OSRGaming

Gaming => WotC D&D => Topic started by: Dizzy on March 24, 2016, 10:20:34 PM

Title: 5e Starter Set, Who has played it?
Post by: Dizzy on March 24, 2016, 10:20:34 PM
So last week I started running some of my buddies from my BFRPG group through the adventure in the 5e starter set. I've had it for awhile, and the PHB, and was originally turned off by what I read, but am finding that I quite like 5e from our session so far. I was quite surprised by how deadly it can be. What did y'all think of the starter set, and what if any changes did you make to the Lost Mines of Phandelver?
Title: Re: 5e Starter Set, Who has played it?
Post by: Vile on March 24, 2016, 10:28:47 PM
I ran it RAW to get a clear understanding of the rules before I started tinkering with them, and overall I was satisfied with the package as a nice mini-sandbox, and players were not forced into a particular railroad. We did end up missing out on one part because it was linked to one of the pregens that didn't make it into our game, though. You have to be aware of all the hooks and modify them as needed if you really want to get "everything" out of the campaign.

I also don't care for the secret societies, they seem a bit forced. I never liked the Forgotten Realms setting, and I don't like what I've seen of the 5E version.
Title: Re: 5e Starter Set, Who has played it?
Post by: Dizzy on March 24, 2016, 11:36:00 PM
Running it raw has been what I've been trying to do. Reading 5e, there were many things that I thought I'd want to change outright, but actually playing, it seems quite well balanced, and I'm not sure I'll be changing much at all.

I have no experience with forgotten realms. I've started reading the first novel, and enjoying it so far, and luckily for me, all of my players have only ever really played with me as their DM, and one of our players running Star Wars d6, so they don't know anything about Forgotten Realms, so the bloated history is something I don't have to worry about. I think I'm going to give it a shot for now and see how it works.
Title: Re: 5e Starter Set, Who has played it?
Post by: kevinwatson on March 25, 2016, 06:19:30 AM
The system works, it is not perfect. Definitely see how things are supposed to work before tweaking, you may find the tweaks are not needed.

I know that watching the game develop over the playtest's 13 iterations, I saw the need for multiclass diminish every iteration with class specializations, for example. However, multiclass is still there for the people who's vision is not covered by class and specialization.
Title: Re: 5e Starter Set, Who has played it?
Post by: Fjw70 on March 25, 2016, 07:47:05 AM
I ran it RAW to get a clear understanding of the rules before I started tinkering with them, and overall I was satisfied with the package as a nice mini-sandbox, and players were not forced into a particular railroad. We did end up missing out on one part because it was linked to one of the pregens that didn't make it into our game, though. You have to be aware of all the hooks and modify them as needed if you really want to get "everything" out of the campaign.

I also don't care for the secret societies, they seem a bit forced. I never liked the Forgotten Realms setting, and I don't like what I've seen of the 5E version.

I am not crazy about the faction thing either so I don't use them. I ran the SS adventure in the Realms but since I am not crazy about the Realms I am running a Greyhawk campaign now (using old 1e modules).

I really like 5e. Ii is pretty much a modernized version of 1e and BX for me (yes I know not everyone feels that way). It is tied with 4e as my favorite versions of D&D.
Title: Re: 5e Starter Set, Who has played it?
Post by: DMMike on March 25, 2016, 10:45:29 AM
As noted on the SoD podcast, Liz and I played through the box starter. Its ok, though I felt the "first level" characters were overpowered; though that may be my DM-ness speaking there.

It FELT like D&D to us, which made it an improvement over 3X. I'd put it in the category of 2E w/splatbooks. Not my preferred system, and I won't run it but if someone is running a game I'll play it.

DM (Good at giving fair shakes) Mike

Title: Re: 5e Starter Set, Who has played it?
Post by: DM_Screenmonkey on March 27, 2016, 07:05:17 PM
I've played it. I think it's better then the 3.x/PF versions. It does feel more D&D I would and have played it, but it's not a system I'd run.  I'm not a big fan of the auto attack cantrips (too computer gamey to me) and I like playing mages. But over all not a bad iteration of the current game.
Title: Re: 5e Starter Set, Who has played it?
Post by: Lord Nikon on March 28, 2016, 02:22:35 PM
5e is outstanding and with some nice adjustments, such not allowing certain races and such, the game is great.
Title: Re: 5e Starter Set, Who has played it?
Post by: Dizzy on March 28, 2016, 02:53:02 PM
5e is outstanding and with some nice adjustments, such not allowing certain races and such, the game is great.

