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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pallidore" data-source="post: 6352277" data-attributes="member: 6777732">The OP respondsYes, it’s me, the “OP.”  People have brought up points that should be addressed by me.  Here goes:Save or die spells are fine for those who are plenty okay with losing a lovingly detailed and carefully developed character like that.  But if they’re not, then there’s a problem.  Yes, I agree, only having damage, rather than save or gak, CAN be boring.  But getting killed might become boring too, especially with there being no chance of failure on Revivify.   It seems to me that the game would have been better served by having the save or die spells become very rare, impose some penalty, etc.  Or at least just be made an option for a DM/playing group with a higher tolerance for character mortality.DnD does not have to be a simulation.  It’s obvious that it would fail at that.  What it should be, not primarily for me or for experienced players, but for newbies, is PLAUSIBLE.  Many new players will come to the game with a set of expectations of the plausible necessary for them to continue their suspension of disbelief. The game should not turn away the intelligent new players of it with too many, as I said, “wait, why would there be…” or “wait, if that’s so, why WOULDN’T there be…” type questioning statements.I do not believe I have criticized 5E magic in a dismissive way.  I don’t want to head out the DnD door.  I criticize it because I want it to be better and think it can be better.  I care enough to because I’m a supporter of DnD and believe its potential could be even better reached than it has.  The long treatise on Part 3, like my review of Parts 1 and 2 before it, came from an affection for the game.Yes, my review in Part 3 could have used a bit more refining, editing, and polishing.  After reviewing Parts 1 and 2, reviewing Part 3 ran me out of available time to do so, partially because my job’s been tasking me, but also because with the imminent release of the PHB, the timeliness would have been lost by further delay.You folks are right that some things slipped through my self-editing.  There is, AS YET, no predefined wealth per level.  It seems difficult, though, to postulate how higher level characters could not have greater assumed wealth, at least for outfitting (for those starting at higher level).But I was even more talking about the non-PC wealth available in settled areas, and that wealth’s ability to buy magic (for security, for power, for convenience, etc.).  Still, I was actually expecting more disputing of the other points.  Wealth was a pretty minor one. <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 did not think that settings would suffer from both caster rarity and caster commonplace at the same time.  I did, however, not dedicate enough word space to the difficulties of caster rarity, devoting only a few sentences, and so acknowledge that I may have contributed to confusion.Healing in 5E does not seem that scarce to me, nor that its use during the day is a poor use of resources.   Please expound more on that, if you would.With wands being now self-charging, what premise would there be that cure wounds wands would not exist?  The game has to this point not given strong contraindication.  In fact, with potions of healing being so ubiquitous that they are on the adventuring gear list, with a set cost just like arrows, torches, and waterskins, it’s not much of a stretch to extrapolate to other healing magic forms.I am well aware that 5E is more than a mere rehash of 3E.  Even though I think in the realm of Magic (the Part 3), it has retained the most similarities, I acknowledge and give credit for what modifications have taken place: alterations of some spells, some new rules (like Concentration) to reduce or minimize broken combos, largely standardization of durations and ranges, and streamlining of other rules.  And also that the expectation of magic items among NPCs is not there, and magic, while desired, is not NECESSARY for character power (appearing to go past even 4E’s reduced position).  It’s just that the changes, from this first look vantage point, appear to be insufficient, especially as the insufficiency contrasts with the stated objective of immersion/social interaction/background, etc. as well as contrasts with the partial de-emphasis on combat and tactics.  However, I did say that months from now, I could change my mind after extensive actual play.I would ask, however, for help to understand your contrasting experiences vis a vis DnD Magic, and how you believe that 5E will differ or not differ with that.   Or, if that’s more investment than you want to make, maybe you could point out some specific contrasting or contradicting pieces from what I wrote.   Of course, if you want to tell me that in today’s time-starved, hard to focus, and entertainment-saturated world, that campaigns, if they even get off the ground, get neither the deep looks nor the continued investitures by players/DMs that they once might have, I would like to get confirmations on that as well.The spells that are problematic are that way not just because of their immediate or localized effects, but because of their campaign-setting affecting ways AND because they are so repeatable, predictable, and with nominal cost to the character(s).  I do like D&D magic, but recognize that because it IS so repeatable and predictable, some parts of it can de-stabilize heroic-fantasy expectation, suspension of disbelief, and willingness by the participants to go on with the game.Looking away from, or having no responses for, those problem areas, does not, IMO, well-serve the D&D game that we are fond of.</blockquote>

Verification