D&D 5E A truly horrifying Age of Worms

[Oofta]

If you have old school gamers, the minute undead start throwing out worms one of two things is going to happen. Either they're going to go "EWW! WORMS! GET THEM OUT GET THEM OUT GET THEM OUT!" or they're going to go "Kyuss? Crap. Okay somebody grab the torch."

Either way they're going to figure out how to deal with the worms or the PCs are going to die. Nerf divine magic hard enough and the players will just have a backup character ready to go because unless I'm missing something getting infected will be a death sentence. I wouldn't enjoy that kind of campaign myself.

It's far easier to just burn through party resources as I said way, way up thread. Until higher levels the ability to cure disease is quite limited. They can handle 1 or 2 infections per day? Great. Throw 5 or 10. Reinfect people. Make it more difficult to cure someone the second time they get infected. There have been a ton of other suggestions. I've thrown undead heavy campaign arcs at my players several times in 5E. It's pretty easy to counter turn undead, you just have to throw a few more and have them come in waves. In my current game we have a 7th level cleric, he can channel divinity twice per short rest.

But again the whole premise of "I want to nerf clerics and paladins to the point where there's no reason to play them is okay because no one plays those classes anyway" is just odd. If no one plays them you don't have a problem. If half the party plays them then you just need to tweak the encounters in a slightly different way than you were going to have to modify them anyway.

 

[Mort]

Do you always have to get what you want all the time? Is unlimited choice really good for creativity?

Incidentally, negatively affecting divine spell casting on a increasing scale as the campaign progresses is not limited to 2e. It was released at the end of 3.5 in the Elder Evils book, which features... wait for it... the Age of Worms.

If a DM has an invisible creature but you don’t have the see invisibility, faerie fire or true seeing spell is your DM screwing you over or are they just presenting a challenge requiring an alternative way of fixing it?

From the Madness of King George...

“Who can flourish on such a daily diet of compliance? To be curbed... stood up to...
in a word, thwarted exercises the character, elasticates thethe spirit, makes it more pliant.”

You've acknowledged that this adventure path is an undead heavy meat grinder. You've also acknowledged that without access to mitigate the amounts of save or screwed effects of the ever increasing undead, the party is mulch (one side effect of 5e is PCs will be hit more as ACs are lower than in 3e, especially at higher levels).

The designers of the adventure assumed easy access to divine magic to deal with the above. Since you are limiting/removing this tool - what are you going to do to ensure the PCs still have a fair shot at the adventure?

 

[Xenonnonex]

Use the goddamn meat grinder rules. Make Kyuss worms aberrations. Keep them at their CR. You are goddamn set.

 

[Mistwell]

This is the first time I’ve ever seen not doing something described as a burden...

I know it’s going to be tough, but can you guys try not to do the dinner dishes. It will be a challenge I know but please try and suffer the load.

That's disingenuous and weirdly defensive.

Choosing to play the class you want to play is not the equivelent of doing the dishes. Doing the dishes is something you don't want to do but you have to do. Choosing the class you want to play is something you do for fun. That was a terrible analogy.

You’re also totally projecting your view on what my players think. Which I don’t believe is even close to the mark.

You seriously don't believe your players want the freedom to choose whatever class they desire? I don't think I am projecting anything. Reducing choices is not something people enjoy, particularly in their entertainment activity where you're ruling out base classes.

Having restrictions increases inventiveness, creativity and tension. Necessity is the mother of invention.

So you just arbitrarily reduce the number of classes every game you play, because that increases opportunity for your players, and it's what they want?

I think you know how silly this sounds, right? If it were a "benefit" to eliminate core classes, you'd always do that. Your players want the choices in the PHB. I think you know this. They can deal with you reducing those choices, but it's not something they're actively asking for, right? If it were, you'd have never posted this thread. You obviously are not certain yourself this is the direction you should go. So why are you being so aggressive in defending the choice you put out there for other people's opinions?

I am aware I could make creatures immune/resistant to some player’s powers or make players spells and abilities ineffective to defend against some of the creatures. However I think this causes more harm than just saying don’t play those characters.

So just do that. Why did you come here and post about your opinion if you didn't want anyone else's opinion on it? If you've already decided to go that route, then go that route! Nobody here is going to break into your house and force you to make a different decision. But you seemed to want to solicit other opinions on your opinion? It sure didn't look like "Here is my plan and I double dog dare anyone to disagree with it!"

It is better to know and make informed decisions rather than find out that lesser restoration doesn’t work, oh and neither does turn undead, oh and by the way if you don’t use your spell slots for healing you’re party will die and it will be your fault. I’d rather remove them from the equation and free them up to play something they can enjoy more - and take account of this in the campaign. For instance there is already an item that can cast heal once a day in the campaign.

You can tell them at session zero that some things will be immune or resistant to divine abilities and spells than usual and healing will be needed if they go that route. And let your players make the choice with the information in hand. And as for your players finding it less fun to have to use healing for the party and finding their abilities are more restricted, someone once said, "Having restrictions increases inventiveness, creativity and tension. Necessity is the mother of invention."

You posted this thread asking for feedback on your idea. We're over 80 replies in and almost all the feedback you've gotten is "we think there is probably a better way to accomplish what you're accomplishing than your current proposal". If that's not meaningful to you...then I have to wonder why you posted this thread? Were you just looking for affirmation of your decision, or did you really want some feedback from the community?

