5e Basic Discussion

[Lord Raziere]

While I agree somewhat, I think AMFs aren't exactly the best way to accomplish that. They're a blunt tool. I prefer the method of taking characters out of their comfort zone as a more in-character RP method, I just find it more satisfying that way. But even as a mechanical way of taking characters out of their comfort zone, without taking away all of their tools. It's fun to try to figure out how to hammer in a nail with a pipe wrench. It's not so fun when all you have is a two-by-four and a potato. If the wizard is an illusionist, give the enemy truesight. If they're an evoker, give the enemies some energy resistances. They still have their other spells as tools, but they're not necessarily "In their comfort zone."

Ok, I can accept that. I'd definitely get creative with abilities like that. I can find ways around those. The evoker could use their spells to collapse something heavy on top of them. the illusionist have more illusions than just sight to exploit (unless truesight somehow sees through false sounds and smells or something, in which case why is it called trueSIGHT?) and of course other spells of schools I also like.

[HeadlessMermaid]

While I agree somewhat, I think AMFs aren't exactly the best way to accomplish that. They're a blunt tool.
AMFs are a blunt - though sometimes entirely appropriate - tool only when we're talking about an area where magic doesn't work, period. By the rules so far, this can only happen by DM fiat. If anyone doesn't like this particular use, they can take it up with their DM, because the ruleset is neither here not there. And DM fiat can produce a dead magic zone even without an AMF spell in the books. So this is a party-specific issue.

But the spell Antimagic Field? The thing we're talking about, and whether it should be included in the 5E wizard's spell list or not? That's a 10-ft emanation, moving with a caster who can no longer cast. It's a defensive* debuff, you can avoid it by moving 10 ft away. As long as there's no Incantatrix who can widen it, persist it, and sling spells from within, nobody, PC or enemy, will be out of their comfort zone for more than a round. That's a non-issue for the huge majority of players. Those in the minority can simply ask their DM to ban it.

Problem solved. :)

*This being D&D, "defensive" is not an absolute. PCs do the darnedest things, and are capable of tying the wizard to the neck of the Tarrasque and having him cast AMF while the barbarian gouges its eyes out. :smalltongue: But you get my drift.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

While I agree somewhat, I think AMFs aren't exactly the best way to accomplish that. They're a blunt tool. I prefer the method of taking characters out of their comfort zone as a more in-character RP method, I just find it more satisfying that way. But even as a mechanical way of taking characters out of their comfort zone, without taking away all of their tools. It's fun to try to figure out how to hammer in a nail with a pipe wrench. It's not so fun when all you have is a two-by-four and a potato. If the wizard is an illusionist, give the enemy truesight. If they're an evoker, give the enemies some energy resistances. They still have their other spells as tools, but they're not necessarily "In their comfort zone."

I have a fix for AMF

Give non-casters Extraordinary abilities. Give casters Spells (call the ability to cast a spell supernatural). Then have a set of abilities that are natural, that pretty much everyone or thing gets.

Renmae/rework AMF to be a physics enhancer. Ex and Su don't work within the area because in enhances physics to a point where it is earth like. Natural abilities can still be used.

AMF takes everyone's cool things away.

In an AMF you get " move + I hit" fighter and "move + shoot crossbow" mage. Very basic and very boring type of abilities. Outside of the AMF everyone gets their cool toys back.

Now AMF is still a horrible mess of a spell but it effect ts everyone and everything equally.

[Particle_Man]

From the non-PC pov, I have seen AMF used mostly as "problem areas", like "How do I get the macguffin out of this area covered by an AMF?" so it becomes a puzzle to solve, not a feature of combat.

The only time I have seen an AMF used in combat vs. a protagonist has been . . . well, OOTS, the webcomic, and I gotta admit that made a good tactic for a dragon vs. a lone spellcaster.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html

But even there the dragon didn't kill the spellcaster, just roughed the spellcaster up and put the spellcaster's family under threat.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0629.html

So it was a DM plot-mover, leading to a Major Choice by that protagonist, and (later) some Serious Character Development.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

From the non-PC pov, I have seen AMF used mostly as "problem areas", like "How do I get the macguffin out of this area covered by an AMF?" so it becomes a puzzle to solve, not a feature of combat.

The only time I have seen an AMF used in combat vs. a protagonist has been . . . well, OOTS, the webcomic, and I gotta admit that made a good tactic for a dragon vs. a lone spellcaster.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html

But even there the dragon didn't kill the spellcaster, just roughed the spellcaster up and put the spellcaster's family under threat.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0629.html

So it was a DM plot-mover, leading to a Major Choice by that protagonist, and (later) some Serious Character Development.

As a player I like an AMF being used as a plot device. Without changing things to AMF I wouldn't mind seeing it taken out of players hands and used only by the DM.

I'm setting up a room with tons of minions that each square is has a pressure plate. The party will get some sort of Dex save or acrobatics check to not step on the pressure plate.

The plates are connected to a trap that shoots an AMF in certain areas (preplanned, X plate to Y area) with different shapes and sizes. Eventually the X to Y chart will be rearranged to mess with the players. There will be multiple areas in the room for each push and not just one AMF. Might print out maps for the AMFs.

The boss is a magical construct like creature that the room was made to keep in if it was to escape the previous chambers or at least slow down. When in the AMF it doesn't shut down but it does go haywire and is essentially confused. I'm going to model this guy off from a Cyberman.

The players have to fight the minion things while dealing with the AMF randomness. Sometimes they may hit themselves or the golem thingie or they may not.

This will need to happen at a level where everyone had a magic item or two so that it isn't just the caster who get mad :p.

So the trap is annoying but won't shut down the encounter and the players can try to use it in their favor.

[Fwiffo86]

My favorite AMF use....

You have a large room, devoid of any objects except for a large Thing in the center of the room. The Thing can be any kind you like. The only other exit to the room (which provides access to their goal) is on the far side/opposite corner. Throughout the room is a series of invisible maze like walls that with some exploration, the party can discover doesn't allow them access to the opposing door.

