The Gaming Den

I was looking at the Fighter, seeing as it's topical, but I guess it hasn't changed in a while? I've barely been skimming them last few.

Anyhoo, it's like they took away the extra attacks they tried, and instead give me extra [W]'s and a big flat bonus if I attack one critter, or a set of basic attacks if there's multiple targets and I spread them out.

Which is ... the same thing, only massively obfuscated, and not useful against an arbitrarily changing number of mid-sized targets. WHY? Two-weapons fighting is, instead a separate attack that's just [W] and not +Str. So that's not confusing at all.

And I get 1-4 daily powers at high level, which are all attack-only action points, which are basic attacks and so kinda rubbish by then. And 2-6 encounter powers, which are all +d6 to whatever else I was doing at the time (including shouting at people to not fail their saves). And three feats, which are all mediocre in that they're situational extra basic attacks or worse, but at least you get some early.


Oh gods, the feat prerequisite chains. Not just happy to tier them, it's feat chains and tiers too. Uck. And you can do shit like take an immediate action to gain advantage against a critter who missed you on the next attack you make before the end of your next turn. That's not unnecessarily complicated at all.

am i understanding Monopoly Jail was added to the latest D&D playtest?

you get three tries to roll doubles to get out of death, but if you fail, your character dies... is that about right?

does that mean Boardwalk and Park Place are/is still the best places to put a safe haven to rest at?

Did you mean Park Avenue and Mayfair? No, you should always build your safe havens on the Orange ones, then the Red ones, then the Yellow ones.

Also, it's three failed saves to become dead, and it's strait out of 4th edition (like most of 5e), and thus wherever 4e cribbed it from. There is no negative hit points, you just hang around dying on 0 until you stabilise or die.



I need a thing for 5e. 3etards. 4rons. 5????s. It doesn't seem to work. Stupid letter V. Nexting has some potential.

5uckers?
...
y'know, doing that 90's thang?

3e had 3tards. 4e had 4rries and 4rons.

For 5e/D&DNext something could be done with the 5Mind, the Test5, the Swan5, or something along those lines. It's not as elegant.

-Username17

Tbh 3tards is not all that elegant either.

I'd just call them fivers or something. It doesn't have to be derogatory, 5e is bad enough on its own.

in that case, if you're looking for a comprehensive, catch all term for the entire player base of D&DN, how about "Mike and his two buddies"?

5EMind? And taking a cue from MST3K, the 5E design staff could be called 'Mike and the Twats'.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:5EMind? And taking a cue from MST3K, the 5E design staff could be called 'Mike and the Twats'.

YES

To be perfectly serious, I don't think they're worth a name. It's not even a real edition, it's just Mike & Co pretending to work until Hasbro gets pissed off.

i prefer 5mind, cause it rhymes so well with what it is a hivemind....

either way, the death thing and saves. one good stab and that should not need two more saves, cause unconscious is already prone and one attack kills, not gives chance to survive two more as you canNOT defend while unconscious and HP being abstract would mean MORE if a single blow could kill an unconscious as there is NOTHING fatigue, mental, etc related at the point of being unconscious.

shadzar wrote:i prefer 5mind, cause it rhymes so well with what it is a hivemind....

Which doesn't really work for 5e, since hivemind implies unity and agreement, not petty arguments about which particular version of a subsystem is the 'One True Way' of D&D.

With 4e, they managed to split the player base (3e fans, 4e fans and pathfinder fans). With 5e, they're adding yet more groups to those three. The 5.1 fans, the 5.3 fans, etc, etc. And it isn't even that consistent. Some may like January's fighter, but despise every version of the wizard since last summer's.

Belly5Eelers?

Voss wrote:With 4e, they managed to split the player base (3e fans, 4e fans and pathfinder fans). With 5e, they're adding yet more groups to those three. The 5.1 fans, the 5.3 fans, etc, etc. And it isn't even that consistent. Some may like January's fighter, but despise every version of the wizard since last summer's.

Speaking of which, I find it amusing how a lot of 5e's failings are over looked because it's a 'playtest' or 'they got like a year to fix it.'

Previn wrote:

Voss wrote:With 4e, they managed to split the player base (3e fans, 4e fans and pathfinder fans). With 5e, they're adding yet more groups to those three. The 5.1 fans, the 5.3 fans, etc, etc. And it isn't even that consistent. Some may like January's fighter, but despise every version of the wizard since last summer's.

