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

[dave2008]

All I can say is, my three favorite systems--4e, 13A, and Dungeon World--didn't need this. It's part of why they're my favorite systems.

I've not familiar with Dungeon World, and I have not played 13A, but IME 4e, though great, definitely need some fine tuning. I agree with @Lanefan that every system does. I don't think I would want to play one that didn't! Fixing / tweaking things to my taste is half the fun!

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah I'd probably tweak the info you can get a little... I'd probably base it on a dice roll (Insight??) so as not to put that in the hands of the DM. Specifically calling for a HIDDEN dice roll because I wouldn't want the player to know they might be wrong if they roll low.

I'd put it fairly early too in the level progression compared to the 7th level of the Battlemaster, I feel it would help set FIGHTERS apart from random NPCs who 'happen to fight' like a city guard or militia footman.

I think I'd go a step further and have it that even city guards or ordinary soldiers might be able to recognize when they're severely outclassed in the fighting department. A 1st-level Fighter would probably be able to recognize whether or not others are in a martial class, though maybe not get the exact class correct; and by say 4th level can more or less size up in general terms someone's capabilities.

if the Fighter is the Best at Fighting, I can totally see it warping the way they perceive the world. Always doing threat assessment and thinking on how to not be taken by surprise. They should probably get Alert later in levels too.

Maybe, but I'm not sure I'd make it quite that universal. They'd all* get the baseline recognition piece right from day one but anything further might need special training (or a feat, if one uses such) or be a feature of just one or two subclasses.

I'd also really like to leave Alert as a Ranger and maybe Rogue thing, as part of their niche.

* - all single-class only. This would be one way to make single-class Fighters more appealing, that they get perks like this that multi-classers don't; and as a side effect it means one can't dip into Fighter just to get this ability. Every class should have things like this, that you only get if you devote yourself completely to that class.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've not familiar with Dungeon World, and I have not played 13A, but IME 4e, though great, definitely need some fine tuning. I agree with @Lanefan that every system does. I don't think I would want to plan on that didn't! Fixing / tweaking things to my taste is half the fun!

Fine-tuning is certainly useful. Having to comprehensively review an entire system top to bottom, and then correct every single mistake, before you even begin playng? That's definitely not something I would wish on anyone!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I guess I am trying to understand what you want. I honestly do not understand what you want or I missed where you spelled it out. You have given examples of what you don't what, but not what you want as far as I can tell.

I want some form of nonmagical removing of conditions, I have given 3 examples (someone with expertise medicine who was taght minor surgery, Someone with a healers kit during down time, an alchemist/apothecary able to remove the condition) I am sure I could come up with more. Just remove 'only' from these conditions would be a start, but I don't want a house rule, I don't want your idea of how a DM can change the game, and I don't want to have to sell my group on 3pp I want WotC to publish the game in that way.

 

[dave2008]

Fine-tuning is certainly useful. Having to comprehensively review an entire system top to bottom, and then correct every single mistake, before you even begin playng? That's definitely not something I would wish on anyone!

Sure, I didn't take lanefan to mean that, but I may have not look closely enough. My preference is look things over, fix the glaring things and take on the rest as they come up. That was how we handled 4e and how we handle 5e. In 1e we didn't know any better at first so we could only fix things as they came up.

 

[Lanefan]

Fine-tuning is certainly useful. Having to comprehensively review an entire system top to bottom, and then correct every single mistake, before you even begin playng? That's definitely not something I would wish on anyone!

IMO you can't do the fine-tuning without first doing the comprehensive review, as without that review you don't and can't know what needs fine-tuning as opposed to good-as-is...or as opposed to needs-a-complete-rebuild.

Edit to add: and all of this of course needs to be done with an eye to what you want the game to be, and to do, and what style(s) of play/campaign you're looking for it to give you.

 

[Garthanos]

As much as it takes.

That is what I dispute too much DM load and the actual answer is NO your game isnt supporting it the DM is rewriting the game to make it so. 5e has far more opaque mechanics to 4e which makes it harder to predict the impact of adjustments (which is one of the reasons the alternate rules for 5e need more explanations than they generally have).
And if one is claiming it supports a "style" it should be simple tweaks like those mentioned for magic low play for 4e.

3e, 4e, and 5e each pushed toward some styles of play and away from others. In ve-e-ery broad strokes:

3e pushed toward a rule-for-everything small-s simulationist style, and pushed away from fast-and-loose wing-it play

3e had many highly specific rules... 4e had broader paradigms

4e pushed toward a fast-paced small-g gamist style, and pushed away from granularity in play

AND with wing it being supported with broad game rules to back when you do. (its not pure wing it but rather a compromise)

5e is even less granular too.

nice
5e pushed toward a lower-threat combat-as-sport style, and pushed away from gritty survivalist play.

4e was already away from survivalist though a DM could use skill challenges it was a broad support instead of well high detail one. 5e pushed away from tactical/strategic elements which were arguably a focus in both the previous editions yes it has some but there is some that I think actively works directly against it.

 

[dave2008]

I want some form of nonmagical removing of conditions, I have given 3 examples (someone with expertise medicine who was taght minor surgery, Someone with a healers kit during down time, an alchemist/apothecary able to remove the condition) I am sure I could come up with more. Just remove 'only' from these conditions would be a start, but I don't want a house rule, I don't want your idea of how a DM can change the game, and I don't want to have to sell my group on 3pp I want WotC to publish the game in that way.

