Now that you have access to the basic rules for 5th edition, what do you think?

[Steve Geddes]

An article on the history of critical hits, for those interested.

Gary Gygax didn't seem to like them very much:

Quote:

Gygax wrote in Dragon #16 (July 1978) that "the 'critical hit' or 'double damage' on a 'to hit' die roll of 20 is particularly offensive to the precepts of D&D." When critical hits (or fumbles) are played, as he puts it, "the whole game system is perverted, and the game possibly ruined" by the precipitous deaths of powerful monsters or player characters. This text anticipates the blanket dismissal that would show up in the Dungeon Masters Guide the following year of "such rules as double damage and critical hits" (pg.61).

[Digitalelf]

Joana wrote:

Must have come from 2e. Or, as you say, Unearthed Arcana; we used that book, but I never had my own copy.

There were no rules for critical hits in Unearthed Arcana, though there were several articles on critical hits in Dragon Magazine going as far back as OD&D.

There were rules for critical hits in 2nd edition, though these rules were specifically labeled as optional within the books...

[johnlocke90]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

After readying through the DnD Basic Rules from the WotC web site, I find that I like a lot of the stuff I've read. The stuff that I wasnt to sure about was the way the spells and spellcasters was changed. From what I read a wizard and clerics get a a small number of cantrips they know and thats it.....its not like before when you had your cantrips in your book and chose them each day as you liked. Also they nerfed the shield spell badly. Its now a reactive spell that lasts until your next turn while still being a 1st level spell. Also detect magic is a 1st level spell again.

Shield is quite strong. If you have decent AC it makes you unhittable by most monsters unless they get a 20.

[johnlocke90]

thejeff wrote:

Auxmaulous wrote:

thejeff wrote:

JoeJ wrote:

It can't be worse than 1E explicitly stating in the rules that players are not allowed to read the DMG.

I never understood how that was supposed to work. Once you decide to GM, you can never play again? And you have to make that decision, once and for all, before even looking at the book?

It certainly wasn't a common rule anywhere I played.

I do recall big G mentioning it though - in the 1st ed DMG in fact.

I think back then their wasn't as much chair changing as their was with 3rd ed +.

Yeah, I remember it to. I always took it as more of a "Players don't need to know any of this and it's probably better if they don't read it, at least at first".

OTOH, the taboo against metagaming hadn't really developed early on. Players were expected to carry knowledge about monsters and traps and similar things on to the next character to get better at beating the game. Looking at the monsters and maybe magic items especially was almost getting an unfair edge.

On the gripping hand, by the early 80s at least, that had changed in many groups. Especially, I suspect, those who came in from a fantasy background rather than a wargaming one.

And I never met a GM who didn't want to play whenever possible. We just kept the good ones too busy running to get much chance.

Well one of the big differences is that 1e was full of "know X is about to happen or die" effects, so if you weren't metagaming your character was screwed.

[johnlocke90]

thejeff wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

I read through the basic rules several time and I like alot of what I see, except for the changes to spells and spellcasters. The more I re-read what they did the less I like it.

Protection from energy now only gives you resistance (half damage) and its a concentration spell so you'll only have one going at any one time.

The spellcasters ability to help in combat has been severely reduced (except for dealing damage). Buffs/debuffs are all or mostly concentration spells, Wall spells are concentration, etc.

I think they failed big time in their attempt to "balance" martials and casters.

At least this is how I see things.

And since Protection from energy's a half damage concentration spell, when you take that half damage, there's a good chance you'll lose it. Joy.

OTOH, If they really have overshot in balancing martials and casters, that'll be a first. I'm suspicious too, but it may be we just haven't seen the tricks and loopholes yet. Or casters play a slightly different role, but still dominate.

The strength of casters is that even if 90% of our spells are terrible we can just use the 10% that are good.

IE "Web requires a concentration to maintain? Well good thing there is another area control spell with no such requirement!"

And as we get more splat books we will get more spells.

[R_Chance]

Logan1138 wrote:

Joana wrote:

Iirc, that's how it worked in AD&D: only on a natural 20 and no confirmation roll. (We had a house rule to roll again, and a second natural 20 was triple damage; if you rolled a third 20, it was an instant kill -- but I don't think I ever actually saw it happen.)

In AD&D (at least 1st edition which is all I played) there were no official rules for critical hits that I can recall. Any critical hits in a 1E game would have been due to house rules.

EDIT: It's possible that crits may have come into the game in a Dragon article or Unearthed Arcana but I can't remember all of those additions.

The critical hit rule I remember was from Empire of the Petal Throne (TSR 1975 iirc, which used a variant of the original D&D rules). It was double damage on a 20 and a second confirming roll of 20 was instant death. That was adopted by a lot of D&D players. The background skill system from EPT saw pretty wide usage as well given the lack of any skill system in OD&D.

*EDIT* Steve Geddes linked article above mentions the EPT critical rule, although my memory failed on the instant death additional role - it was 19-20. Thanks for the trip down memory lane Mr. Geddes :)

[Jacob Saltband]

Just how do reactive works? If you use a reactive spell not on your action, when your action comes around what can you do? Was the reactive spell your action for that round?

[Zardnaar]

You only get one reactiopn a round so if you use a reactive spell or another ability you can't make an attack of opportunity for example

[Logan1138]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Just how do reactive works? If you use a reactive spell not on your action, when your action comes around what can you do? Was the reactive spell your action for that round?

