Let me begin by stating that I love the fact that most of the changes that D&D has gone through since 1st ed are good ones. I play online MMOs from time to time and I like the kind where you don't necessarily NEED to have this or that class to accomplish a task. I can appreciate the same thing in D&D now where many players and DMs agree that a party doesn't necessarily HAVE to have a dedicated Healer (for example). Not requiring or even strongly suggesting that a party adhere to the old 'Holy Trinity' of classes (which was always dumb because three classes weren't enough to cover all the bases) opens the game up to more creative play.
That being said, there are some of the old tropes that I miss and I wondered if other players and DMs felt the same way. I'm also looking for possible alternate ways to handle these for my next game.
One of my biggest issues is the ease with which non-Rogues can obtain proficiency with Thieve's Tools. It used to be that ONLY Thieves could use them but I didn't like that either because it locked one player into being the designated Thief and if nobody wanted to play one, you have a problem. However, Tool proficiency is now given to lots of different classes and subclasses. My Artificer has proficiency with them and by level 6 his skill is going to be ridiculous. Better than the Rogue in the party. I'm perfectly willing to stand back and let her shine in her moment but just the idea that I'm a LOT better than her rubs me the wrong way. I've spoken to the DM and our party leader and stated that unless they specifically ask me to try my hand at a lock or trap, I'm going to consider that to be her 'thing' because I don't want to steal her thunder.
I'm considering the idea of having a designated person in my next game that is allowed or even encouraged to have Expertise with Thieve's Tools. I don't care if this is a Rogue or someone else but this is one of those skills that I don't want everyone in the party to be able to gain too easily. What does everyone else think?
Another issue I have is with some of the survival spells, especially Goodberry and any of the Tiny Hut variants. These two spells eliminate many of the risks of travel like finding food and water and decent shelter. I don't like banning stuff outright but IMHO these need to be nerfed in some way. If it was just Druids or Rangers that can cast these it wouldn't be so bad but now there are a lot more options to get specific spells, especially 1st level ones. How do other DMs out there deal with these?
Bards doing everything. I remember that Bards were always versatile but in 5e they seem to be the skill junkies. If they're built well they can have as good a skill roll or better than most other members of the party. Some classes (like Barbarians) don't get that many skills so I feel that they should be able to use them whenever possible. But if there's a Bard in the party it seems to be 50/50 as to whether they have the best roll at any particular skill. I don't want to nerf their ability because it's kind of their 'thing' but I'm a little uncomfortable with one character having as many skills as the rest of the party put together. Any good suggestions out there how to deal with this?
That's all I have off the top of my head. Thanks in advance for any ideas as to how to deal with (or not deal with) these.
Proficiency with Thieves' Tools being an issue? It's so rare in my games that there's even a cause to use thieves' tools that I can't say it has ever crossed my mine. Thieves' Tools are more one of those things where occasionally the DM looks at the skills their PCs have and thinks "Oh, they haven't used Thieves' Tools' etc in a while, I better put something in for them to use it for." A bit like Druidic, which comes up almost never. I don't know why it's a problem for more than one character to have access to this, any more than it's a problem for more than one character to have a high STR score and do the heavy lifting.
I just ban Goodberry outright as it breaks survival aspects of the game. It's a dumb spell and shouldn't be in the game at all. I'm fine with the Tiny Hut stuff, that's a perk you get of being able to cast that kind of spell, and it doesn't mean there's nothing waiting for you in the dark.
On the thieves tool issue, I do think it's a bit odd on the artificer end but I don't see it as a 'problem.' Rogues can pick expertise in thieves tools at level ONE. They naturally prioritize dex as their main stat to cap asap. They have thief and arcane trickster subclasses that let them do unique things. They get reliable talent for tier 3/4 play. Rogues are not being out shined in thieves tools generally unless they chose NOT to expertise it and have an artificer along.
I may need more specific info for your barbiaran/bard issue. Bards also get expertise in up to four skills. But they're not going to be the best at everything. They have to choose what to specialize in. And jack of all trades while useful, isn't going say allow them to rival the barbarian's athletics proficiency.
Goodberry I agree with. It's just too good for a level 1 spell in a survival campaign. Now, they're not so bad if you only look at them in terms of 'use an action to get 1 hp back.' But when in a game with survival mechanics it is game breaking. Way too good for a mere level 1 spell. If there was at least a consumed material component that made this spell expensive maybe it'd be okay but I think this is too good in a survival campaign. What I might do instead of banning it is restrict the 'nourishment to sustain a creature for a day' part specifically. But, lucky for me, I'm not interested in the survival side of things much and tend not to even track rations etc when running a game.
