Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ahtman wrote:
So following the rules as they are written would make someone a bad DM?

Yes, of course, if one follows the rules mindlessly; or to be more precise, by assuming such rules follow design concepts that would not appear until decades later -- and usually in video games first, for that matter. For example, Rules Compendium provides that first-level thieves have a 15% chance of opening a lock. I use this example because I myself made this mistake when DMing LL or S&W for the first time. Somehow forgetting that history is a thing, I just mindlessly called for a d100 role whenever the thief tried to pick a lock. The result? Naturally, that player became convinced he had managed to create the universe's most inept thief. So here we had a player who was inspired to make a dastardly cutpurse from whose darting hands no precious possession is safe. And thanks to my lousy, thoughtless DMing, what he ended up with was a guy who could not for the life of him pick even a rusty old lock in some peasant's hut.

Because the rules say 15% after all. To make matters worse, the rules also say that a thief may not try to pick a lock she has already failed to open until she gains a level. To be perfectly honest, with my Third Edition "do whatever the rules say" mentality, this struck me as excellent evidence that Basic D&D was total gak. So I asked guys who had played it back in the late 70s and early 80s (including Rob Kuntz by the way) -- WTF is up with thief skills? Turns out, none of them just literally applied the rule and they were kind of shocked that I did that. They were not impressed when I said "because the books says so," either. So you insist on not having fun, they retorted, as long as it's by the book? Their counter argument was, RPG rules are not computer code. The rules are there as guidelines to inspire the DM, whose job is to make calls not just apply predetermined code. You know, the DM is actually a player who also plays D&D.

For me, this was a breakthrough moment. I finally understood why video games never stand a chance of overtaking table top RPGs, short of true artificial intelligence. So I have actually been explaining this to you and anyone else who reads my posts here for the past couple of years with my interpretive/determinative spectrum of D&D history. The key to earlier D&D, stretching up to the Rules Compendium in 1991, is that "following the rules" is not the beginning, middle, and end of D&D. Later D&D, especially after WotC took over the property, became more and more "determinative" in that the players just execute the rules.

Gygax actually talks a bit about this in the First Edition DMG. which i have written about elsewhere:

In the ever colorful AD&D DMG, GG confessed that he "deeply regrets not taking the time and space in D&D to stress repeatedly the importance of moderation" regarding player acquisition of magic items.

Even despite that he himself included powerful magic items in the D&D tables, he spared only the merest sympathy for those DMs whose campaigns are "little more than a joke" because they actually used those tables: "the uninitiated DM cannot be severely faulted for merely following what was set before him or her in the rules."

They can be faulted, yes -- just not "severely." Faulted for following the published rules? Blaming the people trying to deal with your shoddy work for its shoddiness? The part of me that loves 3E/PF can't help but laugh at such astounding arrogance. The thief skill table also comes to mind here.

But the part of me that loves the OSR kind of gets it. As GG himself sardonically lamented, if only he had made it a rule that DMs "use care and logic." Reading between the Gygaxian lines, I guess the "initiated DM" might wonder just what kind of people need permission or a command from a ruleset in order to simply use their brains.

Now that rather elitist attitude fails to account for the truly radical nature of D&D. I have the impression that most if not all other games of the era had permissive rule sets. So maybe GG wasn't being totally sarcastic when he wrote that he should have more thoroughly explained "the intent, meaning, and spirit of the game" when writing D&D.

So for all my fellow OSR scenesters, remember to be gentle and patient when introducing folks weaned on 3E+ to the radical weirdness of earlier D&D. The notion that you don't just follow the rules in order to play the game is pretty strange.

That is like totally crazy. I hope me moved pass that.

nomotog wrote:
I hope me moved pass that.

Come again?

 Manchu wrote:

nomotog wrote:
I hope me moved pass that.

Come again?

I am hopeing that we aren't still at the stage were playing with the rules as written is inherently broken.

 Melissia wrote:
Hmm, no monstrous walls, ceiling, or floors in that list.

Sadly no. But there is an option to encounter Androids, Cyborgs and Robots. So it has that going for it. Trappers, Mimics and Lurkers Above didn't appear until the AD&D monster manual.

 Ahtman wrote:

Of course if one wants bloodthirsty then they should read the original Tomb of Horrors, though that was designed with bloodthirstiness in mind.

