log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E A truly horrifying Age of Worms

TheSword

Legend
Supporter
Just out of interest. What are the reasons for not just removing clerics, paladins and Druid’s?

The consensus seems to be not to exclude them but I’m at a loss for why, if the players are happy not playing those classes? This isn’t adventurers league or a club game it’s a private table.

I’m interested in the advice, I just don’t understand the reason behind it?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
If the players aren't happy playing those classes in general, then there's no need to remove them. They won't play them as a matter of personal taste.

But if your players do tend to like playing those roles, I think it's kind of lame to ban them just to raise the challenge level of the campaign. Frankly, this is one of those campaigns in which I would expect a player who suffers a PC death to come back as one of those classes - or at least hire one as an NPC.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
Just out of interest. What are the reasons for not just removing clerics, paladins and Druid’s?

The consensus seems to be not to exclude them but I’m at a loss for why, if the players are happy not playing those classes? This isn’t adventurers league or a club game it’s a private table.

I’m interested in the advice, I just don’t understand the reason behind it?
That's certainly a straightforward option, and much better than trying to nerf those classes by boosting the spell levels.

It's a bit odd though, assuming you don't get rid of clerics/paladins in the campaign area as well. (A great evil that they should oppose is trying to take over, but they're not interested in taking up arms?) A cleric or paladin seems like a perfect fit for this campaign. They have more reason to be invested than a fighter or wizard.

Additionally, it still doesn't really fix the core issue. There are other classes that get access to some "problematic" abilities. Celestial warlocks, for example, who I believe can cast lesser restoration as of 3rd level (on a short rest no less). Bards can also cast lesser restoration starting at 3rd level.
 

TheSword

Legend
Supporter
That's certainly a straightforward option, and much better than trying to nerf those classes by boosting the spell levels.

It's a bit odd though, assuming you don't get rid of clerics/paladins in the campaign area as well. (A great evil that they should oppose is trying to take over, but they're not interested in taking up arms?) A cleric or paladin seems like a perfect fit for this campaign. They have more reason to be invested than a fighter or wizard.

Additionally, it still doesn't really fix the core issue. There are other classes that get access to some "problematic" abilities. Celestial warlocks, for example, who I believe can cast lesser restoration as of 3rd level (on a short rest no less). Bards can also cast lesser restoration starting at 3rd level.

Well I think you’ve just answered why I was considering increasing the spell levels. Because it allows such classes to exist as NPCs in the game world with reduced powers while explaining why there isn’t a cleric or Paladin in the party. It also adds a more frightening backdrop to the campaign as the gods are being blocked by the coming apocalypse.
 

I had a rambling screed, but it wasn't even entertaining. I agree that increasing the foes by a certain amount would be a better option. I admit that I'm not very conversant about 5e, but it seems that if you spend more effort to solve one problem you have less on other issues. If all the cleric is doing is going to be curing disease, what other spells are they not going to have access to?

As to why not just ban classes that seem to be very appropriate choices to the campaign, it would only make sense to me if it was a campaign wide issue. You can't play a cleric because all of the cleric's powers have failed. So, raising the dead is now an issue- welcome to hardcore mode. So let's see how inventive you can be with your wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks in getting the needed magic.

If you should ban clerics, et al., how do you plan to nerf the enemy?
 

Mort

Hero
Supporter
Additionally, it still doesn't really fix the core issue. There are other classes that get access to some "problematic" abilities. Celestial warlocks, for example, who I believe can cast lesser restoration as of 3rd level (on a short rest no less). Bards can also cast lesser restoration starting at 3rd level.

Sorcerers can access it too, with the right subclass.

The point is, banning, even soft banning, classes doesn't really address the problem.

Why not just play it straight, and if the players really have it too easy - have the undead adapt and have the diseases etc. be harder to cure?
 

TheSword

Legend
Supporter
I had a rambling screed, but it wasn't even entertaining. I agree that increasing the foes by a certain amount would be a better option. I admit that I'm not very conversant about 5e, but it seems that if you spend more effort to solve one problem you have less on other issues. If all the cleric is doing is going to be curing disease, what other spells are they not going to have access to?

As to why not just ban classes that seem to be very appropriate choices to the campaign, it would only make sense to me if it was a campaign wide issue. You can't play a cleric because all of the cleric's powers have failed. So, raising the dead is now an issue- welcome to hardcore mode. So let's see how inventive you can be with your wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks in getting the needed magic.

If you should ban clerics, et al., how do you plan to nerf the enemy?

As it’s a conversion I’m not sure it was originally scaled for 5e challenge. There’s another good thread about converting the original CR5 Spawn of Kyuss to 5e and the outcome was that it is at best a CR 3 creature in this edition.

Natural Healing and improved casting in other classes means that the need for the cleric is much reduced.
 

TheSword

Legend
Supporter
Sorcerers can access it too, with the right subclass.

The point is, banning, even soft banning, classes doesn't really address the problem.

Why not just play it straight, and if the players really have it too easy - have the undead adapt and have the diseases etc. be harder to cure?

For all the reasons mentioned above.

I would include divine warlocks and the favoured soul in the penalty as a divine casters. Doesn’t stop other sorcerers and warlocks.
 

Mort

Hero
Supporter
Natural Healing and improved casting in other classes means that the need for the cleric is much reduced.

This is true, but nothing beats a cleric, especially a life cleric, for party healing.

Unless your foolish/brave enough to allow the RAW (as per sage advice) interpretation of goodberry - then nothing beats a life cleric/ druid.
 

Mort

Hero
Supporter
For all the reasons mentioned above.

I would include divine warlocks and the favoured soul in the penalty as a divine casters. Doesn’t stop other sorcerers and warlocks.

What about bards? Just the spells that touch on healing magic?
 

TheSword

Legend
Supporter
What about bards? Just the spells that touch on healing magic?

Yes bards and rangers would have access to lesser restoration. However as discussed earlier rangers don’t this until 5th level and then it’s a very precious level 2 spell slot. Bards do get it but they have very few level 2 spells. It’s by no means a given that they would have it, as it is with Clerics or Druids, favoured souls etc.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
If no one is going to play the classes you find problematic, then you don't have an issue. Why even post?

As far as why change the monsters goes, these are custom undead to begin with. Nerfing specific classes is going to have all sorts of ripple effects.

Modifying the monster numbers or abilities is simply an easier solution that addresses you perceived issue. I still don't think it is an issue - any time you run a mod you're going to have to adjust encounters to provide appropriate challenge to the group.

I mean what's next? You find that wizards can kill too many bad guys so you ban them as well? The barbarian is tearing through your low-AC monsters so they can no longer rage? You've identified one niche as problematic, but there will just be another build that is now "best" at taking down your monsters.
 

Mistwell

Legend
Don't nerf classes. Just declare up front that certain spells or abilities work differently, rather than entire classes. Or you can even not change those spells and abilities, but instead tell the players you're applying resistance to some abilities, or getting rid of vulnerability to some damage types, or requiring a greater form of a spell to get rid of some negative status effects.
 

Istbor

Dances with Gnolls
I mean... I have yet to see a Cleric pick up remove disease unless they find they need to. And then, so what if they do? Now they are spending their slots on this instead of other, frankly more troubling spells.

If your party doesn't decide to take either of these classes that are a thematic fit, then cool. If they do, I think there are oodles of ways to enhance the encounters even if any clerics or paladins enter the fray and start using all of their resources on things that should make this more of a meat-grinder.
 

Quartz

Adventurer
You're particularly worried that Lesser Restoration is now a 2nd level spell whereas it was previously 3rd. So make it so the spell has to be upcast to 3rd level to cure the worms. Job done.
 

dave2008

Legend
It seems you are worried about the adventure being to easy for your group. One solution, have things inflict levels of exhaustion. There a much fewer ways to get rid of exhaustion and the effects can get fairly grim.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
Yes bards and rangers would have access to lesser restoration. However as discussed earlier rangers don’t this until 5th level and then it’s a very precious level 2 spell slot. Bards do get it but they have very few level 2 spells. It’s by no means a given that they would have it, as it is with Clerics or Druids, favoured souls etc.
I usually take lesser restoration when I play bards (which is one of my favorite classes). For this campaign, I would 100% take lesser restoration as a bard.
 

TheSword

Legend
Supporter
I’m surprised by the reluctance to tinker with 5e. I would have thought 6 years in people would have been more willing to set some limits for a thematic campaign. I mean when Dark Sun is finally released will people complain about not having Paladins? Or not being able to play elves in Theros. Setting limits on choices to shape a themed campaign is pretty standard stuff.
 

TheSword

Legend
Supporter
I also don’t see how going through class features piece be piece to balance things is easier than just saying “guys, avoid clerics and paladins this time round as it’s an apocalyptic campaign and I don’t want you to suffer.” It might be more balanced, or it might be fairer to players... but it definitely isn’t easier.

Incidentally this conversation could also have taken place about Curse of Strahd or Carrion Crown.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
I’m surprised by the reluctance to tinker with 5e. I would have thought 6 years in people would have been more willing to set some limits for a thematic campaign. I mean when Dark Sun is finally released will people complain about not having Paladins? Or not being able to play elves in Theros. Setting limits on choices to shape a themed campaign is pretty standard stuff.
It's not about being reluctant to tinker. Plenty of people have given plenty of suggestions to tinker with the rules.

What you're suggesting is less like banning paladins from Dark Sun and more like banning Wizards in a campaign set in Hogwarts.

Most of the reluctance that I've seen in this thread seems to stem not from a hesitancy to change things or set limits. Rather, my impression is that the proposed solution does not address the issue well.
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top