The basic rules imply potions and scrolls are about the only magic items in regular supply.
And there are several scrolls and potions available in the Starter Box.
|
I'd agree with you if it was something every wizard could do or any spellcaster could pick up with a feat. But since is a limited option from one school of magic, I don't see the harm. Every wizard who isn't an Evoker is still limited to picking carefully where to place their AoE spells.I like the sculpt spell ability because it shows that Evokers know their way around destructive magics. It shows that training steadily in the particular school has greater benefits than being a generalist. I'd also like to see what other effects are tied to schools.I agree with the thought process here but I feel the sculpt bit is ultimately cheesy. I probably shouldn't say this but the no friendly fire thing reminds me of an element I dislike in video games. It just removes an interesting challenge of the game and makes it easier. I wish they would have chosen a different school for the PDF.
Yes and no. It being a feat would be easy to remove from the game. Taking the sculpt ability away leaves a hole in the evocation wizards class package. Maybe I can think of some type of replacement or rework the ability somehow. Any ideas?
Make it work like Selective Channeling or that one Alchemist discovery. Precise Bombs, I think it is. The number of people excluded is equal to a stat modifier, typically the casting stat (Int in this case). If you wanted to rework the Evoker's ability.
By the way, if you want to see the table of contents for the PHB they have an (exclusive I believe) preview on the Escapist.
|
Yes and no. It being a feat would be easy to remove from the game. Taking the sculpt ability away leaves a hole in the evocation wizards class package. Maybe I can think of some type of replacement or rework the ability somehow. Any ideas?
As a replacement idea - you could add effects to each type of energy/evo attack -similar to a lingering spell type of effect. The suggested damage at spell level below is lower powered option, you could change it to caster level to add more power/damage for your campaign.
Some examples (area effect spells only):
Fire - must save on next round or keep burning.
Damage is equal to spell level, save - no effect or damage.
Force - targets must make a Dex save or have disadvantage for their next attack that round.
Force Option 2 - Make Str save or be knocked back 5 ft.
Cold - must save on next round or take damage and all attacks are at -1 for 1 round.
Damage is equal to spell level, save - no effect or damage. If you opt to go old school and use weapon/action speeds and roll round to round, a secondary failed save can penalize the following rounds initiative roll.
These are just some ideas Pan - sort of pulling them out of the air (or somewhere else) and putting them out as a seed suggestion.
I need to really spend some time reading the spells and looking at the effects. Much like yourself I also don't like the reduced risk of evo area casting - I'd rather give my caster players some extra minor effect + small damage while requiring casters to get into proper position or holding back to prevent friendly fire situations.
Plus its a good way for evo casters to create some minor thematic effects based on energy type instead of focusing 100% on damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's okay. The game is more lethal overall. It's nice to not have to worry about blasting your friemds.I like the sculpt spell ability because it shows that Evokers know their way around destructive magics. It shows that training steadily in the particular school has greater benefits than being a generalist. I'd also like to see what other effects are tied to schools.I agree with the thought process here but I feel the sculpt bit is ultimately cheesy. I probably shouldn't say this but the no friendly fire thing reminds me of an element I dislike in video games. It just removes an interesting challenge of the game and makes it easier. I wish they would have chosen a different school for the PDF.
More lethal overall than what? 3E? 4E? Probably not more lethal than 0E or 1E which is the play style I'd like to have replicated.
More lethal overall than what? 3E? 4E? Probably not more lethal than 0E or 1E which is the play style I'd like to have replicated.
That's not hard. Just tweak healing on a rest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More lethal overall than what? 3E? 4E? Probably not more lethal than 0E or 1E which is the play style I'd like to have replicated.That's not hard. Just tweak healing on a rest.
I plan to (if I ever DM).
I like 5E (at least what little I have seen so far) more than 3.X/4E and Pathfinder but there are still plenty of things that make me cringe including: the evoker's Sculpt Spells ability, healing Hit Dice, "encounter" powers that "recharge" after a short rest and completely healing back to full hit points after a long rest.
