How Many Houserules Does 5E Need?

[krugaan]

NewDM seems to want logical, statistical, RAW reasons for Common Sense. At least, that's my impression more and more.

I'm pretty sure NewDM wants a simple, easy to remember system that perfectly mimics his high standard for realism with no chance for abuse.

I wish him all the best in finding such a system.

[mgshamster]

I did not declare victory. I declared that I think that the statement was wrong. Big difference, but nice straw man.

Hmmm.... This looks familiar.

Yes, you declared victory (by telling me I was wrong)

Oh yes. There it is.

[JoeJ]

The spell says it can make any item. Magic items fall under the category of 'any'. So the spell does say you can do it. Other spells are very specific and call out limitations where magic items are involved. In order to allow magic item creation they would have to call it out directly, which is not done in any other spell. "You can make magic items with this.". Doesn't make sense. For instance Wish says you can make any non-magical item up to 25k gold in value. Why does Creation not use this language?

The spell does not say you can make any item; it lists specifically the kinds of items you can make. And why are you ignoring the text in the DMG I've already pointed out that explicitly states the DM decides how PCs can get magic items?

[druid91]

And gives the DM free reign to take control of the characters. See the Lycanthrope entry.

Firstly, the Lycanthrope entry is very specific about applying only to the curse of Lycanthropy.

BUT even if you wanted to use it more broadly, it only specifies that a DM may take control of a character who's ALIGNMENT changes.

The text of True Polymorph specifies that the one transformed retains their alignment and personality. Meaning that even using the optional rules for Lycanthropy, the True Polymorphed player would remain under the control of the player.

[RedMage125]

<Redacted by author>
I have decided that the post I made here was sinking to level of passive-aggressive childish behavior that I do not wish to engage in. I had let my temper get the better of me, and I apologize.

[Naanomi]

So just to keep track we are at 2 house rules 'needed'? One about Similacrum chaining if you play with unreasonable players, and one about Creation if you play with extra unreasonable players?

Plus a small handful of clarifications that help (but are not strictly necessary) of people are playing certain classes? I like to clarify how often you will be rolling for wild surge before someone chooses to play a wild sorcerer

[druid91]

So just to keep track we are at 2 house rules 'needed'? One about Similacrum chaining if you play with unreasonable players, and one about Creation if you play with extra unreasonable players?

Plus a small handful of clarifications that help (but are not strictly necessary) of people are playing certain classes? I like to clarify how often you will be rolling for wild surge before someone chooses to play a wild sorcerer

Also something to deal with the rather ridiculous open ended nature of Creature to Object with true polymorph.

You buy a chicken and turn it into enough gold to buy two chickens is just as valid a use, as using it to buy a chicken and turn it into enough gold to outright buy a nation.

[JoeJ]

So just to keep track we are at 2 house rules 'needed'? One about Similacrum chaining if you play with unreasonable players, and one about Creation if you play with extra unreasonable players?

The Creation thing isn't strictly necessary, since RAW is that DM decides how magic items are gained.

Also something to deal with the rather ridiculous open ended nature of Creature to Object with true polymorph.

You buy a chicken and turn it into enough gold to buy two chickens is just as valid a use, as using it to buy a chicken and turn it into enough gold to outright buy a nation.

Gold? Bah! I True Polymorph a chicken into the moon! Yeah, maybe that needs a bit of clarification if you have a player who insists on being unreasonable.

[druid91]

The Creation thing isn't strictly necessary, since RAW is that DM decides how magic items are gained.



Gold? Bah! I True Polymorph a chicken into the moon! Yeah, maybe that needs a bit of clarification if you have a player who insists on being unreasonable.

Well no. You just need a bit of clarification in general. Sometimes it's entirely reasonable to want to do a thing. For example, setting a chicken on the roof of a castle, and casting true polymorph to flood the castle with lava.

There are entirely reasonable uses of a power that open ended that don't necessarily include world domination but at the same time... well kind of cause issues.

[NewDM]

In that case, if you find your players are routinely just trying to do things where success on a single skill check trivializes it, you should probably have more interesting things for them to do. If everything in your living breathing world is appropriate for low levels but not for high, no wonder you get frustrated running high levels.

That's because the world is a consistent believable world. The Wizard that has a tower full of beasties, traps, and challenges is not going to put more than a standard lock on his treasure vault because anyone that can bypass all of that will get past a locked door like its nothing, plus they will be out of money by that point.

"Appropriate for high levels" is subjective. If you mean I don't twist my world into Plot Pretzels^tm then what you just did is a circular argument: Why don't you Twist your world into Plot Pretzels^tm to bypass broken bits so that your world is consistent for high level players, which is the only way to play with high level players because to keep the game from breaking you have to use Plot Pretzels^tm.

Hmm......

A living breathing world, but not a world in which villains plan intelligently to deal with the known abilities of their enemies? A world that has spells to raise the dead, but nobody ever organized against rogue necromancers until the PCs showed up? Where Forcecage and Cloudkill and stealth and squads of ghouls are something unheard of, that only PCs know how to do? A world that doesn't care if the PCs survive, but that apparently does care if the NPCs get killed because they weren't clever and didn't use their class/race/whatever features well?

Intelligence is rare. The ability to gather info on the players' characters, then use that info to plan for the characters in particular (short of a recurring villain) and then hit the players' safe houses and be one step ahead of the players at every turn is what I mean by Moriarty level intelligence in my signature. You can pull that off once maybe twice in 20 levels before the players start losing their suspension of disbelief or their verisimilitude breaks.

I withdrew the necromancer one because there are more important house rules that have to be made.

Yeah except I never said anything like that at all. If you were paying attention I kinda say that banning rubies is worse than banning the problem spell, but my analysis is for those who break out in hives at the mention of house rules.

Different people keep saying different things, its hard to keep them straight what with the dog piling. Seriously people (in general) read the entire thread and if your point was already made don't reiterate it again. Use the multi-quote system to mark posts you want to respond to, then unmark them when you find they were already replied to.

Irrelevant, a DM can choose or not choose or even modify those tables as he sees fit. The DM doesn't have to roll on the table if he doesn't want to, everything in the DMG is up to DM discretion to use or not or even change to his whims. Saying you will have X rubies is just as valid as saying you will have no rubies ever. The difference is that you don't like there to be no rubies.

The DM can do whatever they want, but the assumption is that most DMs and new DMs will keep pretty close to the guidelines in the DMG, because they want less work not more. Yes and 'no rubies' takes several spells out of the game. Which is worse than just saying "don't abuse Simulacrum"

I question what he was doing during those 20 levels if he wasn't picking locks and picking locks was supposed to be a big deal. If after a couple of sessions I don't get to play with my character the way I want him I would ask the DM. Also the Thieves Tool skill is more than picking locks, I can also use it to disable traps as well. Of course if neither is available I would ask the DM if I could change my Expertise to something else if possible. Unless you are saying you only play at the highest levels.

I've played 2e to 4e at the highest levels. I have not got there in 5e yet. I'm currently at about level 5, where I'm currently showing up a champion fighter and matching a GWM Totem Barbarian.

So first you say no one claimed that rubies are supposed to be easy or hard to find and then immediately next sentence they must not be hard to find at all and now the Wizard has Thieves Guild connections. So you are basically saying that rubies must exist regardless. At this point I don't think there is even much to be said. So basically no one but you claims that rubies are easy or hard to find then?

