My groups first impression of D&D5 - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Lanatir Sep 14, 2014 9:28:29	Ok, we got ourselfs the Players Handbook and started a brandnew Dungeons and Dragons campaign yesterday, 5th edition. We own 4 Players Handbooks, evenly distributed :P Now, we have 5 players, and me, the DM (since we will switch DM's during the course of the campaign i also created a character that currently just tags along and is on 'botmode' until i get to be a player). My group consists of: Woodelf Rogue, planning to become an assassin, currently working as a pickpocket in Neverwinter. Human Wizard with tendencies towards becoming a Necromant, all the while trying not to succumb to the dark temptations coming with the territory. Gnome Cleric of Lathander who is planning to get at least one level of Ranger on the way. Interesting Character, wary of strangers, but still trying to do the good thing, hasnt had much luck in his past. (Someone or something seems to be picking on his mentors, 2 of them having died a horrible death). Halfelf Ranger (female), with no real memories of what happened in her childhood and where she actually comes from, 'working' for a coven of druids in a small forest. Female human sorceror with the Entertainer Background, Member of both a Mages and a Bards guild, apprentice to a Master Illusionist and likes to party hard. Groff, Halforc Fighter, Protective Style, member of the militia of Neverwinter, and pretty smart for a Halforc. Likes to make people think he is a brutish stupid green mountain of muscle. Now, while i think that this group is rather promising, it might be hard to get them under one banner to work together, but thats my problem, and im having a few ideas. Only 2 of the group have ever been in contact with D&D before, one has experienced 3.5 YEARS ago, the other one goes even further back do ADnD. Very soon they came up with a few questions i had a hard time answering. Here we go, this is what they said. 1. Those few skills. Thats IT?? Is there nothing more? That is very very little and doesnt offer much to diversity of characters. 2. What happens after level 20? If this adventure (LmoP) is supposed to get us to level 5, does that mean we play 4 Adventures and poof, need new characters? 3. What happened to crafting? 4. Characters dont seem to improve much with leveling. Only 1 point in proficiency every 4 or so levels plus a few hitpoints and a few attribute points every 4 levels or so. a level 10 character isnt much better than a level 1 character. (mind you, that was my PLAYERS impression, not mine) 5. Cantrips make casters cool. 6. Tieflings are there. Where are Genasi and Aasimar? 7. Most didnt like it that everyone could use every skill, and proficiency bonus was too little to make a significant difference. 8. The Rogue complained that besides sneak attack he has no real use anymore since basically everyone can learn perception and learn to use thiefs tools. Yeah. Those were things my group came up with. Especially the part with the few skills was a concern they all had. My answer was that we had to wait til the DMG and the MM are coming out and that i was pretty sure that stuff would be expanded in there. I will look pretty stupid when there aint gonna be more skills in those books :P Oppinions?
#2 Dwalon Sep 14, 2014 10:05:27	Those were exactly my thoughts after my first session of having the PHB. Your #1 and 7 were precisely what I expressed to my DM a couple of days after the gaming session. I believe this comes as an extension of 4e where everyone had an identical power, albeit a different name, making everyone the same. My personal peeve is your #5 ... once the daily powers and spell slots are expended, only the cantrip or basic attack is the fallback. So, with maybe 75% of any character's actions relegated to the most basic attack model, that is what will define them. This means every warlock will exxentially be the same since they will all use Eldritch Blast, every cleric will use Sacred Flame, etc. The variability of the characters brought from 3.x has vanished from D&D. While there is some small definition from one fighter to another, once those daily powers are expended, 5e is just a basic game with little differentiation between characters, dumbed down to its lowest common denominators. 5e is 4e with a thin veneer of paint over it. My opinion only, but I am glad to know I am not the only one to have seen this.
