I shamefully haven't played any 5th edition. Do you think it lends itself better to CRPGs? What would be the major differences as they would apply to a game other than dropping ancient negative numbers for armor like back in the day? Combat stuff?
There are a few big differences between 2E (as its implemented in Baldur's Gate) and 5E. I'll spell out some of them.
#1 Thac0 is gone
Want to know if you hit an enemy? Assuming you are proficient in a weapon you add your Stat (say strength) bonus with your proficiency bonus (this is based on you character level), roll a D20, and it's compared to an enemy AC. If it's equal or higher you hit.
#2 Saving throws are done by stat.
No more poison or wand saving throws. Now you make a saving throw that is based on your stats (strength, etc) . Your class will provide you with a proficiency bonus towards two of these (depending on the class).
#3: Resting
In 5e you have short rests (1hr) and long rests (8 hrs). You can spend hit dice during a short rest to get back health, but the main thing they do is regenerate certain abilities. For some classes, especially the warlock, short rests are fundamental. Warlocks only have two spell slots before level 11 but they get those expended slots back after a short rest. So short rests are a fundamental part of the balancing system in the game.
#4: Actions/Bonus Actions/Reactions
Almost all abilities in 5e are one of these. You typically get one of each per round (a round is finished in 5e when everyone in combat had had one turn), although you may not have a means of using them. You can also only use a reaction to respond to something. Spells and abilities in 5e have been balanced around this system.
#5: Subclasses and backgrounds
Subclasses are like kits however you get them between levels 1-3 in a class, depending on a class.
A character background gives you added proficiencies in skills, and either tools or languages. You also get a feature that grants that character some ability tied to their background. One big thing backgrounds do is allow non-rogues to be proficient in thieving tools.
#6: Alignments don't really matter
Alignments still are brought up but barely get any mention in 5e's players handbook. Rogues, Druids, Paladins and Rangers can be of any alignment. They are now more of an optional guide.
#7: Clerics and Paladins are not necessarily tied to a God.
Clerics are tied to a domain (war, arcana, etc) but are not required to worship any particular God. Same goes with paladins, who now get their powers through their own personal magnetism (their spellcasting is charisma based now) and their oaths (their subclass).
#8: Bards get their spellcasting from their charisma.
And no longer learn spells from scrolls
#9 Cantrips are a thing
For anyone not familiar with them, Cantrips are spells you can cast as much as you want (3e introduced them I think)
#10 Feats
These are optional in 5e. But they basically provide several benefits for taking them. Like before they were introduced in 3e.
#11: You improve your ability scores (stats) every 4 levels in a class
You do this or, you can f the DM allows it, you can take a feat. Abilities can not go beyond 20 with this.
There is definitely more but this should help out anyone curious with making the transition.
Alignments still are brought up but barely get any mention in 5e's players handbook. Rogues, Paladins and Rangers can be of any alignment. They are now more of an optional guide.
This is something, as a player and a DM for 5th Edition for several years, that's become quite an annoyance for me. Alignment used to be a major factor in the game. Now, it's like they're afraid to ask players to even consider alignment (and the moral conundrums that should accompany it).
Alignments still are brought up but barely get any mention in 5e's players handbook. Rogues, Paladins and Rangers can be of any alignment. They are now more of an optional guide.
This is something, as a player and a DM for 5th Edition for several years, that's become quite an annoyance for me. Alignment used to be a major factor in the game. Now, it's like they're afraid to ask players to even consider alignment (and the moral conundrums that should accompany it).
Ultimately it's up to the DM to decide if it's important. When I DM I say it's a guideline on how the character would react to situations. The benefit of it being reduced in importance is no more loss of spells at least.
Except for maybe a paladin breaking its oath. Even then it might just be a change in oath spells and abilities.
Ultimately it's up to the DM to decide if it's important. When I DM I say it's a guideline on how the character would react to situations. The benefit of it being reduced in importance is no more loss of spells at least.
Except for maybe a paladin breaking its oath. Even then it might just be a change in oath spells and abilities.
That's my point. It's a MAJOR blow to "choice and consequence", compared to 3.5 or AD&D2 or even Pathfinder.
I guess you just have to handle it a different way now. If your party murders its way through a village then maybe as the DM you have a survivor that saw it happen. They then report it to someone (I know this is kind of a lame example but my brain isn't wanting to think creatively today )
Ohh yea another big change compared to how the BG games handle proficiencies is that in 5E when it comes to weapons you get your proficiencies from your class. A fighter, paladin, or ranger for instance can use all simple and martial weapons with proficiency. Certainly subclasses (especially cleric domains) also grant martial weapon proficiencies. Some races like Elves and Dwarves also grant weapon proficiencies.
Armor proficiencies (including shield proficiency) works in a similar way.
