Zero Buzz on 5E...Is It Dead Out The Gate?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Going through the spell list some more:

THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY FUCKING CONCENTRATION SPELLS.

Fun little exploit: cast Simacrulum. Then cast True Polymorph on the Simacrulum. Enjoy your CR + 17 bitch. End-of-the-game shenanigans, but then again people are ooing and aaing over how the Fighter gets FOUR ATTACKS. If your DM is being a cock about material components, cast 'Wish' first.

Speaking of which, Swift Quiver lets a Valor College Bard (who gets 9th level spells in this edition) make up to four ranged attacks in a round starting at level 10. Suck on caster cock some more, rangers and fighters.

Contagion is really powerful. You can either use Slimy Doom to stunlock a BBEG or use it to layer on another powerful spell. I recommend Stinking Cloud for added hilarity. And hey, look at that, Sorcerers can cast both in the same round with Quicken Spell.

If you're doing the animate dead thang, Aid is a must.

[Lago PARANOIA]

The algebra isn't that awful considering the equation difficulty and DM downtime. Yes, division and multiplication suck, but if it was that big of a deal then they could've just posted a 3-person party, 4-person party, 5-person party, and 6-person party 20 x 10 charts with the rows being encounter levels and columns being experience per monster. With the actual formula provided somewhere else for different party sizes. It would've taken up two extra pages, but one thing this book isn't hurting for is space.

[OgreBattle]

Going through the spell list some more:

THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY FUCKING CONCENTRATION SPELLS.

Do they do it in a way that doesn't mitigate caster dominance but just becomes tedious or useless?

[Deathfork]

Contagion is really powerful. You can either use Slimy Doom to stunlock a BBEG or use it to layer on another powerful spell. I recommend Stinking Cloud for added hilarity. And hey, look at that, Sorcerers can cast both in the same round with Quicken Spell.

No, they can't. On any round you cast a spell as a bonus action, the only spell you can cast as an action is a cantrip.

[Deathfork]

The algebra isn't that awful considering the equation difficulty and DM downtime. Yes, division and multiplication suck, but if it was that big of a deal then they could've just posted a 3-person party, 4-person party, 5-person party, and 6-person party 20 x 10 charts with the rows being encounter levels and columns being experience per monster. With the actual formula provided somewhere else for different party sizes. It would've taken up two extra pages, but one thing this book isn't hurting for is space.

It's not awful, but my point was that it's complex enough that most people won't use it. They're far more likely to go "eh, good enough" and eyeball it. Which defeats the purpose of having a system for it in the first place.

[DSMatticus]

Use an action and take an action are the same thing. They are synonyms.

First off: I am about to admit I was wrong because of the sentence Deathfork quoted that I missed the significance of, but before I start talking about how I'm stupid I want to cheer myself up by talking about how you're stupid.

"You can use a bonus action to X" (Second Wind) does not have the same meaning as "You can take a bonus action. This action can be used only to X." (Cunning Action). Here, let me show you using 3.5 terminology:
"Once per day, you can use a standard action to X."
"Once per day, you can take a standard action. This standard action can only be used to X."
The former does not give you an extra standard action, it just says you can use a standard action to do something. The latter absolutely does give you an extra standard action, and specifies limits on what that standard action can be used for. "Use to" (Second Wind) is not a synonym for "take an" (Cunning Action). Up until that last sentence you were rock solid, but that sentence was fucking dumb.

My mistake is that I paid too much attention to these snippets:

"Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action."

"You can take a bonus action on each of your turns in combat. This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action."

They set a terminology for granting bonus actions ("take a bonus action") and then reference an ability that uses that exact terminology, so I thought "okay, so that is how they intend for this to work," and then noticed that 90% of bonus action abilities do not use that terminology. The sentence after that (the one deathfork quoted) got read as simple clarification along the lines of "you can only use a bonus action to perform actions allowed by your abilities (i.e. bonus actions are not true actions)," but it actually reads as "you can take a bonus action whenever you could use a bonus action." The reason I'm wrong is not because "use to" is the same as "take an" (it isn't): the reason I'm wrong is because the rules additionally specify that you can "take an" whenever you could "use to."