If the Thing notices the players (again, invisible walls) it comes directly at them, ignoring the walls entirely.

Reality of the situation....

Walls of Force
Creature radiates a 10' AMF that negates the walls and allows it to roam around the room as it wants.
Players must gain attention of creature, and NOT kill it until they can Kite it to the other door granting them access. If they kill it, its AMF disperses, and they may very well be stuck where they are. Which keeps all the players packed into a very small area that moves and keeps them in relative reach of the Thing for the duration of the entire encounter.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

My favorite AMF use....

You have a large room, devoid of any objects except for a large Thing in the center of the room. The Thing can be any kind you like. The only other exit to the room (which provides access to their goal) is on the far side/opposite corner. Throughout the room is a series of invisible maze like walls that with some exploration, the party can discover doesn't allow them access to the opposing door.

If the Thing notices the players (again, invisible walls) it comes directly at them, ignoring the walls entirely.

Reality of the situation....

Walls of Force
Creature radiates a 10' AMF that negates the walls and allows it to roam around the room as it wants.
Players must gain attention of creature, and NOT kill it until they can Kite it to the other door granting them access. If they kill it, its AMF disperses, and they may very well be stuck where they are. Which keeps all the players packed into a very small area that moves and keeps them in relative reach of the Thing for the duration of the entire encounter.

Plot Twist: The ceiling to the room is 10ft high, the wall of force stops at 9.5ft high. The players starve to death before realizing there was a way out.

[Fwiffo86]

Plot Twist: The ceiling to the room is 10ft high, the wall of force stops at 9.5ft high. The players starve to death before realizing there was a way out.

"WHAT A TWIST?!":smallwink:

[Knaight]

On a completely different note here - while I'm actually liking 5e overall (inasmuch as I like the D&D family at all), the economic system has some serious issues, largely from a simulationist perspective. There are also some pretty conspicuous holes within said system.

Weapons have already been pointed out to some extent - the great axe being obsolete was mentioned, though I'd consider the pike being worse than the lance as an on foot pole arm significantly worse. Crafting has been mentioned in passing, and it really is iffy, particularly in certain areas - consider the implications regarding the time it takes to mint coins, which is just hilarious. Worse is the mounts. There are oddities in the economic system that I can accept for the sake of game balance, or that fly completely under my radar. Elephants being priced at half a warhorse? That just feels jarring.

[archaeo]

Elephants being priced at half a warhorse? That just feels jarring.

Presumably, you're paying extra for the training the warhorses receive; horses needed extensive preparation for combat. Elephants, well, you just get an elephant, full stop. I'm also going to assume that warhorses are required for certain feats, but I have no way of proving that; maybe Paladins get a free one or something?

Does anyone have an example of a system where the suggested economy that players interact with seems to make much logical sense/has the ability to prop up an actual society, if you extend the abstractions? I can't claim to have encountered one, but modeling an actual economy is not an easy problem to solve and isn't something I generally demand out of my games.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

As a player I like an AMF being used as a plot device. Without changing things to AMF I wouldn't mind seeing it taken out of players hands and used only by the DM.

I'm not at all in favor of this solution. Spoilered for tangent:Even putting aside my general philosophy that NPC-only/plot-device abilities should be used as sparingly as possible because there are rarely good reasons to restrict things like that, AMF in particular presents a few issues with this approach.

First off, there are DMs out there who lean on AMFs as a crutch to shut down caster class features and noncaster item at high levels because they can't handle high-level games; I had the displeasure of playing under one such DM for a few irritating months, two players in my current group are dealing with a DM like that in their other group, and I wouldn't be surprised if a similar DM influenced Raziere's opinion on AMFs. Making AMF DM-only only reinforces its use as a go-to DM strategy and prevents PCs from using the same tactics against their opposition.

Second, there are plenty of legitimate uses for AMFs on the player side of things. In one of my PbPs, one PC is currently attempting to get past a heavily-warded city gate without alerting any of the guards nearby and doesn't have the time or spell slots to sit there spamming dispels. He's decided to use an AMF to get him and the NPCs he's rescuing through the gate (after much deliberation, as not even a gish-y caster likes to be magic-less within bow range of a bunch of guards for several rounds). AMF is just another tool in his toolbox and doesn't need to be relegated to plot-device status.

Third, AMF is one of those things, like sundering and disjunction, that disproportionately affect the PCs: if you destroy or disable a NPC gear it doesn't matter too much, as most NPCs will just die and the next set come with their own stuff, and the BBEG can always get more via plenty of cash or the Power of Plot and is likely to be a powerful monster with more inherent abilities and fewer items. PCs, however, have enough of their power invested in their gear that it's a Big Deal to destroy it all and make them get a new set or to disable it all and take away a good chunk of their power, even just for one combat and even in games where PCs have just one or two items each (because having fewer items generally means those one or two items are pretty darn powerful). Things like major debuffs and SoDs hit both sides of the table fairly equally, but AMF and company are a nuclear option for the DM and a merely average option for the PCs.

So even if you're going to have a set of plot-device spells reserved for the DM (which, again, I don't recommend), AMF really shouldn't be among them; reserve that for actual game-breakers and game-changers like wish or gate or whatever.


My favorite AMF use....

You have a large room, devoid of any objects except for a large Thing in the center of the room. The Thing can be any kind you like. The only other exit to the room (which provides access to their goal) is on the far side/opposite corner. Throughout the room is a series of invisible maze like walls that with some exploration, the party can discover doesn't allow them access to the opposing door.

If the Thing notices the players (again, invisible walls) it comes directly at them, ignoring the walls entirely.

Reality of the situation....

Walls of Force
Creature radiates a 10' AMF that negates the walls and allows it to roam around the room as it wants.
Players must gain attention of creature, and NOT kill it until they can Kite it to the other door granting them access. If they kill it, its AMF disperses, and they may very well be stuck where they are. Which keeps all the players packed into a very small area that moves and keeps them in relative reach of the Thing for the duration of the entire encounter.

