Just posted by R. A. Salvatore regarding the release of the new D&D product line with titles and dates.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...ct-Line-Release-Dates-and-Details-Update

Not sure if we will even bother. We just kind of wing it now, having played everything from the original paper books in the 1970s until 3.5. It is weird that they aren't releasing all three core books at the same time. Kind of hard to play it without all three.

Yeah, I prefer 3.5 and Pathfinder to what I saw with the 5e playtest. WotC have proven over the years to not be good with stuff outside their core focus.

Funny, of all the versions of the game, I disliked 3.5 the most.

Am excited about 5e. They are releasing a starter box (levels 1-5) first. Then the PHB at GenCon. The reason for the staggered release was to insure proper quality control. Given that they had umpteen erratas published for 4e, they've learned a lesson.

According to Mike Mearls, the project manager (via Twitter):




I'll know more after GenCon.

OK ... I now have a had a chance to run 5th (this week @ Gen Con). And I can tell you that ... unless you feel some need to start with high level characters, the 'starter set' has enough to get you started.

And to be honest, I think it is usually advantageous to start a new game system at the beginning ... first level characters and all. That will let you start out with very simple characters and monsters to run and you can 'grow' into the more complicated stuff as you get comfortable with the basics. Your first reading assignments were not Shakespeare and Kierkegaard, were they <wink>

Here is what I came away with. First and foremost, 5th edition is going back to its roots. They kept using the term 'theater of the mind' to reinforce the idea that it is about 'Role-playing' characters, the GM and players working together to creating a story ... as opposed to the direction it had been going often referred to 'roll-playing', where it was all about exploiting the rules to maximize advantages and minimize disadvantages.

Now having made that distinction, I have to say that I don't think that there is anything wrong with either approach. I like things about both. But I can understand why someone might like one approach to the game over the other.

From what I saw at GC, there was an =AMAZING= amount of interest and enthusiasm in the new concept. And I have to say that there were a =LOT= more 'brand new' players at GC for D&D this year than I can remember seeing ... well ever, I think. Many of these were people that had never played D&D before, but there were also people coming back that had not played since 2nd ed ... and some that had not played since 3 or 3.5. Most of the feedback I have heard was positive. There were some lamenting the loss of this or that feature from a previous game (mostly from 4th ed players I think). But even they admitted that they enjoyed the games they played.

Granted all of that is anecdotal, but one of the things I did this year was 'Marshal' one of the games, so I got to talk to a =lot= of these players, so I think I got a pretty representative sampling.

Overall it seems like there is a brighter future for D&D with 5th edition that it seemed like there was with 4th, which felt like it was ... imploding or exploding ... I am not sure which <g>

If you get a chance, give it a try.

run us a game mike!

We start a new campaign in my FTF group next week and we will be starting with the new rules, at least in part as we learn them

I tried that once, PP. It was a fiasco. While I am (reportedly) fun when I run F2F, I have not figured out how to run a game here <sigh>

Ken, If you are not sure if you will like it, the Starter Set ... which includes a subset of the PHB, a scenario and some other fun stuff that will give your group a chance to see if you like the direction D&D has gone ... and it is less than the cost of just the PHB ... which is, I have to say, pricier than in the past.

No, I will buy the PHB just to read it if nothing else. And it is our GMs decisions on what we use. Lately we haven't been using anything really, just a hodgepodge of old rules in our heads and winging it.

Oh, I wasn't trying to talk you out of it, just mentioning possible cost saving options <g> The PHB and the MM (I managed to get a pre-release copy <weg> ... gotta love the perks of working for 'them' <wink> ) =ARE= very well done.

It will be nice if they finally get an edition right (Dig at 3.5/4 users )

I loved 3.5. Still the one I use. Every time I hear someone say they like 2 better, I think they're just old and afraid of change.

Just got back as well, and played 5e all week. Have to say I like it a lot. As one of the designers (Mike Mearls) described to us in a previous discussion they tried to take the best features of all the editions and blend them together.