You would still get to take a normal action on your turn after using your reaction to cast a spell (like Shield).

[Jacob Saltband]

This is some thoughts I have to houserule some thing so far. I havent seen the PH yet so dont know if there are any changes since the Basic rules came out, but I'll probably drop the concentration parts of most buff/duff spells. Reason is because the casters have had their number of spells reduced, AND having buff/debuff spells as concentreation as well, reduces spellcasting even more.

I've noticed that most spells have a set duration that is not changed by caster level, this is another reduction in caster ability as well. Even if some spells have had their durations increase, like mage armor has an 8hr duration, it still reduces casters flexability.

I'll probably change the Shield spell to +2 or +3 AC and protection from magic missiles, not sure what duration to set it at yet.

This is just my opinion but I feel that casters got screwed over more then nessecary for "balance".

We still have 3 months until the DMG to see what they have as options.

[thejeff]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

This is some thoughts I have to houserule some thing so far. I havent seen the PH yet so dont know if there are any changes since the Basic rules came out, but I'll probably drop the concentration parts of most buff/duff spells. Reason is because the casters have had their number of spells reduced, AND having buff/debuff spells as concentreation as well, reduces spellcasting even more.

I've noticed that most spells have a set duration that is not changed by caster level, this is another reduction in caster ability as well. Even if some spells have had their durations increase, like mage armor has an 8hr duration, it still reduces casters flexability.

I'll probably change the Shield spell to +2 or +3 AC and protection from magic missiles, not sure what duration to set it at yet.

This is just my opinion but I feel that casters got screwed over more then nessecary for "balance".

We still have 3 months until the DMG to see what they have as options.

I like the idea of durations being constant rather than tied to caster level. It's a nice boost at low levels, where there's a lot of stuff that just isn't worth casting because it won't last long enough and it means high level casters can't just put all their buffs up at the start of the day.

My gut feeling is that you may be right about caster's being too nerfed, but I'd want to play a game or two at high levels before thinking too much about house rules to fix that. It may be that they just need to play differently than in 3.x.

[Alan_Beven]

From my playtime with the game so far casters have not been nerfed as much as they have been shifted away from their 3rd edition playstyle. Your mileage may vary here. I find the concentration spells are a different way to create the playstyle from 1st ed. Casters had very few hitpoints and stayed way out of melee. In 5e casters are more survivable, but getting hit penalises them differently but quite harshly.

[Jacob Saltband]

The few magic items I've seen in the starter set seem to be pretty good, not like the jokes that magic items became in 4e.

I like that staves and wands recharge some each day.

[Logan1138]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

This is some thoughts I have to houserule some thing so far. I havent seen the PH yet so dont know if there are any changes since the Basic rules came out, but I'll probably drop the concentration parts of most buff/duff spells. Reason is because the casters have had their number of spells reduced, AND having buff/debuff spells as concentreation as well, reduces spellcasting even more.

I've noticed that most spells have a set duration that is not changed by caster level, this is another reduction in caster ability as well. Even if some spells have had their durations increase, like mage armor has an 8hr duration, it still reduces casters flexability.

I'll probably change the Shield spell to +2 or +3 AC and protection from magic missiles, not sure what duration to set it at yet.

This is just my opinion but I feel that casters got screwed over more then nessecary for "balance".

We still have 3 months until the DMG to see what they have as options.

As someone who rarely plays casters and prefers martial types, I am pleased to see that casters got nerfed hard. They needed it...badly. However, I understand that people who like playing casters are "miffed" about the nerf-age.

[Logan1138]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

I like that staves and wands recharge some each day.

Personally, I HATE that feature. If I ever actually run a game (I don't DM much), that would be an immediate change in my game: charged items do NOT recharge without a lot of work/spells/money.

[Southeast Jerome]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

This is some thoughts I have to houserule some thing so far. I havent seen the PH yet so dont know if there are any changes since the Basic rules came out, but I'll probably drop the concentration parts of most buff/duff spells. Reason is because the casters have had their number of spells reduced, AND having buff/debuff spells as concentreation as well, reduces spellcasting even more.

I'm with you. Limiting spellcasters to one active spell at a time is a good idea, but the more I look at it, tying it to a binary concentration mechanic was a mistake. Hopefully there will be some optional rules down the road that gives concentration some granularity. Two options I would like to see:

1-different concentration DCs for casting vs. maintaining a spell. I'd even go so far as to have a very low or even no concentration DC for maintaining a spell as long as the caster is conscious. If you get hit while casting, make the concentration check as normal, but once it's cast, the only way you can lose concentration is if you cast another spell, lose consciousness, or lose control of your mind (from an enemy's spell for example).

and/or

2-a cool down period for the spell effect after losing concentration, say 1 round before the effect wears off. This would give a buffed player a chance to feel the effect wearing off instead of just turning off like a light switch if the caster gets hit with an arrow, and would give the buffed player a few seconds to get to safety.

[sunshadow21]

Logan1138 wrote:

As someone who rarely plays casters and prefers martial types, I am pleased to see that casters got nerfed hard. They needed it...badly. However, I understand that people who like playing casters are "miffed" about the nerf-age.

