/5eg/ D&D 5th Edition General

...

...

...

...

While traversing a typical dungeon with me the human fighter a dwarf barb and a tiefling soccer the two martials got stuck in a room that closed behind it and started filling with poison gas. We were expecting some really damaging poison that could reck our shit. We were level 5 and had 40-60 points or so of health. We started banging on the door to get out, first tick of poison is only d6.

Both I and the dwarf player actually scoffed irl. And I just worked on the door with my portable ram as the dwarf actually went back to a chest in the room to get gold.

The good old Punji Stick and/or "Shit on a stick" is also classic.

I pretty much only use death traps, but I use trap rules all the time for environmental hazards.
>your step gives way to a nest of rats twisting your ankle and releasing the swarm against you
>you try to move along the edge of the cliff but the rock gives way and the edge of the cliff is rapidly sliding down the mountain
>you hear a sickening crunch as you see a boulder tumbling from above
>the wet stone has enough dust to become hazardous, you slide into a shallow pool with jagged rocks

Alternatively I try to keep them as simple traps that are set with limited preparation. The only thing I don't like are dumb random traps that so many dungeons have just to piss off players, and that have no way for the dungeon creator to circumvent.

Rolling a level 9 sun monk. DM says I can take two uncommon magic items or one rare item. What should I take? Thinking of a sun blade

Sunblade isn't a monk weapon. It counts as a longsword, so it may not be the best choice. Bracers of Defense are pretty good for a monk. If you want a weapon, a Flametongue can be a short sword.

Depends on the weapon you want to use. I am not sure if it is in this edition but see if you can get a Amulet of Mighty Fists +1 or 2 if you want to fist.

It's called Insignia of Claws in the Hoard of the Dragon Queen book.

Wood Elf Monk. Boom.

Still won't work with the bonus action of Martial Arts. That requires a monk weapon. Even if you're proficient with a longsword, it isn't a monk weapon.

Bracers of defense are a good rare for monks. Cloak of protection and winged boots are both uncommon and pretty solid.

Alternatively, you could be a bro and get a portable hole if the party doesn't already have something to the effect.

He could still use anything but martial arts so it wouldn't be the end of the world. He would just need to only use flurry of blows for every attack.

Andrew Bander is a sick fuck. So sick I'm gonna steal this.

Don't know much about the sunsword, but longswords aren't finesse or a monk weapon, so he'd have to use strength for it, no?

Yeah, but you could also pick a short sword version of a Flame Tongue as a monk. Sunblade mechanically doesn't do much for a monk. I guess it's a d10 weapon for them early on.

Sunblade is a finesse longsword. That's the main benefit to it.

I really can't stand this shit anymore. Wasn't this supposed to be the edition of bounded accuracy? Ability scores cap at 20, but all races get bonuses (because racial penalties are RACIST and this edition is DOUBLEPLUSGOOD and TOLERANT) and as a result scores are immediately closer to that 20 cap. And then, attribute increases are fucking +2? Why not +1, or +1 to two different scores at least? Instead of just encouraging people to fucking max out their favorite score? This shit is autistic as fuck, it's the same "instant gratification" that Wizards of the Coast switched to with 4e to make D&D a pussy-ass hugbox for pussies. It's a fucking game, you can't grow a pair of balls for a fucking game? Same shit where you can't die in Adventurer's League because they're worried that will scare off customers. Wizards of the Coast are such jews they completely destroyed a half-way decent game system to satisfy (1) grognards, who don't play this game anyway, they play their shitty autistic OSR garbage. So you fucked up there, WotC! and (2) cheeto covered spergs who want their LEVEL UP as fast as possible and don't care about putting any effort in anymore, they just want instant gratification.

This edition disgusts me. It could have been so much more, but it is basically a 4e "lol action surge once per day" mixed with 3.5 feats that are semi-competent but still shit for the most part, mixed with a complete absence of anything else.

2/? because I seriously have had it with this shit

Why the fuck are there feats that give direct bonuses to stats anyway? It's literally "this feat is only worth half of an ability score buff so we'll throw in the other half because we're uncreative pieces of shit." Fuck you, Wizards of the Coast. There were so many solutions to this problem, but they would have required you to INNOVATE instead of just masturbate to the same old shit you've been doing, then make game design decisions that contradict each other.