#3 Atheosis Sep 14, 2014 10:18:37	1. It's streamlined. If you prefer the very long list of skills in 3.5 or Pathfinder that may be a better fit. I like this system, but I like streamlined systems in RPGs (why I like 5E in general). 2. I tend to feel leveling is too fast. If you are running premade adventures it's hard to adjust. Though I am running HotDQ and just adding more stuff in while using the milestone levelling system. Homebrews are straightforward. Just give less xp per encounter. I think half xp would be pretty close to 3.5 xp rates, but I haven't really checked that. 3. Detailed crafting rules are probably going to be in the DMG. 4. Not at all true. Skills don't improve much, but overall characters definitely improve considerably as they level. 5. Yes. 6. Fortunately not in the PHB. I wish Tieflings weren't either. Designing them yourself should be very easy though. 7. Generally I just split actions up into complex and simple. Certain actions require proficiency to even try them. As DMs it's ultimately up to us to make a system work how we want it to. 8. Umm...Expertise?
#4 DSZ Sep 14, 2014 11:23:58	1) Yes. Skills are more flexible now. However, if you want more diversification you as a DM may allow specialization in a narrow"subfield" of a skill with double proficiency bonus in this case. 2) Remember lvl 1-3 are extremely narrow in XP gain (900 XP and you are lvl 3). So, lvl 1 - 3 are extremely fast which is intentional. Wait until you are lvl 5 and things progress at a much alower pace. However, if you think advancement is too slow, you can a) increase the XP rate needed per LVL from Lvl 11 on, as the rate is relatively low from then on. b) Let the party LVL when you as DM decide to let them, independant of XP. 3) DMG is the best bet here. 4) Characters improve getting more options. They do not improve so much in att bonus, skill bonus etc. But this is wanted and is called bounded accuracy. This way even weak opponents will be dangerous in large numbers even for higher lvl characters etc. I like it that way, but YMMV. 5) Some like it, some not. I like! 6) DMG maybe or in the MM. Adjust to your likes. 7) I like that everybody can try and has a chance. You can be a fighter good in diplomacy now and are not bound to a certai class for a certain task. I never liked that only the "right class" may ever bother to try something and the wrong class need not even bother trying. 8) Expertise!
#5 Lanatir Sep 14, 2014 11:24:26	Rpg with 'streamlined' list of skills in my book are combat simulations. not roleplaying games. The more skills, the better.
#6 Atheosis Sep 14, 2014 11:42:03	Lanatir wrote:
#7 Lanatir Sep 14, 2014 11:50:16	Atheosis wrote:
(Reply to #5) Shiroiken	Lanatir wrote:
#9 Centauri Sep 14, 2014 12:20:12	Lanatir wrote:
#10 Centauri Sep 14, 2014 12:24:36	Lanatir wrote:
#11 Bennedict Sep 14, 2014 12:26:19	Only 10 pages for combat in my book. I like the small amount of skills. Some will be better than others in trained skills, especially with ability bonus and proficiency. And Expertise is huge. Was hoping they would make something like Expertise a feat. I may do that in my game. Something like: Increase a chosen ability by 1 point and choose one skill related to that ability in which you already have proficiency and double the proficiency bonus.
#12 Lanatir Sep 14, 2014 12:33:14	Well, if in my Group of 5 Players 5 Players complain about having too little skills and having no significant difference if you learned the skill or not, i gotta make my players happy and change the skill system. Everything else in the system is more or less ok, its just the skills, or the lack of them, that basically is greatly disliked in my whole group. So i will definitely expand on the number of skills, and will also introduce disadvantage to people who have no proficiency in a given skill, as to make having proficiency more significant.
#13 Timmee Sep 14, 2014 14:45:15	1. Those few skills. Thats IT?? Is there nothing more? That is very very little and doesnt offer much to diversity of characters. 2. What happens after level 20? If this adventure (LmoP) is supposed to get us to level 5, does that mean we play 4 Adventures and poof, need new characters? 3. What happened to crafting? 4. Characters dont seem to improve much with leveling. Only 1 point in proficiency every 4 or so levels plus a few hitpoints and a few attribute points every 4 levels or so. a level 10 character isnt much better than a level 1 character. (mind you, that was my PLAYERS impression, not mine) 5. Cantrips make casters cool. 6. Tieflings are there. Where are Genasi and Aasimar? 7. Most didnt like it that everyone could use every skill, and proficiency bonus was too little to make a significant difference. 8. The Rogue complained that besides sneak attack he has no real use anymore since basically everyone can learn perception and learn to use thiefs tools. Yeah. Those were things my group came up with. Especially the part with the few skills was a concern they all had. My answer was that we had to wait til the DMG and the MM are coming out and that i was pretty sure that stuff would be expanded in there. I will look pretty stupid when there aint gonna be more skills in those books :P Oppinions? [/quote] 1. What additional skills would you like to see that can't be covered by the current list? And how those skills are applied might best serve as the diversity of character. 