I would rather see them aid martial characters by boosting the systems that martials rely on than constantly having to nerf casters into the ground every single time they make a new edition. Casters need adjusting, but honestly, this system was built on the idea of very strong casters, and trying to ignore that by constantly trying to neuter the main reasons that people play them to begin with is getting tiresome for many folks. If they can bring martials up the same level that casters operate at while tweaking casters, great, but it really is annoying watching them try to take a system built on strong casters and treating casters like worthless dirt. There is a middle ground where both types of characters can flourish, but they aren't looking for it and don't seem to care how bad they are killing the reasons people like playing casters; that is my gripe personally.

[Logan1138]

sunshadow21 wrote:

Logan1138 wrote:

As someone who rarely plays casters and prefers martial types, I am pleased to see that casters got nerfed hard. They needed it...badly. However, I understand that people who like playing casters are "miffed" about the nerf-age.

I would rather see them aid martial characters by boosting the systems that martials rely on than constantly having to nerf casters into the ground every single time they make a new edition. Casters need adjusting, but honestly, this system was built on the idea of very strong casters, and trying to ignore that by constantly trying to neuter the main reasons that people play them to begin with is getting tiresome for many folks. If they can bring martials up the same level that casters operate at while tweaking casters, great, but it really is annoying watching them try to take a system built on strong casters and treating casters like worthless dirt. There is a middle ground where both types of characters can flourish, but they aren't looking for it and don't seem to care how bad they are killing the reasons people like playing casters; that is my gripe personally.

Did you play 1st or 2nd Edition AD&D? Casters were powerful (at really high levels) but not nearly as powerful as they became in 3.X/PF. So, they haven't been "nerfing casters with each edition". They are just trying to bring casters back down from the lofty god-like realms they reached in 3.X/PF. (I have no idea what they were like in 4E, btw.)

Personally, I would hate to see martials "pumped up" in an attempt to match casters because they (martials) already look a little too powerful for my tastes in 5E.

I think this might come down to those who prefer an "old-school"/lower power level style of gaming versus those who prefer the "new-school"/high power level style.

[thejeff]

As I think I said earlier, I'd like to let this shake out for awhile and see how much it really nerfs them. I'm afraid it'll be too much and I'm afraid it'll hurt partial casters, especially self-buffing melee types, more than it really hurts high end wizards. Full casters will still have the flexibility and may still dominate at higher levels, just in different ways than in 3.x.
That's what I remember from the 2nd->3.0 transition. At least in our group, casters seemed to have been nerfed at first because many of our old tricks mostly involving direct damage were much less effective. It took awhile to figure out how things had changed - going from uber-blasters to uber-buffers and battlefield control.

For those who've seen the PHB, what do the Paladin and Ranger spell lists look like? Do they have the same problem?

[137ben]

bugleyman wrote:

Meta-magic is now solely the purview of the sorcerer. Rather than taking higher level spell slots, meta-magic is powered by a new resource: Sorcery Points. You basically get one sorcery point per sorcerer level (starting at 2nd), and use these to power meta-magic (among other things...like creating extra spell slots on the fly). Sorcerers are all about flexibility when it comes to magic...they can mess with spells in ways wizards cannot.

Hmm, I like it. It was already sort of like that in 3e, with sorcerer's being better at utilizing metamagic than wizards (that's their most significant advantage over wizards). And wizards can just prepare a more powerful version of that spell instead, so they always had less need for metamagic.

[sunshadow21]

Logan1138 wrote:

sunshadow21 wrote:

Logan1138 wrote:

As someone who rarely plays casters and prefers martial types, I am pleased to see that casters got nerfed hard. They needed it...badly. However, I understand that people who like playing casters are "miffed" about the nerf-age.

I would rather see them aid martial characters by boosting the systems that martials rely on than constantly having to nerf casters into the ground every single time they make a new edition. Casters need adjusting, but honestly, this system was built on the idea of very strong casters, and trying to ignore that by constantly trying to neuter the main reasons that people play them to begin with is getting tiresome for many folks. If they can bring martials up the same level that casters operate at while tweaking casters, great, but it really is annoying watching them try to take a system built on strong casters and treating casters like worthless dirt. There is a middle ground where both types of characters can flourish, but they aren't looking for it and don't seem to care how bad they are killing the reasons people like playing casters; that is my gripe personally.

Did you play 1st or 2nd Edition AD&D? Casters were powerful (at really high levels) but not nearly as powerful as they became in 3.X/PF. So, they haven't been "nerfing casters with each edition". They are just trying to bring casters back down from the lofty god-like realms they reached in 3.X/PF. (I have no idea what they were like in 4E, btw.)

Personally, I would hate to see martials "pumped up" in an attempt to match casters because they (martials) already look a little too powerful for my tastes in 5E.

I think this might come down to those who prefer an "old-school"/lower power level style of gaming versus those who prefer the "new-school"/high power level style.

I get that not everyone likes what 3.x became, but they cannot seriously expect to dial it back now to what it was before without changing a lot of the basic feel of play that all but those who played the very first couple of editions have come to expect. What they don't seem to get is that a lot of people actually like what they did with 3rd edition in terms of making casters far more playable, and functionally 3rd edition is still the effective baseline to start from now. The reality is that the cat is out of the bag; if they really wanted to reset the system to pre 3.x levels, they need to go all the way back to the 1st edition and add on the best of later systems from there. They cannot start with a pseudo 3.x base and expect people to be excited about nerfing magic back to the point where the restrictions kept people from playing both clerics and wizards unless most of the restrictions were ignored, because no wizard in his right mind would bother with adventuring under the official rules and clerics were just plain boring.

