What 5e did right

[Socratov]

AS a so called grognard skipping 4th in favour of 3.5 (mostly due to my love for bards and warlocks) and finally having made the jump to 5th edition I'd like to take a moment and thank the devs for 5e:

Yes, the game for a player is so much easier during play. The revised skills and checks system is is so much lighter and a +1 really means something now that stats are pretty much limited to 20 (only rarely going past that). I also feel the classes are so much closer to eachother in terms of options (though this is at a glance as I know differences still exist).

For DM the systems seems a freaking whole lot easier as the sheer amount of stuff you need to prepare looks a lot less then it was in 3.5. Skills have a meaning now.


And finally:

Vicious Mckery. As a cantrip. I'm calling it, if you have thsi cantrip on your list, get it. if you don't you don't know the meaning of fun. I think that if there is one reason to play 5th edition as a bard, it's this little spell. yes, it is that funny and awesome. especially when used in party :smallamused:

[Rallicus]

I'm guessing you mean the flavor aspects of Vicious Mockery, ie: yelling cruel obscenities at the poor enemy? :smalltongue: Because mechanics-wise it's pretty awful, especially at higher levels when creatures get multiple attacks.

Glad to see you're enjoying it. It does have its flaws but the ease of use has been great; the past year of playing I haven't found myself scouring through the rulebooks very often at all.

[foobar1969]

AS a so called grognard skipping 4th in favour of 3.5 (mostly due to my love for bards and warlocks) and finally having made the jump to 5th edition I'd like to take a moment and thank the devs for 5e:
{ . . . } The revised skills and checks system is is so much lighter { . . . }
I also feel the classes are so much closer to each other in terms of options { . . . }
And finally:
Vicious Mockery. As a cantrip. I'm calling it, if you have thsi cantrip on your list, get it.
Then you should thank the designers of 4E, because that's where all of those things (and many others) were first introduced.

[Socratov]

I'm guessing you mean the flavor aspects of Vicious Mockery, ie: yelling cruel obscenities at the poor enemy? :smalltongue: Because mechanics-wise it's pretty awful, especially at higher levels when creatures get multiple attacks.

Glad to see you're enjoying it. It does have its flaws but the ease of use has been great; the past year of playing I haven't found myself scouring through the rulebooks very often at all.
well, let's say it's a roleplaying goldmine and I frequently use it on my partymemeber who, IC, is like a brother to me. The fact that he autoblocks it with counterspell should tell how much I like this one. And yes, only for specific spell descriptions and some details pertaining certain classfeatures and interactions. For the rest it's pretty much self explanatory.

Then you should thank the designers of 4E, because that's where all of those things (and many others) were first introduced.

Well, yes, but the designers of 4th kind of threw the baby out along with the bathwater, making the game very bland to my tastes. 5e seems to have reagained that flavour of 3.5, but without really creating imbalances that could shatter the party blance.

[costermonger]

I have to agree, i'm from a similar background(skipped 4e) and my new group started with 3.5. It was a chore to run with continuous reference to rules and skills being so tightly focused. 5e is so relaxing in comparison. I come up with a plot hook or create a dungeon (random tables in the dmg are fantastic) and just let the players get on with it, i don't need to worry about balance, stacking modifiers or magic item treadmills. Best of all conversion is easy, 1e and 2e adventures can be run pretty much as is and there are loads available online. The only time we open the phb is during level up. I don't use the dmg at the table just make reference cards for magic items before the game.

[MadBear]

My favorite thing of 5e has to be the subclass system. Rather then adding a new class that is a fighter+, we can just throw in a different variant of fighter. It means that even future classes will be tied to the original system rather then creating entirely new classes whole-cloth.

[Shaofoo]

One of the things that I like about 5e is that it doesn't assume that you should have magic items at the later levels, you can run without any magic items and the system doesn't break down against you.

[M Placeholder]

Making the Bard a playable class, and making everything a lot more balanced. They also brought back the campaign settings from 2nd edition that had been forgotten about in 3.5 and 4e (Birthright, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, PLANESCAPE), and hopefully there will be more to come on those settings.

And the Flumphs. Bringing those back was a masterstroke. I love those guys.

[foobar1969]

Well, yes, but the designers of 4th kind of threw the baby out along with the bathwater, making the game very bland to my tastes. 5e seems to have reagained that flavour of 3.5, but without really creating imbalances that could shatter the party blance.
0E to 1E/X to 2E to 3E were evolutionary steps, adding options and smoothing out irregularities.
4E was a revolutionary paradigm shift, with some really brilliant ideas, but too much so, feeling like an alien game system wearing D&D's skin.
5E is what 4E should have been, merging many (but not all) of 4E's improvements into the classic framework. Also, FATE points!

Some years from now, I hope that 5.5 or 6E revives a few more 4E things, in particular a smooth & unified level progression, with each class gaining a near-equal amount of features at each level. For example, it's completely WRONG that:

Bard level 10: +1 cantrip, +1 5th level spell slot, +1 bardic die size, +2 spells known FROM ANY CLASS, plus Expertise on top (which is the ENTIRETY of what Rogue level 6 gets).
...vs...
Ranger level 10: 3rd favorite terrain, and a really crappy version of Camouflage with the wrong name (show of hands, who else was thrilled to see HiPS so early in the Ranger level chart, then crushingly disappointed when you read the full description?)

[Mara]

One of the things that I like about 5e is that it doesn't assume that you should have magic items at the later levels, you can run without any magic items and the system doesn't break down against you.

I also like how this lets higher level character creation be a lot easier.

[MaxWilson]

Ranger level 10: 3rd favorite terrain, and a really crappy version of Camouflage with the wrong name (show of hands, who else was thrilled to see HiPS so early in the Ranger level chart, then crushingly disappointed when you read the full description?)

Camouflage is pretty cool IMO. Turns you into the Predator.

Being the Predator works best in Combat As War campaigns though.

[Shaofoo]

0E to 1E/X to 2E to 3E were evolutionary steps, adding options and smoothing out irregularities.
4E was a revolutionary paradigm shift, with some really brilliant ideas, but too much so, feeling like an alien game system wearing D&D's skin.
5E is what 4E should have been, merging many (but not all) of 4E's improvements into the classic framework. Also, FATE points!

Some years from now, I hope that 5.5 or 6E revives a few more 4E things, in particular a smooth & unified level progression, with each class gaining a near-equal amount of features at each level. For example, it's completely WRONG that:

Bard level 10: +1 cantrip, +1 5th level spell slot, +1 bardic die size, +2 spells known FROM ANY CLASS, plus Expertise on top (which is the ENTIRETY of what Rogue level 6 gets).
...vs...
Ranger level 10: 3rd favorite terrain, and a really crappy version of Camouflage with the wrong name (show of hands, who else was thrilled to see HiPS so early in the Ranger level chart, then crushingly disappointed when you read the full description?)

Isn't an unified level progression something that people thought was against D&D?

Making sure everyone gets equal amounts of stuff at all levels is part of the reason people were rallying against 4e that all of the classes were the same even if that isn't true.

I don't think all classes should get equal amounts of stuff at all levels, in your example it is a bit misleading because showing two classes and one level between them isn't indicative of a problem with the system as a whole, most people would say that it is a problem with the Ranger class.

While power levels should rise in a similar fashion adding similar amount of class features is not the way to go, especially since you are considering spell slots as a class feature when not everyone has spell slots.

[Baptor]

One of the things that I like about 5e is that it doesn't assume that you should have magic items at the later levels, you can run without any magic items and the system doesn't break down against you.

I have to say that if 5e has done anything wrong it's how it's handled magic items. It was always possible to run 3.5 and 4 without items by using inherent bonuses. Now, however, if you want to run with items, you pretty much can't without breaking the game. Even a +1 bonus can derail the system. I think this was a mistake. If d&d was a game that historically didn't focus on magic items, this would be great. But it's not. D&d has always had items and they were always an important part of the game.

For me and my table, we like magic items. I am the DM and I like to give them out. But raw I can't give out more than like one or two the whole game without breaking the system down. It's maddening. Everyone says it's more like second edition but it's not. In second which I also DMd, I could be fairly liberal with items and not worry.

So now I'm stuck inventing a whole new magic item system, which I plan to post soon. I just think that since magic items have always been part of the game, it should be the no-magic folk who have to adapt, not the other way around.

[Shaofoo]

I have to say that if 5e has done anything wrong it's how it's handled magic items. It was always possible to run 3.5 and 4 without items by using inherent bonuses. Now, however, if you want to run with items, you pretty much can't without breaking the game. Even a +1 bonus can derail the system. I think this was a mistake. If d&d was a game that historically didn't focus on magic items, this would be great. But it's not. D&d has always had items and they were always an important part of the game.

For me and my table, we like magic items. I am the DM and I like to give them out. But raw I can't give out more than like one or two the whole game without breaking the system down. It's maddening. Everyone says it's more like second edition but it's not. In second which I also DMd, I could be fairly liberal with items and not worry.

So now I'm stuck inventing a whole new magic item system, which I plan to post soon. I just think that since magic items have always been part of the game, it should be the no-magic folk who have to adapt, not the other way around.

I love it because I played in a 4e game where magic items were rare as the Holy Grail (and not only rare but also usually mismanaged, lets give the Warhammer to the Cleric that isn't proficient in Warhammers and not the Barbarian or Paladin who can use them cause reasons, lol). In my case the DM was tight fisted on magic items even when it was obvious we were behind the curve. I love it that if the DM wants to be stingy like if magic items were coming out of his pocket I am not affected.

The way I see it is that you give magic items because you want to give bonuses to your characters, not to maintain some sort of balance. You must increase the power of the enemy if you wish to give more power to your party.

Also if the problem is in static bonuses then I find it easy to just truncate any + to attack, damage and AC and the like. So the sun blade will not have +2 to attack and damage rolls but would still deal extra damage to undead and still have the light properties. Since 5e doesn't need +X to deal with nonmagic resistances and immunities it should be much easier to do so. Never give out +X of anything, make sure all of your magic items have some other property.

[Mara]

I have to say that if 5e has done anything wrong it's how it's handled magic items. It was always possible to run 3.5 and 4 without items by using inherent bonuses. Now, however, if you want to run with items, you pretty much can't without breaking the game. Even a +1 bonus can derail the system. I think this was a mistake. If d&d was a game that historically didn't focus on magic items, this would be great. But it's not. D&d has always had items and they were always an important part of the game.

For me and my table, we like magic items. I am the DM and I like to give them out. But raw I can't give out more than like one or two the whole game without breaking the system down. It's maddening. Everyone says it's more like second edition but it's not. In second which I also DMd, I could be fairly liberal with items and not worry.

So now I'm stuck inventing a whole new magic item system, which I plan to post soon. I just think that since magic items have always been part of the game, it should be the no-magic folk who have to adapt, not the other way around.

Ummm just don't give out flat mods. I always thought the non-mod items were cooler anyways. I still make it rain on my parties without issue.

I don't even like running PF without automatic bonus progression rules from unchained. Magic tredmill kind of cements the idea that martials are worthless because to even martial decently they are completely dependent on casters. I've also never seen a GM give out WBL consistently. My longest running campaign that I DM'd was 3.5. I basically didn't give out magic items until level 20 (they would craft items between sessions and had to make the masterwork item before they could start). The group was fullcasters, a warlock, a rogue, and a fighter. The latter two had the most problems and the highest number of rebuilds. The rogue ended up as an undead magic assassin, while the fighter player started coming less and eventually started to suffer from depression (hopefully not because of D&D). He had a full rebuild every session and I couldn't figure out what the problem was (it was the no magic items). That campaign relaunched as an epic campaign up to level 36. We had martials and a warlock and I kept them at EPIC WBL. That ended when I went to college.

In another 3.5 campaign, I was a player. We were playing an AP (Age of Worms) and we only maintained WBL because I kept dying and starting a new character with WBL, thus influxing wealth into the party.

We are playing RotRLs (PF, I'm a player) and we only kept up with WBL because of our mythic crafting wizard and a GM that is devoted to RAW.

In a PF in space campaign, the GM would just say our reward was enough to bring each of us up to WBL after completing a mission and leveling. Even then, we would end up behind if we were ever too far from a merchant.

[foobar1969]

Making sure everyone gets equal amounts of stuff at all levels is part of the reason people were rallying against 4e that all of the classes were the same even if that isn't true.
It wasn't about the power level being equal across classes; it was about power design, about AEDU resource management and mechanics being the same across classes.
It was a GOOD thing that Fighters were (at long last) as important as Wizards.
It was a BAD thing that Fighters felt insufficiently different from Wizards.

I believe it is possible to develop a version of D&D where every level increase for every class is comparable in value, while still retaining individualized feel and mechanics.

[Shaofoo]

It wasn't about the power level being equal across classes; it was about power design, about AEDU resource management and mechanics being the same across classes.
It was a GOOD thing that Fighters were (at long last) as important as Wizards.
It was a BAD thing that Fighters felt insufficiently different from Wizards.