2. I'm sure future materials will venture into that great beyond. But for now, try getting there first and see how you feel when you arrive. When you finish LmoP, continue with your own adventure campaign. Or take the same characters into another module. Doesn't have to end there or anywhere. 3. DMG will get into more detail on such agendas. But it's pretty easy to look at previous models and extrapolate a mechanic. 4. I beg to differ, but power is in the eye of the beholder. Bounded Accuracy neccesitated a cap on proficiency bonus to keep things challenging across the spectrum. A level 1 vs a level 10 character won't stand much of a chance, but it's not to say the level 1 won't get a whack in here and there. However, by contrast, a mob of level 1's will eventually wear down the level 10, if not outright kill. 5. At will "cantrips" certainly provide a greater surface area for casters and in my book, that's awesome. 6. Yeah, right? What's up with that? No doubt these will come in time. 7. Once again, Bounded Accuracy steps in to insure things don't get ridiculous. I would further argue that low-level characters shouldn't be too removed or "above" the level of common folk around them. That makes mid to high-levels significantly empowered in the grander scope of things. 8. Not to beat a dead horse, but.. ahem.. Expertise. This remarkable quality alone places the rogue and bard significantly above the rest in skill use.
#14 Atheosis Sep 14, 2014 15:01:14	Lanatir wrote:
#15 Atheosis Sep 14, 2014 15:02:32	Lanatir wrote:
#16 Rhenny Sep 14, 2014 16:26:41	The idea that all actions can be adjudicated by attribute rolls with added areas of proficiency still gives variety to characters if you have characters that have different backgrounds and especially if you have PCs roll their attributes. Our group loves it because players aren't blocked out of doing things because they don't have the correct skill. That streamlining actually helps my players just act like their characters without worrying what skills they have an don't have. It also makes turns go faster because they don't have to re-read their character sheets every time they are planning their actions. People in our group are in awe of the rogue. Sneak attack and cunning action every turn is dramatic. That's another reason to play a rogue rather than another PC with the criminal background (and tool proficiency).
#17 DooHickey Sep 14, 2014 17:19:36	Adding more skills is a mistake. It will only increase the divide between the haves and have-nots. Also, it doesn't add to character distinction. The 3E skill system gave only the illusion of that. Cheers
#18 teron82 Sep 14, 2014 18:45:55	DooHickey wrote:
(Reply to #12) Shiroiken	Lanatir wrote:
#20 edwin_su Sep 14, 2014 21:12:47	Timmee wrote:
#21 Kishri Sep 14, 2014 21:25:21	This thread goes to illustrate the variety of tastes in games we gamers have. Many of the concerns the OP cited are reasons as to why I and many of my friends like 5e. We love the reduced skill list and the absence of crafting. We are just fine with the simplicity of the proficiency system. While I can take them or leave them, many of my friends love the inclusion of the Dragonborn and Tieflings. We like the idea that most skills can be used by everyone as it prevents the "oh no, so and so isn't here tonight to do <x skill> tonight!" Also, it is nice to be able to be acrobatic without having to be a specific class. I think my preferences are colored by being a very long time gamer (started in 1976 with Basic D&D), and being utterly burned out from the overly complex and rule heavy 3e/Patherfinder systems which I have been running since 2001 (3e) & 2010 (PF). To the OP, if they truly make 5e as modular and adaptable as they have advertised, you should have good remedies for your concerns coming swiftly-- as I am sure they will have crafting guidelines in the DMG. On another front, 5e seems a bit more adaptable in the house ruling area meaning you can add the content you desire more easily than in other systems.
#22 Arawn76 Sep 15, 2014 2:14:59	Atheosis wrote:
(Reply to #20) Timmee	edwin_su wrote:
#24 Atheosis Sep 15, 2014 7:19:56	Arawn76 wrote:
#25 iserith Sep 15, 2014 7:33:57	Lanatir wrote:
(Reply to #5) crimfan07	Lanatir wrote:
#27 Delazar78 Sep 15, 2014 8:10:43	regarding Crafting: aren't the crafting skills replaced by the tools proficiencies? so, they went out of the door, but came back through the window, in a sense...
#28 Arawn76 Sep 15, 2014 10:43:11	Atheosis wrote:
(Reply to #25) feartheminotaur	iserith wrote:
#30 iserith Sep 15, 2014 11:12:03	feartheminotaur wrote:
(Reply to #29) crimfan07	feartheminotaur wrote:
