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


4th Edition

151 to 200 of 592 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

I suspect by level 10 (and probably well before), the wizard with a martial proficiency is going to essentially non-functional in melee. He might hit almost as well, due to bounded accuracy, but he'll attack less often, do less damage, do less criticals and probably many other things I'm not even thinking of. As well as die much quicker on the front lines. He'll still be fighting a bit worse than a 1st level fighter. Which is going to be basically useless at 10th level. Especially if you compare it to even the free scaling attack cantrips.

It appears different because combat scales differently. Rather than scaling the to hit, it's scaling by attacks and damage and other features. So the to hit stays in the same range and the wizard looks passable, if you just look at that, but none of the other stuff scales up.

Against a single tough monster that may well be the case, but against something like a horde or orcs the wizard with a sword should be able to do all right. Even if she isn't killing as many per round as the fighter, she's still whittling down their numbers. And my understanding of Bounded Accuracy is that this scenario - a 10th level party against a horde of orcs - can happen and be a reasonable challenge, which it can't in 3.5/PF.


JoeJ wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I suspect by level 10 (and probably well before), the wizard with a martial proficiency is going to essentially non-functional in melee. He might hit almost as well, due to bounded accuracy, but he'll attack less often, do less damage, do less criticals and probably many other things I'm not even thinking of. As well as die much quicker on the front lines. He'll still be fighting a bit worse than a 1st level fighter. Which is going to be basically useless at 10th level. Especially if you compare it to even the free scaling attack cantrips.

It appears different because combat scales differently. Rather than scaling the to hit, it's scaling by attacks and damage and other features. So the to hit stays in the same range and the wizard looks passable, if you just look at that, but none of the other stuff scales up.

Against a single tough monster that may well be the case, but against something like a horde or orcs the wizard with a sword should be able to do all right. Even if she isn't killing as many per round as the fighter, she's still whittling down their numbers. And my understanding of Bounded Accuracy is that this scenario - a 10th level party against a horde of orcs - can happen and be a reasonable challenge, which it can't in 3.5/PF.

Except that the wizard won't survive long, in the front line with a horde of orcs. Since they'll be able to hit her.

And swinging with a sword will be so much worse than her other options

Dark Archive

thejeff wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
thejeff wrote:
It's possible that 5E has solved the caster/martial disparity problem that existed in OD&D, AD&D, BECMI, 3.x and PF (in different forms and to different degrees), and that was addressed by by drastically flattening abilities in 4E, and has done so with a system that looks far more like those earlier versions than like 4E. I find it unlikely.

Caster/Martial disparity didn't exist in OD&D, AD&D or BECMI - it was a Wotc invention via 3rd ed.

Never heard or seen a power gap between fighters and wizards in older editions of the game. In many cases Fighters would run roughshod over some encounters (all the bonuses from str, specialization and the broken double specialization, save paradigm, etc) while casters had considerably less spells, spells were harder to cast and some had some dire & risky side effects, lower hp, etc. The class had to be played cautiously at all levels.

I could make viable Martial BBEG in older editions - some that were scary, not so much in 3rd + 3rd ed derived games.
And by not so much I mean - not at all.

Now that's just not true. It was different. Maybe you never saw it. Some people claim there's no such thing in PF. But it makes no sense to claim it didn't exist.

You can argue that it was ameliorated by how hard it was to get a magic-user up to high levels. I've seen plenty of claims that overpowered high level magic-users were justified by the high death rate of low level ones.

I won't go further than this, since it was a side point to a side argument.

You brought it up and since we are talking about editions it's a relevant and valid target.

Caster martial disparity was a Wotc/3rd ed invention. Flat out.
A high level wizard didn't dominate a high level fighter in 1st/2nd ed due to the save paradigm. A high level fighter would make his saves on a 2 or higher - that just isn't the case in 3rd ed and 3rd ed based games.

The only time you would see any problems with high level wizards in older ed games is if you had a soft-ball DM who coddled the players risk exposure when they cast spells, that was a DM problem - not a class problem.

Run by the book a high level wizard was not unstoppable and many of the really powerful spells had a high price tag. I ran several high level AD&D mods and campaigns - no game breaking problems and no caster/martial nonsense. TBH, the fighter's increase in power in Unearthed Arcana and in 2nd ed with specialization created more problems with encounter challenge than anything a Wizard could do.

-------

I haven't taken a hard look at 5e's higher level spells (designing another game right now) so I can't reliably say that there is another shift in class power with 5e. On the surface it looks like the fighter got some of his power back, but without some rigorous system testing I won't know it that's 100% true. I think the fact that everything is tied to proficiency is a method for control on the combat side, but on the magic side a ranged 1d10 attack that is spammable on top of regular addition spell casting feels like a troubling power direction for casters - this is worse than PF levels of power and PF is the ultimate soft-ball/easy mode edition of 3rd ed gaming.

This could be a 4e influence (X damage output for each class, just in a different way). I know that this 1d10 damage is supposed to mirror other classes attack per round output and I know that this is going to eventually trail the fighter output per round - I just think the output damage per attack as an SLA is a bit too high and too easy for Wizards as written. I can fix it in my home game, but if this is a design consideration across the board I can see upcoming problems with future products and rules releases. Unless this game is suppose to let players steamroll encounters (aka PF 2nd ed)? IDK at this point - will know more when the 2nd wave of spells and rules come out along with more monster and encounter information.

Running the basic pdf with some houserules addresses my concerns. The issue is - will I need to houserule everything that comes down the pipe because they want an up-power for all the classes across the board? I was hoping for some built-in tools or methods for scaling different power levels in the game, the basic pdf doesn't do that and the baseline is too high. The overall assumptions may be too high and locked in all upcoming product - it that's the case then I pass this thing by.

Scarab Sages

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Having that bounded accuracy keep AC and to hit bonuses within close reach of each other for multiple levels is encouraging, because what I found in 3.0/3.5/PF was that many AC values seemed to be set at arbitary values, simply to provide a meaningful target difficulty for the rapidly-spiralling attack bonuses.

i.e. it was a gamist solution, to a problem of their own making.
And it was a self-justifying loop.
"Why are attack values so high?" - to cope with the high AC values.
"Why are AC values so high?" - to cope with high attack values.

It messes with verisimilitude, because 3E natural armor bonuses often bear no relation to a creature's actual physiology, as depicted in the description or their art.
Low-CR critters who are built like squat, low-slung tanks, get measly +2/3/4/5 natural armor, while skinny, smooth-skinned high-CR critters wander round in their underpants with bonuses of +10/11/12/13, etc, just to fudge their final AC into a CR-appropriate ballpark figure.

Players who don't metagame ('that's a CR X monster, so it will have total AC of CR+15...') get penalised, for treating the opposition as What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG).

I get tired of seeing 'naked chick with her boobs out', whose silky-smooth pearlescent voluptuous skin is apparently harder than the finest-crafted full-plate, without compromising its allure. Maybe if it had six-inch-thick scar tissue, that might build up into something useful...but no.

