NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Salamandyr" data-source="post: 6829522" data-attributes="member: 40233">A few thoughts off the top of my head.1.  The complaint about Paladins and Rangers seems really overblown.  They aren't all any more magical than they were in previous editions; it's just that abilities that they had were shunted over to the same spell mechanic wizards use.  Rather than having a "Hunter's Mark" special ability, they now cast "Hunter's Mark" like the wizard casts burning hands.  But the ability doesn't actually feel any more magical to me.  Instead of summoning a magical mount at 4th level, the paladin casts a mount spell.  End result is the same.  Paladin in my game uses her slots almost exclusively for smites.  Doesn't feel any more magical than the smitey Pathfinder paladin, or a the 3e one. I'm open that using the spellcasting system for what maybe ought to be discrete abilities was a mistake, in feel if nothing else, but it doesn't suddenly make them more magical.2.  The D&D party can be as magical as it wants to be; that doesn't necessarily have to affect the rest of the world.  In the Conan stories, he trips over an undead or sorceror, ancient artifact, or monster from the beyond in what seems like every other story, but that sort of thing doesn't happen to your average Bossonian plowman, who has to worry about the occasional pict raid, but has never heard of carnivorous flying apes and wouldn't believe you if you told him of them.  PC's are magical because they poke around in the corners of the world best left uncovered, and if it doesn't kill them, it rewards them greatly.  They can be as dripping with magical gewgaws as you want, but that doesn't mean the world has to be that way.  (Or it does, it's how you want to play the game).3.  Going back to Basic/Expert, I've sort of looked at 'swing to hit, and then doing damage' as "the Game".  Fighters were the best at "the Game".  Meanwhile clerics, rogues, and wizards, traded being less good at "the Game" in order to have extraordinarily abilities that when deployed, made "the Game" superfluous. (note; "the Game" is a gross oversimplication).  That still largely holds true in 5e.  However; at least at my tables, a lot of people have come to the conclusion that "the Game" is really boring.  So, even when they would really prefer a nonmagical class, they wind up playing a spellcaster because the spellcasting gives them something to do other than just swing to hit.I'm working on some mundane solutions to the problem, like upgrading the alchemical solutions to be actually useful, and stealing some things that got sequestered off as class abilities to make them as mundane combat options, and outlining some new things to be done with bonus actions and reactions.4.   One of the ways to cut back on magic?  Cut back on the number of magic classes.  Each magic class is built around a certain idea of magic.   Warlocks have pacts with otherworldly beings.  Wizards have formulae, sorcerors have arcane heritages.  What if the only way to get magical power was to "make a deal with the devil?"  Boom, you can get rid of sorcerers and wizards.  Want your wizards to be less boom-y, and more support-y; want them to feel a bit like Gandalf?  Make them all clerics.  Not every campaign world has to have every sort of magic available to it.5.  Lastly, somebody said that 5e isn't so much more magical, but it moved the magic from the backpack to the character sheet.  I think that's right.  A high level fighter in 1e could have as much access to magical spells as a wizard; he just cast them using his Helm of Teleportation, Boots of Speed, and Horn of Blasting.</blockquote>

Verification