Curious which races you've disallowed?

Luckily, for now we're still using the starter set, but I know they're interested in a campaign once we're done. Drow are the only thing so far I know I won't allow, but I'm still on the fence with tieflings and dragonborn.
Title: Re: 5e Starter Set, Who has played it?
Post by: kevinwatson on March 28, 2016, 06:39:50 PM
I stick with Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Half-elf (but not 100% convinced), Half-orc (90% sure I will remove them too). I like the classic races. The others belong in very specific worlds or in Planescape.
Title: Re: 5e Starter Set, Who has played it?
Post by: bbarsh on March 28, 2016, 08:29:15 PM
I really enjoy 5e. In context, I really disliked 2e, hated 3e, and thought 4e was not even D&D.

The game definitely has a 1e feel; although I am not a fan of the hardcover adventure books. I'd like to see them put out some stand-alone style adventures that are not over-the-top scenarios.

It really is a good system and intuitive.
Title: Re: 5e Starter Set, Who has played it?
Post by: kevinwatson on March 28, 2016, 10:17:41 PM
I am with you, complete the 1e or Classic D&D feel by going back to the 16-32 page adventures that were loosely or tightly connected.
Title: Re: 5e Starter Set, Who has played it?
Post by: angelicdoctor on June 08, 2016, 08:49:30 AM
I keep passing this by in Half-Price books.  Always tempted to pick it up.
Title: Re: 5e Starter Set, Who has played it?
Post by: Dizzy on June 08, 2016, 09:59:50 AM
I ran a few sessions of this before my group went on hiatus for a bit. We loved it. LMoP was a great adventure, and 5e ran really nicely. I plan to finish it up once I return home from Switzerland and to start running Curse of Strahd.
Title: Re: 5e Starter Set, Who has played it?
Post by: mutazoid on June 09, 2016, 07:25:26 PM
I think 5e is great because you can change things without breaking it.
Personally, I dont like Drow,DragonBorn and Teiflings being base races.
The players heal up faster than old school and level up to 3 really fast.
The healing thing is 50/50 for me. 
The leveling up to level 3 quickly is mostly ok with me because I dont like the PCs sitting at low levels...  Im itching to play again.... hmph
Title: Re: 5e Starter Set, Who has played it?
Post by: Shiftkitty on July 08, 2016, 08:55:01 AM
I'm not crazy about the speeding through the first three levels. Those were always the levels where we saw the best character development. Yeah, you can develop at higher levels, but we tended to enjoy taking the "rank amateur" levels as a chance to develop personalities, flesh out details, and other such things with typical low-level adventures that blossom into larger things. Rushing through those levels makes me wonder why not just create a level 4 character and start there? To each his own, though. I do enjoy the rest of the game.
Title: Re: 5e Starter Set, Who has played it?
Post by: Fjw70 on July 08, 2016, 06:59:55 PM
I'm not crazy about the speeding through the first three levels. Those were always the levels where we saw the best character development. Yeah, you can develop at higher levels, but we tended to enjoy taking the "rank amateur" levels as a chance to develop personalities, flesh out details, and other such things with typical low-level adventures that blossom into larger things. Rushing through those levels makes me wonder why not just create a level 4 character and start there? To each his own, though. I do enjoy the rest of the game.

It's all about managing the wildly variable expectations of the player base. In the time of 3.5 many people would start characters at 3rd level and complained that levels 1-2 were a waste of time. So 4e came along and a 1st level character began with the power level of about 3rd level character and a bunch of people complained that they missed those low power levels.

So in the comprise edition (5e) the standard progression moves you through levels 1-2 pretty quickly so those that don't care much for those levels can get it over quickly. Then those they really like those levels can slow the progression down and savor them.