No. I was stating that people did say they would make them hard or impossible to find. I then explained how 'hard to find' isn't really a limiter in a living world. Hard to find equates to more time and more gold to get them, but that's about it at higher levels. I gave examples to help people understand my point. If the DM just flat out said "no" then it wouldn't make sense and would be a Plot Pretzel^tm.

It was an insult, I am sure of it. I do not appreciate insults. But it is true your humor leaves much to be desired if pushing memes on others is humorous to you.

You can't be sure of another persons intent, and you can take anything as an insult:
Guy "You look nice today."
Girl "Oh, so I didn't look nice all the other days?"

You should probably lighten up and stop assuming everyone is attacking you personally.

It was not an insult on my end. If you took it as an insult, I'm sorry that you did.

Everyone loves memes, for the most part.

You are limited to 10 minutes, unless the Fighter had a massive windfall all of a sudden you will not suddenly say the Wizard gave the Fighter the money without conflicting other parts of his memory.

Change it to: The Fighter lost a tavern bet with the Wizard in the space of 10 minutes, and thus lost his ride. Why are you needlessly complicating things?

And now we are moving the goal posts, you are on a roll here. Your reasoning is so contrived that I can't see it work except in your head. Plus you have changed stances so much you know that you had a bad premise from the get go. Instead of just admitting you are wrong you are just trying to salvage something that could never be salvaged in the first place. Even the spell says that the creature isn't inclined to act on the memory if it is too nonsensical. The Fighter probably won't be the kind of guy to bet huge sums of money on a whim on silly bets and will probably dismiss the memory even if you act on it, also because the other people in your group would probably also remember such a deal unless he is the kind of guy who would make huge bets on silly things in secret, if I was the kind of guy so loose with my cash I"d let the people I care about in on it.

No. You said in your world that wouldn't work despite the average Intelligence and Wisdom of the Fighter. I gave an alternative that would work because it only changes 1 event in 10 minutes and remains consistent with the rest of the fighters memories. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

Again, I think you're confusing me with someone else. The quote you responded to with this was in regards to your saying "you can't just claim victory without facts". Which you HAVE been doing the entire thread, it shows in your sig. You've been INSISTING that you are right and 5e "needs" BBEGs to have x, y, z, and n features in order to challenge any given 5e party. Which is a straw man, or argumentum ad absurdum at best.

My signature is composed of all the Plot Pretzels^tm that people have suggested to bypass the brokenness of particular spells. It is not "without facts", its indirect quotes of 'facts' others have presented, and reiterates my opinion of Plot Pretzels^tm.

I don't know, I didn't write it. But it doesn't say you CAN make magic items, either, does it? It specifies that you can't use created items for spell components, why would permanent magic items be okay? Doesn't matter, the fact that it fails to specify that you CAN make permanent magic items means you CANNOT. That is how game rules work.

Its not a permanent magic item. Precious metals created by the spell last for 1 hour. It doesn't give a duration for regular metals used in the creation of armor and weapons. If it has gems in it such as a ring or necklace then it lasts for 10 minutes. Its kind of a concentration free Magic Weapon spell that can make armor or other magic items.

Actually because other spells call out that you can't make magic items, a lack of such a line leads me (and others) to believe you can in fact make temporary magic items with it.

I said that was an extreme example. It's absolutely not the same. The point being that as soon as you accept the logical basis of "rules don't say I can't, therefore I can" as valid, you open up the path down a slippery slope. There's a reason that line of thinking is referred to by gamers as "Munchkin Fallacy"
Forcing them to cast spells with harmful backlash for your benefit, sending them blindly into sealed rooms via dimension door, forcing them to teleport to unknown areas so you don't suffer a mishap...you don't consider any of that abusive?

Nope. The Creation spell specifies it can make 'any' item you've seen. Burning hands specifies it makes "a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips." this is very clear. There is no question at all about what Burning Hands creates. There is a question of what Creation can make since it specifies it can make 'any' item. The two are non-comparables.

The Munchkin Fallacy is a non-sequetor. This is because players and DMs that allow this kind of thing aren't always being Munchkins. Sometimes they don't know the impact it will have on the game and they simply read the rules as written and don't have 10 years of D&D experience with older editions (before 4th) to tell them to never say yes when a player asks something about a rule or spell. These people expect the game to just work. They expect to spend their time telling a story and running a world instead of trying to bypass class features by twisting the game world.

I don't generally assume the caster is going to mistreat them. Even in the other thread, if you READ what I say, I said that in most scenarios, the caster will likely not mistreat them.

I do, however, assume YOU are going to mistreat them, given all the examples you give to use simulacra as test dummies and backlash buffers.

Actually, if I were to do this, I would use the Wish spell through them and the rest of their spell slots, then tell them to go have a vacation at a town. I'd hand them a bag of cash and the next day I'd create a new simulacrum (or the simulacrum would create a new simulacrum). Since they are so expensive to repair, I'd treat them like a vintage car.

The point was to hold up a mirror to your own behavior. If you want others to behave by a certain code, make sure you come correct. Your own behavior has not been above reproach.

My behavior has not violated any of the rules. Disagreeing with people is not trolling.

Your list of what is considered "broken" is ridiculous. Yes, Simulacrum abuse is a problem, needs a fix. But Rope Trick is fine. A "Plot Pretzel" is only necessary if players are somehow using it so much as to become a problem, but the REAL priblem in that scenario is those players, not the spell. Forcecage and Cloudkill are each fine. Using them together likely requires planning and teamwork, and can only be attempted 2 times a day max. After it's been used enough times, the party's enemies will likely become wise to it, and all the BBEGs will have immunity to poison or somesuch. At which point your Forcecage is now just giving them an extra hour to heal any wounds suffered and build up a buff spell suite right before it wears off.

My list is fine. Rope trick abuse, whether it comes from the players or from the spell itself is still a problem with the rules. The rules allow it to happen. The DM must fight against it using Plot Pretzels^tm. If the DM doesn't have animals tracking the party everywhere or casters using detect magic/true sight or time limits, then players can get a short rest after every fight. In fact clever players can get a short rest in the middle of a fight (fog cloud + rope trick). If the DM does try to control it in this manner, it quickly becomes contrived and breaks immersion. "This is the 20th time they've tracked our location down and cast dispel magic on the exact spot of our pocket dimension, I don't buy it."

Force Cage + Cloud Kill only need to be used a once or twice a day because usually you only face a BBEG once per day (or even once per adventure which might take several days). It only requires teamwork if you use the box version and then it only requires another caster to concentrate on a spell that immobilizes the enemy, another caster like the Wizards simulacrum. Short of the BBEG escaping (unlikely) no one will know without using high level divinations so now every high level BBEG must use high level divinations to know who is going against them and their tactics. Force Cage lasting an hour goes both ways, the party gets a free short rest too which will likely benefit them more.

I'm glad you're dropping it, but it would show more maturity if you just admit that you were wrong and the Rogue's capstone ability isn't really "broken". That is why people are accusing you of acting like you "have to be right", by the way.

I attempt to be honest. I still believe its broken. However I'm willing to forgo discussion in favor of other more broken things.