Case in point, they designed proficiency so that your numbers only go up every 5 levels or so. THEN they give a +2 every 4 levels to an attribute score. Oh, and you can take one of the shitty feats if you want to. Cool. But if I really wanted to max out my Strength, I'll bang my head against the ability score ceiling after 2 level-ups at most. I *could* do +1 to two different ones, but why the fuck would I do that? Might as well get a benefit NOW and another benefit LATER, than no benefit now and two benefits later. If you believe at all in concept of time having value, then the second option presented is objectively fucking worse. So why does it exist? It exists for odd numbered scores, sure. But that's it.

If Wizards of the Coast wanted an actual game instead of this hyper-inflated ass fest infused with mountain dew and cheetoes, they could have just removed that, removed the "all races get +3 to everything lulz" crap that unbalances the ability scores even more, and simply put back the ability score penalties that were perfectly balanced and perfectly fine.

> but a bloo bloo I can't play my orc wizard

Yes you can. Oh noooo he'll have a 5% less chance of enchanting someone cause his save DC will be lower. Well he's a fucking ORC which are LESS INTELLIGENT. Your orc does get a higher Strength which may be useful in some situations. Not really, though, seeing as 5e is caster edition 2.0

cont. below.

You seem really upset at the concept of minmaxers, which have existed since the dawn of time.
No, really, all your problems stem from min maxing classes.

I'd complain about the tranny shit but that's already been done to the moon and back. Sexuality is not a fucking forefront of D&D, and this little "progressive" blurb is going to give every mutilated nutcase an entitlement complex to have xir half-male quarter-female quarter-moonkin have genderfluid sex with everything in sight. But fuck that, I could live with that if it were a stain on a great product. But it's a stain on a mangled mess of good ideas and bad, that show that Wizards of the Coast learn the wrong lessons from every mistake they make.

Also, please make my day by replying to this shit with "bait" images and other off-topic taunting, and refusing to address any of my points. Which I will summarize at the end for you in simple words just to make sure you can understand.

Feats are an absolute bollocks fest as well. They are meant to be a substitute for an ability score increase, except half of the feats CONTAIN ABILITY SCORE INCREASES. They also take away one of the few ways to differentiate your character mechanically. How the fuck are you supposed to make an interesting 1st level character? Or even beyond that? By picking between 1 or 2 class abilities like 4e had? Oh, you can pick the move and attack for double damage maneuver, or the attack for double damage and move, then attack for half damage maneuver. Fuck that shit.

I know that's not what 4e was actually like, but the powahs blended together after a while under a horde of try-hard sounding names.

Now we have "superiority dice" and action surges and second winds (just like 4e) that we have to remember and cross off then erase and re-cross off as we use them. As if tracking HP wasn't enough. Now we are basically spell casters tracking our once-per-day abilities. So there goes half the reason to play a fighter. It's the same resource management bullshit that 4e had, except without a unified system to manage it.

Feats are optional rules. Just dont play with them.

My problem stems from the fact that the objectively best choice for leveling up directly conflicts with the ability score cap because WotC decided that +1 every 4 levels wasn't good enough. At least in 3.5 you only got +1 every four levels; 5e is literally double that, AND it institutes a cap that wasn't there before for "bounded" accuracy.

You know what you could have done instead WotC? Just made it +1 to two different ones as the ONLY option. That FORCES diversification, and hell, it even makes more sense, because you sure aren't using only ONE ability score during your adventures, are you? This would actually force ability scores to be more spread out.

And yeah, I understand that you don't HAVE to do this. You can take feats instead, yep. Or you could use that other option. But when you present an option that is better than the other two, then call anyone who chooses that option a powergamer, then why the FUCK did you put that option there in the first place?

This isn't even something a powergamer would do. This is something a normal, reasonable person would do, and Wizards of the Coast presents options that literally contradict their design goals as well as other rules within the system.

well make it so that in your game you get just +1 to 1 stats if thats your problem. Feats are optional, just like Variant Humans. I love the superiority dice but if its to much for you, Champion. That leaves you with second wind and action surge, once each per short rest. I mean if this is to hard to keep up with there is always Dungeon World user.

Problem solved.

> Feats are optional rules. Just dont play with them.

How does that solve any of the problems that I outlined in my post? You still have far fewer character options, far less capability to differentiate your character mechanically at 1st level.

Actually, unless I'm playing a human, it comes to the same anyway. I roll my scores, I pick which fightan style I want.... and that's it! And that's assuming I'm playing a fighter.

