I never had problems with casters in my games because I changed the conceits of the world to reflect why casters didn't dominate. If you're insistant on playing the game by a system you clearly don't like the results - and do nothing about it to fix it... isn't that like poking yourself in the eye and screaming about how you hate poking yourself in the eye?

there's a LOT of simple ways to "fix" LFQM. To what degree is up to you -

1) Make casters *always* lose initiative. Magic takes one round to cast. You can scale this up or down as you see fit based on the real casting time - you might let Reflexive spells stand, for instance.

2) Make concentration checks more difficult.

3) Use vitality. Yeah - let non-casters use the new Vitality rules, and make 1+ Str/Dex bonus to Con.

4) Put things in the game in context with your world that makes being a caster a social detriment. Something that forces casters to be careful to reveal their abilities. Order of Mage-killers, New rules from Mystra, Anti-Magical devices created by nobles to protect themselves from magicians, make it up.

It's not that difficult. And it doesn't require you changing a whole lot about casting, or the classes themselves to make it happen. Adjust to your taste.

Absolutely, if you don't like the rules of the game you should change the rules of the game, no doubt about that. On the other hand, isn't there a name for this sort of counter-argument to a possible issue with the rules?

Darn my eyes, I can't find vitality in the index of the PHB or DMG. Can you help me out?

Quote from: Doom;835831Absolutely, if you don't like the rules of the game you should change the rules of the game, no doubt about that. On the other hand, isn't there a name for this sort of counter-argument to a possible issue with the rules?

  "Rule 0 Fallacy." But it applies more if the rules don't do what they're intended to do, rather than if they produce the intended results but aren't to a given player's taste.

QuoteDarn my eyes, I can't find vitality in the index of the PHB or DMG. Can you help me out?

   The new Unearthed Arcana article here.

Quote from: Doom;835831Absolutely, if you don't like the rules of the game you should change the rules of the game, no doubt about that. On the other hand, isn't there a name for this sort of counter-argument to a possible issue with the rules?

Darn my eyes, I can't find vitality in the index of the PHB or DMG. Can you help me out?

Have you considered being less of a douchebag on the internet?

Quote from: Mistwell;835859Have you considered being less of a douchebag on the internet?

Uh, since when is "absolutely, you're right" douchebaggery? Will you be lashing out at the far more egregious misbehavior in this thread? I eagerly await you honestly doing so.

Although, I guess I should have been quicker to thank Armchair Gamer.

Thanks, Armchair Gamer, for that link!

Honest, I'm not trying to be insulting in that expression of gratitude.

FWIW, I was thinking more of the Oberoni Fallacy (same thing, I'm just bad at remembering names), in this case CR collapsing fast when considering enemy spellcasters.

Quote from: Doom;835831Absolutely, if you don't like the rules of the game you should change the rules of the game, no doubt about that. On the other hand, isn't there a name for this sort of counter-argument to a possible issue with the rules?

Darn my eyes, I can't find vitality in the index of the PHB or DMG. Can you help me out?

I didn't take your response as snarky (and if you intended it as such - I don't care.) I'm just honestly trying to downplay something I think you're right about. And I'm also interested in showing how it's not a dealbreaker to the degree you "seem" to be making it to be. But I'm certainly not dismissing your claim.

I don't think my suggestions are "hard" Rule Zeroes either. I'm not talking about changing spellcasting at all. I prefer to raise the bar from the ground up - not lower from the top down. Adding Vitality is not Rule Zero, for instance. Creating custom in-game campaign reactions and counter-reactions and cultural context to the existence of casters in *whatever* form you choose to allow in games, is likewise not Rule Zero per se.

It's just good GMing.

Keep in mind that you can cast your Fireball, the opposing mage can use a reaction to cast counterspell. THEN you can use YOUR reaction to cast Counterspell to counter their Counterspell so the fireball still hits.

That works great for enemy fireball flingers too. So in the example fight. Had I had and cast Counterspell the lone mystery mage could have forgone a second fireball next round to snap off his own Counterspell to cancel mine and we'd have been toasted.

