D&D General The Beautiful Mess of 5e

such as 6-8 encounters per long rest and 2 short rests between long ones?

Which is something I do for one group and not another based on the players and the style of campaign.

I think a lot can be done via such guidelines, encounter building, rests, treasure per level, etc. Some of it obviously has to come from decent game balance, that is the prerequisite for the guidelines to exist

I do agree that we should have more guidelines and suggestions. On the other hand, anyone learning to play now knows how to search for advice they don't need it in the rulebook. I'd love a "DM Options" book but I don't expect it to ever see it, but then again most previous editions had pretty slim advice as well. Yet we all figured out options anyway. For some editions, because we had no choice.

should be avoidable to a degree, they do not all have to work the same, but their power levels should be comparable.

If we cannot accomplish that with the current class design, I am perfectly fine with have more similar design across classes, starting with harmonizing the subclass progression across classes, something 5.5 should have done anyway

Not going to be the first time nor the last that I acknowledge the issues with the current version of D&D while also saying that I don't like a lot of the proposed fixes. We aren't playing a board game or checkers. I don't want the goal of the game to be perfect balance across all classes because we will never agree what that looks like and I don't value that goal over other things like flexibility and making classes have a unique feel.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

higher missile count would be great to break concentration, as every missile is different instance of damage so if 2nd level magic missile is 5 damage sources, even if DC is only 10, that is a good chance that one will be a failure.
Still can be blocked with 1st level Shield spell... but not all casters have Shield or maybe Reaction has been spent on something else(Counterspell, Absorb elements, Silvery barbs...).
That's not much different to how it works now.
 

I do agree that we should have more guidelines and suggestions. On the other hand, anyone learning to play now knows how to search for advice they don't need it in the rulebook. I'd love a "DM Options" book but I don't expect it to ever see it, but then again most previous editions had pretty slim advice as well. Yet we all figured out options anyway. For some editions, because we had no choice.
In the context of D&D 2024:

The DM options means the same thing as a "setting".

Settings are also the same thing as game design "modularity".

Each setting can come with specific rules that are only true for the setting. The rules can be anything, from which classes and species are present, the rest schedule, weird spellcasting options, presence of hi-tech equipment, level limits, anything.
 

The issue with Twilight Clerics and other WOTC-published broken stuff (Silvery Barbs) is that they're all considered default in D&D Beyond. If it weren't for D&D Beyond, it wouldn't be a problem.
And Adventurer's Guild. We have to remember that a number of people never get to play home games, there only dnd may lie in gaming events and AG adventurers.

All of the broken stuff is available to them by default.
 

Every time I see someone say “easy game”, I imagine someone complaining that video games have different difficulty settings.
Yes, but imagine if the coder for that game didn't have to bump up the stats for all of the monsters. they also had to add in new monsters and completely change up the encounters to adjust to the proper difficulty.

And you had to do this week in and week out.

And you don't get paid.


Welcome to GMing.
 

Anyone who brings Fireball into that setup is not going to drop anything. 28 points of damage won't even halve the hp of the CR 3 critter. And if I make most of my encounters like this....that fireball never gets to shine.
Part of this can be mitigated by DM presentation. It is true its easy to focus on the "kill shots" and not recognize everything else that lead up to that.

If I cast a fireball and it hits 5 guys but none of them die, at first glance....yeah it feels pretty crappy.

But if the DM goes "holy crap, you just did 100 damage to that group!"..... well suddenly that fireball is looking a lot spicier. Nothing changed mechanically, its just that contribution was better highlighted.
 


Backstabbing for a ton of damage and then firing off telekenesis and keeping it up as a bonus action was pretty gonzo.

Another problem that we had a conversation about is the ability to use two magic items the same turn or even the same magic item twice because the rogue can use both an action and bonus action Magic action.
But how did it feel in comparison to the other players? Overpowered? Or just really good?
 

Though in fairness to Mike Shea, what is overpowered is somewhat table dependent, I think. I have seen wildly different views on what is overpowered argued here. Mike, if memory serves, plays very theatre of the mind and may find things overpowered that may not be as much of an issue in a more tactical grid focused table. On the other had the tactical grid focused people may have issues that do not bother more theatre of the mind groups.
It occurs to me that fireballs seem more powerful some theatre of the mind games than in grid-based ones.
I think Mike and I have a similar play style. Although his players seem to make decisions and get through combat much faster than mine!
 

RE: Upscaling blast spells, honestly I don’t think this needs fixing. I’m ok with casting spells that are natively higher level being more effective than upcasting lower level spells. Fireball is fine when you get it and gets worse at higher levels? Good! That means you’ll have a reason to want to use your new, higher-level spells when you get them instead of just sticking with upcasted Fireball forever. Upcasting shouldn’t be a go-to tactic, but a backup option in situations where your higher level spells are for some reason not going to work (e.g. you’re fighting an enemy with resistance to the damage type your higher level spell deals).
I'm really torn on this topic.

I feel that spells should scale better. Heck, most class features should scale better.

However, I don't believe that making spells MORE powerful is the fix that spellcasters need. It's limiting the power of a few gamebreaking spells.

In the panel, Hypnotic Pattern gets brought up. I find Hypnotic Pattern leads to degenerate play (as Matt Colville would say). You end up with a gaggle of mesmerized foes. Players gather around one of them and then slaughter them in a single turn. Then onto the next. And the next. Meanwhile, I'm very focused on if the players might do anything unintentionally that breaks the spell effect. Not particularly heroic or fun. The game does not need more spells like that.
 

Remove ads

Top