D&D 5E L&L for November 18

[Blackbrrd]

I think it is reasonable for spells to trump feats for two reasons:

• If you don't have the right spell tee'd up for your situation, then you can't use it - feats are always available
• Spells are limited in terms of the number of times you can use them, and the duration for each use - feats typically are not.

So spells burn brighter but shorter than feats; that seems reasonable to me.

The problem is not that spells can be better than feats; the problem is that games have evolved to the point where you only have a small number of encounters so the limits on spells no longer bite.

Don't get me wrong - I like games which are more varied than just dungeon delves, and in more social or urban environments you might only have one or two encounters before the party 'rest'. 13th Age has an interesting fix for this - players 'rest' when the GM says they can, not simply at the end of the day. So the GM can control the pacing and make sure those limits keep balance in place.

Some good points. I am not familiar with 13th Age though, so I wonder how can the DM dictate when the characters take a rest? I have done something similar, but it felt reeeeally gamist.

 

[dbm]

I am not familiar with 13th Age though, so I wonder how can the DM dictate when the characters take a rest? I have done something similar, but it felt reeeeally gamist.

It is unapologetically gamist in 13th Age, though they suggest the GM puts narrative fluff around a 'full rest' happening. They do acknowledge that it might be a step too far for some groups and say that, if you are happy with daily rest then manage them the same way in 13th Age.

If you think back to earlier editions of D&D, it took hours to re-learn all your spells. To the point where it would take days at a high level. Use this as a house rule and suddenly spell casters can only rest when in really safe environments, generally between 'adventures'.

For a half-way house, maybe allow a spell caster to refresh their existing spell selection more quickly, but keep the longer time for changing their selection? So you can 'load for combat' at the start of an adventure and keep that configuration quite easily, but switching to an 'infiltrate' selection of spells takes significant time and is not something to be done on a whim in the middle of an adventure.

 

[MortalPlague]

Spells trump Feats. That one I find interesting.

Spells should trump feats, I think.

Take the invisibility spell. Someone with invisibility cast on them ought to be stealthier (albeit temporarily) than someone who took the stealthy feat.

 

[Bluenose]

Spells should trump feats, I think.

Take the invisibility spell. Someone with invisibility cast on them ought to be stealthier (albeit temporarily) than someone who took the stealthy feat.

In dissent; anything that you can pick and choose between from day to day should be worse than something you have to pick once and are then stuck with. Otherwise you're making the more flexible option more powerful as well.

 

[pemerton]

In dissent; anything that you can pick and choose between from day to day should be worse than something you have to pick once and are then stuck with. Otherwise you're making the more flexible option more powerful as well.

I tend to agree with this.

 

[Blackbrrd]

It is unapologetically gamist in 13th Age, though they suggest the GM puts narrative fluff around a 'full rest' happening. They do acknowledge that it might be a step too far for some groups and say that, if you are happy with daily rest then manage them the same way in 13th Age.

If you think back to earlier editions of D&D, it took hours to re-learn all your spells. To the point where it would take days at a high level. Use this as a house rule and suddenly spell casters can only rest when in really safe environments, generally between 'adventures'.

For a half-way house, maybe allow a spell caster to refresh their existing spell selection more quickly, but keep the longer time for changing their selection? So you can 'load for combat' at the start of an adventure and keep that configuration quite easily, but switching to an 'infiltrate' selection of spells takes significant time and is not something to be done on a whim in the middle of an adventure.

Sound like what I did in my 4e game. While travelling, they didn't get a full rest until after 3 encounters. Since you get back encounter powers and have a good supply of healing surges to spend, it worked well mechanically. I don't really like the gamist feeling it gives though. If anyone have a suggestion for making the fluff work, I would really appreciate it.

 

[MortalPlague]

In dissent; anything that you can pick and choose between from day to day should be worse than something you have to pick once and are then stuck with. Otherwise you're making the more flexible option more powerful as well.

Remember that invisibility is limited; it doesn't last as long, and it doesn't allow you to do other things while it's active (casting spells and attacking breaks it). But being invisible ought to trump a feat that you can take advantage of all day long, any day of the week, no matter what actions you're taking.

 

[gweinel]

In dissent; anything that you can pick and choose between from day to day should be worse than something you have to pick once and are then stuck with. Otherwise you're making the more flexible option more powerful as well.

΅

Here, I disagree. Something that you can use once or two times per day for a limited time and many times happens to be situational have to be more powerful than something that you can freely at will.

 

[Bluenose]

Remember that invisibility is limited; it doesn't last as long, and it doesn't allow you to do other things while it's active (casting spells and attacking breaks it). But being invisible ought to trump a feat that you can take advantage of all day long, any day of the week, no matter what actions you're taking.

Except it's just as fair to say that there are situations where being able to be stealthy is of no use, and someone can swap their Invisibility spell for something that is useful in that situation. At which point they get extra flexibility and extra power. Flexible and Powerful isn't axiomatically worse than Always Available.

 

[Blackbrrd]

As long as they don't get "class" confused with "spells", then I don't mind this too much. For example, "you need to be a Wizard to cast Invisibility, so the spell must be good!" would be bad. (I use Invisibility specifically because I know this isn't the case based on this article.)

I wish feats were higher, though. I'd like them ahead of both race and backgrounds, honestly. Sad to see them on the bottom.

They explicitly mention their priority ranking:

classes sit at the top of the list, followed by races, spells, backgrounds, and feats.

They do mention that:

In this case, we’d expect that a ranger could be overshadowed at tracking only by a character investing several choices in background options and feats. A nonranger needs to make a real commitment to stepping into the ranger’s niche.

Which I think is just what I want out of a flexible system. Sure, the Rogue is best at sneaking to begin with, but if you have a wizard that takes the assassin background, a sneaky race and gets spells such as invisibility, he will be as good at sneaking as a Rogue, or even better than your "standard" Rogue. He will be worse than other wizards in things like pure damage from his spells or some other area.