Removing The Stat Penaly on Volo's Guide Orcs

[CapnZapp]

D&D has rarely delivered too well on low-/no-magic capaigns

In 5E's defense, a no-magic party isn't the suicide mission it was in previous editions.

The number of obstacles where no good non-magical solution exists is dramatically lower.

(Cue Monte Cook's d20 high-level adventures which almost felt like he went through the wizard spell list one by one, checking that somebody could cast it )

Compare 5E's handling of non-standard magic items (portals and the like): make a Charisma check to get a handle on how to use the thing. Or take spell traps - often a good passive Perception score is all you need to automatically defeat the trap.

I couldn't say for sure, but if I were to play D&D as part of, say, an all-Barbarian party, and got to pick the edition for the DM to use, I sure would pick 5E.

 

[QuietBrowser]

PS. Because i just remembered it. Didn't actually FR try to make their orcs more civilized or is it one of the 4e things they are trying to erase from history?

Yes, towards the end of 3rd edition, in fact, the Kingdom of Many-Arrows went up in the Frozen North, based out of conquered territories that then established itself as a legally recognized kingdom in the eyes of the neighboring kingdoms through diplomacy and a "we will stop rampaging if you let us keep what we have" plea-bargain. It was established by Obould Many-Arrows, a genius orc who actually managed to trick Gruumsh into empowering him as his Chosen, and then betrayed his own petty god by realizing that the constant cycle of raiding and counter-raiding was going to end up obliterating the orc species, as all other races were growing stronger and stronger in their kingdoms whilst orcs were slowly being ground out of existence by staying stuck in their tribal squalor.

By the time of the 4e's timeskip, the Kingdom had been a stabilizing force for generations, and although still fighting with traditionalists who wanted to resume their Gruumsh-given "holy wars", it was legitimately considered a respectable kingdom by humans and halflings - a lot of elves remembered and wished for a return to the days of just indiscriminately slaughtering orcs, whilst dwarves were the same and resented that one of their citadels had been taken as part of the Kingdom's founding.

Come 5e, it's been destroyed and barely even received a footnote in the SCAG. Of course, it was kind of foretold; much like how its founding was covered in the Drizzt books, those self-same books had all of Drizzt's companions being reincarnated with divine claims that orcs & goblinoids really were irredeemable and all goodly beings should be seeking their genocide...

 

[flametitan]

That is all fine and well for a full plated fighter or cleric.

Rogues job is usually to be unseen. Carrying a torch in pitch darkness will usually give away your scouting.

Then pay a bit more gold for a lantern. A lantern is much easier to conceal the light of without extinguishing it entirely. They're a great tool for sneaking around with reduced (but not completely eliminated, yes) risk of exposing yourself.

EDIT: Does Volo's guide say anything about Many-Arrows? The SCAG itself was vague on it all, and I've heard conflicting reports on whether it was actually destroyed, or simply pushed back into the Spine of the World.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Which, except for a five-year experimental foray into the tactical board game genre that didn't pay off,

The Castle Ravenloft &c and Dungeon Command games are at most footnotes to the history of D&D.

mostly looked like 1E and 5E on this front.

With regard to fighters & rogues not being, 'tactical cornucopias' in 1e or 5e: from 2e C&T, through 3.x/4e/PF and up until Essentials gimped 'em a bit, fighters & rogues had a lot of tactical options relative to 1e & 5e.

Thanks to lack of threading, I've quite lost whatever point you were originally trying to make in bringing it up, though. :click:
:click:
:click:click:
.... oh.

You were countering the point that 5e non-magic-using sub-classes lack much variety in combat, being DPR-focused, with the point that the same was true in 1e, (and don't pay attention to the intervening decades). Really, though, the 1e rogue was no DPR champ.

In 5E's defense, a no-magic party isn't the suicide mission it was in previous editions. The number of obstacles where no good non-magical solution exists is dramatically lower.

