Is 5th ed dnd too powerful?


4th Edition

101 to 129 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

We are currently 5th level party

2 rangers
barbarian half orc
halfling cleric
2 wizards
1 rogue

last night we fought a flaming skull and the battle was difficult and some previous battles have also been difficult.Campaign is a low level magic campaign and as of now most of us have a +1 weapon

Things that i have noticed that are not overpowered

saving throws- dc is moderate

AC-at 5th level most acs are around 15? even with say mage armor its easier to get hit . hard to get above that as a rogue with high dex?

sneak attack rogue-3d6+ damage is good but not always overpowering

wizard attacks-i find myself using magic missile a lot and often in a higher slot. my wizard is a necromancer and other than flavor it hasnt been a factor in game. Fireball is usefull but you have to be careful of when to use it

halfling cleric-using cure wounds at higher slot. has some other nice spells but at 5th level not super effective against moderate undead

things i found to be more effective

characters with higher speed-they can cover more ground and are slightly more effective in closing with enemies further away (hurts dwarves). Can take dwarves an extra action to close with an enemy

barbarians/rangers and i assume fighters-more hit points and more attacks. maybe its me but i dont feel my wizard would stand a chance against them


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:
Dragon Knight wrote:

And the game emphasis roleplaying over roll playing.

How? Or more specifically, where?

I think he's sort of saying it in this statement:

Dragon Knight wrote:
If I want my character to wield his grandfather's warhammer, he can do so without worrying about being underpower and overwhelmed later is his career.


Arnwyn wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Dragon Knight wrote:

And the game emphasis roleplaying over roll playing.

How? Or more specifically, where?

I think he's sort of saying it in this statement:

Dragon Knight wrote:
If I want my character to wield his grandfather's warhammer, he can do so without worrying about being underpower and overwhelmed later is his career.

Yea, I'm not buying it. What one considers "underpowered" or "overwhelmed" is really subjective. In many cases all we're really talking about is a few points of DPR.......whoop de-do.

Further, I don't constitute that as role-play because if people were concerned with role-play they wouldn't care about giving up a few points of DPR and instead focus on how cool their character is for wielding a weapon with a really interesting history that plays to the character's backstory. I mean, don't people EVER take non-mechanically powerful options when presented with something that fits more thematically these days?

As 4E is my major system of interest I do this a lot. I often take sub-optimal choices because sometimes those choices help reflect my character better. For example, an Eladrin Bladesinger is often considered a terrible combination (Dex / Int) but I don't really care because I find the archtype fun and interesting.


Diffan wrote:


Further, I don't constitute that as role-play because if people were concerned with role-play they wouldn't care about giving up a few points of DPR and instead focus on how cool their character is for wielding a weapon with a really interesting history that plays to the character's backstory. I mean, don't people EVER take non-mechanically powerful options when presented with something that fits more thematically these days?

As 4E is my major system of interest I do this a lot. I often take sub-optimal choices because sometimes those choices help reflect my character better. For example, an Eladrin Bladesinger is often considered a terrible combination (Dex / Int) but I don't really care because I find the archtype fun and interesting.

Considering that most games of D&D revolve around the combat, when you have a character that is really falling behind on it simply for "backstory" it brings aches and actually ruins the mood and immersion of the game.

In most fantasy stories, the weapons with backstory, the ones inherited, were often legacies for a reason and were generally good. Outside of D&D, you rarely see old weapons get discarded consistently with the exception of rusty and broken standard weapons that were overused.

For a game that is part roleplay, part tactical miniatures, most people don't want to have to shoot themselves in the foot just get a little bit of personal immersion only to be roflstomped by the rest of the in-game world that doesn't care about their meta-sacrifice.

Through Darwin's understanding of Natural Selection, we'll see that most players that continue will prefer to roleplay competent characters instead of cripples; while those who'd rather not focus on combat tend to drift to more rules light systems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:


Considering that most games of D&D revolve around the combat, when you have a character that is really falling behind on it simply for "backstory" it brings aches and actually ruins the mood and immersion of the game.

Please define "really falling behind". What does that even mean? Falling behind what, exactly? Is there some sort of measure PCs must maintain? If you mean losing a few points of DPR or a +1 or +2 to attack.....yeah for a LOT of people that's fine. Not everyone optimizes their character to the 100 degree for efficiency. And the ones that do don't complain about not being immersed.

