D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

[Minigiant]

Very true. I don't want that from D&D though. If the chracter feels and plays the same over all the levels, what's the point of levels? I want a low level rogue to be normal plucky thief, a mid level one to be as competent as James Bond, whereas a high level one is a mythic superninja.

Well that's how the 4e rogue was.

Before you collected enough encounter and utility escape powers. you could get squished by a tough for.

The 3e, 5e, and PF rogue more or less plays the same for 18-20 levels unless you take a weapon style feat tree.

 

[James Gasik]

And as I said earlier, in different words:

Players don't like that. Players have repeatedly refused to play that way, as a major and sustained pattern. Designers have refused to make rules that actually enforce the impediments, and what impediments they do use are really annoying and not enriching the game experience at all. Like, there are ways to design game limitations that are fun and interesting. "Your spell fizzles!" is not one of those ways. And, finally, DMs have repeatedly and continuously, across basically the entire run of the game, refused to actually enforce the limits that are supposed to be present.

Yet the complaints continue and the power imbalance that results leaves those who aren't spellcasters frustrated.

Your answer seems to be "screw human psychology and effective solutions. We will design the game that I think should work, and people should just learn to enjoy playing it the right way." But that, to me, sounds like saying "well if people are going to use it wrong, design better people, and leave the game alone."

Why not design a game that actually gives people a reason too WANT to play it as intended? Or one that gives players their fun without making it overpowered and instant-win? It's a hell of a lot easier (though still difficult) to design a good, functional game that gets people to do things as intended, rather than changing human nature.

This looks like the perfect time to quote Grod's Law!

“Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use.”

 

[James Gasik]

I'm just trying not to imagine Twitter if WotC started naming female NPCs like the old James bond films used to...

Did they ever stop with the wacky names?

Dr. Christmas Jones comes to mind, a nuclear physicist who can't even pronounce "nuclear".

 

[Cadence]

Did they ever stop with the wacky names?

Dr. Christmas Jones comes to mind, a nuclear physicist who can't even pronounce "nuclear".

I don't remember them from the Craig ones, but haven't seen them all and its been a while for the ones I did see.

 

[Voadam]

Did they ever stop with the wacky names?

Dr. Christmas Jones comes to mind, a nuclear physicist who can't even pronounce "nuclear".

I think so. Looking up the last Daniel Craig one the lead women characters had names like Paloma, Madeleine, Nomi, Moneypenny, and Dr. Symes.

 

[Voadam]

Changing Bonds allowed changes in tone. Daniel Craig era was grittier and less tongue in cheek.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Personally I preferred the 3e method with NPC classes. The levied freeman and the called knight being the same class doesn't feel right.

There should be a NPC class for every PC classes. PC classes for combat heavy adventurers. NPC classes for combat light homebodies.

I like this idea. 4e and 5e's methods really run counter to my worldbuilding style.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Just as long as someone explains what the qualifications for a PC class are, and why Joe the level 10 Baker never found a good reason to take a level of a PC class.

Because he spent his life as a baker? People do it every day.

 

[Cadence]

Because he spent his life as a baker? People do it every day.

My question for he ones who don't adventure or fight is why 3.5 gave them HP and BAB improvements.

I imagine a party of 1st level roughnecks trying to rob the bakery, only to find that the staff includes someone with 10d6 HP and +7/+2 BAB to swing that kitchen gear with, not to mention the scattering of others with more than one level. ("But we checked! He was never even in the militia and never went on adventures!!!")

 

[Micah Sweet]

And as I said earlier, in different words:

Players don't like that. Players have repeatedly refused to play that way, as a major and sustained pattern. Designers have refused to make rules that actually enforce the impediments, and what impediments they do use are really annoying and not enriching the game experience at all. Like, there are ways to design game limitations that are fun and interesting. "Your spell fizzles!" is not one of those ways. And, finally, DMs have repeatedly and continuously, across basically the entire run of the game, refused to actually enforce the limits that are supposed to be present.

Yet the complaints continue and the power imbalance that results leaves those who aren't spellcasters frustrated.

Your answer seems to be "screw human psychology and effective solutions. We will design the game that I think should work, and people should just learn to enjoy playing it the right way." But that, to me, sounds like saying "well if people are going to use it wrong, design better people, and leave the game alone."

Why not design a game that actually gives people a reason too WANT to play it as intended? Or one that gives players their fun without making it overpowered and instant-win? It's a hell of a lot easier (though still difficult) to design a good, functional game that gets people to do things as intended, rather than changing human nature.

Is there a way to do that that doesn't just recreate 4e? Because it seems not enough want that either.

Honestly, I do think that making magic difficult and dangerous is the way to go.