Now, that means you have a bonus action whenever you could use it and you don't whenever you couldn't, which is literally 100% identical to just always having a bonus action except pointlessly verbose. Basically it reads like someone noticed the exact thing I complained about and fixed it awkwardly - but the fix is there, so I was wrong.

[Dean]

Going through the spell list some more:.

There are absolutely too many concentration spells. As a setting appropriate way to maintain a one-buff paradigm it was a good idea, but it has been executed terribly. Concentration is on minor buffs which phases them out of the game almost immediately, it's on battlefield control spells like Web which means no one will use them, even a few straight up attacks like Witch Bolt have it while on the other hand several amazing buffs like Stoneskin don't have it which means they are auto-includes for every caster. Wtf?

Swift quiver is fine but making weapon attacks is a suckers game for Bards, especially when they can plunder everyone else's spell lists to put together the best possible buff set.

HOLY CONTAGION BATMAN. Deathfork covered the bullshit that is Swift Spells so you can only combo Contagion with a cantrip but that's fine because if you use scorching burst you are guaranteed 1 damage which now stuns. Perfect stunlock, any DoT spell like the level 1 Cloud of Knives now kills the stunlocked baddie with no save. Opening with Contagion is definitely the deadliest move I've seen in this edition yet, nothing else even comes close to it. I will wager you've found the first thing that will be erratta'd in this new edition, bet on it.

Oh and Aid in the draft I'm reading doesn't affect undead. What have you got in front of you?

[Deathfork]

Going through the spell list some more:.

There are absolutely too many concentration spells. As a setting appropriate way to maintain a one-buff paradigm it was a good idea, but it has been executed terribly. Concentration is on minor buffs which phases them out of the game almost immediately, it's on battlefield control spells like Web which means no one will use them, even a few straight up attacks like Witch Bolt have it while on the other hand several amazing buffs like Stoneskin don't have it which means they are auto-includes for every caster. Wtf?

Swift quiver is fine but making weapon attacks is a suckers game for Bards, especially when they can plunder everyone else's spell lists to put together the best possible buff set.

HOLY CONTAGION BATMAN. Deathfork covered the bullshit that is Swift Spells so you can only combo Contagion with a cantrip but that's fine because if you use scorching burst you are guaranteed 1 damage which now stuns. Perfect stunlock, any DoT spell like the level 1 Cloud of Knives now kills the stunlocked baddie with no save. Opening with Contagion is definitely the deadliest move I've seen in this edition yet, nothing else even comes close to it. I will wager you've found the first thing that will be erratta'd in this new edition, bet on it.

Oh and Aid in the draft I'm reading doesn't affect undead. What have you got in front of you?

You got it right about bards. A necrobard that takes animate dead at 6th and contagion at 10 can put out more damage than anything else in the game by himself. Round 1, faerie fire, skeletons attack. Round 2: contagion (with advantage) giving the target vulnerability (x2 damage) to all damage. At 10th level, when you can pull this off, your attack suite looks like 24 attacks @+4 w/ advantage for d10+2 each time. For double damage. Hope you aren't fighting any good aligned clerics though.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I really hate how this edition is deciding that DM grovelling is the wave of the future and keeps putting in all of these snide references about how the DM can change something or decides whether something is valid. This is most notable with the feats, but it's not the only place.

Swift quiver is fine but making weapon attacks is a suckers game for Bards, especially when they can plunder everyone else's spell lists to put together the best possible buff set.

I'm aware that it's not the best option, however, it's awesome for rubbing caster supremacy back in the face of 5E D&D fanboys. Can't really argue with the talking point of 'bards get more attacks than fighters!'

EDIT: One of the things I'm enjoying is the dawning realization on certain boards, like the GITP forums, is that casters > you. It's not specifically 5E D&D's fault because they made a better try than most at clamping down on the 'problem', but no one seems to realize that it's a structural problem. Even if they made all of the spells lame and boring in the PHB, they're only one supplement away from restoring supremacy. Ironic that this is happening on the GITP forums in fact.

[Ferret]

I bet the errata is something like 'swift quiver lets you use cantrips' for maximum FUCK OFF value.

