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

[dave2008]

What qualifies as a "style of play"? AND how much DM work do you think is acceptable to achieve it?

There are a ton that I consider a style of play which I cannot do well in 5e without ummm hacking the game to pieces and rebuilding.

In comparison to 4e and 3e, Just achieving tactical play in 5e let alone strategic requires what feels like a ton of adjustments to the game starting with monster rewrites and many many rules tweaks. CR is extremely unreliable compared to the 4e methodologies.

And even small elements like fully supported story driven number of encounters / short rests in your play fights against what passes for class balance of 5e. I do not see that as supporting narrative gaming.

I do not see 5e actually supporting a lot of styles its more of an advertisement than a reality. And the DM tools for adding in alternative rules are more of a head nod at it, lacking any sort of indicator about the implications of how the rules changes might interact.

Many people had the same complaints of 4e and I think both opinions are lacking.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Do you consider 3PP house rules?

Of course you can adjudicate almost anything with the rules and guidelines provided, but it relies on the DM more than what you are looking for I am guessing.

For example, the basilisk's Pertifying Gaze says: ... On a failure, the creature is petrified until freed by the greater restoration spell or other magic.

IMO, as DM, it is within the rules and guidelines of the game to allow an arcana or nature check to allow the PCs to learn that washing a petrified victim with 2 pints of fresh basilisk blood within 24 hrs of petrification reverses the effect. From the DMG I would assign the following DCs*:

• Blood reverses petrification: DC 10 arcana, DC 15 nature
• 2 pints of blood are required: DC 15 arcana, DC 20 Nature
• 24 hr limit of effectiveness: DC 15 arcana, DC 20 Nature

*These values might change based on the type of campaign I am running.

That is all without house rules IMO. It is just adjudicating actions.

dave, what is the point of this? I am saying I want WotC to support a diffrent style of play, one I have spelled out. are 3pp house rules, not but they also are not WotC

 

[Micah Sweet]

dave, what is the point of this? I am saying I want WotC to support a diffrent style of play, one I have spelled out. are 3pp house rules, not but they also are not WotC

For your sake I hope I'm wrong, but I am very confident WotC is not going to support the style of play you want, unfortunately. It appears that it's just not popular enough. If it's WotC or the highway for you, I can point you to an on-ramp.

 

[Garthanos]

That is all without house rules IMO. It is just adjudicating actions.

Yes making up and adding your own rules counts as making up rules ...house rules
because washing with blood isnt magic.... and only magic can undo magic is the 5e presented method.

In effect that kind of thing is part of having to remake the monster manual because it does not suit my narative.

Because in 5e land not using magic is supposed to make the game 10 times harder the players handbook says so.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

For your sake I hope I'm wrong, but I am very confident WotC is not going to support the style of play you want, unfortunately. It appears that it's just not popular enough. If it's WotC or the highway for you, I can point you to an on-ramp.

I already have my turn single on thank you

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It was not a minority. A huge base of players jumped ship and went to Pathfinder. D&D works best as a kitchen sink system that incorporates multiple styles of play. 4e was a system where only one style was allowed.

Nope. We've literally gotten explicit confirmation from actual company employees that 4e did just fine. It even outsold each of 3e and 3.5e. The "everyone jumped ship to PF because they hated 4e" thing is a myth.

The only reason PF "overtook" 4e in physical-book sales* is because (a) they put out an absolute flurry of their own products, and (b) WotC stopped publishing new 4e books. It's a bit hard to keep up sales numbers for physical copies when you completely stop making new product.

*As opposed to the various digital revenue streams. Like DDI. Which we actually had numbers for, before WotC obliterated their forums and such. $15 a month, and we had verifiable data that there were tens, even hundreds of thousands of users.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Nope. We've literally gotten explicit confirmation from actual company employees that 4e did just fine. It even outsold each of 3e and 3.5e. The "everyone jumped ship to PF because they hated 4e" thing is a myth.

The only reason PF "overtook" 4e in physical-book sales* is because (a) they put out an absolute flurry of their own products, and (b) WotC stopped publishing new 4e books. It's a bit hard to keep up sales numbers for physical copies when you completely stop making new product.

*As opposed to the various digital revenue streams. Like DDI. Which we actually had numbers for, before WotC obliterated their forums and such. $15 a month, and we had verifiable data that there were tens, even hundreds of thousands of users.

lets not forget that "we are number one by a few feet... but if we win them back we can be number one by a mile" greed mentality

 

[Belen]

dave, what is the point of this? I am saying I want WotC to support a diffrent style of play, one I have spelled out. are 3pp house rules, not but they also are not WotC

You are the GM, you set the rules, tone, and story. While I often work with players ahead of time on the type of game or characters they want to play, every campaign I have ever run has started with a 1-page introduction with the limits I set on the game. This includes classes, races, feats, spells, backgrounds...

As the GM, if I am fronting the majority of the work of running the game, then I am going to run something that gives me joy. A GM burned out and not enjoying a game is a disaster. Personally, I have not been a player in more than a decade so, while I intend to make things fun for the players, they also have to compromise if they want to be players rather than the GM.

5e absolutely supports low magic. The GM can approve any spell, feat, subclass or item used. You can set the game so that very few people in the setting ever get leveled much less high level. 5e supports it. I usually run it. No one ever buys a magic item in my game. If they want it, then they find it or build it. If they want a spell, they research it or find it (hey, I populate the treasure). I often create lists of "lost" or "undiscovered" spells.

The point of D&D is to build unique story experiences for cooperative play.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You are the GM,

not always... in fact for the first time in 16 years and only a handful of times since 95 thst i have no game i am DMing

you set the rules, tone, and story.

even when I dm that is more a group activity

 

[Lanefan]

Characters should have to make some coordinated rush maneuver (possibly guided by a leader) involving all of them being truly simultaneous instead of stretched out over the 6 seconds based on their initiative... ie to restrict the combatants response to a limited number of opportunity attacks. It should take some effort and group coordination unless the dice simply say he missed (which would mean an accidental coordination).

Agreed; and one of the biggest problems I have with strictly-enforced turn orders is that two or more PCs (or opponents, for that matter) can't co-ordinate to do something simultaneous - even something as simple as moving simultaneously such that one can draw fire away from the other.

One of the bigger player-DM arguments I've seen came when playing 3e (or 3.5e?) in a fog-shrouded combat, my character and another wanted to move through the fog together, hand-in-hand so we wouldn't lose each other. (the higher-initiative character delayed to the slower character's initiative) Not allowed, says the DM; you can only move on your turn and turns cannot be simultaneous. Cue an hour-long argument, which we players ultimately lost...and sure enough, we then got separated in the fog.

This is one example of what a Warlord is for planning/triggering that dynamically and an example of why the Battlemaster does not feel like one.

There's no need for a traffic-cop class for this to work. Allowing simultaneous initiatives, or characters to delay such that their initiatives become simultaneous, is all it takes.