#32 Bennedict Sep 15, 2014 12:03:22	Not sure what book your players are looking at but here ya go. There are 18 skills. There are also tool/kits that you can have training(proficiency) in, these are skills just governed by a kit instead. With the tools you have 10 tools/kits to gain proficiency, of which some have sub class tools that will each require their own proficiency bringing the total tool proficiencies to 39. This brings the total amount of skills to 57. Plus the Healer feat effectively makes you proficient in healer's kit in a sense. Granted a lot of them are crafting or musical instruments. There is crafting in the game, they just made it really simplified. I'm guessing in the DMG or a later magic splat book will have crafting rules & proficiencies for magic item crafting. I think this is more than enough skills.
(Reply to #27) crimfan07	Delazar78 wrote:
#34 iserith Sep 15, 2014 12:22:47	crimfan07 wrote:
(Reply to #33) DooHickey	crimfan07 wrote:
#36 Captain_Kobold Sep 15, 2014 12:52:22	iserith wrote:
#37 iserith Sep 15, 2014 13:02:17	Captain_Kobold wrote:
(Reply to #34) crimfan07	[quote]It's worth thinking about: What happens if the player fails that check? What did the player say that made discovering this information uncertain?[/quote] Definitely. As a DM you can decide if this is a plot hook you want to drop some other way. So the failure condition might be that the PCs have to do something else, come up with a different plan, or just blow off the fickle elf queen entirely and look for help elsewhere. That would be OK in a more sandbox type game, but might not in other styles. It sounds more like a game of making checks with boring failure conditions that go nowhere. I don't believe this is what it is intended in the game. We don't know what the player in this example is saying that is making his actions so uncertain, so I'm left to conclude the DM is just asking for too many rolls.
#39 awogaman Sep 15, 2014 14:58:36	Lanatir wrote:
#40 DerelictDroid Sep 15, 2014 15:50:03	OP I agree with your assessment of skills. The system is woefully inadequate, and downright illogical. I myself am in the process of devising a homebrew skill system that fits the mechanics of 5e. One of my players had suggested porting 3.5 into 5e, but that doesn't work because 3.5 skills scale very high. What I find ironic is that the rules define all these various tools and associated proficiencies (although lacking any description of what is in each tool set), but skills are paltry by comparison. And then! Then when you read monster descriptions (or the races for that matter), skills are often narrowly defined. For example, Owls have perception bonuses to sight and hearing. But you can't define the same thing for players! lol. So why doesn't an Owl, for example, simply have a blanket bonus to perception like players do? That's a rhetorical question. I'll tell you why...to give each monster uniqueness and differentiate each one. But for some reason that same differentiation isn't allowed for players.
(Reply to #40) feartheminotaur	DerelictDroid wrote:
#42 DerelictDroid Sep 15, 2014 16:35:56	feartheminotaur wrote:
(Reply to #36) crimfan07	Captain_Kobold wrote:
#44 teron82 Sep 15, 2014 17:01:05	DerelictDroid wrote:
(Reply to #37) crimfan07	iserith wrote:
#46 iserith Sep 15, 2014 18:26:00	DerelictDroid wrote:
#47 iserith Sep 15, 2014 18:14:53	crimfan07 wrote:
(Reply to #47) Kishri	iserith wrote:
(Reply to #42) DooHickey	DerelictDroid wrote:
(Reply to #48) crimfan07	Kishri wrote:
#51 Kishri Sep 15, 2014 21:37:53	crimfan07 wrote:
#52 Ansbach Sep 16, 2014 7:10:02	1.) There is absolutely nothing wrong with skill-based play and the concerns in the OP are legitimate for players who enjoy that style of RPG. Many popular RPGs are skill-based, including the Gold Ennie Best Game of the Year: Fate. 2.) 5E D&D is not a skill-based RPG and it's probably not a good idea to try to turn it into one to appease your players.
(Reply to #49) crimfan07	DooHickey wrote:
(Reply to #51) crimfan07	Kishri wrote:
(Reply to #53) DooHickey	crimfan07 wrote:
(Reply to #54) crimfan07	Having reasonable autosuccess rules are a good thing to provide how to decide "you can just do that" in a rational and consistent way, or to judge how long something takes. Take 10 was a very nice mechanic that was introduced in 3.5. This is much more likely to work given bounded accuracy because DCs are fixed so it's much easier to decide how to make things work. It would be useul tohave a table of tasks and who can do them routinely (i.e., when not under serious pressure or adverse circumstances).
(Reply to #40) Arbitrary_Aardvark	I just loved it in 3rd edition where my bard had to buy two performance skills and two craft skills to be able to write his own music and lyrics, and play the lute and sing at the same time.
(Reply to #57) onceMoreIntoBreech	Arbitrary_Aardvark wrote:
#59 Ansbach Sep 17, 2014 15:23:01	onceMoreIntoBreech wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Lanatir