If Wizards of the Coast had put actual effort into learning from the mistakes of 3.5, they could have made feats an every-four-levels thing that EVERYONE got, with no fucking bonus feats, and then a 20th level character would have, what, six feats total? As long as they don't have long-ass names, they could easily fit on a character sheet. And if they had paid attention to what made feats suck in 3.5 they'd have been fine.

But they didn't. Why? Because they wanted to pander to grognards, WHILE ALSO TRYING TO RECAPTURE THE 4E CROWD

This is fucking retarded. This is like trying to broker a truce between the Nazis and the Jews or something. They are diametrically opposed styles of play and I do not have the space to explain why here. Visit an OSR thread and you'll see.

So what was the result? Grogs are disappointed by all this once-per-day class feature jack off shit, and post-3.x players are pissed that they got feats taken away from them.

Sure, 5e is more "balanced" but that doesn't really say much, does it? It's safe. It doesn't try to solve anything, it's just a bunch of half-assed solutions turned into a tamer 3.5. There are no new or interesting ideas. Advantage and disadvantage? Already done, and the same result could have been achieved by simply saying "yeah let's limit the number of potential bonuses in the game."

What a disappointment. I haven't been more disappointed in years. There are good, if not original, ideas in 5e, but there are also more of the same mistakes that will weight down D&D forever.

That all has to be copypasta considering how fast it appeared.

>And then, attribute increases are fucking +2? Why not +1, or +1 to two different scores at least?
well it was +1 to 2 in the playtest.
and feats were divorced from ASIs.
also, and i feel like this will set of a storm of shit posting, but d20 based systems are so swingy, you need to stack up bonuses to feel like you're actually advancing in what you do. its kind of the nature of the game.
and i wouldn't call 5e caster edition 2.0.

So you're just now realizing that D&D isn't actually that well made of a game, its just fun despite its shortcomings?

No edition of D&D has very good rules.

You're a fucking idiot. You are using the EXACT SAME EXCUSE you people use to attack 3.5 and 4e players.

"Just rule zero it bro :^) "

So, here's the law of Veeky Forums then. If it's a system Veeky Forums likes that has flaws, it's "just rule zero it bro!" but if it's a system Veeky Forums doesn't like, then it's a broken system.

Do you not see the double standard here?

I am outlining some actual bad design here, and you are excusing it by "just do it my way" when you cannot explain why the way the system does it is better. If it is better in some cases, then that is just my opinion. If it's NOT better, then there is no reason for the game to have been designed that way, and thus it is flawed.

And please don't reduce this to "lol it's good cause I said so :^) " bullshit, it's childish and shows your inability to have a discussion about a game.

And I have no interest in playing Dungeon World. That is an entirely different game. My issue is not in the complexity of the rules, it is in the stupid extra bookkeeping I have to do to play a fighter, the same stupid once-a-day fighter abilities that should have died with 4e, and the stupid contradictory ability score increase rules that seem to go against one of 5es core design goals.

So go play something else. You don't like D&D. There won't be another edition of D&D for a few years.

+1 to an ability score doesn't actually do anything half the time. So levels with ASI wouldn't actually do anything. And, like puppies, dead levels are not much fun.

on the other hand all the character options. With enough feats for everyone to pick one every 4 levels there would be a mess. It just that adding more "options" to the game makes it harder to balance. Hell its impossible to ballance as it is and it would never be. Thats why wotc have been so tame with releasing new content. God all the books of the god damm 3.Xe.
I also fear of the game becoming like M&M where you are actively trying to not break the game.

Actually, no, I am just a very fast typer. Typist? Whatever.

But go ahead and google it, I don't think you'll find it anywhere else.

So the playtest was less retarded then. I am curious why WotC decided to literally fuck up when they had the right answer. Goddamn it that makes me depressed. I downloaded the playtest and was excited for it but didn't get to actually play it.

> but d20 based systems are so swingy, you need to stack up bonuses to feel like you're actually advancing in what you do. its kind of the nature of the game.

Very true! But this is more proficiency's fault than anything else. See, proficiency is an excellent idea. It ties saves, attack bonus, skills, etc.. all into one.

But, an increase of one every four levels? Or five? You only increase by 20% over the course of play, from raw proficiency. Ability score increases add another 15%. A 20th level fighter has... what? A +11 to hit? A +12?