There are far better ways to showcase such creatures' defences, without having them play Russian Roulette Whackamole with stratospheric physical AC.

The marilith could possess an unearthly combat senses, dodging and parrying ability, knocking aside incoming blows with its spare arms (roll parry attack vs attackers total to hit score). To defeat it, you have to pile on more attackers than she has spare arms?

That would be far more evocative, and better replicate those iconic genre moments, such as 'Kali vs ship's crew' in 'The Golden Voyage of Sinbad', which should be compulsory viewing for every fantasy fan.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow Snorter - excellent post.

Can I improve upon it?

You even covered Harryhausen and why to this day I would want a Vudra AP/Campaign support.

Nope - can't improve upon it, post is perfect.


thejeff wrote:

Except that the wizard won't survive long, in the front line with a horde of orcs. Since they'll be able to hit her.

And swinging with a sword will be so much worse than her other options

That could well be the case. It could definitely be that 'being able to hit enemies' might be true, but meaningless besides, 'not being able to do appropriate amounts of damage' with such attacks. I haven't really seen things play out yet at that level.

But, at least for me, the approach being taken makes it feel more like a viable capability than in the last edition or two. I'm not looking for a complete redefinition of the nature of the game - but it is a nice perk and an example of something like about how the system works, overall.


GypsyMischief wrote:

I don't want mages to be an out of the box gish, or come close to dedicated swordsman in terms of melee power, but I do want proficiency with a slightly wider berth of weapons than Staff, Sling, Club, Dagger and Crossbow. However, that universal to-hit progression thing is pretty nifty, that's pretty much exactly what I was going for. An adventuring mage is still an adventurer, and I feel as though adventurers worth their salt can swing a pointy stick to some effect.

@Scott Betts, I'm not looking for a gish, man, I just want to be a mage that can attack that guy standing in front of him with a sword, and not get laughed at when he rolls a 19 and still doesn't connect. Initially I wasn't complaining, I was just sayin' "Hey, what if we could assume that adventuring magicians have some competency with weapons, so that the early levels weren't so brutal." And then I got trounced, because the forums are a happy place.

There have been a number of methods used to make the early levels less brutal on mages - most of them revolve around giving mages mage-y things to do.


thejeff wrote:
GypsyMischief wrote:

I don't want mages to be an out of the box gish, or come close to dedicated swordsman in terms of melee power, but I do want proficiency with a slightly wider berth of weapons than Staff, Sling, Club, Dagger and Crossbow. However, that universal to-hit progression thing is pretty nifty, that's pretty much exactly what I was going for. An adventuring mage is still an adventurer, and I feel as though adventurers worth their salt can swing a pointy stick to some effect.

@Scott Betts, I'm not looking for a gish, man, I just want to be a mage that can attack that guy standing in front of him with a sword, and not get laughed at when he rolls a 19 and still doesn't connect. Initially I wasn't complaining, I was just sayin' "Hey, what if we could assume that adventuring magicians have some competency with weapons, so that the early levels weren't so brutal." And then I got trounced, because the forums are a happy place.

Partly because it wasn't clear that's what you were saying, rather than "Why can't wizards also be fighters?"

Still, even that's always been possible if you're willing to devote some resources to it. And at early levels being a couple points behind in BAB isn't that big a deal. The fighter's advantage is coming more from str bonus and feats than BAB.

Yeah, I was confused by this as well. If a wizard is rolling a 19 and missing at early levels, what does the fighter have to roll to hit? An 18? That doesn't seem like a typical challenge.

Liberty's Edge

Snorter wrote:

Having that bounded accuracy keep AC and to hit bonuses within close reach of each other for multiple levels is encouraging, because what I found in 3.0/3.5/PF was that many AC values seemed to be set at arbitary values, simply to provide a meaningful target difficulty for the rapidly-spiralling attack bonuses.

i.e. it was a gamist solution, to a problem of their own making.
And it was a self-justifying loop.
"Why are attack values so high?" - to cope with the high AC values.
"Why are AC values so high?" - to cope with high attack values.

It messes with verisimilitude, because 3E natural armor bonuses often bear no relation to a creature's actual physiology, as depicted in the description or their art.
Low-CR critters who are built like squat, low-slung tanks, get measly +2/3/4/5 natural armor, while skinny, smooth-skinned high-CR critters wander round in their underpants with bonuses of +10/11/12/13, etc, just to fudge their final AC into a CR-appropriate ballpark figure.

Players who don't metagame ('that's a CR X monster, so it will have total AC of CR+15...') get penalised, for treating the opposition as What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG).

I get tired of seeing 'naked chick with her boobs out', whose silky-smooth pearlescent voluptuous skin is apparently harder than the finest-crafted full-plate, without compromising its allure. Maybe if it had six-inch-thick scar tissue, that might build up into something useful...but no.

There are far better ways to showcase such creatures' defences, without having them play Russian Roulette Whackamole with stratospheric physical AC.

The marilith could possess an unearthly combat senses, dodging and parrying ability, knocking aside incoming blows with its spare arms (roll parry attack vs attackers total to hit score). To defeat it, you have to pile on more attackers than she has spare arms?

That would be far more evocative, and better replicate those iconic genre moments, such as 'Kali vs ship's crew' in 'The Golden Voyage of Sinbad', which...

You see this with the monsters in the starting set. The undead have really low AC because they aren't wearing armor. Just the Dex bonus in most cases. Humanoids get the AC of the armor worn. It helps the player characters make rational decisions.

Dark Archive

Being able to hit - even for a small amount of damage is different than "don't bother trying" to hit.

In an optimized (players and DM) game of PF, I've had 2nd tier fighters (Rogue and Cleric) sit out melee combat and not even try to hit the monster due to AC (arms race with me and Fighter player). Even with inflated hp in PF, landing a hit can still help - if you have a remote chance of landing the hit, otherwise you are wasting your time.

In 5e, AC ranges will be tighter, so even a wizard with no STR bonus to hit can still contribute (if he's out of spells or just playing conservatively). With lower hps for monsters across the board (if they go that route) and a decent chance of hitting it would turn out to be a very viable back-up option. Better than anything in 3rd, and due to bounded accuracy probably better than anything in 1st/2nd ed.

So with a
- Fixed level based to-hit (all classes the same): game assumption/design
- Fixed range armor classes: game assumption/design
- Reduced monster hp (not 50% bonus hp due to high CON)

...I can see this working.

Not for the big baddies - you need to use your limited resources (spells) for that, but for fights where the PCs have some superiority or as a method to attack 2nd string foes/flanking help - it can work - better than 3rd eds crossbow trick or PFs 1d3 cold spam solution. Will probably feel less forced also.

The Wizard's AC and hp would be a bigger concern than being able to hit and add to the hit point damage of the bad guys.


