In older editions of D&D necklace of fireballs could be triggered by fireball spells, i am not seeing this in the current 5e rules.
Is this another one of the rules that got tossed aside for sake of less lethal aspects?
The old rule stated that if a Necklace of fireballs were hit by a fireball spell they would have to make a +7 save or they would detonate, dealing immediate damage to the wearer or anyone with in the range of the necklace.
Most rules that got pushed out, were pushed out for simplicity's sake, like alignment auras or Full-Round Actions. Technically the rule in 3rd edition was "when you failed a save against a magical fire attack", so lots of things could activate it. Though certain rules are no longer official, if it makes sense in your world, I don't see why you couldn't just add it back in your campaign.
Oh yeah I plan to keep that 3.5 rule. I feel that 5e has done great things in bringing new players to the game and making it easier than ever for entry level players, but at times I feel that the side effect has been - Over simplification - The threat meter of death is almost not there and takes a whole lot for players to die.
So I commonly change a lot of things to add a bit more complexity and threat to my games
I always say Pathfinder adds WAY TO MUCh complexity and 5e doesn't add enough
Yeah, sometimes Competency Bonus is more logical then Advantage. But Proficiency Bonus has ended up better than BAB and Skill Points in my opinion.
As for the threat of death, it gets nerfed in every edition. Survival is easier in 3rd edition compared to 2nd edition, which is easier compared to 1st edition. Though in 4th edition is more player friendly than 5th edition: HP went down, more instant death situations, no more half your HP is negative threshold, Exhaustion is serious business now, no more AC growth with levels, etc.
It seems to me that the threat of death in 5e is much higher than it was in 3.5e. It’s easier to get hit because AC’s are lower and it’s easier to fail saving throws due to how saving throw bonuses are calculated than in earlier editions. Plus with the Concentration mechanic spellcasters are limited in how much they can buff or debuff compared to prior editions. Death saving throws make it easier to survive, but it’s still easy to fail 3 of them before passing 3 of them and then if you don’t get any magical healing you need 2 long rests to fully recover.
The bounded accuracy also favors in side of the players, ACs may be lower but to hits are also lower everything in general are lower numbers the monsters didn't stay at high numbers while the players got smaller. The death saving throws is one of the mechanics that have made dying harder since in previous editions they didn't have that. Literally everything else you have mention have been present in every edition.
The issue is when building encounters BY THE BOOK they will almost never kill a party, or even come close to doing it. Most parties facing encounters AS PER THE BOOK will steam roll the encounter. Where as in 3.5 ( as i didn't like 4th ed and after 6 mo. of it refuse to play or acknowledge that as an edition) the edition when WoTC took over D&D, building an encounter by the book in 3.5 ( if I was to add a % to it) had a 40% chance of dying to it based on a lot of things from player attacks, knowledge of the creature, Gear, tactics, luck (of course). Where as in 5th ( and I love 5th edition ) a By the book encounter has a 5% chance to kill the party. It usually takes one of three things to happen
1. The player making a really bad choice and this is less than 2% of it killing. E.G. A player chooses to not move while in a fog cloud and a storm giant uses their lightning strike in a random place that hits him. He probably should have moved 10 feet up and been safe but made the choice to stay put.
2. stupid decisions 95% of all deaths. I mean stupid like being a 5th level character and walking into a dragons cave that is the home of a Ancient red dragon, or seeing a Tarrasque at 3rd level and running toward it trying to stab it.
3. Dice have a bad day they just don't roll in your favor.
lastly in 3.5 and earlier editions you didn't have short and long rest to heal up with hit dice.
closing I love 5th I love how it brings in more players and makes it easier to teach to newbies. I just think it is over simplistic and a little to kid gloves for players. Whereas Pathfinder is overtly way more complex than they need to be. The great thing is in 5th ed they have expressed more than any other edition that the DM really should change the rules to fit their games. This is what saves 5th for me they encourage it in the vagueness of rules to force interpretation of the DM this edition is much more Rules as Intended rather than Rules as Written.