I'm not saying go back to the 3.5 bonus insanity, but I felt that 4e actually did a decent job with the 1/2 level as a bonus. Proficiency would have been as a 1/2 level +2, as long as there were some AC increase options as well. Perhaps not, but I would have liked to see proficiency top out at +10 instead of +6. Just feels weak.

> and i wouldn't call 5e caster edition 2.0.

Fair enough, but already I am seeing abuse of spells, and "builds" that let you destroy the universe at higher levels with some Wish / Simulacrum combo. Sure, they are probably flawed, but the return of that mindset concerns me.

I disagree. I've played a LOT of other systems, and D&D is still a fairly decent game. The core ideas of the game don't correspond to "traditional wisdom" in RPG design (whatever the fuck that means anymore) but the core concepts of the game are still fun. And the system has huge potential. yet it is continually wasted by developers who refuse to THINK, or make idiotic decisions based entirely on marketing rather than creating a good game that will drive marketing. Unfortunately, 5e won a lot of awards anyway, simply for not being TOTAL SHIT, and thus the developers pat themselves on the back and decide they must have done something right, even though they have no idea what the hell that is.

>So levels with ASI wouldn't actually do anything. And, like puppies, dead levels are not much fun

You mean like 3/4ths of the levels anyway because of how slow proficiency advances? I don't see how its any different.

You're falling into the exact same fear-mongering mindset that the developers used when they literally threw away all of the previous editions' ideas.

> With enough feats for everyone to pick one every 4 levels there would be a mess.

Why?

> It just that adding more "options" to the game makes it harder to balance.

That's why you actually playtest your new content, or make it self contained and thus difficult to create "epik combos" with.

3.5 was broken from the core. Still a fun game in my mind, but if anything, the splats were more balanced ,not less.

Personally I'd love if they added more feats that actually made martials more interesting. Weapon style feats that gave special maneuvers you could use with particular weapons. Yes, you would have to balance them, but there are VALUABLE lessons to be learned about feat design from 3.5, that WotC completely ignored. Oh wait, they didn't ignore them, they just learned the wrong lesson and decided to fuck up feats entirely.

> I also fear of the game becoming like M&M where you are actively trying to not break the game.

Yeah and this isn't M&M.

OK what is wrong with you and the fighters. You have three things to keep track of: Second Wind, Action Surge and Indomitable. Place a tick next to the name if its available, x if you used it. You can't go more vanila than the Champion Fighter

Fighters don't have any, ANY, once a day abilities.

Not a single fucking one.

You have once per short rest abilities, which ends up being less bookkeeping than 4e. I can't speak for 3.5e, but a I know a big issue some people have with fighters is you have fucking nothing but full attacking to do. However, if you happen to enjoy that, just fucking take the champion archetype, and have TWO once per short rest abilities to use. TWO. Second wind (not the same as in 4e), and Action Surge.

You are overexaggerating these issues. Issues they are, but they aren't as big a deal as you make them.

I'm pretty sure it's just attention-whoring instead of real grievance.

>Everyone's so stupid. Everyone but ME.

3/4ths of the levels give you a feature from your class to play around with. Very few levels are actually dead in 5e, it's part of why I like it.

Yeah, you might not be getting a +1 to hit, instead you might now be immune to disease, or have something else you can do on your turn.

And then next level, you'll get a +1 to hit and not much else.

Is this a problem? If you don't like it, it's probably not the system for you, but personally I like this design decision.

Yes, and I no longer care to look forward to a new edition. I have moved on to other systems. I still play D&D occasionally but I've realized the well-made system I've hoped for, will never come, because WotC switches developers too often, switches design goals too often, and tries to accomplish contradictory design goals and fails, or attempts to accomplish a design goal with contradictory methods and fails.

I don't begrudge you enjoying 5e, for as I've seen people saying for some reason (dunno if this is some new "meme"?) it is "pretty good." But that's all it will ever be when the developers continue to fuck up like this, have INCREDIBLY reactionary solutions to past mistakes, and refuse to learn the actual lessons there.

They get burned by touching a stove, and their reaction is to run as far away from it as possible, not even bothering to study it and perhaps figure out how to turn off the stove.

Gay as fuck analogy but it's the closest thing i can think of to what I am trying to say.

I am leaving the thread now but I will bookmark and read your responses later. Good luck 5eg.

