D&D 5E Considering "taking the 5th" (Edition); questions for those more experienced.

[FormerlyHemlock]

What a backhanded, insulting, sour-puss, snarky answer. Stopped reading after this. Whatever.

Huh. Tony's response seemed completely different to me than to you. I thought it was cheerful, to the point, and matter-of-fact. Mysteries of the Internet...

 

[Blackbird71]

The 5E wizard gets twice as many spells per level as even a specialist wizard from AD&D, and he can pick them from any school. And he never has to roll % to learn new spells, nor does he have a maximum number of spells knowable. In short, in 5E, magical spells are commonplace, not rare and hard-to-acquire, so if you want the Vancian flavor of wizards coveting knowledge of spells--if you want players to jump for joy when they finally find a scroll with a rare spell on it like Simulacrum, or Wish, or Planar Binding--if you want wizards to power up through gaining knowledge instead of toys, 5E isn't as good at that as AD&D was. You could change it, but so far I'm just coping with it and occasionally handing out "new" spells in treasure from the Book of Lost Spells. (Well, once so far, but I expect to do so occasionally on an ongoing basis.)

I was looking at this as well and trying to determine how best to handle it. In older editions, the DM had a bit more control over what spells were available to the players. I'm not all that comfortable with the idea of the players just getting to choose any two spells on level up, either from a power perspective or from a thematic perspective (how does the wizard suddenly know these new spells?). At the least, I was considering requiring that one of the two spells each level be from their chosen school. Beyond that, I was thinking about what sort of check I could impose as a chance to learn the spell, something similar to the old % rolls.

One thought I had was that rather than let them pick their spells, at the start of each level I could have them declare what schools they would be researching over the course of the level. Then when they reached the next level, they could roll to see which spells they actually discovered in their research within the studied schools (probably still with the requirement that at least one be their chosen school).

As for a check, I was thinking a d20 + INT modifier + highest available spell level vs. 10 + level of spell to be learned. That way, lower level spells become easier to learn. I'd probably also impose the restriction of if a wizard fails to learn a spell from a certain source, they can't attempt it again until their next level. Or at least something similar to that, if not quite as severe. Any thoughts?

I agree with you about attribute modifiers. In fact, your post has inspired me to think hard about possible ways to make raw scores important once more. I'll chew on that. Edit: there are occasional "roll under" mechanics in 5E as well. Intellect Devourers perma-stun if you fail fail an Int save and then roll over your Int on 3d6, so Int 11 is significantly better than Int 10. And of course, Str 15 lets you carry 15 pounds more than Str 14, and wear heavier armor without slowing down. After some thought, I think I'll adopt the "roll under your attribute on 3d6" for more kinds of checks, like cliff-climbing and code-breaking. It's kind of GURPS-ish but that's not a bad thing. It imposes more of a bell curve than d20 does.

Thanks, it's nice to know I've inspired something. I'm curious to see whether these odd scores can be made meaningful; in 3.5/PF it seems that the most they were used for was meeting some arbitrary feat prerequisite (how many combat feats required a 13 INT, and why?).

 

[the Jester]

I'm not all that comfortable with the idea of the players just getting to choose any two spells on level up, either from a power perspective or from a thematic perspective (how does the wizard suddenly know these new spells?).

I think it's worth pointing out that, although it was only one per level, the "automatically add spells to your spellbook at level up" goes back all the way to 1e.

To those [spells] acquired [through play], the magic-user will add 1 (and ONLY 1) spell when he or she actually gains an experience level (q.v.).

 

[cmad1977]

It's pretty clear that 5th edition isn't for you( barring lots of alterations) and you would be better served modding what you have.

 

[Bupp]

Before 5e, I had only ever ran or played 1e, 2e, and BECMI.

5e is hands down my favorite. To me it feels and plays like those older editions, but easier. Just like those older editions, it's easy to hack. I've been able to run old adventures without having to do any heavy lifting, I've been able to convert "on the fly".

It's also fairly easy to convert monsters, spells, items, ect. from previous editions once you do it once or twice. I've even taken some new classes from old Dragon Magazines and converted them into 5e subclasses. Someone's idea of making a rogue archetype that would fit in as a magic light bard would be fairly simple to do.