Yes and no. It being a feat would be easy to remove from the game. Taking the sculpt ability away leaves a hole in the evocation wizards class package. Maybe I can think of some type of replacement or rework the ability somehow. Any ideas?I'd agree with you if it was something every wizard could do or any spellcaster could pick up with a feat. But since is a limited option from one school of magic, I don't see the harm. Every wizard who isn't an Evoker is still limited to picking carefully where to place their AoE spells.I like the sculpt spell ability because it shows that Evokers know their way around destructive magics. It shows that training steadily in the particular school has greater benefits than being a generalist. I'd also like to see what other effects are tied to schools.I agree with the thought process here but I feel the sculpt bit is ultimately cheesy. I probably shouldn't say this but the no friendly fire thing reminds me of an element I dislike in video games. It just removes an interesting challenge of the game and makes it easier. I wish they would have chosen a different school for the PDF.
An ability that I think is interesting and flavorful that could substitute for an evoker's Sculpt Spells ability is one found in Pathfinder as a power for an Admixture Wizard (a subtype of the Evoker specialist): Versatile Evocation.
Versatile Evocation (Su): When you cast an evocation spell that does acid, cold, electricity, or fire damage, you may change the damage dealt to one of the other four energy types. This changes the descriptor of the spell to match the new energy type. Any non-damaging effects remain unchanged unless the new energy type invalidates them (an ice storm that deals fire damage might still provide a penalty on Perception checks due to smoke, but it would not create difficult terrain). Such effects are subject to GM discretion.
I'd set a limit on the number of times per day it could be used, of course, but I think this could be a situationally useful ability (e.g. change fireball to iceball when fighting a group of fire giants) without being overly cheesy like sculpt spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I plan to (if I ever DM).
I like 5E (at least what little I have seen so far) more than 3.X/4E and Pathfinder but there are still plenty of things that make me cringe including: the evoker's Sculpt Spells ability, healing Hit Dice, "encounter" powers that "recharge" after a short rest and completely healing back to full hit points after a long rest.
To me, it's a strength of the system that you can tweak a couple things and accomplish most of what you want without needing a lot of other changes to keep things balanced. The modularty is nice.
For sculpt spells you could say all the allies gain is advantage on the saving throw and be done with it.
Was there this much hate towards the cleric's Selective Channel feat? The alchemist's Precise Bombs discovery? I see no big difference between those and the evoker's Scult Spells ability. All 3 are a choice. The cleric (and oracle and any other class that can channel energy) can choose to take the Selective Channel feat. The alchemist (and any other class that can toss bombs and gain discoveries) can choose to take the Precise Bombs discovery. The 5th edition wizard can choose to take the evoker "archetype" and gain the Sculpt Spells ability.
The only difference is Sculpt Spell ability is 1+spell level instead of 0+stat modifier.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually cleric channel is one of my least favorite additions of pathfinder. I'm not that hot on the alchemist either. I would apreciate if you would refrain from saying "hate" when really the conversation has been about modding an ability some people dislike. 5E is a sytem that is supposed to be all about customizing to your taste. So far its been a constructive conversation except for a few people taking exception to the dislike of sculpt spell.
Was there this much hate towards the cleric's Selective Channel feat? The alchemist's Precise Bombs discovery? I see no big difference between those and the evoker's Scult Spells ability. All 3 are a choice. The cleric (and oracle and any other class that can channel energy) can choose to take the Selective Channel feat. The alchemist (and any other class that can toss bombs and gain discoveries) can choose to take the Precise Bombs discovery. The 5th edition wizard can choose to take the evoker "archetype" and gain the Sculpt Spells ability.
The only difference is Sculpt Spell ability is 1+spell level instead of 0+stat modifier.
I have played only a very limited amount of Pathfinder so I had to look up those two abilities you mentioned. After looking at them: Yes, I can say that I dislike those abilities (and if I were DM'ing Pathfinder wouldn't allow them in play) just like I dislike sculpt spells.
Actually cleric channel is one of my least favorite additions of pathfinder. I'm not that hot on the alchemist either. I would apreciate if you would refrain from saying "hate" when really the conversation has been about modding an ability some people dislike. 5E is a sytem that is supposed to be all about customizing to your taste. So far its been a constructive conversation except for a few people taking exception to the dislike of sculpt spell.
