for me starting with AD&D.  I hated Thac0, the way skills were managed, and how the various classes advanced at different rates.  3E fixed a lot of my pet peeves but there were still a huge power discrepancy between the classes.  By making everything a "power" they balanced the fighting classes with the spellcasters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found I've run my best D&D games using that edition.  Not my best games necessarily, but definitely some of my best fantasy games.  Balance among the classes was always a concern for me starting with AD&D.  I hated Thac0, the way skills were managed, and how the various classes advanced at different rates.  3E fixed a lot of my pet peeves but there were still a huge power discrepancy between the classes.  By making everything a "power" they balanced the fighting classes with the spellcasters.

 

Honestly, that "balanced" nature is what turned me off of D&D 4E. Yes, 2E and 3E are by no means balanced, but that was the beauty of it, especially with 2E. I loved that wizards who managed to survive their baby (and adolescent and young adult) steps actually became a force to be reckoned with; that fighters outfitted with the right magic gear - especially if they happen to find a "named" legendary magic weapon - were practically unstoppable. Clerics were always a bit too strong in my eyes, but they had strict codes of faith to follow that allowed for some excellent roleplaying, and thieves were extremely versatile despite being rather weak in combat. Each of the divergent classes (Paladins, Rangers, Bards, Druids, Specialist Mages, etc.) bringing additional flavor to the base classes, and the character kits (from 2E) tweaked even those more, all for more roleplaying opportunities. Yes, I agree that some kits weren't really worth playing from a purely mechanical standpoint, but they generally offered ideas - whether directly or indirectly - for bringing the character to life even despite that.

 

To me, it was always about the character's interactivity with the world around him/her, development, and survival - and their becoming stronger as a result of it. 4E just turned everything into a power (including swinging your own weapon) which is all fine and dandy in an MMORPG like World of Warcraft, but not in a tabletop RPG, where diversity is the spice of life. I don't want my wizard having "spell effects" that are pretty much the same as the Fighter's martial/tactical skills, or vice versa. Wizards are supposed to go out and control the battlefield as a whole with magical effects (and potentially be brought low by a couple of dagger stabs, which is why they don't usually go up front), while Fighters should be the ones capable of killing things with a weapon, taking hits, controlling their own immediate battles with tactical maneuvers like tripping, disarming, etc., and even leading troops into combat. Additionally, 4E became much more high-powered than any other edition. What happened to the struggles of low-level and even middle-level play? Becoming a powerful character should be the reward of many sessions of struggle and near-death experiences.

 

Between the transition (degeneration?) of D&D into a tabletop MMORPG and a personal distaste for level-based systems, I found myself going to BRP for everything. As much as I still love a lot of the AD&D settings (which I would still love to play/run), I pretty much don't see myself going back into the game that brought me into roleplaying.

 

Apologies about the chaotic rant. Kinda had a similar discussion with one of my friends.

 

EDIT: Fixed dumb mistakes like missing words.  :mellow:

Edited by Lord Sephleon
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is 5E OGL?

It is not; and thus far I don't think it's clear what kind of license they intend to use.

 

The approach of making everything a "Power" is a very large part of what turned me off of 4e. I hated the "boardgamey" taste it left in my mouth, and destroyed any verisimilitude it had for me ("What do you mean I can't swing my sword the same way twice in a fight?"; "Wait, how am I swinging my sword to heal myself exactly?"; "Why can't I try to trip a dude without a magical trip power?"; "Why did I have to unlearn an old power to get a new one, and why don't I get better at them as I become more skilled"-unless you pick the upgraded versions of the same ones in which case it's "Why can I only learn to do 4-5 things?"). And aside from that, it felt like their approach for balancing classes seemed to be to just homogenize them as much as possible. The magic was dull and lackluster in comparison to 3e and 2e, being mostly a collection of blasts and the like (they removed the fun magic). The other major objections I have with it are the minis-combat-fetish it has (with all the "shift" powers it has, 4e doesn't play that well without minis and a grid), and the fact that NPCs/Monsters have virtually noting in the way of stats for outside of combat. (I have other more specific objections, like the completely butchered into uselessness Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, and retconning all kinds of creatures, such that all sorts of things are totally different if I try to use 4e for existing campaigns or settings: 3 player races, a multitude of monsters, the planes which exist). Essentially they took the parts of 3e that most turned me off, and built an entire game around it, while discarding almost all the parts I liked.

On the positive side, I will say, that its much more logical "Pattern & Progression" based monster and NPC design was a breath of fresh air (aside from the stats/abilities that were missing), and that Mooks serve a useful purpose in superheroic campaigns. Additionally, the idea of having a crappy bonus to default to based on your level, rather than 0, was a decent idea, and the 4e offline character builder was an excellent piece of software.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is 5E OGL?

No, but it may as well be - the existing OGL and SRDs are perfectly adequate for legally creating compatible products. I believe some were already released before the PHB, even. Of course, under the terms of the OGL you can't claim compatibility - but big, bold FIFTH EDITION sprawling across your cover will sort that out. The only question is whether WotC will provide some kind of logo licence, ala Mongoose Traveller and Legend (or the original D&D 3E licence).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but it may as well be - the existing OGL and SRDs are perfectly adequate for legally creating compatible products. I believe some were already released before the PHB, even. Of course, under the terms of the OGL you can't claim compatibility - but big, bold FIFTH EDITION sprawling across your cover will sort that out. The only question is whether WotC will provide some kind of logo licence, ala Mongoose Traveller and Legend (or the original D&D 3E licence).

Hmm. I thought about that, I'm not sure if you could work in Advantage/Disadvantage, the terms may be trademarked. But besides that, I concur. You could make an OGL alternate core book, if you were so inclined, like a retroclone, but not retro. You ouldnt use any of the text from the 5e book, and you couldn't directly copy their tables, but beyond that, yeah; you could do it, if you really wanted to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt Advantage/Disadvantage is trademarked (or that it could be - the words certainly are not, and the mechanic can't be), because GURPS has been using them for a long time, albeit in a different context. But even so, if you're talking about adventures and setting material that wouldn't even be mentioned. The only thing that really appears in adventures is the monster stat block, and that's covered by the SRD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5E replaced previous editions' many fiddly modifiers with an Advantage/Disadvantage system.  IIRC, if a character has Advantage, she rolls 2 d20 and uses the higher result; conversely, a character with Disadvantage rolls 2 d20 and uses the lower result.  Note that there's no "double advantage" or "double disadvantage", to discourage players from piling in as many advantages / disadvantages as they can think of; one sufficiently strong one will do.

 

Note that CoC 7 does a similar thing with two tens dice and a ones die on d% rolls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it uses feats (though those feats are supposed to be a bigger deal), but you get like, half as many opportunities for them, and they also serve as your opportunities to increase your stats. They're also mentioned as "optional" in that you might get stat increases but not be allowed to take feats (though most of the people I've talked to have said they would strongly object if a GM told them no feats).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...