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

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
While I personally agree, I see no reason to impose that limitation on others. Keep magic out of the base class, and those of us who prefer our rogues to not have magic don't have to choose the magic subclasses.
Well, I am only imposing it on my players. And I haven't done so yet... ;)

If somebody else, even at my own table, chooses a magical rogue subclass, why should that bother me any more than if they multiclass?
Well, it is an interesting question. For one thing, I've also considered removing multiclassing and using subclasses as multiclasses.

Someday I will have to run a comparison between these two: Rogue (Arcane Trickster) 20 vs. Rogue (???-non-AT) 13 / Wizard (???) 7. Depending on the subclasses, would the two be equivalent or not?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


dave2008

Legend
@Garthanos , I don't know if you missed in my previous response, but I wanted to highlight this question. You stated:
We called that DM may I as an option in 1e land and the DM is being taught to answer no since the system removed the non-caster method explicitly defined in 4e and maybe 3e.

And I said:
4e is may favorite edition of D&D, but I don't remember it handling this situation any different. I know we definitely played it the same way in 4e that we do in 5e. Can you remind me how 4e handled this differently?

Can you please remind how 4e handle this type of effect? It has been a long time since I played and I honestly don't remember, if I even ever knew.
 

Voadam

Legend
4e encouraged using skills broadly and action movie epically, particularly in skill challenges. It explicitly authorizes the arcana skill to be used to detect magic and in essentials to be used to affect some magical effects and possibly do some open ended minor magical things.

Whether using basilisk blood to unfreeze people stoned by a stone-eyed basilisk (as opposed to the other 4e MM basilisk, the venom-eye basilisk which has a poison gaze and no petrification ability at all) would be up to the DM, but there is no specific lore in the 4e MM to suggest such a solution. It would be the DM solely deciding whether that is something that can work or not.

4e does not specifically address whether fresh basilisk blood can be used to unstone people, whether it is limited to those stoned by basilisks, whether there needs to be alchemical transmutation for that to occur, or whether it has no effect whatsoever.
 

Voadam

Legend
Pathfinder 1e explicitly delineated rules for using basilisk blood in the basilisk's gaze ability description.

"A creature petrified in this matter that is then coated (not just splashed) with fresh basilisk blood (taken from a basilisk no more than 1 hour dead) is instantly restored to flesh. A single basilisk contains enough blood to coat 1d3 Medium creatures in this manner."
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
Pathfinder 1e explicitly delineated rules for using basilisk blood in the basilisk's gaze ability description.

"A creature petrified in this matter that is then coated (not just splashed) with fresh basilisk blood (taken from a basilisk no more than 1 hour dead) is instantly restored to flesh. A single basilisk contains enough blood to coat 1d3 Medium creatures in this manner."
Reminds me of the 2e Monstrous Manual, the best monster book ever until Level Up's Monstrous Menagerie.
 

Voadam

Legend
The 5e MM entry on the basilisk says:

"Basilisks are ponderous for hunting creatures, but they needn't chase prey. Meeting a basilisk's supernatural gaze can be enough to affect a rapid transformation, transforming a victim into porous stone. Basilisks, with their strong jaws, are able to consume the stone. The stone returns to organic form in the basilisk's gullet.

Some alchemists are said to know how to process the basilisk's gullet and the fluids contained within. Properly handled, the gullet produces an oil that can return petrified creatures to flesh and life. Unfortunately for such a victim, any parts lost in stone form remain absent if the creature revives. Revivification using the oil is impossible if a vital part of the petrified creature, such as its head, is detached."

5e does not say that fresh untreated basilisk blood cannot be used to reverse petrification, but the lore does not suggest it and 5e does specify both a spell and a rumored alchemical treatment from a different basilisk body part.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
While I personally agree, I see no reason to impose that limitation on others. Keep magic out of the base class, and those of us who prefer our rogues to not have magic don't have to choose the magic subclasses.

If somebody else, even at my own table, chooses a magical rogue subclass, why should that bother me any more than if they multiclass?
Because if those classes are there to be chosen and other players at the table choose them, you end up stuck playing in a much more magic-first game and party even though you yourself chose to go with a non-magical character.