It wasn't just that Fighters got to be to where Wizards were, it was that both Fighters were raised and Wizards were lowered till they were both equal in a way.

Also I am sure most people who say that all classes were the same didn't play 4e at all. There is no way that you could ever mistake a Fighter and a Wizard were the same, it was nearly impossible unless you paid 0 attention. The fighter had a different way to do everything and a Wizard had another, even in skills and skill powers they were vastly different. I don't consider people who thumb through the PHB to give their uneducated opinion to matter. Of course that isn't to say that there aren't classes that DID play similarly, I would argue that Rangers and Warlocks in 4e played nearly identically besides some minor abilities here and there, classes within the same classification of Strikers, Defenders, Leaders and Controllers could be considered to be played in a similar manner (but none as bad as the Ranger and Warlock).


I believe it is possible to develop a version of D&D where every level increase for every class is comparable in value, while still retaining individualized feel and mechanics.

It did exist in 4e, you had your AEDU powers and you had individual powers that came from the class itself, Paragon Paths and Epic destinies, leaders had some variety of a healing power and defenders could mark in some fashion and so on. 4e did exactly what you said but people didn't like it at all. And considering that people as a whole praised that 5e left AEDU in the dust I am sure that WotC will never come back to AEDU again.

If you put AEDU then people will clamor that it isn't D&D plain and simple, I don't like that and you may not like that but the public has spoken. Also I think that they tried to fix it with Essentials but that just kinda rubbed people the wrong way in general since it didn't bring back the people that left and it drove away some of the people that liked 4e even if Essentials wasn't bad at all.

[Starsinger]

I would argue that Rangers and Warlocks in 4e played nearly identically besides some minor abilities here and there,

But Warlocks don't have Twinstrike...:smalltongue:

[Malifice]

I have to say that if 5e has done anything wrong it's how it's handled magic items. It was always possible to run 3.5 and 4 without items by using inherent bonuses. Now, however, if you want to run with items, you pretty much can't without breaking the game. Even a +1 bonus can derail the system. I think this was a mistake. If d&d was a game that historically didn't focus on magic items, this would be great. But it's not. D&d has always had items and they were always an important part of the game.

For me and my table, we like magic items. I am the DM and I like to give them out. But raw I can't give out more than like one or two the whole game without breaking the system down. It's maddening. Everyone says it's more like second edition but it's not. In second which I also DMd, I could be fairly liberal with items and not worry.

So now I'm stuck inventing a whole new magic item system, which I plan to post soon. I just think that since magic items have always been part of the game, it should be the no-magic folk who have to adapt, not the other way around.

How on earth does a +1 item 'break the game'?

A fighter with +1 armor, shield and weapon at 10th level doesnt look 'broken' to me next to the same fighter without them.

[Atalas]

How on earth does a +1 item 'break the game'?

A fighter with +1 armor, shield and weapon at 10th level doesnt look 'broken' to me next to the same fighter without them.

Depends on the armor. If that +1 armor is plate, then he has 22 AC and is very difficult to hit outside of aoe's. Beyond that, it only breaks the game from the DM's standpoint in trying to find appropriate things to throw at the party. Of course, my first 5e campaign our DM goofed and put a party of level 3 characters against a wererat. No magic items, I the Bard did not take Vicious Mockery because I didn't notice it at creation time, and the other casters were a Druid and a Cleric. If not for the fact the DM also forgot that lycanthrope's are IMMUNE to non-magical or non-silver weapon damage then we would have died. Instead, he thought it was resistance and turned the drow assassin into a wererat. When he realized that mistake, he declared that for the remainder of the campaign any lycanthrope's we come across would only have resistance, not immunity.

As someone who started in 3.5, has played 4E, and is playing and DMing in 5e, I find that I like 5e the most. I miss the options that I had in 3.5 but those are just a supplement or homebrew away (one campaign I've played in the DM and I worked together to fit the Drunken Master from 3.5 in as a Monk subclass). Classes in 4E felt the same. not mechanically, it there was always a thematic difference that made them feel different enough, but the whole "role" system bugged me no end. Leader, Controller, Striker, and whatever the fourth role was. Too MMO-like for me, and to me that just doesn't mesh onto a tabletop game. Especially not in the way they were trying to implement it. Especially since any class could be anything they wanted to be with expert handling. Also loathed the healing in 4E. Healing surges weren't bad, but the in-combat way just begged for easy party wipes. And the magic item system was awful. You could only use magic items so often a day, had to be of a certain level, about the ONLY use for magical equipment WAS to get a bonus to defenses or attack. Maybe some peripheral boost like advantage against poison saves. Beyond that, using a magic item's ability, it was usually so under-powered for how often you got to use it it just wasn't worth it. After playing 3.5 I couldn't get into the whole at-will, encounter, and daily powers thing, at least not with how they presented it. Sure, it still exists in 5e, but it flows better and has more of a proper D&D feel to it.

As has been said, 5e has taken the best from all past systems and rolled them into one system with overall few flaws. Are there problems? Of course there are, you can't please everyone, and to keep some things from being over-powered you have to leave some other things unbalanced. Now, if they can just release more settings books. We don't need... I believe the term is crunch. We don't necessarily need that, we need fluff so we can use other established settings. Eberron looks like so much fun but the mot I've ever played was that was designing a changeling character in 4e and that's as far as it got. Dragonlance was where I first read anything D&D related even if the ONLY mention of DD I'd had at the time was one of the Revenge of the Nerds movies. I've heard so much about Dark Sun I'd love to at least read updated fluff on it. Starjammers? Another cool concept I've only vaguely heard about. I've heard WotC isn't intending to release a huge amount of books like it past editions, but still. more fluff would be nice.

[Malifice]

Depends on the armor. If that +1 armor is plate, then he has 22 AC and is very difficult to hit outside of aoe's.

With Plate and shield our 10th level fighter sits at AC 20. With +1 Plate and +1 Shield he sits at AC 22.

Here is the standard attack of a CR10 Stone Golem (an expected adversary at this level):

Multiattack: The golem makes two slam attacks.
Slam * Melee Weapon Attack: +10 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 19 (3d8 + 6) bludgeoning damage.

So the Golem hits one on a 12, the other on a 10.

Not broken.


Beyond that, it only breaks the game from the DM's standpoint in trying to find appropriate things to throw at the party.

Give me an example please. One that doesnt involve 3rd level characters with multiple +2-3 items.

My current party has a 6th level Swashbuckler with 2 x +1 shorswords, a ring of the ram and elven boots. The Druid has a mace of disruption and a circlet of wisdom. The Barbarian has a +1 returning trident, a +1 shield and a few potions. The Mage has a wand of magic missiles and an amulet of non detection.


Of course, my first 5e campaign our DM goofed and put a party of level 3 characters against a wererat. No magic items, I the Bard did not take Vicious Mockery because I didn't notice it at creation time, and the other casters were a Druid and a Cleric. If not for the fact the DM also forgot that lycanthrope's are IMMUNE to non-magical or non-silver weapon damage then we would have died. Instead, he thought it was resistance and turned the drow assassin into a wererat. When he realized that mistake, he declared that for the remainder of the campaign any lycanthrope's we come across would only have resistance, not immunity.

I put my 3rd level PC's against a werewolf. And I didnt forget that it had immunity. The Druid cast moonbeam (or clobberd it with shillaliegh) while our barbarian smashed it with his (recently found) +1 battleaxe. It was the Moonbeam that did the big damage though. Of course the PC's had been hearing rumours that the forest was full of evil fey and werewolves so they were a bit paranoid.

Im surprised that between a Bard, Cleric and a Druid, you lacked any damaging spells that could harm it.

Shocked even.

[Shaofoo]

But Warlocks don't have Twinstrike...:smalltongue:

Warlocks and Rangers could be played similarly regardless of at will powers, you could take nearly any Striker in 4e and they would play similarly.


Classes in 4E felt the same. not mechanically, it there was always a thematic difference that made them feel different enough, but the whole "role" system bugged me no end. Leader, Controller, Striker, and whatever the fourth role was. Too MMO-like for me, and to me that just doesn't mesh onto a tabletop game.
Especially not in the way they were trying to implement it. Especially since any class could be anything they wanted to be with expert handling.

There was no way a Fighter could be a Leader or even a sub Leader. You were shackled hard to the designations that the game put you in and you couldn't break them out lest you just not perform. Also you don't remember the running joke that was the Martial Controller.


Also loathed the healing in 4E. Healing surges weren't bad, but the in-combat way just begged for easy party wipes.

Easy Party wipes? Even in 1st level with no magic items the party could routinely hold their own even with hard encounters. I can't think of anything that would be considered weak that could one hit kill a party member in 4e, 3.x had housecats and I am pretty sure that Goblins in 5e could critkill a Wizard but in 4e even a Wizard could survive a crit from an at level opponent. Honestly 4e had the most durable PCs in the entire D&D system that I have seen.


And the magic item system was awful. You could only use magic items so often a day, had to be of a certain level, about the ONLY use for magical equipment WAS to get a bonus to defenses or attack.

You are right, because what we call Proficiency bonuses now it was baked into the magic item system then. You needed to upgrade your equipment or you would fall behind the curve. In fact magic items were so important that they were the player's domain instead of the DM's domain, the players were encouraged to make their own items at all times and anything that they didn't want they could break down for pure magic at 100% efficiency. No Magic item 4e was unplayable at the later levels.

Also there is no level requirements to equip magic items, there are to make them but if you found a level 30 Holy Avenger at level 1 you could equip that with no problems. Item level was to calculate the cost t make the item.


Maybe some peripheral boost like advantage against poison saves. Beyond that, using a magic item's ability, it was usually so under-powered for how often you got to use it it just wasn't worth it. .

It was done that way because of the apparent problem of the magic tree effect where before a bunch of people could hoard magic items for their effects so they limited them.

[bardo]

For me the most compelling features of 5e are:

* Backgrounds. For many of us backgrounds have been a part of the game since forever. In 5e backgrounds got their own chapter and a nice mix of fluff and skills that pushes players in the right direction.

* Spell preparation system and being able to cast spells in higher slots. Makes it a lot easier for a caster to just get up and walk out the door for an adventuring day. Much less book keeping, much less lamenting if-only-I-had-prepared when the day takes an unexpected turn.

* The adv./disadv. mechanics. I can't say I fully understand the math behind it, but it's fun at the table and it's a great way to solve unexpected situations.

Bardo.

[Snowbluff]

Cantrips being good and the new spell DC scaling are both pretty good.

I actually liked 4e backgrounds better. One let you pretty much be a werewolf. Good times.

[Shining Wrath]

I have to say that if 5e has done anything wrong it's how it's handled magic items. It was always possible to run 3.5 and 4 without items by using inherent bonuses. Now, however, if you want to run with items, you pretty much can't without breaking the game. Even a +1 bonus can derail the system. I think this was a mistake. If d&d was a game that historically didn't focus on magic items, this would be great. But it's not. D&d has always had items and they were always an important part of the game.

For me and my table, we like magic items. I am the DM and I like to give them out. But raw I can't give out more than like one or two the whole game without breaking the system down. It's maddening. Everyone says it's more like second edition but it's not. In second which I also DMd, I could be fairly liberal with items and not worry.

So now I'm stuck inventing a whole new magic item system, which I plan to post soon. I just think that since magic items have always been part of the game, it should be the no-magic folk who have to adapt, not the other way around.

I am unaware of any non-artifact magic items which break, or even seriously dent, the 5e system. I will agree that some of their items are rated too high or too low - the Elven Cloak comes to mind as pretty OP - but a fighter with a +3 sword just needs a monster with a few more HP or a slightly improved armor class.

[Malifice]

I am unaware of any non-artifact magic items which break, or even seriously dent, the 5e system. I will agree that some of their items are rated too high or too low - the Elven Cloak comes to mind as pretty OP - but a fighter with a +3 sword just needs a monster with a few more HP or a slightly improved armor class.

Disagree re the elven cloak. It only applies to visual perception checks. You can be heard just fine (DM's call when either applies, but no disadvantage to perception scores on enemies when they couldnt see you to begin with).

Paired with the boots its tasty though. That said, it requires 2 attunement slots for the pair.

[Baptor]

With Plate and shield our 10th level fighter sits at AC 20. With +1 Plate and +1 Shield he sits at AC 22.

Here is the standard attack of a CR10 Stone Golem (an expected adversary at this level):

Multiattack: The golem makes two slam attacks.
Slam * Melee Weapon Attack: +10 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 19 (3d8 + 6) bludgeoning damage.

So the Golem hits one on a 12, the other on a 10.

Not broken.

You are correct in that a +1 here or there will not break the game itself, but the developers made it clear that the encounter system was designed without magic items or bonuses. That means that adding in any bonuses will unbalance it. Using the items in the DMG, its very possible to become nigh unhittable without a lot of trouble.

If throwing around bonuses and items works for you and yours, that's great. My major complaint has nothing to do with math, but the fact the developers were very slapdash with the magic items, the tables, the rarity categories, everything. They did not put a lot of thought into it and it shows.