Tiny Hut is easier to work around I think.
It can be dispelled. It forms a dome, meaning that you can interpret that as not having a bottom, so things can burrow through. Enemies can spot the hut and move to surround it/get reinforcements while the party rests inside.
Around (If ruling it with no roof, non burrowing) wild animals etc without group coordination and ability to dispel, it's nigh impenetrable sure. But more intelligent enemies, even groups of kobolds and goblins or bandits, can plan around it and set up an ambush for when the dome comes down.
I feel the same way. I grew up on Moldvay/Cook and it still makes sense to me today. Also, none of us ever felt slighted because our character wasn't the best at something but in the old rules, that wasn't an issue. I did look up goodberry and the sprig of mistletoe could be an issue especially if there is a mistletoe blight. Maybe that's the whole campaign driver?
As far as 5e goes, I am new to it but I really like what they did especially with the core books (the DMG guide is just incredible) as I consider it an improvement from the previous versions (see a lot more human PCs now). The later 5e books with the different races/classes/etc. not so much but to each their own. You could run a Moldvay/Cook or 1e inspired 5e campaign with little trouble I think, the OSR people would go for it for sure. Core races and classes only, only spells from the old versions, that sort of thing.
Artificers are crafty techies by definition. Proficiency with Thieves' Tools makes a lot of sense for them. I don't think it'd be anything major if you removed it from their default class-given proficiencies, but certainly if they pick a background that grants it back that seems perfectly in character to me. My last Artificer, as part of his backstory, had been a fledgling safe cracker in an ill-fated heist crew before opting for a "safer" occupation as adventurer. That sort of thing works perfectly for the class.
Re: Goodberry, if it matters for the campaign I have in mind I'll likely require fresh-picked berries as material component for the spell. If survival isn't going to be a meaningful challenge for the adventure, it's a non-issue.
Bards tend to be, as their ability says, jacks of all trades. They're good at lots of things (and really good at several), but their signature ability is to make others better. Bardic Inspiration only works on others. If the Bard in the party has the best modifier for a check 50% of the time, I think that either the Bard player isn't really using BI to great effect or the DM is calling a whole lot of checks with higher DCs than maybe is apt, or or a combination of both.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Re: Goodberry and similar spells. I remedied this by house ruling that all material components are consumed in the casting of a spell. (Also by heavily restricting the use and procurement of casting foci).
Gotta say, I’ve always thought Goodberry was “meh”. It only gives 1 hp per round, unless you are out of combat and don’t mind talking a minute to gain 10hp. I’ve never been in a campaign where the DM tracked if we ate regularly or not.
Gotta say, I’ve always thought Goodberry was “meh”. It only gives 1 hp per round, unless you are out of combat and don’t mind talking a minute to gain 10hp. I’ve never been in a campaign where the DM tracked if we ate regularly or not.
The “nourishment” is just for fluff, the real benefit is being able to cram one into a downed PC’s gullet to pick ‘em back up. A PC* is just as effective with 1 HP as with Max. It’s a yo-yo spell like healing word, but for up to 10 pick-ups in 8 hours instead of 1 single pick-up.
Ah, yeah I see where you going with that. I’ve played a few martial characters here and there but mostly run support so I tend to back off and go into survival mode if I’m only at 1hp
I’ve never been in a campaign where the DM tracked if we ate regularly or not.
Tracking food and water, in and of itself, is tedious and doesn't add anything of interest. It's like tracking ammo or everyday small expenditures. As such, a lot of DMs just ignore it. It's different if survival is a meaningful component of the campaign though: if you want it to be engaging, it can certainly be made to be. It's a choice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Tracking food, by itself, doesn't do anything, no. However, a wise man pointed out that being interesting in and of itself is not the point of tracking food or other supplies. The point of doing such is to ensure that when players are wandering the wilderness for days on end, there are many factors that weigh on their minds when they make decisions - one of them being "do we have enough food?"
