Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6324970" data-attributes="member: 1465">Of course 5e magic items have "math". They just have a bit more story than the last 2 editions, which tended to treat magic items as technology. For me this is a neat improvement.Agree. I still believe that too many people can't think outside the box about this. You don't need every magic weapon to be at least +1, and that bonus becomes actually a game limitation most of the times, since it improves attack and damage even when either story-wise or mechanically you don't need/want the PC to have that.In theory magic items are not assumed by the math, but expected in play. Which means that those +1s are small enough not to break the game but at the same time we could definitely live without them.Don't care. I buy stuff when I want, I don't rush out on the first day or preorder anything.Mages can learn to heal with spells by taking appropriate feats. If you don't want to use feats in your game but still want mages to heal, you can allow only those feats (granting Clerical spells) and only to Wizards in your game.So 5e allows you to have healing mages, but it kind of requires the DM to make a conscious decision by "enabling" feats in the game, rather than entitling players to create healing mages by default. Good thing, IMHO.Agreed. I liked them as "reversed necromancies", but they would make sense also as transmutations or even as their own schools. Evocation and conjuration are quite a stretch.Not much experience with using roles, but my feeling is that they are either redundant (if the effect on design is minimal) or counterproductive otherwise. I might want to use an Ogre as a solo vs 1st level PCs and 10 Ogres as minions vs 10th level PCs. I prefer they design an Ogre as an Ogre i.e. starting from concept/story and use mechanics to represent that, rather than pre-planning how a DM is supposed/forced to use that Ogre.Don't see how this is broken.Not sure, but certainly uncapped scores skyrocketing in 3e didn't feel nice.I would have preferred different caps for different races tho, so that a non-human race with a starting +2 would have a max 20 in that score only, and humans would have 18 max in all scores.Depends on how many bonuses are available in the standard game, and how many additionals sources will be in splatbooks. We have to see...At least, 5e 1st level PCs are slightly less front-loaded than before. I do agree that they could have been even less.Generally speaking 3e style multiclassing is good IMO and in 5e the implementation seems much better than in 3e.I love randomness. For those who don't, there is always point-buy. I don't think point-buy is "less default" than rolling, but even if it is, why do you care? It's there in Basic and the PHB, and a lot of gaming group will use it.I would have preferred at least that all subclasses would start at 3rd level.It might have been even a further improvement if all classes got subclass features and feats at the same levels, but this is of marginal importance IMO. The benefit could have been perhaps a possibility to create subclasses (or reuse some existing ones) even for multiple classes.Hell no. AEDU is one of my most hated features of 4e. Siloing abilities is horrible for my tastes. This would have been easily a dealbreaker for me.I think level bonus to AC might or might not work. It's not something you can tell in a vacuum that it is a good or bad thing, you have to evaluate it against the whole system, e.g. how do attacks scale by level, what other things affect attacks and AC, how monsters are designed, how armors are differentiated, and how proficiencies work.For me, if it isn't "D&D enough", I won't even consider it. It already happened once.</blockquote>

Verification