Well, this is the edition to play. Dungeons & Dragons has gone through some vicissitudes over the last few years, but I think the 5th edition of the Player’s Handbook puts any edition controversy to bed.
The 3rd edition, its Open Game License, and its 3.5th revision were a golden age for the hobby, but the more tactical combat-oriented 4th edition turned a lot of folks off; and it all went down while Pathfinder, the unofficial 3.75th edition, was coming on strong.
We all remember the dark days of the Edition Wars; they never left some dark corners of the Internet, but 5e seems to be largely immune. I playtested it in early versions and have been playing it with folks from around the Tor offices since then… and now it’s bound and printed and finalized! It’s different enough from rivals to be its own thing, and it’s learned smart lessons from previous editions, combining AD&D 2e’s relative simplicity with 3e’s customization. There’s more of 4e in there then some people will want to admit, too: at-wills, short rests, hit dice, all the bonus actions, races and powers.
Let me get this out of the way up front, since I’ve written about diversity in Dungeons & Dragons before: It’s really wonderful to see this book showing a range of heroes. Not just purples and blues, but human diversity, in the races, classes, and the rest 0f the book. People with dark skin tones. Women. An explicit acceptance of non-binary gender and sexual orientation. Yes. This is what a book published in the 21st century should look like. No playable orcs as the default, sadly, but half-orcs, at least.
A friend of mine pointed out the Warlock class to me in 3e and said, “This is the class for you.” I’d written it off before, thinking the Invocations sloppy and the free eldritch blast over-powered. This was just on the cusp of that sea change, where we all realized that “hey, no, it isn’t over-powered, that’s basically what fighters have.” I playtested one on my friend’s advice and it was, in fact, my favorite. Come 4e and the addition of Pacts—but the loss of “inexhaustible magical power” as a defining trait, since every class had that now—and the Warlocks were my go-to class.
We all have that favorite class, and maybe it changes over time… but it’s always there, right? For me, that’s Warlocks (and Paladins), so that was the first class I flipped to. I’m incredibly happy with it; you can see the fingerprints of Aragorn on the Ranger, Barbarian has Conan, and now Warlocks show a clear line of descent from Moorcock’s Elric. Which isn’t to say playing an Elric pastiche is the only, or even the default, option; but come on, you can’t read about a Fiendish Pact of the Blade and not think of blood and souls for Lord Arioch…
One of the big tricks that 5e plays with classes is to provide “kit”-like specialization in each, and letting those sub-classes get… really diverse. By way of example: The Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight, which were once prestige classes that you needed to really work to qualify for, are now playable options for the Rogue and the Fighter right out of the box; and they’re very robust partial casters, too.
Some of the sub-classes are narrower in focus than others—one Shadow Monk is going to have powers pretty much identical to another Monk on the Way of Shadow, whereas two Battlemaster Fighters might know entirely different powers—but that’s okay! A new sub-type for any class could be published in any book. Come up with a variant Defiler sub-class for the Wizard in your Dark Sun setting book, or a Pirate kit for the Rogue in a nautical supplement, or new Paladin oath-type for a divine class-themed splatbook—they are hooks for further content.
Races are designed the same way, with some exceptions. You have half of your racial bonuses under “elf” or “dwarf,” but then the other half of your racial modifiers come from your subtype. Are you a “high elf” or a “wood elf,” a “hill dwarf” or a “mountain dwarf”? More potential for expanding the sub-races in later books for, say, campaign settings… sure makes me hope there is a robust open game license of some kind for this edition. Also, non-level-adjusted drow—thank you for that gift! I’m declaring drow no longer cliché and now just canon. It’s time for people to play more drow in non-stereotypical ways. Or stereotypical ways, if you want; spiders are my favorite animal, so playing up the whole spider elf motif has strong appeal.