Tracking food is also not really 'tedious', as such - characters decrement rations by 1 at the beginning of a long rest. If a hunter can find game, or someone has a feature that can substitute for food, do that instead for however many people it can cover. It's an easy step that takes only a few seconds once players get used to doing it. 'Everyday small expenditures' are supposed to be tracked via a lifestyle cost, which also drives adventurers to do things that generate money. Namely, adventure. Yes, they could try working in town instead, but there's plenty of ways a DM can discourage that without making it impossible.
All of the little logistical things many tables like to gloss over and skip are all meant to add up to a gestalt system that drives games and directs players to make choices about what's worth spending time and coin on, and how best to meet the needs of their adventuring. People blowing off every last logistical system in the game and then saying things like travel and wilderness exploration - stuff which is normally a logistics issue - are boring is a little weird. of course travel and exploration are going to be boring if you get rid of all the things that could make them tense and engaging?
All of the little logistical things many tables like to gloss over and skip are all meant to add up to a gestalt system that drives games and directs players to make choices about what's worth spending time and coin on, and how best to meet the needs of their adventuring. People blowing off every last logistical system in the game and then saying things like travel and wilderness exploration - stuff which is normally a logistics issue - are boring is a little weird. of course travel and exploration are going to be boring if you get rid of all the things that could make them tense and engaging?
I don't disagree at all, but I've been in plenty of adventures where civilization was never more than a day of walking away and others where we prepared ourselves adequately and never ran into trouble. Having logistics matter only really makes them tense and engaging if things go off the rails every now and then. And that's a choice the DM has to make.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Leave my goodberries alone, they are fine how they are.
That said, if survival is a part of your campaign then house rule it to fit, ban it, take away the nourishment part, whatever you like.
But for those who don’t run a survival aspect (or it’s not a big part of the campaign) it’s a good out of combat spell. And in a pinch in combat spell. We had part of our campaign in the desert, so we traveled at night to avoid exhaustion, and my Druid used goodberry and create or destroy water to keep the party on their feet. Also used them in RP situations with NPC’s we rescued or were trying to get assistance from.
As far as thieves tools, this should be something to go over in session zero. If there is a rogue in the party and they want to be the lock picker, then maybe it’s best for another player not take a class/background that gives thieves tool proficiency if you are worried about taking away their spotlight. Don’t really see a problem with it being available to many characters.
Tracking food, by itself, doesn't do anything, no. However, a wise man pointed out that being interesting in and of itself is not the point of tracking food or other supplies. The point of doing such is to ensure that when players are wandering the wilderness for days on end, there are many factors that weigh on their minds when they make decisions - one of them being "do we have enough food?"
Tracking food is also not really 'tedious', as such - characters decrement rations by 1 at the beginning of a long rest. If a hunter can find game, or someone has a feature that can substitute for food, do that instead for however many people it can cover. It's an easy step that takes only a few seconds once players get used to doing it. 'Everyday small expenditures' are supposed to be tracked via a lifestyle cost, which also drives adventurers to do things that generate money. Namely, adventure. Yes, they could try working in town instead, but there's plenty of ways a DM can discourage that without making it impossible.
All of the little logistical things many tables like to gloss over and skip are all meant to add up to a gestalt system that drives games and directs players to make choices about what's worth spending time and coin on, and how best to meet the needs of their adventuring. People blowing off every last logistical system in the game and then saying things like travel and wilderness exploration - stuff which is normally a logistics issue - are boring is a little weird. of course travel and exploration are going to be boring if you get rid of all the things that could make them tense and engaging?
I don’t disagree with this, and in fact I think I would enjoy having that aspect of it. I just haven’t been part of a table that does it. Honestly I wish more people got into the details of things like lifestyle, downtime, and traveling logistics. I know it’s not as exciting as sword swinging and fireballing, but I like the little details that make the world seem more alive because of the pit of combat stuff you have to do.
Gotta say, I’ve always thought Goodberry was “meh”. It only gives 1 hp per round, unless you are out of combat and don’t mind talking a minute to gain 10hp. I’ve never been in a campaign where the DM tracked if we ate regularly or not.
The “nourishment” is just for fluff, the real benefit is being able to cram one into a downed PC’s gullet to pick ‘em back up. A PC* is just as effective with 1 HP as with Max. It’s a yo-yo spell like healing word, but for up to 10 pick-ups in 8 hours instead of 1 single pick-up.
*(Heck, anything except Swarms.)