How interesting that over time alignment is de-emphasized and left up to DMs more, despite being such an iconic moral filing system and memeworthy framework. You can see a pompous thinkpiece on this subject, throw in a reference to the once proud virtues of Ultima IV now a series of Unity asset flips.
Figured I'd split this off since it was getting a bit off topic for the thread.
For anyone curious to see 5E in practice this is my character sheet (I'm aware Gazeeb is mispelled, but its a deliberate decision that came about over a debate at the table over how to pronounce Gazib).
Anyways, in it you can see stuff like my background's (mercenary) feature and some of the other changes. Your proficiencies bonus is not added to your damage so that is why my weapons only have the bonus they do.
Want to know if you hit an enemy? Assuming you are proficient in a weapon you add your Stat (say strength) bonus with your proficiency bonus (this is based on you character level), roll a D20, and it's compared to an enemy AC. If it's equal or higher you hit.
On top or that, every class can hit the same level. The mage and the fighter has the same chance to hit without special abilities etc.
Another big thing is that Paladins and Rangers actually have the ability to cast a very small number of spells starting at level 2. So you don't have to wait nearly as long as you do for BGEE.
Another big thing is that Paladins and Rangers actually have the ability to cast a very small number of spells starting at level 2. So you don't have to wait nearly as long as you do for BGEE.
Thats actually very well designed, because its a big difference between them and the fighters.
It shouldnt be so bad to 2e use that tables 😀
Another relevant change is about multiclassing: it's similar to 3rd edition (you can multiclass any time you level up, and to any class) though it has been nerfed to avoid certain exploits.
For example: a mage can get a fighter level, but he won't be able to use all kinds of armor, and since 5e fighters don't get a higher chance to hit enemies (all classes have the same proficiency bonus) it's not going to affect your combat skills that much unless you invest more fighter levels on your character, making him a less powerful mage. I think that it really helps balance the game , in comparison to 3.x where you'd multiclass to all sorts of combinations just to get class abilities and feats.
Thac0 isn't "gone," any more than BAB is gone. Thac0 is just a convenient number to remember that is part of the to-hit roll equation.
The difference is just in how the relevant numbers get plugged into the equation, best expressed like so:
2E: d20 roll + modifiers + AC > thac0 = hit
5E: d20 roll + modifiers + prof bonus > AC = hit
You could rejigger the 5E equation to use thac0, and you could rejigger the 2E equation to use BAB or proficiency bonus.
Cantrips are spells you can cast as much as you want (3e introduced them I think)
Cantrips are in 2E. They're just not in this game's version of 2E, unless you use an awesome mod adding them to the game. 3E actually eliminated the core conceit of cantrips, changing them from "use as much as you want" to "use up to a certain number of spell slots per day," which is silly because that's just spells. Good to know 5E goes back to the 2E version.
The "clerics worship concepts instead of gods" thing is just weird. And IMHO the "bards are sorcerers" thing inherits one if the worst things from 3E.
Actually, you didn't mention spellcasting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that 5E makes a major move away from the Vancian system, by allowing wizards to cast spontaneously any spell they have memorized on a given day. I.e. you are limited to your memorized spells, and the number of times you can cast is limited by your spell slots, but for any given slot you can cast any memorized spell.
Is that correct? That how it seemed to work in a podcast I listened to, and in a cursory glance at the not-very-detailed free rules booklet that WotC released. If I'm getting it right that's a major change. (And IMHO for the better.)
I mean 'Thac0', in both name and formula, is technically gone. The actual recommended formula from 2E for determining a hit is
Modified Thac0 - AC >= D20 roll
The result is the same. The new way is just simpler to understand I think.
Ok so I guess I forgot you were limited in how many cantrips you could cast in 3E. Either way, I had said in the way 2E is implemented in the BG series they don't exist (I've since updated the title of this thread to reflect this). So it is a change. But back in 2E it looks like Cantrip was an actual 1st level spell that you had to cast.
Yea I'm not really big myself on the whole "clerics worship a concept" thing. I guess it means that DMs have a harder time justifying the removal of their powers (because they don't have to switch gods). It also means you can be things that you would almost never see in the past. Like there are people out there now playing evil life clerics. I'm not sure I could ever really justify that. But whatever works for people
Yea spellcasting is different by class. My initial post was just meant to be a start to how things were different. But you are right wizards prepare a list of spells that they know. This is based off of their wizard level + their intelligence modifier. They then have those spells available to cast. Any ritual spells they also have in their spellbook can be cast as a ritual (though it takes 10 minutes to cast those in that way and they still need to pay any material costs).
@subtledoctor in 2e cqntrips were 1st level spells (and required memorizing) but I remember there being an *optional* rule where they could be cast spontaneously. In 3rd edition they became level 0 spells, which expanded low level spellcasters usefulness.
