Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6602960" data-attributes="member: 6677017">Do note that in 5e ability score increases give you 2 points which you can give to a single ability or split into +1 to two different abilities. Since there are feats that give you a +1 ability score and other benefits, odd stats at character creation can actually be useful. Having a 13 and then taking a feat that gives you a +1 and a benefit is much better than taking a +2 to that stat. There are actually, in my experience, more interesting possibilities in how you split up your ability scores and increase them as you level than there were in 3e. (Not sure if that's a draw for you or not).Look at p. 142-143 in the DMG. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I looked over rogue and bard a bit. Here's how I would do a non-magical/low-magical bard.Create a roguish archetype--we'll call it "Troubadour." For their 3rd level ability they get proficiency in two musical instruments and the Bardic Inspiration class feature from bard. The dice scale at the levels given in the bard description. (That should keep it competitive with Assassination.)At 9th level they get Font of Inspiration.At 13th level I'd give them Use Magic Device (though you could give them two spells from the bard's Magical Secrets feature if you prefer).At 17th level I'd give them Magical Secrets (or two additional spells if you already gave it to them at 13th level).Magical Secrets would allow them to learn any two spells of spell level equal to or less than 1/4 their level, rounded up (so the same max as paladin or ranger), or cantrips.The balance is a bit more difficult to judge than with some other classes, since the other two rogue subclasses are quite different from each other in their abilities.That seems to be the consensus. I did some math and determined that hunter rangers can be pretty good at dealing damage to multiple targets if they are making good use of their subclass features and spells--but again, it just feels weak for some reason. They have a decent amount going for them in the non-combat department, and that means they can't be as good as a fighter or paladin (who are both almost entirely combat) in combat or they'd be overpowered. Still, they're just "off" some how, and almost everyone feels it.That's a harder question than it seems! A general feeling seems to place 5e's overall feel somewhere between 2e and 3e, and I believe that is accurate. One difference, however, is that it is highly variable depending on what options and variant rules you use.The Starter Set games I've been involved in that only used the Basic Rules (rather than the PHB) feel almost like classic BECMI D&D. While on the other hand, the Starter Set game that I ran with full PHB options felt like some odd mix of 2e, 3e, and 4e. The party was human monk, human wild mage sorcerer, drow transmuter, tiefling eldritch knight and dragonborn arcane trickster. While the overall play experience, monsters, treasure, and exploration was more AD&D 1e/2e, the characters just made it crazy. (When I started the campaign I told the players that this was the last game I'd be running where I allowed things like these 4e/5e tieflings and dragonborn (I allow Planescape tieflings in appropriate scenarios, but these crazy looking 4e/5e ones have no place in my multiverse) so if they wanted to play them now was the time.)The other game I ran was a one-shot 20th-level adventure with one of the character from the other game recurring. Being a 20th level assault on a kraken's lair, it would be difficult to assess.So my best guess is that if I simply chose which classes, subclasses, races and feats to allow (technically, according to the PHB feats, multiclassing, and races other than human, dwarf, elf, and half-elf are all explictly optional and only allowed if the DM tells you so--so your players really shouldn't expect to have access to them), define the setting elements the way I like them (which means using setting materials from 2e/3e), and select the optional modules from the DMG and the web articles that I prefer (like slower healing, old-school multiclassing, etc), it should have exactly the feel that I'm looking for.Perhaps one of the hidden pitfalls you  might want to look at is how certain subclasses alter feel. Just carefully examine each one and decide whether things like eldritch knight and way of the four elements monk are things that you want or not. Since 2e eventually ended up with all kinds of stuff, they might work for you, but if you are thinking more along the lines of 2e PHB, that might be over the top.I'm not sure when to expect gestalt multiclassing. Someone who has to give the final approval on certain articles has been tied up in jury duty, and will be for a few months apparently, which has slowed them down a bit. It also depends entirely on their choice of how to release that material. If it comes out in the article on "making 5e feel like another edition," then it will be sooner. If it comes out in its own article, who knows how long we'll have to wait. I need it by the end of this year, so I'll have to create a temporary do it myself