The counterpoint of course being that if someone is down and someone else is spending their whole action to give them 1 hp, the party is in pretty bad shape and not making much progress to change that course, you are presumably in range of whatever took out your friend, and the next stiff breeze will put said friend right back on the ground. In a lot of cases, it's simply a better use of your actions to first eliminate the threat (if you can win) or grab your buddy and get the heck out of there (if you can't).
The power of HW lies in its action economy - you can get someone up and potentially make some progress towards taking down your enemy. So taking that into account I feel the spells are fairly well balanced against each other.
Tracking food is also not really 'tedious', as such - characters decrement rations by 1 at the beginning of a long rest. If a hunter can find game, or someone has a feature that can substitute for food, do that instead for however many people it can cover. It's an easy step that takes only a few seconds once players get used to doing it.
You have not met my players. I get the general gist of the overall post and theoretically agree, but I have yet to see this work practically. With all the logistical rules in place, my party could easily blow a whole a session arguing and fiddling with all the different bits involved. As a group we have consciously decided to avoid this because we want to spend our game time adventuring rather than writing grocery lists and calculating how many wild boar it takes to feed a griffon mount for a week. It's absolutely a dilemma because I agree that exploration sucks without the rules in place, but applying the rules introduces a different problem that is at least as severe. Resource management can be fun, but combined with herding cats it is not.
At any rate, I think this is a session zero type conversation. When a player takes Tiny Hut, I basically take it as a telegraphed message about the type of game they want. They don't want to be surprised during rests just like Mr. Goodberry doesn't want to make foraging rolls. If you want these elements in your game, tell your players up front. Certainly if when I run Dark Sun again, we will need to talk about Goodberry and Create Water and how those spells would neuter a major aspect of the setting. And if we couldn't come to an agreement about how to handle that, I'd probably just shelve that campaign for the time being and work with the players to find something we'd all enjoy.
I love the simplicity and versatility of 5e, where you can make literally anything you want pretty much. I love that clerics are no longer relegated to being healbots, that many other classes and combinations can now heal a party well enough for most quests.
But that said, I do miss the structured approach of older editions at times - I remember a time when choosing to be an elf was your character class not just your race (elves were basically a multi class fighter/mage). I also found that the little differences between humans being the only race that could dual class, others had to multi-class. But there is much I don’t miss such as only humans could get to lvl 20 in every class, all the other races had a number of hard limits, or female characters having lower stats than male, or trying to work out Thaco and having to incorporate bonuses and penalties for different weapons against different types of armour.
Tracking food, by itself, doesn't do anything, no. However, a wise man pointed out that being interesting in and of itself is not the point of tracking food or other supplies. The point of doing such is to ensure that when players are wandering the wilderness for days on end, there are many factors that weigh on their minds when they make decisions - one of them being "do we have enough food?"
Tracking food is also not really 'tedious', as such - characters decrement rations by 1 at the beginning of a long rest. If a hunter can find game, or someone has a feature that can substitute for food, do that instead for however many people it can cover. It's an easy step that takes only a few seconds once players get used to doing it. 'Everyday small expenditures' are supposed to be tracked via a lifestyle cost, which also drives adventurers to do things that generate money. Namely, adventure. Yes, they could try working in town instead, but there's plenty of ways a DM can discourage that without making it impossible.
All of the little logistical things many tables like to gloss over and skip are all meant to add up to a gestalt system that drives games and directs players to make choices about what's worth spending time and coin on, and how best to meet the needs of their adventuring. People blowing off every last logistical system in the game and then saying things like travel and wilderness exploration - stuff which is normally a logistics issue - are boring is a little weird. of course travel and exploration are going to be boring if you get rid of all the things that could make them tense and engaging?
I fell asleep during the description of your ideas for logistical D&D. yawn, pass. I don't want my 10th level party having to turn back from slaying the dragon because someone forgot to pack extra provisions for the horses.
I fell asleep during the description of your ideas for logistical D&D. yawn, pass. I don't want my 10th level party having to turn back from slaying the dragon because someone forgot to pack extra provisions for the horses.
With a bit less snark this really gets to the nitty gritty of what people may or may not find fun in DND. For some people the whole "oh man, do we press on and chase the dragon without supplies? or do we turn back and rest up and get more food?" is a major decision and a great point of tension.
This moment can be met with players tracking supplies and trying to stay ahead of this, or it can be done with the DM saying after the first dragon fight "Wow.. you wounded it good. But the way it's flying, your rations will run out before you get to it's lair. What do you do?" Same tension, less paperwork.
