Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6562295" data-attributes="member: 996">The lack of bloat is perhaps the best thing about 5e - one reason all those complaints about the slow pace of new material are a little wrong-headed, IMHO.  But, honestly, 5e is nothing but a giant tribute to the preconceived notions of prior editions (but that's from the PoV of someone who didn't dismiss 4e out of hand). I'm not sure how you jump from gleefully listing some of the goodies wizards got in 5e - at-will spell-casting, combined prepped & spontaneous casting, rituals that don't consume daily spells - to complaining about concentration as 'severely' nerfing the wizard.  That's the wizard who has all the advantages of a 3.5 Wizard, plus the only advantage of the 3.5 Sorcerer, plus the at-will casting of a 3.5 Warlock, all wrapped up in one.  And, though you didn't mention it, casting in melee is now a breeze:  no OA, no concentration checks, no interruption, not even disadvantage - archers straight-up have it worse in melee than casters.I've heard of player entitlement, but you wizard fans really take it up to 11.  Concentration keeps you from stacking up multiple spells.  You have fewer spell slots in this edition, anyway - not that that adds up to any net loss, with spell slot recovery for the wizard, at-will cantrips, and non-slot-consuming ritual casting - so conserving spells by casting one powerful concentration spell instead of stacking up several spells with durations isn't such a bad idea, anyway.  And, 'concentration' isn't much of a restriction at all.  Under past eds, a concentration spell might be broken by taking any damage at all, and would preclude casting /any/ other spell - now it just means you can't cast another concentration spell.   5e does take away just about everything melee types ever got, but it does give them some new toys, just not in the general combat rules as they were in 3.5, rather, if you pick the right archetype at 3rd, you can access a few tricks. Just put on some heavy armor.  Nothing broke the game into smaller, more jagged pieces, either.  (OK, that's hyperbole:  lots of things in 3.x broke the game into equally tiny, jagged, razor-edged, poisoned pieces.) But magic item creation was decidedly problematic from a variety of PoVs.  Magic items were very powerful, so creating them was straight-up overpowered.  Making magic items into commodities robbed them of some senseofwonder, even though they were so powerful.  And, being able to equip precisely the item you wanted was gasoline on the optimization firestorm that consumed 3.5/Pathfinder. Yep, it's a return to the preconceived notions of 1e.  That items are rare, can't be readily made/bought, and are the province of the DM - and represent power over and above what PCs can otherwise attain, and are thus 'really magical.' While 5e doesn't /require/ magic items the 3.5 did, nor ration them out as part of wealth-by-level, it's hard to call a game where 33 out of 38 PC class archetypes use magic 'low magic.'  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> No, the idea that you can be 'hit' by 100 arrows and suffer not the slightest penalty for it is absurd.  Until you go back and read your 1e AD&D DMG and realize that hps don't represent soaking up dozens of mortal wounds, but actually mostly represent /avoiding/ physical damage.  Once you refresh that old preconceived notion, you realize there's nothing wrong with a PC gaining piles of hps as he levels - and nothing wrong with recovering them fairly quickly.  Even if you are still a little scratched up after your 8hr rest, there's no reason you luck/vitality/skill/speed/divine-favor/sixth-sense/whatever  couldn't have been restored.There's also no reason it couldn't take a lot longer to restore such things, if, as a DM, you wanted to change the definition of Short and Long Rests to make it take much longer.  I've seen multiple TPKs or near-TPKs avoided only by DM fudging, with HotDQ.  My theory is that the poor guy who wrote it wasn't given the final version of the Encounter Guidelines, and that, following what they did give him resulted in the over-deadly encounters - especially in that first night in the 'Keep' when you were supposed to fight your way there through 8+ kobolds, then go on 6-8 'missions' in the course of the night with just the odd short rest.</blockquote>

Verification