What hasn't worked in 5e

Old One Eye · December 31, 2014, 05:59:11 PM

Quote from: Sacrosanct;807105Yeah, and if you weren't speculating but going by actual experience with the rules like the OP asked, you'd see that magic items do have a gp value and the DMG explicitly tells you that if you want ye ol magic shop, here's how to do it. So your guesswork is flat out incorrect.

So I go back to my original statement. The OP was asking for actual in game experiences. I'm about done with people like you who have this incessant need to bitch about the game without actually playing it. You guys make just about every thread toxic because in nearly every case, your problems aren't actual problems and it's needless arguing.

Umm OK. I've been running a campaign through 8th level now. The party has sought out and purchased a few magical items in game. The 5e price list is not quite as good as the more granular price lists of previous editions for purchasing said items. It also has some kind of bizarre results what with scrolls being so relatively expensive for a one use item compared to the multi-use items and whatnot. It does the job for now. As I play more and get more accustomed to 5e, this is an area I plan to eventually apply some elbow grease.

Not sure why Batman is saying PCs cannot purchase magic items in 5e. That is totally up to the DM's milieu. But I agree with his overall point.

Artifacts of Amber · December 31, 2014, 06:41:12 PM

Stealth and hiding are a little too vague for newer/less experienced GM's

My Gm is having a problem with how exactly to work it and balance it out to be useful and not too strong or easy a thing.

I think I won't have issues with it but I can see why newbie Gm's might need more guidance.

Omega · December 31, 2014, 07:43:30 PM

Quote from: Batman;807101My experience is that the design goal of D&D:Next is so that magical items aren't on display as things anyone can go into a shoppe and buy. Nothing up to this point has given me reason to think this has changed.

The question was: "is there a mechanic or a concept that does not work as well or as easily as it seemed?"

The concept of non-magical items not being on sale does not work for me.

They stopped calling it Next when the playtest ended.

5e discourages flat out "Ye Olde Magic Shoppe" since 5e vastly downplays magic items. Characters arent likely to find even a +1 item till around level 5. Loot is alot less.

That does not though prohibit the occasional item being on sale in amongst other more mundane items. And basic healing potions arent even magic items now so you can "legally" stock a shop with them.

For me this all works as I tend to prefer not seeing a magic shop anyhow till later in the adventuring career. Usually placed in a major city.

Omega · December 31, 2014, 07:47:39 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard;807107In practice there are a few dips that are fairly useful. In my first campaign I wanted to test everything so I allowed freeform multi-classing. The cleric dipped into warlock and can thus regain healing spells on a short rest which is pretty powerful but not game breaking.

er, I dont think it works that way...

FaerieGodfather · December 31, 2014, 09:54:37 PM

Quote from: Omega;807069I am personally actually pretty happy that the 5e multiclassing rules make multiclassing "dipping" just about useless. No one in the group I am in or DM for has any interest in multiclassing.

I hate dipping, too. It's the fact that 3e multiclassing doesn't support "even splits" like a traditional AD&D multiclassed character that chuffs me.

Baron Opal · January 01, 2015, 12:18:16 AM

How have the changes to the magic system worked out for you? I think that tying the strength of the spell to the level of the spell rather than the level of the caster is an interesting change.

Batman · January 01, 2015, 11:16:56 AM

Quote from: Baron Opal;807196How have the changes to the magic system worked out for you? I think that tying the strength of the spell to the level of the spell rather than the level of the caster is an interesting change.

I think it helps with keeping the casters more on-par with their non-caster counterparts. It keeps LFQW from happening.

dbm · January 01, 2015, 01:31:14 PM

Quote from: Omega;807172er, I dont think it works that way...

Actually, it does:

Quote from: PHB p164if you have both the Spellcasting class feature and Pact Magic class feature you can use the slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the Spellcasting class feature

Beagle · January 01, 2015, 02:06:19 PM

Quote from: FaerieGodfather;807179I hate dipping, too. It's the fact that 3e multiclassing doesn't support "even splits" like a traditional AD&D multiclassed character that chuffs me.

