D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

[GMforPowergamers]

this MAY be a mut issue.

BENEFITS OF THE REST
When you finish a Long Rest, you gain the following benefits:
Regain All HP. You regain all lost Hit Points.
Regain All HD. You regain all spent Hit Dice.
HP Max Restored. If your Hit Point Maximum was reduced, it returns to normal.

if I just read that right the CLay Golem damage will get gone with a nights rest...

I REALLY want something in between. Not "I need a 9th+ level caster" and not "I just sleep/walk it off"

 

[Undrave]

Where I don't mind the concept where sometimes a party's line-up makes a cakewalk out of an encounter that might be hella difficult if not impossible for a party of a different lineup.

The downside of setting up encounters designed to let a particular class or species have its moment in the spotlight - which is something I see recommended now and then as good adventure design - is that a party lacking said class or species is in tough. I'm fine with this.

Swinginess is fine. To a point. In this case I feel like the distance between the two end of that pendulum is WAY Too big.

The right party composition makes it a speed bump. At worse, you need to suck it up until the next morning, at best it's fixed in 5 minutes.

The wrong party composition can derail a campaign for multiple days. Especially if the dice landed wrong multiple time.

It's not on par with 'Cool, the Fighter held his ground at a small door for the entire encounter, preventing monsters from swarming us!" in terms of spotlight. It's not even cool, it's just another spell slot. Yawn.

 

[Undrave]

if I just read that right the CLay Golem damage will get gone with a nights rest...

I REALLY want something in between. Not "I need a 9th+ level caster" and not "I just sleep/walk it off"

I do too!

Once again: the 4e disease track would have been amazing for it!

 

[FrozenNorth]

"Why would it be?" Isn't an argument either. There is no onus; it's just a matter of personal preference, and you and I disagree.

Well, I did give 7 reasons to run it the way I suggested.

Here’s number 8.

You go back to town to get it fixed, or you suck it up. If the DM provides zero way to fix the issue via NPC, that's being a bad DM. But I'm in favor of having bad things happen to the PCs that can't just be fixed in the field.

8. DM Flexibility: you’re able to use Mummies and Clay Golems in situations where you would be unable to do so RAW, since the DM does not have to establish a 9th level cleric to fix the issue for you.

 

[Voadam]

You go back to town to get it fixed, or you suck it up. If the DM provides zero way to fix the issue via NPC, that's being a bad DM. But I'm in favor of having bad things happen to the PCs that can't just be fixed in the field.

In a lower-level or comparatively lower-magic sandbox going to town to get it fixed is easily possibly not an option. You might not have access to a cleric who can fix it. It makes some monsters killer if they ever hit in combat, not just if they kill a character in combat.

3e Eberron said it was going for mostly lower level NPCs with a few specific high level ones.

In the 2e Ravenloft domain of Har Akir which is home to the lord who created greater mummies, there is a small village of less than a hundred living people. It is Ravenloft so going elsewhere can be cut off as an option.

 

[FrozenNorth]

* When I drafted my initial post, I treated Mummy Rot as a disease based on thd name. When I looked it up, turns out the name is s misnomer, as it’s actually a curse. I considered going back to my post and updating all references to Medicine with Religion, but decided against it due to laziness. The point stands even if Medicine ix replaced with Religion.

What makes a skill any class can take on the side more costly than needing to take 5* cleric levels and spend a precious spell slot? Also, mummy rot is not the only ailment in the game.

Notably, I did not just require proficiency in Medicine/Religion. I suggested the character would need expertise or an applicable feature, like a background as a doctor or hermit.

But yes, a character only gets 5 or 6 skills, so a player that commits both background + skill or skill + expertise, is committing more player resources to being good at healing diseases than a player who devotes one of 12 prepared spells (which can be changed every day) to cure disease (or remove curse).

Do you have a source saying preservation of the supremacy of magic was a consideration for mummy rot? Personally, I suspect it's, referencing the superstitions of the mummy's curse* that supposedly strikes those who disturb Egyptian mummies. In which case we're talking thematic/dramatic/story-telling considerations.

Superstitions about the Mummy’s Curse explains why the Mummy has the rot attack, not why the effect needs magical healing to resolve.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I do too!

Once again: the 4e disease track would have been amazing for it!

I’ve incorporated the disease track in 5e.

 

[Voadam]

* When I drafted my initial post, I treated Mummy Rot as a disease based on thd name. When I looked it up, turns out the name is s misnomer, as it’s actually a curse. I considered going back to my post and updating all references to Medicine with Religion, but decided against it due to laziness. The point stands even if Medicine ix replaced with Religion.

AD&D mummy rot required the 3rd level cure disease spell to cure.

Superstitions about the Mummy’s Curse explains why the Mummy has the rot attack, not why the effect needs magical healing to resolve.

I agree. It was just applying the hammer of the clerical/druid cure spell tools in AD&D to the nail of a mummy's supernatural disease.

Having a curse effect worked from a mythical narrative perspective. Having it require magical healing by a level 5+ clerical caster was a bit constricting for the storytelling and game play of actual D&D game play.

 

[Lanefan]

AD&D mummy rot required the 3rd level cure disease spell to cure.

I agree. It was just applying the hammer of the clerical/druid cure spell tools in AD&D to the nail of a mummy's supernatural disease.

Having a curse effect worked from a mythical narrative perspective. Having it require magical healing by a level 5+ clerical caster was a bit constricting for the storytelling and game play of actual D&D game play.

Remove Curse is the same level as Cure Disease, so level considerations are a wash; the main difference between them is MUs and Clerics both get access to Remove Curse where only Clerics can cast Cure Disease.

I can see mummy rot being both a disease and a curse: you can cure the disease but if you don't remove the curse the disease will keep coming back...

 

[Voadam]

Remove Curse is the same level as Cure Disease, so level considerations are a wash; the main difference between them is MUs and Clerics both get access to Remove Curse where only Clerics can cast Cure Disease.

1e M-Us can cast Remove Curse and not Cure Disease, 1e Druids are the reverse.

I can see mummy rot being both a disease and a curse: you can cure the disease but if you don't remove the curse the disease will keep coming back...

3.5 is the edition for you.

See Mummy

"Mummy Rot (Su)
Supernatural disease—slam, Fortitude DC 16, incubation period 1 minute; damage 1d6 Con and 1d6 Cha. The save DC is Charisma-based.
Unlike normal diseases, mummy rot continues until the victim reaches Constitution 0 (and dies) or is cured as described below.
Mummy rot is a powerful curse, not a natural disease. A character attempting to cast any conjuration (healing) spell on a creature afflicted with mummy rot must succeed on a DC 20 caster level check, or the spell has no effect on the afflicted character.
To eliminate mummy rot, the curse must first be broken with break enchantment or remove curse (requiring a DC 20 caster level check for either spell), after which a caster level check is no longer necessary to cast healing spells on the victim, and the mummy rot can be magically cured as any normal disease."