The no-magic party's not seamlessly playable like it was in 4e, either. But, yes, HD/overnight-healing and the generally lower danger level of each individual combat does make it less suicidal to try to adventure without in-combat healing - and it's been remotely practical to take on a broader swath of monsters without the 'required' magic weapons since 3.5 - but it's still at least reckless endangerment.

Increasingly, I'm coming to the conclusion that 5e really kinda expects some sort of tailored style, or a sufficiently-telegraphed status quo style, I suppose, to enable parties of less traditional composition.

I couldn't say for sure, but if I were to play D&D as part of, say, an all-Barbarian party, and got to pick the edition for the DM to use, I sure would pick 5E.

All-Barbarian would be a little, extreme - it's a pretty narrow class. Ironically, it wouldn't be a no-magic party in 5e, unless they were all Berserkers.

 

[Horwath]

Then pay a bit more gold for a lantern. A lantern is much easier to conceal the light of without extinguishing it entirely. They're a great tool for sneaking around with reduced (but not completely eliminated, yes) risk of exposing yourself.

EDIT: Does Volo's guide say anything about Many-Arrows? The SCAG itself was vague on it all, and I've heard conflicting reports on whether it was actually destroyed, or simply pushed back into the Spine of the World.

yes, you will not be seen from 400ft, but from close 300ft.

That is why current day special forces all have 1,99$ flashlights instead of those 10000$ night vision googles that are "barely an improvement".

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The Castle Ravenloft &c and Dungeon Command games are at most footnotes to the history of D&D.

As is Fourth Edition, which is what I was referring to.

With regard to fighters & rogues not being, 'tactical cornucopias' in 1e or 5e: from 2e C&T, through 3.x/4e/PF and up until Essentials gimped 'em a bit, fighters & rogues had a lot of tactical options relative to 1e & 5e.

I don't see a significant difference here between a 5E rogue and a 2E/3E/PF rogue. Fighter, maybe in theory, because of the way 3E feats were supposed to work, but in practice it wasn't well implemented. 4E is, as previously teased, a game of a different genre.

You were countering the point that 5e non-magic-using sub-classes lack much variety in combat, being DPR-focused, with the point that the same was true in 1e, (and don't pay attention to the intervening decades). Really, though, the 1e rogue was no DPR champ.

True enough on the rogue's DPR. But it's not so much about DPR per se as about the way armed combat is abstracted rather than blocked out into specific tactical "powers" or "stances" or what have you. Tactical options are emergent from positioning and environment, not attached to the class.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't see a significant difference here between a 5E rogue and a 2E/3E/PF rogue. Fighter, maybe in theory, because of the way 3E feats were supposed to work, but in practice it wasn't well implemented.

In 2e C&T and 3e there were simply a lot more combat options than in 1e, and 5e retained relatively few of them. So, no, you wouldn't see the full difference just glancing at the classes. The 3e and later Rogues' Sneak Attack is also significantly more practical to actually use in combat than the AD&D-and-earlier Backstab.

But it's not so much about DPR per se

Actually, that's exactly what the comment that 5e non-magic-using sub-classes are all focused on DPR was about. Focus on DPR.

4E is, as previously teased, a game of a different genre.

D&D has always been an heroic fantasy RPG, even if 'RPG' hadn't been coined when 0D&D first hit the shelves. 4e was no exception, though it did lend itself particularly well to a cinematic slant on the genre.

Tactical options are emergent from positioning and environment rather than attached to the class.

Ideally, but that ideal was never realized. Even in 3e which had quite a lot of combat options, characters tended to only use those that they had sunk feats or other resources into improving ('attached' to build if not to class), and, similarly, even though there were decent rules for positioning and environment, the 'action economy' tended to encourage static damage-trading combats (if not outright rocket tag). And, that was the high-water mark for 'emergent tactical options.' 5e's renewed emphasis on 'fast combat' takes it out of the running for anything of the sort, much like the early game it actively tries to evoke.