As others have mentioned, low level wizards are more powerful than early editions, but don't grow exponentially in power.

A lot of the things you are looking to house rule or homebrew are things that have been done. Check out EnWorld's House rule, Homebrew and Conversion Library. Tons of good stuff Google+ has many groups that discuss and share the same idea, and there are many great blogs that do as well.

To get you started, one of the things you wanted were more cleric domains:
http://samwise7rpg.blogspot.com/2014/10/cleric-domains-for-5th-edition-dungeons.html?m=1
http://samwise7rpg.blogspot.com/2014/10/cleric-domains-for-dungeons-dragons-5e.html?m=1
http://samwise7rpg.blogspot.com/2014/10/cleric-domains-for-5th-edition-dungeons_23.html?m=1

 

[TwoSix]

Based on your desires, I think something OSR derived might be more up your alley. A game like Beyond the Wall, for example, which has roll-under for skills (so every stat point matters) and is very low-magic (mages have at-will cantrips, but failing an Int or Wis check prevents them from casting any more for the day or the cantrip goes haywire; most powerful spells are rituals which require long casting times and special ingredients.)

 

[Sword of Spirit]

adding 2 to an odd number means it remains an odd number. For some reason, whenever building a character in 3/3.5/PF with point buy, I always seemed to end up stuck with an odd ability score somewhere where it didn't do me any good. That always felt like wasted points, but at least once I hit level 4 I could correct it.

Do note that in 5e ability score increases give you 2 points which you can give to a single ability or split into +1 to two different abilities. Since there are feats that give you a +1 ability score and other benefits, odd stats at character creation can actually be useful. Having a 13 and then taking a feat that gives you a +1 and a benefit is much better than taking a +2 to that stat. There are actually, in my experience, more interesting possibilities in how you split up your ability scores and increase them as you level than there were in 3e. (Not sure if that's a draw for you or not).

Yes, that's a bit of what I'm looking for. I'm not going to deprive the players of magical items entirely, but every item they come across should have a history and identity, and be a rare find to be treasured rather than coinpurse fodder.

Look at p. 142-143 in the DMG.

I know, and the more I think about it the more of a sticking point this becomes. It may seem like an exaggeration, but this one detail really could upset the whole world I have been planning. The problem is how best to solve it. Part of the issue with bards is that they have always suffered from a bit of an identity crisis in that their characteristics have shifted so drastically between each edition, it's hard to figure out what exactly they are supposed to be.

I looked over rogue and bard a bit. Here's how I would do a non-magical/low-magical bard.

Create a roguish archetype--we'll call it "Troubadour."

For their 3rd level ability they get proficiency in two musical instruments and the Bardic Inspiration class feature from bard. The dice scale at the levels given in the bard description. (That should keep it competitive with Assassination.)

At 9th level they get Font of Inspiration.

At 13th level I'd give them Use Magic Device (though you could give them two spells from the bard's Magical Secrets feature if you prefer).

At 17th level I'd give them Magical Secrets (or two additional spells if you already gave it to them at 13th level).

Magical Secrets would allow them to learn any two spells of spell level equal to or less than 1/4 their level, rounded up (so the same max as paladin or ranger), or cantrips.

The balance is a bit more difficult to judge than with some other classes, since the other two rogue subclasses are quite different from each other in their abilities.

I'm not as concerned about the paladin, as the holy warrior actually fits within the framework I have so far. The ranger is a bit more problematic. I did see the non-magical ranger build, and it's a step in the right direction, but frankly the 5E ranger just fails to impress in general. At least from my perspective, it feels the most like the class that was tossed in at the end when they had to go to print and didn't have time to iron out all the details. I have a hard time pointing out what exactly is wrong with it; it just feels fundamentally mediocre. Short of a ground-up redesign, I'm not sure how else to fix it.

That seems to be the consensus. I did some math and determined that hunter rangers can be pretty good at dealing damage to multiple targets if they are making good use of their subclass features and spells--but again, it just feels weak for some reason. They have a decent amount going for them in the non-combat department, and that means they can't be as good as a fighter or paladin (who are both almost entirely combat) in combat or they'd be overpowered. Still, they're just "off" some how, and almost everyone feels it.

