D&D V6 - Edition jokes don't really make sense anymore - Games

[QUOTE=Vengeful Falcon;50962259]Even then, the bonus skill and +1 to two attributes is probably better than having an additional +1 to your 3 other attributes. For the majority of classes anyways. And what lamer doesn't want to use feats anyways.[/QUOTE] Only because attributes are borderline worthless in 5e And newbies might not, along with people who don't want lots of choices. Main reason to play 5e in the first place, isn't it?

One of the only things I can say I like more about 5e than earlier editions is the fact that I can basically play a chosen undead without sacrificing like, multiple levels for the privilege I do wish everything wasn't so set in stone, though. Even discounting the fact that aside from 1 critical choice basically makes all the decisions about your build, even spellcasters have only a fraction of the choices of prior editions I can appreciate simplifying builds, but they could have done something along the lines of having a 'simple build' for people who just want quick characters, and then maybe something optional like PF does with talents for rogues or what not where you can choose from a bunch of things. Even if it was roughly the same number of choices you've got now with the archetypes, just giving the option to mix-and-match bits from the various things you like would be really nice, instead of 'make one decision, second-guess yourself the rest of the game' Oh, and cantrips being useful is nice. I can at least accept the reduction in most spellcaster's number of options when they've got a perfectly viable selection of simple attacks at all times no matter what. But that's pretty much the only thing I like about the system more than 3.5/PF

[QUOTE=SiberysTranq;50962329]Oh, and cantrips being useful is nice. I can at least accept the reduction in most spellcaster's number of options when they've got a perfectly viable selection of simple attacks at all times no matter what. But that's pretty much the only thing I like about the system more than 3.5/PF[/QUOTE] I can't properly convey how much I hate this. It just completely cheapens magic. It's also a pretty strange choice to me since they tried to make magic items more optional and special specifically so they would be less mundane, while at the exact same time introducing a magical "basic attack" that you just throw out every turn, making magic about as mundane as shooting people with a bow. [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] I need to stop talking about 5e, it's like injecting salt into my blood veins.

[QUOTE=elowin;50962344]I can't properly convey how much I hate this. It just completely cheapens magic. It's also a pretty strange choice to me since they tried to make magic items more optional and special specifically so they would be less mundane, while at the exact same time introducing a magical "basic attack" that you just throw out every turn, making magic about as mundane as shooting people with a bow. [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] I need to stop talking about 5e, it's like injecting salt into my blood veins, very unhealthy.[/QUOTE] Except you get a lot of options, so it's infinitely more versatile than even your typical fighter's kit of 10 different weapons? Like, on my aforementioned undead pyromancer, I can throw long-ranged firebolts, summon a mini-firewall, have another cantrip to expand the area of that or other flames, and then shocking grasp for melee combat. They don't do the damage of the other specialized fighters in the group, but I can do ANY of them at any time without needing to spend an action changing weapons or the like, and this is only at 2nd level. Versatility at the expense of pure competence (at least to start, they scale upwards pretty substantially as you level), which for something you get for FREE anyway, and when those spell slots were in previous editions completely fucking useless for direct combat, is a big improvement. You can do wizardly things without completely fucking over game balance by having infinite instant knock-outs to a huge subset of problems, AND without being useless when you want to conserve spells. I like the older editions for a lot of reasons, but the almost completely unquestioned dominance of mages anywhere past the early game was a stupid decision and I still think it's stupid, even knowing there's a ton of ways a non-mage can be made competetive against them. My problem with 5e comes more from the general gutting of choice than any specific changes to magic. And magic is only mundane if your GM decides it's like, say, eberron and there are literally trade-mages everywhere. Mundane is determined by the setting, not the mechanics. Just because a party of travelling adventurers (already an anomaly in and of itself) has a few mages doesn't mean that half the populace can harness magic, and won't be surprised when it turns out you can tell physics to sit down and shut up at the drop of a hat

it also addresses the fact that a wizard having to take out a crossbow to plink away when he doesn't feel like wasting a spell slot is dumb, whether it's a ye ancient tabletop tradition or not