IMO it is closest to version 2 than any other.

As MikeD said, they are purposefully trying to correct the dramatic shift towards miniatures tactical play that required maps and calculators that was 4th ed (which was effectively WoTC trying to mesh D&D with Magic the Gathering).

They've returned to the "Role" playing core that they began with but added in enough different races, classes, and powers to give it a lot of variety. It is not the hodgepodge of dozens of books and sub-classes, (which often conflicted with each other) that was 3.5 nor is it so complicated that you need a software program to even create a pc as was 4th ed.

You can still play with miniatures and graph paper if you want, but my DM for the week ran "Theatre of the Mind" and we had no problems.

The biggest change is the rules are simple enough that you don't need to keep a dozen reference books (3.5) or a pc open to the on-line Rules Compendium (4.0) on the table. We had a single book (the PHB) and the DM had his module and we played for 3 days straight.

i'm old and I'm afraid of change! so what?! ppttthhhh!

But, i think i will buy me a copy of this edition, because they made an effort to get back to the heart of the concept!

Nope, it really wasn't. There are no similarities between the two, and any efforts to merge the brands has been rejected out of hand repeatedly in-house. WOTC is a company which likes adhering to buzzwords, and 'brand distinctiveness' is one of them. I'll see if I can dig up one former employee's account of that particular cursed hot potato.

I'll choose to disagree. Not from a business perspective, but from a "style of play" perspective. MTG was fabulously profitable for them and they wanted to reuse the formula.

4thed ed was effectively an attempt to turn D&D into a card game. You had powers (cards) you could play from your hand once per day or once per combat. They were even written much like many of the MTG cards I have seen. In fact the pc sheet that comes out of the 4th ed character builder displayed all the pcs abilities in nice tidy rectangular card shapes that could easily have been cut up with a scissor, laminated, and turned into a deck of cards a player could hold and play (sounds just like MTG doesn't it?).

Nope, it really doesn't. You might as well say 'Sounds like poker, doesn't it?' After all, there are kings, queens and knaves involved in mediaeval fantasy, and they're on _cards_ in Poker.

Believe me. I've played and GMed 4th Ed. I've played and made thousands of dollars talking about M:tG. I'm not arguing that some things from 4th Edition could be done as cut out cards, I'm arguing that it has nothing to do in terms of appearance, play style, usage, or anything else with M:tG. 'X is sold as packs of random cards, Y has the potential to use cut out cards, Company Z makes X and Y, X=Y' doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

We can disagree. I know in conversations with dozens and dozens (perhaps even hundreds) of D&D gamers at numerous Conventions and in my FTF games since 4th ed came out the prevailing belief among them is what I described.

To me it is more like saying one is Gin Rummy and the other is Poker. Not the same game, no. Different rules. But at the bottom a similar core structure.

Fair enough. I take it you've played both?

I have played D&D for decades, beginning first with the Chainmail paperbacks and subsequently every version since. I have played MtG only a handful of times, and observed games being played a few more than that, so my analysis of MtG is admittedly sketchy. I am not trying to say the in-depth details are similar, just the feel of D&D 4e was closer to MtG than any other version of D&D was.

I apologise if I have been overly assertive here, it's been one of those days. I agree that the feel of D&D4 was the furthest from D&D as we know it.

I've only had the chance to skim the PHB so far, but it's giving me a "back to its roots" feel.

Back in the days when I was playing a long-running D&D campaign is was mostly 2e, and it's all looking very familiar. It might end up playin differently, since they've tweaked a lot of the numbers.

AJ - no problem. Been one of those days for me too. Bit of a culture shock after immersing myself in gaming at Gencon the past 5 days and then coming back to a big, stinking, gut-heaving, pile of sh*t at w*rk this morning.

I'm back from GenCon having played with Zeim for 4 awesome days.

D&D 5e has the D&D "feel" that 4e didn't. I liked 4e but it didn't feel like D&D.

1) It's easy to make a PC in about 10-15 minutes with pencil and paper. No need for a computer to calculate your attack bonus with this power and that.