I hope this isn't a 3e trap, as that wouldn't actually work (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm):


Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field (see the individual spell descriptions).

[Fwiffo86]

I hope this isn't a 3e trap, as that wouldn't actually work (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm):

Edition has nothing to do with the encounter. If you would prefer, change "Wall of Force" to Magic Impenetrable wall that cannot be dispelled by any means other than described". I appreciate your notation, but I'm curious why you bothered?

[obryn]

Weapons have already been pointed out to some extent - the great axe being obsolete was mentioned, though I'd consider the pike being worse than the lance as an on foot pole arm significantly worse.
Per twitter, the Barbarian gets a class feature which lets them roll extra weapon dice, making a Greataxe 2d12 as opposed to 3d6 for a Greatsword.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm not at all in favor of this solution. Spoilered for tangent:Even putting aside my general philosophy that NPC-only/plot-device abilities should be used as sparingly as possible because there are rarely good reasons to restrict things like that, AMF in particular presents a few issues with this approach.

First off, there are DMs out there who lean on AMFs as a crutch to shut down caster class features and noncaster item at high levels because they can't handle high-level games; I had the displeasure of playing under one such DM for a few irritating months, two players in my current group are dealing with a DM like that in their other group, and I wouldn't be surprised if a similar DM influenced Raziere's opinion on AMFs. Making AMF DM-only only reinforces its use as a go-to DM strategy and prevents PCs from using the same tactics against their opposition.

Second, there are plenty of legitimate uses for AMFs on the player side of things. In one of my PbPs, one PC is currently attempting to get past a heavily-warded city gate without alerting any of the guards nearby and doesn't have the time or spell slots to sit there spamming dispels. He's decided to use an AMF to get him and the NPCs he's rescuing through the gate (after much deliberation, as not even a gish-y caster likes to be magic-less within bow range of a bunch of guards for several rounds). AMF is just another tool in his toolbox and doesn't need to be relegated to plot-device status.

Third, AMF is one of those things, like sundering and disjunction, that disproportionately affect the PCs: if you destroy or disable a NPC gear it doesn't matter too much, as most NPCs will just die and the next set come with their own stuff, and the BBEG can always get more via plenty of cash or the Power of Plot and is likely to be a powerful monster with more inherent abilities and fewer items. PCs, however, have enough of their power invested in their gear that it's a Big Deal to destroy it all and make them get a new set or to disable it all and take away a good chunk of their power, even just for one combat and even in games where PCs have just one or two items each (because having fewer items generally means those one or two items are pretty darn powerful). Things like major debuffs and SoDs hit both sides of the table fairly equally, but AMF and company are a nuclear option for the DM and a merely average option for the PCs.

So even if you're going to have a set of plot-device spells reserved for the DM (which, again, I don't recommend), AMF really shouldn't be among them; reserve that for actual game-breakers and game-changers like wish or gate or whatever.



I hope this isn't a 3e trap, as that wouldn't actually work (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm):

Well yeah, I think I mentioned that it shouldn't be used as a shut down, maybe I did off handed.

Nothing in the game should be a "shut down", ever. Well except for maybe abdamn good plan, but then it would have any be specific :p. However I know in most d&d systems there are many shut down stuff but that doesn't mean I have to like it :p.

My example shows my favorite way to use AMF as it is currently constructed. I actually think it needs to be fixed which I can go into detailed about how the entire system needs to be rethunked before AMF is ok.

But I've seen more players abuse AMF than DMs. DMs tend to either use it as a crutch (sign of bad DMing) or not use it at all for fear of piasing off their players.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Edition has nothing to do with the encounter. If you would prefer, change "Wall of Force" to Magic Impenetrable wall that cannot be dispelled by any means other than described". I appreciate your notation, but I'm curious why you bothered?

In a discussion about how players don't like DMs using AMF as a "gotcha" ability or shutting things down by fiat, I felt it was germane to point out that a particular puzzle encounter where AMF is used as a "gotcha" ability wasn't following the rules and would work only by fiat, that's all.

[Fwiffo86]

In a discussion about how players don't like DMs using AMF as a "gotcha" ability or shutting things down by fiat, I felt it was germane to point out that a particular puzzle encounter where AMF is used as a "gotcha" ability wasn't following the rules and would work only by fiat, that's all.

Perfectly fair. If you have a better solution to get the same puzzle, I would like to hear it.

[Human Paragon 3]

Per twitter, the Barbarian gets a class feature which lets them roll extra weapon dice, making a Greataxe 2d12 as opposed to 3d6 for a Greatsword.

That is awesome. So want.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Perfectly fair. If you have a better solution to get the same puzzle, I would like to hear it.

One option is using invisible walls of fire, described as heat vents in the ground or whatever else you want. Enhance that to whatever strength is needed for your party (e.g. CL 20, Maximized, Energy Admixed, and Empowered for 64 + [4d6+40]/2 damage), but if the party can't dispel, teleport past, go around, etc. walls of force to beat the first trap, they're probably low enough level that the basic wall of fire will work.

Pair that with an antifire sphere (Sandstorm, all creatures within 10 feet are immune to fire), and you get a similar effect to the original trap except that (A) there's a time limit and even more incentive to stay by the monster because they take damage for just being near the walls and (B) since the party fighter-equivalent can probably survive a pass through a wall or a few rounds standing around outside of the antifire sphere if he's not being damaged too much by the monster, that gives the PCs a few other options if they're creative.


That is awesome. So want.

Finally, the greataxe gets some love. Now let's hope the 5e barbarian has a d12 hit die so that the d20s-and-d12s-only barbarian (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0121.html) can live again. :smallwink:

[Morty]

In order for weapon dice sizes to actually matter in the long run, such abilties need to be commonplace. 4e is the only edition which does that.

[Callin]

Just got my Starter Set today and it just hit me that the Noble Background is not in the Free Basic PDF.

[rlc]

From the non-PC pov, I have seen AMF used mostly as "problem areas", like "How do I get the macguffin out of this area covered by an AMF?" so it becomes a puzzle to solve, not a feature of combat.

