Initially I posted a long post with lots of examples and tangents. But it was way too much of a TL;DR so I deleted it all, going instead only for the bullseye items.
(...) If you're going to complain about how OP magic is, that's fine. I think there are plenty of ways to counter it, magic has always been part of the game since it's inception. But pretty much everything you complain about have always been part of the game. For every spell like tiny hut that is more powerful than it used to be, others have been weakened. In Men & Magic disintegrate just disintegrated anything that failed a save, now it does damage and only disintegrates if it kills you.
If you want a game where magic isn't powerful, D&D isn't for you. Meanwhile there are many ways to counter the issues you perceive if you want to do so.
I agree. The only thing is in 1E/2E magic in general & casters had lots of harsh limitations (too many to list here). 5E hoewever not only buffed the overall vertisality and power, but also removed nearly all the limitations and the few that remains are pretty tame.
I'll only list one example:
- Tiny Hut. Previously, it was a nice way to help making temporary camp (only 1 hour per caster level so enough for a night of sleep only if level 8+ caster) for the caster plus 6 medium creature max & protect from the elements better, and had some defensive value too by obscuring sight. Most DMs made it so that too many creatures rushing in would just "pop the bubble" so to speak. Now, it lasts 8 hours, can even protect from a tornado, scorching heat, or extreme freezing, and is also a totally impenetrable fortress, too, better even than a Wall of Force because you can shoot or throw stuff outside, while being immune to be attacked yourself.
Sure, there are a few spell nerfs, but the buffs vastly outnumber the nerfs. So basically, 5E ended up jacking up "up to eleven" the already existing problem.
If you want a game where magic isn't powerful, D&D isn't for you.
You might just be right.
The main reasons I "kinda" stick with 5E are:
* Reason 1:
Hard to find players for TTRPG already, even with a popular system like 5E. Became more true with COVID pushing online RPG play as the norm. For "less known" systems, starting a campaign depends a lot on already having a circle of friends who will agree to follow you into anything no matter what. The more common scenario is yeah they all thrust you a lot but half of them won't budge from the one system they're used to and swear only by. So you're still stuck with Mission Impossible: "Finding new players for that much less known system".
Yeah I know PF2 is well known too, especially since the WotC/Hasbro 3rd party licensing fiasco. However, after a dozen or so games as a PF2 player right now, I find it rubs me so much the wrong way, with many things. 5E feels "Yes you can try anything... BUT!" while PF2 feels "Nope ya just can't!" (because you don't have the right Feat, and even then still probably not becauyse if you were allowed that would make that other Feat totally useless and obsolete in comparison). PF2 is the 1st ever system I played where my big strong muscular ranging barbarian tried entering in a tavern full of random mostly mundane NPCs, wielding his big greataxe, and shouting loudly "Everybody out! Or else!" and got a DM answer of "That's trying to Coerce, and you can Coerce only 1 NPC at a time. So, which one?". "Huh? I just want to clear the room ASAP!" I respond. Then he says "Oh I guess you could just pick up that other Feat, then you'll be able to Coerce
TWO targets! Oh frak facepalm mode activated. As if, even WITHOUT any Feat, any big strong intimidating guy couldn't just try to do that super basic super classic fantasy trope move! But PF2 says "NOPE YA CAN'T!". Felt way deflated and my PC felt he was a crappy non-intimidating-at-all uncharismatic loser after that, not like say an at least semi-competent protagonist, at all. So IMHO any system where "Board-Gamey Balance" not only trumps but totally massacre STANDARD FANTASY ROLEPLAYING TROPES, that is just extremely bad in my book. Any body should try to do anything that feels at least remotely reasonable to try to do, and Feats should just BOOST such attempts, not "restrict" them.
For an OVERLY SIMPLIFIED system like 5E, lacking a lot of "well detailed well thought of rules accuracy and details", can be a bit forgiveable. DM just wings it using common sense to fill in the gaps. In fact the system INVITES the DM to do that. So, for the players, it's "Anything goes! Sure, try it! BUT!" Almost all other RPGs I've seen do it that way. Let the players' imagination and the fantasy troopes and common sense be the main drives of the story and of what can happen when they try all kinds of stuff. Not making the minutiae of what is written on their character sheets be strict horse blinders, and if it's not written there, then it's automatically "Nope Ya Can't". But for a system that prides itself for having thought of (almost) everything and covering everything in gusto mucho details, while a couple mistakes might still be ok, so many "rules barricades" constantly raising themselves up in the way of imagination, can only mean a hugely flawed design. Iyt's just not very fun feeling "freedom of actions caged" like that. You constantly feel like some kinds of losers. And the rest of the way the rules work also contribute to that ugly feeling.
So, PF2... Big nope there for me. After that campaign is over, I'm definitely not wanting to play PF2 again, unless it's with a good DM that kind of House Ruled away all the naughty word parts, to make "common sense based basic fantasy tropes" trump "rules".
But still, it's a very good playing experience, because it contains many good ideas to steal! Heheheh!
* Reason 2:
5E has at its core elegant & harmonious "central" mechanics. I hate constantly flipping pages in a book. Or searching web pages links. 56E, the core rules, not a big chapter, and here ya go, you've got almost everything already. The main mess of unharmonious rules come from this: Each spell is it's own little pack of rules that don't really agree with the rest or even with quite similar spells.
Meanwhile, most OSR products are instead basically some guy going "Here is my own take on 1E, very close to 1E with all it's bumps and warts and all that, so that you can just directly play any already published 1E adventure, but it is
MY version of 1E, in short still very 1E but with all of
MY weird personal house rules, too! Yeah, I changed lots of stuff, even stuff that already worked perfectly, so it's basically all still the same kind of naughty word messy maze of mistmatched half-playtested rules. Basically, most of these products give next to -zero- benefit over simply picking up 1E directly. But... DMing for 1E: Been there, done that.
Old School Essentials however seems to be a bit better organized and more "core harmonious", though. Unless I find an even better one, OSE I will eventually try. Will still probably still kick the magic system around, though. Because all those OSR products still strongly enforce the LF;QW problem.
I'm ok with "magic is powerful", as long as the martials ALSO have the same kind of power. Goal is "Linear Fighters; Linear Wizards".
IMHO, "Level X" should means "Level X". Equally power/utility, wether you're martial or caster or multiclass. A "Level 12 PC" should be like saying "You have the power of 12 kilograms of nitroglycerine". A true "measure" of the power/utility of a PC at that level. Not getting a "But which CLASS is he? Because I need that to know how much power/utility he really has!" Nope! Only the level should be enough. The class should determine only HOW that power/utility is to be used. Not "how much of it" the PC has.
I also tried several "storytelling" style system, but they all feel way too "arbitrary". Especially those where what happens as the RESULTS of their characters actions, is partially decided by the players themselves. Yuck. As a DM, big loss of normal DM control. As a player, feeling like the DM is just unimaginative and lazy and lets us do his job in his place. The worst offenders are the full-on "collaborative storytelling" systems where nobody is really DM. Good for a one shot, played forl aughs. For a more serious campaign? Chaos breaks loose really, really fast, with no direction. It fees like little kids playing cowboys and one says "Bang you're dead!" and the other kid answers : "No I'm not!". Those lack way too mcuh "structure" so I strictly (and vastly) prefer "simulationist" systems in the style of PF2 / 5E.