What would be the major problem of using the old AD&D form of multi- / dualclassing rules with the 5e rules? The game would be quite different, but should probably work anyway.

FaerieGodfather · January 03, 2015, 12:50:22 AM

Quote from: Beagle;807247What would be the major problem of using the old AD&D form of multi- / dualclassing rules with the 5e rules? The game would be quite different, but should probably work anyway.

That's what I'm doing. It seems to work so far, but we're still pretty low-level and new to the system, so it's not exactly stress-tested. Might have to adjust the XP tables to get it to work right-- right now, I'm using 150% XP for 2 classes and 200% for 3 classes, but with bounded accuracy it seems like that might mess up combinations with good synergy.

On the other hand? "Good synergy" seems to rule out most spellcaster crosses. Most of your melee types do really well combined with Champion, and Warlock combines frighteningly well with Paladin and/or Bard.

Omega · January 03, 2015, 07:22:54 AM

Quote from: dbm;807241Actually, it does:

Oh. Thought he meant regain all his CLERIC slots on a short rest.

Omega · January 03, 2015, 08:30:21 AM

Quote from: Beagle;807247What would be the major problem of using the old AD&D form of multi- / dualclassing rules with the 5e rules? The game would be quite different, but should probably work anyway.

It doesnt work in 5e because you only have 20 total levels to go through. If you allowed the old AD&D style then someone could potentially reach the equivalent of 40 levels distributed, 60 levels, whatever. One problem mentioned was the amount of HP such a character would be packing then in a system geared to 20 HD PCs.

There was a discussion on this last year and the math gets pretty messy pretty fast. Even with a cap on it. Lets say you did it evenly between two classes to 10 each. The dual classer will have their 20 levels around when the single classer hits level 13 or the normal 5e dual classer hits 20.

jibbajibba · January 03, 2015, 09:46:58 AM

Quote from: Omega;807577It doesnt work in 5e because you only have 20 total levels to go through. If you allowed the old AD&D style then someone could potentially reach the equivalent of 40 levels distributed, 60 levels, whatever. One problem mentioned was the amount of HP such a character would be packing then in a system geared to 20 HD PCs.

There was a discussion on this last year and the math gets pretty messy pretty fast. Even with a cap on it. Lets say you did it evenly between two classes to 10 each. The dual classer will have their 20 levels around when the single classer hits level 13 or the normal 5e dual classer hits 20.

You can almost do it with 2 classes just taking alternate levels. Its not far off Multi-classing but substantially weaker.
But the problem with old Multi-classing was that it was over powered so that seems reasonable.

Aside from a couple of of minor issues with specific feats/powers etc my only real complaint is that everyone feels "magic". Even the Barbarian and the Battlemaster's mundane stuff still somehow feels magic. Back to the modular idea I think they need to publish an adventure path or similar that has a more S&S feel with magic dialed back and weirded up more. Now this is entirely personal but I was hoping the modularity thing would cover that option.

Will · January 03, 2015, 10:20:32 AM

Or do Gestalt. I'm thinking gestalt might work reasonably well in 5e, since a lot of the stacking shenanigans would be reduced.

jibbajibba · January 03, 2015, 10:56:40 AM

Quote from: Will;807595Or do Gestalt. I'm thinking gestalt might work reasonably well in 5e, since a lot of the stacking shenanigans would be reduced.

But what character concept needs multicasting when you have Arcane tricksters (MU/thief), Eldritch Knight (Fighter/MU), Eldritch Knight or Ranger with the criminal background (MU/Fighter/Thief), Wizard + acolyte background (MU/Cleric)

Are we desperate for a Monk/Barbarian? or a Baladin ? (you can do a Baladin easily actually

)

etc ... I can't see why people are looking to mimic the previously broken multi-classing rules when the new rules are far better.