Same goes for if they multi-class; if magic-using classes are seen as (or worse, outright are) better and-or more optimal and the option to play them is there, players will naturally gravitate toward that option even with what would otherwise be a non-magical character, just to keep up. Meanwhile your own preference gets squashed.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
The 5e MM entry on the basilisk says:

"Basilisks are ponderous for hunting creatures, but they needn't chase prey. Meeting a basilisk's supernatural gaze can be enough to affect a rapid transformation, transforming a victim into porous stone. Basilisks, with their strong jaws, are able to consume the stone. The stone returns to organic form in the basilisk's gullet.

Some alchemists are said to know how to process the basilisk's gullet and the fluids contained within. Properly handled, the gullet produces an oil that can return petrified creatures to flesh and life. Unfortunately for such a victim, any parts lost in stone form remain absent if the creature revives. Revivification using the oil is impossible if a vital part of the petrified creature, such as its head, is detached."

5e does not say that fresh untreated basilisk blood cannot be used to reverse petrification, but the lore does not suggest it and 5e does specify both a spell and a rumored alchemical treatment from a different basilisk body part.
Variants on this theme go all the way back to Basic. In Keep on the Borderlands there's a Medusa; and as a mitigator, near where they meet her the party can find a unique potion (I forget how many "doses") that when poured over a stone victim returns it to flesh.

That potion doesn't appear anywhere else in Basic or 1e that I'm aware of.

But many old-timers who cut their teeth on KotB will remember it, even if only vaguely, which along with the real-world mythology around such things might explain the persistence of players in searching for de-stoning solutions that don't require high-level spells.
 

See for me, it's the opposite. As I get older, the world we live in wears on me. I lack the power to change it, and it makes me tired and sad. It's better to envision a fantastic, magical world, with it's own problems, to be sure, but one that you can change, and make better, just by walking outside of your house and facing down those who oppress others, or despoil the land, or set themselves up as false prophets.

In our world, I don't have much chance of forcing people to change their hearts and minds by talking- but as a Bard, gifted with an almost superhuman level of eloquence, maybe a I could make a high Charisma roll and make rival nations sit down and discuss peace!

Maybe with the sword, I could tame the wild lands, and stop the predations of unnatural beasts!

And maybe with incantations and magic, I can solve the ills of the world. Why would I want to make my fantasy worlds any more like ours than they need to be?
I really really really like this sentiment, and wish I were more like you. (y) Kudos.
 

You can, and we did, play 4e without a grid or minis. It worked really well TotM. You also seem to be completely disregarding essentials classes which did not all use the AEDU structure.

I just didn't personally experience that 4e forced us to play a particular way. We played 4e like we played 1e, like we play 5e.
I have a whole thread where I not only say I did play 4e the same way I did 2e and 3e/3.5 but the system was more helpful... as such I was ALWAYS playing 4e.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
The 5e MM entry on the basilisk says:

"Basilisks are ponderous for hunting creatures, but they needn't chase prey. Meeting a basilisk's supernatural gaze can be enough to affect a rapid transformation, transforming a victim into porous stone. Basilisks, with their strong jaws, are able to consume the stone. The stone returns to organic form in the basilisk's gullet.

Some alchemists are said to know how to process the basilisk's gullet and the fluids contained within. Properly handled, the gullet produces an oil that can return petrified creatures to flesh and life. Unfortunately for such a victim, any parts lost in stone form remain absent if the creature revives. Revivification using the oil is impossible if a vital part of the petrified creature, such as its head, is detached."

5e does not say that fresh untreated basilisk blood cannot be used to reverse petrification, but the lore does not suggest it and 5e does specify both a spell and a rumored alchemical treatment from a different basilisk body part.
Just curious: are there monsters in later books (aside from Volo's) that try and pull this kind of thing? Because I feel like this vagueness that can screw the PCs but could maybe possibly if you squint provide a solution like in modern installments is part and parcel of the early push to appeal to old school sensibilities without actually pulling the trigger directly.
 

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.
This was one thing I appreciated about 4e. Even with the roles, most classes dabbled in other roles. Most martial classes leaned a bit into the striker role, most divine into the leader role, most arcane into control and most primal into defender.