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:


In most fantasy stories, the weapons with backstory, the ones inherited, were often legacies for a reason and were generally good. Outside of D&D, you rarely see old weapons get discarded consistently with the exception of rusty and broken standard weapons that were overused.

Did you ever think that the weapon was good simply because the one wielding it was a legend? Though I fail to see how this is relevant to the topic of role-playing?

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:


For a game that is part roleplay, part tactical miniatures, most people don't want to have to shoot themselves in the foot just get a little bit of personal immersion only to be roflstomped by the rest of the in-game world that doesn't care about their meta-sacrifice.

Again, who's shooting themselves in the foot? And why would they be roflstomped in the game just because of the weapon (and subsequently, the backstory that goes along with it) they chose?

Ragnarok Aeon wrote:


Through Darwin's understanding of Natural Selection, we'll see that most players that continue will prefer to roleplay competent characters instead of cripples; while those who'd rather not focus on combat tend to drift to more rules light systems.

Lol, cripples? So by taking a -5 in DPR and a -1 to attacks (arbitrary numbers for a subjective argument) I'm now a cripple who apparently gets roflstomped because I shot myself in the foot for falling behind some unknown metric scale devised, most likely, from theorycrafting in a white-room by people who more than likely don't even play the game.....

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.

5th ed has put in a mechanic to reward good roleplay. The inspiration mechanic has helped my players immensely.

Additionally, since there aren't billions of rules laid out for every action, the players are trying more unique actions all the time. They no longer feel constrained by the rules. As DM, neither do I. Now it's just a case of judging if it's standard, advantage or disadvantage to try something.

5th ed has really brought back the feel of roleplay from my early days of playing. I'm loving it for that reason.


Wrath wrote:
5th ed has put in a mechanic to reward good roleplay. The inspiration mechanic has helped my players immensely.

This is something that my group likes too. For the ones who don't need incentive to role-play, it's just icing on the cake. For the ones who don't put in as much effort, now they do on more occasions. It also, IME, helps bring new people out of their shells when it comes to getting into character (either by the choices they make, or what they say, or even how they act). Nice things all around.

Wrath wrote:


Additionally, since there aren't billions of rules laid out for every action, the players are trying more unique actions all the time. They no longer feel constrained by the rules. As DM, neither do I. Now it's just a case of judging if it's standard, advantage or disadvantage to try something.

5th ed has really brought back the feel of roleplay from my early days of playing. I'm loving it for that reason.

That's cool. I'm not sure how players felt constrained by the rule from other editions but that you get that feeling back is a good thing. Personally, I'm not keen on the level of required adjudication on me as a DM, so I really have to maintain more overall perspective on my rulings than just referencing Rule X, which has taken a far strong precedent this edition than in the last two. It unfortunately reminds me of 2E where my DM had his own rulings in a binder to reference so he maintained a level of consistency. I'd hoped to not go back to that.


Diffan wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Dragon Knight wrote:

And the game emphasis roleplaying over roll playing.

How? Or more specifically, where?

I think he's sort of saying it in this statement:

Dragon Knight wrote:
If I want my character to wield his grandfather's warhammer, he can do so without worrying about being underpower and overwhelmed later is his career.

Yea, I'm not buying it. What one considers "underpowered" or "overwhelmed" is really subjective. In many cases all we're really talking about is a few points of DPR.......whoop de-do.

Further, I don't constitute that as role-play because if people were concerned with role-play they wouldn't care about giving up a few points of DPR and instead focus on how cool their character is for wielding a weapon with a really interesting history that plays to the character's backstory. I mean, don't people EVER take non-mechanically powerful options when presented with something that fits more thematically these days?

As 4E is my major system of interest I do this a lot. I often take sub-optimal choices because sometimes those choices help reflect my character better. For example, an Eladrin Bladesinger is often considered a terrible combination (Dex / Int) but I don't really care because I find the archtype fun and interesting.

Whether the difference is big or small, in an RPG a character with an interesting background should not be inherently weaker mechanically than a blank slate with no background at all.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:
Wrath wrote:
5th ed has really brought back the feel of roleplay from my early days of playing. I'm loving it for that reason.
That's cool. I'm not sure how players felt constrained by the rule from other editions but that you get that feeling back is a good thing.

Perhaps because the default answer to "I try to do XXX" in 3.0/3.5/PFRPG is "Do you have the feat that allows you to do XXX ?" To the point where players eventually stop bothering to attempt actions that aren't already spelled out as possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Dragon Knight wrote:

And the game emphasis roleplaying over roll playing.