And for some groups that's fine. For some groups that's a deal breaker as they debate and discuss all the ways to prepare for the chase and whether or not they're really running low on supplies. It all comes down to:
I fell asleep during the description of your ideas for logistical D&D. yawn, pass. I don't want my 10th level party having to turn back from slaying the dragon because someone forgot to pack extra provisions for the horses.
With a bit less snark this really gets to the nitty gritty of what people may or may not find fun in DND. For some people the whole "oh man, do we press on and chase the dragon without supplies? or do we turn back and rest up and get more food?" is a major decision and a great point of tension.
This moment can be met with players tracking supplies and trying to stay ahead of this, or it can be done with the DM saying after the first dragon fight "Wow.. you wounded it good. But the way it's flying, your rations will run out before you get to it's lair. What do you do?" Same tension, less paperwork.
And for some groups that's fine. For some groups that's a deal breaker as they debate and discuss all the ways to prepare for the chase and whether or not they're really running low on supplies. It all comes down to:
Talk. To. Your. Players.
This! I don't track food in the campaign I DM because the players enjoy the encounters and RP in town more than the logistics. They don't want shopping trips unless they want something very specific. However, I'm a player in a Tomb of Annihilation campaign right now and the survival aspect is a big part of it for us. Will the monsters in the jungle kill us, or will tragedy strike and suddenly we don't have enough food. Or, against all odds, will we all manage to make it to the end with our original PCs?
I fell asleep during the description of your ideas for logistical D&D. yawn, pass. I don't want my 10th level party having to turn back from slaying the dragon because someone forgot to pack extra provisions for the horses.
With a bit less snark this really gets to the nitty gritty of what people may or may not find fun in DND. For some people the whole "oh man, do we press on and chase the dragon without supplies? or do we turn back and rest up and get more food?" is a major decision and a great point of tension.
This moment can be met with players tracking supplies and trying to stay ahead of this, or it can be done with the DM saying after the first dragon fight "Wow.. you wounded it good. But the way it's flying, your rations will run out before you get to it's lair. What do you do?" Same tension, less paperwork.
And for some groups that's fine. For some groups that's a deal breaker as they debate and discuss all the ways to prepare for the chase and whether or not they're really running low on supplies. It all comes down to:
Talk. To. Your. Players.
This! I don't track food in the campaign I DM because the players enjoy the encounters and RP in town more than the logistics. They don't want shopping trips unless they want something very specific. However, I'm a player in a Tomb of Annihilation campaign right now and the survival aspect is a big part of it for us. Will the monsters in the jungle kill us, or will tragedy strike and suddenly we don't have enough food. Or, against all odds, will we all manage to make it to the end with our original PCs?
One compromise we used back in 'the day' was to figure out how many days' worth of rations we carried typically. I think for most of us it was ten days. Then if we started on an adventure we wouldn't even worry about it until after the 5th day because now we need to figure out if we have enough to get back. It was a couple of minutes of calculating once and then half the time we didn't need to worry.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Let me begin by stating that I love the fact that most of the changes that D&D has gone through since 1st ed are good ones. I play online MMOs from time to time and I like the kind where you don't necessarily NEED to have this or that class to accomplish a task. I can appreciate the same thing in D&D now where many players and DMs agree that a party doesn't necessarily HAVE to have a dedicated Healer (for example). Not requiring or even strongly suggesting that a party adhere to the old 'Holy Trinity' of classes (which was always dumb because three classes weren't enough to cover all the bases) opens the game up to more creative play.
That being said, there are some of the old tropes that I miss and I wondered if other players and DMs felt the same way. I'm also looking for possible alternate ways to handle these for my next game.
One of my biggest issues is the ease with which non-Rogues can obtain proficiency with Thieve's Tools. It used to be that ONLY Thieves could use them but I didn't like that either because it locked one player into being the designated Thief and if nobody wanted to play one, you have a problem. However, Tool proficiency is now given to lots of different classes and subclasses. My Artificer has proficiency with them and by level 6 his skill is going to be ridiculous. Better than the Rogue in the party. I'm perfectly willing to stand back and let her shine in her moment but just the idea that I'm a LOT better than her rubs me the wrong way. I've spoken to the DM and our party leader and stated that unless they specifically ask me to try my hand at a lock or trap, I'm going to consider that to be her 'thing' because I don't want to steal her thunder.