In 5e the game was balanced in a way that wizards can cast unlimited cantrips , and spellcasting for them works as following :
Wizards have a spellbook and can add new spells on it at anytime (there's a cost in gold, though) , and some of these spells can be memorized .
Memorized spells count as "spells known" , which is Intelligence modifier + your wizard level (minimum of one spell), so a 1st level wizard of intelligence 16 knows (memorized) 4 spells from his spellbook. To cast any of those four he spends a spell slot, the number and level of spell slots is determined by his level (starts at level 1 with two 1st level slots).
I mean what I described is exactly how its taught in 2E.
Either way I think the 5th edition arrangement is just easier to understand. You don't have to know what your Thac0 is, which is based on both your class and your level, all you have to know is what your bonus to your attack roll is (through typically just your stat and proficiency bonus) and add it to your roll. Then the DM compares that to an AC.
For example: a mage can get a fighter level, but he won't be able to use all kinds of armor,
The mage will get access to most armor, however. He gets these new proficiencies: Light and medium armor, shields, simple and martial weapons.
Unlike AD&D2, there's no "Spellcasting is disabled" AND, unlike 3rd edition, there's no "Armor Spell Failure %"; thus, being a mage/fight proficient in the wearing of medium armor means he can cast any spells he knows in medium armor without any penalties.
However, without the War Caster feat, a mage canNOT cast spells with a somatic component while using a shield. This makes that feat of the better feats in 5th Edition. It's highly sought after by clerics, Gishes, and pure mages alike.
The "clerics worship concepts instead of gods" thing is just weird. And IMHO the "bards are sorcerers" thing inherits one if the worst things from 3E.
Bards exist in a weird place like
In the lore, they learn their trade hence the different subclasses are Colleges. College of Swords, Valor, Lore, Glamour, Whispers, and Satire (In one of the online articles).
However their spells are fueled by personality so they scale with charisma.
Also the worship concepts instead of gods has been there since 3e (and maybe before then). Most of the time the books make the assumption you worship a specific deity.
I imagine it's more planescape-y to be a "Cleric of Freedom" as opposed to "Cleric of Mielikki".
The basic rule book lists deities and their different spheres that clerics can choose from. So I don't know what people are talking about with the "worshipping concepts" thing. Is that something from a different rulebook?
System
Administrator Posts: 184
Comments
There are a few big differences between 2E (as its implemented in Baldur's Gate) and 5E. I'll spell out some of them.
#1 Thac0 is gone
Want to know if you hit an enemy? Assuming you are proficient in a weapon you add your Stat (say strength) bonus with your proficiency bonus (this is based on you character level), roll a D20, and it's compared to an enemy AC. If it's equal or higher you hit.
#2 Saving throws are done by stat.
No more poison or wand saving throws. Now you make a saving throw that is based on your stats (strength, etc) . Your class will provide you with a proficiency bonus towards two of these (depending on the class).
#3: Resting
In 5e you have short rests (1hr) and long rests (8 hrs). You can spend hit dice during a short rest to get back health, but the main thing they do is regenerate certain abilities. For some classes, especially the warlock, short rests are fundamental. Warlocks only have two spell slots before level 11 but they get those expended slots back after a short rest. So short rests are a fundamental part of the balancing system in the game.
#4: Actions/Bonus Actions/Reactions
Almost all abilities in 5e are one of these. You typically get one of each per round (a round is finished in 5e when everyone in combat had had one turn), although you may not have a means of using them. You can also only use a reaction to respond to something. Spells and abilities in 5e have been balanced around this system.
#5: Subclasses and backgrounds
Subclasses are like kits however you get them between levels 1-3 in a class, depending on a class.
A character background gives you added proficiencies in skills, and either tools or languages. You also get a feature that grants that character some ability tied to their background. One big thing backgrounds do is allow non-rogues to be proficient in thieving tools.
#6: Alignments don't really matter
Alignments still are brought up but barely get any mention in 5e's players handbook. Rogues, Druids, Paladins and Rangers can be of any alignment. They are now more of an optional guide.
#7: Clerics and Paladins are not necessarily tied to a God.
Clerics are tied to a domain (war, arcana, etc) but are not required to worship any particular God. Same goes with paladins, who now get their powers through their own personal magnetism (their spellcasting is charisma based now) and their oaths (their subclass).
#8: Bards get their spellcasting from their charisma.
And no longer learn spells from scrolls
#9 Cantrips are a thing
For anyone not familiar with them, Cantrips are spells you can cast as much as you want (3e introduced them I think)
#10 Feats
These are optional in 5e. But they basically provide several benefits for taking them. Like before they were introduced in 3e.