Quote from: tenbones;835998I didn't take your response as snarky (and if you intended it as such - I don't care.) I'm just honestly trying to downplay something I think you're right about. And I'm also interested in showing how it's not a dealbreaker to the degree you "seem" to be making it to be. But I'm certainly not dismissing your claim.

I don't think my suggestions are "hard" Rule Zeroes either. I'm not talking about changing spellcasting at all. I prefer to raise the bar from the ground up - not lower from the top down. Adding Vitality is not Rule Zero, for instance. Creating custom in-game campaign reactions and counter-reactions and cultural context to the existence of casters in *whatever* form you choose to allow in games, is likewise not Rule Zero per se.

It's just good GMing.

I honestly wasn't trying to snark, and at no point, in no way, do I mean to imply that the issues I've identified are a dealbreaker. 5e is a good game. Some folks are just so emotionally invested (the most polite interpretation) that they just can't handle a possible criticism.

I'm reading Vitality, and it does seem to have issues--high Con characters appear go down faster than low Con characters. But I've only just started to consider it, so could be wrong. I'm not convinced that it's possible (or even well advised) to "raise up" the melee guys. They hit really, really, hard, after all. It's not a LFQW issue, really, and I respect that WotC tried at least a little to thin out some of the abuses (eg, magic item creation goofiness is gone). But that's a digression.

At the risk of being accused of making another ridiculous overgeneralization, I claim that WotC isn't perfect.

I remember, years ago on Gleemax (I think that was the name, it was a long time), I showed that under robust conditions, in 4e D&D, "Easy" skill challenges were harder than "Hard" skill challenges (in the original, printed, rules). Much like here, massive displays of innumeracy and seething rage made it difficult to have a real conversation about possibly addressing the issue, and folks said "if you hate 4e so much, why do you post here?"...and there was much, much trolling and name callling (again, deja vu), to the point that I gave up. Obviously, I haven't learned my lesson.

A month after that, WotC started in with trying to fix skill challenges (I think by the end of 4e's cycle, they had a dozen or so different versions)...and suddenly indicating a problem with skill challenges wasn't treated as heresy.

Anyway, I like 4e, it's a very fun system for the first few levels, and had much fun playing it. Heck, some of my players are still interested in having me run another 4e campaign...but that doesn't mean that 4e, any more than 5e, is perfect and without flaw in any way. But it's clear this thread is no place to have this kind of discussion, which is totally my bad. Mea culpa, again.

Quote from: Doom;836012I honestly wasn't trying to snark, and at no point, in no way, do I mean to imply that the issues I've identified are a dealbreaker. 5e is a good game. Some folks are just so emotionally invested (the most polite interpretation) that they just can't handle a possible criticism.

I think it's slowly dawning on you. You're saying it loud, but you just can't quite admit that you're talking about yourself yet.

Quite a few people have agreed with your overall thesis, but have criticized your hyperbole and unrealistic white roominess. Your inability to handle that  criticism has driven you to insults and condescension of people who otherwise largely agree with you.

This is going to be great material for an after school special once you're able to reel yourself back in a bit.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;836019I think it's slowly dawning on you. You're saying it loud, but you just can't quite admit that you're talking about yourself yet.

Quite a few people have agreed with your overall thesis, but have criticized your hyperbole and unrealistic white roominess. Your inability to handle that  criticism has driven you to insults and condescension of people who otherwise largely agree with you.

This is going to be great material for an after school special once you're able to reel yourself back in a bit.

No. Hes just backhanding again.

I call dibs on the book rights.

And since there is no topic because of this half-wits harping.

Fuck off. Im going back on topic for the umpteenth time.

Asked both the players I game with and the ones I GM with and the results were.

