Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest 7037866" data-source="post: 9393371">Gracias!So, in 5E terms "fewer features". This is something we've incorporated in nearly every homebrew for the last several years.Lower HD, maxed at 9th IIRC. Easy enough for 5E.The round was structured. Resolve this, then this, then that, and so on. Initiative wasn't a thing, even remotely like 5E, until 2E I would think.Very much so!I know in the OP you mentioned still having the WSG and DSG from AD&D... I never found any of what you're saying to be true IME... 2E organized it a bit better, and certainly you wouldn't have everything at lower levels, but by name level you pretty much had things covered IMO.As for Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Fafhrd would have to be dual-classes to get some thief skills, but otherwise being athletic and horsemen, etc. could all be covered under NWP.I think this bears more discussion to find out why our experiences differed so much on this point. Perhaps I'm just remembering things through rose-coloured glasses LOL!Most of which has carried over into 5E, though, right?So the concept that channeling magic was draining/taxing to the caster didn't work? I've never found that too elaborate and a lot of the literature supports the idea that casting spells is fatiguing. Does that mean spell points or any other similar mechanic equally doesn't fit for you?As for spells being OP, I've found different editions had different spells being OP. One spell gets "fixed" and another buffed beyond needs...This is one I go back and forth on. For simplicity's sake, I like just thinking "magic is magic is magic" and the arcane/divine/primal is the fluff; but it is so rooted into the game for many people that NOT having the divide does make the magic feel "samey". In that sense, having a hard divide would be better IMO than having a blurry one.My preference in such cases is "do something else!" Why does a wizard (or any caster) have to use magic all the time or attack with a weapon? 5E offers a few other options. While I can envision clerics fighting in melee, druids and warlocks too, perhaps, and of course bards... but sorcerers not as much and certainly not wizards (barring subclasses like bladesingers....).But at-will magical pew pew pew attacks is something myself and most of the people I play with abhore! Having magic so "commonplace" for a PC, even such a weak version as a magical attack, makes magic feel less magical for our groups.I agree it isn't necessarily a matter of overpowered in such a case. I think most cantrips being at-will and allowing PCs to know them all works fine. For over a year we played where casters knew every cantrip in their spell list that did not deal damage, and it worked really well. Lots of non-damage stuff to do that could help out even in combat.We have an Arcane Trickster in our current game who makes wonderful use of minor illusion!LOL fair enough!I'll have to research those things as I'm not familiar with them.I think the rules in 5E are simple enough, but nearly entirely ineffective! I'd be curious to see what your efforts are on these if you feel like sharing at some point.I see some appeal to Shadowdark, but in some ways it goes overboard and simplifies things too much for me. Many things lack the concrete rules I like, with options covering most things. 5E's design of "rulings over rules" hinders the game for me as well.Rules were always optional, in every edition, so having solid rules which can be altered or ignored is more beneficial to players than not having them at all and just leave everything up to the DM/players to decide "how they want to do it".5E also misses the mark on simple combat options which were used IRL, such as attacking with a shield.Thank you for the response.</blockquote>

Verification