For myself, I found the fifth edition book significantly easier to follow than the third and fourth edition books. I think that you'll find this opinion commomn among the posters here but it is almost certain that this forum is somewhat self-selective in this regard.
As Tim said, the line editor and many of the authors do post on this board. Happily this means that specific issues that you post will be heard by them. If you are clear and specific about what bothers you, it might well make for better future products for the line. (It's a bit late to make fifth edition the game that you wanted instead of the game that I wanted though.)
I'll suscribe to Erik's notion of self-selectiveness, but undaunted head right on to praising 5th. I agree that beside liking 5th far more than the earlier editions (which I also liked a lot), 5th edition is indeed significantly easier to follow.
I also started my Ars passion with 3rd and then 4th edition Ars, though I only got to play for real with 4th, and I was thrilled to get 5th - so thrilled in fact that when I got the book it was a somewhat confusing experience. But I soon realised that this was due to my impatient rumpaging through the book hither and thither and getting nowhere. Especially because you can't help reading it with you preconceptions of the game from your experiences from the earlier editions. I settled down as I finally read it from cover to cover and had time to adjust myself.
Therefore my best advice is, as Dragonfly also suggested, that you read it from start to end if you haven't already. Try flushing the earlier editions from you mind before doing it (I know that Grandmaster Tyrrell is working on a splendid brainsucking spell that might prove usefull ), and have patience. It is a lot to take in because earlier concepts keep muddying up things.
A couple of other advices; Go to Atlas' website and get the Errata - I've got the first print of the 5th core book and many things didnt make sense till I got the Errata.
Be adviced that some of the core concepts from earlier editions are not in the core book, which on the other hand left room for some new savory stuff in it, but they are not lost - you'll find them in the growing number of 5th ed. splendid sourcebooks, where they are often adressed more thorough and interestingly than before.
If you don't like some particularities you can always ignore them - I think we all have a measure of a few house rulings we would like doing without.
Post any specific questions here on the forum - the answer are often fast and thorough - but make your questions more concrete or no one will know what you need.
For what little it's worth, I read AM4 last week to brush up on my hermetic lore. I'm now reading AM5 which I picked up via Ebay for a bargainously few florins.
My first impressions are that it's far better written, with far more exposition about the order which is superb stuff - well thought out, coherent, realistic yet fascinating and playable. It also tackles AM4's biggest problem, which was hiding the actual rules within reams of text by providing the handy little cut-out boxes that most RPG rulesets have included for 15+ years!
That's not to say I don't have some concerns, but I'm quietly tabulating these for a later explosion of derision
I haven't got to the combat rules yet, but they can't be any worse than AM4's!
No, the combat rules are not worse than ArM4. In fact I find it difficult to have a combat system that is worse than that. The problem is that it is basically the same system with group combat added to the mix and with minor tweakings. Most people do not enjoy it very much. The change in the damage done to characters is significant, though.
Hehe! And here I am actually thinking the world of 4th edition combat. I think it is one of the most visionary and realistic combat systems around. That it dared several things that no other RPGs did. To me the only problem with it is that is cumbersome to use - especially if you don't prepare properly.
In the coming weeks I am setting out to make my troupe some house rules on combat. It is one of the very few things I dislike about 5th, so I intend to make something bridging the two rule sets. When the Ars supplement expanding on combat arrrives I might reconsider.
The problem we found is that even preparing for it it was extremely cumbersome.
The weapon stats in both ArM4 and ArM5 are suspect at best as well. The basic mechanics can be pseudo-realistic, but the weapons are not. Not a lot at least.
I didn't find the prep so cumbersome. I quickly got used to use the excel sheets and then bring and extra form to scribble the results of each round as we moved along.
Weapon stats are tough - even if I've practiced historical weapon fighting I would be pressed to make comparable stats. Which is probably why I don't care so much about weapon stats. My interest is more on the mechanics.
The things I liked about ArM4 mechanics are:
The concept of weapon range,
The concept of initiative,
The concept of being outnumbered (which most RPGs doesn't penalize enough),
The clear advantage of being mounted.
The concept of carry over of Advantage allowing you to test and outmaneuver your opponent,
To let the Totals be a result of a round of skirmish instead of turns of one strike at a time.
I have nothing against the concept. The problem is that cumbersome combat systems do not play well when you sit around a table. They do not generate much tension in my experience. A tensionless combat is like a humourless comedy: it can be entertaining, but it is not good.
Very true. It somehow reminds me of a thread on RPG-meta that wasn't so succesfull. It is a challenging balance - keeping the rules detailed enough for the players to feel they make a difference (so that the choices they make are meaningful) and yet simple enough for them to be easily and quickly executed so that pace and tension can be maintained.
I have an ambiguity in this regard concerning one of the beloved concepts mentioned above - the die rolls. Most RPG rules lets one die roll signify one strike at the opponent. On one hand I find it very unrealistic. Most strikes in a one-on-one is to test your opponent, parry his strikes or to drive him to make an oppening which you time it to use. But on the other hand the pure simplicity of 'one roll = one strike' makes it so much easier for us to invest our feelings and tension into that roll and thus achieve the goal of RPG combat: immersion and translating the tension of the action from the character to the player sitting comfi in a chair or sofa munching chips...
I mean, most rpg combat systems follow the same basic model of initiative, attack vs. defence/target number and damage (reduced by "armour"). That being the case, you can only make things more difficult.
In ArM, we do have initiative (persisting across rounds to keep it simple), we have attack vs. defence with very few modifiers and we have damage vs. soak with the added complication of adding an attack bonus on.
There aren't many wrinkles to it so it should run pretty smoothly. I'm not a fan of "location tables", critical hits, actions, free actions, half actions and full actions etc.
I do like the defending rules which at first feel totally arbitrary but are very flavoursome.
The only thing I think is missing is a bit of lip service to those of us who prefer to run combat-style enounters on maps with miniatures. I'd like some movement rules, if only an official "you can move x feet/yards/squares per turn".
Personally I find that the fifth editions combat system is pure gold.
We have managed to get away from the whole "Death by papercuts" problem from earlier versions. (And as a house-rule we using the same system for Fatigue as well. Rolls to keep yourself conscious begins after falling below -9 to all rolls)
We also have a system for mass combat that might very well be turned into something VERY useful to resolve the clash of armies. In one word? Nifty.
We've dabbled with Ars 5 and a lot of my experience is theory. About a month ago I sat down for my first Ars5 combat. It was sweet.
It was smooth, exciting, simple and my magus fighter wanna be was a bad!
I'm really happy with the system. I like simple fast, 'uncumbersome' systems. I think it ran much better than previous editions and the GM didn't even seem to be doing a lot of math in his head!
The lack of Movement Rates for Combat is a pain though.
(yes , i know we can use the ones actually printed in 4th Ed.)
Movement Rates for Humans and Mounted Humans (Horse at least) would have been a big plus.
Yes , i know many of you like going all hand-wavey about these things ,
but what about chase scenes?
Magi are not always involved (ymmv) and able to magic away distance or speed concerns.
Another thing is Jumping.
How high or far can a character jump?
We can use out of game guesstimates from other game systems ,
but how hard would it be to devise a simple Athletics-type roll for this.
(an official one usable by humans anyway)
My current magus thinks he's a roman solider who wants to move into combat using Squares. We have yet to decide how far a square can move and still stay centered on my magus.
This may be in part because Ars never really focused on maps much, but even some abstract guidance might help. I suppose we can look back to previous editions and infer some rules if need be.
"We have managed to get away from the whole "Death by papercuts" problem from earlier versions"
I and my group find this to be as seriously BAD problem with the new game.
I've had characters repeatedly suffer very minor wounds that all add up in this game to be lethal by themselves without ever having had the character suffer a major wound, literally coming close to dying from being paper cut to death.
Light wound... light wound... light wound.. light wound.. light wound... etc... then the next roll results in death? After cutting his fingertips on parchment about 6 times. he cuts the 7th digit[metaphorically speaking] and dies? Because the minuses to his soak are so horrid that suddenly he goes over the line and dies?
The game really does need a fairly set number of each kind of wound level like previous editions. Eventually the character really should just run out of options at a certain level, and push past it into deeper danger. It can get ridiculous right now as is.
Which only goes to show that YMMV - we think it is the best feature of 5th ed. combat, and in fact the edition in generel.
Well even though calling minor wounds paper cuts - the haemorage from several small wounds is as deadly as from one larger gash. In any instance the rules do not let you die from anything but a deadly wound.
I am under the impression that the soak is not penalised from wounds. But I cannot find a reference to it. Only that it doesnt count against recovery rolls or that fatigue does count against regular soaking.
Use the 'Activities While Injured' and most often their wounds will deterioate and you wont have that problem. Moreso I add Fatigue rolls to that - not as vigorous as in 4th but if a character get wounds, and the more he gets, he'll need Stamina rolls to stay conscious. And since Fatigue is never except from the Wound penalties this is an ever faster road to unconsciousness. And to deeper danger...
The rules are not entirely clear on this point. Page 178 under "Wounds" says that "The character suffers a penalty to all actions (rolls and totals) equal to the sum of all penalties due to his wonunds..." A "Soak Total" is a character's Stamina + Armor bonus, so one might think the Wound Penalties apply to it, but on page 172, in the Simple Example, penultimate paragraph, it says "note that Polandrus' Wound Penalty does not apply to Soak because Soak is not rolled". Also on page 178, under Fatigue, second paragraph, it says, "Fatigued characters must apply the relevant penalty to all rolls, including further Fatigue tests, but not to Soak attempts." One would presume the Fatigue and Wound penalties should be handled uniformly.
This is the correct rule and the line about Wound Penalities affecting "actions and totals" means things that require a die roll and lab totals, study totals, and other seasonal totals, but not Soak Totals because this would cause character to be twice penalized for their Wounds.
I have it on good authority that Mr. Gronsky will be adding an explanation to the FAQ to address this very issue.
Opposed Athletics rolls (remember that e.g. some animals do get a bonus for rolls related to running), allowing for Fatigue expenditure in the same way as combat does. Require a number of successful contests based on the distance between the parties (e.g. Reach/Near/Far/Sight, to use ArM4 ranges).
Depends on whether he makes the roll for the difficulty you assign. You can rule that some jumps are impossible, or Myth it up. Again, some animals get bonuses for jumping.
I don't know if you gain much from knowing that the gap you're trying to jump is exactly 6.37m rather than from knowing it should be a hard jump.
I run it as you dscribed but as I was writing my post late last night I couldnt find the RAW reference and I didnt think to look at the Examples to find the rules. Your and Gronsky/SirGarlon both made apparent the lacking clarity in the RAW - I hadn't realised it before, even if playing it as intended.
), and have patience. It is a lot to take in because earlier concepts keep muddying up things.
Most people do not enjoy it very much. The change in the damage done to characters is significant, though.
I think it is one of the most visionary and realistic combat systems around. That it dared several things that no other RPGs did. To me the only problem with it is that is cumbersome to use - especially if you don't prepare properly.