2) The power is back in the DM's hands. While many of the DM's did use tactical grids and mini's at GenCon, none of the ones we played with did. They used "theater of the mind" and it worked out great.

3) There's an emphasis on roleplaying again and I like that.

Just my quick take.

One of the most ironic things, I think, is that ... as Zeim pointed out, 5th doesn't need computers to run, but it is the first edition that has corporate support for a computer app. DungeonScape was 'play testing' an app for the iPad at the convention that ... even though it is still in beta, looks pretty cool.

I heard a lot of folk talking about "WotC merge of D&D and MtG", but I agree with AJ. Sure they came up with the cards as an interesting mechanic because they were familiar with cards, but I also think it was a very effective way to deal with the complication of the rules that had develop. I still use cards as a tool for combat and I think it helps a lot.

As to the argument that they 'worked' like MtG is more coincidence. In point of fact, the those 'powers' were =very= much like spells that casters had used in every edition =and= it was one of the things I liked best about 3.5 ... now every class had 'resources' to manage which made combat more than 'hack - hack - slash - slash' for no casting classes. I think AJ is right. Here is another ... maybe more apt ... analogy. I use cards to play Poker, I use cards to build a card stack wall ... that does not mean that those two 'games' are the same just because they use cards. Yeah, still not a perfect analogy <sigh>

But of course everyone likes what they like, sees what they see <wink>

Tim, I think you will find 5th to feel very much like 2nd, only easier. The biggest difference between 2nd and 5th is that they have simplified things. 2nd had a mechanic for everything. Thac0 to hit, saves and so on. In 5th everything is based on a single mechanic - the 'DC' or 'Difficulty Class' (well, =if= you imagine 'armor class' as the DC to hit someone). Almost everything else ... feats, class features, skills and so on ... involves granting 'Advantage' or 'Disadvantage' ... one of the most interesting 'rules' in 5th.

Hmmm, I think that Neptune has gotten to the crux of the matter! While the names may have been the same, it became a "women are from venus, men are from mars' sort of thing. 4th was the culmination of the focus on the idea of 'a rule for everything' so that no matter who is running a game, everything always works the same. That was ... at least to some extent ... driven by the 'shared campaign' that started with The Living City and progressing through the subsequent Living Campaigns where players, covetous of their characters, needed some consistency independent of who ran them through an adventure. 5th is getting back to story telling.

BTW Zeim, I just cannot relate to your 'problems' at all. Since I am retired, all I had to do today was relax and take a nap or two <heh heh heh>

Now, if I can find someone who will pay me a decent salary to do =that=, I'll be all set.

Just get to be an old fart like me and the gvt will pay you to stay home <chuckle>

Gencon does tire me out. I've taken 2 naps already today - and went to work

Had a bit of trouble getting up this morning. Having noisy next-door neighbors at the hotel all week didn't help.

Don't talk about Neptune like that!

My wife keeps saying that I'm tired because I'm not a teenager anymore.

Problem is that she's usually right

I wish to interject a comment about other editions and 4th. The intent as I see it behind 4th edition was to draw towards MMORPG play. With destinct roles in the party, striker, controller, tank, that kind of thing. That was the focus imho.

Well Mike you did your job. I am going to go see if I can buy the PHB now for 5th. Though I hope, when I go looking that I can buy it on PDF. As much as I love books, having them on PDF to read and reference is so nice. If I end up playing I would by a book for the table top as well. But for my own use electronic format all the way baaaaby.

pande,

The 'party balance' thing has =always= been an issue. It 'devolved' into the 'striker, tank, etc.' idea when there were so many classes that the intent of each class became blurred in terms of it's role in the party <g>

I have not heard anything about the availability of the core books in a pdt or similar format. I =suspect= that they will be using the DungeonScape app as the access point for that sort of thing, but I dont really know. It is just a guess <wink>

Yeah, Mike Mearls (the lead designer) had it as a pdf that he showed during a "Ready, Set, Play" session, but we peons have to work with hard copy.