Like you, I am not a fan of the channel energy ability (even more so when you include all the "flavors" that are possible through modifying the ability with feats) and I really, really, really dislike (wanted to avoid the word "hate" here) the entire Alchemist class (Gunslingers too...).
I've noticed that we seem to share a LOT of the same opinions on what we like/don't like in our games.
I plan to (if I ever DM).
I like 5E (at least what little I have seen so far) more than 3.X/4E and Pathfinder but there are still plenty of things that make me cringe including: the evoker's Sculpt Spells ability, healing Hit Dice, "encounter" powers that "recharge" after a short rest and completely healing back to full hit points after a long rest.
To me, it's a strength of the system that you can tweak a couple things and accomplish most of what you want without needing a lot of other changes to keep things balanced. The modularty is nice.
I agree wholeheartedly about the customization aspect. I still wish they had kept 5E a little simpler and lower powered. It seems like it is usually easier to add elements to a game than it is to subtract them so I was hoping for a basic game that was really close to "old-school" levels of complexity and character power. Those who are fond of more power/complexity/crunch could just tack on the features that they want for their table.
Actually cleric channel is one of my least favorite additions of pathfinder. I'm not that hot on the alchemist either. I would apreciate if you would refrain from saying "hate" when really the conversation has been about modding an ability some people dislike. 5E is a sytem that is supposed to be all about customizing to your taste. So far its been a constructive conversation except for a few people taking exception to the dislike of sculpt spell.
Hate. Dislike. Both refer to a negative view on something.
As for the conversation about sculpt spell: I am not taking exception to people not liking the ability. I was just bringing up a point in that something similar has already been done for years now in Paizo's own version. I wasn't around during the APG playtest or whenever Selective Channel and Precise Bombs first released. I was just curious if such negativity was this abundant towards those 2 as there seems to be about the evoker's sculpt spell ability.
It is your game, and you can do what you wish to it. I just wanted to know if the same people who view this negatively did the same with the other 2 abilities from Pathfinder.
|
|
Actually cleric channel is one of my least favorite additions of pathfinder. I'm not that hot on the alchemist either. I would apreciate if you would refrain from saying "hate" when really the conversation has been about modding an ability some people dislike. 5E is a sytem that is supposed to be all about customizing to your taste. So far its been a constructive conversation except for a few people taking exception to the dislike of sculpt spell.Hate. Dislike. Both refer to a negative view on something.
As for the conversation about sculpt spell: I am not taking exception to people not liking the ability. I was just bringing up a point in that something similar has already been done for years now in Paizo's own version. I wasn't around during the APG playtest or whenever Selective Channel and Precise Bombs first released. I was just curious if such negativity was this abundant towards those 2 as there seems to be about the evoker's sculpt spell ability.
It is your game, and you can do what you wish to it. I just wanted to know if the same people who view this negatively did the same with the other 2 abilities from Pathfinder.
I think what you are not getting is that people who played it/ran it in PF didn't like those features in PF - so it makes sense that if something they dislike in that game carried over to 5e would also be a point of concern.
Assumption that DMs who are running or ran PF are ok with everything that's in PF (default power level, class abilities, ease of challenge for players, etc) when that isn't the case is just that - an assumption. I think that's whats causing some of the disconnect between posters.
Many people posting here who are posting concerns about 5e are doing so because they are considering 5e as a replacement system and do not what some features they didn't like in PF hardcoded into 5e.
I hope that made sense.
So far - I'm on board with what Pan and Logan want out of 5e - so maybe their is a specific type of DM who wants this game to emulate older editions while using some more modern system mechanics - we might be in that minority group. I think a few of us want the 1e/2nd ed feel (with minor deviations) while still retaining the more challenging game play of these editions: no getting around tactical spell casting positioning (re: no sculpt spell built into a class), eliminate or reduce quick healing, slower low level exp track or one that is closer to older editions, reduced power of cantrips, etc.
I have to say this though to all our old schoolers - as of now I am of the opinion that even with all the things we may dislike or want toned down in 5e - this newer system does seem to be the most modular and easy to houserule so far. As far as newer systems go supported by a large gaming company.