[Adjule]

Having casters toned down is a good thing, to me. I would rather see how it plays out the way it is, and if it turns out not to your liking, it would be easier to change it to allow more power, than it would be to restrict it. Typically more palatable to players when you increase their power over what is written, than it is to reduce that power. Then you don't get called a fascist meany who only cares about your fun and not that of the players. Or some such BS.

[thejeff]

sunshadow21 wrote:

I get that not everyone likes what 3.x became, but they cannot seriously expect to dial it back now to what it was before without changing a lot of the basic feel of play that all but those who played the very first couple of editions have come to expect. What they don't seem to get is that a lot of people actually like what they did with 3rd edition in terms of making casters far more playable, and functionally 3rd edition is still the effective baseline to start from now. The reality is that the cat is out of the bag; if they really wanted to reset the system to pre 3.x levels, they need to go all the way back to the 1st edition and add on the best of later systems from there. They cannot start with a pseudo 3.x base and expect people to be excited about nerfing magic back to the point where the restrictions kept people from playing both clerics and wizards unless most of the restrictions were ignored, because no wizard in his right mind would bother with adventuring under the official rules and clerics were just plain boring.

I'm not quite sure where you're coming from. A lot of people are used to God-mode casters, but a lot of people complain about the balance as well. Even those who like 3.x in general.

I'm not sure how much AD&D you played, but I remember plenty of people playing magic-users without ignoring restrictions. They were still awesomely powerful past the early levels. Clerics were more of a problem, since you were usually stuck doing little but healing. The big problem with magic-users was how little they could do in the first couple levels and how fragile they were. All of that it is not in 5E. Wizards are tougher and more flexible at low levels. Clerics get spontaneous heals and some domains have more healing options.

We're nowhere near the frustration of healbots or the problems with low-level wizards. One thing I do like about nerfing casters through Concentration is that it affects them at all levels fairly evenly. It avoids the "You have to play wizards through early levels where you can't do anything and you'll probably die in order to get a God character later on" approach of early D&D.

As I said before, I'm not at all sure about the concentration rules, but they at least have the potential to balance casters in a more interesting way than other attempts. My big concern is that they'll hamper martial casters (gishes, melee clerics and 1/2 casters) more than the real tier one full casters.

[sunshadow21]

If it works out playing like AD&D, than they will have found a decent level to work at, but it's still not going to win back everyone they've lost. Their problem is that in trying to tone it down from 3.x, on paper at least, they seem to have gone too far the other direction, and even if it is decent enough in actual play, you have to convince people to try them first, and the sheer number of moving parts they put into the new magic system makes it more vulnerable to even minor changes having significant ripple effects.

In the end, while they did a decent job of keeping overreactions to a minimum in the game system overall, they did not do so well in that regard when writing the magic system. There are a number of small ways they could have lessened the blow without muting the overall effect, as many have posted in this and similar threads. Their solution will certainly win over a fair number of fans, but not enough to guarantee them the top spot consistently. It's no worse than what anyone else has come up with, but it's no better either, and given the amount of edition fatigue a lot of people are feeling, that is going to hurt. Merely as good as everything else at best, and possibly worse in many people's opinions, is not going to help WotC over the long run; they better hope that the DMG options give people the flexibility so many are looking for.

At this point, it's easier to stick with PF and see what changes Paizo has coming down the pipe to address the shortfalls in the system they inherited and have shown competence in managing so far than it is to get excited about a new system by a company with a very uneven track record of quality control. For me to be interested in the system itself would require notable improvement in all areas, especially magic, and I am just not seeing that here; for every step they take forward, they take one back at the same time. They have done a far, far better job this time than they did with 4E, but it's still just not enough to make me feel anything but meh about the system itself. I'm not writing off 5E or its magic system entirely, but I'm also not willing to view it as a particularly great thing that is going to solve everyone's problems either. If the system works, and it manages to stick, great, but it doesn't show a lot of promise on paper to do either.

[Auxmaulous]

sunshadow21 wrote:

At this point, it's easier to stick with PF and see what changes Paizo has coming down the pipe to address the shortfalls in the system they inherited and have shown competence in managing so far than it is to get excited about a new system by a company with a very uneven track record of quality control. For me to be interested in the system itself would require notable improvement in all areas, especially magic, and I am just not seeing that here; for every step they take forward, they take one back at the same time. They have done a far, far better job this time than they did with 4E, but it's still just not enough to make me feel anything but meh about the system itself. I'm not writing off 5E or its magic system entirely, but I'm also not willing to view it as a particularly great thing that is going to solve everyone's problems either. If the system works, and it manages to stick, great, but it doesn't show a lot of promise on paper to do either.

If you really like 3.5/PF level of caster power and want martials to get a boost you probably would do better to stick with PF. It seems like power level in PF is being increased with some classes (PF Unchained) though it doesn't sound like the Fighter is getting a direct fix. So not a power increase across the board for martials but they may offer changes to secondary abilities and effects that affect core martials as a by-product.

Since 5e is addressing perceived issues of power and class balance I doubt they will get anything close to level of power casters have in 3e.