I gave in and bought the real book. But I will buy the PDF when it is available. Bastiges!

I suppose we need to start a 5e game now, right? I can run the Mines of Phandelver (or whatever the mod in the starter set is called) just so we can learn the rules together. I'm thinking of doing it on a virtual tabletop though to speed things up.

Works for me.

I would love to play but not sure about compatible schedules etc...

You know I will play.

<< getting my Players Manual today, when I get off - status says delivered <snoopy dance of happiness>

I posted a do-you-want-to-play? in the Message Gaming Center.

Recruiting closed
That was quick

Heh very quick. Good to know.
Thanks

I've made an attempt at reviewing the PHB:

http://www.kalyr.com/weblog/sf-and-gaming/games/dungeons-and-dragons-5th-edition-players-handbook/

Well, we had our first game of 5E this weekend. The characters worked out fine but we all noticed that the spells are messed up big time.

You have first level spells doing 4d8 damage. Now, if you are a group that just does dungeon delving and fighting monsters, that is fine but most of the time we are fight other humanoids with access to the same spells we have. One 1st level wizard can easily kill or take us down in one round unless you roll very badly.

We are already altering spells, changing the cantrips that are 2d8 damage down to 1d6 or 1d8 at most. As our GM says, if you can use them so can the enemy and we are going to be going through characters at an alarming rate.

More comments as we get more into it.

Not at home w/access to my PHB. Which spell does 4d8 at 1st level?

Ken - OK, the enemy Wizard does 4d8 (average of 18 point of damage, presuming the pc doesn't save). The fighter (with 12 hp) drops below zero and falls. The Cleric runs over and casts a Cure Wounds spell and he is back up and fighting. None of the damage beyond taking the pc to zero counts. All healing automatically begins with the pc at zero, so even if they were technically at -6, a 6 point Cure spell puts them back to 6 hps.

Presumably the enemy Wiz can only do that once, or maybe twice in the entire encounter?

I've played through 3rd level at Gencon. Nobody at our table died.

I just read through every 1st level spell in the PHB and none do 4d8 damage. Maybe I missed it? The worst damage I saw was inflict wounds which does 3d10 damage. But the mage has to hit the target with a melee attack.

If you're changing rules in your first session then I would argue that you didn't give the system a chance.

The spell I was thinking about was Witch Bolt which does 1d12 and an additional 1d12 per round for up to one minute by concentration.

If I am the enemy, I am targeting the cleric or more likely the wizard with my spell. Average first level wizard is going to have what, 6 to 9 hit points with a con of between 10 and 15, give or take?

Cantrips like firebolt doing 1d10 or Poison Spray doing 1d12 with save and Ray of Frost doing 1d8 plus slowing 10 feet. And you can keep doing that over and over unlimited.

It just seems like a pretty quantum leap forward in lethality compared to past spells in 2nd and 3rd editions for low level wizards/sorc.

Like I said, I think part of it is that we spend most of our time fighting against other humanoids with wizards and clerics and our GM has a disturbing ability to roll high. I swear we need to take her to Vegas one day

I have Witch Bolt on my pc, Ken. Actually it does 2d12 in the first round and 1d12 after that. However, you never get the second round or subsequent ones because all the enemy has to do is move more than 30 feet away from you and the spell ends. I used it several times during Gencon and on the enemy's turn they simply moved away and the spell stopped.

I believe part of the reason for the upgraded spells (especially cantrips) is that that is supposed to be the same as the fighter swinging his greataxe. The fighter can do that every round, every combat. Previously the spellcasters, at low levels, could cast their spell once or twice and then they couldn't do anything except attack with a little dagger. The cantrips give the spellcasters a 1d10 or 1d8 attack they can use every round, just like a fighter.

Also, most of those spells you need to make a ranged attack roll (so only ~50% chance for it to hit) and then for many the target gets a save (so now another ~50%+ chance to save), so the odds of hitting AND doing full damage are only around 10-25%.

