My more detailed 5e thoughts

TLG d20, Necromancer Games and general. Discuss any game not covered in another forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
seskis281
Lore Drake
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Manitowoc WI
Contact:

My more detailed 5e thoughts

Post by seskis281 »

Ok, so I've had a good bit of time with the new game PHB, and have a more detailed review/set of thoughts:

Production

The production values, on the whole, are nice. Artwork aside for a moment, the general layout, fonts and colors are much more pleasing than 4th edition by far. There is a unique "split texture" on the back cover that evokes a little of the "grit" to the shiny new that has been argued is missing from the art.

I've already discussed the art a little, but I will reiterate here - it certainly seems to want to evoke a "return to the art of late 1e and early 2e," especially of Dragonlance and FR (though, as I said, only if more people were happier living in those worlds :) ) The full-plate art and cover are the high points, definitely evoking Elmore-esque flavor and Easley-esque. The low points are the character arts and choices of placement. The halflings seem to have oversized heads, and all "short people" seem to be extraordinarily happy, while arcane characters seem to be all extraordinarily "serious." For the race section on Elves, they use Drizzt as the image -- not sure why the very unique Drow would be the template for "Elves" visually except for expectation that he's famous. There is a definite lack of "grit" here, but on the positive side all the spiky armor and steam-punk influences are gone (well, good from my POV anyway).

Organization

I find it interesting that the very 1st part of the introduction is "Worlds of Adventure," and they way the intro is set up and phrased seems VERY familiar to me.

Part I is Character creation, and has 6 chapters that guide the building of characters. And I use that term very specifically because that concept, that characters are complex "builds," is the primary artifact still from 3.5, PF and 4e still inherent in the game. The 3 "pillars" of D&D the intro gives are: "Exploration," "Social Interaction," and "Combat." One thing that jumps out as very oppositional to my like is a paragraph "Exceptions to the rules are often minor.... If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins."

The chapters are:

1. Step-by-step characters - basically how you will use chaps. 2-6, plus discussion of the attributes and ways to generate stats through rolling (ye olde roll 4d6 six times and drop the lowest on each, assign) or through standard set or through pt. buy of stats. It also gives the standardized xp progression chart (uniform for all characters/classes), which is where things seem VERY fast - 300 exp to 2nd, 900 to 3rd, 2700 to 4th.... 64,000 xp gets you 10th level, 355,000 is 20th.

2. Races - all the standards (Human, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, Gnome, Half-Orc) plus the 2 from 4e (Tiefling and Dragonborn). Each with racial traits to be applied. At this point not unlike C&C, except for those durn Dragonborn and outsiders as PCs lol.

3. Classes - The same as C&C EXCEPT: minus assassin class and knight as class, adding 2 arcane: Sorcerer and Warlock. Each class then has several things to also add - proficiencies, specific domains, circles, guilds, sub-class divisions that give customizing differences to the character. BtH is among the things replaced, with a set proficiency bonus for each class you are supposed to apply to a number of things, including attacks with weapons you are "proficient" in. Extra attacks are definitely nerfed in this addition, the fighter extra attack gain is more in step with C&C (no 5 or 6 attacks by 20th). At this point, the character "build" has about 3 layers of things to keep track of.

4. Personality and Background - The backgrounds are another level of customization to add to the class, and in 5e they seem to replace alignment in level of character importance (though alignment is covered, in 2 paragraphs or so, later, with very little focus). They come with their own sets of character traits and skills as well, so in essence you are adding a third tier to what was "race & class," now with background. It also gives a brief outline of how to "customize" a new background using an existing as a template. The "backgrounds" given are: Acolyte, Charlatan, Criminal, Entertainer, Folk Hero, Guild Artisan, Hermit, Noble (with a "Knight" background variant instead of class), Outlander, Sage, Sailor, Soldier, Urchin. I found the backgrounds somewhat limiting, and would worry it would be hard to explain to players how they could have a "different" background than one in the book - honestly, a simple "Commoner," simple "Farmer-born" and "Merchant-born" would have been welcome. Right off the bat only the Outlander appealed to me as background unless I created a character specifically for, say, the Guild Artisan background. This section, of course, adds the 4th level to the character build.