version if we don't have it by then. I think there's a pretty reasonable chance we'll have it by then though.I haven't decided whether I'm going to limit combos or not. I'll have to see the official rules when they come out and then feel it out. Part of me is just conceptually bound to the idea that old-school multiclassing was about different types of classes. You can be a fighter/mage, or a thief/cleric, but you can't be a fighter/ranger or a wizard/sorcerer. I still like those sorts of distinctions even though we don't have the class groups anymore. Sometimes my knee-jerk reaction isn't actually warranted though, and once I actually give things a chance it isn't an issue. (Other times it is, so judgment is required.)I don't actually think implementing that would break anything. It might actually make the game better. If you do try it out, let us know how it works.Some people have already addressed it, but yes, the system keeps wizards and high level casters from getting out of hand with multiple checks and balances. There isn't really a linear fighter/quadratic wizard issue anymore. Classes don't increase in power along as steep of a curve as they did in 3e, but still get pretty cool stuff at high levels. And they've done an excellent job of bringing casters and non-casters to the same power level.As far as the number of spells a wizard has in his book, I would think long and hard before limiting that. Clerics and druids, and even paladins, still get the whole blasted class list, and they even have bonus spells that they always have prepared. So not only do they know more spells, but they have more of them available to them each day (not more slots, just more spells "prepared"). Anything that reduces the number of spells a wizard knows (ie, in his spellbook) risks making the wizard too weak.On the other hand, I think it's completely reasonable to categorize spells into "common" "uncommon" and "rare." (Or something similar.) You might say that any wizard can learn any common spells when he levels ups, but to learn uncommon spells, they have to be in your specialty. Rare spells aren't available to be learned at level up, but must be found or researched independently. I'm probably going to implement something like that myself, but I'll likely say that everything (or almost everything) in the PHB is "common" and most spells from any other source are "rare." (At character creation, I might allow character to pick some rare spells that they had somehow managed to learn, to make the character a bit different and unique.)I'm undecided on whether I want to add in a generalist class. My initial reaction was that I obviously had to have one. Mechanically I'm not too concerned, but there are lore issues here. Many of the known wizards in D&D lore are generalists. Some are specialists. It's a thing. If all wizards are specialists that means that all of those wizards have to be assigned a specialty (if they happen to play a part in a campaign). Evoker, Conjurer, and Transmuter are probably your best bets for a wizard that was a generalist in prior editions. The Basic Rules has Evoker as the most basic wizard subclass (like Life domain for the cleric).As I said, I'm undecided. Thematically I like generalists, but this may end up as one of those issues that goes away once I let it settle for a bit.Some of the spells that can be cast as a ritual have a longer base casting time anyway. There are also powerful non-ritual spells that have a long casting time. Rituals are usually lower-level utility spells. If you are doing powerful magic, it might just have a long casting time, and still cost you a spell slot.Spell preparation takes 1 minute per spell level, so it can add up if you a high level character. However, you don't have to prepare new spells each day if you don't want to. Your prepared spells stay in your memory until you replace them, and your spell slots refresh each day. It's different, but I actually have decided that I like it. It gets rid of the weirdness of "memorizing" multiple versions of the same spell from AD&D. 3e clarified it as actually doing most of the casting and then just hanging the spell ready to be activated, which was one way of fixing it. 5e both goes forward and gives us some flavor throwback. "Memorizing" has returned. When you prepare spells, you memorize those spells and can only hold a certain number in your mind. But the spell slots* refresh after a rest, so there is a distinction between memorization and raw magical power. Two different factors.*The playtest called them "castings", which I think is better than "slot," but that's not what they ended up going with. In-character, I refer to them as "expressions" because it has more flavor.It sounds like you're doing about the same thing I am with it: deciding which parts you are iffy on, and whether they are good enough, or whether they need changed and how. I've been liking the results. Very rarely have I run across anything that needed extensive changes, and when I started more carefully examining my house rules, I realized I can get the feel I like with a relative small number of targeted rules.</blockquote>

Verification