A concern I have (and we'll see if this bears out) is if they start tying more and more things to existing mechanics (short rest) which would eliminate the stand-alone nature of these existing mechanics. That makes them harder to house rule away or remove.
Buri - your sculpt spell option is excellent. It a downgrade in power, it takes into some consideration that the caster is not trying to hit his friends and it's using an existing system mechanic - so a grade A on that one. Allies still will take damage, but it will more than likely be half -and if you're desperate enough it could justify such a hard decision to blast an area with friendlies.
What you are not getting is that I do understand what Pan, Logan, and a few others are saying. I was just wondering if they felt the same about the feat and alchemist discovery as they do with this. I am not saying their desire to change this part of the evoker is them doing it wrong. I just wanted to know if their dislike of this mechanic was more than just them not liking it because it applies to damage by a wizard.
And I am glad to see that it isn't, and that they felt the same about the feat and discovery in Pathfinder.
That is one of the things I like when it comes to the new edition. It appears to be easy to remove and/or change what it is you don't like about the system without screwing up a lot. I plan on extending the experience needed to reach the next level at lower levels.
Yeah, I'm personally not a fan of those either. Actually, I find the bomb throwing alchemist quite annoying (I had one in a recent campaign I was running, and found force bombs versus touch AC really irritating), but that's a whole other topic.
Was there this much hate towards the cleric's Selective Channel feat? The alchemist's Precise Bombs discovery? I see no big difference between those and the evoker's Scult Spells ability. All 3 are a choice. The cleric (and oracle and any other class that can channel energy) can choose to take the Selective Channel feat. The alchemist (and any other class that can toss bombs and gain discoveries) can choose to take the Precise Bombs discovery. The 5th edition wizard can choose to take the evoker "archetype" and gain the Sculpt Spells ability.
The only difference is Sculpt Spell ability is 1+spell level instead of 0+stat modifier.
|
|
What you are not getting is that I do understand what Pan, Logan, and a few others are saying. I was just wondering if they felt the same about the feat and alchemist discovery as they do with this. I am not saying their desire to change this part of the evoker is them doing it wrong. I just wanted to know if their dislike of this mechanic was more than just them not liking it because it applies to damage by a wizard.
I think they probably don't like the ideas of all these "workarounds" players get when dealing with problems. Class doesn't really matter - but giving casters more tricks to be better (and I'm assuming here on their part) is not high on their like list.
So a wizard doing it, or an alchemist doing it (a class I don't run or allow, even though I have the book) doesn't change it. If you dislike a "workaround" in one system, best guess is that you are not going to like it in another game.
While I do like the idea of the "workarounds", the actual use of them in games just isn't something I enjoy. Channel Energy, to me, was a good change to the cleric, and one of the things I like about Pathfinder. Selective Channeling is one that I personally liked, as it gave a form of healing (channeling energy) an effective in-combat application that seemed useful instead of being a wasted action, since you could heal your allies without healing the enemies.
I didn't know what their true reasons were behind the negativity toward the sculpt spell, since I didn't know if they felt the same towards similar workarounds in Pathfinder. And without knowing that part, I figured it possibly had soemthing to do with either it being applied to the "all powerful" wizard, or because it was something Wizards of the Coast was doing, which made it something worthy of derision. The wizard class thing being compiled from the general attitude on this forum that the wizard class is all powerful and something that lets it bypass a limit is just too much. The part about it being something WotC is doing, is because of what seems to be a fairly common attitude towards WotC.
Glad to see I was wrong about the reason, and is something I can completely understand and get behind.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think alot of the old school DMs are looking for a very challenging game for their players. Old school challenges were:
- Spell selection (smart choices)
- Spells being limited resource
- Casting having risk (being hit = failed spell, hitting your friends, spell consequences: aging, risk of death, etc)
- Hit points being a resource which required players to play very cautiously and not assumed that they will be easily recovered.
- Magic items and magic consumables being very limited in availability.
That's just a small sample list - when I see "workarounds" a red flag is raised because now you are affecting the challenge level of the game.
Each of these small things in 5e hit those concerns so they need to be houseruled or the game needs to be passed over if it doesn't work for the DM in question.