 

[TheSword]

That's disingenuous and weirdly defensive.

Choosing to play the class you want to play is not the equivelent of doing the dishes. Doing the dishes is something you don't want to do but you have to do. Choosing the class you want to play is something you do for fun. That was a terrible analogy.



You seriously don't believe your players want the freedom to choose whatever class they desire? I don't think I am projecting anything. Reducing choices is not something people enjoy, particularly in their entertainment activity where you're ruling out base classes.



So you just arbitrarily reduce the number of classes every game you play, because that increases opportunity for your players, and it's what they want?

I think you know how silly this sounds, right? If it were a "benefit" to eliminate core classes, you'd always do that. Your players want the choices in the PHB. I think you know this. They can deal with you reducing those choices, but it's not something they're actively asking for, right? If it were, you'd have never posted this thread. You obviously are not certain yourself this is the direction you should go. So why are you being so aggressive in defending the choice you put out there for other people's opinions?



So just do that. Why did you come here and post about your opinion if you didn't want anyone else's opinion on it? If you've already decided to go that route, then go that route! Nobody here is going to break into your house and force you to make a different decision. But you seemed to want to solicit other opinions on your opinion? It sure didn't look like "Here is my plan and I double dog dare anyone to disagree with it!"



You can tell them at session zero that some things will be immune or resistant to divine abilities and spells than usual and healing will be needed if they go that route. And let your players make the choice with the information in hand. And as for your players finding it less fun to have to use healing for the party and finding their abilities are more restricted, someone once said, "Having restrictions increases inventiveness, creativity and tension. Necessity is the mother of invention."

You posted this thread asking for feedback on your idea. We're over 80 replies in and almost all the feedback you've gotten is "we think there is probably a better way to accomplish what you're accomplishing than your current proposal". If that's not meaningful to you...then I have to wonder why you posted this thread? Were you just looking for affirmation of your decision, or did you really want some feedback from the community?

I think it’s probably best not to get belligerent if someone doesn’t agree 100% with your advice.

I reduce players choices when it will make a campaign better. We have been playing together for 20+ years and have a lot of trust.

 

[TheSword]

Thanks for all the advice. As is usually the case a little bit of everything is the way to go I think. I’ll keep clerics and druids the same in the game but have a backdrop where spells are losing their efficacy. An artifact from the first adventure will allow a PC divine caster to avoid this affect. It’s unlikely there will be more than one if any.

I intend to remove Paladins as a choice entirely, too powerful and too well tooled to defeat the foes over and above other classes.

I’m going to require that lesser restoration be upcast to level 3 to cure the worm infestation.

That and liberal turn resistance for the Kyus worms.

I liked the idea of the worm changing things to an aberration like the Strain but I think I’m going to stick with the base spawn of Kyuss as undead and rely on turn resistance. Some of the more powerful worm creatures will be aberrations though though that represent living things mutated by the worms a la The Strain.

For the record, challenging an idea is not the same as not agreeing with it. Not agreeing with a point of view is not the same as not listening to it. The point of the thread was to get people’s opinions and to explore the idea. Thanks to those of you who posted constructively.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Thanks for all the advice. As is usually the case a little bit of everything is the way to go I think. I’ll keep clerics and druids the same in the game but have a backdrop where spells are losing their efficacy. An artifact from the first adventure will allow a PC divine caster to avoid this affect. It’s unlikely there will be more than one if any.

I intend to remove Paladins as a choice entirely, too powerful and too well tooled to defeat the foes over and above other classes.

Again. Have you talked to your players. Or are you just dropping this on them.

Thanks to those of you who posted constructively.

Everyone has posted constructively. Everyone.
You are ignoring opinions. Because you want people to blindly agree with you. And tell you what a great idea you have. EnWorld is too honest. And too creative. And too constructive to do that.

 

[Mort]

I intend to remove Paladins as a choice entirely, too powerful and too well tooled to defeat the foes over and above other classes.

This makes me sad. 5e does really right by paladins, lots of great options and no longer constrained to LG goody two-shoes knight in shining armor shtick. A player would have a blast playing a paladin for this campaign and be a true asset to the rest of the party - which is really the whole point.

But it's your campaign, you certainly have every right to remove them.

 

[TheSword]

Again. Have you talked to your players. Or are you just dropping this on them.


Everyone has posted constructively. Everyone.
You are ignoring opinions. Because you want people to blindly agree with you. And tell you what a great idea you have. EnWorld is too honest. And too creative. And too constructive to do that.

I always discuss things first with players... always. And as I said the reason I am confident that it will be fine with them... is that we have done it before.

I’m sorry but not reading the original post and then trying to ignore the premise of the question is not constructive. Neither is bringing ideology about how the game should be played (player choice rules) when I specifically said that wasn’t an issue. Not helpful.

Due to constructive suggestions I changed my mind about a number of issues... namely allowing full clerics, making sure they weren’t penalized, allowing for higher level spells to succeed and converting some of the undead to aberrations. I just didn’t agree with you and a couple of others.

 

[Flamestrike]

I personally go the entire other way to the OP.

If Im running a military themed campaign. I expect and would encourage soldiers and warriors. A larceny themed campaign, thieves. A wilderness campaign, druids and rangers.

If I was running an undead heavy campaign, I would not only disclose that fact to the players, but actively encourage undead fighting classes.