[Deathfork]

I bet the errata is something like 'swift quiver lets you use cantrips' for maximum FUCK OFF value.

Actually, if you want maximum facepalm, take note that a high level valor bard can take an attack in addition to casting any of the ranger projectile AoE spells, and the ranger can't.

[ishy]

As a reaction to the topic title:
it looks like 5e phb is the number top selling book overal on amazon right now.

I blame Lago.

[Krusk]

So my pre-order copy came in.

Credits
D&D Lead Designers: Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford.

Who the hell is jeremy crawford and why hasn't he been as publically attached as mearls?

Googled - http://www.amazon.com/Jeremy-Crawford/e/B002RFAIH6

According to amazon, he was on the core 4e team. Better question is how is this guy still around?

[Ghremdal]

He hid in Mearls'es asshole? Ok maybe that was undeserved, but I never heard of him, so maybe he was too low level to fire during 4e days?

[Username17]

Jeremy Crawford was credited as one of the many people who contributed "additional design" to 4th edition. He also helped edit the 4th edition PHB and Monster Manual. I'm unaware of him having done anything else for 4th edition, but considering how many shovelware books that edition produced (especially early in the cycle when they thought they could sell a hard back book on literally any subject), I'm sure he contributed something.

I assume he avoided being fired by simply not being on payroll in the first place.

-Username17

[Insomniac]

Ah, the old "You can't fire me! I don't even work here!" gambit.

[ScottS]

>>>Who the hell is jeremy crawford

I think he was also involved with the podcasts (i.e. they may have said he was producer/editor or something, but he also sat there and chatted with Mearls, Mazzanoble, etc. while they hotboxed in the recording studio).

[Ferret]

I bet the errata is something like 'swift quiver lets you use cantrips' for maximum FUCK OFF value.

Actually, if you want maximum facepalm, take note that a high level valor bard can take an attack in addition to casting any of the ranger projectile AoE spells, and the ranger can't.

Shame those appear to function only on physical ranged attacks. It'd be hilarious to make it work with, say, Eldritch Blast.

[Lago PARANOIA]

As a big-time hater, I'm still waiting for the 5E DMG with bated breath. This is going to be where shit hits the fan, for two reasons.

1.) 5E D&D's magic item system. It's a combination of the worst parts of 4E D&D (loot only exists with monsters) and 2E D&D (people hate it when their characters revolve around magic items they can't reliably get). Now, I don't think that mostly-random magical item drops is by any means a bad system, but I don't think it works when the power level of the system is low and furthermore D&D has been evolving in the direction of having your MIs be akin to feats or spells.

2.) The Difficulty Class fiasco. 5E D&D has four options, all of them bad.

• First one is that they punt and try to avoid assigning DCs at all. This makes the devs look inept or cowardly and you'll have a bunch of people whining on boards that they don't know what to set the DC of certain tasks to.
• The second one is that they do the 4E D&D thing and treadmill the DCs. People have 'success at climbing a level-appropriate thing' DCs, not 'success at climbing a tree'.
• The third one is that, thanks to bounded accuracy, they just have to accept that barely trained peasants are sometimes going to be able to write world-class symphonies and make beautiful full-plate.
• The fourth one (and is a direct consequence of avoiding problem #3) is they rip out all of the high-level shit out of the game and have characters top out at climbing up a smooth wall reliably.

5E D&D is fucked when it comes out. Even I'm taking the 'wait and see' approach right now, but its final moments approach.

[Deathfork]

[*] The third one is that, thanks to bounded accuracy, they just have to accept that barely trained peasants are sometimes going to be able to write world-class symphonies and make beautiful full-plate.

Looks like it's going to be this one. I'm reading a scan of Horde of the Dragon Queen

Characters can clear the cellar door with a few
minutes’ work. The lock is stiff but opens with the key;
without the key, the character can open the lock with a
successful DC 10 Dexterity check and a set of thieves’
tools. The disused tunnel is choked with webs but is oth­erwise clear.
A few yards inside the stream end is a nest
of two swarms of rats. The rats attack when disturbed,
and the surviving rats flee when half their number die.
Years of exposure and neglect have corroded the lock
on the exit grate. Even with the key, a successful DC 10
Dexterity check is needed to open the lock. Without the
key, the DC increases to 20. If the roll misses by 5 or
more, the key or thieves’ tools break off in the lock so
that unlocking it becomes impossible. Then only a
suc­cessful DC 15 Strength check can force the grate open.