Auxmaulous wrote:

Being able to hit - even for a small amount of damage is different than "don't bother trying" to hit.

In an optimized (players and DM) game of PF, I've had 2nd tier fighters (Rogue and Cleric) sit out melee combat and not even try to hit the monster due to AC (arms race with me and Fighter player). Even with inflated hp in PF, landing a hit can still help - if you have a remote chance of landing the hit, otherwise you are wasting your time.

In 5e, AC ranges will be tighter, so even a wizard with no STR bonus to hit can still contribute (if he's out of spells or just playing conservatively). With lower hps for monsters across the board (if they go that route) and a decent chance of hitting it would turn out to be a very viable back-up option. Better than anything in 3rd, and due to bounded accuracy probably better than anything in 1st/2nd ed.

So with a
- Fixed level based to-hit (all classes the same): game assumption/design
- Fixed range armor classes: game assumption/design
- Reduced monster hp (not 50% bonus hp due to high CON)

...I can see this working.

Not for the big baddies - you need to use your limited resources (spells) for that, but for fights where the PCs have some superiority or as a method to attack 2nd string foes/flanking help - it can work - better than 3rd eds crossbow trick or PFs 1d3 cold spam solution. Will probably feel less forced also.

The Wizard's AC and hp would be a bigger concern than being able to hit and add to the hit point damage of the bad guys.

Of course, this entire thing is mostly moot unless someone is playing with your houserule limiting cantrips.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wasn't planning on reducing the raw power (damage) of the cantrips, the houserule works more on frequency use in a day which leads to factoring how many encounters they have between breaks and how hard the day is.

So I want all the limits of a 15 minute workday (limited spells/resources/hp), while NOT letting them play (nor have I ever allowed) an 15 minute workday. I want one of the challenges of my game to be resources and resource management - at all levels. Players should make choices beyond using X spell for A problem. It should always be "should I use X spell for problem A, when I sill may have B, C, D problems down the road.

5e is expressly against that in it's most basic document and at it's most base level - overnight healing, spammable decent attack, short rest healing/recharges. If this is their design consideration as a foundation, then I may not be switching after all as this will NOT emulate the feel and game play philosophy of 1st/2nd ed games.

And while my houserule limits cantrip use, it doesn't change a core game assumption - no touch AC. So unless that wizard has a high DEX - he still may only be using his base proficiency to hit with that SLA fireburst. So long range, decent damage (no bonus) but with a success rate on par with using their sword they are proficient with.


Auxmaulous wrote:

I wasn't planning on reducing the raw power (damage) of the cantrips, the houserule works more on frequency use in a day which leads to factoring how many encounters they have between breaks and how hard the day is.

So I want all the limits of a 15 minute workday (limited spells/resources/hp), while NOT letting them play (nor have I ever allowed) an 15 minute workday. I want one of the challenges of my game to be resources and resource management - at all levels. Players should make choices beyond using X spell for A problem. It should always be "should I use X spell for problem A, when I sill may have B, C, D problems down the road.

5e is expressly against that in it's most basic document and at it's most base level - overnight healing, spammable decent attack, short rest healing/recharges. If this is their design consideration as a foundation, then I may not be switching after all as this will NOT emulate the feel and game play philosophy of 1st/2nd ed games.

And while my houserule limits cantrip use, it doesn't change a core game assumption - no touch AC. So unless that wizard has a high DEX - he still may only be using his base proficiency to hit with that SLA fireburst. So long range, decent damage (no bonus) but with a success rate on par with using their sword they are proficient with.

I understand your change. The reason I say it relies on it is that if the cantrip is unlimited, as it is without the houserule, it'll almost always be a better choice than the sword. Ranged, much better damage for someone not melee focused, etc.

And my understanding is that attack rolls with spells used your spellcasting modifier. For most casters, that's not going to be relying on DEX, but his main stat. So, an even better chance to hit than with the sword, even if they're proficient. (Somehow I suspect you won't like that rule either :)

Dark Archive

thejeff wrote:

I understand your change. The reason I say it relies on it is that if the cantrip is unlimited, as it is without the houserule, it'll almost always be a better choice than the sword. Ranged, much better damage for someone not melee focused, etc.

And my understanding is that attack rolls with spells used your spellcasting modifier. For most casters, that's not going to be relying on DEX, but his main stat. So, an even better chance to hit than with the sword, even if they're proficient. (Somehow I suspect you won't like that rule either :)

No you are right, it would be off the casting stat, not Dex.

That just makes feel more justified in the houserule of limiting use of cantrips.

I don't have a problem with using the casting stat to hit - makes sense and it isn't going to add to damage. I do have a problem of adding casting stat to hit, 1d10 damage at range, and can do it all day every day.

The bolded part is where the casters need to take a hard hit in the shorts. If the system prevents me from delivering that solid, well placed boot stomp then I need to walk away from the system.

The sword thing is a non-issue. Bounded accuracy means that even a weakling wizard with no DEX or STR still has a chance to hit with that sword for 1d8 - the issues start to pop up of what happens when he gets hit back because he is standing where the hitters stand. Bounded accuracy doesn't help if the Wizard has the worst AC in the game. Nor does the wizard have built in class abilities that will help him get through the encounter (2nd wind), it's all prepped and cast spells at that point.


thejeff wrote:
The Wizard's AC and hp would be a bigger concern than being able to hit and add to the hit point damage of the bad guys.

Of course, this entire thing is mostly moot unless someone is playing with your houserule limiting cantrips.

Other possibilities:

1) Say my mage has Shocking Grasp as my main damaging cantrip. Usually it is good enough to do what I need when I run low on bigger spells. Then I run into something lightning resistant - suddenly, being capable of contributing in another fashion seems like a good thing.

2) Even better - what if I don't want to take a damaging cantrip? A Mage gets 3-5 cantrips over their career. I could easily see someone wanting to fill up on some of the more useful utility ones, especially if they can feel like they will be good enough at swinging a weapon to still contribute when needed, as opposed to swinging that weapon being completely pointless once past the first few levels.

3) Here's one from experience - the opportunity attack. The scene: The party has nearly finished off a powerful adversary, who is down to the last few hitpoints. On his turn... he flees out the door, with the wizard the only one nearby that can take a swing on him. The wizard swings his weapon, he needs a 20 to hit, the villain escapes. Having at least a chance to hit would make that scene a much more interesting one.


Matthew Koelbl wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The Wizard's AC and hp would be a bigger concern than being able to hit and add to the hit point damage of the bad guys.

Of course, this entire thing is mostly moot unless someone is playing with your houserule limiting cantrips.

Other possibilities:

1) Say my mage has Shocking Grasp as my main damaging cantrip. Usually it is good enough to do what I need when I run low on bigger spells. Then I run into something lightning resistant - suddenly, being capable of contributing in another fashion seems like a good thing.