How? Or more specifically, where?

I think he's sort of saying it in this statement:

Dragon Knight wrote:
If I want my character to wield his grandfather's warhammer, he can do so without worrying about being underpower and overwhelmed later is his career.

Yea, I'm not buying it. What one considers "underpowered" or "overwhelmed" is really subjective. In many cases all we're really talking about is a few points of DPR.......whoop de-do.

Further, I don't constitute that as role-play because if people were concerned with role-play they wouldn't care about giving up a few points of DPR and instead focus on how cool their character is for wielding a weapon with a really interesting history that plays to the character's backstory. I mean, don't people EVER take non-mechanically powerful options when presented with something that fits more thematically these days?

As 4E is my major system of interest I do this a lot. I often take sub-optimal choices because sometimes those choices help reflect my character better. For example, an Eladrin Bladesinger is often considered a terrible combination (Dex / Int) but I don't really care because I find the archtype fun and interesting.

Whether the difference is big or small, in an RPG a character with an interesting background should not be inherently weaker mechanically than a blank slate with no background at all.

I agree, sound game mechanics and roleplaying elements are not mortal enemies.

@ Wrath, The Advantage and Disadvantage 5e mechanic is not the all-encompassing signifier of liberty and freedom, that is often claimed. A -4 penalty/bonus for DM rulings on less codified actions has been used in roleplaying games for decades.

D&D 5e is a tabletop wargame

However, Pathfinder also is a tabletop wargame. It is not a roleplaying game. Look at all the threads on these forums, topics that are concerned with problems associated with tabletop wargames.

Character Optimization= Army Building.

Discussions about official rulings, thousands of posts on the correct way to create your character so you can 'win' the game.

Any suggestion of themes and characterization to be introduced into hardcover books is met by strong opposition. Because Pathfinder players want to keep their wargame, a tabletop wargame.

In D&D Unearthed Arcana (1e), at higher levels, a Barbarian could summon a horde of barbarians (hundreds of barbarians), in Pathfinder a Barbarian can grow wings and fly (basically becoming a flying unit).

Only the truth will set you free.

Pathfinder can be a roleplaying game, and the first step that needs to be taken for that to happen is to start to treat it like one.


JoeJ wrote:
Diffan wrote:
As 4E is my major system of interest I do this a lot. I often take sub-optimal choices because sometimes those choices help reflect my character better. For example, an Eladrin Bladesinger is often considered a terrible combination (Dex / Int) but I don't really care because I find the archtype fun and interesting.
Whether the difference is big or small, in an RPG a character with an interesting background should not be inherently weaker mechanically than a blank slate with no background at all.

Again, please define "inherently weaker mechanically". What, exactly, are we talking about here? Say I make a character and his backstory is that he uses his dad's Warhammer that was passed down to him. OK, well with that backstory I can easily do that by either A) being a class that has proficiency with martial weapons, B) Grab a feat that allows me to be proficient with said martial weapon(s), C) multiclass into a class that is proficient. And do you honestly think such a choice is going to get me roflstomped?? Please........

Kthulhu wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Wrath wrote:
5th ed has really brought back the feel of roleplay from my early days of playing. I'm loving it for that reason.
That's cool. I'm not sure how players felt constrained by the rule from other editions but that you get that feeling back is a good thing.
Perhaps because the default answer to "I try to do XXX" in 3.0/3.5/PFRPG is "Do you have the feat that allows you to do XXX ?" To the point where players eventually stop bothering to attempt actions that aren't already spelled out as possible.

I think that's FAR more the problem of any given DM rather than the system itself. Yes, the system does provide mechanical features that probably shouldn't be replicated willy-nilly but that goes for ANY class-based game. If a Fighter wants to pick up a spellbook he's never read before and just start speaking the words with the correct components, do you just allow the spell to go off without a hitch? I'm guessing not. But apparently it's perfectly fine for a Wizard to grab a sword he's never used a day in his life with and just take a minor penalty to attack things with it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
insaneogeddon wrote:

Everyone gets like 30 bonus feats- save feats, re-roll feats, spring attack, shot on run, bonus actions etc etc

Monks can be benders- flying, breathing fire etc

Far less caster martial disparity so cannot even limit players by limiting classes?

Considering how many TPK's were coming from the first convention playtests, I'd say no.