#11: You improve your ability scores (stats) every 4 levels in a class
You do this or, you can f the DM allows it, you can take a feat. Abilities can not go beyond 20 with this.
There is definitely more but this should help out anyone curious with making the transition.
Ultimately it's up to the DM to decide if it's important. When I DM I say it's a guideline on how the character would react to situations. The benefit of it being reduced in importance is no more loss of spells at least.
Except for maybe a paladin breaking its oath. Even then it might just be a change in oath spells and abilities.
Armor proficiencies (including shield proficiency) works in a similar way.
Apparently the 5th edition took the best of the 2nd and 3rd editions.
That was my impression of it when I played. 5e is really good and a lot of fun.
How interesting that over time alignment is de-emphasized and left up to DMs more, despite being such an iconic moral filing system and memeworthy framework. You can see a pompous thinkpiece on this subject, throw in a reference to the once proud virtues of Ultima IV now a series of Unity asset flips.
For anyone curious to see 5E in practice this is my character sheet (I'm aware Gazeeb is mispelled, but its a deliberate decision that came about over a debate at the table over how to pronounce Gazib).
Anyways, in it you can see stuff like my background's (mercenary) feature and some of the other changes. Your proficiencies bonus is not added to your damage so that is why my weapons only have the bonus they do.
Thats actually very well designed, because its a big difference between them and the fighters.
It shouldnt be so bad to 2e use that tables 😀
For example: a mage can get a fighter level, but he won't be able to use all kinds of armor, and since 5e fighters don't get a higher chance to hit enemies (all classes have the same proficiency bonus) it's not going to affect your combat skills that much unless you invest more fighter levels on your character, making him a less powerful mage. I think that it really helps balance the game , in comparison to 3.x where you'd multiclass to all sorts of combinations just to get class abilities and feats.
I mean 'Thac0', in both name and formula, is technically gone. The actual recommended formula from 2E for determining a hit is
Modified Thac0 - AC >= D20 roll
The result is the same. The new way is just simpler to understand I think.
Ok so I guess I forgot you were limited in how many cantrips you could cast in 3E. Either way, I had said in the way 2E is implemented in the BG series they don't exist (I've since updated the title of this thread to reflect this). So it is a change. But back in 2E it looks like Cantrip was an actual 1st level spell that you had to cast.
Yea I'm not really big myself on the whole "clerics worship a concept" thing. I guess it means that DMs have a harder time justifying the removal of their powers (because they don't have to switch gods). It also means you can be things that you would almost never see in the past. Like there are people out there now playing evil life clerics. I'm not sure I could ever really justify that. But whatever works for people
Yea spellcasting is different by class. My initial post was just meant to be a start to how things were different. But you are right wizards prepare a list of spells that they know. This is based off of their wizard level + their intelligence modifier. They then have those spells available to cast. Any ritual spells they also have in their spellbook can be cast as a ritual (though it takes 10 minutes to cast those in that way and they still need to pay any material costs).
In 5e the game was balanced in a way that wizards can cast unlimited cantrips , and spellcasting for them works as following :
Wizards have a spellbook and can add new spells on it at anytime (there's a cost in gold, though) , and some of these spells can be memorized .
Memorized spells count as "spells known" , which is Intelligence modifier + your wizard level (minimum of one spell), so a 1st level wizard of intelligence 16 knows (memorized) 4 spells from his spellbook. To cast any of those four he spends a spell slot, the number and level of spell slots is determined by his level (starts at level 1 with two 1st level slots).
@Raduziel it's the same XP table for all classes.
Either way I think the 5th edition arrangement is just easier to understand. You don't have to know what your Thac0 is, which is based on both your class and your level, all you have to know is what your bonus to your attack roll is (through typically just your stat and proficiency bonus) and add it to your roll. Then the DM compares that to an AC.
Unlike AD&D2, there's no "Spellcasting is disabled" AND, unlike 3rd edition, there's no "Armor Spell Failure %"; thus, being a mage/fight proficient in the wearing of medium armor means he can cast any spells he knows in medium armor without any penalties.
However, without the War Caster feat, a mage canNOT cast spells with a somatic component while using a shield. This makes that feat of the better feats in 5th Edition. It's highly sought after by clerics, Gishes, and pure mages alike.
And thank you all for helping me understand the fifth edition without giving a penny to WotC.
Bards exist in a weird place like
In the lore, they learn their trade hence the different subclasses are Colleges. College of Swords, Valor, Lore, Glamour, Whispers, and Satire (In one of the online articles).
However their spells are fueled by personality so they scale with charisma.
Also the worship concepts instead of gods has been there since 3e (and maybe before then). Most of the time the books make the assumption you worship a specific deity.
I imagine it's more planescape-y to be a "Cleric of Freedom" as opposed to "Cleric of Mielikki".