2) Even better - what if I don't want to take a damaging cantrip? A Mage gets 3-5 cantrips over their career. I could easily see someone wanting to fill up on some of the more useful utility ones, especially if they can feel like they will be good enough at swinging a weapon to still contribute when needed, as opposed to swinging that weapon being completely pointless once past the first few levels.

3) Here's one from experience - the opportunity attack. The scene: The party has nearly finished off a powerful adversary, who is down to the last few hitpoints. On his turn... he flees out the door, with the wizard the only one nearby that can take a swing on him. The wizard swings his weapon, he needs a 20 to hit, the villain escapes. Having at least a chance to hit would make that scene a much more interesting one.

As I said, mostly moot. There will be edge cases.

For case 1&2) You're still better off with a ranged weapon - for the not standing toe to toe with the monsters when you're a squishy.

Though obviously there will be times when they get in your face, but most of the time you'll be better off not going toe to toe anyway.

3 is really an edge case. Obviously it can happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well I just played the game last weekend with a party of 4 level 8 characters, 3 out of the four being Martials. I put them up against a group of 20 wererats in a tunnel complex. The wererats were using hit and run tactics with shortbows and I can tell you that even against the very high AC of some of my characters (18 is average) they got some decent licks in. They managed to whittle the characters down to about 1/2 their hit points. The wizard/fighter unleashed a Thunderblast(?) spell that nuked 7 in one go. Fun battle with CR 1 (I think?) foes providing a meaningful challenge to level 8 characters and the entire combat played out in under an hour.

Needless to say I am pleased with 5e at this point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I understand your change. The reason I say it relies on it is that if the cantrip is unlimited, as it is without the houserule, it'll almost always be a better choice than the sword. Ranged, much better damage for someone not melee focused, etc.

And my understanding is that attack rolls with spells used your spellcasting modifier. For most casters, that's not going to be relying on DEX, but his main stat. So, an even better chance to hit than with the sword, even if they're proficient. (Somehow I suspect you won't like that rule either :)

No you are right, it would be off the casting stat, not Dex.

That just makes feel more justified in the houserule of limiting use of cantrips.

I don't have a problem with using the casting stat to hit - makes sense and it isn't going to add to damage. I do have a problem of adding casting stat to hit, 1d10 damage at range, and can do it all day every day.

The bolded part is where the casters need to take a hard hit in the shorts. If the system prevents me from delivering that solid, well placed boot stomp then I need to walk away from the system.

The sword thing is a non-issue. Bounded accuracy means that even a weakling wizard with no DEX or STR still has a chance to hit with that sword for 1d8 - the issues start to pop up of what happens when he gets hit back because he is standing where the hitters stand. Bounded accuracy doesn't help if the Wizard has the worst AC in the game. Nor does the wizard have built in class abilities that will help him get through the encounter (2nd wind), it's all prepped and cast spells at that point.

From 4 sessions of actual play with this exact same scenario, it makes next to no difference to the game. The wizard still needs to make a hit roll, with around similar chance that the Martials have, and 1d10 without any modifiers is not exceptional. It's less damage than most longbow wielders do since most have a decent dex.

Spammable damage cantrips are not breaking my game at all. YMMV.


Alan_Beven wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I understand your change. The reason I say it relies on it is that if the cantrip is unlimited, as it is without the houserule, it'll almost always be a better choice than the sword. Ranged, much better damage for someone not melee focused, etc.

And my understanding is that attack rolls with spells used your spellcasting modifier. For most casters, that's not going to be relying on DEX, but his main stat. So, an even better chance to hit than with the sword, even if they're proficient. (Somehow I suspect you won't like that rule either :)

No you are right, it would be off the casting stat, not Dex.

That just makes feel more justified in the houserule of limiting use of cantrips.

I don't have a problem with using the casting stat to hit - makes sense and it isn't going to add to damage. I do have a problem of adding casting stat to hit, 1d10 damage at range, and can do it all day every day.

The bolded part is where the casters need to take a hard hit in the shorts. If the system prevents me from delivering that solid, well placed boot stomp then I need to walk away from the system.

The sword thing is a non-issue. Bounded accuracy means that even a weakling wizard with no DEX or STR still has a chance to hit with that sword for 1d8 - the issues start to pop up of what happens when he gets hit back because he is standing where the hitters stand. Bounded accuracy doesn't help if the Wizard has the worst AC in the game. Nor does the wizard have built in class abilities that will help him get through the encounter (2nd wind), it's all prepped and cast spells at that point.

From 4 sessions of actual play with this exact same scenario, it makes next to no difference to the game. The wizard still needs to make a hit roll, with around similar chance that the Martials have, and 1d10 without any modifiers is not exceptional. It's less damage than most longbow wielders do since most have a decent dex.

Spammable damage cantrips are...

At 8th level it's 2d10. Cantrips, unlike other spells, scale automatically.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alan_Beven wrote:
Spammable damage cantrips are not breaking my game at all. YMMV.

Just don't want casters to have that level of flexibility with magic in my games.

The fact that varied selection of spells exist so they can re-write their powers every day is enough. Cantrips should follow the rest of the spell casting model, X times a day.

For me that is - keep in mind that this is supposed to be a modular system that has an appeal to older edition players and DMs. That's what I'm looking to recreate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Alan_Beven wrote:
Spammable damage cantrips are not breaking my game at all. YMMV.
Just don't want casters to have that level of flexibility with magic in my games.

What flexibility is that, exactly? The ability to consistently contribute meaningfully to combat encounters?

I've seen this bandied about a few times now, and I'm having a lot of trouble accepting that it's anything more than, "In my day Wizards couldn't cast cantrips at-will, so that's how it should be!" I'm not a fan of tradition for tradition's sake, especially when it comes shackled to a host of headaches and awkward asymmetries.


Scott Betts wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Alan_Beven wrote:
Spammable damage cantrips are not breaking my game at all. YMMV.
Just don't want casters to have that level of flexibility with magic in my games.

What flexibility is that, exactly? The ability to consistently contribute meaningfully to combat encounters?

I've seen this bandied about a few times now, and I'm having a lot of trouble accepting that it's anything more than, "In my day Wizards couldn't cast cantrips at-will, so that's how it should be!" I'm not a fan of tradition for tradition's sake, especially when it comes shackled to a host of headaches and awkward asymmetries.

For me, it comes down to the feeling that the world makes sense. I have no problem with Vancian magic. It's a bit harder justifying magic that is Vancian when Bob the wizard casts a particular spell but not when Mary the sorceress casts exactly the same spell. It entirely reaches the WTF point for me when only some of Bob's spells are Vancian, and the rest are at-will superpowers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Having at-will cantrips that deal more than 1d3 damage, I think, is a good thing. Since fighters can do their thing all day long (swing them swords), why is it so broken to allow wizards to do their thing all day long (cast them spells). And with the cantrips doing 1d10 damage (same as a fighter 2-handing his longsword, minus bonus damage from strength), it would cut down on the 15-minute work day.

