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

[Micah Sweet]

some are a lot less and some more so ... and situational maneuvers are generally picked less often as a known maneuver because of that rather severe limit on how many you can know. It would be nice if a maneuver or spell being more situational could be more open ended for learning purposes. Learn 6 truly situational maneuvers that only come up once per fight is analogous in some ways to 1 maneuver you can use every fight. A maneuver that applies nearly every round of every fight.

They literally cannot cast their best spell every combat just every day (probably except when spells are miss leveled) since they have spells level gated by level... after it quits being best (in theory) it becomes more spammable by a arguably less efficient over casting. (that is the spam reduction right there)

.. ie we cannot compare even the mostly at-will spamming to a daily.

Spamming because you really cannot do anything better... is anti-agency
like a fighter with all their effects not really scaling

I

If you use a spell point system (like many do), casting can be spammed.

And in Level Up, combat maneuvers are gated by level. That's what I was talking about. I far prefer that system to the anemic Battlemaster maneuver list.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I wasn't referring to the fiction of an encounter. I was referring to the game of an encounter.

I mean, look at the wizard. What if any time they cast a spell they just rolled randomly on their entire spell list and that was what they cast?

Hoping for Magic Missile at an enemy 30' away? Sorry, you cast Burning Hands instead.

It would be essentially unplayable. Even if you rolled and then narrated some reason for why you cast Burning Hands. Maybe you could justify narratively, but it would more or less remove the concept of tactical play from the wizard. Just as it would for the fighter.

I'm not really defending the initial idea, because I don't think it would feel very D&D (maybe for another system?), but....come on.

1. Your analogue to spellcasting is...bizarre. It's just not even applicable. I mean, if you really wanted to map it you could: what if every time a Wizard cast a spell there was a chance its range was extended, or it's DC increased, or you re-rolled 1's, or it stunned the target.

2. No, it would "remove the concept of tactical play". I realize there isn't enough tactical play currently for some people, but this idea wouldn't remove anything that's already there.

You don't have to like the overall idea. Heck, I don't think I do. But the rush to hyperbole in this community perplexes me. (But I guess reflects society overall in many ways.)

 

[Gammadoodler]

I wasn't referring to the fiction of an encounter. I was referring to the game of an encounter.

I mean, look at the wizard. What if any time they cast a spell they just rolled randomly on their entire spell list and that was what they cast?

Hoping for Magic Missile at an enemy 30' away? Sorry, you cast Burning Hands instead.

It would be essentially unplayable. Even if you rolled and then narrated some reason for why you cast Burning Hands. Maybe you could justify narratively, but it would more or less remove the concept of tactical play from the wizard. Just as it would for the fighter.

It'd have to be a rider of top of your normal attacks, and the effects would all have to be beneficial in some way.

It could be helpful to have a bunch of passive effect riders to apply. It just wouldn't be useful unless the player had some way of manipulating the chances of achieving a particular desired effect.

There is some degree of nuance here since, presumably, you might be able to assign riders to die roll results that would normally be a miss and to crits at both ends. I don't think think I'd like it very much, but I can see at least a few ways to game it out.

 

[Voadam]

So, you are using Yuan-Ti differently than what the rules say, and you have a bunch of homebrew stuff. Not really countering my point here. Sure, fifty years after you started playing? Maybe then you start using class leveled NPC's. But in the 80's? Practically nothing had class levels. I'll see your home campaign and raise you about two or three dozen 1e modules where there were virtually no NPC's with class levels, and, the only things that did have class levels were the odd human or demi-human, most of which were friendly.

Is your point that class leveled opponents really did not show up in 1e stuff that often?

My experiences of modules like the A series and the D series and Temple of Elemental Evil and such is different.

A1 Slave Pits of the Undercity for example has the following among the encounter charts on page 4:

Orcs: The exact composition of any wall guard of orcs will be as follows (roll 1d4):
1 - 2-8 orcs armed with short swords and light crossbows.
2 - 2-12 orcs armed as above and led by a 4th level half-orc fighter.
3 - 2-8 orcs armed with halberds led by a 5th level half-orc fighter and a cleric/assassin (levels 4-5).
4 - 2 half-orc fighters (levels 2-4). a half-orc fighter/thief (levels 1-3 each), and 2 half-orc cleric/fighters (levels 2-5 each).

Orcs: When encountered in the ruins, there will be 3-18 orcs gathered around a small fire. There are also chances for the following extra creatures to be present:
10% human slaver (fighter, levels 5-8).
25% ogre, 1-3.
50% half-orc fighter (levels 2-5).
30% half-orc fighter/cleric (levels 4-6/4).
In addition to the fire, there will be 0-5 crude shelters constructed around the campsite. Each shelter will contain 1-100 SP.

Slavers: These humans will often be found in the ruins, carrying out business with the orcs and half-orcs who dwell there. A band of slavers will have a fighter of 8th or 9th level and 3-10 1st level fighters. There is a 50% chance that a cleric of 6th or 7th level will be present. If no cleric is with the group, there is a 75% chance that a magic-user of 5th or 6th level will accompany the band. In addition to the humans, 1-4 half-orc fighter/thieves (levels 4-6/3-6) will be acting as interpreters. The humans will try to deal with the party first, appealing to them as fellow men.