Any BBEG designed to challenge a party over 11th level should damn well have some better defenses that an invisible warrior can't just sneak up on him and assassinate him like it's nothing. That's not me saying "DM should use a 'PlotPretzel'", that's me saying if the players can do that to a BBEG over CR11 (which he SHOULD be over CR 11 if he's a solo fight for an 11+ party), then the DM showed poor planning and almost no forethought.

Yes, so now every BBEG over CR 11 must have defenses against super powered Paladin/Rogue assassination attempts, in addition to all the other twisting we already have going on. Yeah, the players are going to love that one. "I built this character specifically to alpha strike nova, but I never get to do it unless its against a lowly minion."

So now if a DM makes a consistent world where Behir, Horned Devil, Dao, Efreeti, Remorhaz, and Roc don't protect against super powered paladin assassins they are showing "poor planning and almost no forethought." despite all of these having average or lower intelligence most of them being loners and some even being animals? (Note that I skipped creatures that would actually be likely to protect against assassination because they have high intelligence).

Something that is only "broken" or "overpowered" if the DM is a simpleton is not something I am prepared to acknowledge as "broken" objectively. I give people who play this game more credit than that.

While being a simpleton is one reason a DM might not do the twisting to prevent something from becoming a Plot Pretzel^tm, it isn't the only reason or even the most likely.

The most likely reason is that the players and DM just expect the game to work with no more effort than applying the rules, Other reasons can include DMs not realizing its a problem until its too late, Players not realizing they are breaking the game in half, DMs not having the time to deal with it, DMs and players not wanting to use house rules or complicated plot twists, and many more.

Because of the limited scope of that kind of nova. A lot of players LIKE getting ASIs or feats and aren't going to invest 11 levels and get only one out of it. Most players I know pick a class that they like and intend to go all the way up in w/o multiclassing. That's anecdotal, I know, but even most PO optimizers pick a primary class to get the higher level benefits. But more to the point, no one of the individual factors in that example are broken. The Assassin's level 3 feature is not, the Fighter's Superiority Dice are not, the Paladin's Smite is not, nor is the Half-Orc's savagery. That they can be combined like that in ONE SPECIFIC SCENARIO does not mean that any of those features are, in and of themselves, "broken".

The ability to deal 200+ damage in a single round of combat is broken. Even if it requires the player to make a skill check first and roll high on initiative (which they will probably do with a high dex).

What? Do you actually remember what you were replying to? I addressed your point about how if a Wizard polymorphs an ally, you claimed the DPR difference should count as the Wizard's. I say who cares? This isn't WoW where you're using Recount to keep track of things like that and see who's on top. That's absurd.

Part of the problem is that I'm replying to lots of posts at a time and this forum doesn't embed multiple quotes so I have to remember the entire chain of replies for each post I reply to. Then there is the dog piling. However knowing who has what DPR helps point out things that players and DMs will find broken. "I wonder why that player keeps killing my BBEGs, couldn't possibly have anything to do with DPR could it?", "Why does Joe keep outdoing me at what I'm supposed to be best at? I don't get it DM can I make a new character, this one is defective?"

And I read that sentence like I emphasized. The way I read that, it is very clear that a polymorphed creature cannot cast spells.

Wait, are you assuming that the polymorphed person gets access to the spells of their new form? Or that they can only use their existing prepared spells? Because getting access to the spells of the new form is patently ridiculous and akin to the argument I have seen that people think the Changeling (from the Eberron Unearthed Arcana) can turn into a Monster Manual Archmage and have access to all those spells. Which is absurd. How would a polymorphed person have prepared spells in their new form?

Are you even reading the same books as me? I quoted it directly and even highlighted the important part. If the new form can cast spells the TrPo'd player can cast those spells. Its a clear and plain reading of the text. It is discussed here: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questio...eir-class-leve

"The target’s game statistics, including mental ability scores, are replaced by the statistics of the new form"

Are the spells listed in the monster stat block a part of the 'statistics' yep. So they gain the use of those spells.

"The creature is limited in the actions it can perform by the nature of its new form, and it can’t speak, cast spells, or take any other action that requires hands or speech unless its new form is capable of such actions."

Can the new form cast spells? Yep. The creature can use an action to cast a spell. Therefore the player can use an action to cast a spell the creature normally knows. Is its new form capable of casting spells? Yep. Therefore the player can cast spells. How is this hard for you to understand? Is English not your native language? Because if so, we can cut you some slack and help you better understand English.

Because that doesn't bog down combat immensely. Your hit ratio would also be abysmal against CR-appropriate foes. And the skeletons would be incredibly frail. Not to mention you only have 92 of them for one day, because you simulacrum cannot regain spell slots to reassert control over them the next day, and a new simulacrum is not "the individual who created them", and thus cannot assert control over them.

So, once again, terrible tactic, not at all worth all of a level 20 Wizard's level 3+ spell slots.

I've ceded the point that an army of undead is probably not going to happen in a consistent world every day. However Create Undead is like casting Hold Person several times per round, and some of the higher end undead are extremely powerful.

Lolwut?
Ok, going, just for now by the established campaign setting that appears to be the default for 5e (Forgotten Realms)...
All adherents of Kelemvor (and his paladin order, the Doomguides).
All adherents to Sun deities, such as Lathander and Amaunator, both of whom have paladin orders.
All paladin orders dedicated to LG deities (like the Triad, Moradin).
Elves (they detest undead as a violation of the natural order).
Druids (same reason, and you can bet the Emerald Enclave also has some non-druids they could send).

I've already ceded the point. Please read the entire thread before responding so we don't waste space talking about things that no longer matter. mark posts you want to reply to with the multi-quote feature at the bottom right of each post and unmark them if the point was already made.

Also, depending on where you got the bodies you might even piss off some non-heroic types. The Church of Bane would be unforgiving if their cemeteries were violated. I suppose that extends to the Black Network as well. Actually all of the five factions listed in the DMG would be opposed to that, although the Zhents would only if it served their interests or their people's bodies were used for the animation. But the Lord's Alliance, Order of the Gauntlet and ESPECIALLY the Harpers would send agents after such an individual.

And that's just from 5e's "default" setting (given that all the adventures so far have been set there). Not a whole lot of work to put in.

And it wouldn't have to be order that "just hunts down necromancers", any paladin would. All 3 paladin oaths in the PHB have stuff in there that would object to such a mass act of desecratin and creation of evil in the world (remember, all undead have evil alignments and are non longer mindless in this edition).

Again, you could just admit you were wrong. I mentioned that divinations and scrying have been a challenge fo DMs across all editions of D&D. You replied with "divinations were a problem for all editions of D&D (except 4e)". I said "4e had them, too". To which you responded "yeah, but they gave vague answers and could only be used at the highest levels".

The default world of D&D is not the forgotten realms. The forgotten realms is full of high level casters and magic marts. The default setting of D&D as described in the core books has casters as rare and magic items as even rarer. The Forgotten Realms is simply the first campaign setting.

I completely and in every way proved that point of your wrong with facts and documentation and examples as evidence, and you won't just man up and say. "You are right, and on this point I was wrong."

What do you think "Cede the argument" means? I already did that (well partially, there are some rituals that can do that, but most don't).

