Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7523008" data-attributes="member: 29398">Fair enough. <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=":)" />First off, I don't care if it slows down play.  And being frustrating/punitive for mages (and clerics, same applies there too) is exactly the goal; if they want to blast in combat then they have to take measures to conceal themselves first, or have a shield wall in front of them, or whatever.True, but in an earlier post I'd already pretty much conceded that fixing them out of combat is probably impossible, and suggested that it's mostly in combat where they can be reined in.  My suggestions mirror that.Yep.  And then the caster is going to be on the receiving end of the non-casters' anger...... The problems with giving them more h.p. are twofold:1. If they feel less vulnerable they're going to take more risks (good) and get away with it more often (bad).  I quite like it that a mage can on average kill itself with its own blast spell (d4/level h.p. vs d6/level damage ends up not looking too good for the mage after a while) and thus has to be careful where said blast spells are put. <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=":)" />2. Unless h.p. are also increased for all the other classes, giving mages more h.p. just reduces the differentiation between classes overall.  Front-liners are supposed to be the ones with all the starch; then second-liners (clerics and thieves/rogues); with mages as the squishy back-liners.I'm just going based on the APs I've read; the closest I've ever got to running one was to strip some bits out of PotA and adapt them for my own game.  My experience with 1e is that we tend to top out around 10th-11th; with 3e it seems to be in the low-mid teens (both from my own observations and from what I've read here); and going by anecdotes in here roughly the same holds true for 4e and 5e in relative terms.And it's not just APs that speed up levelling.  Starting with 3e the whole system has sped up levelling to a rather ridiculous (in my view) extent.  1-20 in 18 months?  1-30 in a bit over a year?  Bleah!And you know, I don't really mind that.  If the fighter and the wizard end up seeing the world so differently that's an instant recipe from some interesting in-party dynamics and possible conflict.And maybe this is part of what makes D&D D&D, that it manages to somehow conflate different fantasy subgenres and force them to fit together.Hmmm...what you see as a coherent vision I see as quite incoherent indeed, mostly because of the mechanical differences between PCs and NPCs trying to inhabit the same fictional world.  And minions.Within the framework of the game being played, it's coherent; and for some that's enough.  But as soon as you look beyond the at-the-table game and try to figure out how any of it would consistently fit into the greater game world, it kinda falls apart.It did a nice job of bringing all the classes/PCs up together*, from heroic to mythic, as you say.  My question is whether doing so was worth the sacrifices made in terms of class differentiation.* - provided they were all the same level.  One thing I really like about 1e-2e-5e is that the system can much more easily handle some PC level disparities within the party.  Neither 3e nor 4e was good at this.</blockquote>

Verification