5. Equipment - including starting gold and the general basic equipment, and here they have simplified - magic equipment is NOT in the PHB, and indeed later there's a statement that magic weapons and items are rare and "beyond gold" and have to be/should be procured through adventuring. I.E. not for sale at the local stores (5e deals with monsters needing magic to hit by bringing back "silver edged weapons" for undead, etc.). The starting gold is nerfed - the highest is 5d4x10, but each class comes with its own basic starting equipment so not as much is needed. The equipment lists are very simplified, and in this way even more so than C&C (only a great-sword after long-sword, for instance). There is a really good section on Transportation costs, Trade goods, and Expenses (Lifestyle expenses simplified to easy price per day), good sections on Food, Drink & Lodging, basic services, Spellcasting services with a codicil that return favor or service should be a cost as well as gold, then several 1e DMG-like pages of "Trinket tables."

6. Customization options - Beginning with multi-classing, which is very 3e-based in "choose what class you choose to level in when you do so," and stating you add the levels of the multi-classes to determine "overall character level." The xp to gain a level is always the combined levels. The 2nd section brings Feats back into the game, on top of applying proficiencies. These are a simplified version of 3x feats, and add the 5th level of character build.

Part 2 is about playing the game, and covers chapters 7-9:

Chapter 7 - Using ability scores, which starts with the basic +'s off the base character stats. The good news is stats are capped at 20 in 5e, and can't be augmented above that as a base (remains to be seen in the DMG if there are higher temporary levels granted by, say, Gauntlets of Ogre Power). The + range is greater: 8-9= -1, 10-11= 0, 12-13= +1, 14-15= +2, 16-17= +3, 18-19= +4, 20= +5 (the chart gives up to 30 because, while adventurers can only go to 20, monsters and divine beings encountered may have higher stats - yes monsters have stats again). The 2nd part explains applying "Advantage and Disadvantage," which basically says when you have some roll from class, race, background, feat, etc. that is either identified as an advantage or disadvantage, you roll two times, and if it's supposed to be an advantage you take the higher, and if you're supposed to be disadvantaged you take the lower roll. An intriguing system mechanic and something I would consider using/adapting in my C&C perhaps (I definitely can see paring it with Amazing Adventures in conjunction with its existing customization). The chapter then goes into using proficiency bonuses, but here I feel it is really lacking and a bit skimpy... by this point a "built character" will have multiple levels of customization, each with differing applications of this unified proficiency bonus. In C&C we can say we have race, class, and then effects of equipment and items - so 3 levels. Here, you do need to cross-reference race, class, class domains or other sub-areas of the classes, backgrounds, and feats, and the WAY the bonus is applied might be different. I didn't mention earlier, but some classes use more GURPS-like "points" in areas like Ki for monks and sorcery points, that can be spent in actions, so sometimes proficiency bonuses give you + to rolls, sometimes they work in conjunction with pt. spending system to add damage dice, etc. Here is where the system seems to be most trying to mash a couple of different eras into one, and is where it gets a bit too fiddly for my tastes and starts to not seem as elegant as C&C.

Right after this is the part that is most inspired by the C&C philosophy, which is the base-ability score mechanic, which says determine what attribute a general check might need and use a base Difficulty Check (like a CR) to roll against - 5 for very simple, 10 for simple, 15 for medium, 20 for hard, 25 for very hard, 30 for "nearly impossible." However immediately following this simple attribute check model, they reintroduce "skills" to add to characters (which actually extends character creation into this chapter), giving a listed set of "skills" to use for checks, making it slightly more complex again as a player is supposed to find "which skill they would apply to a check." There are then sections similarly for using each attribute, and examples, and then saving throws, which are essentially assigned for proficiency based on class.

Chapter 8 is Adventuring. Most is standard, but herein lies the now infamous "short rest" and "long rest" rules that essentially say one good night of 8 hrs sleep completely restores all lost HP, as long as the character has at least 1 to start. Damn. Find that empty room in a dungeon and bar that door!! I admit, I have never liked the "1 HP each night" frame either, and my own house-rule is "tell me how much you're down and I'll tell you how much you get back" which can range from 20% of missing HP to the 40%s depending on how many we're talking, but ALL? Along with the progression this is the other head-scratching thing for me.

Chapter 9 - Combat - Really back to 3e basics, and yes, Attacks of opportunity are there, but at least 5e has "Disengage" as a full action for both PCs and monsters, so if they specifically choose to disengage as their entire move no AoO occurs. The big difference is death saves and no below 0 hit points. If you are hit and the total damage takes you to 0 and if there is more damage, if the remaining damage exceeds your HP maximum, you die. If not, your just stuck at 0 and keep making death saving throws until you're either brought back by help, you die, and it details how this works with subsequent rolls, additional damage taken while at 0, etc. Kind of wonky, I'd stick with my "under 0 your out, dying and possibly bleeding out, -10 is dead, dead."

Part 3 is Magic - Back to vancian, some variants using Sorcery points and rituals, lists of spells.

Appendices - A is "conditions," adding on things like deafened, paralyzed, invisible, etc. B is Gods of the multiverse and gives lists for 4 major settings: Greyhawk, FR, Dragonlance, and Eberron as well as Greek, Celtic, Norse and Egyptian. Kind of cool to hit all of these in a simple, short reference. Appendix C is the planes of existence, and does a new Great Wheel of the multi-verse. Appendix D is a sampling of monsters to use to start, including the mundane and a few bigger ones. Stat blocks for monsters are DEFINITELY MUCH SIMPLER AND BETTER THAN 3.5, PF or 4E.

Small things:
I am heartened that the credits name Jim Ward, Frank Mentzer, and others as part of the credit for the development of D&D over the years. There is a more definitive awareness of the history and recognition of the past by the people in this edition is heartwarming (4e almost made me drop the thing out of my hands when I read "going back to the original D&D setting, "The Forgotten Realms").

The humor and attitude, while maybe problematic when seeing it in art sometimes, is great when you see this on the credits page:

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of splitting up the party, sticking appendages in the mouth of a leering green devil face, accepting a dinner invitation from bugbears, storming the feast hall of a hill giant steading, angering a dragon of any variety, or saying yes when the DM asks, "Are you really sure?"

This reminds me of what the Trolls would say, :twisted: and is a nice thing to see from the current WotC people.

Overall, there's a lot I like about 5e, and could see myself enjoying playing it in the future, but running it isn't likely to be on my radar. It does grab a certain D&D "feel" that was missing for a long time, but in the end C&C already did it and did it better, in my opinion.

8-)
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Dreamer of Ilshara
Lands of Ilshara: http://johnwright281.tripod.com

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: My more detailed 5e thoughts

Post by Treebore »

Just got the PH and the "Hoard of the Dragon Queen" adventure mod today. I have yet to start reading the PH, but I like the module a lot. Know what I like best? NO HUGE STAT BLOCKS!! The vast majority of the walls of text are about the ADVENTURE, not the monsters and NPC's attributes and abilities. HOOORAY!!
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
seskis281
Lore Drake
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Manitowoc WI
Contact:

Re: My more detailed 5e thoughts

Post by seskis281 »

Treebore wrote:Just got the PH and the "Hoard of the Dragon Queen" adventure mod today. I have yet to start reading the PH, but I like the module a lot. Know what I like best? NO HUGE STAT BLOCKS!! The vast majority of the walls of text are about the ADVENTURE, not the monsters and NPC's attributes and abilities. HOOORAY!!
Absolutely agree there - both Horde and the Lost Mine adventure from the starter set are good, an feel like adventure mods again, as opposed to pages of stat blocks, power blocks, and "encounters." I think the 4e "campaign settings" were worse - one had to wonder how anyone knew anything about the actual world, other than the "powers" people in them had :twisted:

And just FYI, I took Episode 7: The Hunting Lodge from Horde and already dropped a modified encounter taken from it into my FR campaign this past Saturday....

;)
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Dreamer of Ilshara
Lands of Ilshara: http://johnwright281.tripod.com

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: My more detailed 5e thoughts

Post by Treebore »

I'll be editing this as I read more, but the first things to strike me is I am liking the organization and the "attitude" they have in their writing. I also find it interesting that Humans get a +1 to every attribute. I hadn't noticed that in the other rules PDF. Maybe it was in the recent update? That, or I simply read over it too fast to catch it before.

Edit 1: I am also liking how max HP at level one is now "official", and I also like that my long standing favorite attribute rolling is now the default (4D6, take best 3). Of course I also allow 1's and 2's to be rerolled, and I also allow my players to just decide what they want their attributes to be, still, I like the step away from 3d6.

Edit 2: I am really liking the class options, or paths, given. I just won't like it when future books add 1,000+ more of them. I also like the gear section, with some pre assembled kit options given, etc...
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
DMSamuel
Red Cap
Posts: 356
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:48 am
Location: Downstate NY
Contact:

Re: My more detailed 5e thoughts

Post by DMSamuel »

Treebore wrote:I also find it interesting that Humans get a +1 to every attribute. I hadn't noticed that in the other rules PDF. Maybe it was in the recent update? That, or I simply read over it too fast to catch it before.
It was there - page 19, under Human Traits.


My PHB just showed up today, I won't get a chance to really dig into it for a couple of days.

My initial reaction was that the majority of the core is actually in the free PDFs they released... I think that is a smart way for them to entice people to take a look and then maybe hook them into purchasing the core 3.

My second reaction, after having scrutinized the basic PDF is that 5e, is not able to replace C&C for me. But I've been playing the playtest of 5e for 18 months so I kind of already knew that - still, flipping through the official PHB solidifies that fact for me.
~DMSamuel
---
Website: RPG Musings
Actual Play C&C in Aihrde: Epi 1, Epi 2
Actual Play Podcast (5e): D&DeBrief

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: My more detailed 5e thoughts

Post by Treebore »

DMSamuel wrote:
Treebore wrote:I also find it interesting that Humans get a +1 to every attribute. I hadn't noticed that in the other rules PDF. Maybe it was in the recent update? That, or I simply read over it too fast to catch it before.
It was there - page 19, under Human Traits.


My PHB just showed up today, I won't get a chance to really dig into it for a couple of days.

My initial reaction was that the majority of the core is actually in the free PDFs they released... I think that is a smart way for them to entice people to take a look and then maybe hook them into purchasing the core 3.

My second reaction, after having scrutinized the basic PDF is that 5e, is not able to replace C&C for me. But I've been playing the playtest of 5e for 18 months so I kind of already knew that - still, flipping through the official PHB solidifies that fact for me.

Thats probably why I missed it, I only caught it this time because of the list with ALL of the races attribute mods.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
DMSamuel
Red Cap
Posts: 356
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:48 am
Location: Downstate NY
Contact:

Re: My more detailed 5e thoughts

Post by DMSamuel »

Treebore wrote:
DMSamuel wrote:
Treebore wrote:I also find it interesting that Humans get a +1 to every attribute. I hadn't noticed that in the other rules PDF. Maybe it was in the recent update? That, or I simply read over it too fast to catch it before.
It was there - page 19, under Human Traits.


My PHB just showed up today, I won't get a chance to really dig into it for a couple of days.

My initial reaction was that the majority of the core is actually in the free PDFs they released... I think that is a smart way for them to entice people to take a look and then maybe hook them into purchasing the core 3.

My second reaction, after having scrutinized the basic PDF is that 5e, is not able to replace C&C for me. But I've been playing the playtest of 5e for 18 months so I kind of already knew that - still, flipping through the official PHB solidifies that fact for me.

Thats probably why I missed it, I only caught it this time because of the list with ALL of the races attribute mods.
Yeah - I am not a fan of the way they organized the PDFs - not horrible, but something about the organization made me feel like some things were out of place and hard to find. I suspect it is because of the cut-and-paste nature of the basic pdf, which Mike Mearls said was basically taken right out of the PHB (in true cut and paste fashion). It made for a disjointed read, at least for me. I am curious if that feeling will carry over to the hardcopy PHB.
~DMSamuel
---
Website: RPG Musings
Actual Play C&C in Aihrde: Epi 1, Epi 2
Actual Play Podcast (5e): D&DeBrief

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: My more detailed 5e thoughts

Post by Treebore »

Over all, I like it. Its not as old school as I was hoping for, but I like it enough as is that I am looking forward to giving it a try with one or two of my groups. Pretty darn sure I am not going to like it better than C&C, but pretty sure I'm going to like it better than 3E or 4E.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

tylermo
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2579
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:00 am

Re: My more detailed 5e thoughts

Post by tylermo »

I think I'm more interested in the adventures. Might even have a look at Goodman's FEF's. Fifth Edition Fantasy adventures. Then again, Troll Lord already has 40+ published adventures for my game of choice. ;)

User avatar
finarvyn
Global Moderator
Posts: 984
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Chicago suburbs
Contact:

Re: My more detailed 5e thoughts

Post by finarvyn »

seskis281 wrote:One thing that jumps out as very oppositional to my like is a paragraph "Exceptions to the rules are often minor.... If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins."
There's a reason for that, and actually this spirit has been with us since 1974. The reason is that certain classes can break the rules.

For example, a typical character gets a move and an attack action in their turn. That's the general rule. A halflling rogue might get an extra move action. That's the specific rule. Specific trumps general.

As I mentioned, RPGs have been that way since the beginning. They just didn't phrase it like that until 4E or so.
Marv / Finarvyn
Lord Marshall, Earl of Stone Creek, C&C Society
Just discovered Amazing Adventures and loving it!
MA1E WardenMaster - Killing Characters since 1976, MA4E Playtester in 2006.
C&C Playtester in 2003, OD&D player since 1975

User avatar
seskis281
Lore Drake
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Manitowoc WI
Contact:

Re: My more detailed 5e thoughts

Post by seskis281 »

finarvyn wrote:
seskis281 wrote:One thing that jumps out as very oppositional to my like is a paragraph "Exceptions to the rules are often minor.... If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins."
There's a reason for that, and actually this spirit has been with us since 1974. The reason is that certain classes can break the rules.

For example, a typical character gets a move and an attack action in their turn. That's the general rule. A halflling rogue might get an extra move action. That's the specific rule. Specific trumps general.

As I mentioned, RPGs have been that way since the beginning. They just didn't phrase it like that until 4E or so.
Thanks Marv, that makes sense - it's just the placement of the statement and the wording made it read to me as more of a "the rules are you master" statement, which I read as oppositional to the C&C philosophy, but looking at it again you're right, it's merely saying that the specific class, race, etc. rules trump the overall rules in any specific case like the rogue. 8-)

As I said, a lot to like, some things not so hot on, still too fiddly for me to want to run but I think I might really like playing, however I would want to customize background.

:ugeek:
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Dreamer of Ilshara
Lands of Ilshara: http://johnwright281.tripod.com

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: My more detailed 5e thoughts

Post by Arduin »

tylermo wrote:I think I'm more interested in the adventures.
I was thinking the same until I read the free DMG pdf. If they are structured and built as per the advice to DM's on how to design dungeons like video game levels it won't be worth he hassle of redesigning what is purchased.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
seskis281
Lore Drake
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Manitowoc WI
Contact:

Re: My more detailed 5e thoughts

Post by seskis281 »

Agreed - that's going to be the best part of 5e I think, having good portable adventure material that can be run easily again with C&C. The 1st 2 adventures are definitely back away from the "video game levels" format and endless stat/power blocks of 4e (the one edition I couldn't even begin to use a printed module from), and both adventures are quite good thus far - they are in the "linear storyline" mode, but with a lot of optional paths within, so people who prefer B2 sandboxy style probably still won't like them as complete adventure paths, but I've already sliced one part out of Horde of the Dragon Queen and dropped the Hunting Lodge segment as a side-quest in my campaign :)
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Dreamer of Ilshara
Lands of Ilshara: http://johnwright281.tripod.com

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: My more detailed 5e thoughts

Post by Treebore »

Yep, I really like Horde of the Dragon. Not an AWESOME!! adventure by any means, but it is good, and will be fun.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
finarvyn
Global Moderator
Posts: 984
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Chicago suburbs
Contact:

Re: My more detailed 5e thoughts

Post by finarvyn »

I'm having a little trouble with the whole linear aspect of the new adventures. I'm used to running "sandbox" modules and having to move folks from point A to point B bends my brain a little.
Marv / Finarvyn
Lord Marshall, Earl of Stone Creek, C&C Society
Just discovered Amazing Adventures and loving it!
MA1E WardenMaster - Killing Characters since 1976, MA4E Playtester in 2006.
C&C Playtester in 2003, OD&D player since 1975

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: My more detailed 5e thoughts

Post by Arduin »

finarvyn wrote:I'm having a little trouble with the whole linear aspect of the new adventures. I'm used to running "sandbox" modules and having to move folks from point A to point B bends my brain a little.
Yes, it is a little to much railroading for my taste. But, you can always modify if the rest of the material is worth it and use as drop in's.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
seskis281
Lore Drake
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Manitowoc WI
Contact:

Re: My more detailed 5e thoughts

Post by seskis281 »

Arduin wrote:
finarvyn wrote:I'm having a little trouble with the whole linear aspect of the new adventures. I'm used to running "sandbox" modules and having to move folks from point A to point B bends my brain a little.
Yes, it is a little to much railroading for my taste. But, you can always modify if the rest of the material is worth it and use as drop in's.
The more linear "adventure path" approach is most common in modern adventures from PF too. Like Arduin said, you can take material out of them quite nicely though.
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Dreamer of Ilshara
Lands of Ilshara: http://johnwright281.tripod.com

User avatar
Relaxo
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 3350
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:00 am

Re: My more detailed 5e thoughts

Post by Relaxo »

is that why it's called "Path finder"?
(I'm serious)
Bill D.
Author: Yarr! Rules-Light Pirate RPG
BD Games - www.playBDgames.com
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/browse.ph ... rs_id=5781

User avatar
seskis281
Lore Drake
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Manitowoc WI
Contact:

Re: My more detailed 5e thoughts

Post by seskis281 »

Relaxo wrote:is that why it's called "Path finder"?
(I'm serious)
Pretty sure. Yep. The setting and original thematic concept was the "Pathfinders of Golarion," and the concept of the 80's "module series" became expanded into very linear adventure paths. Now, I often interweave large meta-plots over my campaigns as well, but I tend to let these erupt out of the very early parts of the campaign and the characters themselves - my Greyhawk campaign the over-arching plot was to stop Tharizdun from returning, but the events of PC's actions in one early game is what actually set that in motion. Our 1st big campaign, which the Winds of Fate book is loosely based upon, was set in Aihrde, interwoven with the A series, but evolved especially as the Gehenna character's back story gave me material to connect to the Witch Queen (which I also melded with the DCC Dragon queen mod). For me, I'll end up setting up different "paths" and then I go with the flow on what happens depending on which way my parties seque and choose.
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Dreamer of Ilshara
Lands of Ilshara: http://johnwright281.tripod.com

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: My more detailed 5e thoughts

Post by Treebore »

Pathfinder gives you the main "plot point pieces", you can fill in the empty spaces with whatever you wish. Which is more evident in the first couple of AP's. Then the vocal "fans" pointed out that they don't have the time to do their own "filling in", so the AP's became more fo a "complete A to Z" adventure series, but there is still plenty of "holes" left open that we can add in, alter, etc... to our hearts content, which means for DM's like that, those AP's are far more likely to take their parties to level 20 or beyond.

So while Horde of the Dragon is written to be ran "as is", I see plenty of opportunities/openings to run it like a sand box. The only thing you really need to change is anything they make "time dependent". So just be sure to not lock any events into a specified time frame until you see/know that your players are going to follow it now, rather than later.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

Post Reply