The complainers seem to lose sight of the fact 5e was made for people who wanted the core ideas of D&D in a simplified form that was easy to get new players into. 5e accomplished that.

it just occured to me how "OP" the conjuration wizard 2nd level arcane tradition is. let's say that I am to take the burglar feat and use that tradition to make myself infite lockpicks/bombs/anything out of thin air. that would arguably make me better thief than arcane trickster is or am I missing something here.

So what does that have to do with 4th level ASIs being only +1?

>Fair enough, but already I am seeing abuse of spells, and "builds" that let you destroy the universe at higher levels with some Wish / Simulacrum combo. Sure, they are probably flawed, but the return of that mindset concerns me.
meh autists will be autists. no competent gm would allow even close to 90% of the dumb things i've seen posted online. and that goes for non magic stuff too.
>I would have liked to see proficiency top out at +10 instead of +6. Just feels weak.
i don't understand your point. i thought you disliked that things ramped up so quickly? but you want a fighter to end up with an even higher attack modifier? i need to re read your original post.

I mean, sure, but you don't get all the extra shit the rogue would get, like all those skill proficiencies. No one will be a better skill monkey than the rogue, except possibly the bard.

>5e accomplished that.

It accomplished that and nothing else. If you chase down "easy for new players to get into" that is a very flexible design goal and very easy to accomplish. And it is almost impossible to exclude the core ideas of D&D from the game. Basically what you are asking for is a rules-light D&D. There are myriad ways to accomplish this. The actual end result is not necessarily the best solution.

D&D 5e could have accomplished it's goal and far more without compromising said goal. It made decisions based on marketing rather than improving the system, and reaped a reward. Perhaps that is D&D's largest issue; unlike other RPGs it is actually meant to make money and thus true quality and actualization will always be compromised for marketing reasons.

>or am I missing something here.
you're missing that your dm won't let you make bombs with it because the objects are supposed to disappear if they take any "damage" which i would include lighting on fire or smashing on the ground.
lock picks i'd allow, but the situations in which i would take away your gear are few, and in those situations using your abilities to give yourself a way to escape a dungeon or whatever would be what i would want you to do.

If they were +1, you would have more dead levels, which aren't terribly fun.

Great, you got a +1 to str, bringing you to 17 strength.

Nothing changes on your sheet, and you feel like you haven't made progress, as the only thing you get at 4th level is the ASI, you don't get a class feature or anything else.

With the +2, you're getting SOMETHING, at least. Or, if you had, say, 15 str, you could take a feat that boosts your str by 1, or increase two scores. It's versatility. Most of the time the +2 will be the more powerful choice, but it won't always be.

>you're missing that your dm won't let you make bombs with it because the objects are supposed to disappear if they take any "damage" which i would include lighting on fire or smashing on the ground.

My DM is fun, so I can totally do that

>puppies aren't fun

Do you have autism?

>i thought you disliked that things ramped up so quickly?

I do. but there is a middle ground. I felt 4e handled it best, and what i mean by that is that that a number increase every other level preserves the "feel" of improving while not ramping up to a +20 bonus by 20th level. In fact, exactly half that.

There are many issues with the 1/2 level system, I am not suggesting using it, simply that the numbers involved fit my tastes well. It's just a "feeling" thing. It would require AC increases to compensate but personally a level 20 character doesn't feel right without an AC in the low to mid 20s.

Again, this is just my opinion, I don't want this to detract from the other things I am saying here, which are far more important.

>taking shit out of context

Dead puppies aren't fun, user.

It may not have been grammatically correct, but that was other user's intended meaning.

I don't keep track of WotC's financials or sales. In my area, tabletop gaming is growing much bigger than it had been in decades past because of 5e. Do you have something to back up the idea that it's failing beyond your personal expectations?

i mean sure cantrip level bombs, but i don't think its supposed to let you blow open bank vaults or whatever

fun is just a buzzword

>but personally a level 20 character doesn't feel right without an AC in the low to mid 20s.

Because you're trying to compare one system's numbers directly to another.

Yeah, 4e had you get to like 50 AC by the epic levels. Would it have made a terrible difference if, instead, 5e let you get to 500 AC?

AC and to-hit modifiers are relevant to each other, not other systems.

25 AC is fucking high in 5e, in 4e and 3.5e (to my knowledge) it's fairly low.

The actual number doesn't fucking matter, what matters is how it compares to other numbers in the system.