The only time I have seen an AMF used in combat vs. a protagonist has been . . . well, OOTS, the webcomic, and I gotta admit that made a good tactic for a dragon vs. a lone spellcaster.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0627.html

But even there the dragon didn't kill the spellcaster, just roughed the spellcaster up and put the spellcaster's family under threat.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0629.html

So it was a DM plot-mover, leading to a Major Choice by that protagonist, and (later) some Serious Character Development.

ever play the avernum/exile series? the null bug is a monster that uses an anti-magic field all the time. you just have your non-casters kill it.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Just got my Starter Set today and it just hit me that the Noble Background is not in the Free Basic PDF.

Also, try rolling percentile :smallamused:

[Knaight]

Presumably, you're paying extra for the training the warhorses receive; horses needed extensive preparation for combat. Elephants, well, you just get an elephant, full stop. I'm also going to assume that warhorses are required for certain feats, but I have no way of proving that; maybe Paladins get a free one or something?

Does anyone have an example of a system where the suggested economy that players interact with seems to make much logical sense/has the ability to prop up an actual society, if you extend the abstractions? I can't claim to have encountered one, but modeling an actual economy is not an easy problem to solve and isn't something I generally demand out of my games.

As for the system, ACKS works very well. REIGN's lines up reasonably. GURPS has a fairly solid list. Plenty of games don't have holes as glaring as a war horse costing two elephants. The training helps mitigate that somewhat (if it was just a riding horse costing twice as much it would be worse), but even then, it's pretty ridiculous. Consider Carthage - they had pretty good access to elephants, and yet when you look at their large battles you get cavalry numbered in the thousands and elephants numbered in the dozens (at most). That's before getting into the elephant versus boat pricing.

Basically, it's not just that the economy is weird. It's that it's way, way off in certain ways.

[archaeo]

Basically, it's not just that the economy is weird. It's that it's way, way off in certain ways.

I mean, like I said, modeling an actual economy, with "logical" prices and etc., is not really a major concern for my elf games. My main problem is that prices are expressed without even the pretense of a range, as if every elephant, in every land, is 200 gp. Are there no elephant shortages? Is there never a fire sale on elephants?

You can handwave this (maybe elephants are just more common than warhorses? There's a huge demand for warhorses and a relatively small demand for elephants?) but I think you're unlikely to be the only person who has an issue with this. D&D 5e has to play a very careful balancing act in order to let players suspend their disbelief, and bits and pieces like these matter.

E-mail Mike Mearls or another designer, or look into the Basic PDF to find wherever they tell you to ask questions/give cmments. If it's a mistake, it's the kind of thing you want them to fix ASAP. If it's some principled decision, well, heck. I'm interested to see if the players can hold the 5e design team to their word on creating a living (and long lived) edition.

[da_chicken]

ever play the avernum/exile series? the null bug is a monster that uses an anti-magic field all the time. you just have your non-casters kill it.

That's essentially what golems, rakshasa, and true beholders are. Enemies that are explicitly quite powerful vs Wizards. There's a reason beholders are solitary. They'd be unstoppable in groups.

[da_chicken]

I mean, like I said, modeling an actual economy, with "logical" prices and etc., is not really a major concern for my elf games. My main problem is that prices are expressed without even the pretense of a range, as if every elephant, in every land, is 200 gp. Are there no elephant shortages? Is there never a fire sale on elephants?

You can handwave this (maybe elephants are just more common than warhorses? There's a huge demand for warhorses and a relatively small demand for elephants?) but I think you're unlikely to be the only person who has an issue with this. D&D 5e has to play a very careful balancing act in order to let players suspend their disbelief, and bits and pieces like these matter.

E-mail Mike Mearls or another designer, or look into the Basic PDF to find wherever they tell you to ask questions/give cmments. If it's a mistake, it's the kind of thing you want them to fix ASAP. If it's some principled decision, well, heck. I'm interested to see if the players can hold the 5e design team to their word on creating a living (and long lived) edition.

I always consider the costs listed in the PHB to be the "readily available cost". If the item is readily available in the area, the listed price is what you can expect to pay.

If you're in a frozen tundra, there are no elephants. Not at 200 gp, not at 2,000 gp. There's no fresh fruit. If it's winter, there's no fresh anything. If you're in the mermaid kingdom on the floor of the ocean, you're not buying an elephant, either. You're also probably not buying anything made of iron. Just because the town has a general store doesn't mean it's Walmart.

[Fwiffo86]

One option is using invisible walls of fire, described as heat vents in the ground or whatever else you want. Enhance that to whatever strength is needed for your party (e.g. CL 20, Maximized, Energy Admixed, and Empowered for 64 + [4d6+40]/2 damage), but if the party can't dispel, teleport past, go around, etc. walls of force to beat the first trap, they're probably low enough level that the basic wall of fire will work.

Pair that with an antifire sphere (Sandstorm, all creatures within 10 feet are immune to fire), and you get a similar effect to the original trap except that (A) there's a time limit and even more incentive to stay by the monster because they take damage for just being near the walls and (B) since the party fighter-equivalent can probably survive a pass through a wall or a few rounds standing around outside of the antifire sphere if he's not being damaged too much by the monster, that gives the PCs a few other options if they're creative.



Finally, the greataxe gets some love. Now let's hope the 5e barbarian has a d12 hit die so that the d20s-and-d12s-only barbarian (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0121.html) can live again. :smallwink:

Bolded for attention grabbing... these are not 5e. But that could work... I guess.

But I was going for something that doesn't require a splatbook, and is in 5e. Not to mention the idea was to NOT hurt them with the walls, only to pin them in so they have to kite the thing that actually radiates the field that suppressed the walls.

[akaddk]

If you're in a frozen tundra, there are no elephants. Not at 200 gp, not at 2,000 gp. There's no fresh fruit. If it's winter, there's no fresh anything. If you're in the mermaid kingdom on the floor of the ocean, you're not buying an elephant, either. You're also probably not buying anything made of iron. Just because the town has a general store doesn't mean it's Walmart.

Common sense? In an RPG? What are you, Hitler?

[Lokiare]

Remember that almost every player will interpret HP as physical damage, just like in every other edition of D&D :smallamused:

We are talking about the rules of the game, not some popular house rule. If the developers had to develop around every house rule, the books would weigh a ton.


The thing is, you're treating magic as something to be taken for granted. It's not. Magic is something added to a mundane character to make them even more extraordinary - so in a sense, the baseline wizard IS a hybrid class already!

It has the weapon proficiencies (Especially if it's an elf!) to fight in combat, as well as having the hit points to take a few blows itself, especially at higher levels. It also has the skills to contribute to non-combat situations without magic. Bounded accuracy means it doesn't have the problem of its AC and attack bonuses being trivial to ignore by enemies, and a lack of skill taxes beyond Arcana, it's not helpless in the skill department. If it's a mountain dwarf instead of an elf, it's a full-casting Gish-In-A-Can. Humans inherently have well-balanced stats, improving its nonmagical damage and survivability. Halflings are inherently capable of being more subtle if deprived of magic.

While your effectiveness is nonetheless diminished when you're in an AMF, choosing to be a Wizard instead of a Gish means that when you're NOT in that AMF, you can be doing a lot more - including finding ways to get around AMFs. They tend to have small areas, after all.

That's not bounded accuracy. Bounded accuracy as defined by WotC is that enemy target numbers (AC, Saves, DC's) don't increase with level so that players actually feel like they are advancing when they gain a bonus. It has nothing to do with how many numbers they get or how hard something is. Basically they could apply it to a game where characters gain +3 per level attacks and spell DCs and it would still be Bounded Accuracy. Having tiny scaling numbers is an entirely different design decision on the development teams part.

As to the Lokiare says Essentials fixed everything in 4E comments: Not even close to what I said. Many people complained about things like all classes being on the same resource management track and I pointed out that this was removed in Essentials. Essentials didn't 'fix' anything. It simply addressed many of the complaints that non-4E players had with the system, but because it had the 4E logo on it, it was universally hated.

[rlc]

I always consider the costs listed in the PHB to be the "readily available cost". If the item is readily available in the area, the listed price is what you can expect to pay.

If you're in a frozen tundra, there are no elephants. Not at 200 gp, not at 2,000 gp. There's no fresh fruit. If it's winter, there's no fresh anything. If you're in the mermaid kingdom on the floor of the ocean, you're not buying an elephant, either. You're also probably not buying anything made of iron. Just because the town has a general store doesn't mean it's Walmart.

and let's not get started on all of the things that can change prices between one good/day and another, like different varieties of things or something simply going on sale.

[nyjastul69]

Wish is not a spell that should have ever existed. bad design is bad design. just because its traditional doesn't make it good.

no, as for the stance "No, No and Yes." don't lump me in with optimizers who want the world as their oyster. I want to always cast magic, not be a god. I want to be awesome, not the most effective thing in the world. I feel like you only have a couple categories to put me in, none of which I want a part of.

do I want the wizard you speak of that is powerful and godly only as long as he doesn't face an AMF? no.

do I want a wizard without the AMF that is even more powerful and godly? Hell No.

do I want a wizard that actually is as powerful as everyone else, and doesn't tread on anyones toes even if he goes all out? Hell Yes.

the AMF's are a crutch, a band-aid, a design excuse for making the wizard as powerful as you want without limits as long you can apply this one lazy band-aid you think everything will be fine. I don't want situational balance, I want universal balance. the AMF provides a perfect excuse to perpetuate the very thing its designed to "balance" out. as long as its around, you don't have to give up the magic that makes wizards gods, thinking that as long as its around, its fine when, it is not fine at all, because any wizard worth their salt recognizes the threat and makes sure it NEVER comes up going by the optimization-preparation mindset.

Wizards as they conceived in DnD, is a fundamental problem that needs to be addressed, which your solution only perpetuates and keeps said wizard being the most powerful without any effort being put into actually fixing the problem, aside from 4e, which could done better about it, but at least it TRIED to fix the problem....

This post is in response to the above without having read the rest of the thread. Please don't tell me wish is poorly designed, as a fact. Please state opinions as such. There are far too many posters in this thread stating opinions as either facts or truisms. Your statements, couched as facts, are false.

[Lokiare]

This post is in response to the above without having read the rest of the thread. Please don't tell me wish is poorly designed, as a fact. Please state opinions as such. There are far too many posters in this thread stating opinions as either facts or truisms. Your statements, couched as facts, are false.

Because Wish is left open ended and ruled purely by DM fiat, it could be very very bad. Then when you look at the actual in game effects, it turns out any time a caster is on down time they will be wishing the party magic items and gold. Either way its factually a very very bad spell.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

But I was going for something that doesn't require a splatbook, and is in 5e.

As mentioned before, I was pointing out issues of rules legality of the encounter specifically in pre-4e editions, which was prompted because you mentioned it as one of your "favorite" AMF uses and it's hard to have a favorite puzzle trap in an edition that has been out for less than two weeks. Walls of force are disabled by AMFs in 5e (the Basic version, at least), so you can use that encounter just fine in that version.


We are talking about the rules of the game, not some popular house rule. If the developers had to develop around every house rule, the books would weigh a ton.

The treatment of HP as physical is not a house rule, popular or otherwise. As has surely been mentioned at least once per edition thread since 4e was published, HP have always signified both physical damage and the skill/luck/divine favor needed to turn lethal injuries into less lethal or even superficial ones, and are not just cinematic pacing, morale, how much the universe loves you, or anything like that. I see no problem at all in acknowledging that high-level fighters literally can shrug off wounds that would kill lesser humanoids because they're superhuman instead of insisting that they're merely halfway-competent sword-swingers (and nothing else) with major plot armor.


Essentials didn't 'fix' anything. It simply addressed many of the complaints that non-4E players had with the system, but because it had the 4E logo on it, it was universally hated.

Universally hated amongst 4e fans perhaps, assuming that's actually the case, but it actually did do some of what it set out to do and convince non-4e fans to give it a try. I know of a handful of players at my FLGS who refused to try 4e until Essentials came along, and one of my player's other group attracted some 3e holdouts to their 4e game with Essentials as well. Yes, the plural of anecdote is not data, but even the broken clock that is WotC can be right twice a day.

[Particle_Man]

If you're in a frozen tundra, there are no elephants. Not at 200 gp, not at 2,000 gp. There's no fresh fruit. If it's winter, there's no fresh anything. If you're in the mermaid kingdom on the floor of the ocean, you're not buying an elephant, either. You're also probably not buying anything made of iron. Just because the town has a general store doesn't mean it's Walmart.

In 3.5 I would apply the appropriate templates for my Polar and Aquatic Elephants. :wink:


Also, try rolling percentile :smallamused:

Basic rules have percentile rolls. The Teleport spell requires one, for example.

[da_chicken]

In 3.5 I would apply the appropriate templates for my Polar and Aquatic Elephants. :wink:

You monster! A Polar Elephant still drowns! :smalltongue:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

In 3.5 I would apply the appropriate templates for my Polar and Aquatic Elephants. :wink:



Basic rules have percentile rolls. The Teleport spell requires one, for example.

I was talking about how they didn't actually give you a set of percentile dice. They cut each starter set by one die.

:smallbiggrin:

[da_chicken]

I was talking about how they didn't actually give you a set of percentile dice. They cut each starter set by one die.

:smallbiggrin:

Wow, it really is just like BECMI. I almost feel like I should need a crayon.

It could be worse, though. It could be chits!

[Arzanyos]

I was talking about how they didn't actually give you a set of percentile dice. They cut each starter set by one die.

:smallbiggrin:

Eh, I can see a way around that. You roll one d10, and since you no mo' oddah d10, just da kine roll da d10 one noddah time.

Or, in English, just roll the same d10 twice.

[Lokiare]

The treatment of HP as physical is not a house rule, popular or otherwise. As has surely been mentioned at least once per edition thread since 4e was published, HP have always signified both physical damage and the skill/luck/divine favor needed to turn lethal injuries into less lethal or even superficial ones, and are not just cinematic pacing, morale, how much the universe loves you, or anything like that. I see no problem at all in acknowledging that high-level fighters literally can shrug off wounds that would kill lesser humanoids because they're superhuman instead of insisting that they're merely halfway-competent sword-swingers (and nothing else) with major plot armor.

The poster I was responding to made it perfectly clear that they viewed hp as meat only. Again its a house rule since 0E. WotC can't design around every house rule in existence. Its just not possible. If they were to make an edition where hp = meat were true then a good size portion of the fan base would riot. The best they can do is throw some optional rules in the DMG for the hp = meat people.

Personally I view hp as your ability to turn a deadly blow into a lesser or non-existent one. For instance I describe a goblin attacking a sword and board paladin as the goblin hitting the paladins shield or the goblin faltering in the face of someone so zealous to their cause. I describe an orc attacking a wizard as the wizard teleporting 3 inches out of the reach of its blade or its blade hitting a field of force that slows it just enough to allow the wizard to move out of the way.

I also describe the death blow as physical damage. The above paladin doesn't raise his shield in time due to exhaustion or his faith in his cause falters just enough that the goblin is emboldened and skewers him when it realizes they are just a normal humanoid like everyone else. The wizards power runs out and they are unable to teleport fast enough ending up on the blade or the field of force sputters and winks out leaving them vulnerable to the incoming attack.

I try to avoid the warrior bleeding out while still standing, their intestines hanging out on the ground with 100 arrows sticking out from all sides. That breaks me out of the fantasy and is just ludicrous.


Universally hated amongst 4e fans perhaps, assuming that's actually the case, but it actually did do some of what it set out to do and convince non-4e fans to give it a try. I know of a handful of players at my FLGS who refused to try 4e until Essentials came along, and one of my player's other group attracted some 3e holdouts to their 4e game with Essentials as well. Yes, the plural of anecdote is not data, but even the broken clock that is WotC can be right twice a day.

Not really, my anecdotal experience was that people picked up the red box looked at the back and saw the 4E logo and then put it back down. The truth of the matter is it didn't accomplish what it set out for, to make 4E overtake pathfinder or make some ludicrous sales goal set by Hasbro, and was therefore shelved. So I'm right but not because of the reason I said in the above post. If it did then 5E wouldn't be coming out now.

Just my thoughts, but I don't see 5E doing any better than Essentials. Its basically Essentials for 3.5. Overall it has no major pull. If you like the play style that it caters to you might like it more than your previously preferred edition. If not, well you are more likely to stick with your preferred edition.

[Lord Raziere]

This post is in response to the above without having read the rest of the thread. Please don't tell me wish is poorly designed, as a fact. Please state opinions as such. There are far too many posters in this thread stating opinions as either facts or truisms. Your statements, couched as facts, are false.

Wish is godmode-in-a-can. you need MORE than that to tell you that its the worst most overpowered spell ever? :smallconfused:

[Arzanyos]

How is it godmode in a can? From what I saw of it, it's an extra 8th level spell slot that you don't need to tie down, or one big burst that takes you out of the fight for like a week.

[Lokiare]

How is it godmode in a can? From what I saw of it, it's an extra 8th level spell slot that you don't need to tie down, or one big burst that takes you out of the fight for like a week.

It can literally do anything. During downtime the caster can spam out magic items or gold. During adventuring it can solve any one problem no matter how big.

DM "The Evil Illithid Lord has taken over the town, you are now tasked with removing it, first you must slay its minions and then you must work your way through its defenses and finally overcome it."
Wizard player "That sounds tedious. I just wish it away."

Now either one of two things will happen the DM will be mean and twist the wish to do something like pulling the party back in time before the Evil Illithid Lord invaded (thus causing the DM to have to create an entirely different adventure on the spot) or the DM will allow it to work (thus causing the DM to have to create an entirely different adventure on the spot). Either way its super powerful.

[Arzanyos]

Can't the DM just say "I'm sorry, even the wish spell has limits" to that one?

[akaddk]

Has anyone actually seen the Wish spell yet?

[Lord Raziere]

Can't the DM just say "I'm sorry, even the wish spell has limits" to that one?

If its called Wish, then why does it have limits at all? People keep arguing against what they think is player entitlement, but they don't take care of the spell that perhaps is the worst example of it! and even if the DM restricts the higher more reality-bending effects, and just to the spell thing, any wizard will know which spell to use to solve the situation instantly anyways.

[HeadlessMermaid]

Sorry, are you talking about 5e Wish? Where is that? I don't see it in the Basic PDF, is it in the starter set maybe? The only 1/week thing I've seen is the Cleric's Divine Intervention ability.

Or are you talking about 3.5 Wish? :smallconfused:

[Lord Raziere]

Sorry, are you talking about 5e Wish? Where is that? I don't see it in the Basic PDF, is it in the starter set maybe? The only 1/week thing I've seen is the Cleric's Divine Intervention ability.

Or are you talking about 3.5 Wish? :smallconfused:

No I'm talking about the 4e Wish. :smalltongue:

Seriously though I'm talking about 3.5 Wish. I will never, ever comprehend how anyone ever thought that spell was a good idea, even when told directly to me in the next post, because seriously giving the protagonist a free pass on using almost any spell they want is just asking for your game to get messed up quick.

[Sartharina]

No I'm talking about the 4e Wish. :smalltongue:

Seriously though I'm talking about 3.5 Wish. I will never, ever comprehend how anyone ever thought that spell was a good idea, even when told directly to me in the next post, because seriously giving the protagonist a free pass on using almost any spell they want is just asking for your game to get messed up quick.

You kinda do want an ultimate "Do anything magic, within arbitrated and arbitrary reason" spell, as a catch-all. Of course, I'm more of a fan of Wish being something only acquirable through magical creatures or items.

[HeadlessMermaid]

Seriously though I'm talking about 3.5 Wish.
Oh, OK.

Yeah, I don't think Wish was balanced, though to be fair, it was meant to be the most powerful spell in the game. Of course, it broke everything when you could get it for free. If it's not a spell in 5e, I won't miss it all. That said, I would like to see it in game as an effect, because come on, it's iconic stuff - provided there's no way to get it on demand. [As in, the cleric gates the genie, the wizard dominates it and orders it to give a wish...]

[Lord Raziere]

You kinda do want an ultimate "Do anything magic, within arbitrated and arbitrary reason" spell, as a catch-all. Of course, I'm more of a fan of Wish being something only acquirable through magical creatures or items.

well to me, Wish makes things boring since I could instantly come up with a solution to the problem. I prefer not to have it, so that I can't potentially cheat and actually have to use creativity to solve my problems.

I mean you talk about using your creativity when talking about AMF's, but then you turn around and say Wish is perfectly fine even though its pretty much the most brute force method of reality warping there is, so why is it ok to start using your creativity in one case, but ok to be lazily use the most brute force spell ever in another? is this apart of that "balances out" thing?

[HeadlessMermaid]

well to me, Wish makes things boring since I could instantly come up with a solution to the problem.
I've never seen Wish being played like that. Doing anything else than the described effects (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) was a legitimate invitation towards the DM to warp the wish - another fantasy staple. People generally did that either as a last resort, or as a puzzle, of sorts.

Not to say that the described effects are trivial. Not to say it isn't a very powerful spell. But it wasn't normally used as an automatic "I win" button, you still had to use it creatively. And in the case of producing greater effects than the ones described, you had to be tremendously careful with the wording. That was never boring. That was a blast, actually.

At least in my experience. :)

[Sartharina]

well to me, Wish makes things boring since I could instantly come up with a solution to the problem. I prefer not to have it, so that I can't potentially cheat and actually have to use creativity to solve my problems.

I mean you talk about using your creativity when talking about AMF's, but then you turn around and say Wish is perfectly fine even though its pretty much the most brute force method of reality warping there is, so why is it ok to start using your creativity in one case, but ok to be lazily use the most brute force spell ever in another? is this apart of that "balances out" thing?
My problem with wish is that it's unrestrained in 3e (Well, it sort of is restrained... but not if you abuse its 'safe' effects. Tippy is an abomination to D&D), and too accessible. It works best when it's a "Godzilla threshold" spell-thing - the more powerful the effect you want, the more powerful the drawbacks of using it, so you want the most subtle and effective use of the spell to solve the problem. But it doesn't work like that.

[akaddk]

The solution to elephant pricing woes!

http://travel.cnn.com/explorations/play/horses-bred-fight-elephants-630647

[Fwiffo86]

Wish.

The single most (yes - broken) spell trap that D&D has ever conceived. Give it to your party and watch them blow themselves up. The essence of Monty Hall gaming method. I wish for (x) (y) or (z). Poof!

I miss the days when Wish aged the caster 7 years. Or cost, what 5,000 xp? 50,000 xp? Something like that. Actual side effects to casting the thing constantly.

The 7 year age thing was hilarious when you gave it to Vampires (especially when they got more powerful the older they got) or Lichs (neither of which can age anymore in the first place), etc.

Ahhhh, fun times......

"I WISH" for all elephants of the plane that I presently reside in, and call home, to be translocated to the most southern polar region of the aforementioned plane that I presently reside in, and call home.

[hawklost]

I see something like this occurring for players who arbitrarily cast Wish.


Wish.
"I WISH" for all elephants of the plane that I presently reside in, and call home, to be translocated to the most southern polar region of the aforementioned plane that I presently reside in, and call home.

DM response: "Nothing appears to occur, the elephant you are looking at is still standing in front of you."

Player: "What happened? My wish had no loop-holes!"

DM response: "Actually, at no time during the game sessions have you ever referred to this plane as just 'home', as such, the spell was wasted. Here are your effects because you cast the spell."

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I see something like this occurring for players who arbitrarily cast Wish.



DM response: "Nothing appears to occur, the elephant you are looking at is still standing in front of you."

Player: "What happened? My wish had no loop-holes!"

DM response: "Actually, at no time during the game sessions have you ever referred to this plane as just 'home', as such, the spell was wasted. Here are your effects because you cast the spell."

See that is the lazy jerk DM way of doing things, I prefer the active jerk approach.

Let all the elephants go to the southern polar region.

Now every ranger, druid and everyone else that worships natural, nature god, or is willing to do a favored for a nature god is hunting down said PC.

Or the deity says no because he doesn't want the nature deities to break a foot off in his ass. Said nature deities peg that PC for hell or whatever.

Yay plot!

[Doug Lampert]

Sorry, are you talking about 5e Wish? Where is that? I don't see it in the Basic PDF, is it in the starter set maybe?

It was in the various open playtests, and IIRC people involved in the various closed playtests stated that it is still in the game as of the last of those.

It could produce minor magic items or substantial amounts of cash, duplicate lower level spells, and IIRC didn't have any other listed safe uses, so superficially a bit less abusable than the 3.5 version. But no XP cost so you don't need wish as a spell-like to spam it in downtime.

The side effects did pretty well take the wizard out for some number of days, hence low value "in the field" except as a finishing move in the final boss fight.

But high level characters as described in WotC material are expected to be doing things like running guilds or countries in downtime, this implies that substantial downtime is expected by level 17, which in turn implies that high level wizards spamming wish should be expected at high level.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

But high level characters as described in WotC material are expected to be doing things like running guilds or countries in downtime, this implies that substantial downtime is expected by level 17, which in turn implies that high level wizards spamming wish should be expected at high level.

I hope they make rules for this and don't just say "Hey DM, wing it!"

[HeadlessMermaid]

It was in the various open playtests, and IIRC people involved in the various closed playtests stated that it is still in the game as of the last of those.

It could produce minor magic items or substantial amounts of cash, duplicate lower level spells, and IIRC didn't have any other listed safe uses, so superficially a bit less abusable than the 3.5 version. But no XP cost so you don't need wish as a spell-like to spam it in downtime.

The side effects did pretty well take the wizard out for some number of days, hence low value "in the field" except as a finishing move in the final boss fight.

But high level characters as described in WotC material are expected to be doing things like running guilds or countries in downtime, this implies that substantial downtime is expected by level 17, which in turn implies that high level wizards spamming wish should be expected at high level.
That explained it nicely, thank you. :smallsmile:


"I WISH" for all elephants of the plane that I presently reside in, and call home, to be translocated to the most southern polar region of the aforementioned plane that I presently reside in, and call home.

The plane you call home is the material plane. Its features don't include polar regions, southern or otherwise. These are features of the planet you're on. On the same material plane, there may be other planets, and there certainly are other celestial bodies - the sun and moon, for starters. Allowing this wish to work as intended would be criminal negligence from the DM. :smalltongue:

[Envyus]

I remember a PC wish. It was in Tomb of Horrors and they asked the Wish to show them were Acereak was. They were showed an image of the Tomb of Horrors.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I remember a PC wish. It was in Tomb of Horrors and they asked the Wish to show them were Acereak was. They were showed an image of the Tomb of Horrors.

That was pretty nice of the DM.

"Show me where Acereak is at"

Wish: Shows picture of a dwarf smithing a sword. In the background they see a letter addressed to Mr. And Mrs. Acereak with the address on it.

The party leaves the ToH to go find this address, plans out how to exactly destroy Acereak , ambushes the dwarf only to find out that he changed his name due to a lost bet.

[Envyus]

That was pretty nice of the DM.

"Show me where Acereak is at"

Wish: Shows picture of a dwarf smithing a sword. In the background they see a letter addressed to Mr. And Mrs. Acereak with the address on it.

The party leaves the ToH to go find this address, plans out how to exactly destroy Acereak , ambushes the dwarf only to find out that he changed his name due to a lost bet.

Well the wish I posted was just as useless given that they were already inside the Tomb of Horrors.

Still not as bad as the Cursed Wishing Gem which will always corrupt a wish in a way to kill the wisher and anyone else it can. Teleport us to Acererak's exact location. It kills them and teleports their corpses to his room.

[SouthpawSoldier]

So, getting back on track about 5E "Basic"; I thought they would be updating the free PDF as packs were released? Starter pack released today (none of my local shops had the early release) and the PDF remains the same.

I've only been playing for about a year; 5E is supposed to be targeting (relatively) newer players like myself. While it's interesting, I don't have the experience or Master's degree in statistics required to build or break a game using Basic alone. Nor can I make a decision about buying the books just from skimming Basic, and I hate the idea of buying the Starter Pack just to find out that the game doesn't work for me in actual play.

[Jeraa]

So, getting back on track about 5E "Basic"; I thought they would be updating the free PDF as packs were released? Starter pack released today (none of my local shops had the early release) and the PDF remains the same.

They are updating when the Dungeon Masters Guide and Monster Manual are released. Possibly the Players Handbook (Though doubtful - theycould of already included more of that in the Basic PDF, but didn't). So we should still be at least a month away from the first update. Two months if they aren't going to add more from the Players Handbook.


For the D&D basic rules, our initial release will include character creation. It features the human, elf, dwarf, and halfling for races, along with the cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard classes, all from 1st level to 20th level. As the Monster Manual and Dungeon Master’s Guide near completion, we’ll add to the basic rules with more material to grow it into a complete game. Our goal is to continue to make updates to the basic rules for D&D until the end of the year, at which point it will be feature complete.

[Arzanyos]

They are updating with the Player's Handbook. That's when basic gets monsters.

[Envyus]

They are updating with the Player's Handbook. That's when basic gets monsters.

DMing Advice and Magic Items as well.