I'm right with you on 2E; so how close does 5E get you to that same "feel"?

That's a harder question than it seems! A general feeling seems to place 5e's overall feel somewhere between 2e and 3e, and I believe that is accurate. One difference, however, is that it is highly variable depending on what options and variant rules you use.

The Starter Set games I've been involved in that only used the Basic Rules (rather than the PHB) feel almost like classic BECMI D&D. While on the other hand, the Starter Set game that I ran with full PHB options felt like some odd mix of 2e, 3e, and 4e. The party was human monk, human wild mage sorcerer, drow transmuter, tiefling eldritch knight and dragonborn arcane trickster. While the overall play experience, monsters, treasure, and exploration was more AD&D 1e/2e, the characters just made it crazy. (When I started the campaign I told the players that this was the last game I'd be running where I allowed things like these 4e/5e tieflings and dragonborn (I allow Planescape tieflings in appropriate scenarios, but these crazy looking 4e/5e ones have no place in my multiverse) so if they wanted to play them now was the time.)

The other game I ran was a one-shot 20th-level adventure with one of the character from the other game recurring. Being a 20th level assault on a kraken's lair, it would be difficult to assess.

So my best guess is that if I simply chose which classes, subclasses, races and feats to allow (technically, according to the PHB feats, multiclassing, and races other than human, dwarf, elf, and half-elf are all explictly optional and only allowed if the DM tells you so--so your players really shouldn't expect to have access to them), define the setting elements the way I like them (which means using setting materials from 2e/3e), and select the optional modules from the DMG and the web articles that I prefer (like slower healing, old-school multiclassing, etc), it should have exactly the feel that I'm looking for.

Perhaps one of the hidden pitfalls you might want to look at is how certain subclasses alter feel. Just carefully examine each one and decide whether things like eldritch knight and way of the four elements monk are things that you want or not. Since 2e eventually ended up with all kinds of stuff, they might work for you, but if you are thinking more along the lines of 2e PHB, that might be over the top.

Very good to know; I hope we don't have to wait too much longer to see it! The pessimist in me wants to believe that if it hasn't been released by now, it will probably be splatbook material, but I'll try to get him to shut up for now.

I'm not sure when to expect gestalt multiclassing. Someone who has to give the final approval on certain articles has been tied up in jury duty, and will be for a few months apparently, which has slowed them down a bit. It also depends entirely on their choice of how to release that material. If it comes out in the article on "making 5e feel like another edition," then it will be sooner. If it comes out in its own article, who knows how long we'll have to wait. I need it by the end of this year, so I'll have to create a temporary do it myself version if we don't have it by then. I think there's a pretty reasonable chance we'll have it by then though.

Part of what I intend to do by using AD&D style multiclassing is to limit exactly what class combinations are allowed. This was a part of the old system, and I believe it is important to maintaining some level of balance and control against potentially broken combinations. I will agree that the 5E system does offer some intriguing possibilities for "pseudo-multiclassing", and I'll have to explore this further.

I haven't decided whether I'm going to limit combos or not. I'll have to see the official rules when they come out and then feel it out. Part of me is just conceptually bound to the idea that old-school multiclassing was about different types of classes. You can be a fighter/mage, or a thief/cleric, but you can't be a fighter/ranger or a wizard/sorcerer. I still like those sorts of distinctions even though we don't have the class groups anymore. Sometimes my knee-jerk reaction isn't actually warranted though, and once I actually give things a chance it isn't an issue. (Other times it is, so judgment is required.)

All the discussion about old systems got me thinking, and I remembered another feature of 2E I liked - limited HP progression at higher levels. Once you hit level 9 or 10 (depending on class) you no longer got another hit die per level, but instead a flat increase in HP by class (as I recall, ranging from +1 point/level for Wizard up to +3 for Fighter), and no more CON bonuses . This provided a bit of a slowdown to the power curve which helped reign in the higher levels. I'm guessing that something like this probably wouldn't work too well if applied to 5E?

I don't actually think implementing that would break anything. It might actually make the game better. If you do try it out, let us know how it works.

Last night I had some time to do a little more reading of the core books, and I dug a bit more into the magic system and caster classes. It was an interesting read that raised a lot of possibilities and questions.