I DO NOT think that 3e is the new baseline for gaming/game design nor a good baseline to start from for this system (IMO of course). I think 3e based systems have too many mechanical problems, balance issues and breakdowns (skills for example) that it wouldn't be a good baseline for anything but another system build on top of it (PF). Again, all IMO.

That being said - it may be very easy to houserule in some kind of duration rates for 5e casting.
Personal buffs/debuffs and group buffs/debuffs can be classed as 1 round level or 1 min/level (depending on the power of the spell). Spells that are hyper-combat effective or seriously gimp the enemy can be 1 round/level while the less offensive spells take the 1 min/level route.

Requires you to go through the spell list but it wouldn't be groundbreaking work - you could refer to 3.5 or PF as comparison for pretty much all the spells.

Layer spells, magic items and DMG musings:

I'm not sure I like the concentration/buff system limiter myself - and it may not have been needed (hear me out)....

If they took out spell replicators in items and potions then the concentration buff limiter may have been overkill - think about it.

In my previous PF games before a big fight players would be drinking potions (spell), using wands (spell), using items (spells), using abilities (function very much like a spell) and a castings spells (spell). If in the new game item abilities are not replicating spells (and working as spell multipliers) then you will, as a general rule have less overall spells concurrently in effect in 5e than you would in PF.

Again - this is a bit of a guess/theory since this ties to magic items and how they are supposed to function in 5e.

The fact that they are bringing back a potion miscibility table means you get one potion (spell) effect at a time - so that's one extra layer spells source that's being removed (for some versions of the game at least).

I don't know if potion miscibility will be a modular 1/2ed component of a "baseline" game assumption built into the system. If this is part of a default assumption as a effort to reign in spell layering and reduce the headache of tracking multiple expiring effects.

--------

Concentration buff spells are not a game breaker for me, I tend to lean reduction vs. power increase in all my gaming considerations so in the end I think my players would be able to adapt. Without knowing how magic item spells work I just don't know if it was really needed.

[sunshadow21]

It's less I really like where PF is power wise and more I really don't like WotC's solution any better. It just feels like they are trying to accomplish too many opposing goals; it would have worked a lot better if they had chosen one of the other earlier editions as a clear baseline and gone for there rather than this quite frankly disappointing mashup of a magic system. The application of when levels do and don't matter just seems uneven to me, the concentration mechanic/limiter is overused, and they may as well scrap the vancian system entirely and go with a pure point system if they are going to go with variable casting levels. I just feel they painted too broad of a stroke (or possibly not broad enough); pinpointing specific concerns and making smaller, easier to adjust fixes would have gotten them the same thing while better limiting the creation of brand new headaches. I am not sold on either the cantrips or the ritual spells, so they do nothing to counter any negative changes elsewhere. Cantrips, while nice, don't work all that well as replacements to normal spell slots. Neither, for that matter, does the concept of ritual spells; they didn't work out all that well before, and while this implementation is better, I still see it not really working all the well throughout the higher levels.

[MMCJawa]

Did they really start with a 3.5 baseline? My sense of it, from reading comments, is that a lot of the 3.5 similarities are more in the sense of "These mechanics are common to multiple versions of DnD". I mean I don't doubt they borrowed elements, but I don't think I really see 3.5 as a particular baseline.

Updating 3.5 to a new edition wouldn't make great business strategy, since Pathfinder already lives in that niche. Better to cater to fans of other editions, who maybe are less satisfied with Pathfinder.

[Eirikrautha]

sunshadow21 wrote:

It's less I really like where PF is power wise and more I really don't like WotC's solution any better. It just feels like they are trying to accomplish too many opposing goals; it would have worked a lot better if they had chosen one of the other earlier editions as a clear baseline and gone for there rather than this quite frankly disappointing mashup of a magic system. The application of when levels do and don't matter just seems uneven to me, the concentration mechanic/limiter is overused, and they may as well scrap the vancian system entirely and go with a pure point system if they are going to go with variable casting levels. I just feel they painted too broad of a stroke (or possibly not broad enough); pinpointing specific concerns and making smaller, easier to adjust fixes would have gotten them the same thing while better limiting the creation of brand new headaches. I am not sold on either the cantrips or the ritual spells, so they do nothing to counter any negative changes elsewhere. Cantrips, while nice, don't work all that well as replacements to normal spell slots. Neither, for that matter, does the concept of ritual spells; they didn't work out all that well before, and while this implementation is better, I still see it not really working all the well throughout the higher levels.

Out of curiosity, have you played it yet?

I have. First off, the new offensive cantrips provide far more utility than any low-level magic user had in 1e or 2e. A 1e magic user had one spell. After that, he rolled ranged attacks with little chance to hit for the rest of the adventure. The last 5e game I played (Saturday) had both clerics and wizards doing quite a bit to help offensively, with much of their utility preserved until needed. It's a good balance.

At higher-level (which I haven't done more than one-offs with pre-leveled characters), magic-using characters are not the gods they are in PF (due to fewer spells and lower powered spells), but this is also a good thing. Wizards and the like are much more fragile, the trade-off for having more narrative power than the martials. In PF, a magic user can buff himself to the point where he's hard to hit and roflstomps anyone who tries. That's not the 5e magic characters... and thankfully so. In 5e, a wizard needs to pick and choose his battles. It's almost like ... strategy...

