D&D 3E/3.5 5e: Is it really lower magic/less gonzo than 3e?

[Laurefindel]

And just for clarification, I understand that D&D in any edition isn't swords-n-sorcery in the Howard or Leiber sense. But any move closer to that from the magic prevalence of 3e, even if slight, is a positive one for me.

To that, I will add that 5e D&D functions with a mechanic of short and long rest to regain limited-use abilities. By default, a short rest is a 1-hour break while a long rest is a 8-hour night, but the mechanics of it are flexible enough that, in order to get a better sword-and-sorcery vibe, rests can be changed to short rest = 8-hour sleep and long rest = weekend or week-long repose.

This means, among other things, that spellcasters do not regain all their spell slots overnight, and that it could take up to a full week before they could cast non-cantrip or non-ritual spells again. This suddenly makes martial characters a lot more interesting, and spellcasting a rarer, less trivial affair.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

As a note, [MENTION=14291]Azgulor[/MENTION], in case nobody's mentioned it...just an "fyi" tid-bit: In 5e, both Multiclassing as well as Feats are entirely OPTIONAL. That is, they are not assumed to be in use if you buy one of the Adventure Path books (Storm Giants Thunder, Princes of the Apocalypse, etc). Yet, for some completely backwards reason...imho...both Feats and MC are used in the "Adventure League" games. But that's another topic.

I have found that not allowing Feats or Multiclassing has definitely helped my campaign in terms of keeping the power-level-capabilities of PC's more in line with where we like it as a group.

Carry on..

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Zardnaar]

Hiya!

As a note, @Azgulor, in case nobody's mentioned it...just an "fyi" tid-bit: In 5e, both Multiclassing as well as Feats are entirely OPTIONAL. That is, they are not assumed to be in use if you buy one of the Adventure Path books (Storm Giants Thunder, Princes of the Apocalypse, etc). Yet, for some completely backwards reason...imho...both Feats and MC are used in the "Adventure League" games. But that's another topic.

I have found that not allowing Feats or Multiclassing has definitely helped my campaign in terms of keeping the power-level-capabilities of PC's more in line with where we like it as a group.

Carry on..

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I want a featless game in my next game, the players don't. It will likely get to the point of I am running a featless game its up to you if you want to play or not or I run an edition with no feats. Or the other player can DM and I can pay by whatever rules he allows its no big deal for me.

 

[Zardnaar]

To that, I will add that 5e D&D functions with a mechanic of short and long rest to regain limited-use abilities. By default, a short rest is a 1-hour break while a long rest is a 8-hour night, but the mechanics of it are flexible enough that, in order to get a better sword-and-sorcery vibe, rests can be changed to short rest = 8-hour sleep and long rest = weekend or week-long repose.

This means, among other things, that spellcasters do not regain all their spell slots overnight, and that it could take up to a full week before they could cast non-cantrip or non-ritual spells again. This suddenly makes martial characters a lot more interesting, and spellcasting a rarer, less trivial affair.

Not really because the healing also scales to the new rules so it takes you longer to recover HP either via spells or long and short rest abilities. You would need to divource the healing rates from the same rates as spell regain to really change it and that is what I have done in my Darksun rules.

 

[Mort]

I have found that not allowing Feats or Multiclassing has definitely helped my campaign in terms of keeping the power-level-capabilities of PC's more in line with where we like it as a group.

Carry on..

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Have you found removing feats equaly impacts the power level of casters and non - casters?

In my experience, leaving out feats seems to Broaden the caster non - caster divide, and that's not a positive.

 

[Zardnaar]

Have you found removing feats equaly impacts the power level of casters and non - casters?

In my experience, leaving out feats seems to Broaden the caster non - caster divide, and that's not a positive.

Casters argueably benefit a lot more from feats- resilient con and warcaster. Without feats fighters can still hit things hard for example concentration checks get a lot harder though, Sorcerer gets better as well along with Transmuters relative to the other casters.

 

[Ashrym]

Have you found removing feats equaly impacts the power level of casters and non - casters?

In my experience, leaving out feats seems to Broaden the caster non - caster divide, and that's not a positive.

A person has to believe that divide exists before it can be broadened.

I find things change like non-caster damage gets cut back with fighters and barbarians while it's easier to break concentration with resilience and war caster gone.

I try to avoid the caster vs non-caster arguments these days because experiences seem to vary. IME, it's apples to oranges, most utility options can be replaced with mundane options (skills or equipment), we use a lot of ability checks (including no role required givens), and what cannot be replicated gives purpose to casters who have over-rated utility because of the way ability checks and bounded accuracy work these days.

It's been a few years in this system now and my experiences haven't changed. It's the first edition in which I actually enjoy playing fighters and rogues, and I have played through BECMI and from each edition from 1e on. I think that says something in irself.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I want a featless game in my next game, the players don't. It will likely get to the point of I am running a featless game its up to you if you want to play or not or I run an edition with no feats. Or the other player can DM and I can pay by whatever rules he allows its no big deal for me.

Or you could just start creating "Anti-Feats" for the monsters...

"Anti-Feat: Paranoid Senses - A monster with this AF has so honed it's senses to avoid detection and/or surprise prey as it's only means of survival. This AF negates the effects of Feats such as Alert, Observant, and the like".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Have you found removing feats equaly impacts the power level of casters and non - casters?

In my experience, leaving out feats seems to Broaden the caster non - caster divide, and that's not a positive.

Nope. Not in the least. But having said that, no player has managed to get a PC higher than 7th level since we started playing about a couple weeks after the Starter Box came out. We found that the Concentration rules more than did their job in keeping it from being too imbalanced.

You said that it broadened the divide, and it was not positive. This is a play-style preference. With us, we don't care so much about 'perfect balance'...or even relative balance. We want balance amongst a group; we want wizards, sorcerers and warlocks to be balanced between them. We don't mind if a sorcerer is "more powerful" than a thief of the same level. It just doesn't bother us.

Even if at higher levels, casters ended up being "more powerful", we wouldn't care. Basically, we have no problem with certain imbalances in a game if those imbalances make sense and are fun.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Leatherhead]

Hiya!



Or you could just start creating "Anti-Feats" for the monsters...

"Anti-Feat: Paranoid Senses - A monster with this AF has so honed it's senses to avoid detection and/or surprise prey as it's only means of survival. This AF negates the effects of Feats such as Alert, Observant, and the like".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Although this is a great idea for making custom monsters: NPCs should have exceptional unique powers and abilities that PC's don't have access too. Be careful that you don't engage in an arms race.