I agree with Scott Betts, I hate to say, on this. But, it is your game. I personally like the at-will cantrips. It was a nice addition to Pathfinder, even though it didn't remove the 15-minute work day. And I feel it is a welcome addition to 5th edition.


I like at will cantrips. I'm undecided on at will attack spells that scale up to 4d10 in a way that other spells don't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah that seems weird. I don't like the idea of your cantrip being a better option than a 1st or 2nd level spell slot.

thejeff wrote:
I like at will cantrips. I'm undecided on at will attack spells that scale up to 4d10 in a way that other spells don't.

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Alan_Beven wrote:
Spammable damage cantrips are not breaking my game at all. YMMV.
Just don't want casters to have that level of flexibility with magic in my games.

What flexibility is that, exactly? The ability to consistently contribute meaningfully to combat encounters?

I've seen this bandied about a few times now, and I'm having a lot of trouble accepting that it's anything more than, "In my day Wizards couldn't cast cantrips at-will, so that's how it should be!" I'm not a fan of tradition for tradition's sake, especially when it comes shackled to a host of headaches and awkward asymmetries.

LOL

The ability to "consistently contribute meaningfully to combat encounters?"

Where have you been in the last 14 years of d20 gaming?

It isn't a case of "in my day". I ran 3rd ed (since 2003), I run PF - I went back to play in a 2nd ed game after 30 years - superior in almost every aspect for an older and non-modern system.

Your awkward asymmetries and headaches are contrived and were told to you by other people, so please spare me the "1st/2nd ed/older systems were only good because of nostalgia" nonsense.

Older systems - less problems. I'm looking to replicate that. That's my motivation.

Older systems - less character power/reliance on power/less break in verisimilitude. I'm looking to replicate that. That's my motivation.

Please stop telling me how older editions ran or what my motivation is for looking at and possibly tweaking 5e to emulate older editions and I will continue to not talk about 4e.


If spells used energy points, or something of the sort, unlimited cantrips would be understandable as spells that are so weak the amount of energy they require is inconsequential. With the current system, however, all the reasons for it seem to invoke metagame issues, not how it makes sense in-world.

Grand Lodge

Scott Betts wrote:
I've seen this bandied about a few times now, and I'm having a lot of trouble accepting that it's anything more than, "In my day Wizards couldn't cast cantrips at-will, so that's how it should be!" I'm not a fan of tradition for tradition's sake, especially when it comes shackled to a host of headaches and awkward asymmetries.
Auxmaulous wrote:

LOL

The ability to "consistently contribute meaningfully to combat encounters?"

Where have you been in the last 14 years of d20 gaming?

It isn't a case of in my day. I ran 3rd ed (since 2003), I run PF - I went back to play in a 2nd ed game after 30 years - superior in almost every aspect for an older and non-modern system.

Your awkward asymmetries and headaches are contrived and were told to you by other people, so please spare me the "1st/2nd ed/older systems were only good because of nostalgia" nonsense.

Older systems - less problems. I'm looking to replicate that. That's my motivation.

Older systems - less character power/reliance on power/less break in verisimilitude. I'm looking to replicate that. That's my motivation.

Please stop telling me how older editions ran or what my motivation are for looking at and possibly tweaking 5e and I will continue to not talk about 4e.

Minus the tone, I agree with most of the points here.

I went back to exclusively running 2nd edition because after 14 off years of running games using the d20 system, I have come to the conclusion that I prefer to run games that use a much simpler rule system. In my view (much as in Auxmaulous's view it would seem), rules lite systems tend to have less problems over-all...

Is 2nd edition THE perfect system? No, of course not... But it was and remains to be, my favorite edition of D&D...

YMMV and all of that.

Dark Archive

Digitalelf wrote:
Minus the tone, I agree with most of the points here.

Minus the tone DE? Betts was basically saying that I can't possibly like older editions because they are bad. That my liking a system was based only in nostalgia.

He checks the attacks and then I check my tone.

I'm sick of having to defend what amounts to my personal preferences in gaming.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
I've seen this bandied about a few times now, and I'm having a lot of trouble accepting that it's anything more than, "In my day Wizards couldn't cast cantrips at-will, so that's how it should be!"

In my case it's: "In my day Wizards couldn't cast cantrips at-will, and that's how I like it!"

Does it have to be anything more? Stating one's preference doesnt have to be convincing to anyone else.

Shadow Lodge

Auxmaulous wrote:
Betts was basically saying that I can't possibly like older editions because they are bad. That my liking a system was based only in nostalgia.

I've found that to be a pretty common thing on these forums, unfortunately. My personal feelings are that if you try to tell someone that their opinion isn't really their opinion, then you are a jackass.

Full stop.


JoeJ wrote:

For me, it comes down to the feeling that the world makes sense. I have no problem with Vancian magic. It's a bit harder justifying magic that is Vancian when Bob the wizard casts a particular spell but not when Mary the sorceress casts exactly the same spell. It entirely reaches the WTF point for me when only some of Bob's spells are Vancian, and the rest are at-will superpowers.

I get that these are "feelings" and thus immune to the power of criticism, but we are talking about fantasy world magic, here. It makes perfect sense to you that people have the power to reshape the world around them through mysterious forces arbitrarily defined by powerful gods, but doesn't make sense that there might be more than one way to reshape the world around them through mysterious forces arbitrarily defined by powerful gods?

This is an upgrade to the verisimilitude-uber-alles perspective on D&D that I've never seen before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Where have you been in the last 14 years of d20 gaming?

Playing d20 games. Where have you been?

Quote:
It isn't a case of "in my day". I ran 3rd ed (since 2003), I run PF - I went back to play in a 2nd ed game after 30 years - superior in almost every aspect for an older and non-modern system.

In your opinion, of course.

Quote:
Your awkward asymmetries and headaches are contrived

No, they aren't. I've played multiple pre-3e editions of the game. Or are you calling me a liar, Auxmaulous?

Quote:
and were told to you by other people,

No, they weren't. They were definitely confirmed for me by other people, but their reality was obvious to me even in very short periods of play.

Quote:
so please spare me the "1st/2nd ed/older systems were only good because of nostalgia" nonsense.

Go ahead and quote where I said that. I loved 2e when I was playing it. I probably even liked 1e.

Quote:
Older systems - less problems.

In your opinion. Not in the opinion of others. And that's the problem. You're arguing that at-will cantrips are a negative, even in 5e, and you have people telling you that in actual play they're fine and don't ruin anything (except, perhaps, your own personal sense of edition aesthetics).

Quote:
I'm looking to replicate that. That's my motivation.

We get that.

Quote:
Older systems - less character power/reliance on power/less break in verisimilitude. I'm looking to replicate that. That's my motivation.

And yet despite people telling you that cantrips are not a symptom of any of that in 5e, you insist they must be because that's how they were in the editions you hold near and dear.

Quote:
Please stop telling me how older editions ran

Because you'd like to have a monopoly on telling everyone else how they ran, just like you spent this entire post doing?

