D&D 5E 5E's "Missed Opportunities?"

[TaranTheWanderer]

This sounds like an excellent idea.

I need to consider further what types of PCs it would help or hurt. It'd definitely be bad for monks and two-weapon fighting, for example.

-----------------------

.

My group just recently started using this but haven’t had a chance to put it to practice so I’ll let you know how it goes. We did have lots of discussion around it, though.

I’m not sure it would hurt any specific class but, instead give more options: do I want to use my off-hand attack or do I want to attack once with advantage? Same with a Paladin: do I want to flank or do I cast sanctuary. For a character who doesn’t have a bonus action, it’s a boon.

It might hurt the mastermind rogue because they get the ability to do the help action as a bonus. But they never need to be in a flanking position to do that so their ability is superior to flanking.

 

[Sadras]

I scratched my head over the meaning of this for a bit, and think I figured it out.

What I meant was "Oh, come on, that +1 sword is three times more than it is supposed to be according to the official price list."

Ah, I misunderstood.

I believe you thought I was comparing prices of apples and oranges. E.g., "Oh, come on, for the price of that (horse/map/champagne) I could buy three +1 swords."

Yes but the other way around. I'd get questions like why is a single potion worth an entire suit of armour kinda thing.
Coincidentally in another thread just the other day, a poster was kind enough to post a link to a guy who seems to have had the same issue and had tinkered with the pricing system designing his own homebrew system.

This is the link to the pdf.

I admit I have not as yet gone through the whole document.

 

[billd91]

Yes but the other way around. I'd get questions like why is a single potion worth an entire suit of armour kinda thing.
Coincidentally in another thread just the other day, a poster was kind enough to post a link to a guy who seems to have had the same issue and had tinkered with the pricing system designing his own homebrew system.

This is the link to the pdf.

I admit I have not as yet gone through the whole document.

I think he's got something stuck in his brain incorrectly. The DMG lists the potion of invisibility as very rare, not legendary. That's the ring of invisibility, and that may be more appropriate. That said, I'll be reviewing the PDF for usefulness in my games.

 

[mrpopstar]

I think 5th missed an opportunity to differentiate casters by spell list as opposed to spellcasting mechanics. Sorcery, wizardry, and witchcraft should have completely different spells as opposed to the same spells managed in different ways.

I also think that 5th missed an opportunity to offer completely stripped down caster classes a la the Champion. Things are simple, yes, but it still takes a lot of explaining to first-timers to nurture understanding. There is still a barrier to caster entry that doesn't need to be.

And of course, where is the promised modularity!? Missed opportunity!!

 

[5ekyu]

I think 5th missed an opportunity to differentiate casters by spell list as opposed to spellcasting mechanics. Sorcery, wizardry, and witchcraft should have completely different spells as opposed to the same spells managed in different ways.

I also think that 5th missed an opportunity to offer completely stripped down caster classes a la the Champion. Things are simple, yes, but it still takes a lot of explaining to first-timers to nurture understanding. There is still a barrier to caster entry that doesn't need to be.

And of course, where is the promised modularity!? Missed opportunity!!

About the bold - IDK - they all face "as adventurers" very similar needs - so wouldn't they tend to have a lot of overlap in their spells? For which of them are Detect Magic and Shield and Light and Charm person not options they are likely to have wanted to have at some point and developed spells for it?

Seems to me what you would end up with is a lot of "same spell, different name, minor tweak" and a bloated spell list.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

You have that already between classes. Arcane spellcasters have Mage Armour but Druids have Barkskin. Paladins of Shield of Faith.

I like the idea of different schools of magic for different traditions. You would probably have to add similar spells - like a defensive spell in each class - or have other classes, like the divine casters pick up the slack (I'm thinking detect magic).

From my experience of playing the aforementioned 'Possessor', I went about combat very differently than the Wizard who threw around fireballs and could cast Mage Armour. But it was still fun.

If I remember correctly, Conjuration had two sub-categories: summoning and something else. Possessors got summoning and Wizards got things like teleport. Enchantment or illusion (I forget)had two categories too (phantasms and illusions). Phantasms were illusions that occurred in a person's head and were in the possessor's list while straight up visual illusions belonged to illusionists. (like invisibility)

It would be so much work to parse all the spells though. It makes me tired just thinking about it.

 

[5ekyu]

You have that already between classes. Arcane spellcasters have Mage Armour but Druids have Barkskin. Paladins of Shield of Faith.

I like the idea of different schools of magic for different traditions. You would probably have to add similar spells - like a defensive spell in each class - or have other classes, like the divine casters pick up the slack (I'm thinking detect magic).

From my experience of playing the aforementioned 'Possessor', I went about combat very differently than the Wizard who threw around fireballs and could cast Mage Armour. But it was still fun.

If I remember correctly, Conjuration had two sub-categories: summoning and something else. Possessors got summoning and Wizards got things like teleport. Enchantment or illusion (I forget)had two categories too (phantasms and illusions). Phantasms were illusions that occurred in a person's head and were in the possessor's list while straight up visual illusions belonged to illusionists. (like invisibility)

It would be so much work to parse all the spells though. It makes me tired just thinking about it.

yes you do have slightly different spells in some cases, but imagine how many more you would have if the design model was not one single spell appearing on more than one class list?

I myself would have had no problem if there were some greater diversity in the spell rosters but there still would need to be a solid core of "needs" that if left out winds up really hurting the adventurer for the class. i do not see the advantage in nine or more different ways to run detect magic.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You have that already between classes. Arcane spellcasters have Mage Armour but Druids have Barkskin. Paladins of Shield of Faith.

I like the idea of different schools of magic for different traditions. You would probably have to add similar spells - like a defensive spell in each class - or have other classes, like the divine casters pick up the slack (I'm thinking detect magic).

From my experience of playing the aforementioned 'Possessor', I went about combat very differently than the Wizard who threw around fireballs and could cast Mage Armour. But it was still fun.

If I remember correctly, Conjuration had two sub-categories: summoning and something else. Possessors got summoning and Wizards got things like teleport. Enchantment or illusion (I forget)had two categories too (phantasms and illusions). Phantasms were illusions that occurred in a person's head and were in the possessor's list while straight up visual illusions belonged to illusionists. (like invisibility)

It would be so much work to parse all the spells though. It makes me tired just thinking about it.

There are a few specific spells that vary between classes, but I agree with [MENTION=25352]mrpopstar[/MENTION] that I'd like to see much more differentiation.

 

[Satyrn]

There are a few specific spells that vary between classes, but I agree with [MENTION=25352]mrpopstar[/MENTION] that I'd like to see much more differentiation.

Yeah. I had originally expected the cantrips would be more different for each class, and work to substantially define the classes the way 4e's At-Wills did.



I expected too much from level 0 spells.

 

[smbakeresq]

I'm doing the same with my Age of Worms adaptation... except for a few specific, plot-related items.

Did you see the Age of Worms conversion here by Tormyr? It’s good.

I am on part 6. Don’t worry about too many magic items early, you will need them and you get less later.