Will we get 5 tiers of game in 5.5 insted of current 4?

Except a lot of the new powers were the same power with higher numbers.
yeah kinda. I think that a power that you attack upt to 3 targets for 1W that yyou can trade out at level 17 to instead hit up to 4 targets for 2w could just be the same power with a rider "at level 17 increase to..."

4e was rushed and very raw. It had GREAT ideas (and is the best edition of the game so far for me) but it needed work. Essentials started to get it better, and some 5e improvments and ideas grafted back on to a 4e frame work would have improved it more. Having said all of that I still think WotC abandoning the good of 4e to step backwards for 5e will always be a soar spot for me and my friends... I really hope someday 6e will take the 4e ideas and some bits of 2e, some 5e ideas and rework them all into my perfect edition... I can live in hope
 

log in or register to remove this ad

With respect, in AD&D they gave you some followers, and told you jack about how to play kingdom building.

"They knew what to do with it, but didn't actually do it," seems an odd assertion.
Yeah, I think WotC took that most people (atleast those talking at cons and on the old TSR message boards and BBS) kept playing level 13 like level 4 just with more power and learned the wrong lesson. instead of "We need good advice on how the game changes in the second half and really to double down on why" they took it to mean "Lets just give them what they do anyway."
 


Ideally, you take the interesting capstones (like Wizard signature spells) and move them to the "real-game" endpoint of about 12th level. Than you give flashy, meaningless capstones (like the Paladin super saiyan transformation) at 20 so those levels have some sort of goal
I am super big on not giving the wizard more... but I WOULD be fully on board with moving signature spell and spell mastery lower in exchange for the higher level spells.

move wizards (while everyone) on to either the warlock or artificer frame and you have a lot more room for either class features or mini feats for the class (Invocations and infussions... but do things like those for every class)
 

I am super big on not giving the wizard more... but I WOULD be fully on board with moving signature spell and spell mastery lower in exchange for the higher level spells.

move wizards (while everyone) on to either the warlock or artificer frame and you have a lot more room for either class features or mini feats for the class (Invocations and infussions... but do things like those for every class)
Ideally all full casters should have one mystic Arcanum slot per day that can cast a 6 through 9th level spell depending on your caster level. K don't see why a wizard or any PC should have an individual 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level slot.
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
I am super big on not giving the wizard more... but I WOULD be fully on board with moving signature spell and spell mastery lower in exchange for the higher level spells.

move wizards (while everyone) on to either the warlock or artificer frame and you have a lot more room for either class features or mini feats for the class (Invocations and infussions... but do things like those for every class)
I would totally be on board on capping all casters to 5th level spells, and give wizards earlier signature spell and spell mastery in exchange.
 

i am taken aback... I have seen people argue they are not OVER powered (and I disagree) but I have never seen someone say they are too weak?
Too weak for what they should do at the exp they have. The problem is not that the martial are not as versatile as the casters. It is that the martials level at the same pace as the casters. The difference in exp chart was there for a good reason.

why? Why is it good that no martial character without magic even at 20th level can have the versatility and power of a 5th level spell useable by 1/3 the game at level 9?
Simple. Magic is magic.
Over the years, the differentiation between the leveling of martials and casters got gutted. This leads us to this problem where for the same exp, one class gets better versatility than the other. Martials should've get some trade offs such as: "A bit more skills, bonuses to social skills/challenges. A bit more bonuses with weapons or being encouraged to have varied weapons for different situations."

Now, fighters are stuck being one trick poneys. Choose the fighting style you want. Choose the corresponding weapon and that is all. I would have liked to see fighters with more than one fighting style (beside champions I know) and having to actually be able to be great at more than one fighting style.

that doesn't work either. And if you look at the 2e (I don't know about 1e) charts it didn't even work then.
Ho but it worked. It really worked. Most campaign would end around level 11. Check the exp chart of 1ed.
The fighter would be 11th level, and be around 69 hp assuming only +1hp/level (average).
Our MU would be 12th, would have 32 hp. The average fighter would have specialized in a weapon for +3/+3 and at this level, gauntlet of ogre's power were not to wild to imagine. This fighter would attack about 2 times per round, and assuming long sword +2 would do on average 16 points of damage killing the mage in one round and hits were almost assured as with the long sword, the fighter was +2 to hit unarmored opponents.. Now, almost impossible to do. Everyone almost always have at least +2 hp/level... Ho... And good luck to the MU to cast if that fighter was in hand to hand...
 

Horwath

Hero
So, if you give the same goodies, but sooner, then you're just hitting the same problem earlier.
I believe that main culprit is higher level spells.
That is why they need to stay at the levels they are.

most features of classes(except spells) that are gained at levels 13-20 would not break anything if they are gained at levels 9-13.
Maybe, if possible with some lighter version, then improved after few levels.
 