I, on the other hand, said nothing about how previous editions ran in any of my earlier posts in this thread. So, I don't know, maybe stop telling me that I'm telling you how older editions ran when I wasn't? That'd be cool.

Quote:
or what my motivation is for looking at and possibly tweaking 5e to emulate older editions

I didn't tell you what your motivations are. I mentioned what the motivations for others I've seen take this same position have been. But you should have no problem differentiating yourself if your motivations aren't the same. So far, though, your post has been very little more than you claiming that older systems are better because they have fewer problems, which is a lot like saying apple pie tastes better than peach pie because the flavor is better.

Quote:
and I will continue to not talk about 4e.

You mean you will continue to not pointlessly mention a game you don't like in a manner that is off-topic and incendiary enough to break this sub-forum's rules?

Cool.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I've seen this bandied about a few times now, and I'm having a lot of trouble accepting that it's anything more than, "In my day Wizards couldn't cast cantrips at-will, so that's how it should be!"

In my case it's: "In my day Wizards couldn't cast cantrips at-will, and that's how I like it!"

Does it have to be anything more? Stating one's preference doesnt have to be convincing to anyone else.

It doesn't have to be convincing to anyone, but I don't see any reason that people can't comment on how they don't believe it to be convincing. This is a discussion board.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Betts was basically saying that I can't possibly like older editions because they are bad.

Except that I wasn't, because I don't believe they are bad.

See what happens when you guess at someone's motivations? I try to avoid getting upset about it, though; a simple correction is plenty.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I've seen this bandied about a few times now, and I'm having a lot of trouble accepting that it's anything more than, "In my day Wizards couldn't cast cantrips at-will, so that's how it should be!"

In my case it's: "In my day Wizards couldn't cast cantrips at-will, and that's how I like it!"

Does it have to be anything more? Stating one's preference doesnt have to be convincing to anyone else.

It doesn't have to be convincing to anyone, but I don't see any reason that people can't comment on how they don't believe it to be convincing. This is a discussion board.

Sure, but who are you discussing with? It seems like an odd conversation - kind of like hearing someone say "I like heavy metal music" and replying "But it's nowhere near as influential as classical!"

I like wizards with very limited magical resources. Replying that an opinion is not convincing just seems like a non sequitur to me. I never intended it to be convincing, it was just a point of view.


Steve Geddes wrote:

Sure, but who are you discussing with? It seems like an odd conversation - kind of like hearing someone say "I like heavy metal music" and replying "But it's nowhere near as influential as classical!"

I like wizards with very limited magical resources. Replying that an opinion is not convincing just seems like a non sequitur to me. I never intended it to be convincing, it was just a point of view.

In this post Auxmaulous makes the case to thejeff that 5e's at-will cantrip casting is "troubling" and "worse than PF levels of power", and contends that it represents a design direction that will create trouble for 5e (or perhaps that will create trouble for him, but it's not stated that way). This goes well past simply stating an opinion on design aesthetics and goes will into the territory of making judgment statements about the value of a particular mechanic in 5e. I think it's a little odd that people are criticizing someone for continuing that discussion, especially when it involves leveling similar criticism at a different edition of the game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I'm not responding to that specific conversation. Maybe I misunderstood this bit (which was what I quoted and did find peculiar):

Quote:
I've seen this bandied about a few times now, and I'm having a lot of trouble accepting that it's anything more than, "In my day Wizards couldn't cast cantrips at-will, so that's how it should be!" I'm not a fan of tradition for tradition's sake, especially when it comes shackled to a host of headaches and awkward asymmetries.

That seemed broader to me than some specific poster, but maybe I just read too much into it.

I'm certainly idiosyncratic in what I like and dont make any claim that game designers "should" cater to my tastes. Nonetheless, I'm regularly expressing views in favor of vancian magic, caster-martial disparity, imbalance as a virtue, etcetera. If your characterisation/parody above wasnt intended to encompass my views, then I just misunderstood. It sounded like you meant people like me.


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 player....it'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.


Well, we've just gone through a bunch of marathon sessions, using the basic rules and the Starter Set, and completed both Scourge of the Sword Coast and Lost Mine of Phandelver - which, BTW, are too similar, for my tastes. In many ways, plot-wise, LMoP is just SotSC, with different locations. I was hoping for something a bit more new and interesting, from WotC, in the Starter Set, given that it will be a lot of people's first real introduction to 5E. (And don't get me started on the idea of placing a CR 8 green dragon in an area meant for just-leveled-up 3rd level characters, as part of a module meant for beginners...).

Anyway, we had some fun, for sure, but we also ran into several annoying and/or problematic things that will probably keep this game from being a regular with us. Just a sampling:

- The lack of customization makes for less interesting character creation than in Pathfinder, 13th Age, etc. You really end up getting to make very few choices, early on, and even less, later. The whole bond/ideal/etc. trait mechanic seems a bit tacked on and doesn't really help much. WotC doesn't even seem quite sure how to handle it, inspiration-wise (the basic rules don't quite coincide with the Starter Set's comments or Mike Mearl's observations or... well, you get the picture). Certainly, the lack of feats until 4th level doesn't help, either (and, of course, there are no feats in the basic rules, anyway). Having said all of this, I guess this is really a subjective thing, so I'll leave it at that and go on to more objective problems, before starting a feud.

- The lack of any sort of sensible stacking system with advantage/disadvantage is a real problem and created some pretty silly situations. You can be picking locks, with crappy tools (disadvantage), while poisoned (disadvantage) and frightened (disadvantage), during a torrential storm (disadvantage), but all of these problems go *poof* with just one incident of advantage (having someone help you, for example, since that provides advantage - a *very* common source of advantage, in our games, as it turned out - even if the helper is also poisoned, frightened, etc., etc.). As I said elsewhere, one advantage should cancel one disadvantage, and vice versa. If one side or the other ends up with "left overs" then that one should count (still giving only one advantage or disadvantage die, as appropriate, since WotC wants to avoid multiple dice). Just seems like common sense, to me. But, apparently, WotC figures this is too complicated for newbies.

- The concentration rules are going to be a game-breaker, for some people, as they are very poorly implemented. The idea is that you can only concentrate on one spell at a time, and things like damage can break that concentration. The plan was to prevent people from over-buffing, but WotC clearly didn't think through the ramifications of this - especially, given that they made a truly vast number of spells use concentration (I kid you not: *every* 2nd level wizard spell, except one, in the Starter Set, is a concentration spell). What we found this means, in actual play, is that, once the cleric casts Bless, for example, he is done supporting the others, except through healing. He can't even cast Shield of Faith, since it's another concentration spell. Very frustrating. Ditto, for a wizard trying to cast, say, Blur and Flaming Sphere. The wizard can't cast Invisibility on two people, to let them back each other up on stealth missions, unless he raises the level of the spell (and do you really want to use your one and only 6th or 7th level slot to cast the equivalent of Invisibility Sphere, for your group?). And it gets worse. The whole "damage can ruin concentration" thing makes spells such as Spider Climb and Blur problematic, at best. Imagine: the wizard casts Spider Climb on you, then gets hit with an arrow, causing you to fall off the wall, because *he* got hurt. Worse still, it applies to most defensive spells. Real example: the wizard got hit, just after casting Blur, with its effect not saving him, on that particular attack (it grants disadvantage on the attacker's roll, but with its high attack bonus and the wizard's low AC, it hit him, anyway). The wizard then proceeded to fail the damage-based concentration check, caused by that attack, which ruined the spell, without it doing anything useful, at all. Wasted turn, wasted spell slot, and a defensive spell that did no actual defending. Ugh.

