D&D General Chris just said why I hate wizard/fighter dynamic

[doctorbadwolf]

4e Essentials Executioner had something like that, no? Their "dailies" were the different poisons it could make.

Yeah, they worked pretty well. The math wasn’t always on target, but in a tighter math system they’d be excellent.

Sure. But some in the community get wired when you get a nonspell material resource that aren't purchased or gathered. It's why 5e HIPS is terrible.

I’ve no idea what HIPS is.

 

[Faolyn]

I'm having a hard time picturing a "low magic world" that has spellcasters, monks with magic fists, all kinds of ways to buff things by magical classes, and creatures hit only by magic... but without many +1 items.

Easy: magic weapons aren't defined by their pluses but by other magical abilities. A sword that glows in the dark, that detects the presence of certain objects or creatures, that bursts into flames or drips with poison--they're all magical. A magic sword doesn't have to have a +1 to be treated as magical, and a magical weapon without a plus can still do full damage to a creature that has resistance or immunity to nonmagical weapons.

So if you only place items that have other effects, then you don't need to give them a bonus to attack and damage rolls as well.

 

[Faolyn]

One thing I wish the Ranger had been given as part of favored enemy is the ability to make “bane poisons” that bypass and reduce the immunities and resistances of the favored enemy type their made for, or shut down regeneration, or make it hard to teleport, etc.

And you’d be providing a tactical benefit for the whole team, not just yourself, so the fighter can kill Orcus without a magic sword because the Ranger made an elixir that makes a weapon “magical” for a while.

I don't know if it would be a ranger-only thing, since I can see druids and artificers/alchemists/herbalists doing it as well. But yeah, exactly this.

Using the info from Van Richten's Guide to Werebeasts as a guide, I have this:

First, the DM should determine if lycanthropes have a mild or severe allergy to wolfsbane in their world. If it's mild, the save DC should be 13 or so. If it's severe, it should be 15 or even 17. If the wolfsbane poison is ingested, it does 3d6 poison damage; if it's inhaled, it does 1d6 damage, and if it's an injury poison, it does 2d6 damage. Change to a d8 or d10 if its a severe allergy, or if the DM wants the bane to be particularly nasty.

 

[Faolyn]

Item based classes are often requested. D&D designers in every edition avoided making them or quit after 1-3 attempts.

5e went the "Nonmagical items are low level" and "Everything is a spell or magic item" routes.

Isn't the artificer an item-based class?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Isn't the artificer an item-based class?

Only if you use it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't know if it would be a ranger-only thing, since I can see druids and artificers/alchemists/herbalists doing it as well. But yeah, exactly this.

Using the info from Van Richten's Guide to Werebeasts as a guide, I have this:

First, the DM should determine if lycanthropes have a mild or severe allergy to wolfsbane in their world. If it's mild, the save DC should be 13 or so. If it's severe, it should be 15 or even 17. If the wolfsbane poison is ingested, it does 3d6 poison damage; if it's inhaled, it does 1d6 damage, and if it's an injury poison, it does 2d6 damage. Change to a d8 or d10 if its a severe allergy, or if the DM wants the bane to be particularly nasty.

I’d make it particular to Rangers. IMO, it’s very bad design to always give anything the Ranger gets to the Druid as well.

 

[Faolyn]

I’d make it particular to Rangers. IMO, it’s very bad design to always give anything the Ranger gets to the Druid as well.

Sure. Although I can see why that happens, since rangers are very much a druid/fighter mixture, at least in theme.

 

[Minigiant]

Isn't the artificer an item-based class?

Yes. But it's items are magical so people can't complain about ammunition and recharges

If 6e has artificers and warlocks as core, I won't stop the campaign to make rangers use infusions and invocations over spells. I'll lead it!

 

[Jaeger]

These two go together:

Play 4th Edition then. It did a lot to level the playing field.

It's odd when the they made a game that answered a lot of the complaints people made about, disparity between classes, action economy, draw out fights, etc. etc. People decided it wasn't what they wanted after all.

The edition was rushed out the door before it was really done, we'll never know what could have been had they been given more time. I think it had good ideas. I can appreciate what they tried to do even if the outcome wasn't for me.

Many people decided that they did not like the particular way 4e addressed the issue of LFQW.

Evidently 4e's designers wanted to do things a bit differently, but such is the way that cookie crumbled.

Yes, there is a lot of untrue anti-4e nonsense out there.

But 4e fans need to realize that there are also a whole lot of D&D players that legitimately just don't like the overall design direction of how 4e did things.

It is what it is.


These two go together as well:

TLDR: WotC said the quite part out loud, caster rule and noncasters drool
...
High level spellcasters have TOO MANY ups over high level martial characters. Heck middle level (7-10) full casters have more game changing abilities then most epic level martial characters. and WotC just admitted it.

Which is why a lot can be done to correct the imbalance. The real issue is the direction you want to go:

You either decrease the power of casters to bring them down to the martial level, or elevate the martials to bring them up to the casters. Or, try to find a happy medium between the two extremes...

Personally, I am for bringing casters down, many others want to elevate martials.

Since 3e WotC has gradually gotten rid of many of the checks that there used to be on casters power without really addressing the spell lists to compensate.

Fewer spells at early levels. Fewer spells known overall.
Learning spells was a roll. Spells found was GM/campaign fiat. Same with what spells were available to learn and when.
TSR D&D had segment casting times, interruption during combat was more of a thing.
And spell components were actually supposed to be a thing...

All of that is gone.

Yes Charm and sleep have kinda been nerfed... But that has more to do with players complaining abut those spells being used on them! Not with addressing LFQW.

For all of its influences on popular media the one thing from D&D that has never made the translation was hardcore vancian magic. Players want to be spell slingers, not "one trick ponies".

Over the past few editions WotC has catered to those desires. And it has created a situation where they will have a hard time addressing the real root of the problem: The Spell List.

To really address LFQW - the Spell List needs to be gone over with a fine toothed comb and be redesigned from the ground up. Specifically taking into account that the checks previously imposed on magic users are not there anymore.

This will not happen. Ever.

Never ever?

Never ever.

Why? Because "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMMMMMYYYYWWWIIZZAARRRDDDDHHAASSBBEENN NERFED!!!" "DEATH TO WOTC!!"

WotC just doesn't want to hear it. The overwhelming majority of games never go past 10th level, and most other groups seem to just more or less make it work.

It's seen as not worth the headache that they'd get from that part of the fanbase to fix what should have been addressed with 3e. Especially considering that in my opinion; some of the D&D devs are part of the fanbase that like magic users just how they are, thank you very much...

 

[Azzy]

These two go together:



Many people decided that they did not like the particular way 4e addressed the issue of LFQW.

Evidently 4e's designers wanted to do things a bit differently, but such is the way that cookie crumbled.

Yes, there is a lot of untrue anti-4e nonsense out there.

But 4e fans need to realize that there are also a whole lot of D&D players that legitimately just don't like the overall design direction of how 4e did things.

It is what it is.

I would also like to caution trying agaist assuming that everything that that 4e did was unpopular with D&D players. Like I've said before, for instance, I was not a fan of 4e in the slightest (for multiple reasons), but I cheer on what 4e did with fighters. I suspect that I'm not the only one who hard passed on 4e that has a more nuanced view of 4e.