Which leaves any class without some spells or other magical resource for variety and flexibility prettymuch just putting out the DPR round after round aft- oh, fight's over. ;P

 

[CapnZapp]

The no-magic party's not seamlessly playable like it was in 4e, either.

I do believe that's considered a plus by most.

After all, what you said can be rephrased as "there's no difference between magic and not magic". Which I guess can be said to be the must fundamental complaint against 4E of all.

But, yes, HD/overnight-healing and the generally lower danger level of each individual combat does make it less suicidal to try to adventure without in-combat healing - and it's been remotely practical to take on a broader swath of monsters without the 'required' magic weapons since 3.5 - but it's still at least reckless endangerment.

While you are technically true, in my experience the difference is vast.

In-combat healing is simply no longer a thing, except when an ally drops and needs a little something to prevent death by death saving throws. And that's coming from a DM running a combat heavy game currently at 14th level where the party does include a Cleric. I'm still waiting for the first time Heal is cast.

As for the requirement of magic weapons I can't go with experience. We're running Out of the Abyss where the adventure module itself offers a permanent solution (to avoid spoilers, I'm deliberately vague) to that issue already at about level 6 (which really is when the issue starts to be a problem). What I can say is that the magicalness of so many characters means only regular weaponusers have a problem at all. The warlock shoots Eldritch Blasts. The monks hands and feet count as magical by default. Etc.

And even if all else fails, the monsters are generally not so deadly that fighting them is a death sentence like in previous editions (just like you say). So what if Bob the Fighter only does half damage? The group can and will find a solution anyway. (At least where most campaigns spend their time, which is in the single-digit levels. Obviously at "my" level (14) having no access to magical weaponry would start to be a serious hindrance, if nobody in the party was a spellcaster that couldn't even cast Magic Weapon)

All-Barbarian would be a little, extreme - it's a pretty narrow class.

I did try to come up with an extreme example, so, thanks I guess

 

[Uchawi]

As to the side topic, versus orc stats or traits, the biggest barrier to non-magic campaigns is hit point recovery and what classes can heal during combat.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I do believe that's considered a plus by most.

That's right, because everyone always agrees with you.

Seriously, though, while a lot of D&Ders have no interest in low/no-magic campaigns/parties, it's hardly an unknown style of campaign, and having the capacity to handle it in no way detracts from being able to run in other styles, as instead. In particular, expanding that capability with non-core rules would have no impact on groups that simply didn't opt into that specific new material.

After all, what you said can be rephrased as "there's no difference between magic and not magic".

That changes the meaning substantially, so, no, it can't.

Which I guess can be said to be the must fundamental complaint against 4E of all.

The improvement in class balance did seem to be at the root of many such objections. But, there's no point re-hashing the edition war.

But, even were that infamous h4ter rant in any way true, 5e did not set out to be the h4ter edition, purged of all support for styles possible in 4e, it's meant to be the edition for fans of each & all past editions.

4e quite simply supported the style that came up, above, the non-magic-using party (and, by extension, low- and no-magic settings). 5e does not support the former nearly so well, offering very few, and not that varied choices to cover non-magic-using or non-supernatural PC concepts, which lead to parties with limited capacity to face typical levels of challenge. It's something that could be easily address with another class or two and more non-supernatural buidls, with more varied functions within the party. (As an aside, 5e does handle low-magic /item/ campaigns quite simply, so long as there are PCs with their own magical resources, while 4e had an optional rule, inherent bonuses, to do so - so 5e's not entirely hostile to low/no magic, it just lacks sufficient PC options in that arena.)

While you are technically true, in my experience the difference is vast.

The magnitude of the difference you perceive is obviously subjective, and would be influenced by factors like play style and the like, of course. Suffice it to say that 5e has some mechanics that offer non-magical healing, though fewer and less practical/effective than the mechanics 4e used to enable non-magic-using styles, and that it's default combats are generally less challenging than in prior editions. Those are facts, spinning or slanting them won't actually change them.