- Clerics are getting turned back into heal-bots, to a degree. Channeling (used for healing, that is) is only available to Life clerics and only works on really trashed heroes, since you can't heal above half hp. Cure spells have mostly been turned into a single spell that you level-boost, but this makes the effect weaker, beyond about 4th or 5th level (since you add your Wis mod, instead of level). Other forms of healing, such as Prayer of Healing and recovery dice, can only be done out of combat, when you have some time to burn. And judging by the two modules, combat is as frequent as ever, if not more so - so, you're going to get hurt... a lot. Unless you stock up on a *lot* of healing potions, the cleric is going to spend at least his first three levels using most, if not all, of his slots for Cure spells and Healing Words.

- The saving throws are unbalanced. As I believe someone mentioned earlier, in the basic rules and starter set, only Dex, Con and Wis come up at all regularly (hmmm... kind of sounds like Reflex, Fort and Will, no?). Str could, in theory, come up, but doesn't much, in the adventures. Int is used for a single spell, I believe, and it is hard to imagine that this will change, given the very restricted way it has been described, saving throw-wise (basically, Wis trumps both Int and Cha, almost every time). Cha saves never come up - and I would not be surprised if they never much do, even in the full rules (again, given Cha's restricted nature, saving throw-wise).

- On related noted, the abilities are horribly unbalanced. This has always been a problem in D&D type games, but 5E has taken it to a whole new level. Cha is never used, except for a few social skills (WotC split them all up as much as possible, to make it look like a lot, I think....). Presumably, bards and sorcerers will use it (pity them). Int isn't much better, unless you're a wizard. Wis is slightly more useful, but all three of these dwindle into the distance, compared to the physical abilities. In particular, Dex is now the stat of choice. A Dex-based fighter or rogue rules, since the score is used for hitting, damage, AC, the most common save, and several of the best skills. What a shock: our Dex-based fighter had a 20, by 4th level, and everyone else in the group had at least a 14.

- The two-weapon fighting rules are just... weird. Basically, anyone can do it - no special training, class feature, feat or anything else required. And most everyone did (except for those using shields, of course). Why not, given that there is no attack penalty or anything? Sure, you don't get your ability score modifier on the second attack's damage, but it's still... well, a second attack. It means you have to use a relatively light weapon, but, if you are stuck with low-damage weapons, anyway, this isn't much of a restriction. In particular, every rogue I have seen *anyone* make has used two weapons, since rogues want light Dex-based weapons, anyway, and can't use shields. Given the restrictions the class already has, weapon- and shield-wise, you would be stupid *not* to use two weapons.

- Dwarven wizards rock, since they can wear good armor and run around doing 1d10, two-handed, with a warhammer (ours did). Toss in a Con bonus and/or a hit point bonus (depending on the type of dwarf), and your hit points aren't even half-bad. In one of our groups, the dwarf wizard spent a lot of time in melee. Spells were just a fun extra. I'm not sure how unbalanced it was, given that his Int was a bit lower ("only" 15, pushed to 16, at 4th level) to get the Str and Con, so this may not really be a problem. I actually thought it was kind of fun, but, for some groups, it will seem... odd (and, potentially, abusive).

- The bounded accuracy system is like a lot of the rest of the rules: good idea, poor implementation. The problem is that it goes up painfully slowly and affects practically everything. So, your numbers, even for skills and saves, don't change one jot for a bunch of levels, and then suddenly shoot up, all at once, at 5th level (the first time the bonus changes). Even if you get to 20th level, your bonus will only increase from +2 to +6, which, again, feels really... odd (and not in a good way). This weights the game heavily toward ability score modifiers, but... wait... that would be those same really unabalanced ability score... Once players get used to this, learn to live with a lot of 20s in Str, Dex and Con. We all agreed that a slightly faster rate (2 + level / 3, so it goes from +2 to +8) would work better and take a little of the burden off the ability scores, magic gear, etc. It would also means that your first increase would occur at 3rd level, which feels about right, in actual play.

I could go on (and might, at some later point) but these were some of our obvious grumbles. And, yes, I realize that I sound like I've given the lie to my earlier comment about having some fun. We actually did. The game has some strengths. At low level, combats are fast and furious (oops! hope Savage Worlds didn't trademark that!), although I'm not sure that will continue at higher levels. The new spellcasting system, which is vaguely similar to the old Spirit Shaman's (i.e. prep several spells, cast any that you've prepped, as long as you have slots of the right level) is fun and versatile. All of the spellcasters liked it (but felt that the concentration rules almost ruined it). Our GM mostly liked the critter write-up format (but wondered about the level balance of some of the critters). And so on. In a nutshell: you can have fun with this game, but also get ready for some frustration, eye-rolling and head-shaking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

For me, it comes down to the feeling that the world makes sense. I have no problem with Vancian magic. It's a bit harder justifying magic that is Vancian when Bob the wizard casts a particular spell but not when Mary the sorceress casts exactly the same spell. It entirely reaches the WTF point for me when only some of Bob's spells are Vancian, and the rest are at-will superpowers.

I get that these are "feelings" and thus immune to the power of criticism, but we are talking about fantasy world magic, here. It makes perfect sense to you that people have the power to reshape the world around them through mysterious forces arbitrarily defined by powerful gods, but doesn't make sense that there might be more than one way to reshape the world around them through mysterious forces arbitrarily defined by powerful gods?

That's exactly right. I don't expect fantasy and science fiction to match the real world, but I do expect them to make sense within the contexts of their own worlds.

First we're given a division between divine and arcane magic, and between spontaneous and prepared casting. But do those divisions correspond? No. Both divine and arcane casters use both prepared and spontaneous casting. Now, since PF, we have a third kind of casting: at will. It too crosses all boundaries. Spontaneous and prepared casters can both cast at will, regardless of whether they cast arcane or divine spells.

How would a wizard explain to his apprentice why cantrips aren't limited, but spells disappear from your mind when you cast them? I don't mind having more than one way to wield magical powers. I do mind it when those different ways don't correspond to anything in-world that would account for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

For me, it comes down to the feeling that the world makes sense. I have no problem with Vancian magic. It's a bit harder justifying magic that is Vancian when Bob the wizard casts a particular spell but not when Mary the sorceress casts exactly the same spell. It entirely reaches the WTF point for me when only some of Bob's spells are Vancian, and the rest are at-will superpowers.