Personally, I feel like all your play style concerns can be fairly easily houseruled in what I've seen of the 5e rules.
I think alot of the old school DMs are looking for a very challenging game for their players. Old school challenges were:
- Spell selection (smart choices)
- Spells being limited resource
- Casting having risk (being hit = failed spell, hitting your friends, spell consequences: aging, risk of death, etc)
- Hit points being a resource which required players to play very cautiously and not assumed that they will be easily recovered.
- Magic items and magic consumables being very limited in availability.That's just a small sample list - when I see "workarounds" a red flag is raised because now you are affecting the challenge level of the game.
Each of these small things in 5e hit those concerns so they need to be houseruled or the game needs to be passed over if it doesn't work for the DM in question.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hoping so - on one level or another they have fixed some big issues: layers of numbers, stacking buffs (bleah, hated that), item dependance, etc. I hope I can pick this up and make a few system changes to get the game emulator I want.
My concern and the concern of others is if some of the default power levels in the basic doc are considered the starting baseline and foundation with little room for change their could be some problems. EX: At this point if they put SLA cantrips in the game then they are assuming that everyone likes at will cantrips. Same goes with healing - they are assuming people want per combat and next morning healing as a default.
All easily changed on my part - but it goes towards their mindset and core gameplay philosophy. I am getting no indicators that my playstyle will be addressed or supported in upcoming products.
Not saying I can't make the tweaks, I just don't think based on what I've read that they are really looking to support older style play as a full published option but instead they seem to want to present a game that is "kind of older style play" but a different animal entirely.
Former is good, latter - not so much.
I'm looking forward to the DMG, not the PHB.
I just don't think based on what I've read that they are really looking to support older style play as a full published option but instead they seem to want to present a game that is "kind of older style play" but a different animal entirely.
Former is good, latter - not so much.
This is understandable. However, I’m one of the people who’s coming over from games like Labyrinth Lord, LotFP WF and Swords & Wizardry. If the game was exactly like the old games, I wouldn’t switch.
For example, the healing. This was the first thing on of our Lab Lord GMs started talking about tweaking, to bring it back to LL-AEC (kinda like AD&D 1e) levels. I had to remind him that
1.) After a while, we sorta started handwaving the overnight hitpoint tracking. We always started each session in town, and we were like “OK, so are we still at like two hitpoints” [or whatever we had when we barely made it out of the wilderness last session]. After a while it became “Naw, you saw a cleric or something”.
2.) As for the “hit dice”, increased hitpoints, and death save system: this was one of the first things he wanted to houserule in LL, too, after some nasty TPKs.
I’m not saying 5e is perfect when it comes to lethality, in fact it’s one of the things I’m most curious and concerned about. It can turn out to be too high or too low. I haven’t played with a full group yet, but I’ve ventured (both alone, and with a friend, but not with a GM) into the random dungeons from the tables in the AD&D 1e DMG and we’ve died lots. So it’s lethal, all right. Ideally, it’s a little less lethal than LL-AEC but still very lethal. From what I’ve heard so far, that’s about where it is.
Now, the cantrips. I’m kinda bored with the dinky little slingshots that our LL wizards always resorted to. Some weak and flavorful damage cantrips that are still way below what the martial classes can do is just what the doctor ordered, but I can definitely see the opposite case, too. We’ve had plenty of flavorful moments with a seemingly useless illusionist that contributed barely nothing and had to be protected by the party and then boom saved our lives with a much-needed Color Spray.
Oh, well. We’ll see how it plays. Cantrip Mage Hand and clever uses of Prestidigitation and Thaumaturgy are cause for concern but hopefully will work out. We’ll see.
I’m an optimistic 5e kool-aid drinker but I still have one foot on the ground ready to switch away to an older edition or OSR game.
Most importantly, I’m also starting a new group, half of whom haven’t played any RPG before, and we’re starting with 5e!
To me it was also a feeling that slingshots and daggers aren’t exactly the easiest weapons to learn. If someone has dedicated themselves to the arcane, wouldn’t that be their way of fighting rather than spending hours upon hours each day at slingshot practice? YMMV
I have played every edition of dnd to date, and I have soundly houseruled every one of them. Having to put a couple houserules in 5e is no big deal to me. I have yet to meet the person who played 2e straight out of the books (or they never leveled a Druid to level 14).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I do recall them talking about having alternate rules for things like lasting wounds and armor class as DR, and that sort of stuff in the DMG.
