D&D 5E 08/05/2013 - Legends & Lore : Scaling Complexity

[Kinak]

I like the split there and am very glad that it occurs at 3rd level. We had players setting their entire destinies at 1st level for too many packets.

I agree that the gladiator design needs something, but I kind of like its little mechanic. The dice, like expertise dice last packet, need to be easier to regain.

One of the big issues that plagued D&D in the past was that running a long campaign holds a lot of appeal, but the rules inevitably pushed players to endure more and more complexity. That's good for some players, but not all players. Ideally, our design holds that at bay and makes it easier to keep gaming into double digit levels.

I recently introduced a new player into a PF game that was awkward for exactly this reason. The party could really use an arcane caster (or controller or crowd control or whatever you want to say), but there's no way I'm throwing a 12th level arcane caster at a new player. So we got our third physical damage character instead.

Ah well, at least it makes it easy to set up flanking.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Klaus]

I also don't get how a player who doesn't like complexity, but feels inspired by a recent viewing of Spartacus (or whatever) plays a simple gladiator. Can we get some scaling within the subclasses?

While I like giving the subclasses *some* flavor, I think it should be broad enough to cover a whole range of archetypes. For instance, the Gladiator is all about controlling the battlefield and the flow of battle, and works best when singling out a single opponent. This could be an actual gladiator, or a tribal champion, or someone like Achilles (Brad Pitt) in Troy. The Warrior is all about eking the most out of his weapon (specially in crits). You could easily call the first "Champion" and the second "Weaponmaster". And either of those could be gladiators.

 

[Iosue]

I don't know what could be done to reduce the complexity of spellcasters in 5e. Currently the number of spells prepared is a lot smaller than in previous editions, so they are already less complex, except the Wizard due to casting Rituals from all known spells. Personally I would also limit the number of known spells to Clerics and Druids, to the same numbers as Wizards. But this is a no-go for a lot of gamers, so it won't be done.

I have to say, I'm mightily impressed they had the stones to reduce the number of daily spells as much as they did. Here are some comparisons:

OD&D (Greyhawk Supplement)
[TABLE="width: 500"][TR][TD="align: center"]Spell Levels[/TD][TD="align: center"]1[/TD][TD="align: center"]2[/TD][TD="align: center"]3[/TD][TD="align: center"]4[/TD][TD="align: center"]5[/TD][TD="align: center"]6[/TD][TD="align: center"]7[/TD][TD="align: center"]8[/TD][TD="align: center"]9[/TD][/TR][TR][TD="align: center"]Level 20[/TD][TD="align: center"]7[/TD][TD="align: center"]7[/TD][TD="align: center"]7[/TD][TD="align: center"]7[/TD][TD="align: center"]7[/TD][TD="align: center"]7[/TD][TD="align: center"]3[/TD][TD="align: center"]3[/TD][TD="align: center"]2[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]Total spells per day: 50

BECMI
[TABLE="width: 500"][TR][TD="align: center"]Spell Levels[/TD][TD="align: center"]1[/TD][TD="align: center"]2[/TD][TD="align: center"]3[/TD][TD="align: center"]4[/TD][TD="align: center"]5[/TD][TD="align: center"]6[/TD][TD="align: center"]7[/TD][TD="align: center"]8[/TD][TD="align: center"]9[/TD][/TR][TR][TD="align: center"]Level 20[/TD][TD="align: center"]6[/TD][TD="align: center"]5[/TD][TD="align: center"]5[/TD][TD="align: center"]5[/TD][TD="align: center"]4[/TD][TD="align: center"]4[/TD][TD="align: center"]3[/TD][TD="align: center"]2[/TD][TD="align: center"]-[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]Total spells per day: 34

AD&D
[TABLE="width: 500"][TR][TD="align: center"]Spell Levels[/TD][TD="align: center"]1[/TD][TD="align: center"]2[/TD][TD="align: center"]3[/TD][TD="align: center"]4[/TD][TD="align: center"]5[/TD][TD="align: center"]6[/TD][TD="align: center"]7[/TD][TD="align: center"]8[/TD][TD="align: center"]9[/TD][/TR][TR][TD="align: center"]Level 20[/TD][TD="align: center"]5[/TD][TD="align: center"]5[/TD][TD="align: center"]5[/TD][TD="align: center"]5[/TD][TD="align: center"]5[/TD][TD="align: center"]4[/TD][TD="align: center"]3[/TD][TD="align: center"]3[/TD][TD="align: center"]2[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]Total spells per day: 37

3rd Edition (Int 18)
[TABLE="width: 500"][TR][TD="align: center"]Spell Levels[/TD][TD="align: center"]1[/TD][TD="align: center"]2[/TD][TD="align: center"]3[/TD][TD="align: center"]4[/TD][TD="align: center"]5[/TD][TD="align: center"]6[/TD][TD="align: center"]7[/TD][TD="align: center"]8[/TD][TD="align: center"]9[/TD][/TR][TR][TD="align: center"]Level 20[/TD][TD="align: center"]5[/TD][TD="align: center"]5[/TD][TD="align: center"]5[/TD][TD="align: center"]5[/TD][TD="align: center"]4[/TD][TD="align: center"]4[/TD][TD="align: center"]4[/TD][TD="align: center"]4[/TD][TD="align: center"]4[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]Total spells per day: 40 (plus 4 0-level spells)

5th Edition (with Arcane Recovery)
[TABLE="width: 500"][TR][TD="align: center"]Spell Levels[/TD][TD="align: center"]1[/TD][TD="align: center"]2[/TD][TD="align: center"]3[/TD][TD="align: center"]4[/TD][TD="align: center"]5[/TD][TD="align: center"]6[/TD][TD="align: center"]7[/TD][TD="align: center"]8[/TD][TD="align: center"]9[/TD][/TR][TR][TD="align: center"]Level 20[/TD][TD="align: center"]5[/TD][TD="align: center"]4[/TD][TD="align: center"]4[/TD][TD="align: center"]3[/TD][TD="align: center"]2[/TD][TD="align: center"]1[/TD][TD="align: center"]1[/TD][TD="align: center"]1[/TD][TD="align: center"]1[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]Total spells per day: 22 (plus 3 cantrips)

5e mages are a little more front loaded than their TSR-era counterparts, but sacrifice high-end versatility, to say nothing of raw power. Which is pretty much the common sense thing if you want to reduce wizard quadracity.