A problem with casters has always been that they start out barely being able to do anything, but then at high levels can dominate a system. No one wants to play the level 1 wizard with only one spell per day, but the payoff is that after a point, that wizard's power is far above that of his non-magical compatriots. This may be thematically appropriate, but can be problematic from a gameplay perspective.

5E seems to have addressed the first part of this by dramatically increasing the number spells per day available to low level casters. Part of me instinctively wants to get away from this simply because it seems so radically different from what I've been used to (my mental dialogue was something along the lines of "a wizard with six spells plus cantrips at level three? That's so overpowered..."). But the more rational part of me recognizes that this may actually be a good thing, and I'll have to see how it works in practice.

What I am concerned of is how does this early acceleration work out once the players reach higher levels? Are high level 5E wizards any more powerful than their previous counterparts when compared to other classes? Less powerful? About the same? Has 5E done anything to correct the "quadratic wizard" problem, or has it worsened it? A rare but powerful caster could be fitting for my planned campaign, but at the same time, if there is a player caster I don't want the rest of the party to feel too overshadowed. I understand a lot of this will hinge not only on how many spells a wizard can cast, but also the spells available. Can anyone here who has had some experience with high level 5E wizards comment?

Some people have already addressed it, but yes, the system keeps wizards and high level casters from getting out of hand with multiple checks and balances. There isn't really a linear fighter/quadratic wizard issue anymore. Classes don't increase in power along as steep of a curve as they did in 3e, but still get pretty cool stuff at high levels. And they've done an excellent job of bringing casters and non-casters to the same power level.

As far as the number of spells a wizard has in his book, I would think long and hard before limiting that. Clerics and druids, and even paladins, still get the whole blasted class list, and they even have bonus spells that they always have prepared. So not only do they know more spells, but they have more of them available to them each day (not more slots, just more spells "prepared"). Anything that reduces the number of spells a wizard knows (ie, in his spellbook) risks making the wizard too weak.

On the other hand, I think it's completely reasonable to categorize spells into "common" "uncommon" and "rare." (Or something similar.) You might say that any wizard can learn any common spells when he levels ups, but to learn uncommon spells, they have to be in your specialty. Rare spells aren't available to be learned at level up, but must be found or researched independently. I'm probably going to implement something like that myself, but I'll likely say that everything (or almost everything) in the PHB is "common" and most spells from any other source are "rare." (At character creation, I might allow character to pick some rare spells that they had somehow managed to learn, to make the character a bit different and unique.)

I also found it interesting that for wizard schools, the "extra spell" of past editions was dropped in favor of specific abilities. This does seem to streamline a bit of the bookkeeping of old specialist wizards ("which spell was in my extra school slot?"), and the extra slot mechanic seems a bit unnecessary given the number of spells available under 5E, so it seems a good way to add a bit of flavor to each of the schools. I'm not sure how I like the lack of any penalties for opposed schools, as there was supposed to be a tradeoff for being a specialist. I suppose though that it has to do with the fact that as far as I can tell there is no "generalist" wizard in 5E. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about that, and I may try to house rule a generalist subclass, especially if I decide to impose the 2E multiclassing restriction that a multiclass wizard cannot be a specialist. Does anyone know any good homebrew generalist rules out there?

I'm undecided on whether I want to add in a generalist class. My initial reaction was that I obviously had to have one. Mechanically I'm not too concerned, but there are lore issues here. Many of the known wizards in D&D lore are generalists. Some are specialists. It's a thing. If all wizards are specialists that means that all of those wizards have to be assigned a specialty (if they happen to play a part in a campaign). Evoker, Conjurer, and Transmuter are probably your best bets for a wizard that was a generalist in prior editions. The Basic Rules has Evoker as the most basic wizard subclass (like Life domain for the cleric).

As I said, I'm undecided. Thematically I like generalists, but this may end up as one of those issues that goes away once I let it settle for a bit.