I think it would be neat if they had an online database of alternate rules, and then you could check off the ones you wanted to use in your game and print them as a sort of booklet of house rules. Alternatively, they could start publishing little "flavour rule books," that provide the alternate rules for creating different fantasy flavours with the system (e.g. a low fantasy booklet, a high magic booklet, a science/fantasy booklet etc...)- probably not something you would see early on, but maybe a bit further down the road.
|
BTW, I should clarify that I don't entirely hate the idea of toning down the number of buffs that can be used, at once. I'm good with that. But WotC's method is way too extreme and has too many ridiculous side-effects.
A simple way of doing that, would be to eliminate several of the bonus types.
Do we need 'sacred', 'profane', and 'divine'? Aren't they all divine bonuses, regardless of source?Not to mention, the inherent lunacy of begging favors from celestial and infernal powers simultaneously, with no loss of standing from either?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I more deeply read the Basic rules and see the previews of the PHB classes, I am becoming less and less enchanted with 5E. The power level of PC's just seems far too high for my tastes. In addition, I just saw a 3rd level Cleric spell Revivify that allows a Cleric to raise the dead! So, once your party has a 5th level Cleric, permanent death is pretty much a thing of the past.
Oryou can do like so many others, and not allow rez magic if revivify is not something you like.
As I more deeply read the Basic rules and see the previews of the PHB classes, I am becoming less and less enchanted with 5E. The power level of PC's just seems far too high for my tastes. In addition, I just saw a 3rd level Cleric spell Revivify that allows a Cleric to raise the dead! So, once your party has a 5th level Cleric, permanent death is pretty much a thing of the past.Link?
If it's like the old version, it's basically Breath of Life - works only within a round of death, so it's hardly like permanent death is a thing of the past.
It is lower level though.
It is in the Basic PDF. Has a 300gp consumable material component.
You touch a creature that has died within the last minute. That creature returns to life with 1 hit point. This spell can’t return to life a creature that has died of old age, nor can it restore any missing body parts.
And don't think of it as bringing them back to life. Think of it more like when, on television and movies, you see someone perform CPR or use a defibrillator on a seemingly dead person, and they come back. You weren't dead. Just mostly dead.
I don't like it. Partly I think it does go too far, too early in preventing deaths. Partly it becomes another "must carry" spell for clerics, forcing them more and more into the healbot mode, at least if it isn't reliably available as potion or scroll. It's just too necessary as an emergency spell to not have ready at all times.
Well, Revivify is a domain spell for the Life domain (which is focused on healing). So those clerics won't have to prepare it at all, as they get it for free. Other clerics would have to prepare it if they wanted it, however.
For that matter, so is Cure Wounds. So a healbot cleric won't have to prepare the healing spells, as the basics ones are prepared for free anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oryou can do like so many others, and not allow rez magic if revivify is not something you like.
Yeah, I know, I could do that but the number of things I would have to change (if I even ran a session....I don't DM much) is starting to mount to an undesirable level IMO.
I am just getting an overall vibe of "too powerful, too easy" from 5E at this point. I like gritty, low-fantasy in my D&D and 5E (at least what I have seen so far and it is still early days) is looking like 3.X/PF/4E in terms of PC power and non-lethality. Plus, as I stated earlier, I don't really run games as DM that much (I kind of suck at DM'ing), so I wouldn't have control over which elements are removed.
I was really hoping that 5E would be the system that allowed me to get back into gaming in a serious way. Finding people who want to play "old-school" rules (B/X Basic and 1E AD&D) in face-to-face settings is pretty difficult so I was hoping that 5E could allow me to game F2F (I don't like PbP gaming) using rules that I enjoyed. The more I see of 5E, the less I think that is going to happen. Maybe the DM's guide and its "dials" can save this situation (for me).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oryou can do like so many others, and not allow rez magic if revivify is not something you like.Yeah, I know, I could do that but the number of things I would have to change (if I even ran a session....I don't DM much) is starting to mount to an undesirable level IMO.