Sep 14, 2014 9:28:29

Ok, we got ourselfs the Players Handbook and started a brandnew Dungeons and Dragons campaign yesterday, 5th edition. We own 4 Players Handbooks, evenly distributed :P

Now, we have 5 players, and me, the DM (since we will switch DM's during the course of the campaign i also created a character that currently just tags along and is on 'botmode' until i get to be a player).

My group consists of:
Woodelf Rogue, planning to become an assassin, currently working as a pickpocket in Neverwinter.

Human Wizard with tendencies towards becoming a Necromant, all the while trying not to succumb to the dark temptations coming with the territory.

Gnome Cleric of Lathander who is planning to get at least one level of Ranger on the way. Interesting Character, wary of strangers, but still trying to do the good thing, hasnt had much luck in his past. (Someone or something seems to be picking on his mentors, 2 of them having died a horrible death).

Halfelf Ranger (female), with no real memories of what happened in her childhood and where she actually comes from, 'working' for a coven of druids in a small forest.

Female human sorceror with the Entertainer Background, Member of both a Mages and a Bards guild, apprentice to a Master Illusionist and likes to party hard.

Groff, Halforc Fighter, Protective Style, member of the militia of Neverwinter, and pretty smart for a Halforc. Likes to make people think he is a brutish stupid green mountain of muscle.

Now, while i think that this group is rather promising, it might be hard to get them under one banner to work together, but thats my problem, and im having a few ideas.

Only 2 of the group have ever been in contact with D&D before, one has experienced 3.5 YEARS ago, the other one goes even further back do ADnD.

Very soon they came up with a few questions i had a hard time answering.

Here we go, this is what they said.

1. Those few skills. Thats IT?? Is there nothing more? That is very very little and doesnt offer much to diversity of characters.

2. What happens after level 20? If this adventure (LmoP) is supposed to get us to level 5, does that mean we play 4 Adventures and poof, need new characters?

3. What happened to crafting?

4. Characters dont seem to improve much with leveling. Only 1 point in proficiency every 4 or so levels plus a few hitpoints and a few attribute points every 4 levels or so. a level 10 character isnt much better than a level 1 character. (mind you, that was my PLAYERS impression, not mine)

5. Cantrips make casters cool.

6. Tieflings are there. Where are Genasi and Aasimar?

7. Most didnt like it that everyone could use every skill, and proficiency bonus was too little to make a significant difference.

8. The Rogue complained that besides sneak attack he has no real use anymore since basically everyone can learn perception and learn to use thiefs tools.

Yeah. Those were things my group came up with. Especially the part with the few skills was a concern they all had.

My answer was that we had to wait til the DMG and the MM are coming out and that i was pretty sure that stuff would be expanded in there. I will look pretty stupid when there aint gonna be more skills in those books :P

Oppinions?

Dwalon

Sep 14, 2014 10:05:27

Those were exactly my thoughts after my first session of having the PHB. Your #1 and 7 were precisely what I expressed to my DM a couple of days after the gaming session. I believe this comes as an extension of 4e where everyone had an identical power, albeit a different name, making everyone the same. My personal peeve is your #5 ... once the daily powers and spell slots are expended, only the cantrip or basic attack is the fallback. So, with maybe 75% of any character's actions relegated to the most basic attack model, that is what will define them. This means every warlock will exxentially be the same since they will all use Eldritch Blast, every cleric will use Sacred Flame, etc. The variability of the characters brought from 3.x has vanished from D&D. While there is some small definition from one fighter to another, once those daily powers are expended, 5e is just a basic game with little differentiation between characters, dumbed down to its lowest common denominators. 5e is 4e with a thin veneer of paint over it.

My opinion only, but I am glad to know I am not the only one to have seen this.

Atheosis

Sep 14, 2014 10:18:37

1. It's streamlined. If you prefer the very long list of skills in 3.5 or Pathfinder that may be a better fit. I like this system, but I like streamlined systems in RPGs (why I like 5E in general).

2. I tend to feel leveling is too fast. If you are running premade adventures it's hard to adjust. Though I am running HotDQ and just adding more stuff in while using the milestone levelling system. Homebrews are straightforward. Just give less xp per encounter. I think half xp would be pretty close to 3.5 xp rates, but I haven't really checked that.

3. Detailed crafting rules are probably going to be in the DMG.

4. Not at all true. Skills don't improve much, but overall characters definitely improve considerably as they level.

5. Yes.

6. Fortunately not in the PHB. I wish Tieflings weren't either. Designing them yourself should be very easy though.

7. Generally I just split actions up into complex and simple. Certain actions require proficiency to even try them. As DMs it's ultimately up to us to make a system work how we want it to.