I'm considering the idea of having a designated person in my next game that is allowed or even encouraged to have Expertise with Thieve's Tools. I don't care if this is a Rogue or someone else but this is one of those skills that I don't want everyone in the party to be able to gain too easily. What does everyone else think?
Another issue I have is with some of the survival spells, especially Goodberry and any of the Tiny Hut variants. These two spells eliminate many of the risks of travel like finding food and water and decent shelter. I don't like banning stuff outright but IMHO these need to be nerfed in some way. If it was just Druids or Rangers that can cast these it wouldn't be so bad but now there are a lot more options to get specific spells, especially 1st level ones. How do other DMs out there deal with these?
Bards doing everything. I remember that Bards were always versatile but in 5e they seem to be the skill junkies. If they're built well they can have as good a skill roll or better than most other members of the party. Some classes (like Barbarians) don't get that many skills so I feel that they should be able to use them whenever possible. But if there's a Bard in the party it seems to be 50/50 as to whether they have the best roll at any particular skill. I don't want to nerf their ability because it's kind of their 'thing' but I'm a little uncomfortable with one character having as many skills as the rest of the party put together. Any good suggestions out there how to deal with this?
That's all I have off the top of my head. Thanks in advance for any ideas as to how to deal with (or not deal with) these.
Proficiency with Thieves' Tools being an issue? It's so rare in my games that there's even a cause to use thieves' tools that I can't say it has ever crossed my mine. Thieves' Tools are more one of those things where occasionally the DM looks at the skills their PCs have and thinks "Oh, they haven't used Thieves' Tools' etc in a while, I better put something in for them to use it for." A bit like Druidic, which comes up almost never. I don't know why it's a problem for more than one character to have access to this, any more than it's a problem for more than one character to have a high STR score and do the heavy lifting.
I just ban Goodberry outright as it breaks survival aspects of the game. It's a dumb spell and shouldn't be in the game at all. I'm fine with the Tiny Hut stuff, that's a perk you get of being able to cast that kind of spell, and it doesn't mean there's nothing waiting for you in the dark.
On the thieves tool issue, I do think it's a bit odd on the artificer end but I don't see it as a 'problem.' Rogues can pick expertise in thieves tools at level ONE. They naturally prioritize dex as their main stat to cap asap. They have thief and arcane trickster subclasses that let them do unique things. They get reliable talent for tier 3/4 play. Rogues are not being out shined in thieves tools generally unless they chose NOT to expertise it and have an artificer along.
I may need more specific info for your barbiaran/bard issue. Bards also get expertise in up to four skills. But they're not going to be the best at everything. They have to choose what to specialize in. And jack of all trades while useful, isn't going say allow them to rival the barbarian's athletics proficiency.
Goodberry I agree with. It's just too good for a level 1 spell in a survival campaign. Now, they're not so bad if you only look at them in terms of 'use an action to get 1 hp back.' But when in a game with survival mechanics it is game breaking. Way too good for a mere level 1 spell. If there was at least a consumed material component that made this spell expensive maybe it'd be okay but I think this is too good in a survival campaign. What I might do instead of banning it is restrict the 'nourishment to sustain a creature for a day' part specifically. But, lucky for me, I'm not interested in the survival side of things much and tend not to even track rations etc when running a game.
Tiny Hut is easier to work around I think.
It can be dispelled.
It forms a dome, meaning that you can interpret that as not having a bottom, so things can burrow through.
Enemies can spot the hut and move to surround it/get reinforcements while the party rests inside.
Around (If ruling it with no roof, non burrowing) wild animals etc without group coordination and ability to dispel, it's nigh impenetrable sure. But more intelligent enemies, even groups of kobolds and goblins or bandits, can plan around it and set up an ambush for when the dome comes down.
I feel the same way. I grew up on Moldvay/Cook and it still makes sense to me today. Also, none of us ever felt slighted because our character wasn't the best at something but in the old rules, that wasn't an issue. I did look up goodberry and the sprig of mistletoe could be an issue especially if there is a mistletoe blight. Maybe that's the whole campaign driver?
As far as 5e goes, I am new to it but I really like what they did especially with the core books (the DMG guide is just incredible) as I consider it an improvement from the previous versions (see a lot more human PCs now). The later 5e books with the different races/classes/etc. not so much but to each their own. You could run a Moldvay/Cook or 1e inspired 5e campaign with little trouble I think, the OSR people would go for it for sure. Core races and classes only, only spells from the old versions, that sort of thing.