Well keep in mind that this is a new game and we are all still getting used to it <g>

First, the way that adventures are 'scaled' is =way= different than it was in the previous versions. You calculate your party strength and compare it to a table that tells you that the party is somewhere between 'very weak' and 'very strong'. The mod then tells you how to scale the encounters based on that rating.

Second, there is a whole lot of text in the beginning of the mod that empowers/encourages the GM to 'make changes' as needed to keep the game fun for the players.

Third, I suspect that, in this case, the GM may have misread the stats for the monster in the same way I did at first. The way they show damage in the stat block is something like: 4(1d8-1). That doesn't mean 4d8 - 4. It means that the 1d8-1 damage for the weapon does 4 points of damage. It confused me until I looked a little deeper at the numbers.

Hope that helps.

Yes, it is that way in the Monster Manual as well. All enemy damage is a specific number of points (typically average damage) and the number of dice is listed for reference. I suppose you can roll if you like, as DM, or you can take the specified number.

They are trying to get their stuff in line with what other game companies have done to speed up play. It is a good thing unless you are one who loves to count all those little pips.

Hey pande, that is one of the things that the one of the folks from DungeonScape talked about when we were talking about the DM side of their app ... the 'satisfaction' of rolling dice and letting them decide <g> So they certainly have you in mind <wink> And while I enjoy rolling ... and have =LOTS= of sets of dice to prove it, there are times when ... in an effort to keep the game going, the GM needs to do what (s)he can.

For example, when I am running at a con, I have initiative rolled for all the monsters ahead of time. I also take the time after a combat, while the players are healing up and the like, to have them roll init for the next combat ... big time savings ... especially when you have a limited time at a convention <g> So while I like rolling dice, having an app that will deal with that when I have a dozen monsters to run, will be a good thing in terms of keeping the game moving forward <g>

Oh as an avid collector of dice I too love the old world of rolling. I dislike the average outcome. But as you say there are times when it just speeds up play.

I still fondly remember the "all available dice blue bolt" when the gods exacted retribution for a slight. It was a lot of dice to roll and never did a PC survive, but it was entertaining.

I use similar elements both in convention play and in ftf games. I am one that loves to have the dice in my hand even when they don't come up the way I wish.

Impatient NYer that I am, one of my pet peeves are players that can't figure out what dice to roll when it's their turn....

"...um...let's see, I'm plus one for using a longbow because I'm an elf...does that goblin have cover? ... and I'm using +1 arrows... and I've got a dex of 15 which gives me plus two...And what damage does an arrow do?"

Just roll that damned d20 first! Then do the math. If you roll a 5 or less, odds are you miss. If you roll a 15 or more, odds are you hit.

And know who you follow in the initiative order. Have all your dice in your hands. Roll both attack AND damage at the same time.

Yes. I like my dice too. I'm so proud of myself - I didn't buy any dice at Gencon this year!

Thanks for the review Tim, interesting read!

Actually Nep, I have always encouraged them to roll both at the same time. For one thing, after a bit of play, I can usually tell if they hit or not before that type can get their fingers out and counting <g>

Anyone else agree with me about the halflings?

Tim, If you mean this line from your blog...



It's not the iconic graphic of Frodo sitting on a bench outside his hobbit-hole smoking an elaborate Meerschaum pipe. It's a female bard. I haven't really focused that much on the art, but I wish we could see her furry feet! What self-respecting halfling is traipsing around in knee-high boots?

Solid review, by the way.

By the way, the first mistake I found in the PHB:

I think this is clearly an easy fix but the half-elf, a cross between an elf and a human, has no DEX attribute bonus. The elf has a +2 bonus and the human has a +1 bonus. One would think that the half-elf should have the average of the two.

Also, all the non-human races have a +2 in one stat and then a +1 in another attribute - except for the half-elf which only has a CHA +2. I think they should be getting a DEX +1.

That sounds reasonable, Nep. You should send that to WotC.

I just followed up in the forum and learned that I was wrong.

Half elves get to choose 2 stats to bump up by one in addition to CHA+2.

I was working off of the "Ability Score Summary" chart on page 12 and it does not note it there.

Correct, Nep. Half elf has better bumps than all other non-humans.

Tim - I agree about the halfling art. I thought that as well as soon as I saw it. Overall, though, the art is extremely well done.

D&D halflings are always difficult to portray in art imo. They've been trying to find a unique identity for them for decades. Maybe some degree of charicature is a good thing? I certainly gave Warhammer dwarves a unique and recognisable look, even if it is ridiculous (how do those guys even walk?).

Does 5th Edition have gnomes?

Yes.

Yes it does. There are various types of gnomes too. When I get home I'll look it up and tell you. One type leans towards magic and the other towards being a tinkerer.

OK. There's the Forest Gnome and the Rock Gnome available for PC's. The forest gnome traits are an extra dex bump, "Natural Illusionist" and "Speak with Small Beasts". The rock gnome gets a bump in con,
"Artificer's Lore" and "Tinker".

Now forest gnomes I like. I get those. The other gnomes I've always found a bit lacking in identity. I mean, short folk with beard, tinkering with inventions in a cave--- that's a dwarf to me.

And the traits they have are inconsequential in the game. I think they dropped the ball a bit on that one.

Actually, that sounds more like a gnome to me ... but hey ... all those short folk look the same to me <chuckle>

There was a Nodwick strip about the differences between them:

Page 1 Page 2

Don't want no short people 'round here.

one of my favorite songs of his

I guess that sums up my point--- to me, dwarfs and gnomes are the same thing. Argus's link makes a good point.

But we see that sort of 'lack of differentiation' all the time in the real world too, don't we? Here is an interesting analogy. How many of us here can listen to an Asian speaker and know if they are Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai or something else? I know that I cannot. Hecj, I have noticed that I even have a lot more trouble 'recognizing' the different protagonists in a lot of the Asian movies I have been watching of late (thank you NetFlix <g> ) ... while I seldom have that problem while watching movies with folk from the western hemisphere.

So, for me, it seems like a bit of 'real world normalcy' that you can bring into a fantasy world. "All those short folks look alike to me" can add to the interaction between players as well as between players and the NPCs <g> (just so long as it isn't over done <wink> )

Well, I usually can, but I'm a linguist...

That is one hand raised <weg>

I can definitely tell the difference between those, Mike. Even Gujurati and Punjabi.

Though I'd struggle with Cantonese vs Mandarin, or Punjabi/Gujurati vs Hindi, unless they were spoken with very distict accents like you get with Hong Kongers.

But having said all that, none of these examples are different species, unlike halflings, gnomes and dwarfs. Maybe D&D dwarfs don't do the tinkering and inventions any more? They did in Basic D&D. (Still do in Warhammer.)

Yeah, D&D dwarves are miners now almost exclusively. Smiths too, but not tinkers. That's now gnomes. I believe that change began with the Dragonlance setting and books and has been taken on as standard across the board.

While dwarves are not =traditionally= tinkerers now, you certainly =could= make one that is. You would just have to work at it a bit harder than you would to follow 'what is normal' <g>

It seems like the goal with this version is to ... 'nudge' the races into specific directions. I have not decided yet if I particularly like that idea, but I =do= understand it to some extent. Someone that was born and raised on Manhattan is a lot less likely to become a farmer than someone born and raised on a farm in South Dakota ... if you see what I mean. I think it also offers some 'role playing' opportunities when someone 'goes against' that norm.

I agree with you Mike about professions based on a particular setting. I doubt that dwarves, gnomes and elves in an Athas or Ebberon setting will be the same as the ones in the Forgotten Realms. When other settings come out it's likely that new backgrounds and traits will be presented.

Good point Nep. Looking forward to seeing how things evolve <g>

I think there was a 4e Dragon article that officially introduced tinker gnomes to Forgotten Realms. Tinkering as a cornerstone of a civilisation works better for me than illusion.

D&D 5e Review

Good review!