No, now you want to say that "4e is not relevant to this argument", like you're still trying to pretend that no one remembers that it was YOU who brought up 4e pursuant to this point, and you act like you're afraid to admit you're wrong even on little things like this.

I brought up 4e as an example of balance, easy prep and ease of use for DMs. I did not bring it up for the purposes you are talking about. This is not the "beat 4e up thread". You'll have to find that one somewhere else.

I'm afraid I have to agree with the others that you WILL NOT admit when you are wrong, even when evidence is compiled in front of you. You can claim that you're willing to admit you're wrong when presented with facts, but didn't do so when you were actually presented with facts. I gave you a list of 23 rituals that are divination and/or scrying. Specifically only those that give the caster information or allow remote viewing. 16 of those, more than half, are heroic tier, and only 3 are epic tier, and NOT ONE specifies in the description that the answer was vague. I gave you everything but the sourcebook for each ritual.

You can agree with whoever you want, doesn't make you right. In fact I've ceded a point in this very thread about the undead army. Which means that I withdraw it as a 'broken' part of 5e due to the difficulty of using it in a consistent world. I've been wrong on how several spells work and when someone quoted the relevant text, I've admitted it and changed my view point. Please stop personally attacking me as it is against the forum rules. Instead attack my arguments, facts, statistics, and logic.

The fact that this is a lesser point actually worries me more. Because it makes me feel like (and this is just how I feel, I am not saying this is true) that even if we could somehow complie objective factual evidence that proves you wrong on the larger points that you would not ever admit you are wrong. Why would you? You won't even admit that you were wrong on a lesser one? You feel me?

Nope. I've been proven wrong before and admitted it. At this point you are just trolling.

Fact is that "divinations getting answers to bypass adventures" was one of your original claims about 5e's problems. That is not a valid indictment of 5e's game mechanics, since it's ALWAYS been problematic throughout ALL editions of D&D. A DM just has to be smart and plan for that kind of thing or think fast if he knows his players are taking spells like that. And scrying spells and using magic to divine answers or see the future are classic fantasy tropes that D&D should not abandon nor ignore. There might be plot reasons that such spells won't work (location is lined in lead and can't be scryed on, Mists of Ravenloft prevent divinations from working properly, FR's UNderdark faezress impedes divinations, etc.), but for the most part, a DM must simply be clever. I once used Speak With Dead on a beholder corpse in 3.5e. When I asked it "how many more of your kind are in this dungeon?", the DM-who was very quick on his feet-replied with "more than enough to kill you". Which, given how arrogant beholders are, could have only meant one. DMs need to be able to figure how such spells will affect their campaign. It is not a mechanical problem that needs "fixing" by houserule or otherwise.

Because its been problematic in every edition, does not mean it is not a problem in 5e. It means that it was never fixed. That's all it means. It is still a problem and it is broken because it bypasses any kind of information gathering in an adventure. speak with dead is not the same thing as ask an extra-planar creature who will answer honestly and always know the answer. Still broken.

You have. Repeatedly. Even now in your quoted response above. BBEGs do not "have to" have those traits in order to be challenging or effective, because not all groups are going to use all "exploits", some groups will use none of them. Ergo, Straw Man. Or Argumentum Ad Absurdum. Take your pick.

It is not absurd to think that DMs will use those tactics to pre-empt players from bypassing challenges, nor is it a straw man. It is simply that you would not do that. Other DMs won't use those tactics at all and watch their games be torn apart by the rules as written.

So...the 6th+ level spell slot that the wizard used was effective for maybe one creature in a fight? Outstanding. Wizard did his job.

You are ignoring the math. If a combat lasts 5 rounds then that means 12 of them will paralyze 1-2 creatures per round, for 1-2 rounds each. That is what is known as bypassing an encounter.

No, 9th level slot gets you 6. Not six ADDITIONAL over the 3 basic ones. Read it again.

Now I know you are trolling. Casters have 2x6th, 2x7th, 1x8th, and 1x9th. They can create 6 with their 6th level spells, 8 with their 7th level slots, 10 with their 8th level slot, and 6 with their 9th level slot. That's a grand total of 30 ghouls with all their 6th+ level spell slots per day.

The spell is still doing what it is meant to do. If your players are abusing short rests, then the DM has a problem with his PLAYERS, not the game mechanics they are using as a vehicle for their tactics. If I beat someone with a cane, are canes the problem, or am I the problem?

The mechanics allow it to happen. Without abusable mechanics the players would not rest because its too dangerous. If for instance the spell had a line at the end that said "There is a 33.34% cumulative chance that extra-dimensional creatures are drawn to the pocket dimension after the first casting if it happens within 10 miles of the last casting. The DM will notify you if an extra-dimensional creature enters the pocket dimension." There would be no problem because 2 uses per day in the same area would likely end up as a combat encounter in a very cramped pocket dimension 3 would guarantee it.

Refer to my response about divinations. You do not, in fact, respond to factual evidence presented to you. Rather than admit you were wrong when presented with said facts, you attempted to just switch tracks and say the point was not relevant, even though YOU brought it up. All I did was shut it down, with evidence.

Look, up 'cede the point' and get back to me then stop trolling.

And the Simulacrum example was not about it "going crazy and destroying the Wizard who created it". Obviously, it MUST obey its creator, that's in the RAW. What was pointed out was that A) It's still an intelligent NPC and responds to stimuli appropriately (which might affect it's initial attitude of "friendly"), and B) It is conceivable that using Wish to make itself a real person might be how it thinks is best to fulfill it's master's desires. It was Malifice that added the thing about that process making it evil, but that's entirely up to DM fiat, but is well within the parameters of the effect of a Wish and the leeway granted by a DM.

I was responding to the general idea that has been floated that the simulacrum somehow turns on its master or 'inadvertently' causes them harm, despite being an exact copy minus 1/2 hp. If it gets commanded to do something it is not going to misunderstand. It will obey perfectly because it knows exactly what the caster means, because it is the caster. It won't last long enough to get a divergent personality, it will be gone in 24-48 hours. The main caster is also going to use the Wish spell that the simulacrum has either to make more simulacra or to do some other thing almost immediately after it is created. So it won't have a chance to do that.

And you wonder why I think a Simulacrum might find your orders abusive.

What? You mean 'cast this spell', go fight that monster that I want dead (and therefore you want dead too, since you are me). There's nothing abusive. The original caster might even ask nicely or think about its feelings.

Okay, so now we are right back to the point I made before you brought up the "cage style" bit of Forcecage. Which is that this tactic takes at least 2 rounds to pull off, because most groups only have one arcane caster. Which means he's going to require teamwork and other help from allies to keep the guy from leaving the cloudkill before the forcecage is set up. Teamwork and great tactics SHOULD be rewarded by being successful on occasion, assuming the dice are in their favor as well.

Does no one else find this broken? Even with teamwork a combat should last more than a single round, especially if its a BBEG. What are some other peoples opinions?

Not to mention that this CANNOT be done all the time, like you claim, because a level 20 wizard only has 2 7th level spell slots.

They have 2x7th, 1x8th, 1x9th. That means it can be done 2x a day, which is about the occurrence rate of BBEGs.

Poison Immunity, gained through magical means (including items), or otherwise (10 or more levels in monk, for example).

Go tally up how many creatures in the MM are immune to poison, then figure out the ratio in percent. If its above 35% I'll concede this point too.

You can't use the word you're defining in it's definition. What is "broken" by your claims is game balance. Ergo, my point stands.

You can actually. In this case if the DM does not use changes in plots, the game will be broken, by definition. Therefore to me this is broken because it requires the DM to 'break' the plot or the realism of the world. When the 37th BBEG that is immune to movement penalties and poison shows up it destroys the suspension of disbelief of the players and punishes the player that has these class features. Isn't it just easier to tell the player not to use those two spells together or house rule the spells to not work together?

What lucky roll on a treasure table gets a PC a CON of 24? Or lets them add their CON to their AC?

Magic items. Manual of Bodily Health and others (up to 20, the manual has no limit).
Supernatural Gifts. Blessing (Con bonus up to 22).

Better, actually. Since the deity in question is, by definition of patronage, friendly to the cleric, and not limited in the scope of its power.

It says that it will likely be a spell that is cast determined by the DM.

I didn't say 8 attacks per round "average for the whole day", I said 8 attack per round. Which they do, in fact, get.

Sure but 8 attacks 6 times per day equals less than 1 extra attack per round. (2 action surges, 2 expected short rests per day).

And bringing up the math for the average of the whole day actually HURTS your point, because it makes the Rogue's "auto-success" even less impressive, and LESS "broken" which was the whole point I was making.

This point was ceded a long time ago, please read the thread before responding.

A level 20 wizard with no spell slots for the day, but 100+ CR 1/4 creatures is going to have a bad day. And it's hardly game breaking. But it WILL significantly bog down combat and make the game less fun for all people involved.

You mean a wizard with all their lower level spell slots left? It may not bog down combat if the DM uses the siege/army rules, or if players are fast at rolling a lot of dice and can total up damage from all attacks that hit in seconds since they all go on the casters turn. It also might be fun to the kinds of people that enjoy tactics and war games. You are projecting your personal preference on all people.

Not the way I read polymorph. And again, I'm a little confused if you think a polymorphed DK will be using the wizard's own spells of the DK spells in the MM entry.

How are you confused? Those spells are part of its class features. It gets them. All evidence points toward this and no evidence points toward it not getting them. Its plain English and its all one sentence. How can you not see that the target gets ALL the features of the new form including it spell casting. That sentence makes no sense if the target doesn't get the spell casting of its new form.

First off, where do you get 12 per day? a 9th level slot, of which a 20th level wizard has ONE per day, gets you six. No more. Also, yes, you could spend ALL of your 6th+ slots to get 25, but that is again a waste of more versatile magic.

I'm talking about using the spell slots of 2x6th, 2x7th, 1x8th, and 1x9th, what were you thinking I was talking about?

And yes, the dice are random, but I did FREQUENTLY make use of the word "statistically" and "likely". Going strictly by box-and-whisker graphs that demonstrate the likelihood of numbers in certain ranges popping up. And btw, not all dice ACTUALLY have a 5% chance to show each number, but that's not relevant here.

I showed the statistics with a difficult to hit monster with a high save and a creature that is on the low end of AC and save bonus for CR 11-12. Do the math yourself and you'll find its quite probably that around 20 Ghouls will paralyze more than 1 creature per round. 6 can paralyze the difficult creature and 3 can paralyze the easy creature per round.

It may be a bit childish, but given your handle, this line made me giggle.

Good, someone finally got a joke (though I was simultaneously being serious).

Or they do what I was saying and start a new game with lower level players b/c they can't handle it.

Yes, and many people do this. Its called the E{X} series of house rules like E6 that caps the game at level 6 precisely because the game begins to break down at that level. The popularity of the E series of games actually shows that many people agree that the game is broken.

Or they learn, they grow, and become better DMs for it. All experienced, good DMs have been through their own trials and crucibles to get as good as they are. We all made mistakes at some point. but we learn from them.

Yes, they learn to twist the game world's plot to account for broken mechanics. I agree completely.

At what point in gameplay do you refer? Because at high levels it absolutely IS a feature. More to the point the REAL feature is that game at that level have a MUCH different barometer for game balance, and your failure to see that is why I assumed you had little experience DMing high-level groups.

I used to think like that too. Then I played 4e where that kind of stuff wasn't necessary, where the game just worked and it occurred to me that the reason the game didn't work like that in other editions was that the mechanics were broken and I had been papering over it with twisted plots.

I mean try playing one campaign where all the difficult to deal with spells are just removed from the game. Its very freeing. It saves a lot of time and opens the game up to have things other than super intelligent large sized spell casting creatures as the BBEGs. You can even have a tough little kobold as a BBEG if you want without the game breaking. Its a completely different game.

I did? *looks at my own post* Nope, you WANT me to say that so you can dismiss what I said, but I didn't say that.

You all but said it when you said "I pointed out that YOU believe player power was wildly out of control." Which means you don't believe that.

What I said was that I have experience DMing for high level groups in 3.xe. I pointed out that YOU believe player power was wildly out of control. I successfully navigated the challenges of DMing for a high-level party. I made a few mistakes, but in the end my players had fun and were challenged. The last several fights were very good, and the final battle that closed out the campaign and triggered the epilogue where they players retired those characters (players were 18th level) was extremely challenging for them. High level (20+) Cleric and Wizard NPCs, half a dozen 15th level NPC minions, an Ancient(?) Shadow Dragon, a Mind Flayer (using Psionic Rules) with 10 levels of Psion Uncarnate (permanently incorporeal, manifests as a 19th level Telepath), and one other level 20 NPC which I cannot for the life of me remember. All of them played tactically and viciously. All this in the presence of an artifact that boosted the NPCs spells (destroying this was the party's prime objective). So yes, I can appropriately challenge a high-level party in 3.xe. This was around 2004/2005, so 3.5e was still in full swing, and I know a lot of power creep came out after that, but the point still stands.

Notice how your final battle followed the pattern in my signature? That's a constraint. All BBEGs have to be that way to challenge high level characters, you couldn't have a Barbarin, Fighter, or Rogue as your BBEG without spell casting backup, or artifacts that simulate spell casting. That's fine, but what about your next campaign and the one after that? How many spell casting monsters that are immune to magic will you have to use? How many more times until your players tell you to use something else?

Where do you get off assuming I agree that "a lot" of these things are actually problems? Yes, a gentlemen's agreement is tantamount to a houserule, which I only mentioned in regards to Simulacrum, something that I have admitted FROM THE BEGINNING is a problem.

The fact that you have to twist your plot to take them into account is all that's needed. If they weren't a problem you wouldn't have to change your world to counter them.

Most of your other issues I don't see as problems because I'm a DM who A)considers my players' fun as a high-priority item when I DM and B) is experienced enough to understand that high-level characters should not be judged with the same yardstick of "balance" as low-level ones.

Yes, different play styles and all that, but would it affect your game negatively if you did not have to counter these difficulties and the spells were fixed? If the answer is no, then why argue at all? Why not just admit that it needs a fix of some kind, whether its a Plot Pretzel^tm, a house rule, or a "gentleman's agreement"?

I hated 2e, which is the system I first learned D&D on, but that's neither here nor there.
4e felt as much like D&D as 2e to you. Great. Now please, try to have an open mind and realize that people like you and I who still felt like it was the same great game seem to be in the minority, if opinions voiced on this forum, the old WotC forums, and ENWorld, reddit and many others are an actual indication (which they may not be, but squeaky wheel gets the grease, and "h4ters" were vocal).
Please try and understand the (seemingly) the majority of people did NOT feel like 4e was still D&D. Look at how successful Pathfinder became because people didn't like 4e.

Mostly because it wouldn't be factual. The AngryDM in one of his blogs said he talked to the WotC developers and had it on good authority that all through D&Ds life it has steadily increased in use and sales. This means that 3.x did slightly better than 2e. 4e did slightly better than 3.x and 5e is doing slightly better than 4e. Top selling lists and other sources show this to be true. 4e was plagued by deficits because of their vaporware they paid a company millions for before they went bankrupt.

Pathfinder became popular because they had built up a fan base as producers of Dungeon and Dragon magazines. Then they made a few slight changes to 3.x and released it according to the OGL which was new to 3.x, WotC treated their customers like trash during the transition to 4e. Without any of those things Paizo would not have made pathfinder a success.

It doesn't matter if 4e felt like D&D or not. It mattered because it showed us what was possible. It showed us for the first time that a game could be nearly perfectly balanced and how you can have an easy to prep for game. You could choose anything at all for a BBEG and you didn't have to twist the game up to account for spells working as read.

The main reason 4e didn't feel like D&D is that number crunching doesn't feel like D&D to a lot of people. When you internalize rules they become second nature and you never drop out of role playing mode and into math mode. Because 4e was a game with few rules but many exceptions, it was hard for a lot of people to stay in role playing mental mode when they looked at their character sheets. That was the reason why 4e was reviled. Any mechanics devoid of fluff feel like this. Instead of fixing this by putting the fluff back into the mechanics they threw out the entire edition. They could have had 4e mechanics side by side with 3.x style mechanics. They wasted an opportunity.

That would unreasonably bog down the system because in a lot of ways, the AEDU classes could not be played alongside other ones, like Vancian casters.

So you are saying Warlocks cannot be played next to Wizards in 5e? Because a Warlock is pretty much an AEDU class.

Rubbish. At first level, a wizard was only 5 hp behind a Fighter (plus difference in CON score), and only got 2 hp per level less. Wizards had over 20 hp at level 1, and only seemed like "glass cannons" if they were actually taking hits at all (due to Cloth armor granting a lower AC), which usually meant that party Defender(s) were not doing their job. A good Defender (or two) would keep the clothies from getting hit in the first place. Last 4e game I ran, party striker was a chaos sorc, and it was frequently so difficult to damage him (due to the party defenders being ON POINT), that whole adventure days would go by where he was only hurt by his chaos surge.

There were a number of spells that prevented attacks on a Wizard in 4e. At first level they had access to Thunder Wave (push away), Chill Strike (dazed), Ray of Enfeeblement (minimum damage), Flaming Sphere (move away or get hurt), and Sleep (incapacitate). All of which could be used to prevent the Wizard from taking damage.

However this thread is not about 4e, except where it tangentially shows that you do not need house rules or twisted plots to make the game work.

I have to be honest, but that sounds sloppy as hell. Of course, you only threw out a basic skeleton of an idea, though, and that is just my opinion on it, but it doesn't sound good.

It would work. Some of the 5e classes have parts of this. If they had simply made all sub-classes chosen at the same level they could have a sub-class for each class that used an AEDU system. A simple way to implement this for spell casters is that they get 1 spell slot per spell level that they can use to prepare 2 spells per level. They can choose to prepare an encounter version or daily version. The encounter versions effectiveness is reduced by 1/2 and its duration is reduced to 1 round. So a spell like Sleep as an encounter spell would only affect 1/2 the hp rolled and it would wear off in 1 round. This would make it affect 1-2 low hp creatures at a time, which could then be woken up by their buddies, but would cost them an action to do so.

Hmmm.... This looks familiar.

Oh yes. There it is.

You don't see the difference? One is stating unequivocally that I was wrong. I'm stating that I THINK the other person is wrong. I'm open to being proven wrong on that point through facts, logic, and statistics, the other person is not. They have already came to a conclusion.

The spell does not say you can make any item; it lists specifically the kinds of items you can make. And why are you ignoring the text in the DMG I've already pointed out that explicitly states the DM decides how PCs can get magic items?

You have yet to point out anything in the DMG that explicitly states that a DM can control whether magic items appear in their game. What you have shown is that DMs control whether magic items show up in shops or in treasure hoards. Without house ruling the DM cannot totally ban magic items because spells like Magic Weapon exist that make a weapon magical for a time.

[NewDM]

Because he has no response to that that will allow him to maintain his stance. And as long as he ignores what you said and doesn't respond to it, a few pages down the thread he will be able to re-state his initial claim, pretending you never de-bunked his point. I've seen this kind of thing before. Not from him, but from other forum-dwellers.

It's the same kind of thing where he wouldn't admit he was wrong when I debunked his divination point. He "conceded the point, but only because this part isn't relevant", instead of just saying, "oh, good point, I was mistaken".

Just stop. You are not only insulting me. You are breaking forum rules when you reply saying what I think.

And I responded to it. I am also not other forum dwellers. No debunking took place.

[georgie_leech]

That's because the world is a consistent believable world. The Wizard that has a tower full of beasties, traps, and challenges is not going to put more than a standard lock on his treasure vault because anyone that can bypass all of that will get past a locked door like its nothing, plus they will be out of money by that point.

Or, you know, not, because as the DM you decide how many resources they have, and "enough to have a tower full of beasties, traps, and challenges but not enough for a decent lock" seems an arbitrary cutoff point.

"Appropriate for high levels" is subjective. If you mean I don't twist my world into Plot Pretzels^tm then what you just did is a circular argument: Why don't you Twist your world into Plot Pretzels^tm to bypass broken bits so that your world is consistent for high level players, which is the only way to play with high level players because to keep the game from breaking you have to use Plot Pretzels^tm.

"Oh no! The Demon Lords are invading and the adventurers need to go invade their castle in depths of the abyss, encountering many fiendish traps and enemies that require multiple rolls instead of being protected by a single lock!"

"The adventurers have decided to claim a stretch of wilderness as their own to make it safe for peaceful villagers! Can they convince the Ancient Red Dragon to leave peacefully so as to not incur his wrath against the villages?"

"An evil cult has been manipulating two rival nations into increasingly hostile relations! Can they interact with many diverse personalities to find a peaceful solution before it erupts into all out war?"

You're right, totally twisted plots there. Truly, the only way to have interesting challenges into make things totally unbelievable. Woe is us DM's, constrained to either have the Players stomp all over our wonderful worlds with their high level abilities, or to have fiendishly complex things for them to do.

[smcmike]

The Creation spell specifies it can make 'any' item you've seen.

No, it doesn't.

[JoeJ]

Intelligence is rare. The ability to gather info on the players' characters, then use that info to plan for the characters in particular (short of a recurring villain) and then hit the players' safe houses and be one step ahead of the players at every turn is what I mean by Moriarty level intelligence in my signature. You can pull that off once maybe twice in 20 levels before the players start losing their suspension of disbelief or their verisimilitude breaks.

Let me get this straight. Having high level BBEGs who have the requisite abilities and intelligence to actually become high level BBEGs in a living breathing world breaks verisimilitude for you? You're complaint seems to be that if you create villains who are easily beaten the players will beat them easily.

You have yet to point out anything in the DMG that explicitly states that a DM can control whether magic items appear in their game.

This is flatly untrue. I have indeed pointed it out, and even quoted the text on p. 128, as I will here again: "Magic items are the DM's purview, so you decide how they fall into the party's possession."

[Shaofoo]

Different people keep saying different things, its hard to keep them straight what with the dog piling. Seriously people (in general) read the entire thread and if your point was already made don't reiterate it again. Use the multi-quote system to mark posts you want to respond to, then unmark them when you find they were already replied to.

I have said different things to you and only responded to things that you directly said to me. Like I said it isn't dogpiling if I am referring to you and you to me unless you are telling me to shut up.

The DM can do whatever they want, but the assumption is that most DMs and new DMs will keep pretty close to the guidelines in the DMG, because they want less work not more. Yes and 'no rubies' takes several spells out of the game. Which is worse than just saying "don't abuse Simulacrum"

The assumption is that the DM does what the DM does. There is no assumption that the DM will follow anything in the DMG. There is nothing that says that DMs should follow treasure tables or roll for loot at all. And even if he does roll for loot there is nothing that says that he can't modify the tables.

And I said before no rubies is a RAW way to limit or even ban the spell, it isn't a good thing but it is good if house rules makes you go into shock. Maybe the DM is fine letting you find a few rubies to make your pet but doesn't want you to have a disposable PC to do whatever you want without risk, he wants you to actually take care of your toys and not break them.

I've played 2e to 4e at the highest levels. I have not got there in 5e yet. I'm currently at about level 5, where I'm currently showing up a champion fighter and matching a GWM Totem Barbarian.

That says nothing about what i said at all, not even a little bit. I"ll just take this that you understand that it is an asinine situation that someone that wishes to do something will go 20 levels not doing it and then have a problem with it.

No. I was stating that people did say they would make them hard or impossible to find. I then explained how 'hard to find' isn't really a limiter in a living world. Hard to find equates to more time and more gold to get them, but that's about it at higher levels. I gave examples to help people understand my point. If the DM just flat out said "no" then it wouldn't make sense and would be a Plot Pretzel^tm.

So yep, Plot Pretzel is "Stuff that NewDM doesn't like". Good to have clarification.

You assume that worlds must have rubies because... I don't know, why is it that worlds must have rubies again? See this is why I say that Plot Pretzel is a meaningless meme, you can't even explain a good reason why would a world should keep a bunch of gems stockpiled so I can only assume that Plot Pretzel just has anything that you don't want. The words themselves are meaningless because you are using such minor points in the world to make your stand that I can't think you are being serious. So any world that doesn't have rubies for whatever reason is too hard to fathom existing? Or can I take my definition because that makes much more sense?

You can't be sure of another persons intent, and you can take anything as an insult:
Guy "You look nice today."
Girl "Oh, so I didn't look nice all the other days?"

You should probably lighten up and stop assuming everyone is attacking you personally.

It was not an insult on my end. If you took it as an insult, I'm sorry that you did.

I find this very amusing, coming from the guy that said that telling you to play another game because this game wasn't for you is an insult.

Maybe you should take your own advice. Or maybe I should use your own words and say you are breaking the rules because you have insulted me.

Everyone loves memes, for the most part.

No, memes are dumb as you can see in this very forum. Unless humor at your expense is on the table but even then that isn't funny at all.

Change it to: The Fighter lost a tavern bet with the Wizard in the space of 10 minutes, and thus lost his ride. Why are you needlessly complicating things?

Because it doesn't work, I am not complicating things I am applying logic and reasoning, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny as I said because things has to lead up to the event. Especially someone who might not even do something so foolish as bet all his money at once. You'd need to have a specific Fighter for it to work and I can't believe that any Fighter would be willing to blow his money on a stupid bet unless he has a gambling problem. Plus I would think a tavern bet would be a few gold pieces, not enough to buy a mount.

No. You said in your world that wouldn't work despite the average Intelligence and Wisdom of the Fighter. I gave an alternative that would work because it only changes 1 event in 10 minutes and remains consistent with the rest of the fighters memories. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

It won't work because the text itself says that a memory that is nonsensical the creature won't believe at all, no checks to disbelieve he just won't.

Like I said you are changing your position all over the place just to seem that you are right, you started out that the Fighter is the Wizard's mount and now you are saying that the Fighter is betting money enough money at once to lose to the Wizard. You sure are putting a lot of thought into this for the express purpose of giving players grief.

[Regitnui]

No, it doesn't.

Don't get him started again. He'll go around the whole circle again for no better reason than proving his "logic, statistics and RAW" against common sense, fun and RAI.

[mgshamster]

You don't see the difference? One is stating unequivocally that I was wrong. I'm stating that I THINK the other person is wrong. I'm open to being proven wrong on that point through facts, logic, and statistics, the other person is not. They have already came to a conclusion.

Of course, it's totally different when you do it, and completely not the height of hypocrisy.

[JoeJ]

It won't work because the text itself says that a memory that is nonsensical the creature won't believe at all, no checks to disbelieve he just won't.

Rather than arguing about it, I'd just ask the player if their character would find this altered memory plausible.

[smcmike]

Don't get him started again. He'll go around the whole circle again for no better reason than proving his "logic, statistics and RAW" against common sense, fun and RAI.

He used (single) quotes, indicating he was actually using language from the spell, when he was not. It's worth calling out errors like that.

I actually enjoy NewDM's schtick, and although I generally disagree with him, he's made a few good points.

The wall of text is getting to be a bit much though.

[Temperjoke]

Don't get him started again. He'll go around the whole circle again for no better reason than proving his "logic, statistics and RAW" against common sense, fun and RAI.

At this point, I think NewDM is seeing this as an endurance marathon, and the last one standing wins.

[mgshamster]

He used (single) quotes, indicating he was actually using language from the spell, when he was not. It's worth calling out errors like that.

I actually enjoy NewDM's schtick, and although I generally disagree with him, he's made a few good points.

The wall of text is getting to be a bit much though.

The wall of text is because he has a habit of responding to every little thing other people say.

And then complains that every person he quoted responded to him. When you quote 15 different people, you can't complain that those 15 different people respond back.

[JoeJ]

Well no. You just need a bit of clarification in general. Sometimes it's entirely reasonable to want to do a thing. For example, setting a chicken on the roof of a castle, and casting true polymorph to flood the castle with lava.

There are entirely reasonable uses of a power that open ended that don't necessarily include world domination but at the same time... well kind of cause issues.

Wish puts the limit for creating matter at 25,000 gp value in value and 300 ft. in any dimension, and specifies that it has to be in an unoccupied space on the ground that you can see. Using those same limits for TP sounds reasonable to me.