Diffan wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Diffan wrote:
As 4E is my major system of interest I do this a lot. I often take sub-optimal choices because sometimes those choices help reflect my character better. For example, an Eladrin Bladesinger is often considered a terrible combination (Dex / Int) but I don't really care because I find the archtype fun and interesting.
Whether the difference is big or small, in an RPG a character with an interesting background should not be inherently weaker mechanically than a blank slate with no background at all.
Again, please define "inherently weaker mechanically". What, exactly, are we talking about here? Say I make a character and his backstory is that he uses his dad's Warhammer that was passed down to him. OK, well with that backstory I can easily do that by either A) being a class that has proficiency with martial weapons, B) Grab a feat that allows me to be proficient with said martial weapon(s), C) multiclass into a class that is proficient. And do you honestly think such a choice is going to get me roflstomped?? Please........

I don't know enough about 4e to comment, but in 3.5/PF, you can easily have your interesting character wield Daddy's old warhammer. However, the blank slate character also chooses a warhammer, but swaps it after a few levels for a +1 weapon, which he then sells off a few levels later and buys one that's +2. The interesting character has a less optimal weapon.

The player who chooses any skills to represent their character's background is weaker than the blank slate who uses all their skill points on purely adventuring skills. The interesting character has a less optimal skill set.

The interesting character can keep up on skills by boosting their INT above the blank slate's, but they can only do that by making some other stat lower. If the blank slate's stats are arranged optimally for their class, then raising INT will necessarily produce a less optimal array.

The difference between the two characters might not be large, but in a roleplaying game there should either be no difference at all, or it should go the other way and favor the more interesting character.


JoeJ wrote:
Diffan wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Diffan wrote:
As 4E is my major system of interest I do this a lot. I often take sub-optimal choices because sometimes those choices help reflect my character better. For example, an Eladrin Bladesinger is often considered a terrible combination (Dex / Int) but I don't really care because I find the archtype fun and interesting.
Whether the difference is big or small, in an RPG a character with an interesting background should not be inherently weaker mechanically than a blank slate with no background at all.
Again, please define "inherently weaker mechanically". What, exactly, are we talking about here? Say I make a character and his backstory is that he uses his dad's Warhammer that was passed down to him. OK, well with that backstory I can easily do that by either A) being a class that has proficiency with martial weapons, B) Grab a feat that allows me to be proficient with said martial weapon(s), C) multiclass into a class that is proficient. And do you honestly think such a choice is going to get me roflstomped?? Please........
I don't know enough about 4e to comment, but in 3.5/PF, you can easily have your interesting character wield Daddy's old warhammer. However, the blank slate character also chooses a warhammer, but swaps it after a few levels for a +1 weapon, which he then sells off a few levels later and buys one that's +2. The interesting character has a less optimal weapon.

I don't think so. Mainly because SO many feats revolve around specifics. A Fighter who grabs Weapon Focus / Weapon Specialization is going to almost ALWAYS look for ways to enhance their preferred weapon. By grabbing a +2 weapon of something else, they're gaining nothing because of the feats they choose. Further the way v3.5 / PF is structured it's almost certain that someone will have a way to magically enhance their preferred weapon, whether it's through magical item creation feats or the item-mart that is often associated with said editions.

JoeJ wrote:


The player who chooses any skills to represent their character's background is weaker than the blank slate who uses all their skill points on purely adventuring skills. The interesting character has a less optimal skill set.

It has far more to do with the adventure being run than the system itself. If I'm playing a game where adventuring is only part of the adventure then putting ranks into Craft [armorsmithing], [weaponsmithing] (to represent say..a Blacksmith) or Diplomacy or Intimidate can easily be important to the campaign as much as Listen, Spot, or Climb/Stealth/Use Magic Device.

JoeJ wrote:


The interesting character can keep up on skills by boosting their INT above the blank slate's, but they can only do that by making some other stat lower. If the blank slate's stats are arranged optimally for their class, then raising INT will necessarily produce a less optimal array.

The difference between the two characters might not be large, but in a roleplaying game there should either be no difference at all, or it should go the other way and favor the more interesting character.

