Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gadget" data-source="post: 6593687" data-attributes="member: 23716">Amen.  So far, sounds like 5th edition is right up your alley.  If you have the Basic pdfs, you should have a pretty good idea of what the game is like.  It is not a sample, really, but a fully playable, 20 level game.  It is limited in some of the options like only the core four classes with one subclass built in, feats, some spells and Monsters, but it is a fully playable game.5E seems much more suited to your world than 3e.  Once again, you could make valid 5e characters from the basic pdf you have, the figher you have is the champion subclass (there are two more, the Battle master, which is a little more complex but not 'magical', and the Eldritch Knight, which is a magical subclass that gets spell casting abilities to make a sort of 'gish' class without the need to multiclass); the Rogue you have is the thief subclass (there is a non-magical assassin subclass and a magical magical Arcane Trickster which, once again, is to help alleviate or enhance the Rogue/wizard multi class option).  The Cleric and the Wizard are somewhat self-explanatory.  The only place that 5e has 'upped' the magic factor is with the number of classes and sub-classes that have access to magic, if desired.  So in addition to the classic Cleric, Wizard, & Druid, you have the Sorcerer, Warlock (very different casting mechanic), and Bard (a full caster in this addition) that largely depend on spells and spell casting.  In addition Paladins are 'half-casters' with the ability to convert their spells into smites when they hit, and Rangers are half-casters (with a non-casting version available on WOTC web site).  Monks have the traditional kung-fu Ki abilities to shadow magic ninjas, to elemental benders type of vibe depending on what subclass you want.  Barbarians are largely magic free, depending on how you interpret one of the sub class's totem abilities, and Fighters and Rogues each have a subclass to help with adding a magical dabbler varient to the class.    So the only area you would have to adjust more than 3e is that you might have to ban more subclasses (but that concept did not exist in 3e, so it is not an apples to oranges comparison, it would be more akin to banning multi classing combos in 3e).  And there are more caster focused 'base' classes out of the box that you may have to restrict (i.e. Warlock in addition to the Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, Bard, Druid of 3e).     In my experience, it is more common that your opponent will have Advantage against you than you having Disadvantage, ymmv.  Without a specific example, it is hard to answer this concern though.  If you are ever in a situation when you have to get a crit (for whatever reason), and you are attacking at Disadvantage, then yes this would be mathematically less likely.  But I don't see that happening very much at all.  First, 5e is much more Rulings not Rules, so the DM is more free to adjudicate when Advantage/Disadvantage applies, but they are not supposed to be given out like candy, and players can try to maneuver to get an Advantage to cancel out a disadvantage.  Secondly, with the concept of Bounded Accuracy in 5e, you are much less likely to need to roll a twenty in the first place.   Even making a 15 with Disadvantage is quite an 'Oh Yeah!' moment.</blockquote>

Verification