8. Umm...Expertise?

DSZ

Sep 14, 2014 11:23:58

1) Yes. Skills are more flexible now. However, if you want more diversification you as a DM may allow specialization in a narrow"subfield" of a skill with double proficiency bonus in this case.

2) Remember lvl 1-3 are extremely narrow in XP gain (900 XP and you are lvl 3). So, lvl 1 - 3 are extremely fast which is intentional. Wait until you are lvl 5 and things progress at a much alower pace.

However, if you think advancement is too slow, you can

a) increase the XP rate needed per LVL from Lvl 11 on, as the rate is relatively low from then on.

b) Let the party LVL when you as DM decide to let them, independant of XP.

3) DMG is the best bet here.

4) Characters improve getting more options. They do not improve so much in att bonus, skill bonus etc. But this is wanted and is called bounded accuracy.

This way even weak opponents will be dangerous in large numbers even for higher lvl characters etc. I like it that way, but YMMV.

5) Some like it, some not. I like!

6) DMG maybe or in the MM. Adjust to your likes.

7) I like that everybody can try and has a chance. You can be a fighter good in diplomacy now and are not bound to a certai class for a certain task.

I never liked that only the "right class" may ever bother to try something and the wrong class need not even bother trying.

8) Expertise!

Lanatir

Sep 14, 2014 11:24:26

Rpg with 'streamlined' list of skills in my book are combat simulations. not roleplaying games. The more skills, the better.

Atheosis

Sep 14, 2014 11:42:03

Lanatir wrote:

Lanatir

Sep 14, 2014 11:50:16

Atheosis wrote:

(Reply to #5)

Shiroiken

Lanatir wrote:

Centauri

Sep 14, 2014 12:20:12

Lanatir wrote:

#10

Centauri

Sep 14, 2014 12:24:36

Lanatir wrote:

#11

Bennedict

Sep 14, 2014 12:26:19

Only 10 pages for combat in my book. I like the small amount of skills. Some will be better than others in trained skills, especially with ability bonus and proficiency. And Expertise is huge. Was hoping they would make something like Expertise a feat. I may do that in my game. Something like: Increase a chosen ability by 1 point and choose one skill related to that ability in which you already have proficiency and double the proficiency bonus.

#12

Lanatir

Sep 14, 2014 12:33:14

Well, if in my Group of 5 Players 5 Players complain about having too little skills and having no significant difference if you learned the skill or not, i gotta make my players happy and change the skill system. Everything else in the system is more or less ok, its just the skills, or the lack of them, that basically is greatly disliked in my whole group.

So i will definitely expand on the number of skills, and will also introduce disadvantage to people who have no proficiency in a given skill, as to make having proficiency more significant.

#13

Timmee

Sep 14, 2014 14:45:15

1. Those few skills. Thats IT?? Is there nothing more? That is very very little and doesnt offer much to diversity of characters.

2. What happens after level 20? If this adventure (LmoP) is supposed to get us to level 5, does that mean we play 4 Adventures and poof, need new characters?

3. What happened to crafting?

4. Characters dont seem to improve much with leveling. Only 1 point in proficiency every 4 or so levels plus a few hitpoints and a few attribute points every 4 levels or so. a level 10 character isnt much better than a level 1 character. (mind you, that was my PLAYERS impression, not mine)

5. Cantrips make casters cool.

6. Tieflings are there. Where are Genasi and Aasimar?

7. Most didnt like it that everyone could use every skill, and proficiency bonus was too little to make a significant difference.

8. The Rogue complained that besides sneak attack he has no real use anymore since basically everyone can learn perception and learn to use thiefs tools.

Yeah. Those were things my group came up with. Especially the part with the few skills was a concern they all had.

My answer was that we had to wait til the DMG and the MM are coming out and that i was pretty sure that stuff would be expanded in there. I will look pretty stupid when there aint gonna be more skills in those books :P

Oppinions?

[/quote]

1. What additional skills would you like to see that can't be covered by the current list? And how those skills are applied might best serve as the diversity of character.

2. I'm sure future materials will venture into that great beyond. But for now, try getting there first and see how you feel when you arrive. When you finish LmoP, continue with your own adventure campaign. Or take the same characters into another module. Doesn't have to end there or anywhere.

3. DMG will get into more detail on such agendas. But it's pretty easy to look at previous models and extrapolate a mechanic.

4. I beg to differ, but power is in the eye of the beholder. Bounded Accuracy neccesitated a cap on proficiency bonus to keep things challenging across the spectrum. A level 1 vs a level 10 character won't stand much of a chance, but it's not to say the level 1 won't get a whack in here and there. However, by contrast, a mob of level 1's will eventually wear down the level 10, if not outright kill.

5. At will "cantrips" certainly provide a greater surface area for casters and in my book, that's awesome.

6. Yeah, right? What's up with that? No doubt these will come in time.

7. Once again, Bounded Accuracy steps in to insure things don't get ridiculous. I would further argue that low-level characters shouldn't be too removed or "above" the level of common folk around them. That makes mid to high-levels significantly empowered in the grander scope of things.

8. Not to beat a dead horse, but.. *ahem*.. Expertise. This remarkable quality alone places the rogue and bard significantly above the rest in skill use.

#14

Atheosis

Sep 14, 2014 15:01:14

Lanatir wrote:

#15

Atheosis

Sep 14, 2014 15:02:32

Lanatir wrote:

#16

Rhenny

Sep 14, 2014 16:26:41

The idea that all actions can be adjudicated by attribute rolls with added areas of proficiency still gives variety to characters if you have characters that have different backgrounds and especially if you have PCs roll their attributes. Our group loves it because players aren't blocked out of doing things because they don't have the correct skill. That streamlining actually helps my players just act like their characters without worrying what skills they have an don't have. It also makes turns go faster because they don't have to re-read their character sheets every time they are planning their actions.

People in our group are in awe of the rogue. Sneak attack and cunning action every turn is dramatic. That's another reason to play a rogue rather than another PC with the criminal background (and tool proficiency).

#17

DooHickey

Sep 14, 2014 17:19:36

Adding more skills is a mistake. It will only increase the divide between the haves and have-nots.

Also, it doesn't add to character distinction. The 3E skill system gave only the illusion of that.

Cheers

#18

teron82

Sep 14, 2014 18:45:55

DooHickey wrote:

(Reply to #12)

Shiroiken

Lanatir wrote:

#20

edwin_su

Sep 14, 2014 21:12:47

Timmee wrote:

#21

Kishri

Sep 14, 2014 21:25:21

This thread goes to illustrate the variety of tastes in games we gamers have. Many of the concerns the OP cited are reasons as to why I and many of my friends like 5e.

We love the reduced skill list and the absence of crafting.

We are just fine with the simplicity of the proficiency system.

While I can take them or leave them, many of my friends love the inclusion of the Dragonborn and Tieflings.

We like the idea that most skills can be used by everyone as it prevents the "oh no, so and so isn't here tonight to do <x skill> tonight!" Also, it is nice to be able to be acrobatic without having to be a specific class.

I think my preferences are colored by being a very long time gamer (started in 1976 with Basic D&D), and being utterly burned out from the overly complex and rule heavy 3e/Patherfinder systems which I have been running since 2001 (3e) & 2010 (PF).

To the OP, if they truly make 5e as modular and adaptable as they have advertised, you should have good remedies for your concerns coming swiftly-- as I am sure they will have crafting guidelines in the DMG. On another front, 5e seems a bit more adaptable in the house ruling area meaning you can add the content you desire more easily than in other systems.

#22

Arawn76

Sep 15, 2014 2:14:59

Atheosis wrote:

(Reply to #20)

Timmee

edwin_su wrote:

#24

Atheosis

Sep 15, 2014 7:19:56

Arawn76 wrote:

#25

iserith

Sep 15, 2014 7:33:57

Lanatir wrote:

(Reply to #5)

crimfan07

Lanatir wrote:

#27

Delazar78

Sep 15, 2014 8:10:43

regarding Crafting: aren't the crafting skills replaced by the tools proficiencies?

so, they went out of the door, but came back through the window, in a sense...

#28

Arawn76

Sep 15, 2014 10:43:11

Atheosis wrote:

(Reply to #25)

feartheminotaur

iserith wrote:

#30

iserith

Sep 15, 2014 11:12:03

feartheminotaur wrote:

(Reply to #29)

crimfan07

feartheminotaur wrote:

#32

Bennedict

Sep 15, 2014 12:03:22

Not sure what book your players are looking at but here ya go. There are 18 skills. There are also tool/kits that you can have training(proficiency) in, these are skills just governed by a kit instead. With the tools you have 10 tools/kits to gain proficiency, of which some have sub class tools that will each require their own proficiency bringing the total tool proficiencies to 39. This brings the total amount of skills to 57. Plus the Healer feat effectively makes you proficient in healer's kit in a sense. Granted a lot of them are crafting or musical instruments. There is crafting in the game, they just made it really simplified. I'm guessing in the DMG or a later magic splat book will have crafting rules & proficiencies for magic item crafting. I think this is more than enough skills.