I think I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I do like the idea of rituals; it's something that I felt casters always needed - the ability to cast a spell from recorded procedure rather than memory when time permitted. I do think that the flat 10-minute requirement is a bit lazy; I feel that more powerful spells are more complex, and therefore ritual casting time should reflect the spell's level. Would 10 minutes/level be too severe? An hour and half for a ninth level spell seems a bit on the long side, but not entirely out of the realm of possibility. I seem to recall in older editions the preparation of a spell requiring a significant amount of time based on level, and I suppose I'm looking to do something similar here. Any thoughts or suggestions?

Some of the spells that can be cast as a ritual have a longer base casting time anyway. There are also powerful non-ritual spells that have a long casting time. Rituals are usually lower-level utility spells. If you are doing powerful magic, it might just have a long casting time, and still cost you a spell slot.

Spell preparation takes 1 minute per spell level, so it can add up if you a high level character. However, you don't have to prepare new spells each day if you don't want to. Your prepared spells stay in your memory until you replace them, and your spell slots refresh each day. It's different, but I actually have decided that I like it. It gets rid of the weirdness of "memorizing" multiple versions of the same spell from AD&D. 3e clarified it as actually doing most of the casting and then just hanging the spell ready to be activated, which was one way of fixing it. 5e both goes forward and gives us some flavor throwback. "Memorizing" has returned. When you prepare spells, you memorize those spells and can only hold a certain number in your mind. But the spell slots* refresh after a rest, so there is a distinction between memorization and raw magical power. Two different factors.

*The playtest called them "castings", which I think is better than "slot," but that's not what they ended up going with. In-character, I refer to them as "expressions" because it has more flavor.

This thread has certainly delved far deeper into my ideas, plans, and concerns than I had ever intended or imagined. For those who have followed me this far down the rabbit hole, thank you; your insight has been invaluable and is much appreciated. It is always helpful to be able to bounce ideas around and get experienced feedback. if it helps, I'm definitely feeling better about trying to use 5th edition for my purposes than when I started; at this point I think it's just a matter of hammering out the details. Please don't feel obligated to stick around as I pound away, but anyone who wants to continue the discussion is certainly more than welcome!

It sounds like you're doing about the same thing I am with it: deciding which parts you are iffy on, and whether they are good enough, or whether they need changed and how. I've been liking the results. Very rarely have I run across anything that needed extensive changes, and when I started more carefully examining my house rules, I realized I can get the feel I like with a relative small number of targeted rules.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think this is overstating things. 5E domains remind me more of 3E domains than 2E specialty priests, because post-Tome of Magic, the spheres your 2E priest got from his god were a big deal. (That's why priests who got Spheres: All were ridiculously strong.) In 5E, all priests have access to a common core of cleric stuff, and the domain is just a sprinkling of bonus stuff on top--but in 2E, if you choose the god of war, you might get some really cool priestly powers but have no access to healing spells or Raise Dead, let alone cool/weird stuff like Mental Domination and Dimensional Folding.

(Man, I really want to bring Dimensional Folding back into my 5E game... temporal "slippage" via aging is so cool.)

Some 2E specialty priests were as different from each other as 5E druids are from clerics.

A valid point. I never had the Tome of Magic, and tend to think of editions more in terms of their initial and early books than the crazy stuff they all tended to put out when they were reaching the end of their run.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

For whatever it's worth, Specialty Priests and Spheres were in the 2nd edition PHB from the very beginning, and the Tome of Magic came out only 2 years later. The only things earlier were the PHB, the DMG, Legends and Lore and the Complete Fighter/Thief/Priest/Wizard Handbooks. Tome of Magic is where Wild Magic was first introduced.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Wow, I didn't remember that book coming out that early. But then again, I was young and it was all shiny and it's only in looking back that I realized how quickly it all went by. (I do remember specialty priests from the PHB and Legends and Lore.)

5e domains still feel to me somewhere in between specialty priests and 3e domains. My recollection of specialty priests tends to be having a potentially different choice of available spells, potentially different weapons and armor, and maybe a variant feature instead of turn undead. While some of the 3e domains gave you some interesting features, it just seems like 5e domains are more substantial, giving you a variety of features as you level in addition to domain spells. I don't know exactly what it is about it, but a 5e tempest domain cleric just feels a lot more substantially different from the next cleric than a 3e cleric with some sort of air/water/storm-related domains would, regardless of how the actual mechanics work.