[QUOTE=SiberysTranq;50962441]Except you get a lot of options, so it's infinitely more versatile than even your typical fighter's kit of 10 different weapons? Like, on my aforementioned undead pyromancer, I can throw long-ranged firebolts, summon a mini-firewall, have another cantrip to expand the area of that or other flames, and then shocking grasp for melee combat. They don't do the damage of the other specialized fighters in the group, but I can do ANY of them at any time without needing to spend an action changing weapons or the like. Versatility at the expense of pure competence (at least to start, they scale upwards pretty substantially as you level), which for something you get for FREE anyway, and when those spell slots were in previous editions completely fucking useless for direct combat, is a big improvement. You can do wizardly things without completely fucking over game balance by having infinite instant knock-outs to a huge subset of problems, AND without being useless when you want to conserve spells. I like the older editions for a lot of reasons, but the almost completely unquestioned dominance of mages anywhere past the early game was a stupid decision and I still think it's stupid, even knowing there's a ton of ways a non-mage can be made competetive against them. My problem with 5e comes more from the general gutting of choice than any specific changes to magic. And magic is only mundane if your GM decides it's like, say, eberron and there are literally trade-mages everywhere. Mundane is determined by the setting, not the mechanics. Just because a party of travelling adventurers (already an anomaly in and of itself) has a few mages doesn't mean that half the populace can harness magic, and won't be surprised when it turns out you can tell physics to sit down and shut up at the drop of a hat[/QUOTE] It's mundane in that the wizard just throws magic around casually every fight. When you just throw around fucking generic firebolts all the time it very quickly stops being very magical. Cantrips to me work well as minor magical tricks, not as your mainstay in combat. Magic to me is generally not supposed to be common, not just in terms of how many people can use it, but also in terms of how much it is used. Also cantrips scaling with your level while nothing else does is all kinds of retarded. When your 0th level spells are literally better than 1st or even 2nd level spells are higher levels, well that's just fucking stupid. [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mellowbloom;50962462]it also addresses the fact that a wizard having to take out a crossbow to plink away when he doesn't feel like wasting a spell slot is dumb, whether it's a ye ancient tabletop tradition or not[/QUOTE] I disagree, I don't think there's anything wrong with a wizard having a non-magical backup weapon. Especially when the alternative you're proposing is making a magical spell that is pretty much identical to a crossbow. But, you know, maybe wizards could get some completely non-magical abilities with some utility instead, like pointing out enemy weaknesses. That'd be cool. [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] Anyway, this just boils down to a disagreement in how magic should be handled. You think wizards should be able to use magic all the time, I think magic should be special. I don't think either of us are going to change our opinions about this so let's just stop arguing about it.

How can magic in any way be special for you if you literally never play anything except spellcasters?

[QUOTE=elowin;50962463]But, you know, maybe wizards could get some completely non-magical abilities with some utility instead, like pointing out enemy weaknesses. That'd be cool.[/QUOTE] Everyone can do this, though - it'd be weird to have it specifically be a wizard ability. [QUOTE=elowin;50962463]Also cantrips scaling with your level while nothing else does is all kinds of retarded. When your 0th level spells are literally better than 1st or even 2nd level spells are higher levels, well that's just fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] Worth noting that only few spells can be directly compared with cantrips at 1st level since there isn't a lot of 1st level magic damage spells without any other features to them (Chromatic Orb comes to mind. Other damage spells have advantages - like magic missile not needing to roll to hit, and burning hands hitting several targets. Even Chromatic Orb has the advantage of letting you choose the damage type). Even so, you can still prepare non-damage 1st level spells (Sleep, Mage Armor, Shield, Charm Person, Protection from Evil and Good, Feather Fall, Detect Magic) A level 11 wizard's cantrip is a little bit better than any wizard's 1st level spell (with the obvious advantage that it's at will).

[QUOTE=Glent;50962831]Everyone can do this, though - it'd be weird to have it specifically be a wizard ability.[/QUOTE] Anyone can swing a sword, anyone can stab someone in the back, but there's classes that do it better than others.

[QUOTE=elowin;50962884]Anyone can swing a sword, anyone can stab someone in the back, but there's classes that do it better than others.[/QUOTE] Sure, and there's already some classes that do it better too, but it doesn't seem very wizardly.

[QUOTE=Glent;50962925]Sure, and there's already some classes that do it better too, but it doesn't seem very wizardly.[/QUOTE] Being wise is literally one of the definitions of the word wizard. Gandalf is the quintessential wizard and he spends far more time giving advice than doing magic.

[QUOTE=elowin;50962934]Being wise is literally one of the definitions of the word wizard. Gandalf is the quintessential wizard and he spends far more time giving advice than doing any magic.[/QUOTE] Well we went from "pointing out an enemies weaknesses" to being wise in general. Which is really much more of a roleplaying thing, you can be a wise wizard if you want and give lots of advice, have good knowledge skills, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with casting spells which is what the actual wizard class is about.

