Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 6832828" data-attributes="member: 957">I think the prevalence and homogeneity are only mildly related.&nbsp; Mostly the homogeneity makes the prevalence stand out.For the prevalence, I don't think it is really that much more than even the 1E days.&nbsp; The big difference obviously being at wills.&nbsp; But, as I stated earlier, I think that low level 1e was perceived not as the time when magic was rare, but as the time when low level casters sucked so they could be cool later.&nbsp; (No dispute with great games by specific groups) People (at large) want that moment of &quot;I'm a wizard!&quot;.&nbsp; They don't want to be a wizard trying decide which mundane option to use.&nbsp; The commonplace at-wills have been heavily around since at last mid3E era and it gives the fanbase what they want.I don't think the surrounding world feels that magic is necessarily prevalent.&nbsp; It is just that the PCs are a wandering sphere of magic.&nbsp; But when that prevalence which has been around runs into the homogeneity issue, both bits draw attention to each other.&nbsp; If you have three different characters throw 18 Fire Bolts between them over the course of a 10 round fight, that starts to lose the &quot;magic&quot; of the experience.I think 5E suffers from the combination of 2 key components.&nbsp; One is that WotC wants the game to be reliably predictive for character performance as it was in 4E.&nbsp; Thus there is an element of homogeneity right there.&nbsp; I certainly had this on my list of 4E complaints.&nbsp; I think 5E did away with the everyone is pretty good at everything portion of that issue.&nbsp; But the 1st level wizard, fighter, and ranger are all +5 to hit at the same AC and the scaling stays with them.&nbsp; That doesn't play directly to magic, but the spell effects do fall into this same constraint.&nbsp; Again, I think it much better and very much acceptable in this format, but it does add some clear homogeneity. Now add the sparse content onto that.&nbsp; They do recycle a lot of the same spells.&nbsp; Between WotC wanting the RAW game to have a low entry point for both players and the DMs and WotC being loathe to produce a lot of low ROI follow up, the game as published starts to feel as you have described.I'm not holding my breathe on this, but I'd love to see a strong publisher rebuild full games based on 5E.&nbsp; I think games that hold more true to &quot;old school&quot; and to 4E could be built right onto the 5E foundation.For a 3E &quot;rebuild&quot; I'd love to see a game with a lot more feats, clerics picking two domains from a long list of options, etc....That itself does not speak directly to the homogeneity issue.&nbsp; But I think that a robust diversity of options would retain the &quot;same +5 to hit&quot; mechanic and wrap it into a huge range of options (both flavor and mechanical) that would stop feeling like &quot;Fire Bolt&quot; is the go-to option for three different characters.&nbsp; And the exact same prevalence we have now would stop being so readily apparent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 6832828, member: 957"] I think the prevalence and homogeneity are only mildly related. Mostly the homogeneity makes the prevalence stand out. For the prevalence, I don't think it is really that much more than even the 1E days. The big difference obviously being at wills. But, as I stated earlier, I think that low level 1e was perceived not as the time when magic was rare, but as the time when low level casters sucked so they could be cool later. (No dispute with great games by specific groups) People (at large) want that moment of "I'm a wizard!". They don't want to be a wizard trying decide which mundane option to use. The commonplace at-wills have been heavily around since at last mid3E era and it gives the fanbase what they want. I don't think the surrounding world feels that magic is necessarily prevalent. It is just that the PCs are a wandering sphere of magic. But when that prevalence which has been around runs into the homogeneity issue, both bits draw attention to each other. If you have three different characters throw 18 Fire Bolts between them over the course of a 10 round fight, that starts to lose the "magic" of the experience. I think 5E suffers from the combination of 2 key components. One is that WotC wants the game to be reliably predictive for character performance as it was in 4E. Thus there is an element of homogeneity right there. I certainly had this on my list of 4E complaints. I think 5E did away with the everyone is pretty good at everything portion of that issue. But the 1st level wizard, fighter, and ranger are all +5 to hit at the same AC and the scaling stays with them. That doesn't play directly to magic, but the spell effects do fall into this same constraint. Again, I think it much better and very much acceptable in this format, but it does add some clear homogeneity. Now add the sparse content onto that. They do recycle a lot of the same spells. Between WotC wanting the RAW game to have a low entry point for both players and the DMs and WotC being loathe to produce a lot of low ROI follow up, the game as published starts to feel as you have described. I'm not holding my breathe on this, but I'd love to see a strong publisher rebuild full games based on 5E. I think games that hold more true to "old school" and to 4E could be built right onto the 5E foundation. For a 3E "rebuild" I'd love to see a game with a lot more feats, clerics picking two domains from a long list of options, etc.... That itself does not speak directly to the homogeneity issue. But I think that a robust diversity of options would retain the "same +5 to hit" mechanic and wrap it into a huge range of options (both flavor and mechanical) that would stop feeling like "Fire Bolt" is the go-to option for three different characters. And the exact same prevalence we have now would stop being so readily apparent. [/QUOTE]

Verification