Humans are the first obvious exception. I still remember cracking the 3e Player’s Handbook for the first time, looking at humans and then, I think, pumping my fist in the air triumphantly. I don’t usually play humans, but I found previous editions’ “Humans are neutral, other races get bonuses and neat powers” to be a bummer for them. Giving them big but generic racial rewards was a wonderful solution, and 5e continues it. +1 to every attribute? That’s a strong statement.
The other exceptions are mostly the non-standard races. It’s not a hard boundary, but elf comes before dragonborn. It ain’t alphabetical, exactly, which I like; it creates a “mainstream.” 5e tieflings—another bellweather for me, like warlocks—are choice. Planescape is where I first fell under their spell, but these are probably my favorite rules for them since then. The use of flexible spells to spice up the more magical races works nicely and, again, lends itself to homebrews and DM tweaks. Wanna replace hellish rebuke with armor of agathys or hex? Lemme know how it works. And thanks for putting in a text box that says dragonborn are the same things as draconians, with some variant rules. I like how it better connects your IP together.
My biggest complaint is one that cuts across pretty much every edition of the game: I don’t like balancing classes by creating individualized spell lists. Why not is pretty simple: Remember above when I was applauding the open-ended nature of the classes and races, because further publications can add to and deepen what already exists? Balancing a class by spell list is the opposite of that ethos, to me.
Hundreds—thousands?—of new spells will be written for this edition in forthcoming books, as well as many dozens of new classes. Now each new spell has to be evaluated for every class to see if it should be added ad hoc to their list, and stranger or partial casting classes are likely to fall through the cracks; anybody who played one of the less supported classes from a previous edition knows that pain. Maybe 5e will break that curse?
Photos by Mordicai Knode, art courtesy of Wizards of the Coast
Mordicai Knode has a great pitch for a drow fey pact warlock who is romantically entangle with the White Candle, the one Yochlol that didn’t Fall with Lolth. Find him on Tumblr or Twitter
I’ve come up with like 500 more character concepts I desperately want to play since I wrote this…
I loved how Monte Cook handled spell lists in Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved–like 3e weapon proficiencies. There were simple spells that all spellcasting classes had access to, then there were complex spells that the magister (the hardcore elite wizard-types) had access to, but all other spellcasters had to spend feats to learn (like Martial Weapons), and exotic spells, each of which needed a feat to learn (like Exotic Weapons). I wish more d20 derivatives looked into similar systems, instead of running hard in the opposite direction.
2. joeinformatico
You know, I own that book & I don’t think I’ve ever talked to anyone about it ever? Anyhow, I think that treating spells like weapons is smart, & vice versa; I’ve been arguing with the same friend I mention in the article about how to balance feats, spells & weapons; not just by “power” but by page count.
5e is…. wordy.
I rue the return of tracking spells known/prepared, especially as I started playing a war cleric (my party’s both tank and healer ^^;), and I missed the concise and quickly referenced format of 4E’s powers, and even 3.x’s spell format. 5e does away with the “Target”, and “Save” items in the format, for example, but hide the information inside the spell description.
Also, where 3.x said “1/day”, 5e says “until you finish a short or long rest”. Gone is the very handy “bloodied” condition, but you can still find the odd references to “below half the maximum hit points”.
As a player I find this annoying. As a freelancer for the RPG industry, I find it juicy… I get paid by the word :D
4. Al-X
I do mourn the loss of “bloodied,” that was a solid rule convention. I like the return of Vancian casting, because between the Warlock, Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer et all, there are a lot of different permutations. That’s a perk, to me; the “powers” of 4e meant every class played the same more or less, at that level of the mechanics. Variation is evocative to me.
I don’t like Vancian. It always seemed artificial, but at least 5e’s take is more about “stored magic energy” than “you forget the spell you just cast”.
I can detect a clear lineage to 5e’s spellcasting to two non-WotC products, tho’… the ability to cast any spell prepared as long as you have the slots is from the World of Warcraft d20 game from White Wolf’s ArtHaus imprint, even if it does take its cue from 3.x sorcerer spellcasting.
And scaleable spell effects depending on spell level slot used is from the aforementioned Monte Cook’s Unearthed Arcana. I love this idea, even if I’d loved even more that they also use the expert and exotic spells to further differentiate the wizard nerds from the bard dabblers.
I agree that spell lists are a bit clunky; the format also makes it harder to reference by omitting who can cast each spell from the spell’s description. Organizing by levels rather than alphabetically would’ve been nice too.
I have found it wanting. Customization is way down. Feats are an option, that can be takin in place of a class ability as long as you have the prereqs. Skills are wittled down to all or nothing in a given skill. Trying to dual class is next to imposible because 95% of the builds result in you getting punished for doing so. So much of what goes into building a character during the game and how the character evolves just isn’t there.
Then the gripe on attacks of opportunity. a character can literally run around you and never provoke an attack of oportunity. It happened to me at Gen Con. It was annoying beyond all belief.
I am sure there is more, but my group has looked experienced and decided to play pathfinder and Star Wars saga edition. 5e just doesn’t make the cut.
6. Al-X
I enjoy “full Vancian” where it is explicitly a spell burned into your memory, where that’s the system, but I know what you mean. I definitely don’t think it is for every situation! But other classes cast differently. Something like the Sorcerer or the Warlock might appeal to you? I don’t know, I liked Psions too, so maybe it’s a fundamental difference of opinion about underlying mechanical principals. I do want to reiterate that I enjoy a multitude of games, generic to specific in rule set. A rule set with genre conventions is okay by me.
I totally own that WoW book; a non-gaming friend of mine grabbed it from a library sale for me. I mined it for ideas for my old homebrew d20 system. & I own the Arcana Unearthed for the same reason, though I picked that up myself. & I really like the scaleable spells myself, that’s a change that’s going to stick around for good I think.
My spell list fix would be to only have arcane & divine, & then differentiate ad hoc, by class. Much like the eldritch knight has to focus on abjuration & the arcane trickster on illusion. Balance by spell level. I do see the appeal of the “simple” versus “martial” distinction for spells, I think it’s pretty cool to give the bard some oomph that way.
I prefer the spells to be alphabetical.
7. Kasiki
I know what you mean with customization, which I mentioned in the example of the Monk on the Way of the Shadow specifically. I have to say that to me the answer seems to be one that incentivizes book buying: the customization will be in all the new kits & types & perks & variants that come out in innumerable sourcebooks. I’m not ascribing a sinister motive to that: they are a publishing company, they want to sell books, this sounds like a great way to sell that. I’m glad about it; I like books, I want to buy books, this sounds like a great way to make books I want to buy.
The attack of opportunity situation is a great opportunity to just tape on an easy house rule. Not that I’m poo-pooing the critique; this is a discussion of the mechanics after all, so I won’t just dismiss the mechanics.
More what I mean is– I don’t mind the movement rules & attack of opportunity rules, but when I first heard them I was taken aback. You can break up your move? Without like, 20 feats? & you can move around?
Then I thought, “wait, that sounds kind of cool actually, more mobility on the battle mat allows for more strategic play, & I can totally imagine my blue-scarfed halfling rogue tumbling around an opponant to end up flanking him with the fighter.” So the attack of opportunity rules I like: they encourage you to engage, & they encourage you to move around, which is…fun.
Then I thought about breaking up moves, & I thought, eh, I like that less. It takes away some of the immediacy of the action. Breaks up the segments of a player’s turn in combat. I don’t know, it rubs me the wrong way. So hey, if I run a game, I’ll just tell everyone that’s my rule. Then I thought “no I am not that intense, I’ll just play it by the seat of my pants!”
I stand with Kasiki on the customization thing. Sure, they can come up with endless kits that can be tagged on to each class… but once a character chooses their kit (the cleric as early as level 1), the decision is final and cannot be changed. Existing characters will not be able to take advantage of new cool options in future publications.
It’s easy to houserule kit-switching since each kit’s benefits come at the same level, but the fun of feats is that they were modular and more frequent. You could customize your character on the go, even if some feats in 3.x required careful planning and progression. In that sense, 4E made a great model to be able to churn out feat after feat without worrying (too much) about power creep: have the feats be specific to certain combinations of race, class, and kit.
Now in 5e, you have to choose between gaining a feat and increasing your ability scores, and you only get to do it every 4 levels (slightly more frequent for fighters). Yes, feats are now incredibly stronger, but then if you multiclass, you delay the level at which you can choose them.
I MUST say that I’m liking how 5e plays, but I do miss the options that were tossed aside.
10. Al-X
I expect to see retraining in the DMG, personally, but I don’t disagree with your points. I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t believe in One True Rule Set. Yes, 5e is not very generic & is less modular than older editions, but as you say, it is fun to play. Fun as heck. So play Pathfinder when you feel like crunchy character building– there are enough archetypes & subclasses & everything for that to keep you busy forever— & play 5e when you want smooth play. Or whatever!
Also, I abhor feats in 4e. They were far, far, far too restriction intensive– “you must be an elf, a fighter & have a Dex & Strength over 15” is not very accessible– while giving such nickle & dime conditional bonuses. I’d rather have meaningful feats…but I personally think the classes have enough stuff going on, what with spells & powers, that I normally go for the stat bonus.
I’m playing a Bard in my Thursday game. We only just hit level 2; Level 1 felt paranoid and exceedingly cautious, since there are so few resources for pulling someone out of trouble. The spell indexing in the PHB is awful, which is kind of inexcusable given that almost every single class has access to spells!
Overall the main balancing approach appears to have been “Make weapons stronger, make magic less versatile.” I’m not very familiar with monsters, so it’s going to take some time to figure out whether it makes more sense to try to focus on spells like Sleep and Hold Person, or if enemy saving throws are going to be too high and if I would be better off casting buffing spells like Heroism and Faerie Fire.
So far I’m indifferent to the system. The game is good though, the DM is adapting some of the Master of Hule adventures in the same setting as our last 4e/Mystara campaign.
Also, 4e feats are not perfect–the early feats were definitely like that, with pointlessly high restrictions. Later in development they realized this problem, and generally eliminated those restrictions. A lot of those goofy early feats were essentially replaced by later, less restrictive iterations–which doesn’t help much with clutter sadly.
What no edition has done properly is sever the shared resources of combat and non-combat properties. Like, I shouldn’t have to give up combat effectiveness to learn new languages.
I only played 2e d&d ( Called AD&D back in the day) and the magic system always bugged us. What we did is we converted everything to magic points. You had x MPs at the start of the day and could use them as you see fit. 1st level cost 1MP, 2nd level cost 2MP and so forth.
Anyone else had a similar approach?
14. franksands
Well, that’s how psionics work. & yes, I used spell points in my homebrew d20, too. & played a psion to epic Planescape levels, so…I guess my bias is clear. In 5e, the wizard uses spell “slots”, delinated by level, & the warlock just has generic slots that are all cast at a high level. Suffice to say, there are some weird (& I say, fun) mechanics for different kinds of spellcasters. No spell point system yet that I’ve seen but I expect we will see one shortly. Though I think usually the spell point costs go up at a higher ratio: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17.
@@@@@ 14
IIRC, a variation of that magic system was used in a Forgotten Realms supplement, Netheril. Netheril was an ancient empire of magic in the FR setting, where wizards were more powerful than usual AD&D was accostumed to. They could use spells without having to memorize them earlier (as Jack Vancian wizards had to do), making them much more versatile, but they also only had one chance of learning a specific spell. If they failed the test, they could never learn that again. The system was used to show how Netheril arcanists were more powerful than current-age Forgotten Realm magic users.
One thing that interested me in that magic system was that it perfectly described what was used in the anime series Slayers, which I liked a lot at the time, so I used in my Slayers campaign.
IMHO, spell points is one of those ideas that are so common sense that appear simultaneously across the gaming community. I also used spell points and I never had any close exposure to the RPG industry by sheer isolation (living in Mexico, I only got my gaming materials once every one or two years when I visited El Paso, TX for Christmas shopping).
Considering 5e’s push towards simplicity, any official spell point system won’t have such exponential numbers; in fact, 5e already has a prototype spell point system in the elemental bender monks, who pay for particular spells with ki points.
And the 5e warlock is actually a 4e class in disguise :) Their spell slots renew with a short rest (encounter powers) and they have only a handful, and through the invocation feature they get access to dailies (“cannot cast again until long rest”), and utility powers (cast X spell at will without components).
@17 They are and they aren’t–as written, the 5e short rest sort of misses the point of the 4e short rest, which is that it was short. So short that it was assumed that you basically recovered all of your Encounter powers between battles; it would take five minutes just to loot the bodies and search the area. The default 5e short rest is 1 hour, which isn’t very short at all. Generally it feels to me that if you have an hour to sit around, your adventuring day is probably over already.
@@@@@ 14, 15 Found a fan-adaptation of the Netherese Arcanist class to 3rd edition (and 3.5). Look at the second post in this thread: http://dicefreaks.freeforums.org/repost-netherese-arcanist-base-and-prestige-classes-t236.html The arc cost is similar to the MP you’re talking about. And like Mordicai has suggested, it progresses by 2 (1st costs 1, 2nd costs 3, etc). A 20th level Netherese Arcanist has 343 arcs and each 9th sphere spell costs 17 arcs to cast. So he or she could cast 20 Meteor Swarm, in succession, and have spare magic fuel for one fireball. It’s an adaptation, of course, but I think I remember the AD&D 2nd edition version being as powerful as that. Man, how I miss those free pdfs WotC had made available just before 3rd edition was published. Some gems were there, like Winds of Netheril, that described that class and the history of the Empire of Magic.
@18 Oh, definitely. I see the 1-hour short rests as a capitulation to the anti-4E crowd who wanted their adventures hard and their characters deprived of resources because reasons.
Ultimately that’s the most irritating thing about 5e for me though; the design-by-committee approach. The short rest served a specific purpose in 4e; in 5e it doesn’t. I feel either you’re down with encounter powers, or you’re not; use them or don’t.
Instead the edition puts the burden on the DM to make this work, or not work. If the DM decides short rests are now 5 minutes, that makes some classes stronger. If they adhere strictly to the rules, then classes with Short-rest resets are probably going to have to dole out their powers just as sparingly as they would daily-reset powers.
As a player this doesn’t affect me much; the system is mostly unobtrusive. Character design, at least as of yet, is more fun than the nightmare that 3e became. I like the background system. Easier access to cantrips for more classes is nice.
17. Al-X
I agree that the Warlock is a 4e class in disguise…but only because all 4e classes were the 3e Warlock in disguise!
As to the overall discussion of the “short rest”…well, I know I said I don’t think going “oh well, house rules!” is a full answer, since we’re talking about the rules, so I don’t mean to throw this out as a red herring…but I ignore concrete units of time in RPGs, with the notable exception of a round or turn (whatever your game calls it).
So I tend to look at a power that says “minutes” & read “short scene” & a power that says “hours” & read “long scene or short arc.” It’s the World of Darkness storyteller in me. So when I saw “short rest” I didn’t even think to look at how long they defined it as. I think my players & I know when it is a “short rest.” Heck, I’ll ask them outright, “are you intending this to be a short rest?”
(Also, a pet peeve of mine is when people take the “turn is 6 seconds” & look at an epic battle in your campaign & go “oh that only took one minute!” Yeah, no, that was a huge epic battle. A “turn” is, to me, what your character can do in the frenzied action sequence while the virtual camera is focused on them.)