[Baptor]

I am unaware of any non-artifact magic items which break, or even seriously dent, the 5e system. I will agree that some of their items are rated too high or too low - the Elven Cloak comes to mind as pretty OP - but a fighter with a +3 sword just needs a monster with a few more HP or a slightly improved armor class.

You think the staff of the magi is well balanced?

[Malifice]

You are correct in that a +1 here or there will not break the game itself, but the developers made it clear that the encounter system was designed without magic items or bonuses. That means that adding in any bonuses will unbalance it. Using the items in the DMG, its very possible to become nigh unhittable without a lot of trouble.

If throwing around bonuses and items works for you and yours, that's great. My major complaint has nothing to do with math, but the fact the developers were very slapdash with the magic items, the tables, the rarity categories, everything. They did not put a lot of thought into it and it shows.

It's one thing to say that magic items give a creature an advantage. Its another thing to say it breaks the game.

Look at the AC's and bonuses to hit across the spectrum of monsters in MM. a +1-3 here or there isnt going to break anything.

Now a PC with a +3 shield and +3 armor might just have an amazing AC, but thats a pretty extreme outlier (and even then, as the Bladesinger thread shows, isnt as big a deal as its made out to be).

You dont need houserules to regulate magic items in your campaign. The players only get them at the rate that you hand them out. Try a few +1 items here or there. Get a feel for what they are doing over a level or two and go from there.

Having powerful magic items increases the challenge they can encounter too, for a more epic campaign. Of course, its totally DM dependent on how often (and how powerful) those items are.

[Baptor]

Having powerful magic items increases the challenge they can encounter too, for a more epic campaign. Of course, its totally DM dependent on how often (and how powerful) those items are.

Well said. I will ponder this.

[Demonic Spoon]

Magic weapons in particular also have the secondary effect of negating all damage resistances. That changes stuff up quite a bit beyond being able to hit easier.

[rgrekejin]

I have to say that if 5e has done anything wrong it's how it's handled magic items. It was always possible to run 3.5 and 4 without items by using inherent bonuses. Now, however, if you want to run with items, you pretty much can't without breaking the game. Even a +1 bonus can derail the system. I think this was a mistake. If d&d was a game that historically didn't focus on magic items, this would be great. But it's not. D&d has always had items and they were always an important part of the game.

Yeah, I feel much the same way. In 5e, it's basically impossible to give someone a "minor" bonus. The careful calibration of bounded accuracy makes it hard for a DM to go off-script with items or bonuses and not end up unbalancing the party. It also makes homebrewing much more of a headache than it used to be, as there used to be a lot more tolerance for variance in relative class power (whether or not you think that was a good thing) than is possible in 5e.

[Baptor]

Yeah, I feel much the same way. In 5e, it's basically impossible to give someone a "minor" bonus. The careful calibration of bounded accuracy makes it hard for a DM to go off-script with items or bonuses and not end up unbalancing the party. It also makes homebrewing much more of a headache than it used to be, as there used to be a lot more tolerance for variance in relative class power (whether or not you think that was a good thing) than is possible in 5e.

I agree entirely. Homebrewing items that aren't carbon copies of DMG items are difficult to do. I made what I considered to be a balanced item that this board tore to shreds because in 5e it was easily abused. In 3.5e it would have been nice, but not OP. It gives me a headache.

[EvilAnagram]

I never have trouble homebrewing magic items. The only things you really have to consider are bounded accuracy and the action economy. Don't futz with those, and you have solid items.

I gave an Ancients Paladin a wooden blade that could excrete a healing sap with a command word and can cast Thorn Whip as an action. He loves it. I gave the Assassin a Shadow Dagger. It deals an extra d6 on a Sneak Attack, and he can draw it from any shadow. Again, he loves it.

Magic items in 5e have simply become more than simple mathematical bonuses.

[Mara]

Yeah, I feel much the same way. In 5e, it's basically impossible to give someone a "minor" bonus. The careful calibration of bounded accuracy makes it hard for a DM to go off-script with items or bonuses and not end up unbalancing the party. It also makes homebrewing much more of a headache than it used to be, as there used to be a lot more tolerance for variance in relative class power (whether or not you think that was a good thing) than is possible in 5e.
I feel the exact opposite. A bonus here or there matters very little in the grand scheme of things because accuracy is bounded.

The different between a level 1 fighter hitting and a level 20 fighter hitting is 30%. A +3 sword is 15%. A belt of storm giants strength is 20%. With a complete set of legendary offensive items and max level your to-hit is +18 which is 1 more than an Ancient Red Dragon.

It's nice. You feel powerful. But It doesn't really snap the game. Challenges are a bit easier because of loot. It's not like an itemless fighter NEEDED those items to function. They are only better for having them. The magic sword I give them actually does its job instead of letting the fighter do theirs.

[KorvinStarmast]

Magic weapons in particular also have the secondary effect of negating all damage resistances. That changes stuff up quite a bit beyond being able to hit easier. Can you cite for me the rule that states this? I do not find that assertion to be true, but I may have misunderstood something.

[Addaran]

You are correct in that a +1 here or there will not break the game itself, but the developers made it clear that the encounter system was designed without magic items or bonuses. That means that adding in any bonuses will unbalance it. Using the items in the DMG, its very possible to become nigh unhittable without a lot of trouble.


Have you tried putting enemies a bit tougher? If you like to give lots of magic items, maybe try for 11-12 CR for your lvl 10 party. Not that big on in-game math, but seems like it would balance.

[EvilAnagram]

Can you cite for me the rule that states this? I do not find that assertion to be true, but I may have misunderstood something.

In the monster manual all damage resistances and immunities to piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing damage specify that only nonmagical forms are resisted. Magic weapons bypass this.

Technically, they do not bypass resistances to various elements, so the Sunblade, for example, won't bypass radiant resistance.

[Icewraith]

All having magic weapons does is save your spellcaster a concentration slot on magic weapon or elemental weapon so they can instead do something more interesting like haste, bless, wall of force, greater invisibility, etc. You can get around mundane weapon resistance/immunity without magic items, it just sucks for your spellcasters. Also, silvered weapons are still a thing, check the PHB. IIRC they get around the resistances, don't remember if they work on immunity.

If you throw a damage immune enemy against a low-level unprepared/unwarned/noob party, you're either trying to teach the party the value of tactical retreat, you don't know what you are doing yet, or you're being a jerk. In cases one and two, you should be prepared to give some fairly heavy handed hints (or fudge some rolls) and make sure there are some plausible escape paths, if you don't do that you'll come off as case three.

[EvilAnagram]

Silvered weapons only work on certain enemies, namely devils and lycanthropes. It gets through the resistance of the former and the immunity of the latter. Adamantine weapons get through some resistances, too, but it's also for a few specific creatures.

[mephnick]

I don't use + weapons and armour, but I still find it extremely easy to hand out cool things to my players.

Instead of a +2 hammer, I gave out a hammer that summons the spirit of an animal to give the player one of the benefits of the Enhance Ability spell (bull, bear, owl) as a bonus action 1/day. It counts as magical, it's useful but doesn't break any numbers and it's flavourful (it comes from an ancient barbarian tribe). The players loved it and it built the world up a bit. I find magic items really flexible to use and make in 5e.

[Baptor]

I don't use + weapons and armour, but I still find it extremely easy to hand out cool things to my players.

Instead of a +2 hammer, I gave out a hammer that summons the spirit of an animal to give the player one of the benefits of the Enhance Ability spell (bull, bear, owl) as a bonus action 1/day. It counts as magical, it's useful but doesn't break any numbers and it's flavourful (it comes from an ancient barbarian tribe). The players loved it and it built the world up a bit. I find magic items really flexible to use and make in 5e.

I don't understand where you guys were when I shared my magic item. Most of the people who saw it said that an item that allows a character to cast a spell he normally couldn't was "broken", "bloat this edition doesn't need," and "multiclassing for free." By the end, they had me convinced any kind of item that did anything other than cast light was asking for disaster.

[EvilAnagram]

I don't understand where you guys were when I shared my magic item. Most of the people who saw it said that an item that allows a character to cast a spell he normally couldn't was "broken", "bloat this edition doesn't need," and "multiclassing for free." By the end, they had me convinced any kind of item that did anything other than cast light was asking for disaster.

Ha! Items that allow spells to be cast are far from broken. Hell, they're quite common in the DMG.

[Icewraith]

Ha! Items that allow spells to be cast are far from broken. Hell, they're quite common in the DMG.

Depends on if we're talking about Water Breathing or Meteor Swarm. Both have their obvious uses, one is broken (it grants a free use of an extremely restricted high level resource) and one is not (it grants access to a utility spell freely available as a ritual that allows characters to swim underwater without worrying about suffocating and can actually opens up new genres of adventure types).

[Theodoxus]

All having magic weapons does is save your spellcaster a concentration slot on magic weapon or elemental weapon so they can instead do something more interesting like haste, bless, wall of force, greater invisibility, etc. You can get around mundane weapon resistance/immunity without magic items, it just sucks for your spellcasters. Also, silvered weapons are still a thing, check the PHB. IIRC they get around the resistances, don't remember if they work on immunity.

If you throw a damage immune enemy against a low-level unprepared/unwarned/noob party, you're either trying to teach the party the value of tactical retreat, you don't know what you are doing yet, or you're being a jerk. In cases one and two, you should be prepared to give some fairly heavy handed hints (or fudge some rolls) and make sure there are some plausible escape paths, if you don't do that you'll come off as case three.

God this is so true. A couple weeks ago, my party was fighting a couple of fiends who were resistant to weapon damage. I went full berserker mode (8th level barbarian with GWM and PAM), hitting three times (they had an AC of 14), racking up ~75 damage a round... still took forever to kill both of them. Along with a couple fireballs and Paladin smites... Afterwards I ask our wizard if he had "Magic Weapon". He looked at me askance and said 'I don't think Wizards get that spell' - after a review, finding that they did, he said 'oh, it's concentration. F that. My concentration was on my [useless] Web spell'. The DM has decided the campaign will be free of magic items... so, with the attitude that casters have something better to spend their concentration on, our battles will take twice as long as they should.

I'm not saying the Wizard owed me a Magic Weapon... just that his attitude that we should all be self-sufficient was grating. We should be relying on each other - he sure used my HP tank to save his own skin (to the point I burned all my HD when we finally got a rest). I guess I should have just rolled over and died, and let him get eaten by a fiend too...

I guess my solution would be, if you're in a Magic Item-less Game, ease up on the Concentration rules. If you're casting a spell, like Magic Weapon, on a party member, then either it doesn't use Concentration, or it uses the party members Concentration - this would allow the Wizard to help a brother out, while still being able to cast a Web that was never touched (that kinda chapped my bum).

[mephnick]

I don't understand where you guys were when I shared my magic item. Most of the people who saw it said that an item that allows a character to cast a spell he normally couldn't was "broken", "bloat this edition doesn't need," and "multiclassing for free." By the end, they had me convinced any kind of item that did anything other than cast light was asking for disaster.

I do try and keep it to low level and utility spells. People who label a fighter getting to cast burning hands once a day "broken" must be fun at parties.

[Icewraith]

God this is so true. A couple weeks ago, my party was fighting a couple of fiends who were resistant to weapon damage. I went full berserker mode (8th level barbarian with GWM and PAM), hitting three times (they had an AC of 14), racking up ~75 damage a round... still took forever to kill both of them. Along with a couple fireballs and Paladin smites... Afterwards I ask our wizard if he had "Magic Weapon". He looked at me askance and said 'I don't think Wizards get that spell' - after a review, finding that they did, he said 'oh, it's concentration. F that. My concentration was on my [useless] Web spell'. The DM has decided the campaign will be free of magic items... so, with the attitude that casters have something better to spend their concentration on, our battles will take twice as long as they should.

I'm not saying the Wizard owed me a Magic Weapon... just that his attitude that we should all be self-sufficient was grating. We should be relying on each other - he sure used my HP tank to save his own skin (to the point I burned all my HD when we finally got a rest). I guess I should have just rolled over and died, and let him get eaten by a fiend too...

I guess my solution would be, if you're in a Magic Item-less Game, ease up on the Concentration rules. If you're casting a spell, like Magic Weapon, on a party member, then either it doesn't use Concentration, or it uses the party members Concentration - this would allow the Wizard to help a brother out, while still being able to cast a Web that was never touched (that kinda chapped my bum).

Here's what you do- point out to him that if he casts magic weapon on you, and that allows you to bypass resistance, half your damage is effectively his. Then ask him if he has a spell that can reliably deal 35 DPR off a single low-level spell slot to a single target. Note that if those are your actual numbers, it will out-damage Disintegrate after three-ish rounds.

[sigfile]

Warlocks and Rangers could be played similarly regardless of at will powers, you could take nearly any Striker in 4e and they would play similarly.
My psychic sorcerer and my dagger-thief would disagree. My slayer and my warlock(s) would just look at you funny.