[QUOTE=Glent;50962944]Well we went from "pointing out an enemies weaknesses" to being wise in general. Which is really much more of a roleplaying thing, you can be a wise wizard if you want and give lots of advice, have good knowledge skills, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with casting spells which is what the actual wizard class is about.[/QUOTE] Pointing out enemy weaknesses being an example of non-magical abilities that the wizard could be granted which would tie into the "being wise" angle that wizards are generally all about. Why are you continuing this discussion?

[QUOTE=elowin;50962975]Pointing out enemy weaknesses being an example of non-magical abilities that the wizard could be granted which would tie into the "being wise" angle that wizards are generally all about. Why are you continuing this discussion?[/QUOTE] I don't think the wizard class needs non-magical abilities, it's pretty much all about magic. If you want non-magical abilities, you can get them from feats or multiclassing. It feels like shoehorning them into the class is railroading people to roleplay in a much more specific way. Not all wizards want to be Gandalf. From a game standpoint, all you've ever needed to be a wizard is to have enough Int to learn and cast spells. Anything else you're adding onto the class is very presumptuous. Cantrips, on the other hand (the original point of contention), fit the theme perfectly - it's all magic, their effectiveness is based on your intelligence and your experience.

[QUOTE=Glent;50962995]I don't think the wizard class needs non-magical abilities, it's pretty much all about magic. If you want non-magical abilities, you can get them from feats or multiclassing. It feels like shoehorning them into the class is railroading people to roleplay in a much more specific way. Not all wizards want to be Gandalf. From a game standpoint, all you've ever needed to be a wizard is to have enough Int to learn and cast spells. Anything else you're adding onto the class is very presumptuous. Cantrips, on the other hand (the original point of contention), fit the theme perfectly - it's all magic, their effectiveness is based on your intelligence and your experience.[/QUOTE] Yeah I'm not going to keep going about this. Like I already said, this is literally just 100% down to how you think magic should be handled. I want it one way, you want it another way, we're not going to change our opinions and neither of us will learn anything from exchanging our opinions. This conversation is completely pointless.

the difference is knowledge skills are something anyone can get a fighter can't just up and decide he's got full spellcasting

Have you actually played a wizard in 5e Elowin? The scaling spell slots blow any cantrip you might use out of the water.

[QUOTE=Mellowbloom;50963053]the difference is knowledge skills are something anyone can get a fighter can't just up and decide he's got full spellcasting[/QUOTE] I was obviously talking about giving wizards a class feature though? Something like "use standard action to give party +2 against X opponent" Or advantage or whatever. It's not hard. The idea is simply an ability to use in combat which is not magic and which is not a crossbow, since people are so opposed to wizards using weapons. [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=plunger435;50963086]Have you actually played a wizard in 5e Elowin? The scaling spell slots blow any cantrip you might use out of the water.[/QUOTE] bad reading where did you go i said that a 0th level spell gets stronger than a 1st or 2nd level spell, not a 1st or 2nd level spell cast with a 9th level spell slot. [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] goddamnit i keep getting back into this stupid fucking argument

[QUOTE=elowin;50963088]I was obviously talking about giving wizards a class feature though? Something like "use standard action to give party +2 against X opponent" Or advantage or whatever. It's not hard. The idea is simply an ability to use in combat which is not magic and which is not a crossbow, since people are so opposed to wizards using weapons. [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] bad reading where did you go i said that a 0th level spell gets stronger than a 1st or 2nd level spell, not a 1st or 2nd level spell cast with a 9th level spell slot. [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] goddamnit i keep getting back into this stupid fucking argument[/QUOTE] Then maybe you should be casting that fireball at a higher spell slot like the game intends.

[QUOTE=elowin;50963088]I was obviously talking about giving wizards a class feature though? Something like "use standard action to give party +2 against X opponent" Or advantage or whatever. It's not hard. The idea is simply an ability to use in combat which is not magic and which is not a crossbow, since people are so opposed to wizards using weapons.[/quote] What does this have to do with being a wizard though? If you really want to do something like this, take a few levels of bard or rogue. It doesn't seem to have much to do with casting spells.

[QUOTE=elowin;50963088]I was obviously talking about giving wizards a class feature though? Something like "use standard action to give party +2 against X opponent" Or advantage or whatever. It's not hard. The idea is simply an ability to use in combat which is not magic and which is not a crossbow, since people are so opposed to wizards using weapons. [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] bad reading where did you go i said that a 0th level spell gets stronger than a 1st or 2nd level spell, not a 1st or 2nd level spell cast with a 9th level spell slot. [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] goddamnit i keep getting back into this stupid fucking argument[/QUOTE] Why do you post if you get assblasted when people disagree?