[Jacob Saltband]

So how do rituals work in 5e? If I did a detect magic ritual what would it entail?

[Landon Winkler]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

So how do rituals work in 5e? If I did a detect magic ritual what would it entail?

It takes ten minutes longer to cast, but does not cost a spell slot.

Cheers!
Landon

[sunshadow21]

If I want to play a game where casters are that severely limited and martials are the uber class, I'm not going to waste time on D&D, PF, or anything similar. I'll find a system that had that as a core design from the beginning, not tacked on because the company needed to make a change in order to sell new books. The other system will do it better, and actually be a worthwhile addition to a bookshelf that already has far more D&D variants than it really needs. I have no particular interest in buying a system whose developers routinely gut large portions of their game instead of looking for the actual problems. While I am glad that 5E seems to be getting mostly positive views thus far, I'm not likely to spend any time on it. Fixing the casters does not have to mean gutting them to the core, but that is exactly what WotC seems intent on doing in both of the last editions.

[Jacob Saltband]

Landon Winkler wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

So how do rituals work in 5e? If I did a detect magic ritual what would it entail?

It takes ten minutes longer to cast, but does not cost a spell slot.

Cheers!
Landon

So if you did a ritual for a spell that lasts 'concentration, up to 1 min'. It would take 10 mins to cast but still need concentration and end 1 min later....but it didnt use a spell slot, yeah....

I'll need to get the book to see just how the rules work for rituals to see if they help mitigate the limitations imposed on casters in 5e.

[thejeff]

sunshadow21 wrote:

If I want to play a game where casters are that severely limited and martials are the uber class, I'm not going to waste time on D&D, PF, or anything similar. I'll find a system that had that as a core design from the beginning, not tacked on because the company needed to make a change in order to sell new books. The other system will do it better, and actually be a worthwhile addition to a bookshelf that already has far more D&D variants than it really needs. I have no particular interest in buying a system whose developers routinely gut large portions of their game instead of looking for the actual problems. While I am glad that 5E seems to be getting mostly positive views thus far, I'm not likely to spend any time on it. Fixing the casters does not have to mean gutting them to the core, but that is exactly what WotC seems intent on doing in both of the last editions.

It's possible, but I think it's a long way from "martials are the uber class".

Casters have more limits than they used to, particularly the Concentration thing. OTOH, the prepare then cast spontaneously mechanism is more flexible than either of the previous ones, effect at will combat powers take a lot of the load off of the spell slots, rituals cover a lot of utility casting and you're still going to have far more flexibility than any martial class.

It's not Wizard is God, but it's not as bad as you're making it out either.

[Adjule]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

Landon Winkler wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

So how do rituals work in 5e? If I did a detect magic ritual what would it entail?

It takes ten minutes longer to cast, but does not cost a spell slot.

Cheers!
Landon

So if you did a ritual for a spell that lasts 'concentration, up to 1 min'. It would take 10 mins to cast but still need concentration and end 1 min later....but it didnt use a spell slot, yeah....

I'll need to get the book to see just how the rules work for rituals to see if they help mitigate the limitations imposed on casters in 5e.

I haven't looked at the spells much, and don't have the PHB, so I could be wrong here (and am too lazy to go through the basic pdf). You can only cast spells with the [ritual] descriptor as a ritual spell, and I think those are spells like teleport, many divination spells, and the like. Not sure if many (or any at all) spells that can be cast as rituals are the ones with Concentration, or ones that make much sense to be cast during combat.

[sunshadow21]

thejeff wrote:

It's not Wizard is God, but it's not as bad as you're making it out either.

That depends on how many people get tired of casting fly, getting up in the air, and immediately fall down after a maxed out archer hits the juicy soft target. And how well ritual spells actually work at high levels. It may not be quite as bad as some of my posts make it seem, but it's also not the minor adjustment that some are trying to make it seem. It will be a blackmark on the system for a lot of people, all the more glaring because of the lack of other major issues thus far. By itself, it won't sink the system as a whole by any means, but it will definitely make it harder to convince many lapsed 3.x and PF players to adopt the system wholeheartedly.

And that's the biggest problem that 5E is going to have in general; while it's not a bad system with a lot of clear flaws, it's also not particularly great with a lot of clearly unique and positively received new features either (almost all reviews I've seen have included a "but" statement limiting the impact of the praise offered). That is going to make it hard to support past the initial release given the amount of edition fatigue that WotC (and to be fair, others, including Paizo to a certain extent) has brought about. With a few small tweaks, they could have avoided the worst of the perceived on the magic system without damaging the final decrease in power, and had a clear point in their favor. The fact that they failed to do so not only with the magic system, but everything else as well, is both disappointing and concerning, since it leaves them with nothing beyond the name to sell their product, which while strong, won't help them much a year or two past release if they can't convince people to fully invest in the system beyond just the core books and keep them playing it.

[JoeJ]

sunshadow21 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

It's not Wizard is God, but it's not as bad as you're making it out either.

That depends on how many people get tired of casting fly, getting up in the air, and immediately fall down after a maxed out archer hits the juicy soft target. And how well ritual spells actually work at high levels. It may not be quite as bad as some of my posts make it seem, but it's also not the minor adjustment that some are trying to make it seem.

Fly is probably better used in non-combat situations now.

