Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
I don't think there's any bear race type for any DND edition, but I'm sure we can homebrew it.
Correction: No DND edition lets you play a bear because they all have an Intelligence level that is below 3. All PCs must at least have a PC of 8. Same goes with minotaurs, really, but I guess you can stack enough levels on it to compensate.
I don't think there's really a mainstream Necromancer option in any edition (it's a Prestige class in a few places and I think 4e has it as some weird cleric derivation, but I'm not sure).
I don't think there's any bear race type for any DND edition, but I'm sure we can homebrew it.
Correction: No DND edition lets you play a bear because they all have an Intelligence level that is below 3. All PCs must at least have a PC of 8. Same goes with minotaurs, really, but I guess you can stack enough levels on it to compensate.
If there is a Warlock that is at least fairly similar to 4e's Warlock I'd be more comfortable using that edition, I'd rather not either lose or have to heavily rework my character.
OK but that's not going to work because 4e and 5e are different rulesets.
I'm really not willing to bring homebrew and system conversions into this (unless it's 3.5-->Pathfinder since they're so similar it's trivial, that's my understanding anyway) mostly because again, I'm trying to get into the game (as are several other people here), and am not a returning expert. You'd have to judge everything my character does on a case-by-case basis and I could end up either wildly over- or under-powered, and we've also already got someone who wants to play a minotaur and someone who wants to play a bear. Do you really want to make this even more complicated?
In any case, I have rolled up a Level 1 and Level 5 version of Ludmila in 4e. Even if we end up using some other edition, it should be useful as a template.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
Oh wow there is so much crunch. This...this is a lot of crunch.
So yes, we will be using 5E. I will spend the next few days attempting to make sense of 4E so I can make a 5E Warlock, if you're okay with that. And the reason I chose 5E is because there's a lot less crunch to process.
like I don't want you to have to go through a stupid amount of trouble to accommodate me but I also don't really want to rework my character again or come up with a new one.
Given what I know about patches, things like this tend to take months. That blog post went up in August and if this thing was out by now you'd have heard of it. That same guy has a homebrewed 5e Warlock on his page, which looks pretty good mechanically, but it's only for the Infernal Pact Warlock, and Ludmila is a Feypact.
If you could do something with that template that would be terrific, but I still don't want you to go out of your way, really. :/
My main concern is that this is going to end up as less a good introductory D&D game and more a half-baked mess that only sometimes uses D&D's systems for a couple things.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
Well, that's a valid concern, but there's something to remember; the system is only to be consulted if the situation at hand is going to be unclear.
That's what it was expressly made for, that's why it's there. The rules are flexible. And the only reason why we ended up with so many of them is because they assumed people wouldn't need to roll Notice to see the floor. They assumed that if you were going to stab a guy in a bed, you wouldn't need to roll. That they assumed that players had common sense to ignore the rules when appropriate or inconvenient (which unfortunately many players didn't).
I love 5th Edition because it outright encourages me to ignore rolls as according to my purposes, whether that swing should have taken your head off, or whether you give a nice big rousing speech but end up rolling a one.
And you can trust me to not abuse my power because I have as much a vested interest in making this thing work. Who'll bite the plot-hooks? Who'll react to my actions? I'm a player too, just with a different responsibility.
The thing is that D20 is mostly a combat system (especially 4e, and 5e looks to be that way too), and if we are going to be doing a sizable amount of combat (and I assume we are, it's about fully half the point of a D&D game) we do need fairly easy to understand rules, and a lot of homebrewing muddies that up. It doesn't matter if you're the best at it in the world, it still makes it harder to just consult some book or .pdf file and get a simple ruling on whatever.
I am not concerned about a percieved lack of your ability, I am concerned that we're going to end up playing something that's essentially not a D&D game at all. Plus, besides you, I, and yarrun there seems to be a general lack of real interest. Naney doesn't want in because we're playing 5e, I have no idea how serious Counterclock was being about her Bear idea (it's hard to tell). So this is probably all for naught anyway.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
If we're including yours, its not even going to be that much. And really, so long as we keep the structure laid down in the books the same, it should still be well within the ethos of a D&D game.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
Nova says:
5e is designed to be as newbie-friendly as possible. There are very few core mechanics; you have attack rolls, AC and HP, ability rolls, and the advantage/disadvantage system.
That's slightly more than the basics of 3.5e and 4e, but those are also something like 70% of the mechanics contained in the entirety of 5e, compared to the stupidly high amounts of fiddly mechanics located in the other two. The system is very 'pick up and go'. You can contain all the relevant information you should need for an adventure on a single sheet of paper.
D&D is primarily a combat system in that that is where things get murky.
It is generally okay to say "I track the creatures" or "I attempt to convince the King of the danger", and it is only if the outcome is in doubt- if the creatures are notable for being able to hide their tracks, or if the person speaking to the King is very clumsy when talking in general- that you will bother rolling.
It is different in combat, because a lot of combat boils down to luck. Thus, there's more fiddly rules; attack rolls and defence rolls, and so on. Problems with homebrewing generally crop up mostly when players and DM's do not understand this, and attempt to apply the rolls to every attempt they think it should apply to.
So 5e is a very very loose system, and that should be understood by anyone attempting to play it.
The advantage/disadvantage mechanic should show that to anyone looking at it. There are barely any rules that define when an advantage/disadvantage should come into play; it is up to players and the DM to decide.
Comments
i always just read what the DM told me to read
My choices after that in descending order (if we're doing that) are 3.5, Pathfinder, and 5e.
Also, which class lets you have a skeleton as a pet.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
You said you were going to look over 4e's rule things.
"Mage" seems to be an attempt to fold every type of spellcaster into one and that just strikes me as lazy.
I'm really not willing to bring homebrew and system conversions into this (unless it's 3.5-->Pathfinder since they're so similar it's trivial, that's my understanding anyway) mostly because again, I'm trying to get into the game (as are several other people here), and am not a returning expert. You'd have to judge everything my character does on a case-by-case basis and I could end up either wildly over- or under-powered, and we've also already got someone who wants to play a minotaur and someone who wants to play a bear. Do you really want to make this even more complicated?
I dunno man. W/e.
ughh
sorry.
That same guy has a homebrewed 5e Warlock on his page, which looks pretty good mechanically, but it's only for the Infernal Pact Warlock, and Ludmila is a Feypact.
If you could do something with that template that would be terrific, but I still don't want you to go out of your way, really. :/
I am not concerned about a percieved lack of your ability, I am concerned that we're going to end up playing something that's essentially not a D&D game at all. Plus, besides you, I, and yarrun there seems to be a general lack of real interest. Naney doesn't want in because we're playing 5e, I have no idea how serious Counterclock was being about her Bear idea (it's hard to tell). So this is probably all for naught anyway.
I'm probably just tired and upset at nothing again. If you think you can make something work then you have my support.