So, instant gratification.

Unless you are saying that nothing happens at 4th level in these classes, the ability score increases are superfluous to that. It's not a "dead level" if you're still getting something else.

I also fail to see how it's different from proficiency increasing slowly.

But your point is legitimate, and I see what you're saying.

>NO

Rules are optional. Just don't play with them.

Sorry for being sharp, but removing a bad rule does not make the game any better, you just remove features.

If i wanted to play a freeform game i don't need any rules, i don't even need a game, just some recreational drugs and good company.

Rules are the bones and muscles of a game, what the players do with them is the skin and personality.

5th edition can quickly become a hollow skin.

Short and sweet: the ASI/feat situation is fine in general. Not giving everyone an automatic number of feats reduces complexity and forces designers to not use feat patches, feat taxes, or mandatory feats. Maybe you'd prefer a rogue. They have even fewer rest limited abilities. Characters are distinguishable at level 1, moreso by level 3. There's many races, classes, and backgrounds for each character to stand out. More or less than 5e is just a preference. I don't see anything that's broken. You just don't like it.

I DMed 3.5 before 5e. I hated the fact that numbers got so high that I could no longer use lower level creatures for a level 18 party effectively without stacking templates upon templates. I couldn't just use older monsters in new ways because they numerically could not compete anymore.

A goblin might not be a huge threat to a level 20 character even in 5e, but at least a horde of them has a chance at being a threat outside of lucky natural 20 rolls.

Just tell me user! Tell me instead of complaining and I'll do it!

honestly shitting out infinite number of cantrip-level smoke bombs is better than anything rogue can do to escape at that level.

and lets not kid ourselves and say any group actually makes it to levels 7+

That's why you can choose between +1 to two, or +2 to one

There's a big difference between "this one rule is optional" and "rules are optional". If you don't want feats in a game, then you can completely ignore them and you likely won't even notice the absence. But if you don't want feats in your game, you don't just throw out the whole game as a knee-jerk reaction.

>The actual number doesn't fucking matter, what matters is how it compares to other numbers in the system.

True, except that all D&D editions use the same d20 modifier. So if you halved all the attack bonuses and ACs, yes they would still be the same relative to each other, but not relative to the core dice mechanic.

If you have a powerful fighter with AC of only 19, then it is easy to land a blow on him. I understand that hit points = plot armor and all that, and I don't disagree that AC fluff in 3.5 and 4e is a bit ridiculous. But, a gnoll or goblin should be an almost automatic hit for a 20th level fighter. In fact, he should be able to almost automatically hit them even with disadvantage and other penalties. Now if he has +39 to hit, that's kind of overkill. That was the 3.5 and 4e issue. But if his attack bonus is only +11, and his AC barely 19 or 20, he's relying on his hit points to soak up these guys. Which makes sense, it's simply counter to what I feel, which is that a high level fighter should lose very few hit points from fighting a couple dozen orcs. Not that he should be impossible to hit either.

Again, it's just an opinion thing, as I said above.

user, the fallacy is "if the rule is just going to be thrown out, why include it"? There has to be a good reason FOR the rule to exist, otherwise there is no reason for it to be there and it is bad design.

The dispute is if the rule is good. Just because one person thinks it is not good does not make that a universal truth. Actually playing 5e for a few years made me realize that 5e was made to make it lower stress to DM, since DMs tend to be the chokepoint around which groups are formed.

Let me clarify for our slower reader. Like levels, dead puppies are not much fun.

>Do you have autism?
Not that you could prove, but I am posting from mobile.

so would dragon fall to the ground if its hit by Sentinel reaction ?

What things from Pathfinder would you port over to 5e? (It would theoretically be balanced to 5e)

>Not giving everyone an automatic number of feats reduces complexity and forces designers to not use feat patches, feat taxes, or mandatory feats.

I fail to see why feat taxes / patches are ever necessary?

> reduces complexity

There is plenty of complexity in the class features. And picking a feat at 1st level is not that hard. Yes, I understand why they wanted to go without it, for that extra simplicity. But if you build the game entirely around someone's first time playing it, you are going to end up with a game that is good for only that. I learned that lesson with my own design.

> Maybe you'd prefer a rogue. They have even fewer rest limited abilities.

But I want to play a fighter. And to be honest, a lot of these rest mechanics don't make sense. They are dissociated from the game world. I consider them to be metagaming.

