D&D 5E Heroes Feast---holy moly this is an uber spell

[jasper]

Ok it takes 70 minutes before it takes affect. So only good for a secure base.
20 hit points, 20 max hit points add. Shago a CR 5 gladiator does 30 avg damage if he hits you will all attacks. So you have two or three rounds of free hits.
Cost $1,000 gp bowl. Even if the dm lets just mark the 1,000 gp lost, that is 1/25 of your gold according to some here.
Immune to poison
Immune to frighten.
Wisdom advantage.
Does dispel magic affect it. If so casting Dispel at 30 a dc 16 ends it. So it is smart casting. But unless you going back to town for bowls, it may not help a lot.

 

[CapnZapp]

This is a fallacy. Look at say, pathfinder with a gazillion choices. Infinite builds right? Except that only a very small subset is optimal.

If you have 6 choices, and you add a seventh choice that is clearly better than 1-6, you have effectively reduced choices, not increased...

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

But nobody forces you to use 7) just like nobody forces me to use 2) or 5)!

In other words, we're not suggesting to add 7) to the core game or to your game.

We're talking about adding the OPTIONAL OPTION for those who like it. We deserve official support for 7) just like you've gotten it for 2) and 5)!


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ancalagon]

But nobody forces you to use 7) just like nobody forces me to use 2) or 5)!

In other words, we're not suggesting to add 7) to the core game or to your game.

We're talking about adding the OPTIONAL OPTION for those who like it. We deserve official support for 7) just like you've gotten it for 2) and 5)!


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

I really wish I remembered who it was that argued strongly here that feats weren't actually optional and that a GM was being draconian in not allowing feats (or multi-classing)...

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

I would stop risking my life, traipsing through dank caves and looking for monsters. For various reasons, some of which should be obvious at a meta-game level, this is not an option for the Player Characters.

Any game where the reward for success is to stop playing the game is poorly designed.

Well, yes. DM'd for my brother and his friend years ago. First adventure and they made a cool 'couple hundred of gold'.

Naturally they did the smart thing - invested it in sheep and farming equipment. Became shepherds. Practically retired.

A few sessions of, 'Sim Shepherd' - complete with wolf attacks and scheming goblins - and the 'campaign' was done!

...which goes to prove that adventures are either idiots, insane or a striking combination of the two!

 

[CapnZapp]

I really wish I remembered who it was that argued strongly here that feats weren't actually optional and that a GM was being draconian in not allowing feats (or multi-classing)...

I was the one arguing you should be forced into using feats and magic shoppes at your table.

No, wait, it was not me.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ancalagon]

I was the one arguing you should be forced into using feats and magic shoppes at your table.

No, wait, it was not me.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Ah, but *some people have* (feats and multi-classing). That's the point I'm trying to make. Optional systems have a way of morphing into being seeing as part of the game.

 

[Ancalagon]

Well, yes. DM'd for my brother and his friend years ago. First adventure and they made a cool 'couple hundred of gold'.

Naturally they did the smart thing - invested it in sheep and farming equipment. Became shepherds. Practically retired.

A few sessions of, 'Sim Shepherd' - complete with wolf attacks and scheming goblins - and the 'campaign' was done!

...which goes to prove that adventures are either idiots, insane or a striking combination of the two!

This is an excellent point. A while ago - teenagers, 2nd edition era - our GM was running a Ravenloft game and my character was a priest who had been sucked into Ravenloft. And he became very frustrated because my PC didn't behave like an adventurer. He didn't want to be there! There is some kind of treasure warded by a horde of undead? How about we don't go there it sounds dangerous. These evil vampires are up to something and must be stopped, let's go explore their lair! Erm no, how about we burn it down during daytime? etc etc.

I think part of that never fully left me... "rational" adventurers should have the "combat as war" ethos and apply it to adventuring in general (avoid all possible risks, fight only if victory is assured, fulfill the goal and get the hell out).

 

[CapnZapp]

Ah, but *some people have* (feats and multi-classing). That's the point I'm trying to make. Optional systems have a way of morphing into being seeing as part of the game.