OK, sorry I seem to have hit a nerve. What you describe is just how we play the game. Conditions by default do not have a method of recovering from them (that isn't part of the conditions description). Per the PHB:

A condition lasts either until it is countered (the prone condition is countered by standing up, for example) or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition.

So from my perspective it is up to the DM to provide what is allowed to counter the condition. That is RAW creative play, not house rules IMO.

But I will drop this discussion as it seems to bother you. My apologies!

 

[Micah Sweet]

no only arcane powers were spells

You know what he means though. Only arcane powers were called spells, but they all operated the same way, in the same structure. That has nothing to do with 4e's general quality, of course.

 

[dave2008]

That is what I dispute too much DM load and the actual answer is NO your game isnt supporting it the DM is rewriting the game to make it so. 5e has far more opaque mechanics to 4e which makes it harder to predict the impact of adjustments (which is one of the reasons the alternate rules for 5e need more explanations than they generally have).
And if one is claiming it supports a "style" it should be simple tweaks like those mentioned for magic low play for 4e.

I must admit one of the things I like about 5e over 4e is that I don't have to do any tweaks for low magic play. That bothered my in 4e, but it wasn't insurmountable as some claimed back in the day.

 

[Belen]

You know what he means though. Only arcane powers were called spells, but they all operated the same way, in the same structure. That has nothing to do with 4e's general quality, of course.

Correct.

 

[Garthanos]

Not even close.

The original classes had a similar structure, but the essentials classes where much different.

The original classes had a similar structure, but they worked and played very differently. If are familiar with roles then you now this well. A controlled did not play like a defender or a striker. Even then different strikers played differently as well.

Defenders were even more distinct in how they accomplished their goals a Swordmage was so completely not like a fighter its crazy...yup both effective defenders (though the fighter was also arguably a striker and at high levels almost automatically shift more heavily into that) and the the sword mage very much a dabbler in control.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

OK, sorry I seem to have hit a nerve. What you describe is just how we play the game. Conditions by default do not have a method of recovering from them (that isn't part of the conditions description). Per the PHB:

the Mummy and the Mud Golem were the examples earlier in this thread... the examples I had responded to to START with.
mummy rot does NOT allow (RAW) that to happen
The curse lasts until removed by the remove curse spell or other magic
now we ALSO play the way you do with HOUSE RULES.

the mud golem getting mud in your wounds for permenent damage is worse.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You know what he means though.

he means he is pointlessly editionwarring by bringing up a false meme that doesn't represent the edition BUT is useful short hand to try to stop martial players from getting back to that level of playability.

Only arcane powers were called spells, but they all operated the same way, in the same structure. That has nothing to do with 4e's general quality, of course.

 

[dave2008]

Yikes - you pulled me back in!

the Mummy and the Mud Golem were the examples earlier in this thread... the examples I had responded to to START with.
mummy rot does NOT allow (RAW) that to happen

The curse lasts until removed by the remove curse spell or other magic

Yes, but that is not restricted to be the only method available. It is worded the same as the basilisk. Greater restoration or other magic are given as examples. It is not a house rule for players to explore different options and for me as DM to give them different solutions. That is just how we play the game.

the mud golem getting mud in your wounds for permenent damage is worse.

What is the mud golem from? I wasn't familiar with it so I did a search on D&D Beyond and it came up empty.

 

[Voadam]

What is the mud golem from? I wasn't familiar with it so I did a search on D&D Beyond and it came up empty.

View attachment 262771

Clay golem.

The no healing damage aspect of their strikes and what can remove that condition.

[edit to add]

"The reduction lasts until removed by the greater restoration spell or other magic."

The basilisk blood undoing the stare had a tradition from some prior editions, the golem thing is just narratively undefined.

How would you rule on a knowledge check for investigating other magic here?

 

[Belen]

he means he is pointlessly editionwarring by bringing up a false meme that doesn't represent the edition BUT is useful short hand to try to stop martial players from getting back to that level of playability.

Nope. I mean that the classes all felt the same mechanically. The all had at-will, encounter, and daily powers. The differences mainly hit at the role level: defender, controller, etc. That just filled a mechanical niche. 4e was great for uniform experience. It forced a average playing and GM experience and smoothed the poor or great experience. I think it did have an effect of protecting players from poor and terrible GMs by creating a lane for the game.

I am not attempting to edition war. I was, admittedly, not a fan of 4e and my impression of the classes was that it forced a style of gaming. It was a tactical skirmish game. That is fine but 3.5, 4e, and Pathfinder burned me out to the point where I never want to see a grid or mini again.

 

[Micah Sweet]

All I can say is, my three favorite systems--4e, 13A, and Dungeon World--didn't need this. It's part of why they're my favorite systems.

All three are also much more focused systems, with a strong implied playstyle.

 

[dave2008]

Clay golem.

The no healing damage aspect of their strikes and what can remove that condition.

OK thank you. However, that is worded just the same as the mummy and basilisk effects. They give an example, they do not limit you from finding other options. Maybe I am just to old school, but find other ways to do things is just the standard method of play for us. It was how we did it in 1e, 4e, and to me it still appears to be completely RAW in 5e too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

he means he is pointlessly editionwarring by bringing up a false meme that doesn't represent the edition BUT is useful short hand to try to stop martial players from getting back to that level of playability.

Hey, I'm down with martials getting more stuff to do. Level Up is excellent for that. I'm just convinced you won't see it from WotC. They aren't motivated to do so.

For the record, I wasn't a fan of AEDU and wouldn't want that structure.