I get that these are "feelings" and thus immune to the power of criticism, but we are talking about fantasy world magic, here. It makes perfect sense to you that people have the power to reshape the world around them through mysterious forces arbitrarily defined by powerful gods, but doesn't make sense that there might be more than one way to reshape the world around them through mysterious forces arbitrarily defined by powerful gods?

That's exactly right. I don't expect fantasy and science fiction to match the real world, but I do expect them to make sense within the contexts of their own worlds.

First we're given a division between divine and arcane magic, and between spontaneous and prepared casting. But do those divisions correspond? No. Both divine and arcane casters use both prepared and spontaneous casting. Now, since PF, we have a third kind of casting: at will. It too crosses all boundaries. Spontaneous and prepared casters can both cast at will, regardless of whether they cast arcane or divine spells.

How would a wizard explain to his apprentice why cantrips aren't limited, but spells disappear from your mind when you cast them? I don't mind having more than one way to wield magical powers. I do mind it when those different ways don't correspond to anything in-world that would account for it.

I wonder if you can think of some ways that the wizard might explain the differences to his apprentice. I can certainly think of some, but more importantly I'm sure that you can, too. It's not very helpful for me to come up with explanations for you, because you might be less inclined to accept them as they didn't come from your own personal conception of how the game works. But if you come up with an explanation of your own (which I'm certain you can do), it will probably make the differences easier to conceptualize.


@thejeff. True it would be 2d10 my character is a 4 fighter/4 wizard however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Alan_Beven wrote:
Spammable damage cantrips are not breaking my game at all. YMMV.

Just don't want casters to have that level of flexibility with magic in my games.

The fact that varied selection of spells exist so they can re-write their powers every day is enough. Cantrips should follow the rest of the spell casting model, X times a day.

For me that is - keep in mind that this is supposed to be a modular system that has an appeal to older edition players and DMs. That's what I'm looking to recreate.

Agreed you should be the world builder. And that's why 5e is great, low number of moving parts you can make that change and play the storytelling style you like.

It will not surprise me to see limited cantrips in the DMG as a "system hack".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
JoeJ wrote:


How would a wizard explain to his apprentice why cantrips aren't limited, but spells disappear from your mind when you cast them? I don't mind having more than one way to wield magical powers. I do mind it when those different ways don't correspond to anything in-world that would account for it.
I wonder if you can think of some ways that the wizard might explain the differences to his apprentice. I can certainly think of some, but more importantly I'm sure that you can, too. It's not very helpful for me to come up with explanations for you, because you might be less inclined to accept them as they didn't come from your own personal conception of how the game works. But if you come up with an explanation of your own (which I'm certain you can do), it will probably make the differences easier to conceptualize.

It's less work for me, mentally, to adjust the rules than to try and come up with an explanation for a world that doesn't seem plausible to me. For me, the game rules should always support the world, not the other way around.


Cwylric wrote:
Wall of text

First up glad you had fun! That's why we play. Couple of notes on some of your points from my perspective (not invalidating yours!)

From a customisation perspective do you need 500 mechanical choices to make a unique character?

For the advantage/disadvantage stacking I mostly agree. As DM I just make a balanced judgement call even if it is not RaW.

And I love the fact that two weapon fighting is automatic. It does consume your reaction if I recall correctly however so you lose opportunity attacks.

Give it a few more sessions. It is a very different beast to PF and 3.5 in a lot of ways that may take some getting used to. I am kinda lucky that 5e actually plays the way that I made PF play. So I am no longer fighting the system.


While it's up to every table to decide whether or not to keep the cantrips, I didn't think they were weird at all.
Vancian magic disappears from your memory, right?
Well, some things just stick in your mind. Hence cantrips. Spells that get stuck in there.

There's even an in-game, mechanical event that depict this process: Spell Mastery at level 18. This essentially shows how spells "become" cantrips, by rote.
Is it a break from older editions? Yes.
Does it depict an incoherent and improhensible crazy magic? I don't think so but again, it's up to your group, your table to decide.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:

It's less work for me, mentally, to adjust the rules than to try and come up with an explanation for a world that doesn't seem plausible to me. For me, the game rules should always support the world, not the other way around.

No one is arguing that it should be the other way around. I'm saying that, occasionally, a given change to the rules justifies some change (or some consideration) in the game world. This is a game, after all.

I tend to dislike absolutes as a matter of course.

Grand Lodge

Scott Betts wrote:
I'm saying that, occasionally, a given change to the rules justifies some change (or some consideration) in the game world. This is a game, after all.

Why?

I know it is just a game after all, but if something I know works for me, and a proposed change, simply on its surface does not look appealing, why change it?

Sovereign Court

cwyrlic wrote:
- The concentration rules are going to be a game-breaker, for some people, as they are very poorly implemented. The idea is that you can only concentrate on one spell at a time, and things like damage can break that concentration. The plan was to prevent people from over-buffing, but WotC clearly didn't think through the ramifications of this - especially, given that they made a truly vast number of spells use concentration (I kid you not: *every* 2nd level wizard spell, except one, in the Starter Set, is a concentration spell). What we found this means, in actual play, is that, once the cleric casts Bless, for example, he is done supporting the others, except through healing. He can't even cast Shield of Faith, since it's another concentration spell. Very frustrating. Ditto, for a wizard trying to cast, say, Blur and Flaming Sphere. The wizard can't cast Invisibility on two people, to let them back each other up on stealth missions, unless he raises the level of the spell (and do you really want to use your one and only 6th or 7th level slot to cast the equivalent of Invisibility Sphere, for your group?). And it gets worse. The whole "damage can ruin concentration" thing makes spells such as Spider Climb and Blur problematic, at best. Imagine: the wizard casts Spider Climb on you, then gets hit with an arrow, causing you to fall off the wall, because *he* got hurt. Worse still, it applies to most defensive spells. Real example: the wizard got hit, just after casting Blur, with its effect not saving him, on that particular attack (it grants disadvantage on the attacker's roll, but with its high attack bonus and the wizard's low AC, it hit him, anyway). The wizard then proceeded to fail the damage-based concentration check, caused by that attack, which ruined the spell, without it doing anything useful, at all. Wasted turn, wasted spell slot, and a defensive spell that did no actual defending. Ugh.

This is a tough one. On one hand I really like the limitations on spell stacking when it comes to buffs/debuffs and control spells. I love fewer high level slots and how you can power up lower level spells. Though the defensive spells being ineffective or easy to shut down is a little worrisome. I like that an opponent has some way to shut down a defense but if its too easy nobody will use the defensive spells. I haven't gotten a chance to see this in action through the levels of 5E but ill be paying attention to game reports.

151 to 200 of 592 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Now that you have access to the basic rules for 5th edition, what do you think? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.