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

Sakuya Izayoi · Post by **Sakuya Izayoi** » Fri Aug 29, 2014 1:32 am

No magic items but a whole boatload of prostitute charts? Sounds at least somewhat feasible.

ACOS · Post by **ACOS** » Fri Aug 29, 2014 2:08 am

Ferret wrote:Guy on Something Awful had this summary of topics from the Alpha DMG:

secret DMG is from 07/30, this turd is so fresh the flies haven't showed up yet. no magic items sadly.

highlights:
costs to construct building
costs for hirelings
downtime activites (most of which have a 20% chance of going to jail for 5d6 days)
domains (kingdom builder rules)
using miniatures!!!
travel hazards
diseases
poisons
madness
traps
puzzles
modifying races
creating new races
monsters as characters
modifying classes

optional rules:
training to level up
trading in magic items
flanking
attacking cover
morale
action points
called shots
alternate skill systems (13th age backgrounds are an option)
vitality
spell points
skill points
single strike (1 attack roll, cumulative damage)
second wind
rest variants
proficiency dice
massive damage
marking
facing
cleaving through the horde
automatic success
chases
cantrip slots
action points (again?)
group initiative
weapon speed
passive initiative
gestalt characters
Anybody seen a copy? It hasn't shown up on /tg/ as far as I've seen.

Ferret · Post by **Ferret** » Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:58 pm

Actually the same guy posted some excerpts. The monsters-as-PC's stuff is 100% handwavey.

Lemme image leach real quick....

So, that's awesome.

Bonus content:

Based on those excerpts, though, content looks legit.

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:12 pm

So having seen the rest of the system we can conclude that it's still not good. Cool.

infected slut princess · Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:23 pm

That "Monsters as characters" shit is so fucking half-assed. They should be embarrassed.

brized · Post by **brized** » Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:54 pm

Shouldn't "monsters as characters" be in the...Monster Manual? And have some rules rather than the loosest of guidelines?

ACOS · Post by **ACOS** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:32 am

@ Monsters as Characters:
Giant punt.
"Hey, yeah, you can totally do that. And when it gets all fucked up, the only person you can blame is your DM ... after all, we did give him the guidelines.

"

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:32 am

List selectively omitted to emphasize certain items.

Ferret wrote: optional rules:
training to level up
trading in magic items
action points
called shots
alternate skill systems (13th age backgrounds are an option)
spell points
skill points
second wind
rest variants
marking
facing
cleaving through the horde
automatic success
weapon speed
gestalt characters

So this is what became of that modularity promise. Remember that? Or were the devs just joking about that as well? But seriously, look at this shit. Fucking look at this HORSESHIT. Are the 5E D&D developers completely devoid of shame? No one on the staff had the sense to tell Mike Mearls 'dude, slobbering the knobs of grognards is one thing, but offering 4Erries rhetorical rimjobs is like being in a threesome with the screenwriter and Best Boy?' This is the most sickening, most blatant pandering I've ever seen. They'll do pretty much anything to get people to like their piece of shit system.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 6:23 am

There's enough goontalk added to that ToC that I'm pretty sure that even if they have a real early draft to look at that their transcriptions are pretty much worthless. The fact that they decided to write "alternate skill systems (13th age backgrounds are an option)" instead of whatever the fuck the draft they were working with actually said means that when they write shit like "gestalt characters" we have no way of knowing if it actually says that or they are just editorializing over a piece that's actually about AD&D style multiclassing or something. And that is of course assuming that they have any advance text at all and aren't just making a complete fabrication.

Bottom line is that we have every reason to believe that the DMG is going to be half assed and shitty. But the Something Awful "leak" isn't one of those reasons.

-Username17

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 10:39 am

Is 5E D&D going to use the resistance + can't guarantee magic weapons cop-out to the complaint of 'a bunch of goblins with slings can kill an elder dragon?' Because that's ineffably lame.

Also, I've noticed that in most discussions of 5E D&D people just pretty much assume that feats are an available option. I guess we're back to the bad old days of 2E D&D and tribal knowledge where people are all 'I know the rules say this, but everyone plays it like this'.

Rawbeard · Post by **Rawbeard** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 11:08 am

Great success! Exactly what was predicted.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:00 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Also, I've noticed that in most discussions of 5E D&D people just pretty much assume that feats are an available option. I guess we're back to the bad old days of 2E D&D and tribal knowledge where people are all 'I know the rules say this, but everyone plays it like this'.

Similar to how everyone ignores the multi-classing xp penalty in 3.x? Or how everyone ignores the medium creatures with reach weapons can't attack on diagonals (since 2 squares is 15 ft) in pathfinder? Or how the 4e rules say something, but nobody plays 4e?

Insomniac · Post by **Insomniac** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 6:25 pm

So playing as monsters went from over 200 pages in Savage Species to a 400 word punt in a leaked DMG? That is pretty cool.

:/

The gestalt rules are probably another worthless punt as well.

Ferret · Post by **Ferret** » Tue Sep 02, 2014 2:16 pm

I expect Gestalt will be "figure it up just like regular multiclassing, but only count as one level and take the best hit die!"

