Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
My Experiment with 5e - No Classes with Cantrips
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7443766" data-attributes="member: 22779"><p>Well, we've kinda rounded a bend in our Primeval Thule campaign, and things have changed at the table, so, I thought now is a good time to show the results of my 5e experiment. When running PT in 5e, I wanted to really strengthen the "SWORD and sorcery" feel and I felt that 5e is a smidgeon too magic happy for what I wanted. So, at character generation, I put my foot down, and managed to badger my players into accepting a pretty strong restriction - no classes/characters with cantrips. </p><p></p><p>Just for a bit of background, we run the game on Fantasy Grounds and use voice chat. That has it's own ups and downs, so, I'll try to keep that in mind when I talk about the results.</p><p></p><p>So, after about year of play and 9 levels, here's what I learned:</p><p></p><p>1. Combat becomes LIGHTNING fast. When you remove casters, area of effects, and whatnot from combat, you can blow through a LOT of combat in a 3 hour session. We actually touched into 7 combats one session, with a fair bit of time for other stuff, although that was very much the exception. However, we frequently did 3-5 combats in a 3 hour session and rounds just blow past. When you strip down the analysis paralysis that often comes with casters (should I cast this spell or that spell... or if I move the spell 5 feet to the left I can get that guy, but, then I won't get that other guy... ), the game really speeds up.</p><p></p><p>2. Combat becomes very predictable. Not sure if this is a good thing or not. But, I can pretty much guarantee how much damage the party will do per round and plan an encounter accordingly. I know that the 5 PC's we have will do about 125 (give or take) damage per round. Pretty much like clockwork. So, if I wanted a strong encounter, I needed about 400 HP worth of baddies. It does make planning encounters pretty easy. And, because the party lacked area attacks, it really, really cuts down on the total damage the party can do per round.</p><p></p><p>3. Choices get pretty limited and the players I think were not very happy about it. We allowed, barbarians, fighters, rangers, paladins, monks and rogues as options. We wound up with two rangers, a paladin, a rogue and a monk. I think the players were not terribly happy with all the classes being pretty close to each other. 5e really does seem to rely on having casters to add variety. The non-casters tend to be pretty similar in play. </p><p></p><p>4. One thing that I did like, and now that we've done some shifting around with characters and allowed full casters, is that without casters in the party, "Magic Solves All Problems" becomes a lot less of an issue. Players rely on their skills a lot more since you can't just magic problems away. They spent a lot of down time learning new languages and tools so that they could broaden their approaches to problems. Now that we have a bard and a warlock in the party, every problem becomes a nail to the hammer of magic. Instead of relying on skills, spells become the default. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite3" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":(" /> Not a result I'm very happy about.</p><p></p><p>Overall, I'd say the experiment was a pretty solid success. The game was fun and the players seemed to have a pretty good time. 5e works pretty well as a low magic game, IMO.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7443766, member: 22779"] Well, we've kinda rounded a bend in our Primeval Thule campaign, and things have changed at the table, so, I thought now is a good time to show the results of my 5e experiment. When running PT in 5e, I wanted to really strengthen the "SWORD and sorcery" feel and I felt that 5e is a smidgeon too magic happy for what I wanted. So, at character generation, I put my foot down, and managed to badger my players into accepting a pretty strong restriction - no classes/characters with cantrips. Just for a bit of background, we run the game on Fantasy Grounds and use voice chat. That has it's own ups and downs, so, I'll try to keep that in mind when I talk about the results. So, after about year of play and 9 levels, here's what I learned: 1. Combat becomes LIGHTNING fast. When you remove casters, area of effects, and whatnot from combat, you can blow through a LOT of combat in a 3 hour session. We actually touched into 7 combats one session, with a fair bit of time for other stuff, although that was very much the exception. However, we frequently did 3-5 combats in a 3 hour session and rounds just blow past. When you strip down the analysis paralysis that often comes with casters (should I cast this spell or that spell... or if I move the spell 5 feet to the left I can get that guy, but, then I won't get that other guy... ), the game really speeds up. 2. Combat becomes very predictable. Not sure if this is a good thing or not. But, I can pretty much guarantee how much damage the party will do per round and plan an encounter accordingly. I know that the 5 PC's we have will do about 125 (give or take) damage per round. Pretty much like clockwork. So, if I wanted a strong encounter, I needed about 400 HP worth of baddies. It does make planning encounters pretty easy. And, because the party lacked area attacks, it really, really cuts down on the total damage the party can do per round. 3. Choices get pretty limited and the players I think were not very happy about it. We allowed, barbarians, fighters, rangers, paladins, monks and rogues as options. We wound up with two rangers, a paladin, a rogue and a monk. I think the players were not terribly happy with all the classes being pretty close to each other. 5e really does seem to rely on having casters to add variety. The non-casters tend to be pretty similar in play. 4. One thing that I did like, and now that we've done some shifting around with characters and allowed full casters, is that without casters in the party, "Magic Solves All Problems" becomes a lot less of an issue. Players rely on their skills a lot more since you can't just magic problems away. They spent a lot of down time learning new languages and tools so that they could broaden their approaches to problems. Now that we have a bard and a warlock in the party, every problem becomes a nail to the hammer of magic. Instead of relying on skills, spells become the default. :( Not a result I'm very happy about. Overall, I'd say the experiment was a pretty solid success. The game was fun and the players seemed to have a pretty good time. 5e works pretty well as a low magic game, IMO. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
My Experiment with 5e - No Classes with Cantrips
Top