A locked door can be opened 55% of the time by someone with no ability, and no skill.
Now, it could be that what they're doing is fifth option you didn't list. That the DCs are low, but they're only low because PCs are the ones attempting the task. Only PCs can attempt it at all. It must be that one because a lock that falls open every other time a cat touches it wrecks verisimilitude worse than anything 4e did, since at least 4e gave us the context of it being a supers game set in a fantasy world.

[John Magnum]

You can only even attempt to pick the lock if you have a set of thieves' tools. So you don't quite get the situation where level 1 commoners with no skills succeed half the time.

[Deathfork]

You can only even attempt to pick the lock if you have a set of thieves' tools. So you don't quite get the situation where level 1 commoners with no skills succeed half the time.

Not quite, but anyone who gets their hands on thieves tools can do it. So that kind of speaks more to that fifth option, of "Low DC, but we only expect the PCs to try."

[Krusk]

Noted. With that in mind, here are some 6e predictions for once 5e stops with its "of course I preordered the books" sales and people actually start playing it, causing the sales to drop dramatically. (End of Next Summer?)

Jeremy gets the Axe, and Mearls is moved into some sort of "Brand Consultant" role. Something where he gets more prestige and $$, but has less actual say on the nitty gritty of the design. They trot him out for talking points and high concepts "Modularity, appeal to players of all editions, bonded accuracy, Ivory Tower".
----
Overall, after reading the PHB it reminds me a lot of 2e. Like if someone tried to do a 2.5 after reading 3rd and said "Fuck all that consistent rules and shit, we just have awesome DMs who love us and never mis-interpret our intentions", but liked all the advances in simplification.
---
You would not believe how many times I'd see a reference to something, then have to flip back to the TOC to find out if it was even in the book. About half the time it was, but there is no cross linking. Nothing says "See page 15" its all "Your cleric can follow a diety. Which ones can I chose from? Fuck you", and then you go to the TOC and see that a list isn't presented. Then while randomly leafing through the book, you find a gigantic list. In an appendix right before character sheets.
------
Fun part of the book. Identifying the "I win" spells that allow casters to end/bypass entire encounters vs the trap spells. Some of the old standards are still awesome, but some became trap options. Some old traps became awesome, but by and large it looks like mostly 3.5 spells reprinted with shorter durations.

[Deathfork]

Fun part of the book. Identifying the "I win" spells that allow casters to end/bypass entire encounters vs the trap spells. Some of the old standards are still awesome, but some became trap options. Some old traps became awesome, but by and large it looks like mostly 3.5 spells reprinted with shorter durations.

That's interesting, because that's what I point to when I want to show someone how fucked the system is. I hate "I win" spells with a passion. That and the abysmal encounter building of 3rd is what made me pick up 4th. Now that bloat and over-all blergness has made me put down 4th, the only reason I'm willing to play 5th is to show the friend of mine who is dead set on running it how busted the mechanics are.

[ishy]

That and the abysmal encounter building of 3rd is what made me pick up 4th.

Do you mean the following with abysmal encounter building?

Mainly easy encounter design. After running several games of 3.0 and 3.5 the high level encounter design was such a pain in the ass that I gave up somewhere around 12th to 16th level. A friend of mine ran us all the way from 1 to 21 in 3.0 and it was plainly obvious that his approach was "the book says this is fine, so here it is", and usually we would run roughshod over the encounter because there were 8 characters and he was using pretty much standard monsters of our CR. He did the same thing in another game and very rarely did we feel challenged, or even slowed down.

Because that story, makes it sound like the 3e encounter system worked perfectly.
Your DM only pitted your group versus 'easy encounters'. Which the DMG describes as:"The group should be able to handle an almost limitless number of these encounters."

Though the DMG advises you to use more difficult encounters most of the time(90% of the encounters should be more difficult in fact), so it is a shame your DM didn't know or follow the encounter building rules.