[sunshadow21]

JoeJ wrote:

sunshadow21 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

It's not Wizard is God, but it's not as bad as you're making it out either.

That depends on how many people get tired of casting fly, getting up in the air, and immediately fall down after a maxed out archer hits the juicy soft target. And how well ritual spells actually work at high levels. It may not be quite as bad as some of my posts make it seem, but it's also not the minor adjustment that some are trying to make it seem.

Fly is probably better used in non-combat situations now.

Fly is just one example. Suddenly losing a buff spell while in a tight spot where they were relying on that spell, or having an ally lose a buff spell when they are in a tight spot where they were relying on that spell, is going to grate on people's nerves after a while. Battlefield control spells will have similar problems; losing the wall holding back the foe's champion fighter just because a 1 hp creature managed to crit the wizard is not going to sit well with most players. It looks fine, even great, on paper, and won't be a problem once or twice, but I guarantee over the course of a campaign, it will get old quick. Concentration + 1 round at least would have given those affected a chance to deal with it; as it is, I can see a lot of people simply not bothering unless it's really an important fight, which is going to lead to a lot of players being annoyed at not being able to use a large amount of their available power because it's just not worth the effort most of the time.

[bugleyman]

I really need to see the concentration system in play before I can form a comprehensive opinion about where casters sit on the power curve, but one thing seems clear from reading it: Casters are going to feel quite different.

[sunshadow21]

bugleyman wrote:

I really need to see the concentration system in play before I can form a comprehensive opinion about where casters sit on the power curve, but one thing seems clear from reading it: Casters are going to feel quite different.

That was one of the biggest complaints 4E had. I hope they thought the changes through far better this time around, or it could really ugly. The perception that they are actively trying to completely nerf casters permanently and forever in a system that has always heavily featured casters as all powerful and capable of reshaping the world at high levels is not one that is going to help the brand name.

[JoeJ]

I'm going to wait and see how it plays. The Concentration duration on some many spells really screws up the tactics that are commonly used in PF, but that doesn't mean that it won't work with a different set of tactics. At the very least, it gives greater relative importance to fighters and rogues, since spells can't duplicate their abilities as well as previously.

Also, keep in mind that 5E is supposed to be less combat focused than PF, with interaction and exploration each taking up about as much of the adventure as fighting. (How well published adventures hold to that ideal remains to be seen, obviously.)

[sunshadow21]

JoeJ wrote:

I'm going to wait and see how it plays. The Concentration duration on some many spells really screws up the tactics that are commonly used in PF, but that doesn't mean that it won't work with a different set of tactics. At the very least, it gives greater relative importance to fighters and rogues, since spells can't duplicate their abilities as well as previously.

Also, keep in mind that 5E is supposed to be less combat focused than PF, with interaction and exploration each taking up about as much of the adventure as fighting. (How well published adventures hold to that ideal remains to be seen, obviously.)

Those are the reasons I'm not completely writing off 5E as a lost cause. It does, however, put the changes, not just the ones in the magic system, but throughout the system, on a very hot seat that WotC only has partial control over. If 5E attracts a lot of DMs that like combat, but don't like the PF magic system, or DMs that actively tamp down on casters for their own personal reasons, the intentions that WotC had for how to best use the system go out the window, regardless of what their own views on the matter were. The general perception will be shaped by how it's actually used, not how WotC originally designed it to be used. Given that WotC has not historically controlled the overall tone for a system very well, leaving that up to those who chose to play, attack, or simply ignore what was put out there, this will get interesting. They have shown a better understanding of controlling expectations and the message so far; how well that aspect holds up when it hits the mass market will shape the ultimate fate of 5E. I wish them luck as they need all of it they can get; the internet is a brutal place at the best of times.

[Jacob Saltband]

What about familiars for casters? I dont remember seeing anything on them in the basic rules.

[R_Chance]

sunshadow21 wrote:

That was one of the biggest complaints 4E had. I hope they thought the changes through far better this time around, or it could really ugly. The perception that they are actively trying to completely nerf casters permanently and forever in a system that has always heavily featured casters as all powerful and capable of reshaping the world at high levels is not one that is going to help the brand name.

I'm curious, did you ever play OD&D, 1E or 2E? The Magic User was the most powerful class in the end, but he did have weaknesses. Significantly more than in 5E based on my reading of the Basic PDF. 3.X pretty much eliminated the weaknesses of casters. As for 4E, I read the original core books but never played it so I can't say much about it. But no, the casters in 5E are not "completely nerfed". They do have some weaknesses, but then so does every class. As others have said, the style of play may change, but, imo, magic will end up being very powerful. As always. So, relax :)

[Logan1138]

JoeJ wrote:

I'm going to wait and see how it plays. The Concentration duration on some many spells really screws up the tactics that are commonly used in PF, but that doesn't mean that it won't work with a different set of tactics. At the very least, it gives greater relative importance to fighters and rogues, since spells can't duplicate their abilities as well as previously.

Also, keep in mind that 5E is supposed to be less combat focused than PF, with interaction and exploration each taking up about as much of the adventure as fighting. (How well published adventures hold to that ideal remains to be seen, obviously.)