Fighters, wardens and swordmages were all defenders, but one did more damage, one boosted allies, and one had the highest hp in the game, and their defender schtick was all different.
 

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. 5e, IME works great with little to no magic.
While I get where you’re coming from, I think you are overselling 5e here. In a no-to-low magic 5e campaign, you are pretty much limited to 4 classes out of 13 (depending on how you feel about monks), and you have to spread them out pretty carefully to fulfill all roles.

If your preferred playstyle is low magic, I can definitely see getting tired of the lack of class choice after 2 or 3 characters.
 

While I get where you’re coming from, I think you are overselling 5e here. In a no-to-low magic 5e campaign, you are pretty much limited to 4 classes out of 13 (depending on how you feel about monks), and you have to spread them out pretty carefully to fulfill all roles.

If your preferred playstyle is low magic, I can definitely see getting tired of the lack of class choice after 2 or 3 characters.
I wish the other roles were done as well as defender... You could on 4 different campaigns have 4 different defenders and have VERY different play experience. A fighter, a Swordmage, a Warden, and a Battlemind almost felt like completely different.

Striker KIND of got this by the end but really it felt very much like if you saw 1 or 2 you saw all of them (some characters may be better or worse builds, but all felt the same)

Leaders and controler were the worst for it.
 

dave2008

Legend
While I get where you’re coming from, I think you are overselling 5e here. In a no-to-low magic 5e campaign, you are pretty much limited to 4 classes out of 13 (depending on how you feel about monks), and you have to spread them out pretty carefully to fulfill all roles.

If your preferred playstyle is low magic, I can definitely see getting tired of the lack of class choice after 2 or 3 characters.
Well we are still on our first characters from the start of 5e and were are only at lvl 15 (though on an extend Covid hiatus). So we haven't gotten tired of our fighters and rogues yet!

Honestly it amazes me how fast some people play. We had one set of characters for the full run of 4e and we are still on our first set for 5e. There is no fear of my group running out of classes to play (they almost always play fighters anyway) ;)
 

Well we are still on our first characters from the start of 5e and were are only at lvl 15 (though on an extend Covid hiatus). So we haven't gotten tired of our fighters and rogues yet!

Honestly it amazes me how fast some people play. We had one set of characters for the full run of 4e and we are still on our first set for 5e. There is no fear of my group running out of classes to play (they almost always play fighters anyway) ;)
on average we do 1 campaign per real year (between 9-15 months) but we have 3 1/2 running right now (1 weekly 2 2 on 2off alternating and 1 almost never but in theory 1/month) so over 8 years I would say 16-20 campaigns and a few short adventures... even saying I DM half (and I think that is about right) that would still be 8-10 characters.
 

dave2008

Legend
on average we do 1 campaign per real year (between 9-15 months) but we have 3 1/2 running right now (1 weekly 2 2 on 2off alternating and 1 almost never but in theory 1/month) so over 8 years I would say 16-20 campaigns and a few short adventures... even saying I DM half (and I think that is about right) that would still be 8-10 characters.
Yep, that type of production amazes me. I can't imagine it as a DM. The old player in me has wonder how you get to know your characters if you only have them for a year or so? IME it takes a lot of time to discover what makes a character tick and to build storylines. As a DM I can't imagine accomplish that with 4-6 PCs in a year. Of course I realize everyone plays differently, but it really is foreign to me!
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
Well we are still on our first characters from the start of 5e and were are only at lvl 15 (though on an extend Covid hiatus). So we haven't gotten tired of our fighters and rogues yet!

Honestly it amazes me how fast some people play. We had one set of characters for the full run of 4e and we are still on our first set for 5e. There is no fear of my group running out of classes to play (they almost always play fighters anyway) ;)
Is PC death off the table in your games? That might be part of the reason.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Because if those classes are there to be chosen and other players at the table choose them, you end up stuck playing in a much more magic-first game and party even though you yourself chose to go with a non-magical character.

Same goes for if they multi-class; if magic-using classes are seen as (or worse, outright are) better and-or more optimal and the option to play them is there, players will naturally gravitate toward that option even with what would otherwise be a non-magical character, just to keep up. Meanwhile your own preference gets squashed.

Seems to me that’s a problem with how one chooses the people they game with, not the game itself.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top