Why shouldn't there be differences? Even assuming you go with point-buy or an array there shouldn't be a guarantee a background-influenced character and a blank-slate character will be mechanically the same. Especially when looking at v3.5/PF vast amount of options such as arch-types, feats, and the multiclass system. There's TONS of ways to bring a background to life through the mechanics without having it severely impact your combat efficiency.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diffan wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Diffan wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
Diffan wrote:
As 4E is my major system of interest I do this a lot. I often take sub-optimal choices because sometimes those choices help reflect my character better. For example, an Eladrin Bladesinger is often considered a terrible combination (Dex / Int) but I don't really care because I find the archtype fun and interesting.
Whether the difference is big or small, in an RPG a character with an interesting background should not be inherently weaker mechanically than a blank slate with no background at all.
Again, please define "inherently weaker mechanically". What, exactly, are we talking about here? Say I make a character and his backstory is that he uses his dad's Warhammer that was passed down to him. OK, well with that backstory I can easily do that by either A) being a class that has proficiency with martial weapons, B) Grab a feat that allows me to be proficient with said martial weapon(s), C) multiclass into a class that is proficient. And do you honestly think such a choice is going to get me roflstomped?? Please........
I don't know enough about 4e to comment, but in 3.5/PF, you can easily have your interesting character wield Daddy's old warhammer. However, the blank slate character also chooses a warhammer, but swaps it after a few levels for a +1 weapon, which he then sells off a few levels later and buys one that's +2. The interesting character has a less optimal weapon.
I don't think so. Mainly because SO many feats revolve around specifics. A Fighter who grabs Weapon Focus / Weapon Specialization is going to almost ALWAYS look for ways to enhance their preferred weapon. By grabbing a +2 weapon of something else, they're gaining nothing because of the feats they choose. Further the way v3.5 / PF is structured it's almost certain that someone will have a way to magically enhance their preferred weapon, whether it's through magical item creation feats or the item-mart that is often associated with said editions.

Are you talking about using Daddy's actual old warhammer and sticking to it throughout the game?

Or using a warhammer because Daddy did, but being willing to swap his actual old warhammer for a newer more magical one?
The latter involves nothing more than adding a line to your background. Using the actual old one will be limiting, unless you find a way to get it enchanted and even then you'll be missing out on the special materials most people switch to eventually.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For me, the difference is

Finding the Hammer of Dol, a +1 warhammer, at third level (being the first member of the party to wield a magic weapon) when the last chamber of the Mummy Lord of Cascorbon is cleared of the Necromancers of Sirkhal

And NEEDING to spend your treasure on a +1 magic weapon at second level because not doing so means your aren't optimized correctly.


Terquem wrote:

For me, the difference is

Finding the Hammer of Dol, a +1 warhammer, at third level (being the first member of the party to wield a magic weapon) when the last chamber of the Mummy Lord of Cascorbon is cleared of the Necromancers of Sirkhal

And NEEDING to spend your treasure on a +1 magic weapon at second level because not doing so means your aren't optimized correctly.

I prefer that as well. OTOH, it does require being dependent on your GM to give you gear that you can not only use, but that fits what you want to do with the character.

If you and the GM are on the same page, it works out much better. If not, it's very frustrating. More so in a game like 3.x/PF where you're mechanically encouraged to focus on specific weapons (or other things) and then have to hope the GM is willing to supply them.

The magic shop economy also gives you something to do with the piles of gold and a way to ditch the dozen +1 swords you're carrying around by mid-levels.


I agree with you theJeff, and I don't think it can be emphasized enough that a relationship between the DM and the Players is a necessary element to the success of any campaign

As far as that goes, I should also mentioned that in any of my games, your character would NEVER be carrying around a pile of +1 swords.

One of the things that irritated me the most about 3.5 when I was playing that was that in order for Yaun-Ti to be "scaled" appropriately for the challenges the game tried to create, every single one of them was supposed to be wearing magical +2 (or was it +3?) studded leather Armor, and carrying magic weapons.

This, in my campaign settings, was simply ludicrous. And it only needed to be so because of the way player abilities scaled in those rules (and subsequently Pathfinder suffers from this as well)


Terquem wrote:

I agree with you theJeff, and I don't think it can be emphasized enough that a relationship between the DM and the Players is a necessary element to the success of any campaign

As far as that goes, I should also mentioned that in any of my games, your character would NEVER be carrying around a pile of +1 swords.)

Even back in AD&D, if you fought enough humanoid types you'd wind up with plenty.

Frankly, the game looks even weirder if you only find stuff that directly matches your needs.


thejeff wrote:


Are you talking about using Daddy's actual old warhammer and sticking to it throughout the game?