There was no way a Fighter could be a Leader or even a sub Leader. You were shackled hard to the designations that the game put you in and you couldn't break them out lest you just not perform.
Only if you allowed yourself to be shackled to a name. For example, in 4E, "a fighting guy that serves to lead and inspire" is a "Warlord." I had more than one player that wanted to be a dual-wielding lightly-armored... fighter. I pointed them at "Ranger."

Or if you if you ignored the various means of snagging options from other classes/roles (multiclassing, hybrid).

Or if you just didn't try because the internet said it was a waste of time. Our adventuring company's bruiser was a paladin - sure, he had defender mechanics, but they were only really used to give him additional ways to clobber things. My swordmage (defender) was a controller - he did his best work when he wasn't standing next to the bad guys he was trying to lock down. Various fighters were absolute top-tier damage dealers, despite them being lumped under "defender".

If you built your character from a concept rather than starting with a particular class, you did fine.

On the original topic...

I'm very happy so far with 5E's approach to antagonist suvivability versus a party's ability to dish out damage. Fights tend to be dynamic and decisive rather than long slog-fests where the party and the bad guys stand toe-to-toe hammering on each others' bags of hit points for hours at a time.

While I wouldn't mind a few more options, I'm thrilled that we're over a year past release and I don't need an electronic method of keeping track of all options for building a character (HeroForge (the Excel-based character builder for 3E, not the excellent 3D-printed minis company) or the 4E character builder, as examples).

Between the marketed adventures and the Adventurers League there's a wealth of things to do. Quite a lot of it (AL) is free. I love having options for DMs that are eager to run but lack the time to construct campaigns from whole cloth.

[Anonymouswizard]

Easy Party wipes? Even in 1st level with no magic items the party could routinely hold their own even with hard encounters. I can't think of anything that would be considered weak that could one hit kill a party member in 4e, 3.x had housecats and I am pretty sure that Goblins in 5e could critkill a Wizard but in 4e even a Wizard could survive a crit from an at level opponent. Honestly 4e had the most durable PCs in the entire D&D system that I have seen.

I'm just going to say, this is the worst bit about 4e for me. I don't like it when it's hard to take the squishy PCs down (and I normally play the squishy). Hard to kill, I'm okay with, but hard to drop is bad. I'm fine with the beefy fighter being able to suffer a crit or maybe two, but he should be relying on his armour to absorb damage (via increased AC), not soaking it with a giant hp pool.

On the magic items debate, I feel like the pluses on a magic item aren't the important part. They are boring. Give me boots of acid walking and bracers of cratering any day (I'll be surprised if either exists, because the latter is definitely homebrew).

But what 5e did right is make it the Monster Manual and the DMG are optional. I can run games indefinitely without either.

And I don't need either, because I really want to play this edition instead of run it. It's the first time I've felt that way about D&D since the red box (and boy was my dad literally taking that out of the attic).

[weaseldust]

I have to say that if 5e has done anything wrong it's how it's handled magic items. It was always possible to run 3.5 and 4 without items by using inherent bonuses. Now, however, if you want to run with items, you pretty much can't without breaking the game.

Surely this works both ways? In 3e you can replace the expected magic item bonuses with an inherent bonuses. In 5e you can replace the inherent bonuses with magic item bonuses. E.g. you could cap the bonus to attacks and damage from ability modifiers at +3 and give out +1 and +2 weapons to compensate. Or you could cap the proficiency bonus to attacks at +2 and give out weapons with a to-hit bonus that ranges from +1 to +4 to make up the difference at higher levels.

[Psyren]

I'm a big fan of what they did with using slots to scale spells, eliminating bonus spells, and powering up cantrips. I think it could be refined a bit more but they do a good job of making caster ammunition matter for the big guns while giving them something more interesting to do than pull out the crossbow when a day's been running long. And unlike 4e, they managed to do it without putting nearly every class on the same AWED resource framework.


Surely this works both ways? In 3e you can replace the expected magic item bonuses with an inherent bonuses. In 5e you can replace the inherent bonuses with magic item bonuses. E.g. you could cap the bonus to attacks and damage from ability modifiers at +3 and give out +1 and +2 weapons to compensate. Or you could cap the proficiency bonus to attacks at +2 and give out weapons with a to-hit bonus that ranges from +1 to +4 to make up the difference at higher levels.

There's less design space going this direction though. In 3.P, not getting a fixed +1 at the right time doesn't have much effect, both because the number itself is miniscule without bounded accuracy, and because there are so many temporary buffs, bonus types, class features and even penalties you can impose on the enemy that can compensate for the lack of getting that item at exactly the right time without feeling behind the power curve. Casters have so many resources (which I acknowledge my first paragraph saw as problematic) that most can easily spare a buff or debuff until your gear/chassis catches up to where the monsters are.

In 5e meanwhile, bounded accuracy and the advantage mechanic combine to make +1 matter a great deal, and missing it matter just as much. The concentration mechanic that encourages casters to be selfish with their buffs doesn't help this paradigm either, I think.

[Shaofoo]

My psychic sorcerer and my dagger-thief would disagree. My slayer and my warlock(s) would just look at you funny.

That wasn't my intention, of course two particular classes can't be played exactly the same. You can't play a two weapon Ranger and a Bow ranger the exact same way either. But the purpose is to deal damage and that is what they all do. Do you expect your psychic sorcerer to mark and your slayer to heal?



Only if you allowed yourself to be shackled to a name. For example, in 4E, "a fighting guy that serves to lead and inspire" is a "Warlord." I had more than one player that wanted to be a dual-wielding lightly-armored... fighter. I pointed them at "Ranger."

I said Fighter as in the Fighter class, the point isn't to make a concept but rather to make a class work outside the parameter.


Or if you if you ignored the various means of snagging options from other classes/roles (multiclassing, hybrid).

Neither are valid.

Multiclassing is horrid in 4e and I can't think of any reason why you would sacrifice 4 feats and your paragon path just to grab at some other class offering unless there is some broken combo (or pre nerf Blade Cascade). I can't think of any decent build that had full on multiclassing.

Hybrid is taking two classes and fusing them into one, you can't call yourself a pure Fighter if you chose Warlord as your other half. That is cheating of the highest order.

Like I said the point isn't to make a concept work it is to make a class deviate from what it is established, which you have failed to provide.



Or if you just didn't try because the internet said it was a waste of time. Our adventuring company's bruiser was a paladin - sure, he had defender mechanics, but they were only really used to give him additional ways to clobber things.

Also known as a sub Striker, you didn't find anything new the class was designed that some sub classes were more capable of dealing damage and others are good at other things. If you marked the bad guy then you are a defender plain and simple, you can't use the Paladin main powers and claim that you don't defend when the Paladin's main powers are all about defending


My swordmage (defender) was a controller - he did his best work when he wasn't standing next to the bad guys he was trying to lock down.

Also known as how the Swordmage was designed, you were supposed to mark a guy and then leave him alone so that he smacks someone else and then you teleport to him and deal debuffs. You aren't describing anything new, that is how the class is played. But you still had the guy marked, therefore defender with controller trappings.


Various fighters were absolute top-tier damage dealers, despite them being lumped under "defender".

Sure, if you followed pre nerf Martial Power, that Fighter two weapon fighting was a bit of a hot mess when it came out. Of course it came out with errata and they toned down the two weapon Fighter DPS. Instead of attacking one person twice you had to attack two people each with a weapon now and each could be marked.

And you still haven't provided a good multiclass example.


If you built your character from a concept rather than starting with a particular class, you did fine.

Sure if you had a concept you did fine.

If you want to do magic then you could be a Wizard, if you wanted to sneak then you become a Rogue, that was never up for debate.

The point was that if you had a class then you were locked into what it said, you can't take a Fighter and say you want to heal without sacrificing a lot of things for little in return.

[georgie_leech]

Sure if you had a concept you did fine.

If you want to do magic then you could be a Wizard, if you wanted to sneak then you become a Rogue, that was never up for debate.

The point was that if you had a class then you were locked into what it said, you can't take a Fighter and say you want to heal without sacrificing a lot of things for little in return.

I'm really confused about this complaint. Why would you pick a class if it doesn't do what you want it to do? :smallconfused:

[Shaofoo]

I'm really confused about this complaint. Why would you pick a class if it doesn't do what you want it to do? :smallconfused:

It isn't a complaint.

And it isn't just choosing a class that doesn't do what you want it to do.

It is choosing a class to make it do something that it doesn't normally do. Trying to bend its arm till it went outside the parameters established.

It would be like right now trying for a Barbarian spellcaster, while not ignoring Rage.

[Baptor]

I do try and keep it to low level and utility spells. People who label a fighter getting to cast burning hands once a day "broken" must be fun at parties.

Yeah, at first I was warned it was terribly broken. I tried toning it down and was told it was "bloat that 5e doesn't need." Then I asked if they could clarify, and they said basically if the fighter wants burning hands then he should take the Magic Initiate Feat or multiclass into Wizard. They argued that giving a non-caster an item that can cast spells is multiclassing for free. When I asked what kind of magic items they give out, most said "none" and the rest said things like "we are level 12 and just found a torch that doesn't go out! it's like 1000 years old and made by an archmage!"

Now I am not knocking anyone who wants a low-magic game or a game where a continual flame spell is the bees-knees, but they were arguing that was the only way to play 5e without "breaking" it.

[Psikerlord]

What 5e did right:

(1) Bounded accuracy (no need for magic items, keeps lower level monsters relevant for longer)
(2) Adv/Disad
(3) Rulings not rules

What 5e did wrong:

(i) Passive Perception (broken mechanic, makes hiding too easy for PC specialists, and doesn't work vs traps - static vs static issue)
(ii) Removing minor modifiers and only using Adv/disad - - you still need those little +1 and +2 when you don't want to use Adv (typically about +5)
(iii) Long rest healing is too strong - albeit they knew that might be the case for many table, and put slow healing option in DMG.

[Demonic Spoon]

Can you cite for me the rule that states this? I do not find that assertion to be true, but I may have misunderstood something

As mentioned above, it's in the phrasing of resistances. The vast majority of entries in the MM phrase physical damage resistance in such a way that it is bypassed by any weapon that is "magical". Thus, no matter how minor the magical effect, a magical weapon has a major implicit bonus.



All having magic weapons does is save your spellcaster a concentration slot on magic weapon or elemental weapon so they can instead do something more interesting like haste, bless, wall of force, greater invisibility, etc. You can get around mundane weapon resistance/immunity without magic items, it just sucks for your spellcasters. Also, silvered weapons are still a thing, check the PHB. IIRC they get around the resistances, don't remember if they work on immunity.

If you throw a damage immune enemy against a low-level unprepared/unwarned/noob party, you're either trying to teach the party the value of tactical retreat, you don't know what you are doing yet, or you're being a jerk. In cases one and two, you should be prepared to give some fairly heavy handed hints (or fudge some rolls) and make sure there are some plausible escape paths, if you don't do that you'll come off as case three.

I am not aware of any monsters that have immunities to physical damage that don't have some other way - such as silvered - around it. I was mostly referring to the much-more-common trait of resistance. Most monsters that have resistance to physical damage do not have any way short of magic to bypass it.

[Mara]

Yeah, at first I was warned it was terribly broken. I tried toning it down and was told it was "bloat that 5e doesn't need." Then I asked if they could clarify, and they said basically if the fighter wants burning hands then he should take the Magic Initiate Feat or multiclass into Wizard. They argued that giving a non-caster an item that can cast spells is multiclassing for free. When I asked what kind of magic items they give out, most said "none" and the rest said things like "we are level 12 and just found a torch that doesn't go out! it's like 1000 years old and made by an archmage!"

Now I am not knocking anyone who wants a low-magic game or a game where a continual flame spell is the bees-knees, but they were arguing that was the only way to play 5e without "breaking" it.

Oh my this tickles me. Yes a fighter that can cast burning hands is stronger merely because they are more versatile. Burning hands is probably just worse than their normal attack. But for those situations where the fighter needs to burn down a building real quick, having burning hands is suddenly a boost in strength.

I try using the random tables to give out items, but I find the output too low most of the time, so I just keep rolling until something good pops up.

[Gort]

In the monster manual all damage resistances and immunities to piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing damage specify that only nonmagical forms are resisted. Magic weapons bypass this.

Technically, they do not bypass resistances to various elements, so the Sunblade, for example, won't bypass radiant resistance.

Yes. I agree that they overused damage resistance to nonmagical weapons.

I got so tired of it that a lot of my home brew monsters have immunities that are not negated by every magical weapon.

[Mara]

Yes. I agree that they overused damage resistance to nonmagical weapons.

I got so tired of it that a lot of my home brew monsters have immunities that are not negated by every magical weapon.

I think you are just suppose to bypass those defenses after a certain point. Monk leads me to believe that by level 6 everyone has a magic weapon. Bladelocks get one at 3rd. Druids get a magical weapon as a cantrip. Magic Weapon is a 2nd level spell. So it's available at 3, 6, and 9 for classes with it in their list.

[Gort]

AS a so called grognard skipping 4th in favour of 3.5 (mostly due to my love for bards and warlocks) and finally having made the jump to 5th edition I'd like to take a moment and thank the devs for 5e:

Yes, the game for a player is so much easier during play. The revised skills and checks system is is so much lighter and a +1 really means something now that stats are pretty much limited to 20 (only rarely going past that). I also feel the classes are so much closer to eachother in terms of options (though this is at a glance as I know differences still exist).

For DM the systems seems a freaking whole lot easier as the sheer amount of stuff you need to prepare looks a lot less then it was in 3.5. Skills have a meaning now.


The mechanics are simple
I can reuse modules from older editions easily
The classes are fairly balanced, but different and retaining their flavour

Yes 5e is a good edition and a big improvement on what 3.5, while still remaining D&D. I like it and play it as my system of choice.

[Shaofoo]

What 5e did wrong:
(i) Passive Perception (broken mechanic, makes hiding too easy for PC specialists, and doesn't work vs traps - static vs static issue)

If a PC specializes in hiding then why is that a problem? Also Passive perception is only used when the monsters in question aren't paying attention, if the guard is paying attention he should be making Perception checks if he thinks something is up. There are a ton of ways to defeat hiding, including proper placement of sentries to minimize blind spots.


(ii) Removing minor modifiers and only using Adv/disad - - you still need those little +1 and +2 when you don't want to use Adv (typically about +5)


The problem is that when you can stack both advantage and the minor buffs, that lead to the previous edition's problem of milking all the small buffs. I am fine with nearly anything giving only advantage and disadvantage and leaving bonuses to rare things.


(iii) Long rest healing is too strong - albeit they knew that might be the case for many table, and put slow healing option in DMG.

4e was worse, in 4e you recovered all HP and Healing Surges (Hit dices) while in 5e you recovered all HP but only half your hit dice.

And Short rests were much worse, what is an hour in 5e was 5 minutes in 4e, you were expected to sit down and recover every 5 minutes after a fight.

There is also the option in the DMG where you only recover Hit Dice with a long rest and no HP.

[EvilAnagram]

Yes. I agree that they overused damage resistance to nonmagical weapons.

I got so tired of it that a lot of my home brew monsters have immunities that are not negated by every magical weapon.

We do not agree. I think the current system is fine. It encourages coherent tactics and teamwork to deal with resistances.

[KorvinStarmast]

As mentioned above, it's in the phrasing of resistances. The vast majority of entries in the MM phrase physical damage resistance in such a way that it is bypassed by any weapon that is "magical". Thus, no matter how minor the magical effect, a magical weapon has a major implicit bonus.
There are about 12 kinds of damage. The piercing, bludgeoning and slashing resistance being overcome do not allow you to overcome the other resistances. The statement was an over-generalization, and I thank you for the further clarification on what you meant.

Magic weapons in particular also have the secondary effect of negating all damage resistances. That statement as written is flat out wrong.

[charcoalninja]

If a PC specializes in hiding then why is that a problem? Also Passive perception is only used when the monsters in question aren't paying attention, if the guard is paying attention he should be making Perception checks if he thinks something is up. There are a ton of ways to defeat hiding, including proper placement of sentries to minimize blind spots.




The problem is that when you can stack both advantage and the minor buffs, that lead to the previous edition's problem of milking all the small buffs. I am fine with nearly anything giving only advantage and disadvantage and leaving bonuses to rare things.



4e was worse, in 4e you recovered all HP and Healing Surges (Hit dices) while in 5e you recovered all HP but only half your hit dice.

And Short rests were much worse, what is an hour in 5e was 5 minutes in 4e, you were expected to sit down and recover every 5 minutes after a fight.

There is also the option in the DMG where you only recover Hit Dice with a long rest and no HP.

I prefer the 4E short rest. It better matches the HP as skill flavour and creates an effect on the party similar to UFC fighters. Round starts, you go nuts, take a beating, bell rings and you take your breather (short rest) and you're ready for round 2.

[Demonic Spoon]

If a PC specializes in hiding then why is that a problem? Also Passive perception is only used when the monsters in question aren't paying attention, if the guard is paying attention he should be making Perception checks if he thinks something is up. There are a ton of ways to defeat hiding, including proper placement of sentries to minimize blind spots.
That is not how passive perception works. Despite the poorly-named mechanic, there's nothing about passive checks that implies that the person making the check is doing something passively without paying attention.


That statement as written is flat out wrong.

You're splitting hairs. If you attack something with a magic weapon (save for one of the couple of weapons that does additional non-physical damage I guess), your damage will not be reduced by resistances, because weapons generally only deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing.

[Shaofoo]

That is not how passive perception works. Despite the poorly-named mechanic, there's nothing about passive checks that implies that the person making the check is doing something passively without paying attention.

Passive Perception is your awareness to your surroundings, I was only talking about Passive Perception and not on Passive checks as a whole. Of course I was also talking on Passive Perception as a counter to hiding, not as a representative on Passive checks as a whole.

[Demonic Spoon]

Passive Perception is your awareness to your surroundings, I was only talking about Passive Perception and not on Passive checks as a whole. Of course I was also talking on Passive Perception as a counter to hiding, not as a representative on Passive checks as a whole.

Where do the rules indicate that someone should be rolling perception rather than using the passive for detecting hiding characters?

[pwykersotz]

Where do the rules indicate that someone should be rolling perception rather than using the passive for detecting hiding characters?


A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.


When your character searches for a hidden object such as a secret door or a trap, the DM typically asks you to make a Wisdom (Perception) check. Such a check can be used to find hidden details or other information and clues that you might otherwise overlook.


Your Wisdom (Perception) check lets you spot, hear, or otherwise detect the presence of something. It measures your general awareness of your surroundings and the keenness of your senses. For example, you might try to hear a conversation through a closed door, eavesdrop under an open window, or hear monsters moving stealthily in the forest. Or you might try to spot things that are obscured or easy to miss, whether they are orcs lying in ambush on a road, thugs hiding in the shadows of an alley, or candlelight under a closed secret door.

It seems pretty clear that passive perception is only for things the DM wants to secretly determine or for repeated tasks. Naturally it could be expanded on if desired, but that's what's written.

[Demonic Spoon]

It seems pretty clear that passive perception is only for things the DM wants to secretly determine or for repeated tasks. Naturally it could be expanded on if desired, but that's what's written.
PHB 175 contains the general rules for passive checks.
PHB 178 sidebar about finding a hidden object talks about finding hidden objects and traps, not creatures.
PHB 178 description about wisdom(perception) applies equally to passive and non-passive checks. A passive check is still an ability check, it's just "A special kind of ability check that doesn't involved any die rolls"

The RAW on hiding is explained only in the later sidebar that talks about hiding, which says that you use passive perception.

[pwykersotz]

PHB 175 contains the general rules for passive checks.
PHB 178 sidebar about finding a hidden object talks about finding hidden objects and traps, not creatures.
PHB 178 description about wisdom(perception) applies equally to passive and non-passive checks. A passive check is still an ability check, it's just "A special kind of ability check that doesn't involved any die rolls"

The RAW on hiding is explained only in the later sidebar that talks about hiding, which says that you use passive perception.

Gonna disagree. To quote that sidebar:


When you hide, there’s a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature’s passive Wisdom (Perception) score...

If they are actively searching, they roll a check. If they aren't searching, they use Passive Perception.

That said, I will bow out of this conversation now as I don't believe it's in line with the purpose of the thread.

[Malifice]

Where do the rules indicate that someone should be rolling perception rather than using the passive for detecting hiding characters?

The Search action.

[djreynolds]

I like the limitation on buff spells. I could literally spend time on just buffing, it was ridiculous. Concentration spell, one. That's it. No divine power, bless, divine favor, prayer, stoneskin, etc. No wasting time with buffs. Yet the spells are still quite powerful.

I'm an off again/ on again fan of cantrips. I like that they are unlimited and scale pretty decently, which can be very powerful for an at will attack, perhaps to powerful. I like resistance vs stuff, and this and the limited amount of cantrips known can level the power of the cantrip out.

I do miss combat expertise. But it could be a leveler vs advantage.

It is streamlined system, play is quicker. Everyone can master a weapon, its just the number of your attacks is limited.

[Zeuel]

I think 5e started off well and has lots of potential, but it doesn't do it for me yet. I like having more crunch and 5e is too rules lite for me. I was kind of expecting it to start off with a basic game chassis that could easily be modified for much more deep play. I'm still holding out hope for some absolutely amazing third party 5e supplement.

[djreynolds]

I'm not a fan of unlimited cantrips, now that I think on it more. It is really powerful. Most players will max out their attack stat and at 5th level, those cantrips scale really well. A warlock can really blast guys down.

Now if you play hard core, with limited rest and limited magic items and scrolls, a caster could select bad spells but the forum guides have fixed that with really well made and detailed spell picks. So even if your fireball is up vs an enemy with resistance or you're out of spells, those cantrips are still awesome and you have a good selection of those. And all casters have an increase in hit die almost and can wear armor with a simple dip.

That elf wizard was great because he had a bow, but really he's better off now grabbing a shield and keeping his weapon in its sheathe, all obtainable with a 1 level dip, and just using cantrips.

I feel forced when I play a martial, not always, but you need GWM or Sharpshooter at a minimum just to stay relevant in the party.

[Mara]

I feel forced when I play a martial, not always, but you need GWM or Sharpshooter at a minimum just to stay relevant in the party.
Every DPR model I've seen shows that as false. Maybe you do feel a certain way, but it doesn't reflect reality. Those feats do boost your DPR but not so much that you need them to outpace cantrips or even warlock EB.

[mephnick]

Eh, other than warlocks, the cantrips are pretty weak if you're out of spells and forced to use them as your main damage. I find it's mostly a flavour thing so that your character has something to do, or a back up option if you meet elemental resistances.

If you're down to flinging cantrips, you're still mostly trying to survive while the rest of your party does all the work.

[Flashy]

Every DPR model I've seen shows that as false. Maybe you do feel a certain way, but it doesn't reflect reality. Those feats do boost your DPR but not so much that you need them to outpace cantrips or even warlock EB.

Pretty much. Don't get me wrong, eldritch blast is great, but the whole point is that the DPR is identical to a fighter of (approximately) the same level using a d10 weapon.

[Malifice]

Pretty much. Don't get me wrong, eldritch blast is great, but the whole point is that the DPR is identical to a fighter of (approximately) the same level using a d10 weapon.

Without action surge, superiority dice and a fighting style.

And at 6th a relevant combat feat or ASI.

A bog standard ranged BM fighter 5 deals 1d8+3 twice per round with no disadvantage in melee at +8 and the -5/+10, superiority dice and action surge option.

He's miles above the warlock in sustained and spike DPR. Of course the lock has spells.

[Zman]

I'm not a fan of unlimited cantrips, now that I think on it more. It is really powerful. Most players will max out their attack stat and at 5th level, those cantrips scale really well. A warlock can really blast guys down.

Now if you play hard core, with limited rest and limited magic items and scrolls, a caster could select bad spells but the forum guides have fixed that with really well made and detailed spell picks. So even if your fireball is up vs an enemy with resistance or you're out of spells, those cantrips are still awesome and you have a good selection of those. And all casters have an increase in hit die almost and can wear armor with a simple dip.

That elf wizard was great because he had a bow, but really he's better off now grabbing a shield and keeping his weapon in its sheathe, all obtainable with a 1 level dip, and just using cantrips.

I feel forced when I play a martial, not always, but you need GWM or Sharpshooter at a minimum just to stay relevant in the party.

Cantrip damage scales with Fighter additional attack levels, but generally does not get ability score to damage, or requires certain elements or additional investments, and then it isn't to every die of damage unless split to multiple enemies. I.e. Elemental affinity for sorcerer. Agonizing Blast fr Warlock, though that is Cha to every die of damage.

Also, no criticals for magic attacks without an attack roll, nor all the bonuses that Melee characters can add, namely Fighting Style, Superiority Dice, etc.

GWM does do very good damage, about the same as non GWM vs high AC, better vs medium AC, and great vs low Azc, and does considerably better with advantage. The real kickers are Pole Arm Master or Frenzy which grant another attack with a bonus action, now,mother have damage output that is head and shoulders above the rest, especially at levels where they have enough ASI to max Str.

[Flashy]

Without action surge, superiority dice and a fighting style.

And at 6th a relevant combat feat or ASI.

A bog standard ranged BM fighter 5 deals 1d8+3 twice per round with no disadvantage in melee at +8 and the -5/+10, superiority dice and action surge option.

He's miles above the warlock in sustained and spike DPR. Of course the lock has spells.

Oh, no question, the fighter is definitely way ahead. I was just trying to make the point that the warlock cantrip shtick is balanced effectively against the martial combat options. Even the best damage cantrip doesn't beat out weapon damage.