If you are ever lost in the Tomb, here is a map to help you out I read that module when it first came out. Ugh. Nobody ever wanted to deal with it.

nomotog wrote:
Some times it is kill or be killed. You know like a wraith. You can't really reason with a wraith.

Indeed. Or say, a shark. If it perceives you as a meal, it will attack... The problem lies in making a sweeeping, and somewhat insulting, generalization from a reaction to a specific encounter, rather than dealing with the specifics of the encounter. Or Anthropomorphizing monsters. Either way, not worth any more words.

Which is the more interesting Magic-User to play, a conjuror or a Transmuter?

nomotog wrote:
Some times it is kill or be killed. You know like a wrath. You can't really reason with a wrath.

Just because a wraith appears, it doesn't mean it is always in default nom-nom mode.
How about if the wraith can only drain so much lifeforce per day and had just wiped out an orc horde outside that chased the characters inside. It glances their way, shrugs, and drifts through the wall.
Or, one of the characters bears a striking resemblance to the wraith's spouse when it was alive, and it floats away sobbing.

There's a lot that a DM can do to scare the players white, while still following the rules and rolls.

 pretre wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I like the inclusion of concentration (though they stole my idea so that is part of why I like it) as a way to limit how many spells a caster can have running at a given time.

Yeah, it does mean that your caster needs a second trick though. Our elf mage carries a shortbow just for this circumstance.

Haha so does ours funny enough

Liking 5th though thus far, my party consists of my Half Orc Fighter whos using Greatweapons, an elven Bard, a Warforged (had to homerule it a bit as 5th didnt include them) Fighter whos our tank, and an Elf Wizard.

We're level 4 currently, been playing since 5th officially dropped (though we ran a mini campaign with the beta rules before), myself and the Wizard are actually fairly neck in neck when it comes to dealing damage with me running the Battlemaster path for my fighter for delicious manuvers, having a +1 greatsword and recently finding a belt of giant str that puts my guy at 21 str.

2d6+6 damage, rerolling 1s and 2s on the damage dice due to Greatsword fighter stuffs, rolling an extra die if i crit due to orkiness and the 1d8 damage from Manuvers, oh and +5 damage if I charge in a straight line since i took the Charger Feat. Orc man goes smashy smashy

In 3.5 my wizards always carried a backup weapon at early levels anyway, so that's not really a difference for me.

Elf wizards would carry a bow, others would carry a ranged weapon appropriate for their race and/or ability to use.

Actually, the backup weapon thing was debunked earlier in the thread since concentration doesn't meant you can't cast other spells. Our game was playing it wrong. Both 4th and 5th mean you don't really need a backup weapon since you have infinite cantrips.

Well still, you can run out of spells fairly quick at lower levels.

Just got my MM in the mail. Nice looking book, though I was a bit surprised by some of the monsters they decided to bring back.

I assume the Flumph is back because of the love Order of the Stick gives them, but the Jackalwere doesn't get that sort of attention. Modrons still look silly, although the art for Myconids looks killer. Good stuff it seems, just from a brief perusal.

Edit: sort of surprised the Nymph didn't make it into the book. Think they've been in every edition prior to 5th.

I'm really interested to see how the "Legendary" rules work in practice. My usual DM likes 'solos' but they to work poorly without a lot of 'exceptions' in 3rd and 4th... They Legendary rules look to remove some of these. Monsters with legendary stuff often get to break the 'action economy' a bit with special attacks they take after an opponents' turn, so it breaks up the concept where a dragon attacks, then gets pummeled for a round as every attacking PC gets to act before. Many also get limited ability to make saves automatically to prevent them being locked down so easily.

The Lair Actions are a bit less interesting to me, but I guess it depends on the monster. I think I'd say the ones presented should be used as a basis and retimed as needed.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Well still, you can run out of spells fairly quick at lower levels.

not in 4th or 5th, you can't.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Well still, you can run out of spells fairly quick at lower levels.

Also, in 3.5, if you're playing a utility wizard with few offensive spells, having a bow was basically mandatory . Made use of your dex, which if you were an elf, you'd have a decent score of anyway (and it'd help you dodge anyway even if you weren't an elf so you'd probably want that as the third stat after int and con).