Or using a warhammer because Daddy did, but being willing to swap his actual old warhammer for a newer more magical one?
The latter involves nothing more than adding a line to your background. Using the actual old one will be limiting, unless you find a way to get it enchanted and even then you'll be missing out on the special materials most people switch to eventually.

We'll say he wants to use Dad's Warhammer throughout the game. So he plays a Fighter and takes a few Warhammer / Bludgeoning feats. He'll probably want to increase the usefulness of his warhammer by either upgrading it with enchantments and possibly keeping oils on hand like Silversheen. Further, magical items like the Ring of Adamantine Touch (which makes his weapon adamantine for the purposes of by-passing DR) will help overcome the notion of not getting in-game weapons later on.

OR

The DM can work with him to make his Dad's warhammer a Legacy Weapon (Weapons of Legacy, v3.5 supplement) that pretty much levels up with you as a character.

So, like I said, there's TONS of ways to make backgrounds work without hampering your character.


Diffan wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Are you talking about using Daddy's actual old warhammer and sticking to it throughout the game?

Or using a warhammer because Daddy did, but being willing to swap his actual old warhammer for a newer more magical one?
The latter involves nothing more than adding a line to your background. Using the actual old one will be limiting, unless you find a way to get it enchanted and even then you'll be missing out on the special materials most people switch to eventually.

We'll say he wants to use Dad's Warhammer throughout the game. So he plays a Fighter and takes a few Warhammer / Bludgeoning feats. He'll probably want to increase the usefulness of his warhammer by either upgrading it with enchantments and possibly keeping oils on hand like Silversheen. Further, magical items like the Ring of Adamantine Touch (which makes his weapon adamantine for the purposes of by-passing DR) will help overcome the notion of not getting in-game weapons later on.

OR

The DM can work with him to make his Dad's warhammer a Legacy Weapon (Weapons of Legacy, v3.5 supplement) that pretty much levels up with you as a character.

So, like I said, there's TONS of ways to make backgrounds work without hampering your character.

I'm not really fond of what I've seen of the Legacy Weapon implementation, but I do really like the concept.

I had forgotten there was a spell to make an ordinary weapon masterwork, which allows you to enchant it, so yeah, most of that could be done.

It seemed like earlier on you were talking about continuing with the old warhammer without buffing it up and just eating the difference in effectiveness because RP.


Terquem wrote:

I agree with you theJeff, and I don't think it can be emphasized enough that a relationship between the DM and the Players is a necessary element to the success of any campaign

As far as that goes, I should also mentioned that in any of my games, your character would NEVER be carrying around a pile of +1 swords.

We usually find this to be the case when we do published adventures. For example, I ran something called Hereos of the Moonsea (set in FR) where the entire campaign revolved around playing through Realms-based Published Adventures. By the time the party hit 6th level, they had multiple +1 items (swords, armor, cloaks, and rings) not to mention dozens of potions, scrolls, and wands. Talk about X-mas tree effect. I understand that it's the way 3E worked and the designers felt that the only way to beef up monsters was to give them magical gear, but I'd have rather they just added different math to their numbers and instead filled the campaign with perhaps a variety of different valued items.

So instead of using the four +1 longswords the PCs got that = 9,260 gp/selling value worth of GP they'd get something story-driven (like a pearl of high value or a gem or a rare dragon scale) that they could then find a buyer to sell to. I get that 5E is doing this sort of thing, and it's cool, I just wish it was also implemented in previous editions too.

Terquem wrote:


One of the things that irritated me the most about 3.5 when I was playing that was that in order for Yaun-Ti to be "scaled" appropriately for the challenges the game tried to create, every single one of them was supposed to be wearing magical +2 (or was it +3?) studded leather Armor, and carrying magic weapons.

This, in my campaign settings, was simply ludicrous. And it only needed to be so because of the way player abilities scaled in those rules (and subsequently Pathfinder suffers from this as well)

Agreed. One way to overcome this is to simply give them the maths without a reason. Factor in the assumption of magical item but just throw the number in there without cause (ie. no actual magical weapon). I started to do this after our group was well into 4E and we'd go back to 3.5 for a few sessions or a campaign. I'd think to myself "does this Orc really need +2 fullplate at 4th level or can I just give him the AC of +2 fullplate but just reflavor it as especially tough-leathery skin?". I would, however, then give the PCs some item of equal GP retail value they can use or sell but isn't always magical in nature.


thejeff wrote:
Diffan wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Are you talking about using Daddy's actual old warhammer and sticking to it throughout the game?