[Malifice]

Oh, no question, the fighter is definitely way ahead. I was just trying to make the point that the warlock cantrip shtick is balanced effectively against the martial combat options. Even the best damage cantrip doesn't beat out weapon damage.

I was agreeing with you.

Wizard and other casters cantrips pale in comparison with the DPR of extra attack on a greatsword weilding barbarian, or a BM Fighter cutting sick.

Heck; even a bog standard Thief Rogue is spamming 5d6+4 at 5th level, which is on par with a Warlocks EB damage.

Yeah the 'lock has 2 spells per short rest and utility from his pact, but the Rogue has plenty of utility from expertise, cunning action, more skills and so forth to rely on too.

This is not diss to 'locks by the way. They're a fantastic class (that gets a bad rep on account of campaigns with DM's that dont get the 6-8/2/1 rest paradigm).

[EvilAnagram]

I'm not a fan of unlimited cantrips, now that I think on it more. It is really powerful. Most players will max out their attack stat and at 5th level, those cantrips scale really well. A warlock can really blast guys down.
With the exception of the Warlock, no one can match martial damage using cantrips, and the Warlock only gets to do that because he's not a full caster.

Really, do the math. A fifth level Wizard can do 2d10 damage with Firebolt? That averages 11 damage. A Beastmaster, often thought to be the weakest martial class, can easily deal 1d8+1d6+4 per attack with a longbow at that level. That's 12 damage per attack, with two attacks per turn. All martials can easily exceed that damage. Rogues get 19 damage with a Sneak Attack. A raging Barbarian gets 12.5 damage per hit. A Fighter gets 12.33 per hit. Monks get three to four attacks dealing 7.5 damage.

Cantrips do not break the game.

[Malifice]

With the exception of the Warlock, no one can match martial damage using cantrips, and the Warlock only gets to do that because he's not a full caster..

'Locks dont match the sustained or spike damage of a Fighter or Barbarian. With Hex up they do get close though.

[EvilAnagram]

'Locks dont match the sustained or spike damage of a Fighter or Barbarian. With Hex up they do get close though.

They absolutely can't. Most martials can spike for an insane amount of damage, and even Warlocks can't keep up.

[Malifice]

They absolutely can't. Most martials can spike for an insane amount of damage, and even Warlocks can't keep up.

Spells match it.

Spell = Action surge Nova.

[KorvinStarmast]

What 5e did right

REsolved for all time the Quadratic Wizard : Linear Fighter issue ... no, wait, I'll go and get some more popcorn. :smallbiggrin:

[Shaofoo]

I'm not a fan of unlimited cantrips, now that I think on it more. It is really powerful. Most players will max out their attack stat and at 5th level, those cantrips scale really well. A warlock can really blast guys down.

Now if you play hard core, with limited rest and limited magic items and scrolls, a caster could select bad spells but the forum guides have fixed that with really well made and detailed spell picks. So even if your fireball is up vs an enemy with resistance or you're out of spells, those cantrips are still awesome and you have a good selection of those. And all casters have an increase in hit die almost and can wear armor with a simple dip.

That elf wizard was great because he had a bow, but really he's better off now grabbing a shield and keeping his weapon in its sheathe, all obtainable with a 1 level dip, and just using cantrips.

I feel forced when I play a martial, not always, but you need GWM or Sharpshooter at a minimum just to stay relevant in the party.

I was going to comment on the actual content of this post but this post actually presents a perfect example of one of the few things that I hate about 5e.

Basically the multiclass rules.

Or more importantly the lack of commitment when it comes to your 1st level class.

I have seen 1/X and 2/X builds that do so because a starting class package is much better. To me the 1st level is a culmination of years if not a lifetime of lifestyle choices, it breaks my suspension of disbelief to see a person start as a fighter and then go on to abandon everything that deals with fighters and instead go to wizardry full time all of a sudden. Heck it makes the Armor gaining feats to be worthless, why waste 3 ASI to get heavy armor when you can just go Fighter and get it all in the first level.

It'd be like training to get into the NFL and when you get there you quit so you can become a Chess Grand master, the only reason you really wanted to be in the NFL is so you can train wearing football armor.

Of course multiclass rules are variant rules and I definitely will change this to my liking so it isn't so much as a problem with 5e as a problem with people trying to game the system.

[Demonic Spoon]

I have seen 1/X and 2/X builds that do so because a starting class package is much better. To me the 1st level is a culmination of years if not a lifetime of lifestyle choices, it breaks my suspension of disbelief to see a person start as a fighter and then go on to abandon everything that deals with fighters and instead go to wizardry full time all of a sudden. Heck it makes the Armor gaining feats to be worthless, why waste 3 ASI to get heavy armor when you can just go Fighter and get it all in the first level.

The reason why you don't spend 3 ASI to get heavy armor is because spending 3 ASI to get heavy armor is just a bad option. It has nothing to do with the availability of multiclassing. With 3 ASIs, a straight wizard could just have 20 DEX and have the same AC with mage armor as he would if he took a level in fighter and wore plate.

A first level fighter is just a guy who has some basic but effective martial training and can wear armor. A fighter 1/wizard 5 is just like a wizard 6, except a little bit worse at casting spells and a little bit more durable (little more HP + second wind), who also knows how to fight in armor. The fact that someone could both cast arcane spells and wear armor effectively breaks your suspension of disbelief?

I don't really like multiclassing either, but the example you gave is probably one of the most benign incarnations of it.

[Shaofoo]

The reason why you don't spend 3 ASI to get heavy armor is because spending 3 ASI to get heavy armor is just a bad option. It has nothing to do with the availability of multiclassing. With 3 ASIs, a straight wizard could just have 20 DEX and have the same AC with mage armor as he would if he took a level in fighter and wore plate.

And if he took his first level in fighter he wastes no ASI, the only thing that he loses out is his capstone which might not be such a huge thing and might not even reach anyways. Even if you just wanted medium armor for the shield that is two ASI you have below the guy that took the first level in fighter.

And like I said before it invalidates the feats to gain armor because gaining the level in fighter first gives you three feats basically.


A first level fighter is just a guy who has some basic but effective martial training and can wear armor. A fighter 1/wizard 5 is just like a wizard 6, except a little bit worse at casting spells and a little bit more durable (little more HP + second wind), who also knows how to fight in armor. The fact that someone could both cast arcane spells and wear armor effectively breaks your suspension of disbelief?

I explained my reasoning in the above post, gaining a first level is supposed to be a big achievement and a cornerstone in your life, your calling so to speak. Abandoning that is just wrong to me, tantamount to calling yourself lawful good while being a kleptomaniac and engaging in liberal assault.

You don't have to agree or subscribe to my thinking, if this raises no concern to you then be happy.

The Wizard that took time and spent 2 ASI to wear a shield effective does not break my suspension of disbelief at all.


I don't really like multiclassing either, but the example you gave is probably one of the most benign incarnations of it.

If you can show me a person that at some point in his life considered Wizard 1/ Fighter X then I will take back everything that I said about multiclassing, if it can work for any combination then I will reverse my statement.

As it stands this is just cheese and a way to game the system plain and simple. I guess that is why multiclassing and feats are optional in the game.

[Demonic Spoon]

And if he took his first level in fighter he wastes no ASI, the only thing that he loses out is his capstone which might not be such a huge thing and might not even reach anyways. Even if you just wanted medium armor for the shield that is two ASI you have below the guy that took the first level in fighter.

And like I said before it invalidates the feats to gain armor because gaining the level in fighter first gives you three feats basically.


No, it doesn't. Even without multiclassing, absolutely no one is going to take 3 ASIs to get heavy armor as a fighter because that is demonstrably terrible. It is strictly superior to take 3 ASIs worth of DEX and use mage armor.

Furthermore, you are simultaneously assuming that the game will go to 20 by saying that the character only loses out on his capstone while also arguing that the capstone is irrelevant because no one will ever get there; that doesn't make sense. Fully one half of the time, the fighter 1/wizard X will be a spell level behind a full wizard, which is a huge difference in power. The other half of the time, the fighter 1/wizard X will still be behind some other important feature, depending on exactly which level you are at.


I explained my reasoning in the above post, gaining a first level is supposed to be a big achievement and a cornerstone in your life, your calling so to speak. Abandoning that is just wrong to me, tantamount to calling yourself lawful good while being a kleptomaniac and engaging in liberal assault.
You're making subjective judgments about what a level means narratively. A level is a game mechanic that exists to provide the character with a package of abilities. A fighter 1/Wizard X isn't someone who dedicated his whole life to martial combat before realizing that he liked magic better - it's probably someone who either received martial training in addition to magical training or had a military background before beginning to study magic. Both are perfectly viable explanations for the multiclass.



If you can show me a person that at some point in his life considered Wizard 1/ Fighter X then I will take back everything that I said about multiclassing, if it can work for any combination then I will reverse my statement.

As it stands this is just cheese and a way to game the system plain and simple. I guess that is why multiclassing and feats are optional in the game.


Wizard 1/Fighter X isn't actually that bad for an eldritch knight. Hell, if you aren't super concerned with optimization even wizard 1/battlemaster or champion X is probably perfectly playable. That said, there's no expectation that every multiclass combination is going to be equally powerful. To some degree, a player needs to understand the system in order to make an effective character. Multiclassing compromises that substantially, sure, but you can make a bad character just fine without multiclassing - how about a halfling barbarian who pumps only mental stats? and dumps strength and con?

[Zman]

And if he took his first level in fighter he wastes no ASI, the only thing that he loses out is his capstone which might not be such a huge thing and might not even reach anyways. Even if you just wanted medium armor for the shield that is two ASI you have below the guy that took the first level in fighter.

And like I said before it invalidates the feats to gain armor because gaining the level in fighter first gives you three feats basically.



I explained my reasoning in the above post, gaining a first level is supposed to be a big achievement and a cornerstone in your life, your calling so to speak. Abandoning that is just wrong to me, tantamount to calling yourself lawful good while being a kleptomaniac and engaging in liberal assault.

You don't have to agree or subscribe to my thinking, if this raises no concern to you then be happy.

The Wizard that took time and spent 2 ASI to wear a shield effective does not break my suspension of disbelief at all.



If you can show me a person that at some point in his life considered Wizard 1/ Fighter X then I will take back everything that I said about multiclassing, if it can work for any combination then I will reverse my statement.

As it stands this is just cheese and a way to game the system plain and simple. I guess that is why multiclassing and feats are optional in the game.

You may feel it is wrong, but there is much that you are missing or minimizing.

Taking a level of Fighter before Wizard. Sure, you get Heavy Armor, and a shield, that is very potent. Though, prior to getting Full Plate it isn't that powerful. You still have somatic components to worry about which interferes with using a shield. Sure, shield and no weapon or arcane focus works. Maybe AC 14+2+2+1= AC 19 until mid level Fullplate, then AC18+2+1= AC21. Assuming Defense fighting style. Con save proficiency is huge.

Now, looking at it at lvl20, doesn't seem like a huge deal, lose one level, keep all ASIs, and get armor when compared to normal Wizard AC of 15-18 with Mage Armor.

But, what is the real cost?? Compare it to straight Wizard....
1: No Spells yet
3: No 2nd Level spells yet
4: Delayed ASI, -1 to saves and attack.
5: No 3rd Level Spells yet
7: No 4th level Spells yet
8: Delayed ASI, -1 to saves and attack.
9: No 5th level Spells Yet
Etc etc

For almost half of the Wizard's career they are behind one spell level, they often have fewer spell slots, they have at least two levels of delayed ASI which translates into two levels of having lower save DCs and lower Attack potential. You play the game as Wizard -1, sure, you are hardy with a great AC, some extra HP, Con Prof, but you spend the vast majority of your career less effective at your primary role than the Wozard who did not Multiclass. Ask yourself, at lol 17 when you have 8th level spells and no 9th level spells, is having AC21 worth not having Wish? How many levels would you trade that AC for the next level of spells?? It isn't quite such a no brainier.

Let's not neglect the RP concerns, you do not start with everything a Wizard does, procuring a spell lol etc could be annoying.

Comparing vacuum lvl20 builds is one thing, but that kind of airchair analysis greatly ignores actually playing the game and the level by level impact it has.

AC is great and has a huge impact on the game, but it comes at the cost of being an inferior Wizard for 9 levles(having lower level spells), not to mentionn every level where the full class wizard has more spells, or another beneficial class feature.

[Shaofoo]

No, it doesn't. Even without multiclassing, absolutely no one is going to take 3 ASIs to get heavy armor as a fighter because that is demonstrably terrible. It is strictly superior to take 3 ASIs worth of DEX and use mage armor.

You wouldn't waste three feats to get heavy armor feats as a fighter because you are already proficient in heavy armor from the get go. ANd like I said, the biggest point is Shield which does stack with Mage Armor and needs its own proficiency but also Action Surge


Furthermore, you are simultaneously assuming that the game will go to 20 by saying that the character only loses out on his capstone while also arguing that the capstone is irrelevant because no one will ever get there; that doesn't make sense. Fully one half of the time, the fighter 1/wizard X will be a spell level behind a full wizard, which is a huge difference in power. The other half of the time, the fighter 1/wizard X will still be behind some other important feature, depending on exactly which level you are at.

Don't put words in my mouth.

I said that the only thing that you are locked out is your capstone if you multiclass which MIGHT (not WILL) not matter if you don't plan on reaching up to 20 (which you MIGHT). Also being behind one level isn't such a big deal as you make it out to be but I don't care much to explain why because it is all subjective and relative anyway. Maybe to you behind behind a level is a hard thing to swallow so I can't really explain why I think that it is not so bad anymore than I can explain why green is the best color.



You're making subjective judgments about what a level means narratively. A level is a game mechanic that exists to provide the character with a package of abilities. A fighter 1/Wizard X isn't someone who dedicated his whole life to martial combat before realizing that he liked magic better - it's probably someone who either received martial training in addition to magical training or had a military background before beginning to study magic. Both are perfectly viable explanations for the multiclass.

I already said my piece, I don't feel like repeating myself. If you don't like how I handle things I never said that you had to like them, I expect that people will justify their action in a way or another just like I . This point is already resolved and shouldn't need to be followed further




Wizard 1/Fighter X isn't actually that bad for an eldritch knight. Hell, if you aren't super concerned with optimization even wizard 1/battlemaster or champion X is probably perfectly playable. That said, there's no expectation that every multiclass combination is going to be equally powerful. To some degree, a player needs to understand the system in order to make an effective character. Multiclassing compromises that substantially, sure, but you can make a bad character just fine without multiclassing - how about a halfling barbarian who pumps only mental stats? and dumps strength and con?

I am sure you can take Class A X/ Class B Y/..../ Class Q Z and make it work if optimization isn't a factor (and if getting there isn't a factor either). But there is a reason why people gravitate towards a specific build and it is because if offers a lot for very little. You can try to justify me whatever you want on suboptimal classes but it is a moot point if no one takes it. The reason I am complaining is because people are nonchalantly taking these builds not because of the potential.

Also if you read the PHB then you understand the system, the guide tells you how to build the classes and even comes with a premade build for each class if you truly can't decide. Your halfling Barbarian that dumps Strength and Con either didn't read the PHB or is being contrarian and doing it to be disruptive to the system. There is no excuse to not know if you did a bit of reading.

[Shaofoo]

You may feel it is wrong, but there is much that you are missing or minimizing.

Taking a level of Fighter before Wizard. Sure, you get Heavy Armor, and a shield, that is very potent. Though, prior to getting Full Plate it isn't that powerful. You still have somatic components to worry about which interferes with using a shield. Sure, shield and no weapon or arcane focus works. Maybe AC 14+2+2+1= AC 19 until mid level Fullplate, then AC18+2+1= AC21. Assuming Defense fighting style. Con save proficiency is huge.

Now, looking at it at lvl20, doesn't seem like a huge deal, lose one level, keep all ASIs, and get armor when compared to normal Wizard AC of 15-18 with Mage Armor.

But, what is the real cost?? Compare it to straight Wizard....
1: No Spells yet
3: No 2nd Level spells yet
4: Delayed ASI, -1 to saves and attack.
5: No 3rd Level Spells yet
7: No 4th level Spells yet
8: Delayed ASI, -1 to saves and attack.
9: No 5th level Spells Yet
Etc etc

For almost half of the Wizard's career they are behind one spell level, they often have fewer spell slots, they have at least two levels of delayed ASI which translates into two levels of having lower save DCs and lower Attack potential. You play the game as Wizard -1, sure, you are hardy with a great AC, some extra HP, Con Prof, but you spend the vast majority of your career less effective at your primary role than the Wozard who did not Multiclass. Ask yourself, at lol 17 when you have 8th level spells and no 9th level spells, is having AC21 worth not having Wish? How many levels would you trade that AC for the next level of spells?? It isn't quite such a no brainier.


It is called opportunity costs, maybe you don't think it is worth it but for some people it is if they are choosing it.

And I would say that you should go Fighter 2 and gain Action Surge to be able to double action once in a while but since you gave that long list on why multiclassing a Wizard is bad I am sure that I will make you go on another spree.


Let's not neglect the RP concerns, you do not start with everything a Wizard does, procuring a spell lol etc could be annoying.

Which I did, I gave my explanation and it was how I see levels which is RP.


Comparing vacuum lvl20 builds is one thing, but that kind of airchair analysis greatly ignores actually playing the game and the level by level impact it has.

Very few builds can be replicated in actual play, I have little care if someone is actually multiclassing like that in someone's table at this moment.

[djreynolds]

I humbly apologize to everyone. I didn't mean to start this rant.

Its just my opinion. Its my beef.

I don't like the cantrips. But I'm not requesting any changes be done. I just don't like them.

And everyone of you has made a great argument and I totally agree with you.

A fighter should be doing more damage because this is his main attack.

My wizards cantrips are his last resort, and they are still better than my light crossbow forever and ever, I don't know why I carry one.

Cantrips require no investment, they cover a lot of stuff, and scale well, and are at-will. No rest required, nothing.

And really, that's my only beef with 5E is that. Everything else is great. Everyone's damage is proportional and team work is the focus and that is great fun. So if having a good time playing is a perk, 5E did that. I can play with or without a battle mat or theater of the mind.

[Addaran]

You wouldn't waste three feats to get heavy armor feats as a fighter because you are already proficient in heavy armor from the get go. ANd like I said, the biggest point is Shield which does stack with Mage Armor and needs its own proficiency but also Action Surge


What he meant was that even if multiclassing isn't allowed, no sorcerer or wizard would ever waste 3 feats for heavy armor. You'll get it at lvl 8 minimum (variant human), you'll be behind on your casting stat and you won't be able to take other better feats.





Cantrips require no investment, they cover a lot of stuff, and scale well, and are at-will. No rest required, nothing.



That's probably what i prefer with 5ed. I always hated how you'd be stuck with nothing when you were out of slots. Even the classes/races that get only a single cantrip are awesome, cause you feel like a mini-caster. In my group, we have a gnome and 4/5 of the rest also have minor illusion. Imagine the fun we have with that. =D

[Anonymouswizard]

If you don't like dips, how about the following rule:
-if you have a class lower than level 3, when you level up you must increase that class.

If you're most worried about dipping at first level for proficiencies, simply apply it to their first class only. Now that Fighter/Wizard is always at least 1 spell level behind (until level 19/20).

EDIT: now I'm off to see if I can homebrew casters to be how I want them to be, so spell points and limited spells known for all, along with a more metamagicy Sorcerer.

[Zman]

It is called opportunity costs, maybe you don't think it is worth it but for some people it is if they are choosing it.

And I would say that you should go Fighter 2 and gain Action Surge to be able to double action once in a while but since you gave that long list on why multiclassing a Wizard is bad I am sure that I will make you go on another spree.



Which I did, I gave my explanation and it was how I see levels which is RP.



Very few builds can be replicated in actual play, I have little care if someone is actually multiclassing like that in someone's table at this moment.

A little dense, are we? Of course it is opportunity cost, that was the entire point of my long post. There is an opportunity cost for going Fighter 1 or Fighter 2 to get Heavy Armor and action Surge. Fighter two means that until level 19 you are always a full spell level behind and will always be two levels behind in ASI, and miss out on an ASI. That opportunity cost is a tool of balance.

You may not like a Fighter turned Wizard for whatever reason, just done do it because of balance.

PS ever hear of a battlemage? A warwizard? A Warmage? Casting in armor and allowing a multitude of character concepts is a good thing, even if you don't like it. Why should we be limited to Eldrotch Knight as our only alternative to fulfill that concept?

Your reasons at RP, yet you keep citing mechanical reasons, etc. RP, there are very legitimate reasons for a character to change classes. You may not like it, then don't play it, but don't try and impose your beliefs on others using poorly constructed arguments.

[DanyBallon]

If you don't like dips, how about the following rule:
-if you have a class lower than level 3, when you level up you must increase that class.


I was about to say the same. It's a easy fix for those who hates level dipping in their world. It's a nod to the old 2e multiclassing without being too restrictive (anyone remember the 3.0 xp cost?). Also to make level dipping having a bigger cost, you could enforce the hold dual class system there was. On you take a new class, he lose all abilities related to that class until his new class is a level higher than the previous one. It will still allow level dipping, but it won't as convenient for a player to do so at level 5... It gives the impression of a change of carreer. But, like any house rules, you should make sure all your players agree to it.

[Theodoxus]

My party has a Fighter 1/Warlock 7. The player has asked if he could drop the Fighter level - it literally provides him nothing (he stands 200+ feet back and pew pews... the armor is nearly meaningless). The DM has been adamant that all of us must live with the consequences of our choices. I'm playing a Cleric 4/Rogue 4 half elf... not particularly optimal either. I'd make a few changes about the character, especially as we've had an influx of new players who cover some of things I've done (knowledge cleric for Int skills, handily covered by the new wizard; cleric spells handily covered by the new cleric...) but I'm ok with the DM's ruling. It makes sense... now if I die... ;)

[KorvinStarmast]

The DM has been adamant that all of us must live with the consequences of our choices. Hooray for your DM's ruling.

To answer the Opening Post: What 5e did right?
It got me back.
How? Kiss principle more often applied.

I am still not impressed with the job the WoTC editors did on language, nor on the maps in the Sword Coast Adventures book: they put the islands off the Coast into the fold in the spine, and left easily found the areas well to the east that are not part of the Sword Coast. Sliding the whole map east so that all of the Islands and water are on one page would have been a much better lay out choice. And the font is pretty small and hard to read. (OK, I'm old, but I do have reading glasses, and it's still a bit tough to make out some of the names on the map.)

Also not impressed with the level of detail that the new sub classes / archetypes got in the final printed/canon version of SCAG. For all of the words spilled on lore, the new class and archetypes could have used a bit more polish.

[Tanarii]

One thing I like about d&d 5e is it brought back the ability to run a grognard combat-is-war style campaign with the use of appropriate variant rules.

I've played since 1e (although more BECMI), and loved the revisions of each new edition. I even loved 4e's emphasis on combat-as-sport, including the underlying concept of an adventuring day (although IIRC it wasn't called that), and especially the unified at-will/encounter/daily power scheme across all classes. The latter also made martial classes insanely awesome and fun to play again! But mostly having a clear CoS style gave adventures a very distinct feel and focus. The ability to come together, and string together encounters without worrying too much about what happened in between was a boon for DMs and players that wanted to focus on encounters, and not the in between stuff. I loved running Encounters sessions with pickup players in 4e.

But it had a price, which was the feel of building a world got a little less 'consistent', and sandbox play was poorly supported. 5e absolutely still has the CoS paradigm built in to the base game, and that's fantastic! Because lots of players don't want to worry about the 'fiddly' stuff. But I'm looking forward to running a combat-as-war campaign, which 5e *also* has variant rules to cover all over the place. And the base system is designed to handle those variant rules, they aren't just tacked on to the chassis, 5e is flexible enough to be either CoS or CoW. They just chose to make the 'default' closer to CoS, and for good reason, players prefer it. Hell, even in grognard days most of us ignored the vast majority of 1e's built-in CoW rules, which is why from 2e onward they were phased out.

It's almost like a grognard dev who was familiar with the traditions of d&d and had some idea why they existed, but also recognized the benefits of the way the game evolved, took over at the helm. I have a lot of issues with Mearls, but it turns out he did seem to understand what he was doing. ;)


The DM has been adamant that all of us must live with the consequences of our choices. I'm playing a Cleric 4/Rogue 4 half elf... not particularly optimal either. I'd make a few changes about the character, especially as we've had an influx of new players who cover some of things I've done (knowledge cleric for Int skills, handily covered by the new wizard; cleric spells handily covered by the new cleric...) but I'm ok with the DM's ruling. It makes sense... now if I die... ;)i'm curious what level the new players entered the game with? 5e seems like it could handle new players coming in with low level characters. Maybe not level 1, but much lower than the party. Bounded accuracy and all that Yada Yada.

[Shaofoo]

A little dense, are we? Of course it is opportunity cost, that was the entire point of my long post. There is an opportunity cost for going Fighter 1 or Fighter 2 to get Heavy Armor and action Surge. Fighter two means that until level 19 you are always a full spell level behind and will always be two levels behind in ASI, and miss out on an ASI. That opportunity cost is a tool of balance.

You just explained why you would never do it, I can't really argue why you should take a dip in Fighter. That isn't an argument that is more of an elaborate opinion.



PS ever hear of a battlemage? A warwizard? A Warmage? Casting in armor and allowing a multitude of character concepts is a good thing, even if you don't like it. Why should we be limited to Eldrotch Knight as our only alternative to fulfill that concept?

Battlemage, Warwizard and Warmage mean nothing to me and have no meaning in 5e. It sounds like synonyms.

You can fufill that concept a number of ways in 5e,

Valor Bard, Clerics, Paladin, Ranger, Armor Feats and other ways.

Eldritch Knight isn't the only way to be able to spell cast in armor.


Your reasons at RP, yet you keep citing mechanical reasons, etc. RP, there are very legitimate reasons for a character to change classes. You may not like it, then don't play it, but don't try and impose your beliefs on others using poorly constructed arguments.

If you read I already made my case that I don't care if you actually do the dip or not. I don't care if you go Barbarian 2/ Bard 2/ Cleric 2/ Druid 2/ Fighter 2/ Paladin 2/ Monk 2/ Sorcerer 2/ Warlock 2/ Wizard 2 and I don't care if you make sure that you go 2/X. The point in this topic is to explain things that 5e did right and I said something that I thought 5e did wrong, I don't care if you or anyone else plays the game that way.

I never imposed my beliefs and I think I stated my case by not arguing your point, which you called me dense because I chose not to argue your opinion. It is funny that you would call me dense for not engaging in your verbose discussion yet accuse me of forcing my beliefs on you and others.

But lets return to actual reason on what 5e did right.

One thing is that stats aren't so forced into being in specific categories unlike 4e. In 4e you had a primary and secondary stat and every ASI you had to put points into those two stats or you'd be behind and the points that you did put in your other stats didn't matter much so it was wasted points. In fact there was a situation where the races were chosen based on the stats that the pumped up.

Also another thing that 5e and 4e did was no ability damage or level drain, I would prefer permanent debuffs with a stated effect than trying to reconfigure my sheet after someone damaged my stats.

[Zman]

You just explained why you would never do it, I can't really argue why you should take a dip in Fighter. That isn't an argument that is more of an elaborate opinion.




Battlemage, Warwizard and Warmage mean nothing to me and have no meaning in 5e. It sounds like synonyms.

You can fufill that concept a number of ways in 5e,

Valor Bard, Clerics, Paladin, Ranger, Armor Feats and other ways.

Eldritch Knight isn't the only way to be able to spell cast in armor.



If you read I already made my case that I don't care if you actually do the dip or not. I don't care if you go Barbarian 2/ Bard 2/ Cleric 2/ Druid 2/ Fighter 2/ Paladin 2/ Monk 2/ Sorcerer 2/ Warlock 2/ Wizard 2 and I don't care if you make sure that you go 2/X. The point in this topic is to explain things that 5e did right and I said something that I thought 5e did wrong, I don't care if you or anyone else plays the game that way.

I never imposed my beliefs and I think I stated my case by not arguing your point, which you called me dense because I chose not to argue your opinion. It is funny that you would call me dense for not engaging in your verbose discussion yet accuse me of forcing my beliefs on you and others.

Still dense. And I was being civil. I was talking about Opportunity cost and you felt the need to state it was about opportunity cost. You also keep working under the assumption that I do not think you should Dip, or that it can't be worth it, somethiing I've never said. They are options and was pointing out the opportunity cost showing that a dip is not purely beneficial, it comes with cost. Something you now agree with.

You keep stating that RP is the main reason you are opposed to multiclassing, and I am pointing out that Multiclassing is great for fulfilling a character concept. You seem to think along the black and white lines of character concepts, it is unfortunate for the group you play with that you are so limited or limiting to their creativity.

If a player wanted to play Battlemage, someone that wasn't a pure caster, wore plate armor, but used more than just evocation and abjuration. Maybe they were inspired by the battlemages from Skyrim. You'd tell them tough luck, take Wizard or Sorcerer and spend every single ASI to get heavy armor through level 12, doesn't matter your character is now significantly less effective than it could be, and that your trained Wizard would never spend time to learn how to use armor, etc. You can express your character concept at level 12.

Whereas I'd tell them to probably start out as a Fighter for ease of play, move into Wizard, and occasionally back and forth to get Eldritch Knight depending on if they wanted more raw casting power or more fighter options. I'd let them through the class and multiclass system create the best mechanical construct for their character. I would be expanding RP options while you would be limiting them. I'd let them express the character concept starting at level 2. Figher1/Wizard1.

Also, if you don't think a character should be able to multiclass, how about any of the DND novels, take a look at what some of the classes for those characters would be. Multiclassing can be used to express mechanical characters, but it can also be used to express character concepts that impossible though the overly restrictive class mechanic. Even when someone tried to "game the system" their are opportunity costs like I pointed out, your Fighter2 Dip for action surge makes the Wizard significantly less effective at is primary role for almost every level till 19! I see that as perfectly fine and acceptable.

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but your argument has to make sense. Just because you don't like a feature doesn't mean that is wrong, broken, or poorly implemented. Your main argument is breaking immersion, I argue that multiclassing is most definitely a tool that can greatly aid immersion and expressing character concept.

[Theodoxus]

i'm curious what level the new players entered the game with? 5e seems like it could handle new players coming in with low level characters. Maybe not level 1, but much lower than the party. Bounded accuracy and all that Yada Yada.

The new folks are coming at 8th level, like the rest of us. The tradition at our table (even with retiring characters) is to bring new blood in at the level the rest are playing. While I agree that 5th is probably the best to handle level disparity, we didn't even consider it due to tradition.

It's a Magic Item-less game, so level actually matters more - more class toys to compensate for lack of actual toys ;)

[Tanarii]

That basically gives the new players a consequence free build plus start off with all the cookies. But it's by far the normal way of doing things for tables nowadays.

I was only curious because as I've said, I've been looking at some other styles of play. One of the things I've noticed is 5e not only can support some PC level disparity. But the other thing is that lower level characters will catch up in level *very* quickly at lower levels, due to the way XP scales, which is fairly typical for low-level D&D. So if new players start off at level-2 (the way we used to do it back in the day) they'll be caught up (ie a level behind) by the time the existing players gain a single level. Even if new players start off at level-5 (say 3 to your 8), they'd be at 6 by the time you hit 9, and caught up (again level-1) by level 11. That's part of the whole reason for the way the xp tables scale.

[Theodoxus]

That'd work in a standard game. We play with milestones... so anyone who started lower would be perpetually lower, unless some kind of stop gap measure were implemented. Definitely doable, but would need to be discussed...

(I personally hate tracking XP as much as I do rations, arrows and gold pieces... so Milestones was a god send I won't abandon unless there's a very good compelling reason for it. Also grinding rats is soooo 1986 :smalleek:)

[Tanarii]

Oh yeah for sure if you play with level up by milestones then you wouldn't want to be lower level. And I wasn't trying to say your way was in any way badwrongfun. I've got my mind in this other style of play mode, and it's making all sorts of system features jump out at me that I either overlooked, or just didn't really consider the way they could be used to benefit various playstyles.

For example, in the campaign I'm putting together not only is tracking arrows, gold, rations, torches and even time/aging going to be a cornerstone, I'm looking at ways it will make it part of the fun. Not detrimental to it. Some of which is just going to be the mindset of the players involved liking complexity. But the key is making that complexity matter and not be just a pain in the ass.

[Theodoxus]

Good luck with that :smallbiggrin: If there's a compelling reason for it, I could get behind tracking minutia, but with 5th Ed, if the game is one of accounting for every arrow and gold piece... well, I'll just play a Warlock with my unlimited "bow".

World of Warcraft was fun when Hunters had to keep stacks and stacks of arrows in their quivers (and nearly every one used a gun because bullets were easier to make - lol) But there was a reason Blizzard eventually got rid of the need. With cantrips being an unlimited resource (and being nearly as good (or better, in the case of EB) as a bow), you're going to need a very compelling reason to have anyone use a mundane ranged weapon. I'd suggest unstable magic or dead magic zones - common enough that mages will want something to fall back on, but not so common as to make magic useless (unless that's the game you're shooting for :smallwink:)

[Tanarii]

Oh for sure, unlimited cantrips is a very, very nice resource. And yes, some players will want it because it has value from being unlimited within it's constraints, and not just in the 'fiddly' aspect.

I wouldn't try it without players who were interested in such a thing. But that's the beauty of 5e ... they kept enough of the tools that it's possible for me, with some variant rules, to do such a thing. There are only a few things missing. Such level limits for non-humans, which is important only in relation to a very-long-time-frame campaign, wherein character age also becomes important. But none of which is insurmountable.

But meanwhile it works well for players who want to play a campaign ignoring all those fiddly bits ... they're playing a completely different playstyle indeed. And it's one which many video games also use. Because it's very popular with the majority of players. The style I'm looking at is mostly popular with hard-core wargamers.

That's where D&D's roots lie, with hardcore wargamers. But also the reason it's moved away from that to a far more 'not fiddly' ruleset over time. To broaden the appeal. :)

[JoeJ]

Good luck with that :smallbiggrin: If there's a compelling reason for it, I could get behind tracking minutia, but with 5th Ed, if the game is one of accounting for every arrow and gold piece... well, I'll just play a Warlock with my unlimited "bow".

World of Warcraft was fun when Hunters had to keep stacks and stacks of arrows in their quivers (and nearly every one used a gun because bullets were easier to make - lol) But there was a reason Blizzard eventually got rid of the need. With cantrips being an unlimited resource (and being nearly as good (or better, in the case of EB) as a bow), you're going to need a very compelling reason to have anyone use a mundane ranged weapon. I'd suggest unstable magic or dead magic zones - common enough that mages will want something to fall back on, but not so common as to make magic useless (unless that's the game you're shooting for :smallwink:)

I don't track minor things like that if there's no real chance the party will run out. In a five room dungeon, for example, it would be silly to keep track of every arrow. But if they're on a cross-country trek without knowing when or where they'll be able to resupply, then things like ammunition and food are crucial resources that have to be managed properly or they risk failure, and forces the players to make some tough decisions. Suppose, for example, the group is pursuing a band of goblins that recently raided a village and took a bunch of prisoners. After a week or so, the PCs are low on supplies when they come across a crossroad with a sign indicating there's a village half a day's travel in the wrong direction. Do they ignore it and risk running out of something they need, or divert to the village and risk letting the goblins get away?

[Tanarii]

After a week or so, the PCs are low on supplies when they come across a crossroad with a sign indicating there's a village half a day's travel in the wrong direction. Do they ignore it and risk running out of something they need, or divert to the village and risk letting the goblins get away?To be fair, many groups, the DM just tells the players "you're low on supplies". They don't feel the need to track any of that stuff. They just decide what applies as the situation warrants. It's a totally reasonable way to play if everyone enjoys it.

[Theodoxus]

That's well and good - although I guess it depends on party makeup and level. A decent cleric with purify food and water, and someone with a decent survival score and you won't run out of food.. it might be nasty half-dead cactus spines and swamp algae, but it'll be nourishing.

Magic makes lots of the tracking resource aspect of an otherwise wargamey campaign trivial. I guess that's why I prefer to err on the side of 'yeah, if it's mundane and easily bought, don't worry about tracking it...

[JoeJ]

That's well and good - although I guess it depends on party makeup and level. A decent cleric with purify food and water, and someone with a decent survival score and you won't run out of food.. it might be nasty half-dead cactus spines and swamp algae, but it'll be nourishing.

Magic makes lots of the tracking resource aspect of an otherwise wargamey campaign trivial. I guess that's why I prefer to err on the side of 'yeah, if it's mundane and easily bought, don't worry about tracking it...

That's true. Purify Food and Drink requires something to purify, though, so it's usefulness depends on how successful the party is at foraging. And if they're moving at a fast pace, it would be reasonable to apply the same -5 penalty to foraging that they have on their passive perception. Create Food and Water is also a possibility, although that may mean being short a 3rd level slot if they run into trouble, and a four person party will still be on short rations if they're mounted. And, of course, none of those spells replace expended ammo, healer's kits, oil, or expensive material components.

As I said earlier, I only make the players keep track of this stuff when there's a realistic possibility of running out. (And, I'll admit, there is an ulterior motive: if I can make the players look at the equipment on their character sheet every once in a while, they sometimes come up with a unexpected way of using it.)

[georgie_leech]

That's true. Purify Food and Drink requires something to purify, though, so it's usefulness depends on how successful the party is at foraging. And if they're moving at a fast pace, it would be reasonable to apply the same -5 penalty to foraging that they have on their passive perception. Create Food and Water is also a possibility, although that may mean being short a 3rd level slot if they run into trouble, and a four person party will still be on short rations if they're mounted. And, of course, none of those spells replace expended ammo, healer's kits, oil, or expensive material components.

As I said earlier, I only make the players keep track of this stuff when there's a realistic possibility of running out. (And, I'll admit, there is an ulterior motive: if I can make the players look at the equipment on their character sheet every once in a while, they sometimes come up with a unexpected way of using it.)

Goodberry explicitly gives enough nourishment to feed someone for a day, so a Druid feeds the whole party for only a single Level 1 slot.

[JoeJ]

Goodberry explicitly gives enough nourishment to feed someone for a day, so a Druid feeds the whole party for only a single Level 1 slot.

Yep. If there's a druid in the party they might not even bother carrying rations, once they get to a level where that spell slot is unlikely to be needed for something else.