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

[Belen]

You know what he means though. Only arcane powers were called spells, but they all operated the same way, in the same structure. That has nothing to do with 4e's general quality, of course.

Correct.

 

[Garthanos]

Not even close.

The original classes had a similar structure, but the essentials classes where much different.

The original classes had a similar structure, but they worked and played very differently. If are familiar with roles then you now this well. A controlled did not play like a defender or a striker. Even then different strikers played differently as well.

Defenders were even more distinct in how they accomplished their goals a Swordmage was so completely not like a fighter its crazy...yup both effective defenders (though the fighter was also arguably a striker and at high levels almost automatically shift more heavily into that) and the the sword mage very much a dabbler in control.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

OK, sorry I seem to have hit a nerve. What you describe is just how we play the game. Conditions by default do not have a method of recovering from them (that isn't part of the conditions description). Per the PHB:

the Mummy and the Mud Golem were the examples earlier in this thread... the examples I had responded to to START with.
mummy rot does NOT allow (RAW) that to happen
The curse lasts until removed by the remove curse spell or other magic
now we ALSO play the way you do with HOUSE RULES.

the mud golem getting mud in your wounds for permenent damage is worse.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You know what he means though.

he means he is pointlessly editionwarring by bringing up a false meme that doesn't represent the edition BUT is useful short hand to try to stop martial players from getting back to that level of playability.

Only arcane powers were called spells, but they all operated the same way, in the same structure. That has nothing to do with 4e's general quality, of course.

 

[dave2008]

Yikes - you pulled me back in!

the Mummy and the Mud Golem were the examples earlier in this thread... the examples I had responded to to START with.
mummy rot does NOT allow (RAW) that to happen

The curse lasts until removed by the remove curse spell or other magic

Yes, but that is not restricted to be the only method available. It is worded the same as the basilisk. Greater restoration or other magic are given as examples. It is not a house rule for players to explore different options and for me as DM to give them different solutions. That is just how we play the game.

the mud golem getting mud in your wounds for permenent damage is worse.

What is the mud golem from? I wasn't familiar with it so I did a search on D&D Beyond and it came up empty.

 

[Voadam]

What is the mud golem from? I wasn't familiar with it so I did a search on D&D Beyond and it came up empty.

View attachment 262771

Clay golem.

The no healing damage aspect of their strikes and what can remove that condition.

[edit to add]

"The reduction lasts until removed by the greater restoration spell or other magic."

The basilisk blood undoing the stare had a tradition from some prior editions, the golem thing is just narratively undefined.

How would you rule on a knowledge check for investigating other magic here?

 

[Belen]

he means he is pointlessly editionwarring by bringing up a false meme that doesn't represent the edition BUT is useful short hand to try to stop martial players from getting back to that level of playability.

Nope. I mean that the classes all felt the same mechanically. The all had at-will, encounter, and daily powers. The differences mainly hit at the role level: defender, controller, etc. That just filled a mechanical niche. 4e was great for uniform experience. It forced a average playing and GM experience and smoothed the poor or great experience. I think it did have an effect of protecting players from poor and terrible GMs by creating a lane for the game.

I am not attempting to edition war. I was, admittedly, not a fan of 4e and my impression of the classes was that it forced a style of gaming. It was a tactical skirmish game. That is fine but 3.5, 4e, and Pathfinder burned me out to the point where I never want to see a grid or mini again.

 

[Micah Sweet]

All I can say is, my three favorite systems--4e, 13A, and Dungeon World--didn't need this. It's part of why they're my favorite systems.

All three are also much more focused systems, with a strong implied playstyle.

 

[dave2008]

Clay golem.

The no healing damage aspect of their strikes and what can remove that condition.

OK thank you. However, that is worded just the same as the mummy and basilisk effects. They give an example, they do not limit you from finding other options. Maybe I am just to old school, but find other ways to do things is just the standard method of play for us. It was how we did it in 1e, 4e, and to me it still appears to be completely RAW in 5e too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

he means he is pointlessly editionwarring by bringing up a false meme that doesn't represent the edition BUT is useful short hand to try to stop martial players from getting back to that level of playability.

Hey, I'm down with martials getting more stuff to do. Level Up is excellent for that. I'm just convinced you won't see it from WotC. They aren't motivated to do so.

For the record, I wasn't a fan of AEDU and wouldn't want that structure.