(Reply to #27)

crimfan07

Delazar78 wrote:

#34

iserith

Sep 15, 2014 12:22:47

crimfan07 wrote:

(Reply to #33)

DooHickey

crimfan07 wrote:

#36

Captain_Kobold

Sep 15, 2014 12:52:22

iserith wrote:

#37

iserith

Sep 15, 2014 13:02:17

Captain_Kobold wrote:

(Reply to #34)

crimfan07

[quote]It's worth thinking about: What happens if the player fails that check? What did the player say that made discovering this information uncertain?[/quote]

Definitely. As a DM you can decide if this is a plot hook you want to drop some other way. So the failure condition might be that the PCs have to do something else, come up with a different plan, or just blow off the fickle elf queen entirely and look for help elsewhere. That would be OK in a more sandbox type game, but might not in other styles.

It sounds more like a game of making checks with boring failure conditions that go nowhere. I don't believe this is what it is intended in the game. We don't know what the player in this example is saying that is making his actions so uncertain, so I'm left to conclude the DM is just asking for too many rolls.

#39

awogaman

Sep 15, 2014 14:58:36

Lanatir wrote:

#40

DerelictDroid

Sep 15, 2014 15:50:03

OP I agree with your assessment of skills. The system is woefully inadequate, and downright illogical. I myself am in the process of devising a homebrew skill system that fits the mechanics of 5e. One of my players had suggested porting 3.5 into 5e, but that doesn't work because 3.5 skills scale very high. What I find ironic is that the rules define all these various tools and associated proficiencies (although lacking any description of what is in each tool set), but skills are paltry by comparison.

And then! Then when you read monster descriptions (or the races for that matter), skills are often narrowly defined. For example, Owls have perception bonuses to sight and hearing. But you can't define the same thing for players! lol. So why doesn't an Owl, for example, simply have a blanket bonus to perception like players do? That's a rhetorical question. I'll tell you why...to give each monster uniqueness and differentiate each one. But for some reason that same differentiation isn't allowed for players.

(Reply to #40)

feartheminotaur

DerelictDroid wrote:

#42

DerelictDroid

Sep 15, 2014 16:35:56

feartheminotaur wrote:

(Reply to #36)

crimfan07

Captain_Kobold wrote:

#44

teron82

Sep 15, 2014 17:01:05

DerelictDroid wrote:

(Reply to #37)

crimfan07

iserith wrote:

#46

iserith

Sep 15, 2014 18:26:00

DerelictDroid wrote:

#47

iserith

Sep 15, 2014 18:14:53

crimfan07 wrote:

(Reply to #47)

Kishri

iserith wrote:

(Reply to #42)

DooHickey

DerelictDroid wrote:

(Reply to #48)

crimfan07

Kishri wrote:

#51

Kishri

Sep 15, 2014 21:37:53

crimfan07 wrote:

#52

Ansbach

Sep 16, 2014 7:10:02

1.) There is absolutely nothing wrong with skill-based play and the concerns in the OP are legitimate for players who enjoy that style of RPG. Many popular RPGs are skill-based, including the Gold Ennie Best Game of the Year: Fate.

2.) 5E D&D is not a skill-based RPG and it's probably not a good idea to try to turn it into one to appease your players.

(Reply to #49)

crimfan07

DooHickey wrote:

(Reply to #51)

crimfan07

Kishri wrote:

(Reply to #53)

DooHickey

crimfan07 wrote:

(Reply to #54)

crimfan07

Having reasonable autosuccess rules are a good thing to provide how to decide "you can just do that" in a rational and consistent way, or to judge how long something takes. Take 10 was a very nice mechanic that was introduced in 3.5. This is much more likely to work given bounded accuracy because DCs are fixed so it's much easier to decide how to make things work. It would be useul tohave a table of tasks and who can do them routinely (i.e., when not under serious pressure or adverse circumstances).

(Reply to #40)

Arbitrary_Aardvark

I just loved it in 3rd edition where my bard had to buy two performance skills and two craft skills to be able to write his own music and lyrics, and play the lute and sing at the same time.

(Reply to #57)

onceMoreIntoBreech

Arbitrary_Aardvark wrote:

#59

Ansbach

Sep 17, 2014 15:23:01

onceMoreIntoBreech wrote: