Now before I begin I want to note that throughout this I'll make a lot of comparisons to Pathfinder. While Pathfinder isn't my first roleplaying game, it is the bulk of my experience and my favorite so its kind of my baseline for comparing any roleplaying game. Also this edition of Dungeons and Dragons has a lot of points to compare due to the nature of Pathfinder being derived from a previous edition of Dungeons and Dragons. In fact it is more comparable to Pathfinder than 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons.
I also won't go too much into the Monster Manual or the Dungeonmaster's Guide. Mainly because the bulk of the actual game rules are in the Player's Handbook and opinions on the MM and DMG can be distilled into a paragraph. Heck I'll try to hammer it out in a few sentences; The Monster Manual has no real ryhme or reason to how the monsters work or a realistic way to make your own but they are simple enough where a pallet swap will extend the life of the book. Still I'd like templates and stray monster abilities to just slap on to them to make variants and stuff. The Dungeonmaster's Guide is less rules and more teaching you how to run a game. There are optional rules in there that I think should have gone in the Player's Handbook or should be a default part of the game instead of optional. Otherwise they are both pretty essential to running the game but I feel like I get along fine not bringing that DMG to the table.
The Basics
For the uninitiated, Dungeons and Dragons works with a d20 in most interactions since it's third edition. What this means is that you roll a twenty sided dice and add a number. If the number is bigger than the target number you succeed. The exception to this is when things cause damage, heal or give some kind of boost. The numbers generally have two sources, your ability scores and your proficiency bonus.
You have six ability scores that define your Strength, Dexterity, Constitution. Charisma, Intelligence and Wisdom with a new number derived from it that gives a bonus to related abilities and defenses. These bonuses apply to all your skills and are defined as a 'save' which is your resistance to effects to things that target it. They also affect how much health you have, how strong your magic and attacks are, and define how well you are at dodging normal attacks.
Your proficiency bonus is number that starts at +2 and grows as you level. this number is added to whatever you're 'proficient' at. Basically if you're particularly good at something you add proficiency in addition to whatever ability bonus you're using.
All of this is pretty normal D&D stuff but there are some pretty heavy duty changes. Each ability score getting a save is new and it makes sense enough, plus it simplifies things but for the most part I don't think that the rest of the game got the memo. Sure some spells will target Int or Cha but most of the time the game behaves as if Reflex, Fortitude and Will is the norm. Still it does kind of lay the groundwork for future abilities and guessing saves for interactions that aren't in the game or house rules.
The proficiency bonus is also new. Its like a little brother to BAB but applies to everything. I have mixed feelings about it. It definitley lowers and evens out the numbers of a lot of things and the fact that it maxes out at +6 means that a lot of numbers are bound to that range which makes everything way easier to math out than Pathfinder. I do have a bit of a beef with it though. Its pretty binary so you are either really good at something or really bad at something, no in between. This means that if you take a feat to gain a new skill proficiency you get a sudden high boost out of nowhere without the option of gradually growing. And with the numbers so low and the d20 being a very swingy dice,. success and failure are still pretty much in your grasp if you have it or not. This has good and bad consequences. You can extend the life out of your goblin minis because they can threaten a player for way more levels. But you can also get murked by a mob of goblins at levels where you can pretty much one-shot them. That part can be chalked up as a win in the end because ease of use is the primary benefit of this over Pathfinder.
Characters
You wind up making a character and then as the game progresses you advance by gaining levels. Usually you go up in level by gaining experience which you get by doing things like completing quests, killing monsters, foiling traps and whatever else the game master thinks gives experience.
Making a character comes in three packages. You get a race, a class and a background. Your race is something like humans, elves, dwarves and whatnot. Your background adds proficiency and some minor abilities based on what kind of history your character has.
Classes are the more complex package. They give you some abilities to start and give you more as you gain levels. They also have sub-packages that differentiate people in the same class and each class gives a rate of ability score boosts that can be optionally spent on feats, another set of packages that give new abilities.
The classes are your typical D&D things. You got your wizards, monks, fighters, paladins, druids, ect. They mostly have their iconic abilities. I think the only outlier in the classes are Ranger and Warlock/Sorcerer. Ranger because they had to erratta to make it more unique. The printed version just doesn't have much going for it. My problem Warlock and Sorcerer is more subjective. Really both classes could have been merged to form one class called The Sorcerer. Sorcerer is more thematically interesting and the Warlock is more mechanically interesting and I really feel like their flavors could easily overlap. But this leads to one point that probably won't be popular or shared but the weird fact that the classes are more traditional and present a few paradigms that aren't consistent. In this edition you have a few sub-classes that used to be Prestige Classes, like the Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight and Dragon Disciple. In the case of the arcane trickster and eldritch knight, they're basically a wizard/rogue and a wizard/fighter respectively. So why not go the extra mile and eliminate the Ranger, Paladin, and Bard. The bard is trickier and can probably stay as it's own class in the end but a ranger is at it's core a fightdruid with favored enemy and a paladin is a fightcleric with smite. A bard can easily be a distilled into a rogue/sorcerer with perform.
If you're a spellcaster you also get to choose spells. Mostly this works by spell slots per level of spells but traditional vancian casting is replaced with memorizing x amount of spells and you can cast the spells you know based on the slots you have left. Even though this is better I've grown to hate codified spells and spell slots as I picked up more third party Pathfinder stuff. Spells typically attack using charisma, intelligence or wisdom and apply these numbers when attacking a save. Classes are generally locked to a specific spell list that defines their casting. The iconic ones are there but I personally found each list lacking in terms of being able to be the kind the caster I want. This is a problem inherent with a slot based/specific spell system so your mileage may vary.
Optimizing is possible but it doesn't get you very far. The floor and ceiling of badly and well made characters is close enough where they can adventure together without someone feeling left out or useless. One beef I have with the game is that it has such a fear of complexity that it does go through some hoops and makes some interactions weird, like the inability to stack advantages even if in some cases it's really weird that it doesn't. So while Optimization isn't that great the game feels like it encourages min-maxing. Spells use the casting ability score for attacks and other effects instead of using dex or strength for when a spell consists of an attack, dexterity to damage with light weapons is a given, and every ability is a save. This reduces the amount of ability scores that players are depending on but every game I've been ability scores get dumped like crazy because they don't need them at all if another member of the party is covering for them. Some people like this better but its been bothering me because you aren't very rewarded for having a more well rounded character.
Playing the Game
Like I said earlier, the standard is simple. Roll a d20 and add an ability score bonus. If you are good at that action then you add your proficiency bonus. Most non-combat actions are governed by skills or tools. They aren't as codified as much as Pathfinder but they're described enough to make a guess as to what to do for interactions that aren't defined. Since the numbers are generally bound to a range there's a handy list of how difficult each target number is to allow for some guesswork. To avoid the more granular modifications that come with boosts to rolls for the most part anything that would have previously been a numerical bonus is replaced by 'advantage' which means you roll two d20s and take the best. This is mirrored by 'disadvantage' which is rolling two d20s and taking the worst.
Combat is typical for D&D. You get an action and a move. You also get a bonus action and a reaction. There's a few fiddly bits in there but its a few degrees less intricate than Savage Worlds in that regard. Combat rarely gets more complex than 'disable or attack that thing'. There is a bit of complication as to how extra attacks and bonus actions play out but its a solvable problem with a bit of thinking.
Gear is pretty basic too. Compared to Pathfinder the magical equipment is less intricate with individual items being more special and specific. There are +1 weapons and armor but since plus one bonuses are pretty powerful they aren't a huge part of the game. One bit of awkwardness is that things that would give a straight boost to an ability score instead have a set number which means that a belt of giant's strength doesn't guarantee that you get stronger or even get as strong as a giant. This is mostly so that some equipment doesn't become expected staples to gameplay. The mundane gear isn't very complicated but to me still feels like a missed chance to streamline things. For example; I think the Longsword shouldn't have been called a longsword but a 'medium slashing weapon'. I just think that it would have gone a long ways to making flavoring it however you want more of a thing.
Hazards are a bit codified but with some blank spaces for interpretation and guesses.
One thing that's new that's sort of a symptom of modern gaming is 'inspiration' and a group of character descriptors that define your personality. These character descriptors when expressed in play gives you inspiration points which for the most part you spend to gain advantage on rolls. So they're basically Fate Points/Bennies/roleplaying points. As far as I can tell nothing else really interacts with them so they're there just to be roleplaying bait.
Conclusion
So to get real personal, I don't like 5th edition D&D very much. It feels like Pathfinder only simplified and lower scale but I feel like it takes a lot of half-measures to do this which makes it first and foremost less gonzo than Pathfinder and more strict than other games that play out medievel stasis high fantasy. You're stuck into this predetermined feel that's strictly 'D&D' so its hard to come up with a crazy concept and be able to play it out. Sure you could file off some serial numbers and pretend an ability is something else or has some other flavor but it renders the choice meaningless and I might as well play a more flexible game where nebulous flavor is inherent in the system. I'm also stuck with some options particularly because almost every option is a large package than a minor option. These packages also mean that the game is a bit too easy. After a few decisions the game pretty much makes the character for you making things feel baby simple.
However as a game and baseline system it is a better game than Pathfinder in a number of ways and can be a solid reason to jump ship. Its much more difficult to make a character that is flat out useless. the lower numbers make predicting players much easier for the GM. The monsters are simple enough where a simple pallet swap will increase the lifespan of your monster manual for a long time. Its much easier to pick up and make a character. Even my first character with the system took all of ten minutes, and once I fully knew what I was doing it takes me longer to write my character's information down than it was to make the character in the first place. This means that you don't have to spend a whole session just hammering out the front-loaded options among dozens of books.
Although I think that the very best thing about Dungeons and Dragons is that it has strong similarities to Pathfinder but is much simpler so all it takes is monster swapping to play most of the Pathfinder Adventure Paths. I'm sure people are having fun with the ones that Wizards of the Coast has put out but the adventures I've played were so boring. Meanwhile the 5th edition Kingmaker game was spectacular and almost every other 5e game I know about in my area is running a Pathfinder Adventure Path.
Although I do think that the simplicity could have gone further and still be the same game the fact that there is a bit of complexity compared to similar games that are basically simplified D&D means that there is more of a reason to go forward and a feeling of progression that gives it a bit of the kind of appeal that more complex games have. It also lacks a huge degree of abstraction while at the same time dipping into modern roleplaying by mechanically rewarding roleplaying which gives it a life longer than one-shots and short campaigns.
Overall I would recommend Dungeons and Dragons if you really want to play Pathfinder but don't want to deal with the complications that come with Pathfinder which is actually a really huge group. If you want to go for low fantasy, this doesn't do it quite as well as other games because you still get a ton of unrealistic weirdness from abstractions like HP and AC and the general superheroic fantasy angle. Its till heroic superpowered fantasy, just less so than Pathfinder. If you want to play a fantasy game with a heavy roleplaying focus, then again, other games do it better. Its not even that rules lite. Heck even the superpowered heroic fantasy angle is done better elsewhere. But it's advantage is being what D&D has always been which is, for a lack of better terms, Dungeons and Dragons, which other games can't replicates because they get too abstract or too steeped into telling you how to run your own character. It just feels like D&D and lets you play it without too many complications.
Since Dungeons and Dragons has a lot of third party support and I do still enjoy it enough to run when I have Pathfinder games to run but not enough people into the fiddlyness of Pathfinder, (In some cases I don't even want to run or play Pathfinder when it comes to short modules or campaigns that don't have a lot of complex things going on because it's so front-loaded.) I'll be talking about 5th edition D&D on my blog from now on, including third party material. In fact making this overview is specifically a precursor to talking about a few items given to me by Fat Goblin Games.
How to get palace of chance free spins in July, 2019. View top tips on this site.
ReplyDelete