Kefra: Likes it overall. Likes the new magic system. Which is saying alot since she usually plays fighter types. Then again shes playing the druid like a figher...
Jannet: Likes it, but dissatisfied with the Ranger. Needs more arrows! Liking the Battle Master and the chance to be the tactical one for once.
Dev: Neutral, hasnt gotten to play much yet due to scheduling problems.
--
Daern: Bitch, piss, moan. The wizard is too weak. Not enough spells. yadda-yadda.
Nox: Really enjoying it.
James: Neutral, seems to be liking it. First time playing in 15 years and he keeps coming back so there must be something.

Quote from: Omega;836032No. Hes just backhanding again.

I call dibs on the book rights.

And since there is no topic because of this half-wits harping.

Fuck off. Im going back on topic for the umpteenth time.

Asked both the players I game with and the ones I GM with and the results were.

Kefra: Likes it overall. Likes the new magic system. Which is saying alot since she usually plays fighter types. Then again shes playing the druid like a figher...
Jannet: Likes it, but dissatisfied with the Ranger. Needs more arrows! Liking the Battle Master and the chance to be the tactical one for once.
Dev: Neutral, hasnt gotten to play much yet due to scheduling problems.
--
Daern: Bitch, piss, moan. The wizard is too weak. Not enough spells. yadda-yadda.
Nox: Really enjoying it.
James: Neutral, seems to be liking it. First time playing in 15 years and he keeps coming back so there must be something.

Damn, there was an "on" topic at one point, wasn't there?

I haven't surveyed my groups directly, but despite their differences (1 group's a 1E bunch, and the other is a 3.x bunch) their gripes tend to be similar, and are more logistical in nature.  A week doesn't go by without someone breaking out into profanity about the PHB index.  The regular DMs gripe a bit about what they perceive to be inconsistencies due to the drawn out release from the starter to the DMG.

Actual play-wise, everyone seems generally good with this edition.  There are two people I can think of that haven't liked the way their class is playing out relative to their expectations, but at least one of those is prone to sad-sacking all the time anyway.

Quote from: Omega;836001Keep in mind that you can cast your Fireball, the opposing mage can use a reaction to cast counterspell. THEN you can use YOUR reaction to cast Counterspell to counter their Counterspell so the fireball still hits.

I thought you can't use Reactions on your own turn? Did they change this in 5e?

Quote from: Natty Bodak;836033Damn, there was an "on" topic at one point, wasn't there?

A week doesn't go by without someone breaking out into profanity about the PHB index.

Actual play-wise, everyone seems generally good with this edition.  There are two people I can think of that haven't liked the way their class is playing out relative to their expectations, but at least one of those is prone to sad-sacking all the time anyway.

We will enjoy this lull in the shelling while we can comrade.

God the tiny font! Not as bad as the near microfiche White Wolf used on one of their sideline games but for fucks sake people! Then there is the numerous "see XYX"
IE: Snake: Poisonous: see Creature Statistics. > Creature Statistics: 304-311 > go leaf through all of Appendix D: Creature Statistics till you find it! arrrgh! Why did they even clutter the index with the entry then?

Having a class or widget not play out as you expected is probably fairly common. Though a tiny bit silly to carry over into a new game. Some of the feat changed from Next to 5e seem a little... odd... for example. But easily fixed or lived with. Going into it and expecting the Feats to be 3 or 4e feats though... Personally I still think they should not have been called feats. eh. Such is. I still like how the 5e feats play out as class personalization in 5e and are few and far between. If you even want them.

Kef hasnt taken any, opting for the stat points. Jan took one and is using the rest as stat points. So far I've used all mine for feats building on the theme. Daern and Nox have taken I believe 1 feat and the rest to stats. James went for stats only.

Quote from: S'mon;836053I thought you can't use Reactions on your own turn? Did they change this in 5e?

Yes, you can use reactions in your own turn. PG 190 of the PHB and PG 70 of the 0.3.4 Basic PDF.

Quote from: S'mon;836053I thought you can't use Reactions on your own turn? Did they change this in 5e?

I kept thinking the same thing myself for a while, even after being corrected on it. I don't know why it kept sticking in my head. Was this the case in an earlier edition I wonder? Anyway, I'm not sure why or where the idea came from, but I thought the same for whatever reason.