Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blackbird71" data-source="post: 6606471" data-attributes="member: 6794081">I'm not as familiar with 1E.  In 2E, only specialist mages automatically gained a new spell each level, and it had to be from their specialist school.  It was also stated that the spell may either be left up to player choice or be chosen by the DM.  As a DM, I personally would probably not pick out each spell for my players, but I may choose to veto certain spells if they have the potential to break a campaign.  Of course, there's really nothing to keep me from using similar restrictions with any edition.That's a very direct and unilateral statement - could you at least provide some reasoning as to why you don't think I should go with 5th?  Because at this point, I've been heavily leaning towards it.  Whatever rules I use, there is going to be a need for some level of modification.  But if you have some legitimate reasons as to why you think 5th just won't work, I'd love to hear them.Good resources, thanks!  I also appreciate the insights on conversions.So noted.  Although, I'm not certain that "better than 3E" in this regard is quite the criteria I'm aiming for.  We'll see; my starter set is supposed to arrive today, so I'm hoping to play around with some of it this weekend. Ooooooo... I like!  That can definitely be useful, as a source of ideas if nothing else.It's definitely got some potential.  One issue (and this is an issue with the Bard as well) is that I'm really not crazy about the Magical Secrets ability.  It seems to have a lot of possibility for game-breaking abuse.  In some other discussions which I had read the point was made that this can give the Bard access to Paladin/Ranger powers which otherwise would not be in the game until a much higher level, which may certainly be a concern.  I'm also still not a fan of casters of any sort just pulling new spells from anywhere without restriction.  I think that if I were to allow a Magical Secrets ability within my campaign, I would have to restrict the player to spells which they had been exposed to - either something that a party member of another class could teach them, or pulling spells from a defeated enemy's spell book, etc.  Maybe even something which they had seen being cast, provided they were in a position to observe the details of the casting. Part of me almost hopes for a 5.5E or something similar in a couple of years to try to correct this.  Hopefully it won't take something that drastic, but I've rarely seen supplements which completely rewrite a base class instead of just tacking on to it. I'll definitely be limiting races and classes.  Human, Elf, Half-Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling, period.  Well, I may allow Gnomes, but I'm still trying to figure out how or if Gnomes fit into this world I'm building.  As for classes, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Monks are all up on the list of "might not make it into the campaign."  I'm still working on subclasses.In the meantime, here are a couple of suggestions I had found on multiclassing; maybe you can make them work for you:<a href="http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2014/11/on-multiclassing-in-5th-edition.html" target="_blank">http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2014/11/on-multiclassing-in-5th-edition.html</a> <a href="http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4109036" target="_blank">http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4109036</a>Personally I'll probably pull a few elements from each of these and come up with my own solution.  So far as including a "dual class" of option, I was thinking of just allowing the standard 5E multiclassing, but with the stipulation that once the character has taken a second class, if they take any new levels in their original class or add levels from a third (or more) class(es), then they take a penalty to XP.  I was considering scaling this penalty based on the total number of classes the character has taken.  I've considered some other possible restrictions, but it's still a work in progress.I'm definitely thinking along the same lines, separating martial, rogue, arcane, and priest classes and not allowing multiclassing within one group.  In my experience, multiclassing within one major class type is usually only done to grab a few powers of that class (a fighter dipping into barbarian for rage, or paladin for the saves, etc.), and is usually the result of min-maxing.  There will probably also be classes which I don't allow as options to take levels in at a later time for standard 5E multiclassing/dual classing.  Barbarian is the first class which comes to mind; thematically, one is a barbarian because of their culture and upbringing.  Barring some extreme circumstances, one does not grow up and train in a civilized society and then at a later time learn to become a barbarian.  I'm sure there could be exceptions to this, but there would have to be some story-appropriate justifications for such a radical shift in one's fundamental makeup.We'll see; I imagine it will be some time before my group gets far enough to test this out.   That is something else I am noticing.  I am used to cleric spells being at least partially restricted by only having access to certain spheres.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand what I've been reading in the 5E PHB that does not seem to be the case.  As best as I can tell, spheres/domains don't seem to exist at all in 5E.  This feels like a significant oversight to me which I would probably have to address.  As I mentioned before, there will be a variety of clerics in my campaign, and part of this involves different orders having access to different sorts of spells.Part of my interest in having generalists comes from wanting to in some way implement the old restriction that specialists do not multiclass, as their specialization takes too much focus.   I think that I am at the point where in order to make a solid decision, I'm going to have to start making a chart of all the features I like and dislike about 5th, and then determine which of the ones I dislike can be easily fixed or ignored, which I can live with, and which will take significant effort to make work.  I think that only then will I be able to accurately evaluate whether 5E will be a good fit.  At the very least though, I've found a lot of features about 5E that I like well enough that even if I don't use 5E as the core rules, I'll definitely be cobbling some of these mechanics into whatever system I do end up using.Something else which I've noticed about 5E:  it seems that even at low levels, characters have the potential to do significant damage with regular attacks - I've seen some examples using multiple damage dice and some hefty damage bonus numbers (in many cases, the raw bonus value has been larger than a single damage die max roll).  On the opposite side of this, hit points don't seem to be scaled to match.  Basically I'm seeing something on the level of 4E damage, but 1E/2E/3E hit points, and I'm curious as to what that does to combat.  Just looking at the numbers, it seems that the players would plow through any enemies where they had the chance to strike first, but could themselves potentially be knocked out of the fight in a single hit (assuming their opponents have similar attacks).  It seems like this system would make for some very short and bloody fights (not necessarily a bad thing, I thought 4E combat was way too drawn out for my tastes), but I'd be interested to know how it works out in practice?  One caveat here is that I haven't spent much time so far looking into monster stats, and so those encounters may play out differently.  Monsters just haven't been a priority for me yet, as in the early levels of my campaign the players will mostly be dealing with other humans and demihumans.</blockquote>

Verification