 Balance wrote:
I'm really interested to see how the "Legendary" rules work in practice. My usual DM likes 'solos' but they to work poorly without a lot of 'exceptions' in 3rd and 4th...

In my own, fairly limited play experience, Solos aren't truly designed to be solo. In most of the pre-generated encounters that I've come across, or participated in that had a solo, it was often "accompanied" by some minion type monsters. Depending on what the Solo was, it could be the case where the "minions" saw the party, and are trying to make a quick/easy score on gear/money from a soon to be dead party, and are instead caught in the combat as well.

Still haven't gotten a chance to really sit down with a copy of the rulebook, or to play for that matter . What's everyone's impression of the magic system so far, for those that have been playing? I've heard bits and pieces of promising stuff in the thread so far, so I'm feeling optimistic...

I don't need my wizard to be powerful, but I do want them to be interesting and useful. I actually prefer non-combat utility mages over fireball slinging combat mages most o the time.

So far, I have really enjoyed the magic system. Never running out of cantrips, being able to empower any spell, less duplicate spells, etc.

I only got to 5th but it seems like there's better balance of classes between Wiz and others as well.

edit: Finished starter last weekend. Starting a new campaign this week!

Never running out of cantrips sounds great. They're usually weak anyway, so they should be re-useable...

Yeah, they are all basically as strong as a melee weapon plus some rider effect. So you don't have to tote around a crossbow.

That's stronger than I thought they'd be, so that actually makes me happy right there. I can use magic as my basic attack, always good

Another bit of 4E DNA, that.

And not a bad bit to have either, I think.

Maybe we'll have an equivalent of the AWESOME 4e swordmage in 5e someday.

 Melissia wrote:
And not a bad bit to have either, I think.

Maybe we'll have an equivalent of the AWESOME 4e swordmage in 5e someday.

Looks a bit like my Pact of the Blade Warlock.

I don't carry around other weapons because I have to, but because it is deliciously thematic.

 Cyporiean wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
And not a bad bit to have either, I think.

Maybe we'll have an equivalent of the AWESOME 4e swordmage in 5e someday.

Looks a bit like my Pact of the Blade Warlock.

I guess? Haven't seen 5e warlocks, but there's a ton of baggage associated with them that really irks me in previous editions.

How about the Fighter specialization that lets you cast spells?

 Manchu wrote:
How about the Fighter specialization that lets you cast spells?

Eldritch Knight

 Manchu wrote:
How about the Fighter specialization that lets you cast spells?

Are those spells just generic wizard spells?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Basically the distinction is-- do they swing a sword and also cast spells, or do they swing a sword TO cast spells?

Is the sword-swinging an extraneous thing that can be used instead of spellcasting when the spellcaster wants... or is the weapon itself an arcane implement used in the spells, like in the 4e class described above?

One of the basic at-will spells from the 4e swordmage was Greenfire Blade, where your spell consisted of making a basic attack while coating the blade in fire (ostensibly, green, though I preferred white for mine). Another was swordburst, which was a wide arc swing that hit enemies in front of you in an arc, using the sword to direct a burst of magical power. And so on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's a fine distinction I know, but it actually does make a huge difference in how the class is played vs a "you can cast spells AND you can swing a sword" type class, like eldtricht knight.

 Melissia wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
How about the Fighter specialization that lets you cast spells?

Are those spells just generic wizard spells?

EK is a 'tanky' spellcaster, which is what a Swordmage is. Of course they aren't exactly the same as this isn't the same edition and it plays very differently. The EK gets class abilities around their limited casting ability which might be similar to the At-Wills and such of a Swordmage, but don't have the book in front of me at the moment.

Swordmage also wasn't initially in 4E either, so it may appear later in another book, but for now there are a few options that can fill a similar niche.

 Ahtman wrote:
EK is a 'tanky' spellcaster, which is what a Swordmage is.

Leather armor doesn't really make for a tank... maybe if you reduce damage by using a single one-handed sword with no shield to get the aegis bonus to +3... but I usually opted for a two-handed sword instead, and the +1 bonus. I played mine like a striker more than a defender/controller...

 Ahtman wrote:
Swordmage also wasn't initially in 4E either, so it may appear later in another book, but for now there are a few options that can fill a similar niche.

How easy would it be to take one of these options and to houserule it in to something like swordmage, and what would you say would be easiest?