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

[GMforPowergamers]

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]

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.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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]

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)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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]

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]

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]

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.