Or using a warhammer because Daddy did, but being willing to swap his actual old warhammer for a newer more magical one?
The latter involves nothing more than adding a line to your background. Using the actual old one will be limiting, unless you find a way to get it enchanted and even then you'll be missing out on the special materials most people switch to eventually.

We'll say he wants to use Dad's Warhammer throughout the game. So he plays a Fighter and takes a few Warhammer / Bludgeoning feats. He'll probably want to increase the usefulness of his warhammer by either upgrading it with enchantments and possibly keeping oils on hand like Silversheen. Further, magical items like the Ring of Adamantine Touch (which makes his weapon adamantine for the purposes of by-passing DR) will help overcome the notion of not getting in-game weapons later on.

OR

The DM can work with him to make his Dad's warhammer a Legacy Weapon (Weapons of Legacy, v3.5 supplement) that pretty much levels up with you as a character.

So, like I said, there's TONS of ways to make backgrounds work without hampering your character.

I'm not really fond of what I've seen of the Legacy Weapon implementation, but I do really like the concept.

I had forgotten there was a spell to make an ordinary weapon masterwork, which allows you to enchant it, so yeah, most of that could be done.

It seemed like earlier on you were talking about continuing with the old warhammer without buffing it up and just eating the difference in effectiveness because RP.

Oh, yeah I can see how that would cause confusion. Something I hadn't considered was implementing 4E's "Inherent Bonus" method into 3E. For games that run on little or even no magic AND still use the monsters in the MM a DM could say "Ok, at every 3rd level (3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18) you get a +1 to AC, each attack roll, damage roll, and Saving Throw. You also would give them more Ability Score buffs as the levels progress. Most PCs get +6 enhancement bonus to Ability Scores via items by 18th level so maybe +2 to two scores of your choice at the usual ability score bump levels? I'm sure someone who's far better at math could devise a system that works better and is more fluid but holds to the same concept.

As for Weapon of Legacy, the ones published were mostly "meh" (the ones in the Book of 9 Swords were better IMO) however the rules for creating your own were REALLY fun. I remember my friend and I had crafted two of them that had both in-game elements as well as fun mechanics that we'd normally wouldn't go for. My Knight/Cleric of Torm, for example, crafted a masterwork true-silver Greatsword called Clarion's Call and all sorts of sound-based effects attached to it. My friend's character had crafted a shortsword that was all forced-based. Good times.


Bave wrote:
That's a gigantic nerf. A 9th level slot to do an average of 40pts of damage? Think about that for a moment. A 17th level wizard dropping one of his most powerful spell slots to do 40 points of damage.

I agree that MM deals sub-optimal damage when cast in a 9th level, but I can still think of a few good situational uses for it. A blaster wizard is going to have lots of other damage spells like disintegrate and meteor swarm prepared for those high level slots anyway, so its unlikely it would ever be needed at such a high level. A controller or buff/debuff caster, on the other hand, probably wants fewer damage spells prepared, and may prefer versatility of the scalable spells to the big boys. Maybe your enemy has a crazy-high AC, or has resistance or immunity to all your other damage spells, or maybe you're fighting a horde of kobolds that are easy to kill, but are trying to overwhelm you with sheer numbers. Maybe that horde of kobolds has a half-dozen mages spread out across a 200 foot space, all casting buffs and battlefield control spells, and you've got a higher level slot free. Boom, you've just forced them all to make concentration checks, which could turn the tide of the battle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Death Blossom!


The reason i use MM is its auto. No chance for 1/2 damage or even a miss. Most creatures dont have immunity to magic damage

For others who have played low level wizards what are your goto spells?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I played until level 3 (when the GM lost interest, bastard), but I enjoyed Ray of Sickness more than I thought I would,mostly because I love the mental image of my target puking up his breakfast when I hit him with it. >:D

I had 3 damage causing cantrips (Fir Bolt, Ice... Whatever and Shocking Grasp) that I used most of the time. Being a wizard in D&D5 feels pretty good. You can contribute during battle without worrying about exhausting your spell slots.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
Death Blossom!

ONION Blossom!


Kthulhu wrote:
Terquem wrote:
Death Blossom!
ONION Blossom!

Well played, sir, well played.

101 to 129 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Is 5th ed dnd too powerful? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition