Merlin_47's page

217 posts. 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We just began our 5th edition campaign. Three of us, myself included, have been greatly enjoying the edition. Two are still unsure; they both agree on one point - they don't like 5th because how it handles treasure and magic items. There was a two hour conversation that broke out after the session because of it. I and another player stayed out of it, occasionally offering opinions.

Kthulu and Ffordesoon are right - this edition really is more free form and more about role play. It is so simple and elegant (such as when it comes to Advantage/Disadvantage). I'm glad that they're trying to focus more on what characters can do with their class abilities rather than rely on magical stuff.

All I know is that this was the first time in years that we haven't had an argument about how a rule works or halted game play because we had to look up situational bonuses or would something get a bonus because of X,Y, and Z.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
The cap only applies to PCs (and in theory most small/medium sized humanoid races). I LOVE the cap on ability scores. I like that they say that the normal human maximum for an attribute is 18 (though they allow for adventurers to go up to 20). This keeps the game in the realm of a fantasy game, and makes the game feel a bit less like a super heroes game in a fantasy setting, which is what pathfinder and 4e feel like to me (especially at higher levels). As soon as attributes start going over 18-20 the game begins to feel more like a super heroes rpg and less like a fantasy rpg.

Here here! The one player that I have that has been "on the fence" about this edition, this is one of their major gripes. Another is the "only 20's crit" and don't get me started on the skills. The "go-to" class he said he'd play is the Fighter, purely because of the one option given in the pdf.

Ari Kanen wrote:
I read all the playtest rules, but I didn't do the surveys. I still feel like I got everything I wanted. I've been DMing Rise of the Runelords for the past year using PF, and I just started to get burned out around level 8. I found myself doing more math and less exploration of the narrative elements of the game and at the table we were spending more and more time talking about rules elements and what character/monster could or couldn't do.

This.....1,000 times this. I've enjoyed 3.x/Pathfinder. But this has been how I've been feeling myself lately. The line in bold has been what 60% of our time gaming has been lately. And because of that, the fun is starting to fade on me.

I ran the box for my group last Saturday and there were only three of them playing (one's a long story; not the place to go into it). They cleared out the goblin cave and will be in the town this Saturday.

After playing through the first cave, there's nothing I'm not liking about this system. Two of my players are digging it and the third is on the fence still. I can tell he's still having a hard time accepting how skills are done. He's not going to like magic items any more.

Before it gets asked, this is how it was explained in the box - some magic items need you to be "attuned" to them before you can use them. And you can only be attuned to 3 such magic items at any time. They also give how Gauntlets of Giant Strength work - If your strength is less than 19, it becomes 19. Otherwise, it does nothing for you.

So far...I'm liking everything about this system. After seeing magic in action, I'm starting to like it a bit more. Still ambivalent, but I'm starting to like it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Merlin_47 wrote:
I am with you on this one. I love the Paladin's LG alignment requirement, but why can't other gods have Paladins? I know that in the Realms, Sune has CG Paladins; I'd love to see Paladins of Lathander or even Kelemvor.

Not quite. Sune's Paladins are still LG; they're just the one exception (or one of two, there's a supplement that gives an exception for Selune Paladins who are part of an order between her and the dwarf god Clangeddin working together) that gets to ignore the one-step rule and be an LG divine caster with a CG patron.

And Lathander (NG) and Kelemvor (LN) can and do both have Paladins thanks to the one-step rule.

Huh....I misread that entry....and I was always told back during the 3rd. Ed era that a Paladin could only follow a LG God and Sune was the only exception to that.

I don't recall that supplement about Selune and Clangeddin...even them working together...may have to look into that one.

Still, I wouldn't mind seeing a NG or even a CG Paladin, as was done back in Dragon 132 I believe? I have the issue, I don't feel like digging it out right now. And again, I don't know if that's the right issue or not...I'm just too lazy to

And I'd still love a LE Paladin; again, because I run the Realms, I'd like it for Bane, since I use him a lot in my games.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Beek Gwenders of Croodle wrote:
Back in topic, there I was thinking about examples of Mythic characters in D&D: the Chosen of Mystra/Bane/whatever are a clear example if I got it right, also Araevin. Maybe Vecna in Greyhawk (before it's first death) or Kyuss. I can't think of lower level Mythic heroes right now.

The best example of a lower level Mythic hero is Huma from Dragonlance. The man was only (game stat wise) a level 8 fighter...and yet he managed to defeat Tahakiss. Yes....he died, but still! EVERY Solomanic Knight makes reference to him.

Magius and Kaz (his two friends and companions) are also in a similar vein. Probably more Kaz than Magius...both were only around level 8, much like Huma.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Brad the Bard wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:

What about mythic bunnies? I mean come on it's a cute little rabbit.

"I *warned* you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you *knew*, didn't you? Oh, it's just a harmless little *bunny*, isn't it? "


"Brother Maynard! Bring forth the Holy Hand grenade!"

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jim Groves wrote:
gbonehead wrote:
Your original post, in my opinion, was essentially advocating jumping directly to Immortal or Divine adventures, while I see Mythic Adventures as a crucial stepping stone from the core 1-20 rules to rules that go far above and beyond.

Great reply BTW. Good discussion.

Just let me add, I'll put my money where my mouth is. Set aside my original post. I'm prepared to be open minded about everything (except just say "no" altogether).

Your interpretation of mythic rules as a stepping stone to immortal and divine level play sounds really interesting.. and a good place to start.

Certainly a wonderful place to start. I'm fully entrenched in the "yes to Mythic Rules" camp. James already said, these rules may or may not work. Still, we need to try; just outright saying "no" because of the sins of the past isn't how to handle this.

I don't know....I get tired of these threads, because since someone doesn't like "X", that means everyone doesn't like "X" and therefore, "X" shouldn't be introduced. Yes, I already see people using the reverse as a defense, but I'm going to say it right now - not everyone wants "X" and not everyone is against the addition of "X". If Mythic rules are given a fair and honest chance and they don't work, then fine; at least it was given a fair chance. However, it makes me sad that no one wants to give this a chance.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Neverwillibreak wrote:

I mean, maybe this is just me. But what's the appeal of high level play beyond 20th? At 17th or so things begin getting to the point you really have to adjudicate things on the fly because the PCs have such a high aggregate power compared to what you can throw at them.

Yes, it's cool to say your character is the stompiest of the stompy, but at level 20 there's very few obstacles (barring you playing Forgotten Realms) to doing as you please.

The biggest appeal is that for my table, my players want to keep playing and growing with their characters after level 20. They want the next biggest challenge after those high powered dragons, balors, and pit fiends. Those that manage to bring a character up all the way from level 1 to 20 want to keep playing it for as long as they can (understandably). They want to get the most out of their character and they still feel that they can. But, the only way to actually achieve that is with 21 and beyond.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, there needs to be content for beyond 20 play. As for what a cap should be, I think nothing higher than 40 would be fine. I mean, I understand people want to keep going even beyond that, but at least a hard cap at 40 gives players another 20 levels to play with.

There's only so many times our table can start a campaign, get their characters up to 20 and have to stop and restart all over again. We'd all like to go beyond 20 and keep growing with these characters.