Artificers are crafty techies by definition. Proficiency with Thieves' Tools makes a lot of sense for them. I don't think it'd be anything major if you removed it from their default class-given proficiencies, but certainly if they pick a background that grants it back that seems perfectly in character to me. My last Artificer, as part of his backstory, had been a fledgling safe cracker in an ill-fated heist crew before opting for a "safer" occupation as adventurer. That sort of thing works perfectly for the class.
Re: Goodberry, if it matters for the campaign I have in mind I'll likely require fresh-picked berries as material component for the spell. If survival isn't going to be a meaningful challenge for the adventure, it's a non-issue.
Bards tend to be, as their ability says, jacks of all trades. They're good at lots of things (and really good at several), but their signature ability is to make others better. Bardic Inspiration only works on others. If the Bard in the party has the best modifier for a check 50% of the time, I think that either the Bard player isn't really using BI to great effect or the DM is calling a whole lot of checks with higher DCs than maybe is apt, or or a combination of both.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Re: Goodberry and similar spells. I remedied this by house ruling that all material components are consumed in the casting of a spell. (Also by heavily restricting the use and procurement of casting foci).
Gotta say, I’ve always thought Goodberry was “meh”. It only gives 1 hp per round, unless you are out of combat and don’t mind talking a minute to gain 10hp. I’ve never been in a campaign where the DM tracked if we ate regularly or not.
The “nourishment” is just for fluff, the real benefit is being able to cram one into a downed PC’s gullet to pick ‘em back up. A PC* is just as effective with 1 HP as with Max. It’s a yo-yo spell like healing word, but for up to 10 pick-ups in 8 hours instead of 1 single pick-up.
*(Heck, anything except Swarms.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ah, yeah I see where you going with that. I’ve played a few martial characters here and there but mostly run support so I tend to back off and go into survival mode if I’m only at 1hp
Tracking food and water, in and of itself, is tedious and doesn't add anything of interest. It's like tracking ammo or everyday small expenditures. As such, a lot of DMs just ignore it. It's different if survival is a meaningful component of the campaign though: if you want it to be engaging, it can certainly be made to be. It's a choice.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Tracking food, by itself, doesn't do anything, no. However, a wise man pointed out that being interesting in and of itself is not the point of tracking food or other supplies. The point of doing such is to ensure that when players are wandering the wilderness for days on end, there are many factors that weigh on their minds when they make decisions - one of them being "do we have enough food?"
Tracking food is also not really 'tedious', as such - characters decrement rations by 1 at the beginning of a long rest. If a hunter can find game, or someone has a feature that can substitute for food, do that instead for however many people it can cover. It's an easy step that takes only a few seconds once players get used to doing it. 'Everyday small expenditures' are supposed to be tracked via a lifestyle cost, which also drives adventurers to do things that generate money. Namely, adventure. Yes, they could try working in town instead, but there's plenty of ways a DM can discourage that without making it impossible.
All of the little logistical things many tables like to gloss over and skip are all meant to add up to a gestalt system that drives games and directs players to make choices about what's worth spending time and coin on, and how best to meet the needs of their adventuring. People blowing off every last logistical system in the game and then saying things like travel and wilderness exploration - stuff which is normally a logistics issue - are boring is a little weird. of course travel and exploration are going to be boring if you get rid of all the things that could make them tense and engaging?
Please do not contact or message me.
I don't disagree at all, but I've been in plenty of adventures where civilization was never more than a day of walking away and others where we prepared ourselves adequately and never ran into trouble. Having logistics matter only really makes them tense and engaging if things go off the rails every now and then. And that's a choice the DM has to make.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Leave my goodberries alone, they are fine how they are.
That said, if survival is a part of your campaign then house rule it to fit, ban it, take away the nourishment part, whatever you like.
But for those who don’t run a survival aspect (or it’s not a big part of the campaign) it’s a good out of combat spell. And in a pinch in combat spell. We had part of our campaign in the desert, so we traveled at night to avoid exhaustion, and my Druid used goodberry and create or destroy water to keep the party on their feet. Also used them in RP situations with NPC’s we rescued or were trying to get assistance from.