You bring up a point that seems especially important to me: 5E's stated mission is to foster a greater balance in the "Holy Trinity" of gaming (combat, exploration, interaction). I have limited experience with the modern games but my understanding is that 3.X/PF/4E have a heavy emphasis on combat at least in terms of amount of time spent at the table resolving combat. In 1E there was plenty of combat but it was resolved fairly quickly so there was still plenty of time left for the other two "pillars" of gaming.

In 1E, Magic-users (aka Wizards) were actually expected to help out as much outside of combat as they were in combat. Spells like Detect Magic, Identify, Friends, Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Levitate, Polymorph Self, etc. were often used in the exploration phase of gaming which was far more prominent in older games. Nowadays, it seems like the emphasis for Wizards has switched almost entirely to combat casting (blasting, buffing or control). Perhaps, WotC has made the changes in magic in order to reinforce the notion that Wizards are not just combat casters and should focus on other aspects of the game.

[Kthulhu]

sunshadow21 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

It's not Wizard is God, but it's not as bad as you're making it out either.

That depends on how many people get tired of casting fly, getting up in the air, and immediately fall down after a maxed out archer hits the juicy soft target. And how well ritual spells actually work at high levels.

If you try to play a 5e spellcaster exactly the same as you would play a 3.x/Pathfinder/Caster Edition spellcaster, yeah, it won't go as well as you want it to. If you try to play a Call of Cthulhu sorcerer with the basic assumptions as a D&D sorcerer, it also won't go well. It's a different game system, and you have to take that into account while playing it.

[Landon Winkler]

Logan1138 wrote:

In 1E, Magic-users (aka Wizards) were actually expected to help out as much outside of combat as they were in combat. Spells like Detect Magic, Identify, Friends, Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Levitate, Polymorph Self, etc. were often used in the exploration phase of gaming which was far more prominent in older games. Nowadays, it seems like the emphasis for Wizards has switched almost entirely to combat casting (blasting, buffing or control). Perhaps, WotC has made the changes in magic in order to reinforce the notion that Wizards are not just combat casters and should focus on other aspects of the game.

I'm not actually sure if that's a feature or a bug.

In 1st and 2nd Edition, the main complaint I remember about spellcasters was them ruining plotlines and challenges: speak with dead ending murder mysteries, flying over chasms, teleportation, charming NPCs, and so forth.

Even in 3rd, out-of-combat spellcasting was extremely disruptive. "Scry and fry" and out-of-combat healing have been the source of endless complaints.

They've addressed some individual complaints, but focusing attention on out-of-combat casting will quickly show whether they're able to balance for the exploration and social aspects of the game.

Cheers!
Landon

[bugleyman]

Jacob Saltband wrote:

What about familiars for casters? I dont remember seeing anything on them in the basic rules.

Find Familiar is back. Except instead of an animal, you're explicitly getting a spirit in animal form, including the creature type. You can also re-cast the spell to change the physical form of your familiar.

[Jacob Saltband]

bugleyman wrote:

Jacob Saltband wrote:

What about familiars for casters? I dont remember seeing anything on them in the basic rules.

Find Familiar is back. Except instead of an animal, you're explicitly getting a spirit in animal form, including the creature type. You can also re-cast the spell to change the physical form of your familiar.

This sounds interesting. I'll have to read through this when I get the PH in a couple weeks.

[DrDeth]

R_Chance wrote:

I'm curious, did you ever play OD&D, 1E or 2E? The Magic User was the most powerful class in the end, but he did have weaknesses.

Yes, the issue was that Wizard started out as very weak, but still, as today, once they got Wish and other top end spells, they ruled.

I consider this a feature, not a bug.

To me, one of the things PF has done right is get rid of the "OK I cast my one spell, now I am dead weight" wizard at lowest levels.

[sunshadow21]

R_Chance wrote:

sunshadow21 wrote:

That was one of the biggest complaints 4E had. I hope they thought the changes through far better this time around, or it could really ugly. The perception that they are actively trying to completely nerf casters permanently and forever in a system that has always heavily featured casters as all powerful and capable of reshaping the world at high levels is not one that is going to help the brand name.

I'm curious, did you ever play OD&D, 1E or 2E? The Magic User was the most powerful class in the end, but he did have weaknesses. Significantly more than in 5E based on my reading of the Basic PDF. 3.X pretty much eliminated the weaknesses of casters. As for 4E, I read the original core books but never played it so I can't say much about it. But no, the casters in 5E are not "completely nerfed". They do have some weaknesses, but then so does every class. As others have said, the style of play may change, but, imo, magic will end up being very powerful. As always. So, relax :)

Perceptions are going to matter a lot, though, and there are a great many people who have only dealt with AD&D or 3.x versions of casters. From that point of view, it most definitely is a massive and unjustified nerf. They cannot simply take casters back to the level they were at the times you remember and expect everyone to suddenly understand the reasons or the history for it.

It's the same problem they had with 4E, where they tried to make changes that many current players didn't understand and they made no effort to really educate people about those changes. Rendering entire sections of the spell list useless to the currently accepted playing style is not going to go over well unless they also show how to use them effectively in the new system and can show that the new system can be just as good with a simple shift in tactics. That is not something I have seen to date, and it's not something they can rely on DMs to automatically know either.

If they can fill in the gaps better this time for those players and DMs that weren't playing before 3rd edition, the new system has a chance of doing fine; if not, the system as a whole will suffer as a large part of the target audience doesn't actually understand the intended purpose of the changes and only see the final results that they don't fully understand how to use.