I am just getting an overall vibe of "too powerful, too easy" from 5E at this point. I like gritty, low-fantasy in my D&D and 5E (at least what I have seen so far and it is still early days) is looking like 3.X/PF/4E in terms of PC power and non-lethality. Plus, as I stated earlier, I don't really run games as DM that much (I kind of suck at DM'ing), so I wouldn't have control over which elements are removed.
I was really hoping that 5E would be the system that allowed me to get back into gaming in a serious way. Finding people who want to play "old-school" rules (B/X Basic and 1E AD&D) in face-to-face settings is pretty difficult so I was hoping that 5E could allow me to game F2F (I don't like PbP gaming) using rules that I enjoyed. The more I see of 5E, the less I think that is going to happen. Maybe the DM's guide and its "dials" can save this situation (for me).
This is why I'm going to dodge the PHB - but yeah, it is starting to look like too many core components are default very high power or sets the game at very easy mode. This goes to my earlier posts concerning design philosophy. If Wotc is assuming that people want at will cantrips and full overnight healing as a default, then how are they going to lay out the rest of the game as the systems unfold?
Looking like I will be waiting on the DMG - and now at this point I don't think they will come through with what I want. Again, it's looking more like it won't be an option to run this like an older system with a system overhaul, but more likely a new system that has some trappings or "old-like" or "old-ish" but not the same. I don't think the DMG is going to provide us old-schoolers what we are looking for. At this point the DMG would have to have a bunch of strike-throughs or omit this from the Basic/PHB books since the big issues are not what the DM has as a guide but the core rules the players are using to make characters and play the game (spells, healing, etc). If the players are using the PHB (with default high power) with the DMG has optional overrides it is going to create some major confusion and conflicts in groups. Player A is going to see X feature and want it, while Player B sees Y feature and want it - while the DM using his new DMG has both of those overridden by a side-box.
Maybe the way they will manage something Revivify is to not change the spell, but to change the rules in the DMG about handling negative hp or Death?
Haven't had time but I really need to read all the spells. They were what broke 3rd ed for me (and by extension - all the magic items, buffs, stat boosts, etc) so this is where some core system problems may lie.
--------------
I'm with Logan, it is starting to look more and more like it will be too much work and too many minor changes to track. Lucky for me I have C&C and all my 1st and 2nd ed books. Too bad, I was going to run a 5e version of L1 - The Secret of Bone Hill.
I really wish FGG/Necromancer would put out a rules mod book for 5e in addition to more spells and monsters book for the new system. I think with that crew creating a formal book of mods it would be easier to use instead of the upcoming PHB. By easier - I just mean a printed hardcover I can hand to my players instead of the PHB or a redacted printed Basic doc.
I'm leaning more towards not supporting this as a system - I still think some of the features are very good ideas: Bounded Accuracy, no x-mass tree, limited buffs - they just should have started with a lower powered baseline and worked up from there.
Ah well
|
I'm leaning more towards not supporting this as a system - I still think some of the features are very good ideas: Bounded Accuracy, no x-mass tree, limited buffs - they just should have started with a lower powered baseline and worked up from there.
Yeah, and "let's make your characters weaker!" is a tough sell for most groups.
You can always throw harder monsters at people to handle the numeric challenge, but if you feel like the PCs can do too much, getting buy-in for that change can be a mess.
Cheers!
Landon
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oryou can do like so many others, and not allow rez magic if revivify is not something you like.Yeah, I know, I could do that but the number of things I would have to change (if I even ran a session....I don't DM much) is starting to mount to an undesirable level IMO.
I am just getting an overall vibe of "too powerful, too easy" from 5E at this point. I like gritty, low-fantasy in my D&D and 5E (at least what I have seen so far and it is still early days) is looking like 3.X/PF/4E in terms of PC power and non-lethality. Plus, as I stated earlier, I don't really run games as DM that much (I kind of suck at DM'ing), so I wouldn't have control over which elements are removed.