As far as thieves tools, this should be something to go over in session zero. If there is a rogue in the party and they want to be the lock picker, then maybe it’s best for another player not take a class/background that gives thieves tool proficiency if you are worried about taking away their spotlight. Don’t really see a problem with it being available to many characters.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I don’t disagree with this, and in fact I think I would enjoy having that aspect of it. I just haven’t been part of a table that does it. Honestly I wish more people got into the details of things like lifestyle, downtime, and traveling logistics. I know it’s not as exciting as sword swinging and fireballing, but I like the little details that make the world seem more alive because of the pit of combat stuff you have to do.
The counterpoint of course being that if someone is down and someone else is spending their whole action to give them 1 hp, the party is in pretty bad shape and not making much progress to change that course, you are presumably in range of whatever took out your friend, and the next stiff breeze will put said friend right back on the ground. In a lot of cases, it's simply a better use of your actions to first eliminate the threat (if you can win) or grab your buddy and get the heck out of there (if you can't).
The power of HW lies in its action economy - you can get someone up and potentially make some progress towards taking down your enemy. So taking that into account I feel the spells are fairly well balanced against each other.
You have not met my players. I get the general gist of the overall post and theoretically agree, but I have yet to see this work practically. With all the logistical rules in place, my party could easily blow a whole a session arguing and fiddling with all the different bits involved. As a group we have consciously decided to avoid this because we want to spend our game time adventuring rather than writing grocery lists and calculating how many wild boar it takes to feed a griffon mount for a week. It's absolutely a dilemma because I agree that exploration sucks without the rules in place, but applying the rules introduces a different problem that is at least as severe. Resource management can be fun, but combined with herding cats it is not.
At any rate, I think this is a session zero type conversation. When a player takes Tiny Hut, I basically take it as a telegraphed message about the type of game they want. They don't want to be surprised during rests just like Mr. Goodberry doesn't want to make foraging rolls. If you want these elements in your game, tell your players up front. Certainly
ifwhen I run Dark Sun again, we will need to talk about Goodberry and Create Water and how those spells would neuter a major aspect of the setting. And if we couldn't come to an agreement about how to handle that, I'd probably just shelve that campaign for the time being and work with the players to find something we'd all enjoy.My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I love the simplicity and versatility of 5e, where you can make literally anything you want pretty much. I love that clerics are no longer relegated to being healbots, that many other classes and combinations can now heal a party well enough for most quests.
But that said, I do miss the structured approach of older editions at times - I remember a time when choosing to be an elf was your character class not just your race (elves were basically a multi class fighter/mage). I also found that the little differences between humans being the only race that could dual class, others had to multi-class. But there is much I don’t miss such as only humans could get to lvl 20 in every class, all the other races had a number of hard limits, or female characters having lower stats than male, or trying to work out Thaco and having to incorporate bonuses and penalties for different weapons against different types of armour.
I fell asleep during the description of your ideas for logistical D&D. yawn, pass. I don't want my 10th level party having to turn back from slaying the dragon because someone forgot to pack extra provisions for the horses.
With a bit less snark this really gets to the nitty gritty of what people may or may not find fun in DND. For some people the whole "oh man, do we press on and chase the dragon without supplies? or do we turn back and rest up and get more food?" is a major decision and a great point of tension.
This moment can be met with players tracking supplies and trying to stay ahead of this, or it can be done with the DM saying after the first dragon fight "Wow.. you wounded it good. But the way it's flying, your rations will run out before you get to it's lair. What do you do?" Same tension, less paperwork.
And for some groups that's fine. For some groups that's a deal breaker as they debate and discuss all the ways to prepare for the chase and whether or not they're really running low on supplies. It all comes down to:
Talk. To. Your. Players.
"Teller of tales, dreamer of dreams"
Tips, Tricks, Maps: Lantern Noir Presents
**Streams hosted at at twitch.tv/LaternNoir
This! I don't track food in the campaign I DM because the players enjoy the encounters and RP in town more than the logistics. They don't want shopping trips unless they want something very specific. However, I'm a player in a Tomb of Annihilation campaign right now and the survival aspect is a big part of it for us. Will the monsters in the jungle kill us, or will tragedy strike and suddenly we don't have enough food. Or, against all odds, will we all manage to make it to the end with our original PCs?
One compromise we used back in 'the day' was to figure out how many days' worth of rations we carried typically. I think for most of us it was ten days. Then if we started on an adventure we wouldn't even worry about it until after the 5th day because now we need to figure out if we have enough to get back. It was a couple of minutes of calculating once and then half the time we didn't need to worry.