In older editions of D&D necklace of fireballs could be triggered by fireball spells, i am not seeing this in the current 5e rules.
Is this another one of the rules that got tossed aside for sake of less lethal aspects?
The old rule stated that if a Necklace of fireballs were hit by a fireball spell they would have to make a +7 save or they would detonate, dealing immediate damage to the wearer or anyone with in the range of the necklace.
Most rules that got pushed out, were pushed out for simplicity's sake, like alignment auras or Full-Round Actions. Technically the rule in 3rd edition was "when you failed a save against a magical fire attack", so lots of things could activate it. Though certain rules are no longer official, if it makes sense in your world, I don't see why you couldn't just add it back in your campaign.
Oh yeah I plan to keep that 3.5 rule. I feel that 5e has done great things in bringing new players to the game and making it easier than ever for entry level players, but at times I feel that the side effect has been
- Over simplification
- The threat meter of death is almost not there and takes a whole lot for players to die.
So I commonly change a lot of things to add a bit more complexity and threat to my games
I always say Pathfinder adds WAY TO MUCh complexity and 5e doesn't add enough
I was just more or less curious if I was missing the ruling somewhere
Yeah, sometimes Competency Bonus is more logical then Advantage. But Proficiency Bonus has ended up better than BAB and Skill Points in my opinion.
As for the threat of death, it gets nerfed in every edition. Survival is easier in 3rd edition compared to 2nd edition, which is easier compared to 1st edition. Though in 4th edition is more player friendly than 5th edition: HP went down, more instant death situations, no more half your HP is negative threshold, Exhaustion is serious business now, no more AC growth with levels, etc.
It seems to me that the threat of death in 5e is much higher than it was in 3.5e. It’s easier to get hit because AC’s are lower and it’s easier to fail saving throws due to how saving throw bonuses are calculated than in earlier editions. Plus with the Concentration mechanic spellcasters are limited in how much they can buff or debuff compared to prior editions. Death saving throws make it easier to survive, but it’s still easy to fail 3 of them before passing 3 of them and then if you don’t get any magical healing you need 2 long rests to fully recover.
Professional computer geek
The bounded accuracy also favors in side of the players, ACs may be lower but to hits are also lower everything in general are lower numbers the monsters didn't stay at high numbers while the players got smaller. The death saving throws is one of the mechanics that have made dying harder since in previous editions they didn't have that. Literally everything else you have mention have been present in every edition.
The issue is when building encounters BY THE BOOK they will almost never kill a party, or even come close to doing it. Most parties facing encounters AS PER THE BOOK will steam roll the encounter. Where as in 3.5 ( as i didn't like 4th ed and after 6 mo. of it refuse to play or acknowledge that as an edition) the edition when WoTC took over D&D, building an encounter by the book in 3.5 ( if I was to add a % to it) had a 40% chance of dying to it based on a lot of things from player attacks, knowledge of the creature, Gear, tactics, luck (of course). Where as in 5th ( and I love 5th edition ) a By the book encounter has a 5% chance to kill the party. It usually takes one of three things to happen
1. The player making a really bad choice and this is less than 2% of it killing. E.G. A player chooses to not move while in a fog cloud and a storm giant uses their lightning strike in a random place that hits him. He probably should have moved 10 feet up and been safe but made the choice to stay put.
2. stupid decisions 95% of all deaths. I mean stupid like being a 5th level character and walking into a dragons cave that is the home of a Ancient red dragon, or seeing a Tarrasque at 3rd level and running toward it trying to stab it.
3. Dice have a bad day they just don't roll in your favor.
lastly in 3.5 and earlier editions you didn't have short and long rest to heal up with hit dice.
closing I love 5th I love how it brings in more players and makes it easier to teach to newbies. I just think it is over simplistic and a little to kid gloves for players. Whereas Pathfinder is overtly way more complex than they need to be. The great thing is in 5th ed they have expressed more than any other edition that the DM really should change the rules to fit their games. This is what saves 5th for me they encourage it in the vagueness of rules to force interpretation of the DM this edition is much more Rules as Intended rather than Rules as Written.