 

[Garthanos]

If you use a spell point system (like many do), casting can be spammed.

and they have chosen to remove the spam guard for their stories ...spam is not a game problem really its a story problem. Or am I wrong spam problems make game imbalances way more obvious and impactful ... spam guards reduce the scope of imbalance effects and isnt that a game issue not a story issue.

That bit about being able to spam your lower level effects a bit less efficiently (so you may not wish to) after you level up kind of makes sense and I am thinking its better than I thought it was.

And in Level Up, combat maneuvers are gated by level. That's what I was talking about. I far prefer that system to the anemic Battlemaster maneuver list.

I completely understand I also find LU a much better 5e foundation. I am not sure higher level maneuvers in level up are fully tuned in the way we are talking about but it seems a start. A minor example : The horizon shot is cool and mythic but its more a case of ultra situational (and not really powerful at all unless its repeatable which might get too powerful fast) you could know it at lower rank with no issue.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm not really defending the initial idea, because I don't think it would feel very D&D (maybe for another system?), but....come on.

1. Your analogue to spellcasting is...bizarre. It's just not even applicable. I mean, if you really wanted to map it you could: what if every time a Wizard cast a spell there was a chance its range was extended, or it's DC increased, or you re-rolled 1's, or it stunned the target.

2. No, it would "remove the concept of tactical play". I realize there isn't enough tactical play currently for some people, but this idea wouldn't remove anything that's already there.

You don't have to like the overall idea. Heck, I don't think I do. But the rush to hyperbole in this community perplexes me. (But I guess reflects society overall in many ways.)

It isn't hyperbole. I'm basing this on the idea of replacing a Battlemaster Fighter's maneuvers with something like this. If you were imagining it more like adding this to a Champion fighter, then sure, you haven't removed any tactical complexity (because it had almost none to begin with).

If, instead of just being able to declare a Trip Attack I instead get a random maneuver, that's a huge hit to tactical play. Instead of coordinating with the monk, where I'm going to trip the BBEG and the monk will pin him, I now have a 1 in X chance of a trip attack happening, and an (X - 1) in X chance of anything else happening. You don't see how that would impact one's ability to play tactically?

 

[Garthanos]

hmmmmm

 

[James Gasik]

Is your point that class leveled opponents really did not show up in 1e stuff that often?

My experiences of modules like the A series and the D series and Temple of Elemental Evil and such is different.

A1 Slave Pits of the Undercity for example has the following among the encounter charts on page 4:

Orcs: The exact composition of any wall guard of orcs will be as follows (roll 1d4):
1 - 2-8 orcs armed with short swords and light crossbows.
2 - 2-12 orcs armed as above and led by a 4th level half-orc fighter.
3 - 2-8 orcs armed with halberds led by a 5th level half-orc fighter and a cleric/assassin (levels 4-5).
4 - 2 half-orc fighters (levels 2-4). a half-orc fighter/thief (levels 1-3 each), and 2 half-orc cleric/fighters (levels 2-5 each).

Orcs: When encountered in the ruins, there will be 3-18 orcs gathered around a small fire. There are also chances for the following extra creatures to be present:
10% human slaver (fighter, levels 5-8).
25% ogre, 1-3.
50% half-orc fighter (levels 2-5).
30% half-orc fighter/cleric (levels 4-6/4).
In addition to the fire, there will be 0-5 crude shelters constructed around the campsite. Each shelter will contain 1-100 SP.

Slavers: These humans will often be found in the ruins, carrying out business with the orcs and half-orcs who dwell there. A band of slavers will have a fighter of 8th or 9th level and 3-10 1st level fighters. There is a 50% chance that a cleric of 6th or 7th level will be present. If no cleric is with the group, there is a 75% chance that a magic-user of 5th or 6th level will accompany the band. In addition to the humans, 1-4 half-orc fighter/thieves (levels 4-6/3-6) will be acting as interpreters. The humans will try to deal with the party first, appealing to them as fellow men.

Thanks for this post, I was just pulling my copy of T1 off the shelf to make the same comment!

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'm not really defending the initial idea, because I don't think it would feel very D&D (maybe for another system?), but....come on.

1. Your analogue to spellcasting is...bizarre. It's just not even applicable. I mean, if you really wanted to map it you could: what if every time a Wizard cast a spell there was a chance its range was extended, or it's DC increased, or you re-rolled 1's, or it stunned the target.

2. No, it would "remove the concept of tactical play". I realize there isn't enough tactical play currently for some people, but this idea wouldn't remove anything that's already there.

You don't have to like the overall idea. Heck, I don't think I do. But the rush to hyperbole in this community perplexes me. (But I guess reflects society overall in many ways.)

I will say that if your intention was that this would be in addition to a system where you can declare a maneuver, then I think it has merit. For example, you can spend Grit to declare a Trip Attack, but when you don't spend Grit you might still get a randomly rolled maneuver.

My responses were based on the idea that this would be instead of being able to declare a maneuver.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I have been thinking that a free manoeuvre on a crit would be a nice little bonus. But I have no idea why it would be random; just let the player choose.

I think it would enhance the fiction and verisimilitude. The fighter indeed always is able to do this stuff, it just is hard and they need to be lucky. The "power pool" is just to represent the focus/grit etc that allows them to do it reliably at will.