[QUOTE=Glent;50963115]What does this have to do with being a wizard though? If you really want to do something like this, take a few levels of bard or rogue. It doesn't seem to have much to do with casting spells.[/QUOTE] Did you not read the first parts of this argument or something? This all stems from me having a problem with the idea of throwing around spells as basic attacks. Or are you just trying to derail so you can "win" this unwinnable "argument" which literally just boils down to different tastes.

[QUOTE=elowin;50963125]Did you not read the first parts of this argument or something? This all stems from me having a problem with the idea of throwing around spells as basic attacks. Or are you just trying to derail so you can "win" this unwinnable "argument" which literally just boils down to different tastes.[/QUOTE] Did you read the part of the arguement where you said wizards should be definitively wise and have class features focused around being wise in combat?

[QUOTE=Glent;50963136]Did you read the part of the arguement where you said wizards should be definitively wise and have class features focused around being wise in combat?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=elowin;50963125]are you just trying to derail so you can "win" this unwinnable "argument" which literally just boils down to different tastes.[/QUOTE] [editline]28th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Vengeful Falcon;50963119]Why do you post if you get assblasted when people disagree?[/QUOTE] Because to me it feels like you're getting assblasted because I disagree. :v:

I don't even have an opinion to disagree with you on. Wizards are lame in every edition. Fuck wizards.

[QUOTE=Vengeful Falcon;50963166]I don't even have an opinion to disagree on you with. Wizards are lame in every edition. Fuck wizards.[/QUOTE] Yeah sorry didn't mean you as in, well, you. The people I'm arguing with. For a while I've been just trying to agree to disagree, but it keeps going.

Wizards get most of their fun from the fact that they get basically every spell and the wizard colleges are jam-packed with neat shit. I never play pure casters, the idea of spending a spell slot on a 'iunno maybe itll hit' really hurts. Not to mention the lack of scaling damage based on a modifier until pretty late (6th level at the earliest) makes me instinctively avoid spell casters as their overall combat effectiveness varies to a huge degree. They're basically the masters of whiff, when they whiff they whiff HARD. Spent a 6th level spell slot? Sorry pal but he succeeded on his dex save and you rolled low on damage dice. Meanwhile the party fighter can reliably score good damage every round, can get magic, feats, and fighting styles to augment his hit chances, and can use battlemaster dice to turn misses into hits.

[QUOTE=ntzu;50963264]Wizards get most of their fun from the fact that they get basically every spell and the wizard colleges are jam-packed with neat shit. I never play pure casters, the idea of spending a spell slot on a 'iunno maybe itll hit' really hurts. Not to mention the lack of scaling damage based on a modifier until pretty late (6th level at the earliest) makes me instinctively avoid spell casters as their overall combat effectiveness varies to a huge degree. They're basically the masters of whiff, when they whiff they whiff HARD. Spent a 6th level spell slot? Sorry pal but he succeeded on his dex save and you rolled low on damage dice.[/QUOTE] This is why I stopped worrying about damage and learned to love control spells. Because even if you spend a 4th level spell slot, nothing says 'fuck you' like forcing everybody to roll a reflex save any time they move to not fall over thanks to the patch of ice you left.

[QUOTE=ntzu;50963264]Wizards get most of their fun from the fact that they get basically every spell and the wizard colleges are jam-packed with neat shit. I never play pure casters, the idea of spending a spell slot on a 'iunno maybe itll hit' really hurts. Not to mention the lack of scaling damage based on a modifier until pretty late (6th level at the earliest) makes me instinctively avoid spell casters as their overall combat effectiveness varies to a huge degree. They're basically the masters of whiff, when they whiff they whiff HARD. Spent a 6th level spell slot? Sorry pal but he succeeded on his dex save and you rolled low on damage dice. Meanwhile the party fighter can reliably score good damage every round, can get magic, feats, and fighting styles to augment his hit chances, and can use battlemaster dice to turn misses into hits.[/QUOTE] Yeah that's always been an issue for me as well. Other than buffs, spellcasters are extremely random because everything is dependant on all or nothing saving throws. Either you kill them instantly or do nothing at all, either you put a huge debuff on them or do nothing at all, either you do a decent chunk of damage or only half of that (or nothing if they have improved evasion) Also hate how low damage wizards are. Even if they throw out their highest spell slots specifically on doing damage to a single target, chances are they won't be doing more than the fighter can do reliably every turn. I've always been miffed at how evocation compares to other kinds of magic. And how utterly unsatisfying it is to beat the big bad evil guy by him randomly failing his saving throw on a finger of death.

dnd bad system