Simple. Magic is magic.
I could have maybe talked about HP inflation (I am fully down for lower them) maybe even the getting different xp and having different charts but you already admitted you were comparing an 11th level fighter to a 12th level wizard (with 6th level spells)... but this one statement "Magic is magic" means we will neve see eye to eye, and there is no point trying.

a 7th level fighter should not be magic... but he should be a superhuman paragon. All classes should be balanced off having a similar level of versatilty and power... and you just will never see that.
 

Horwath

Hero
I would totally be on board on capping all casters to 5th level spells, and give wizards earlier signature spell and spell mastery in exchange.
If we are using spell points and only have spells to level 5, but at later levels you could only upcast lower level spells to levels 6-9 that could be interesting variant.

just reduce spell costs of levels 6,7,8,9 from 9,10,11,13 to 8,9,10,11 as upcasting really sucks.
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
If we are using spell points and only have spells to level 5, but at later levels you could only upcast lower level spells to levels 6-9 that could be interesting variant.

just reduce spell costs of levels 6,7,8,9 from 9,10,11,13 to 8,9,10,11 as upcasting really sucks.
Definitely doable. Or to make it even simpler, you can leave the spell progression alone and simply truncate class spell lists at level 5.
 

Horwath

Hero
Ideally all full casters should have one mystic Arcanum slot per day that can cast a 6 through 9th level spell depending on your caster level. K don't see why a wizard or any PC should have an individual 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level slot.
spell point variant.
You can only create one spell slots for spells 6-9.
 


I think they'll do what they did with 5e. Print the spells in as familiar a form as they can, create class abilities that really don't do anything in 90% of circumstances (but they fill a character sheet!), curve it so the math largely stops, then add some flashy finisher at level 20 that makes it look worth it for everyone. Then ignore it as much as you can and let the small minority of players who actually play at that level do whatever they want. It doesn't matter as long as they're satisfied enough not to complain. The real game dev stops at 13.

This however does make sense.
 

If we are using spell points and only have spells to level 5, but at later levels you could only upcast lower level spells to levels 6-9 that could be interesting variant.

just reduce spell costs of levels 6,7,8,9 from 9,10,11,13 to 8,9,10,11 as upcasting really sucks.
I keep saying warlock and artificer...

the artificer has a ton of slots from 1st to 5th level but no 6+ spells but they get lots of cool features
the warlock gets 2 (for most of the game then 3 for a bit) spell slots that come back on a SR and level with them to a max of 5th... but then get a single spell of 6th 7th 8th and 9th they can cast 1/perday,

not having 4 1st 4 2nd and 4 3rd level spell slots makes having the 1.day 6th level spell more palatable to me...
 



Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Yeah, I think WotC took that most people (atleast those talking at cons and on the old TSR message boards and BBS) kept playing level 13 like level 4 just with more power and learned the wrong lesson. instead of "We need good advice on how the game changes in the second half and really to double down on why" they took it to mean "Lets just give them what they do anyway."

Exactly. The game went in the opposite direction than what was intended, and we've been scrambling to make that work ever since.

You two speak as if you have TEH TRVTH, the One True Way of high level gaming, or something. As if you know the market better than anyone else.

Needless to say, I don't buy it. I think you are rather focused on your own frustrated desires, and a little less on some of the limitations on high level gaming that aren't even about game design. But, you know, I could be wrong.

So, I hope you two get together, and create an OGL product that rewrites high level D&D, and it is a smash hit!
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
You two speak as if you have TEH TRVTH, the One True Way of high level gaming, or something. As if you know the market better than anyone else.

Needless to say, I don't buy it. I think you are rather focused on your own frustrated desires, and a little less on some of the limitations on high level gaming that aren't even about game design. But, you know, I could be wrong.

So, I hope you two get together, and create an OGL product that rewrites high level D&D, and it is a smash hit!
I said that the game was changed from what the designers originally intended, not from what was popular or what the market wanted. I explained that it was shifted based on the lack of popularity of the original style, in fact. That I happened to like the old way is not relevant to that point, and I never said it was.

I do think the OSR way for high levels is the best use of it; that's my opinion. Level Up and ACKS both do a better job of this, so fortunately there's no need to make my own game.
 

Retreater

Legend
Since 3rd edition was released, high level play has been about drastically increasing HP, more powerful spells, more magic items, etc. For the first 25-ish years of the game, the mechanical power of the characters did actually stop around 9th level. Higher level characters were assumed to have more impact on the campaign world, creating strongholds, ruling over empires, even ascending to godhood.
The contemporary system has made high level play less interesting in some ways - it's just more of what you've already been doing for the entire campaign.
But I don't think games back then or games today actually use any of the high level material anyway.
What would make groups use the game material? Well, I think most campaigns end due to the time spent and complexities of high level play.
I can't imagine a game where groups would ever use it that would still fit the power fantasy theme of D&D.
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top