One way they could reduce complexity of Mages is to restrict them to spells in their tradition, with optional complexity coming either from a generalist Arcane Tradition, or a feat that allows cross-school spell acquisition.

 

[Plaguescarred]

The complexity is well managed through subclasses IMO. Even within the same class, one can play a simple Fighter and a more complex one. We need simple Races and Classes, and i am good with that.

 

[Li Shenron]

I have to say, I'm mightily impressed they had the stones to reduce the number of daily spells as much as they did.

In battle, yes.

Outside battle, see Rituals.

 

[Iosue]

In battle, yes.

Outside battle, see Rituals.

Eh, Rituals are just more ecologically friendly scrolls.

 

[Li Shenron]

Eh, Rituals are just more ecologically friendly scrolls.

Indeed scrolls could technically be unlimited in 3e, but compared to rituals they required some preplanning at least, they weren't so cheap as making plenty of copies, and there was some ambiguity in how a DM should handle practicalities (if you had scribed 100 scrolls, should the DM let you carry all of them with you and pick the one you want in a standard action?). 5e rituals have none of these issues, except preplanning for casters other than the Mage.

I am still a long way before I can understand the full implications of rituals in a 5e games however, so I'm just thinking out loud here...

 

[Sadrik]

I read this last night and I was not sure what it was that did not sit well. This is what it was. First of all I would want these little class features to be more like feats. Second, I want the player to opt into it feature by feature not at character generation. So meaning, since they will not be feats (they want to give feat-like class features to the fighter), the player would select the ability they want at level X from a pool of abilities. I can see a player want to select abilities from each of these sub-classes and cobble together something that they call their own... whether they be passive abilities or reactive or activated ones.

Splintering off class features from feats is a step backwards, but I understand the reason why, they want to make feats optional. Instead what is happening though is they have preselected feats in sub-classes and then have an added bonus in the optional feat system. I am not seeing the benefit.

When I think simple fighter I think no special little feats/features. It is all baked into the numbers where their mechanical edge comes from... Maybe that is just me though...

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I read this last night and I was not sure what it was that did not sit well. This is what it was. First of all I would want these little class features to be more like feats. Second, I want the player to opt into it feature by feature not at character generation. So meaning, since they will not be feats (they want to give feat-like class features to the fighter), the player would select the ability they want at level X from a pool of abilities. I can see a player want to select abilities from each of these sub-classes and cobble together something that they call their own... whether they be passive abilities or reactive or activated ones.

Splintering off class features from feats is a step backwards, but I understand the reason why, they want to make feats optional. Instead what is happening though is they have preselected feats in sub-classes and then have an added bonus in the optional feat system. I am not seeing the benefit.

When I think simple fighter I think no special little feats/features. It is all baked into the numbers where their mechanical edge comes from... Maybe that is just me though...

I see what you're saying - if they made a basic system with attribute increases that you could choose to turn into feats, why can't they do the same here? Each point on the Martial path is a simple increase in something that matters to Fighters, or it's a choice of complex tricks or non-standard features like feats. I like that idea.

 

[Iosue]

Indeed scrolls could technically be unlimited in 3e, but compared to rituals they required some preplanning at least, they weren't so cheap as making plenty of copies, and there was some ambiguity in how a DM should handle practicalities (if you had scribed 100 scrolls, should the DM let you carry all of them with you and pick the one you want in a standard action?). 5e rituals have none of these issues, except preplanning for casters other than the Mage.

I am still a long way before I can understand the full implications of rituals in a 5e games however, so I'm just thinking out loud here...

True, true. To further aid in thinking aloud, here's a current list of ritual spells.

Level 1
Alarm (Mage)
Comprehend Languages (Mage)
Detect Good and Evil (Cleric)
Detect Magic (Mage)
Detect Poison and Disease (Druid)
Identify (Mage)
Purify Food or Drink (Cleric, Druid)
Speak with Animals (Druid)

Level 2
Animal Messenger (Druid)
Augury (Cleric)
Gentle Repose (Cleric, Mage)
Knock (Mage)
Locate Animals or Plants (Druid)
Silence (Cleric)

Level 3
Plant Growth (Druid)

Level 4
Divination (Cleric)

Level 5
Commune (Cleric, Druid)
Contact Other Plane (Mage)

Hmmmm. Check this out. No spells above level 5. The Cleric, Druid, and Mage each get seven spells that can ritualized. Mages are again front loaded - four of their rituals are 1st level, and they take up half of the eight 1st level rituals. None of the spells particularly tread on other class's territory, save for the infamous Knock, but that makes a loud noise, so is not necessarily better than a rogue's lock-picking ability, and takes time as a ritual, so not necessarily better than the strong fighter's door-busting-down ability.

There's another interesting aspect of rituals as far as the exploration rules go. A ritual takes 10 or 11 minutes. 10 minutes is exactly the time frame for random encounter checks. So, in a dungeon environment, at least, a ritual guarantees a random encounter roll. I like that.

I have to say, I like the balance of rituals. They don't strike me as over or under powered.