Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

D&D 5ed just released

1234568

Comments

  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    edited August 2014
    On 4e (PM me if you want to continue this conversation so we don't further derail the thread):
    @Schneidend‌ Right, but because it's literally different words, it feels different to the player. Bull Rush (maneuver) + Attack (action) in 3e would have been called, say, Rush Attack; immediately the player's mind puts "Bull Rush" and "Attack" together, and knows exactly that the ability (and probably a feat granting an ability) lets them combine a maneuver, Bull Rush, with another action, Attack.

    Tide of Iron calls to mind waves and metal and doesn't reference bull rushes or attacks in the name. It's a semantic difference, but--just as it's perfectly understandable to enjoy 4e in all its forms, house rules or no--it's perfectly understandable why a difference of terminology would upset somebody.

    Even a rogue's "Uncanny Dodge" class feature has the word "Dodge" right in the name, which tells the player "this ability is going to make me better at avoiding attacks, because it uses a gameplay term I'm already familiar with that makes me better at avoiding attacks".

    4e rightly calls Tide of Iron a "power" and not a "class feature", because even though it can be used at will, even its name suggests that it's something dramatic and exciting. Which is a good thing, by the way. You want your character to be dramatic and exciting, especially in the heat of battle. Everyone I've ever talked to who played 4e for more than ten minutes has said that combat is tactically and viscerally very satisfying, while still being very simple and easy to learn, and in many ways that's because when a fighter attacks and pushes someone back, they don't just say "I use a combined attack/bull rush to push them back one square, and my attack deals six damage which kills them", they say "I use Tide of Iron to push them back one square, and also I dealt six damage and they're dead now". Just narratively that's more interesting.

    But for a player of D&D, who is looking for a game that feels like D&D, familiarity of terminology is important. Just as you'd be upset if they changed the ability "Strength" to "Muscles", anything that doesn't sound like the game you've been playing for three, five, or thirty years is going to take getting used to. And if a player's not ready or willing to get used to those changes, it's not like they can just play a class that doesn't have powers, because every class has powers in 4e. So a lot of players just give up and write it off.


    On 5e:

    I agree, there's a lot about this edition that seems to support challenging encounters at all levels.

    CrevsDaak
  • SquireSquire Member Posts: 512


    If things stayed more or less true on this point after the final playtest release, most of the monsters can be reasonably fought by PCs of most levels. I think even Asmodeus himself only has an AC of like 20 or 22 or something, which means a level 1 PC could theoretically hit him.

    This is definitely a good thing. People who knew what they were doing with 3rd edition could end up with an AC well into the 30s, and I used to get a bit tired of 3e players boasting about their super-high ACs and damage output. I haven't seen the powerbuilding potential yet, but I really hope they've fixed that.

    This is why complaints about 4e being somehow less narrative than previous editions, as Squire is asserting, strike me as silly, considering much of 4E's design philosophy is geared towards more closely allowing players to replicate heroic archetypes and use narrative devices.

    Did I say "less narrative"? I'm pretty sure I said its primary focus was on combat. Any game can be as narrative as the GM wants it to be. But on that note, it does make it less easy to narrate the action in the way you want to, as it rigidly dictates the movements that take place in every combat ability. I'd much rather keep the specifics vague, and just describe the mechanical effect, so that I can picture my character's moves the way I want to, not the way somebody who knows nothing (Jon Snow) about actual medieval combat has decided to write it based on what he's seen in action films.

  • WalstafaWalstafa Member Posts: 116
    ajwz said:

    so... anyone in this thread actually have any thoughts or observations about 5ed?


    I like it. It feels like they went back and fixed what people didn't like about 3.x rather than create a whole new game like 4e was.

    More thoughts when I'm not on my tablet.

    jackjack
  • WalstafaWalstafa Member Posts: 116
    @Schneidend‌ I was thinking more about the high level dailies and encounters. Fwiw, the builds presented in the Essentials books felt more like a classic d&d fighter in the 4e framework than the one in the PHB.

  • WalstafaWalstafa Member Posts: 116
    Things I like:

    *Feats are entirely decoupled from character classes. No classes give bonus ones in place of other features, and even if you decide to use them, most characters won't see them until 4th level. they're also pretty awesome.

    *As @Squire‌ and @Schneidend mentioned, they've toned down on stat inflation. You can't boost a stat about 20 outside of a couple of exceptions, and most of the stat-increasing items I've seen just set the stat at a basic number. If you end up with +5 plate and a shield, you'll hit 25 AC, and that's that.

    *Levels 1 & 2 pass by in the first 900xp. This is a good compromise between 3.x and 4e, which reminds me a little of the tutorial part of a video game. Whilst your character's playable from level 1, by level 3 he's fully formed and resembling what a 4e lvl 1 would look like. :-D

    *Prestige Classes appear to be gone. No mention of them at all in the PHB, so unless they're in the DMG then they may have been chucked out. Some of the old prestige classes appear to have made an appearance as archetypes for the various classes though.

    *Wizards have a lot of power even at level 1. Level 1 spells are no joke, the cantrips are the equivalent of a weapon attack and the Arcane recovery mechanic means they don't need to beg for a long rest to regain their spells after a hard battle.

    Things I don't like:

    * Spells roll to hit vs AC. I kinda miss my non-AC defenses for this one.

    * 3.x Multiclassing is back. Wasn't a fan of how powergamy it could become. The stat requirements aren't as severe as I'd hoped and only really serve to cut off non-optimal options anyway.

  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    Squire said:


    Did I say "less narrative"? I'm pretty sure I said its primary focus was on combat. Any game can be as narrative as the GM wants it to be. But on that note, it does make it less easy to narrate the action in the way you want to, as it rigidly dictates the movements that take place in every combat ability. I'd much rather keep the specifics vague, and just describe the mechanical effect, so that I can picture my character's moves the way I want to, not the way somebody who knows nothing (Jon Snow) about actual medieval combat has decided to write it based on what he's seen in action films.

    Not in so many words, no, you didn't. You do, however, keep going on about how some classes are "just DPS," and the game is all about combat, which certainly implies it. And, no, the game generally doesn't dictate how you narrate the action at all. You can describe your attacks virtually however you want.
    Walstafa said:

    @Schneidend‌ I was thinking more about the high level dailies and encounters. Fwiw, the builds presented in the Essentials books felt more like a classic d&d fighter in the 4e framework than the one in the PHB.

    By the point in the game, in any edition, a Fighter has superhuman physical abilities from the combination of his peak-human skills and his magical gear. A 2E or 3E Fighter wearing a belt of Storm Giant Strength and a heavily-enchanted would be capable of similarly inhuman feats, especially with 2E's high-level abilities. Even still, most of the Fighter's Epic tier encounters and dailies still just hit hard, daze enemies, push them around, knock them prone, etc. It's not like the Fighter is cutting mountains in half or shooting lasers from his eyes.

  • WalstafaWalstafa Member Posts: 116


    By the point in the game, in any edition, a Fighter has superhuman physical abilities from the combination of his peak-human skills and his magical gear. A 2E or 3E Fighter wearing a belt of Storm Giant Strength and a heavily-enchanted would be capable of similarly inhuman feats, especially with 2E's high-level abilities. Even still, most of the Fighter's Epic tier encounters and dailies still just hit hard, daze enemies, push them around, knock them prone, etc. It's not like the Fighter is cutting mountains in half or shooting lasers from his eyes.

    ...And the fact that they could do them naked with a stick they picked up off the ground kinda put them more into the Earthdawn/Exalted oeuvre. Like I say, 4e was a fine game, but it didn't feel like a continuation of 3e so much as a complete rebuilding of the core ideas.

    FWIW, if they'd released a game like 5e in place of 4e, then Pathfinder would probably have not grabbed the market share it did. 5e feels like the same evolution of 3e that 3e did of 2e. 4e sits outside that as an interesting experiment in how far they can push the feel before it stops feeling like D&D, and the relatively short product cycle of 4e proves I'm not alone in feeling that.


  • WalstafaWalstafa Member Posts: 116
    Also, you know those 2E HLAs you mentioned only exist in BG?

  • SquireSquire Member Posts: 512
    Walstafa said:

    ...most of the stat-increasing items I've seen just set the stat at a basic number. If you end up with +5 plate and a shield, you'll hit 25 AC, and that's that.

    That's good too! It stops people racking up ridiculously high ACs by combining lots of spells. I like that they've done that. In fact, another thing I didn't like about 3rd is that all ability related items added to your current ability. I preferred it when they set it at a certain level... Bracers of Dexterity in 2e gave you a dexterity of 18, rather than adding to your dex.
    *Levels 1 & 2 pass by in the first 900xp.
    Not sure I like that, tbh. That was one of my concerns when I saw the XP table...that you'd race through early levels very quickly. To me, this diminishes any achievement you get from levelling up, because the levels come too easily. In BG, you were level 1 for a very long time, so when you finally hit level 2, you felt you'd achieved something...well, I did, anyway.

    I was actually hoping they'd do what Pathfinder did, and provide several XP tables for people who wanted different levels of pacing for their campaigns.
    Not in so many words, no, you didn't. You do, however, keep going on about how some classes are "just DPS," and the game is all about combat, which certainly implies it. And, no, the game generally doesn't dictate how you narrate the action at all. You can describe your attacks virtually however you want.
    "You roll out of the way and sink your blades into your foe's neck"; "You shoot two arrows that split off and hit different targets"; "You unleash a hail of attacks that causes your opponent to stagger" - these aren't actual quotes, I don't have the books to hand, but this is the way in which many of the martial powers are described in the flavour text. Sounds like they're trying to dictate the action to me.

    As to your first point, the game IS primarily about combat. A 2e rogue was a thief who could fight a bit if needed, but standing toe-to-toe with the big armoured guy wasn't exactly his forte. A 4e rogue is a high damage dealer whose main function is to hit things hard, and can do a few skills if he needs to. The class is even referred to as a "martial striker". I prefer to see rogues as skill-monkeys. If I want to hit things, I'll play a fighter, paladin, or ranger, not a rogue.

    jackjack
  • WalstafaWalstafa Member Posts: 116
    I like the fast levelling because it lets you get used to a character before you have to learn to use every option. It also penalises the power gamers who'll take a one level "bump" in a class to grab their basic features. That, plus the Pathfinder-y idea of making levels 18-20 in a single class *really* nice have mitigated my dissapointment in a return to 3e's mix and match multiclassing.

  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    Walstafa said:



    ...And the fact that they could do them naked with a stick they picked up off the ground kinda put them more into the Earthdawn/Exalted oeuvre. Like I say, 4e was a fine game, but it didn't feel like a continuation of 3e so much as a complete rebuilding of the core ideas.

    You could do them with a stick, I guess, if you wanted to not hit anything. A 3E Fighter could also have superhuman physical abilities like a 20+ Dexterity or Strength. There's only like one Fighter daily that strikes me as superhuman, where you hit an enemy and enemies within two squares are knocked prone. The rest are just more damage, tripping, dazing. Things that aren't necessarily beyond human ability.
    FWIW, if they'd released a game like 5e in place of 4e, then Pathfinder would probably have not grabbed the market share it did. 5e feels like the same evolution of 3e that 3e did of 2e. 4e sits outside that as an interesting experiment in how far they can push the feel before it stops feeling like D&D, and the relatively short product cycle of 4e proves I'm not alone in feeling that.
    Pathfinder was behind 4E in sales until they stopped producing 4E materials. Pathfinder grabbed the market share because WotC stopped producing new content, not because of any perception of 4E's quality.
    Walstafa said:

    Also, you know those 2E HLAs you mentioned only exist in BG?

    Are you sure? Wasn't there some supplement on which those were based? I could be wrong, of course, not being super-experienced with 2E print stuff.

    Squire said:



    "You roll out of the way and sink your blades into your foe's neck"; "You shoot two arrows that split off and hit different targets"; "You unleash a hail of attacks that causes your opponent to stagger" - these aren't actual quotes, I don't have the books to hand, but this is the way in which many of the martial powers are described in the flavour text. Sounds like they're trying to dictate the action to me.

    And that's purely flavor text, to get you excited about the power and give an example of its gameplay effect in narrative terms. You aren't married to it at all. Choosing to limit your own imagination is not a failing of the handbook. Describe your powers, like virtually anything in D&D, however you want.
    As to your first point, the game IS primarily about combat. A 2e rogue was a thief who could fight a bit if needed, but standing toe-to-toe with the big armoured guy wasn't exactly his forte. A 4e rogue is a high damage dealer whose main function is to hit things hard, and can do a few skills if he needs to. The class is even referred to as a "martial striker". I prefer to see rogues as skill-monkeys. If I want to hit things, I'll play a fighter, paladin, or ranger, not a rogue.
    A Rogue is a Martial Striker because Martial is the class' power source, in the same way Arcane is the Wizard's power source. His skills come from personal athletic ability, agility, cunning, etc. It has nothing to do with how much of a frontline fighter the Rogue is or is not. You could make your Rogue more brutish by choosing the Brutal Rogue or Ruthless Ruffian class features to focus on Dexterity and Strength, which exist to replicate more of a streetwise thug than a cat burglar, but then there's also the Sly Rogue, which focuses on Dexterity and Charisma, and is all about being a rakish sort who avoids taking on danger head-on. In either instance, even as a Ruthless Ruffian, the Rogue is no tank. He's wearing leather armor, has no marking ability, and his utility powers are more about maneuvering, dealing damage, or sneakiness than shrugging off damage.
    The Rogue is still the skill-monkey, with more skill trainings at first level than any other class, automatically gaining Stealth and Thievery then allowed to choose four more. If you wanted to specialize even more in being the skill guy, you can choose to be the Thief sub-class instead of the vanilla Scoundrel from the PHB, which gets a 7th trained skill at 2nd level.

    Rogues deal damage in every edition. They've always got Backstab/Sneak Attack. This is not new.

  • SquireSquire Member Posts: 512
    edited August 2014



    A Rogue is a Martial Striker because Martial is the class' power source, in the same way Arcane is the Wizard's power source....He's wearing leather armor, has no marking ability, and his utility powers are more about maneuvering, dealing damage, or sneakiness than shrugging off damage.

    But that's exactly my point! The primary focus is on how he performs in combat, and everything else is secondary. I even remember reading an early press release that stated that they were "stripping every class down to how it performs in combat".
    The Rogue is still the skill-monkey, with more skill trainings at first level than any other class, automatically gaining Stealth and Thievery then allowed to choose four more.
    True, but the skill system in 4e is very different...you pick a bunch of skills at 1st level, and that's it.
    Rogues deal damage in every edition. They've always got Backstab/Sneak Attack. This is not new.
    I'm aware of that, but it wasn't their primary function until 4e. A 2e rogue could only backstab if he was stealthed, while a 3e rogue could only sneak attack if he was either stealthed or flanking. A 4e rogue can do it regardless of circumstances. One on one, he's a match for almost anybody, because he can deal lots of damage face to face, then use his manoeuvring/dodging abilities to get out of the way.

    In 2e or 3e, a rogue who faces his enemy is generally in trouble, but a good rogue will never do that. In 4e, facing his enemies in single combat is just a normal part of what he does.

    That's not even going into the other classes, by the way. This is just the rogue.

    eta: Everybody else - sorry about this. This is what happens when two people are unwilling to back down on a certain issue. ;-)

  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    Squire said:



    But that's exactly my point! The primary focus is on how he performs in combat, and everything else is secondary. I even remember reading an early press release that stated that they were "stripping every class down to how it performs in combat".

    90% of the rules in every Edition are focused on combat. This is an inane point of contention. Simulating tactical fantasy combat is what D&D is mechanically designed to do. 4E is no different, and neither are 2E or 3E.


    True, but the skill system in 4e is very different...you pick a bunch of skills at 1st level, and that's it.
    And? Skills are still a huge part of the game. They function and serve the same purpose and are just as relevant to a given campaign as they were in 3E. Spending points versus training in skills isn't somehow superior.
    I'm aware of that, but it wasn't their primary function until 4e. A 2e rogue could only backstab if he was stealthed, while a 3e rogue could only sneak attack if he was either stealthed or flanking. A 4e rogue can do it regardless of circumstances. One on one, he's a match for almost anybody, because he can deal lots of damage face to face, then use his manoeuvring/dodging abilities to get out of the way.

    In 2e or 3e, a rogue who faces his enemy is generally in trouble, but a good rogue will never do that. In 4e, facing his enemies in single combat is just a normal part of what he does.

    That's not even going into the other classes, by the way. This is just the rogue.

    eta: Everybody else - sorry about this. This is what happens when two people are unwilling to back down on a certain issue. ;-)
    You're mistaken. A Rogue in 4E has to have combat advantage to use his Sneak Attack. That means either flanking or an effect like being dazed or stunned, just like the 3E Rogue.

    And, no, a 4E Rogue is definitely in trouble if he is caught alone. He has semi-decent AC and a really good Reflex, but the class has low Fortitude and Will, and low HP, again very analogous to 3E. He can really only deal significant damage with Sneak Attack, as he is otherwise limited to low damage dice weaponry, much as he is in 3E. 1d4 + Dex, or even 1d4 + Dex + Charisma with the Sly Flourish at-will isn't much.

  • WalstafaWalstafa Member Posts: 116

    Walstafa said:

    Also, you know those 2E HLAs you mentioned only exist in BG?

    Are you sure? Wasn't there some supplement on which those were based? I could be wrong, of course, not being super-experienced with 2E print stuff.
    Yep, in the DM's Options - High Level Campaigns the only things a lvl 20+ Fighter got was the equivalent of being able to breach magical weapon immunities with any weapon and an Intimidation ability.

    That being said, I do think the debate over 4e needs to be moved to a different thread though, especially since we're getting to the point where actual 5e material's being released.

    JonelethIrenicusjackjack
  • SquireSquire Member Posts: 512
    Walstafa said:



    That being said, I do think the debate over 4e needs to be moved to a different thread though, especially since we're getting to the point where actual 5e material's being released.

    Indeed, especially as we are more or less simply repeating ourselves here. I've said more or less everything I want to on the subject, anything else I say now will simply be re-hashing previous arguments, and we're achieving little more at this point than hijacking the thread. One of us has to end it or it'll go on forever, so I say enough of this debate. Back to 5th edition!
    3.x Multiclassing is back. Wasn't a fan of how powergamy it could become. The stat requirements aren't as severe as I'd hoped and only really serve to cut off non-optimal options anyway.
    Do you have any examples? I'm interested in how they've worked this particular mechanic this time around.

  • WalstafaWalstafa Member Posts: 116
    edited August 2014
    Squire said:



    3.x Multiclassing is back. Wasn't a fan of how powergamy it could become. The stat requirements aren't as severe as I'd hoped and only really serve to cut off non-optimal options anyway.
    Do you have any examples? I'm interested in how they've worked this particular mechanic this time around.

    The favoured class mechanic from 3.x is gone. Instead, you need 13 in one or two stats for any and all classes you're multiclassing to and from:

    Barbarian: Str
    Bard, Sorc, Warlock: Cha
    Cleric, Druid: Wis
    Fighter: Str or Dex
    Rogue: Dex
    Wizard: Int
    Monk: Dex and Wis
    Paladin: Str and Cha
    Ranger: Dex and Wis

    So if you're a Ranger who wants to multi into Barb, then you need a Str, Dex and Wis of 13. It's not as freeform as 3.x, but it's not like it's hard to synergize either. Not a problem unless your name's Belkar Bitterleaf.

    They've at least done a job of giving the high levels a good bump in power to encourage single-classing (every class has some nice features in the 18-20 range), and by spreading the core class powers over the first three levels, it discourages a one-level bump. Also, none of the warrior classes will give heavy armor, so a one-level bump into Fighter won't give you better than Medium.

  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    It's also worth remembering again that in 5e, a 13 isn't as common as it was in previous editions. The highest stat you can get with point-buy or the standard array is 15, and you only get three abilities of 13 or higher. So in a standard game, you'd need to plan your multiclass journey from level 1.

  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    So my PHB arrived in the mail today and I spent some time looking through it while waiting for beta builds to update. Some thoughts:

    1. Wild Magic Sorcerer sounds like just so much fun. I love that all wild surges are handled by DM fiat; a sorcerer doesn't get risk wild surge on every spell he casts, but the DM can choose to make any spell require a wild surge check. It adds an element of unpredictability to the archetype that I've always thought was missing; it was weird to me that a mage based entirely on improbabilities was bound by a flat 5% chance of wild surge, instead of a variable one. Very nice, this.

    2. Dark Elves are playable and actually balanced against the other races, which means that when your friend inevitably wants to play Drazzt Du'Ordiyn the Drow Ranger, he at least won't be getting an unfair advantage from his choice of race. No spell resistance, but a free cantrip (Faerie Fire) and two additional 1/day spells make it a formidable choice--or would, if it weren't for Light Sensitivity. A niche race, but for the first time ever I feel like introducing a drow PC wouldn't ruin the game balance.

    3. Warlocks finally make sense in the context of other casters. Invocations feel more like feats than spells, augmenting the warlock's abilities with at-will or constant boons, but the trade-off is that he can cast very, very few spells per day. Which is honestly fine, given that cantrips are functionally useful in everyday situations.

    4. Dual Wielding is a feat, and it does exactly what everyone in this thread was saying that it should do. That's all I'll say about it.

    All that and more makes me pleased with this book, and eager to try it out. I almost want to play a Necromancer...

    jackjackmlneveseWalstafaajwz
  • SquireSquire Member Posts: 512
    I quite like that idea, although it's odd that fighters don't give heavy armour...how does that work? Do they not get it at all now, or not until later? Don't tell me mail and scale armour is actually going to get used now!! ;-)

  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    Squire said:

    I quite like that idea, although it's odd that fighters don't give heavy armour...how does that work? Do they not get it at all now, or not until later? Don't tell me mail and scale armour is actually going to get used now!! ;-)

    Fighters didn't start with plate in 4E, either. Their best armor choice was scale, or hide if their Dexterity or Intelligence were high. I'd be willing to bet that Paladins start with plate proficiency, as they did in 4E. Seems like a good way to further differentiate them, especially since they're much more alike now with 5E making basic attacks once more the primary attack of warrior classes.
    Dee said:

    So my PHB arrived in the mail today and I spent some time looking through it while waiting for beta builds to update. Some thoughts:

    2. Dark Elves are playable and actually balanced against the other races, which means that when your friend inevitably wants to play Drazzt Du'Ordiyn the Drow Ranger, he at least won't be getting an unfair advantage from his choice of race. No spell resistance, but a free cantrip (Faerie Fire) and two additional 1/day spells make it a formidable choice--or would, if it weren't for Light Sensitivity. A niche race, but for the first time ever I feel like introducing a drow PC wouldn't ruin the game balance.



    Dark Elves leveled much more slowly in 3E, and were balanced with the other races in 4E.
    4. Dual Wielding is a feat, and it does exactly what everyone in this thread was saying that it should do. That's all I'll say about it.
    What have people been saying it should do?

  • WalstafaWalstafa Member Posts: 116
    edited August 2014
    Squire said:

    I quite like that idea, although it's odd that fighters don't give heavy armour...how does that work? Do they not get it at all now, or not until later? Don't tell me mail and scale armour is actually going to get used now!! ;-)

    Fighters and Paladins start with heavy armor proficency if you take them at level 1. If you're picking them up after level 1 then you only get up to medium armor. Barbarians are similarly restricted and only get Shield proficency if you pick them up in a multiclass. Currently the only way to get heavy armor prof for "free" in a multiclass is to go into Cleric and take one of the domains that gives free heavy armor prof (Life, Tempest or War).

    Scale Mail's "niche" in 5e is the best starter Medium armor, with base 14 AC for 50gp. Medium armor wearers will eventually upgrade to Breastplate (same protection but no stealth penalty) or Half Plate (better AC). Chainmail is similarly the starting heavy armor.

    The Dual Wielder feat lets you use non-Light weapons in a dual-wield (amongst other features), so you can go Rapier and Dagger or dual Longsword if you want.





    Post edited by Walstafa on
  • jackjackjackjack Member Posts: 3,251
    Chainmail is classed as heavy armor? What?

  • WalstafaWalstafa Member Posts: 116
    edited August 2014
    jackjack said:

    Chainmail is classed as heavy armor? What?

    The three flavours of armor work like this in 5e:

    Light armor is base AC 11 or 12, but you get your full Dex bonus to AC with it.
    Medium armor is base 12-15, and you're allowed a Dex bonus of up to +2 with it. (+3 if you take a feat)
    Heavy armor is base 14-18 and you don't get any effect from Dex at all. Also Chain (AC16) requires a Str of 13, whilst Splint (17) and Plate (18) require a Str of 15.

    Interesting wrinkles to this are that someone who's only going to wear heavy armor can actually afford to have a Dex penalty, since it won't affect his armor class one iota, and no-one who isn't somewhat focussed on Str is going to even be able to wear the heavier armors.


    mlnevese
  • SquireSquire Member Posts: 512
    Walstafa said:


    Fighters and Paladins start with heavy armor proficency if you take them at level 1. If you're picking them up after level 1 then you only get up to medium armor. Barbarians are similarly restricted and only get Shield proficency if you pick them up in a multiclass. Currently the only way to get heavy armor prof for "free" in a multiclass is to go into Cleric and take one of the domains that gives free heavy armor prof (Life, Tempest or War).

    That's interesting! So dual classing doesn't automatically give you everything that the base class gets? I like that idea too, it makes more sense.

    jackjack
  • WalstafaWalstafa Member Posts: 116
    Yeah, it's a little thing that mitigates some of the munchkinnery. Also characters with multiple caster classes share spell slots.

    You basically add your levels in full caster classes, half your paladin/ranger levels and one-third your eldritch knight/arcane trickster (fighter/rogue caster subclasses) together to determine how many slots. So a Ranger 4/Wizard 3 would have the spell slots of a level 5 caster. In this example, the character would end up with 3rd level spell slots, but no 3rd level spells, but they can use them to cast more powerful versions of any 1st and 2nd level spells they know.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited August 2014
    The user and all related content has been deleted.

  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    Not going to lie, I feel like I wasted forty minutes listening to him ramble before he actually got to the meat of the game itself (which is ironic, given that he spends a lot of that rambling talking about how long it takes the book to get to the meat of the game itself...).

    It also looks a lot like he decided he wasn't going to like it before he opened the book--and I'm honestly not convinced that he ever opened the book before he hit "Record".

    Not the best review I've seen, just from an organizational standpoint.

    jackjackJonelethIrenicus
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    Also, if it takes you an hour to get to the point in your review where you have to split it into two parts, you're doing something wrong.

    To the point where I wouldn't call this a review, I'd call it a video blog that happens to also be talking about the D&D Player's Handbook.

    jackjackajwzJonelethIrenicus
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    Merging Spoony's review into the existing 5e discussion thread.

    jackjack
Sign In or Register to comment.