Speaking of which, I find it amusing how a lot of 5e's failings are over looked because it's a 'playtest' or 'they got like a year to fix it.'

Honestly that wouldn't bother me if they were going through a measurable process, where you could trace the evolution and improvement over time through the playtest documents. But there have been 9 sets so far (unless I'm missing some), and some of the terrible stuff stays untouched (like the stealth rules) and other stuff is just thrown out wholesale and replaced with brand new problems. The current versions of the classes are barely recognizable from the 5 level versions they put out originally, and there were several unrelated steps along the way. No vision and no process yields a giant pile of shit.

I want to see some of this modularity they've been talking about finally break free of the R&D column.

It seems like if feats are optional they should burn up some class resource or another, like Fighter feats should use up those encounter powers (expertise dice, whatever) and Wizard feats should burn spell slots. Maybe we're getting there, and it's about slowly introducing obfuscated encounter and daily powers at the moment (to avoid scaring the 3tards and grogs).

Skills would be a thing where you can buy various specific skills with some detailed results and limitations, or default to +2 Str checks for Fighters, +2 Dex checks for Rogues, etc. That could be part of where the design's going.

And the grid-combat option would be, ... I can't even imagine how that's not going to change balance. What else was supposed to be optional? Monster advancement should be easy enough if they're on a treadmill (uh, linear or power formula) anyway. Modular healing options make no sense at all, unless you tie it in with generally faster or slower recovery for every resource.


That last one could be interesting. A gritty option where hit points and spells and everything takes weeks to recover, with associated penalties for running low. Per-combat total healing tied to per-combat spell recovery.

tussock wrote:I want to see some of this modularity they've been talking about finally break free of the R&D column.

You know, at first I was thinking that modularity would be a good idea, but now I'm not so sure. They're offloading major important bits to modular rules, and frankly modular rules just do not get supported as well, if at all past the book they're in. They couldn't support addon systems in 3.x, they couldn't even support classes in 4e sufficiently, if at all, and I'm to expect modular rules to some how buck the trend and the issues with modularity?

Previn wrote:You know, at first I was thinking that modularity would be a good idea, but now I'm not so sure. They're offloading major important bits to modular rules, and frankly modular rules just do not get supported as well, if at all past the book they're in.

A peremptory hack infamous for whitewashing his incompetence and laziness by putting the onus onto other systems/tables/designers in his 3.5E and 4E D&D work is embracing a design paradigm for 5E D&D that smugly and officially enables even more subsystem vaporware and/or more developer buck-passing?!

But how could this be?!

Previn wrote:

Voss wrote:With 4e, they managed to split the player base (3e fans, 4e fans and pathfinder fans). With 5e, they're adding yet more groups to those three. The 5.1 fans, the 5.3 fans, etc, etc. And it isn't even that consistent. Some may like January's fighter, but despise every version of the wizard since last summer's.

Speaking of which, I find it amusing how a lot of 5e's failings are over looked because it's a 'playtest' or 'they got like a year to fix it.'

What I find amusing is the lack of people giving much of a fuck.

At least 4th edition caused a bit of a fuss back in the day.

The best I can come up with is 5turkey, which isn't even a good insult, but more of a reference to an already old Will Ferrel movie. At least the characters found it insulting.

'fivers' is plenty good enough until they have a groupthink worth insulting properly.

5anboys?

Nice

If we're going multisyllabic, then you can just call them 5uckups. It parses visually AND phonetically.

I thought the point was you had to pronounce the word five, not replaces it for the letter S. That's how it works in 3tard and 4rrie.

Although, I guess it can go either way. I've seen 4venger, but it seems less common.

Previn wrote:You know, at first I was thinking that modularity would be a good idea, but now I'm not so sure. They're offloading major important bits to modular rules, and frankly modular rules just do not get supported as well, if at all past the book they're in. They couldn't support addon systems in 3.x, they couldn't even support classes in 4e sufficiently, if at all, and I'm to expect modular rules to some how buck the trend and the issues with modularity?

I mean, so far we've just seen Mearls say "Someone will probably make a module for it at some indeterminable point in the future. Maybe." That way if you say "This is bad and you should feel bad" they can just claim it wasn't for you and there will totally be a module with your needs in mind. Promise.

So my confidence in them actually following through and making those modular rulebooks in the first place isn't great.