Switch to full style
TLG d20, Necromancer Games and general. Discuss any game not covered in another forum.
Post a reply

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:40 pm

RE those spell cards... I don't care about not getting them back in the box - I care about the fact that the first printing was missing whether or not the spells required concentration or not. Concentration is a BIG deal for casters in 5e and not including that was a major mistake. Also, a couple of decks were missing spells (e.g. mislead was not included in the box).

Gale Force 9 has now done a second printing of the cards which include the missing spells and a small c on spells which require concentration. They have also said that the cards went to print before they had the absolute final versions of the spells, which is why concentration was left off (I'm not sure I buy that - how long does it take to print these cards? They sure did get a second printing out quick - I think this was a true f*&k up and they just thought concentration wasn't important when they did the first printing).

Anyway - I already bought all of the cards and I doubt they will replace my crappy first printing. I'm not super upset, but consider this a major gaffe. I need to take a permanent marker and write a C on the appropriate cards now which irks the hell out of me. I may as well not sleeve them because I already have to deface them with a sharpie, so who cares how beat up they get?

I won't be buying something from GF9 right away again - I'll wait until I see reviews and comments next time. Lesson learned!

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:58 pm

DMSamuel wrote:
I won't be buying something from GF9 right away again - I'll wait until I see reviews and comments next time. Lesson learned!


I've been getting that way with pretty much everyone over the last couple of years. Tired of buying heavily errated or even "Revised" rule books, especially for RPG's my whole family plays, such as C&C. So, as one example, I will not buy another printing of a C&C PHB or M&T until it has been an entire year since it was printed, and no errata has been found. Realistically, I think that means I won't buy a C&C PHB or M&T ever again. :lol:

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:35 pm

Treebore wrote: Realistically, I think that means I won't buy a C&C PHB or M&T ever again. :lol:


Or, any RPG for that matter. In almost 40 years I've never seen a single one that did need errata and/or corrections.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Tue Jan 20, 2015 3:02 pm

Treebore wrote:
I've been getting that way with pretty much everyone over the last couple of years. Tired of buying heavily errated or even "Revised" rule books, especially for RPG's my whole family plays, such as C&C. So, as one example, I will not buy another printing of a C&C PHB or M&T until it has been an entire year since it was printed, and no errata has been found. Realistically, I think that means I won't buy a C&C PHB or M&T ever again. :lol:


Is this one of those jokes that has a bit of truth to it? ;)

I've been recently disappointed with some of the books/products I've bought that follow up with a revised version as well. These darn spell cards, The One Ring, and yes C&C. I really look forward to a time when I can go 3-5 years without a new printing staring me in the face! :) I really want the Trolls to focus in a different direction; something new for C&C (an oriental book/setting, a grim-and-gritty setting, a "psionics" sourcebook, or sourcebooks on specific races of creatures: giants, dragons, fey, undead, etc). I understand we need new printings of things from time to time, but I've really enjoyed some of the newer products that have taken C&C in a different direction, like the "Codex" series, Rune Lore, and the Tome o/t Unclean specifically. They were facets of the game previously lacking.

But these are my hapless ramblings...pay them no mind. ;)

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:42 am

Treebore wrote:I have no problems with Clerics being "heal bots", its what they were created for in the first place.

Boy, I couldn't disagree with this enough.

When we first played AD&D back in 83, my dad played a Cleric. He is (was) a minister in real life and he played the hell out of a cleric. He was our moral compass, our touchstone. His reason for being an adventurer was spreading the word of his god. I barely remember him healing us. Clerics were never meant to be the 'heal-bots'.

On to 5Ed...

I played once with a group a few months ago. The game was cool, but the other players were not to my liking and I soured on the game. Flash forward to a few weeks ago. One of my online players read about it and wanted to DM a game. I got the PHB and started reading it and made up a char (Warlock) and delved into it. And I like it. It's the best D&D since 1Ed. C&C will still be my game, solely because it focuses on playing and lets the rules eke in when they have to. But one thing this discussion seems to be overlooking is C&C and D&D 5Ed are different games. Sometimes you want to play Arkham Horror, sometimes you want to play Battlestar Galactica. Comparing them is fruitless, aside from dice are involved. I really like some of the 5Ed stuff.

If you read my article in the last Crusader mag, you'll recall my take on HP. In short, a lvl 1 Fighter can be killed by a single sword blow from a goblin because he is green and doesn't know combat. The same exact blow from a goblin on a lvl 10 fighter (and does the same exact 8hp of damage) is turned aside or parried or is absorbed by a more hearty area. Say a fighter had 100hp. He is hit by a goblin for 5. He quickly dispatches the goblin, but all his gear was stolen and the cleric was killed. So he walks around for days with 95hp? Even though that 5hp damage was essentially parried? I have *always* had a problem with the way hp worked. And 5Ed clears it up. Sit down, have a smoke and a drink of wine. Catch your breath and your feeling better. Sleep all night, uninterrupted, and you are almost good as new. It takes the burden off Clerics.

I like a little crunch to my games sometimes. 5Ed has it. I like a role-playing game to have strong elements of role-playing. 5Ed puts that in the damn PHB, no other edition has done that. Using the backgrounds, with the goals and ideals and flaws, makes a 1st level human fighter different from another 1st level human fighter. Pointedly different. One has a soldier background, with skills and supplies associated with it, and the other has an acolyte background, with skills and supplies more in line with religion (for instance). Spell slots is a good combination of Vancian magic (restrictive) and mana systems (too free form).

I like it.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:18 am

AGNKim wrote: So he walks around for days with 95hp? Even though that 5hp damage was essentially parried?


Who said it was parried? Anyway, 1st ed & C&C use the same HP paradigm. This was VERY clearly defined by EGG in the section on Hit Points & Divine intervention. 5E uses a HP paradigm from video gaming. Extremely difficult to kill characters who are "Boss" killers.

Different audiences.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:25 am

[quote="AGNKim]
On to 5Ed...
... I have *always* had a problem with the way hp worked. And 5Ed clears it up. Sit down, have a smoke and a drink of wine. Catch your breath and your feeling better. Sleep all night, uninterrupted, and you are almost good as new. It takes the burden off Clerics.

I like a little crunch to my games sometimes. 5Ed has it. I like a role-playing game to have strong elements of role-playing. 5Ed puts that in the damn PHB, no other edition has done that. Using the backgrounds, with the goals and ideals and flaws, makes a 1st level human fighter different from another 1st level human fighter. Pointedly different. One has a soldier background, with skills and supplies associated with it, and the other has an acolyte background, with skills and supplies more in line with religion (for instance). Spell slots is a good combination of Vancian magic (restrictive) and mana systems (too free form).

I like it.[/quote]

This and that!

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Jan 21, 2015 7:12 am

AGNKim wrote:
If you read my article in the last Crusader mag, you'll recall my take on HP. In short, a lvl 1 Fighter can be killed by a single sword blow from a goblin because he is green and doesn't know combat. The same exact blow from a goblin on a lvl 10 fighter (and does the same exact 8hp of damage) is turned aside or parried or is absorbed by a more hearty area. Say a fighter had 100hp. He is hit by a goblin for 5. He quickly dispatches the goblin, but all his gear was stolen and the cleric was killed. So he walks around for days with 95hp? Even though that 5hp damage was essentially parried? I have *always* had a problem with the way hp worked. And 5Ed clears it up. Sit down, have a smoke and a drink of wine. Catch your breath and your feeling better. Sleep all night, uninterrupted, and you are almost good as new. It takes the burden off Clerics.



In game-ist terms, especially as D&D transitioned to 3e, Treebore is right that the idea of oodles of clerical healing is kind of baked into the game

However, I think D&D took a wrong turn with that model, as you state. In fact it seems like D&D is often schizophrenically straddling both the hp is stamina/luck model and the hp as actual viscera requiring clerical repair.

My recollection is in 1e Gygax had some quote somewhere that promoted the luck/stamina model but many many pages of electronic ink have been spilled in the hit point wars online.

I think the rule in C&C is that you regain 1 hp per day of rest. Seems kind of low for a 100 hp fighter who lost 5 hp of luck and stamina. But the good news is, after 30 days of continuous rest the rate triples to 3 (plus CON bonus). That makes absolutely no sense on the luck/ stamina model. As you state, luck/stamina/even muscle endurance should reset over the course of hours, not months

But we are told hp is all an abstraction so best not to think such troubling thoughts.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:28 am

Arduin wrote:
AGNKim wrote: So he walks around for days with 95hp? Even though that 5hp damage was essentially parried?


Who said it was parried?

I just did. Like 5-6 sentences above. Jeesh, first day with the new eyes?

:D

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:31 am

Aramis wrote:
AGNKim wrote:
If you read my article in the last Crusader mag, you'll recall my take on HP. In short, a lvl 1 Fighter can be killed by a single sword blow from a goblin because he is green and doesn't know combat. The same exact blow from a goblin on a lvl 10 fighter (and does the same exact 8hp of damage) is turned aside or parried or is absorbed by a more hearty area. Say a fighter had 100hp. He is hit by a goblin for 5. He quickly dispatches the goblin, but all his gear was stolen and the cleric was killed. So he walks around for days with 95hp? Even though that 5hp damage was essentially parried? I have *always* had a problem with the way hp worked. And 5Ed clears it up. Sit down, have a smoke and a drink of wine. Catch your breath and your feeling better. Sleep all night, uninterrupted, and you are almost good as new. It takes the burden off Clerics.



In game-ist terms, especially as D&D transitioned to 3e, Treebore is right that the idea of oodles of clerical healing is kind of baked into the game



Well there's your problem.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:09 pm

Aramis wrote:I think the rule in C&C is that you regain 1 hp per day of rest. Seems kind of low for a 100 hp fighter who lost 5 hp of luck and stamina. But the good news is, after 30 days of continuous rest the rate triples to 3 (plus CON bonus). That makes absolutely no sense on the luck/ stamina model. As you state, luck/stamina/even muscle endurance should reset over the course of hours, not months

But we are told hp is all an abstraction so best not to think such troubling thoughts.

I house-ruled around that issue by saying PCs recover 1 hit point per level per day of rest. Thus, a 10th level fighter will recover 10 hit points per day while resting. The standard rule from 1E and C&C never made any sense to me.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:06 pm

This has always been one of my sticking points. Depending on which side you view it from, there's an issue. I am in the camp of "HPs are an abstraction and represents a number of different things, not just health," but in doing so you have to make certain concessions, I feel.

I'm on the fence about 5e's handling of HP recovery. It is definitely one answer to years of debate, though. My problem comes from the miraculous recover of everything - all HP - in one night of rest. I think that's a bit much. While I agree that some of HP's representation should be luck and stamina, I don't feel all of it is or should be. Some should be wounds. But the DMG has variant rules for that. I'm considering a house rule that will lower a character's hit point maximum if critically hit, until complete day's rest.

The "HP and what it means" debate will continue. I like 5e and I'm coming around to the idea of HPs and how the recovery is handled. I don't think I've ever "loved" any level-based edition's methods of handling health/HP recovery (GURPS is one game I like how it's all handled - health, damage, recovery) but 5e handles it pretty well (or not horribly) and, in a weird way, kind of treats HP like I've come to view it in recent times: everyone really only have 1 hp. Everything else is the luck/stamina. :)

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:22 pm

AGNKim wrote:I just did. Like 5-6 sentences above. sheesh, first day with the new eyes?

:D


There's the problem. It is a rule you made up and not built into the game. So not surprisingly, it doesn't make sense within the framework of the rules... Sheesh, first day with new logic circuits? :)

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:29 pm

Aramis wrote: My recollection is in 1e Gygax had some quote somewhere that promoted the luck/stamina model but many many pages of electronic ink have been spilled in the hit point wars online.


No need to fight over it when one can read what he said... I can see NOT agreeing with it but, it says what it says.

"This is not to dictate that deities will never come to characters. Serving
some deity is an integral part of ADBD. ... Otherwise, the accumulation of hit points and the ever-greater abilities and better saving throws of characters represents the aid supplied by supernatural forces."

Too simple to argue about. Might as well argue about what 2+2 equals.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:39 pm

Arduin wrote:
AGNKim wrote:I just did. Like 5-6 sentences above. sheesh, first day with the new eyes?

:D


There's the problem. It is a rule you made up and not built into the game. So not surprisingly, it doesn't make sense within the framework of the rules... Sheesh, first day with new logic circuits? :)

I was showing what I thought was an inherent flaw with the rules.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:47 pm

AGNKim wrote:
Arduin wrote:
AGNKim wrote:I just did. Like 5-6 sentences above. sheesh, first day with the new eyes?

:D


There's the problem. It is a rule you made up and not built into the game. So not surprisingly, it doesn't make sense within the framework of the rules... Sheesh, first day with new logic circuits? :)

I was showing what I thought was an inherent flaw with the rules.


That's made difficult by using a house rule as a yard stick. Which was the logic point. ;) FRPG rules are internally logical, if at all. Not externally (why comparing with a house rule doesn't work well.)

Based on the original HP paradigm (see 1st Ed DMG) there is no flaw as you propose. One can decide to NOT use the rules as to the source of HP (deities) for PC's and thus, they will create a "flaw in the rules" that will then need "correction". But, it is an artificially created flaw by the GM.

If one drops the original rules as to WHY HP & saving throw level progression, it is all but impossible to have a system that is logical while retaining the HP & saving throw progression as written.

If your 10th level fighter steps on a bomb that does 10D6 of damage (disintegrating the horse he's leading) but not really seriously damaging the fighter, that isn't parrying, strength, fortitude or any other physical ability coming FROM the PC. It is supernatural gifts. The HP will come back at a rate defined by those supernatural forces. There is no making "sense" of it outside of that game rule.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:47 pm

AGNKim wrote:
Aramis wrote:
AGNKim wrote:
If you read my article in the last Crusader mag, you'll recall my take on HP. In short, a lvl 1 Fighter can be killed by a single sword blow from a goblin because he is green and doesn't know combat. The same exact blow from a goblin on a lvl 10 fighter (and does the same exact 8hp of damage) is turned aside or parried or is absorbed by a more hearty area. Say a fighter had 100hp. He is hit by a goblin for 5. He quickly dispatches the goblin, but all his gear was stolen and the cleric was killed. So he walks around for days with 95hp? Even though that 5hp damage was essentially parried? I have *always* had a problem with the way hp worked. And 5Ed clears it up. Sit down, have a smoke and a drink of wine. Catch your breath and your feeling better. Sleep all night, uninterrupted, and you are almost good as new. It takes the burden off Clerics.



In game-ist terms, especially as D&D transitioned to 3e, Treebore is right that the idea of oodles of clerical healing is kind of baked into the game



Well there's your problem.


Nope, its been in D&D since at least 1E, as proven by many runs through the official modules, none of which would have been survived without the Clerics healing ability. None of which would be survived today without lots of ample healing. So if they don't want healing to be a factor, they need to change the whole HP paradigm. In my house rules, I have, at least as far as natural healing goes. So in most cases, if a character needs to heal naturally, they should be fully recovered in a few days. 100 HP characters may take as long as 20 days. As for the game itself, I run it as intended, lots of monsters, doing lots of damage, requiring lots of healing in order to stay up and fighting. But hey, if you run it to where your players can survive without much Clerical healing, share your secrets, maybe I'll add it to my house rules.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:29 pm

Treebore wrote:
AGNKim wrote:
Aramis wrote:
AGNKim wrote:
If you read my article in the last Crusader mag, you'll recall my take on HP. In short, a lvl 1 Fighter can be killed by a single sword blow from a goblin because he is green and doesn't know combat. The same exact blow from a goblin on a lvl 10 fighter (and does the same exact 8hp of damage) is turned aside or parried or is absorbed by a more hearty area. Say a fighter had 100hp. He is hit by a goblin for 5. He quickly dispatches the goblin, but all his gear was stolen and the cleric was killed. So he walks around for days with 95hp? Even though that 5hp damage was essentially parried? I have *always* had a problem with the way hp worked. And 5Ed clears it up. Sit down, have a smoke and a drink of wine. Catch your breath and your feeling better. Sleep all night, uninterrupted, and you are almost good as new. It takes the burden off Clerics.



In game-ist terms, especially as D&D transitioned to 3e, Treebore is right that the idea of oodles of clerical healing is kind of baked into the game



Well there's your problem.


Nope, its been in D&D since at least 1E, as proven by many runs through the official modules, none of which would have been survived without the Clerics healing ability. None of which would be survived today without lots of ample healing. So if they don't want healing to be a factor, they need to change the whole HP paradigm. In my house rules, I have, at least as far as natural healing goes. So in most cases, if a character needs to heal naturally, they should be fully recovered in a few days. 100 HP characters may take as long as 20 days. As for the game itself, I run it as intended, lots of monsters, doing lots of damage, requiring lots of healing in order to stay up and fighting. But hey, if you run it to where your players can survive without much Clerical healing, share your secrets, maybe I'll add it to my house rules.

Image

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:24 am

AGNKim wrote:
Treebore wrote:
AGNKim wrote:
Aramis wrote:
AGNKim wrote:
If you read my article in the last Crusader mag, you'll recall my take on HP. In short, a lvl 1 Fighter can be killed by a single sword blow from a goblin because he is green and doesn't know combat. The same exact blow from a goblin on a lvl 10 fighter (and does the same exact 8hp of damage) is turned aside or parried or is absorbed by a more hearty area. Say a fighter had 100hp. He is hit by a goblin for 5. He quickly dispatches the goblin, but all his gear was stolen and the cleric was killed. So he walks around for days with 95hp? Even though that 5hp damage was essentially parried? I have *always* had a problem with the way hp worked. And 5Ed clears it up. Sit down, have a smoke and a drink of wine. Catch your breath and your feeling better. Sleep all night, uninterrupted, and you are almost good as new. It takes the burden off Clerics.



In game-ist terms, especially as D&D transitioned to 3e, Treebore is right that the idea of oodles of clerical healing is kind of baked into the game



Well there's your problem.


Nope, its been in D&D since at least 1E, as proven by many runs through the official modules, none of which would have been survived without the Clerics healing ability. None of which would be survived today without lots of ample healing. So if they don't want healing to be a factor, they need to change the whole HP paradigm. In my house rules, I have, at least as far as natural healing goes. So in most cases, if a character needs to heal naturally, they should be fully recovered in a few days. 100 HP characters may take as long as 20 days. As for the game itself, I run it as intended, lots of monsters, doing lots of damage, requiring lots of healing in order to stay up and fighting. But hey, if you run it to where your players can survive without much Clerical healing, share your secrets, maybe I'll add it to my house rules.

Image



:lol: Well, feel free to share your insights, because your experience with clerics has been VERY different from my and pretty much everyone's I have ever played with experiences. So while humor is good for a laugh, giving us ways to address the "Clerics as a band aid dispenser" will make for better gaming.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Sun Apr 12, 2015 5:18 pm

I've played in 2 5E sessions so far. The first was at Gary Con this year and it was awful. I mostly blamed the DM, but my opinion of 5E dropped a bit. Then, I played with a good DM yesterday and was shocked at how much I liked the system. One of my players has been poking me to switch to 5E so we can get more players. Most of my players show up irregularly and we could really use 2-3 more people who show for every or almost every session. I was dead set against that until yesterday. I feel so dirty thinking about making the switch.

Pros:

• While 5E has more rules than an OSR game, they are generally really clear. Like, I always rolled my eyes at people bitching about how vague the rules are in OSR games (it's easy to fill in the blanks on the fly, the vagueness actually empowers the GM, etc.), but I have to admit the clarity was really, really nice. In a bloat-fest like 3.5E or Pathfinder, that level of clarity is a nightmare, but in 5E it was refreshing.

• The rules for spellcasting are great. The spell descriptions are actually more streamlined than 1E and much clearer overall.

• The quick start guides for building PCs work great. I'm referring to the advice given in the class descriptions for how you can quickly and easily generate a PC of that class by providing instructions on where to put stats, what gear to take, what spells to take, etc.

• Combat seems to run just as fast as 1E.

Cons:

• I hate skills.

• Monster stat blocks are still longer than I want to deal with. C&C really shines by comparison. I don't want to have to provide full stats (str, con, etc.) for monsters. With C&C or 1E, I can create a monster on the fly with a stat block that takes 1 or maybe 2 lines in my notes. Creating a 5E monster is going to be noticeably more work, but it also looks tolerable.

• Some of the writing, in the PHB at least, is really bad. The flavor text is bloated and the excerpts from D&D novels are just painful. The PHB is a trade-off of rules clarity in exchange for awful flavor text.

• Tieflings and dragonborn. Seriously? Of course, eliminating them is a house rule away from happening, but I don't want their nasty peanut butter messing with my chocolate even through pagination proximity.

Hmm:

• The art is a mixed bag. The Halfling illustrations make me want to kill someone, but some of the art is really nice.

• The healing rules are just weird. Obviously, it doesn't make sense that a PC would automatically heal all wounds completely after an 8 hour rest. However, I'm not sure the verisimilitude you get by using traditional healing rules is worth the hassle. Is it better to require the party to barricade itself somewhere in a dungeon for 4-5 days to heal up after a nasty encounter than it is to just hand wave it overnight and move on? I can't decide which way is better. Part of me strongly suspects the 5E way is an example of wanting to win more than you want to be right. On the other hand, you can always house rule the issue and I believe there are suggested alternatives in the 5E DMG.

• I'm not thrilled with the backgrounds, but they do provide a decent basis for rounding out PCs and encouraging roleplaying. This is one area where I think an additional splat book providing hundreds of backgrounds would be a good thing.

• I am not keen on investing in yet another RPG (particularly when I love the one I am playing), but I also want more players. Is there room in my gaming life for both games? Decisions, decisions...

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:11 pm

Yeah, I've been playing 5E for over 4 months, maybe 5, I'd have to work it out on a calendar to be sure. Anyways, the more I play it the less I am enjoying it. I really dislike the skills, not in how they are mechanically, but how they are written up. I've also found looking up things in the PH to be frustrating, things in the Index aren't named the way I am used to them being named, or simply have not been listed in the Index, so I have to fish through the book to find what I am looking for. Usually related to skills.

I have liked how the combat flows, even though some spells have caused issues, such as the ones that are a square, and the point of origin is with the caster on one of the faces, but by and large the spells have been good. I like the domains and such, and I like the backgrounds, even though I have only written custom versions so far for my characters.

Still, my enthusiasm for it is waning, not growing.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Mon Apr 13, 2015 3:18 pm

I’ll agree that area of effect does remain a bit contentious, not using a grid and all, but that’s more play-style than the rules themselves. But combat is still way more awesome than in 4e.

The index gives me heartburn – it would be just as easy to put a page number instead of a “see entry blah blah.”

Also, that rocking Halfling illustration is the worst.

The only real complaints I have are with the way the power gamers of my group are playing, but they’d be doing their thing with any system. Running the system remains fun and easy.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:51 pm

Jyrdan Fairblade wrote:
The only real complaints I have are with the way the power gamers of my group are playing, but they’d be doing their thing with any system. Running the system remains fun and easy.


I had a munchkin join our C&C game once. Nothing he could really do to the system so he quit.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Apr 15, 2015 12:32 am

I'm not really a fan of 5E, but I have a few players who have been into it since it came out. Both of them have come back and said that the game only remains "alright" but it's not as easy as C&C. Haha, I laugh at their statement because both of which are not necessarily C&C fans either.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:17 am

Arduin wrote:
I had a munchkin join our C&C game once. Nothing he could really do to the system so he quit.


That's largely what happened with our munchkin when we did a 1st edition AD&D campaign. Something nice about systems that reward clever play over clever number crunching.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Apr 15, 2015 5:45 pm

I only played 3-5 games with some folks last year, and one Keep on the Borderlands session (during the Oct. 2013 range of the play testing). Can't really comment much, except to say that C&C is easier. I have encountered a few folks at my local gaming store (PF/3.5 fans largely) that have been playing both PF and D&D 5. One of them (who played in one C&C session quite awhile back) essentially said D&D 5 is what C&C should have been. As for me, I'm sticking to C&C. If I ever decide I want a dash of power-gaming in C&C, adjustments can be made. So far, my current group is happy with C&C as is.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:22 pm

Litzen Tallister wrote:
Arduin wrote:
I had a munchkin join our C&C game once. Nothing he could really do to the system so he quit.


That's largely what happened with our munchkin when we did a 1st edition AD&D campaign. Something nice about systems that reward clever play over clever number crunching.


It's nice. Lets you concentrate on being the character.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Apr 15, 2015 8:08 pm

But how can they WIN the game through broken mismatched rules and overpowered abilities then?

Arduin wrote:
It's nice. Lets you concentrate on being the character.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:06 am

Omote wrote:I'm not really a fan of 5E, but I have a few players who have been into it since it came out. Both of them have come back and said that the game only remains "alright" but it's not as easy as C&C. Haha, I laugh at their statement because both of which are not necessarily C&C fans either.



I played it (5th) but I could find NOTHING that it did better than C&C and any little bits I wanted could be done via C&C much better and simpler... So, it remains a product looking for a reason to exist.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Thu Apr 16, 2015 2:33 pm

I've been playing D&D 5e for 7 months now. We've played 8-10 sessions and the characters are at level 5 or 6. I still like the game a lot. It always reminded me of C&C, but I like the fact that the rules are clearer and there are more options for players to customize their characters rules-wise, which in my experience doesn't make players focus less on being the characters.

I'm still a fan :)
Post a reply