> I ran out of breath while fighting, but i got a bit of adrenaline surge. Too bad I can't do that again til I rest for 8 hours

I will give them credit that at least they made the once-per-rest abilities make SENSE this time. At least for fighters.

Yes. That is what i love about bounded accuracy, too. Orcs became completely irrelevant by level 8 or so, and by completely irrelevant i mean that even several hundred of them were not a real threat.

Not everybody's going to throw out the rule. That's the point of it being optional.

4e actually wanted +1 per level, it just spread those out among different sources for the pcs. Monster math was transparent about it.

>and lets not kid ourselves and say any group actually makes it to levels 7+

I had a group make it to level 13 and that was with slow XP advancement. Another campaign is at level 9 and would be at level 12+ if the GM actually understood that 200 XP per session is not enough for 8th level characters.

This is in 3.PF though. And I understand that I am lucky compared to most fa/tg/uys when it comes to holding a group together.

>Unless you are saying that nothing happens at 4th level in these classes
Look at the fucking book. Nothing happens at 4th level in these classes.

my group is leve nine
although it's probably because our DM is This Guy

I understand that. I was simply responding to the other user whose answer to everything was "just homebrew it." It's an answer I see everywhere and it annoys me because it's irrelevant to a discussion of system quality.

And for all my complaints, 5e is still not a bad system overall. I'd rather play 3rd edition or some other RPG entirely, but it's not like the game is intolerable. I just think a lot of the game's design is either contradictory or reactionary.

Not Pathfinder but I would love to see an Elder Evils and Mind Flayers of Thoon port to 5e. I will probably make it in the upcoming days.

>cantrip-level smoke bombs
What are those? What do they do?

Yes, it is made to give a dm a easier time.

I believe these edition wars are pointless.

Person A believe that rules light is the way to go.

Person B believes that more rules are better.

They will never agree about a system.

I finished a game that went from level 3 to 20 in February. Current game is at level 8 and I planned it to go to 20.

Social dynamics tend to make the game more than the system, but it certainly helps to make a system that's easy to run. If you lose a player or two due to extenuating circumstances, the game can continue. If you lose a DM, the game is done.

Is Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle anywhere in the Mega? And if not does anyone have it? Thanks a lot

Except it's not an optional rule, it's part of the core RAW. A player, by RAW, is entitled to taking +2 to an ability score. If you take that away, you are limiting that player and he or she has a right to resent you for it. It's like "core only" in 3.5, except in this case even worse because you are actually contradicting something from the core rules.

That is my issue with "just homebrew it". You are taking something away from the player. I argue that it shouldn't have been there in the first place. The impasse is instant satisfaction versus setting the system up for diversifying ability scores. If the ability score cap weren't in place I'd see it being just fine, but in its current incarnation I don't understand why the 3-18 ability score system exists at all, from a pure design standpoint. If every ability score increase is meant to have an actual +1 bonus to the characters rolls, the whole 1/2 score - 10 bonus thing is extraneous. At least make some use of it.

But when a +1 to a score is worth a +2.5% chance of success, I guess it's time to admit the entire game system is fucked anyway, so there is that.

>And picking a feat at 1st level is not that hard
Just homebrew that everyone starts with a feat at level 1 then? Probably disallow the variant human to avoid a couple of shenanigans.

I understand you don't like how ASI scales from previous posts, but maybe you can modify that too, or ask the DM. After all, the goal of using a system is to have fun.

I don't like how impersonal the skills feel. I totally miss skill points and be able to say if my character is better at X than Y despite that skill having the same bonuses.

I might be in the minority, but I really hate these types of "LOL SO DEADLY" traps. I feel that traps should be used sparingly, logically, and effectively.

If the dungeon was meant for anything other than being a deathtrap a la Tomb of Horrors, then traps are a pain in the ass for the inhabitants. Place manually-activated traps like portcullises or trapdoors like in Jabba's palace from Star Wars 6, place disarmable traps protecting treasure vaults or other important but low traffic areas, but not in the middle of a main hallway.

Think of how much effort must have went into creating the dungeon in the first place, what the inhabitants would have expected in terms of defense needs, and how much more work it is to construct elaborate and wondrous mechanisms.

Then why not make something happen in those classes? Or have feats as a default? Or just have a +1 to two different ability scores and accept the fact that yes that is actually equivalent to a +2 later on, but without the instant gratificaiton factor.