No, unless I'm not wildly mistaken, you're trying to argue "as soon as you get the optional system you want, I'm forced into using the system against my will, and therefore it is better you don't get what you want".

Again, any new supplement WotC releases will never become part of core. It will never sneak into your copy of the DMG. So the only reason it becomes part of your game is if you want it to be.

If you were saying "I don't like it" or "I won't buy it", that would have been fine. But if you're arguing I shouldn't get the major support I need just to not cause you a minor inconvenience, then I kindly suggest you go forth and multiply!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

No, unless I'm not wildly mistaken, you're trying to argue "as soon as you get the optional system you want, I'm forced into using the system against my will, and therefore it is better you don't get what you want".

To be fair, that's exactly what happened with the feats and multiclassing rules. No matter how much they tried to claim that those rules are optional, every player in these forums seems to have assumed that they are automatically in-play and that any DM who doesn't allow those is being unreasonable.

I can't find it at the moment, due to the recent forums reorganization, but I recall seeing a thread about how some optional rules from Xanathar's have replaced existing rules in the DMG for official Adventurer's League stuff. So, while I agree that it would be incredibly helpful to have some sort of useful guidelines to pricing magical items, any fear of so-called optional rules becoming de-facto mandatory is not without basis in reality.

 

[CapnZapp]

To be fair, that's exactly what happened with the feats and multiclassing rules.

No, that's an absurdly unfair comparison. Those rules are already in the core rulebooks. This is just FUD by association - the situation will never be the same as for 3rd edition, since, and I repeat, magic item pricing will never magically appear in your copy of the 5th Ed DMG.

Again, all you're trying to do is add a veneer of respectability on top of the grossly selfish notion that the subsystems I don't happen to personally like should not be covered at all.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

No, that's an absurdly unfair comparison. Those rules are already in the core rulebooks. This is just FUD by association - the situation will never be the same as for 3rd edition, since, and I repeat, magic item pricing will never magically appear in your copy of the 5th Ed DMG.

Like I said, apparently it's happened before, with Xanathar's Guide officially replacing the DMG in some capacity. I didn't think it would happen, but it did.

Again, all you're trying to do is add a veneer of respectability on top of the grossly selfish notion that the subsystems I don't happen to personally like should not be covered at all.

I actually think it should exist. I just don't know how they could possibly do it in such a way that a majority of players wouldn't assume it as mandatory. At some point in the last twenty years, it looks like a lot of players were completely ruined on the concept of house rules or DM discretion.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think that there was a lot of glossing over the question of the DM in regards to spending wealth.

For example, "Buy a fort" sounds great... but where are you building it? Build it near a city or a town, and you're going to find a very annoyed lord asking who the hell is building a military fortification near his town. So now, adventure hook right? Convince the lord to let mercenaries build fortifications near his home... except being even the least bit realistic about it means taking weeks to negotiate contracts for defense and interviewing people you are hiring and all that.

And frankly, none of my players have ever been interested enough to even want to buy a house. They don't care about that stuff, because they care about the plot of the story which has them moving around rather constantly.

And, that "hire a mercenary army", why the heck would I want my players to do that? It's going to work one of two ways. Either it will be a footnote, "oh your army killed that orc encampment three days ago, there was feast, and morale is up" or they will bring them with them on the adventure. I've got enough on my plate running the enemies without having to also run the 50 soldiers following the group around, which if they participate in combat will slow things down horrendously. Plus, why the heck were their 50 unemployed soldiers wandering about the town? That's kind of a big number, equal to the watch maybe? That is a serious civil problem.


I may sound like I'm trying to find problems with these ideas, but from my perspective as a DM, if the players aren't interested in the political intrigue that comes with trying to outbid nobles for land and people, then I don't even want to get started with them simply buying their way to success. It simply is poor for the storytelling aspect of the game, if the story players want is to be fantasy heroes who go out and do things, instead of landed nobles who buy spies to run counter-intelligence on spies who are trying to disrupt your grain caravan.

They can both be fun, but my players don't want a bureaucracy so they really aren't going to find much use in getting "realistic" with spending their money.