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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6901732" data-attributes="member: 996">And 3.5 changed resistances around, to materials, not just enhancement bonuses, and made them more manageable, as well, so you could conceivably just power through them.  Add Inherent Bonuses (I'm sure 3.5 had them somewhere, eventually, but I can't remember where) to take the place of enhancement in low-magic games, and you can do without magic weapons almost entirely - though there'd still be a big versatility gulf between casters and non-casters with both itemless.   Inherent bonuses (PH2) could fill in the math smoothly enough, and items weren't otherwise desperately needed for the classes to keep up with eachother, so low/no magic could work fine. 5e largely eliminates the 'need' for magic items, by factoring them out of expected advancement - and by giving all classes access to magic of their own.  In the classic game (say 0D&D, B/X, early 1e), yes the 1st-level wizard out of spells didn't contribute in any meaningful way.  He could throw some darts (slings weren't on his list), or a dagger or risk melee, but it would rarely make a difference, and he was very fragile.  That would balance out the wizard's dominance at higher level.  5e doesn't go for that kind of balance-across-levels, so a 1st level wizard is just fine, with more spells, more flexibility, & more hps than a 1st level 1e wizard, and at-will cantrips that can be meaningful even when out of spell slots.I suppose it'd be nice if it were explicit that the DM was not limited to choosing or creating a module with different definitions of rests, but could (should!) instead rule on the time/consequence/benefits of rest like he can rule on anything else.Nod.Sure - the Warlord, for instance - but, workable make/buy guidelines should  certainly be part of the effort.</blockquote>

Verification