I was really hoping that 5E would be the system that allowed me to get back into gaming in a serious way. Finding people who want to play "old-school" rules (B/X Basic and 1E AD&D) in face-to-face settings is pretty difficult so I was hoping that 5E could allow me to game F2F (I don't like PbP gaming) using rules that I enjoyed. The more I see of 5E, the less I think that is going to happen. Maybe the DM's guide and its "dials" can save this situation (for me).
It's funny you posted this logan because on another forum I frequent people are decrying the lack of power and find the game too deadly and lethal to play. This demonstrates just how diverse the play style preference is in the hobby.
I am with you about having to change a lot and I dont want to do it. However, I tend to change a lot of rules in 3E/PF anyways so its not a biggie for me. I guess after a decade of making 3E/P fit my playstyle the system is like an old pair of boots that just fits and makes them hard to set aside. I do think the effort might be worth it though to get BA and more grounded casters into my game. I need to see more though before I can even consider the leap.
From what I have heard about the 5th edition druid, wildshape will be more like the 3rd edition version, where the animal's physical stats replace the druid's, but the HD level of the creature you turn into is drastically lower (1 HD animal at around level 15 or so).
Don't quote me as fact on this, but a Facebook friend of mine somehow got ahold of an early version of the PHB (supposedly) and told me about the wildshape. What he told me about the different subclasses came true with the preview released yesterday or the day before, so the wildshape thing may end up true.
I think this may not be the system for those wanting pre-WotC level for character power, without greatly changing some things around. I have yet to play 5th edition, but so far I have no problem with what I have read. That could change after actually playing. But I don't think I will play before the PHB is released.
You guys saying PCs are too high powered should peak at the Starter Set campaign. Yes, PCs awesome but all enemies of the same kind activate on the same initiative. It makes goblin ambushes actually scary especially when they can move up, attack, and back away in the same round without provoking. There's also a dragon you can face... in a campaign for 1-5 level characters. Combat can be brutal. You almost need the awesome to win depending on the situation. And that dragon? Nothing you get by level 5 makes him any kind of easy. It's a b$@%&.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys saying PCs are too high powered should peak at the Starter Set campaign. Yes, PCs awesome but all enemies of the same kind activate on the same initiative. It makes goblin ambushes actually scary especially when they can move up, attack, and back away in the same round without provoking. There's also a dragon you can face... in a campaign for 1-5 level characters. Combat can be brutal. You almost need the awesome to win depending on the situation. And that dragon? Nothing you get by level 5 makes him any kind of easy. It's a b##$+.
No, I get it Buri - the power of the PCs is relative to the challenges they may face. I just don't like that "locked in" power and intensity.
To clarify - I've run many high powered games before - mostly in other systems - namely Gamma World. PCs were decked out in gear to 9's, Powered attack armor, mutants with tremendous powers, R&D weapons - and they fought insane and sometimes impossible foes. So their power was relative to what they had to face. But it was intense - always intense because to provide a level of challenge to that party needed 100% crazy levels of threat to keep it interesting.
The issue I have is the "default" power assumptions they seem to be running with. I would like to have more control over the mood and pacing and much of that is currently removed from the game (2nd wind, short and long rest recharges and heals).
So how easy/difficult is a factor (and I'm hearing from multiple sources that the game is more deadly than 3rd and 4e) but it isn't just that. I don't want to run a low-level game that feels like everything needs to be redlined to make it feel scary: getting the PCs low in hp after several fights, then they are up again to full next day. Have multiple encounters per day - just to tax their resources so they feel some risk and feel threatened. Older ed games did that with one or two encounters - I would like to have that level of "scary/gritty" as an option.
I think they could have done a better job on the base setting. I think the problem though is that if they set them to 0E or 1st ed levels of power as a baseline for the Basic doc many modern gamers wouldn't play because the characters would be too weak.
IDK - honestly this is all riding on the DMG at this point. Some good stuff has come out of this but as I've said before - that DMG is going to make or break this for me and other DMs.
|
|
Is the playtest material still available somewhere? I'd like to see what the monsters looked like, even though I know there will probably be tweaks in the final version.
The monsters are one of the things that were supposed to change the most between the playtest and the final product.
That said, the playtest encounters for Legacy of the Crystal Shard are free to download from WotC. The actual stat-blocks kick in around page 12.
Cheers!
Landon