So Wizard|Fighter would be different from Fighter|Wizard. And Gestalt will totally own bones if compared to single classed characters.

But it's not like Multiclassing was ever anything less than generically BETTER than single classing.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Tue Sep 02, 2014 3:21 pm

Someone talking about the Monster Manual wrote:It is annoying that there is no table of monsters by Challenge Rating (CR). When I actually sat down to use it in play, I quickly discovered that I had no real way to go “I want to put together a challenge for a party of 3rd level characters. What are my options?”.

Why wouldn't they include that.

Ferret · Post by **Ferret** » Tue Sep 02, 2014 8:54 pm

So I'm watching the Chris Perkins/Penny Arcade Acquisitions Inc D&D 5e game from PAX Prime.

Early in the game, after the Fighter watches the Bard/Rogue chuck a brace of daggers at multiple targets and get Sneak Attack off on both with it's resultant pile of damage, he exclaims:

"What did you roll, a Bard?! Why the hell am I playing a fighter like a chump!?"

5th edition, folks.

(right around the 1 hr mark, for those of you who'd like to see yourselves)

Amalie Gaston · Post by **Amalie Gaston** » Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:15 pm

Ferret wrote:Early in the game, after the Fighter watches the Bard/Rogue chuck a brace of daggers at multiple targets and get Sneak Attack off on both with it's resultant pile of damage, he exclaims:

How did the bard/rogue get sneak attack against multiple targets in one turn? The rules for sneak attack explicitly say it only applies once per round.

Rawbeard · Post by **Rawbeard** » Wed Sep 03, 2014 1:11 am

Well, rules is such a hard turn, he probably used them more like guidelines.

Aryxbez · Post by **Aryxbez** » Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:44 am

Ferret wrote: (right around the 1 hr mark, for those of you who'd like to see yourselves)

Specifically 1:02:24 sec mark, least according to this video. According to the guy in the video, he can only Sneak attack 8-9 times??! Assuming he wasn't joking with that phrase (mentions it at the 1:02:35second mark), Sneak Attack is a Daily resource now!? As if 5th edition needs "More" reasons to die.

Why do nerdy "celebs" unbashingly support a game, even when/if its bad? I get it by social courtesy, and havin fun in spite of the game, not going to do that. However will do so in after the fact, despite they probably don't even play it after that one occasion. Like CoD Reviews, one could say they're getting paid to do it, but I question if Wizards & like would have the money willing to do that...

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Wed Sep 03, 2014 7:48 am

Aryxbez wrote:Why do nerdy "celebs" unbashingly support a game, even when/if its bad? I get it by social courtesy, and havin fun in spite of the game, not going to do that. However will do so in after the fact, despite they probably don't even play it after that one occasion. Like CoD Reviews, one could say they're getting paid to do it, but I question if Wizards & like would have the money willing to do that...

Probably because they don't realize it is bad. They (like most people) probably haven't even read all the rules. And interacting with your fans by showing them you have fun doing other things, can be great for your career.

The better question is, why do you expect "celebs" to be in-depth critics of complex subjects.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:14 pm

Because by the time you're playing a game, you're committed. At that point, complaining about it will not maximize your happiness.
Also, many celebrities are actors, and buy premises professionally.

Ferret · Post by **Ferret** » Wed Sep 03, 2014 1:38 pm

Rothfuss is pretty clearly joking about the 8-9 times per day comment. He also only got sneak attack on one of the attacks in the brace of thrown daggers - his damage was something like 27 and 7. (Also, I checked Rothfuss' character sheet, he's playing a Rogue with the perform skill; not a Bard.)

They used the playtest crit rule, possibly because when they started these games they were using the playtest packets, possibly because Perkins got confused about what the official rules were, possibly because the new crit rules are kind balls and he was just winging something he liked better.

I'm probably going to steal his max+1die rule. Or maybe do max+normal dice just to keep people from being confused.

Rawbeard · Post by **Rawbeard** » Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:46 pm

What is wrong with the "new" crit rules? 20 = crit = double damage seems fine (and more importantly fast) enough.

Dean · Post by **Dean** » Wed Sep 03, 2014 5:15 pm

The problem with 20's equalling instant double damage in 5e is that it completely fucks the games damage output when combined with bounded accuracy, particularly in the first 6 levels of the game. When you only give monsters attack bonuses of +2 or 3 and you give players AC scores that start at ~18-20 and go up then monsters only hit you at all on the last few numbers on the RNG. While the chance for a crit is just 5% of all attacks the chance for a hitting attack to be a crit is about 1 in 3. Which is an enormous damage variance. Read any 5e play report and I can guarantee that 50% of deaths will be caused by crits.

Rawbeard · Post by **Rawbeard** » Wed Sep 03, 2014 11:06 pm

that goes back to 5e having some nice bits but doesn't work as a whole.

In the starter games I also have to see anything with an attack mod below +4. shit feels retarded. already had a "I'm a useless fighter, can't hit for shit, can't take hits, wtf" moment from another player because enemies are at +4 attack, ac 14, ~15hp at level one and two. and since you only bloat your hit point you don't feel like you get better at all. hilarious.