[INDYSTAR188]

This entire debate reminds me of this showdown on Venture Bros. I'm not sure who here is Augustus St. Cloud and who's Quizboy but the level of semantics we've gotten to is impressive. I can say for my part I'm going to discuss some of the issues brought up here with my players and find a comfortable resolution, we're way far away from most of the big spells in any case.

http://www.adultswim.com/videos/the-...ecial-edition/

[Grod_The_Giant]

In conclusion,

• 5e has some very open-ended spells (Creation, True Polymorph, etc), which require a certain amount of adjudication to keep things sane
• Simulacrum is straight ridiculous.
• Skills aren't mathematically reliable or well-defined; have a conversation about what different DCs mean and how you intend to handle rolling checks (especially contests or situations where everyone can try).

Am I missing anything? I feel like we talked about other stuff before vanishing down s RAW-argument rabbit hole, but I can't remember if we came up with anything interesting useful. (Beyond my own complaint, at least; I'm sure there were more but, well, memory)

[Shaofoo]

In conclusion,

• 5e has some very open-ended spells (Creation, True Polymorph, etc), which require a certain amount of adjudication to keep things sane
• Simulacrum is straight ridiculous.
• Skills aren't mathematically reliable or well-defined; have a conversation about what different DCs mean and how you intend to handle rolling checks (especially contests or situations where everyone can try).

Am I missing anything? I feel like we talked about other stuff before vanishing down s RAW-argument rabbit hole, but I can't remember if we came up with anything interesting useful. (Beyond my own complaint, at least; I'm sure there were more but, well, memory)

Don't get defensive at the prospect of house rules, because the RAW version might make things worse in the long run.

House rules are your friend, they are for the benefit of all (if they aren't that is a DM problem).

Never think that the internet slapfights that go on here is indicative of real life.

Don't be a male genitalia.

[2D8HP]

That's a play style choice. Some DMs (like me) make a living breathing world that doesn't care if the players survive (let alone their characters). If the players want their characters to survive, they better be clever and use their class features well. They should run from the Ancient Red Dragon at level 5.

IF THEY JUST LISTEN TO THE TALKING BIRD THEN THEY CAN STAND THEIR GROUND PEOPLE! (The Hobbit jokes make me laugh but not as much, as the Orcs play D&D posts in this thread).

Again, not an insult. It was a joke.

I like about 70% of 5E, and about 60% of all other systems I've used (my only problem with 4e is the long combats, but that's about 40% of the game). Therefore 5e is the closest thing to what I'll play right now.

I do not like house rules for good reason. I play in a lot of pickup games, online games, and event games. Meaning I constantly play with new players and DMs all the time that I do not know. This means each time I have to familiarize myself with their rules.


I don't understand why people are still arguing about this. If they were to make the game more balanced by getting rid of these problems, the people that like the mechanics would be happy, those that don't care about the mechanics would house rule like they always do to fix this stuff and everyone is still happy. Just why?

Yes, the point of this thread is "how many house rules does 5e need?" a gentlemen's agreement is a house rule, and you have to make one that either covers all the problems or a unique one for each problem. So do you admit house ruling is necessary for a lot of these problems?


I loved 2e. So I think that about 70% of 5E is 'nice'. The other 30% is flat out horrible. They overreacted and threw out most of what 4E had going for it, in a misguided attempt to make 5e 'feel' like D&D. 4E felt as much like D&D to me as 2E and 3.x. If there was a problem they should have identified it and then implemented 5e in a modular format so every play style could plug their modules in and play the game they wanted all while using the same vocabulary to make it where you only need one adventure to play.

I am not trying to "toxicity" the thread, please let me know if I am. I do hope that the Forum lightens up some though.
In every edition of D&D that I've played on the fly rulings or "house rules" have been needed, just so that play wasn't interrupted by constantly looking up the rules. I am amazed and impressed that anyone who does not make a living at it can possibly memorize enough of the 5e RAW (over 300 pages in the PHB alone!) that there has been so much arguing!
We all post and read at this Forum that host's a web comic that both celebrates and makes fun of D&D, so what seems like serious sounding acrimony over rules puzzles and saddens me.

[mgshamster]

In conclusion,

• 5e has some very open-ended spells (Creation, True Polymorph, etc), which require a certain amount of adjudication to keep things sane
• Simulacrum is straight ridiculous.
• Skills aren't mathematically reliable or well-defined; have a conversation about what different DCs mean and how you intend to handle rolling checks (especially contests or situations where everyone can try).

Am I missing anything? I feel like we talked about other stuff before vanishing down s RAW-argument rabbit hole, but I can't remember if we came up with anything interesting useful. (Beyond my own complaint, at least; I'm sure there were more but, well, memory)

Don't get defensive at the prospect of house rules, because the RAW version might make things worse in the long run.

House rules are your friend, they are for the benefit of all (if they aren't that is a DM problem).

Never think that the internet slapfights that go on here is indicative of real life.

Don't be a male genitalia.

I think these two sum up the lessons of the thread. Good recap, guys.

[NewDM]

Or, you know, not, because as the DM you decide how many resources they have, and "enough to have a tower full of beasties, traps, and challenges but not enough for a decent lock" seems an arbitrary cutoff point.

Sure, if in your world NPCs have unlimited wealth, then that works for you. For those of us with an economy and granting wealth based on the DMG wealth by level (or CR in this case) that try to create a reasonable world that works independently of the players. The idea isn't that there is a locked door at the end of the dungeon, but that the dungeon falls within a certain budget which does not include a lock. If they have the lock they have to get rid of that gelatinous cube, or that poison dart trap, or that riddle locked door that only the Wizard knows the answer to, because it goes over their budget.

I know some DMs tailor the world to their players and have 7th level BBEGs running around with adamantine golems costing 100k each, but I try to keep things reasonable.

"Oh no! The Demon Lords are invading and the adventurers need to go invade their castle in depths of the abyss, encountering many fiendish traps and enemies that require multiple rolls instead of being protected by a single lock!"

Good thing the Wizard can teleport them past all that stuff and go right to the boss room, since forbiddance is not on any demon spell list.

"The adventurers have decided to claim a stretch of wilderness as their own to make it safe for peaceful villagers! Can they convince the Ancient Red Dragon to leave peacefully so as to not incur his wrath against the villages?"

Or simply wear down the dragons defenses with spells until they use True Polymorph to turn it into a newt for eternity.

"An evil cult has been manipulating two rival nations into increasingly hostile relations! Can they interact with many diverse personalities to find a peaceful solution before it erupts into all out war?"

Meteor Swarm on the leaders of the evil cult. Found out by divinations, and teleported to.

You're right, totally twisted plots there. Truly, the only way to have interesting challenges into make things totally unbelievable. Woe is us DM's, constrained to either have the Players stomp all over our wonderful worlds with their high level abilities, or to have fiendishly complex things for them to do.

Is blue the sarcasm color? I usually just put the small amused smiley after it.

You are totally right, casters can't bypass those challenges with a spell or three, and be back in time for lunch.

Let me get this straight. Having high level BBEGs who have the requisite abilities and intelligence to actually become high level BBEGs in a living breathing world breaks verisimilitude for you? You're complaint seems to be that if you create villains who are easily beaten the players will beat them easily.

Or you can read my posts and realize that a lot of BBEGs simply don't have the stats to back that up. A lot of them have Intelligence and Wisdom scores that are average, meaning they aren't going to be smart enough to do that. Some are even wild animals that react on instinct. They certainly aren't going to protect themselves in that way. The only reason some of these things are BBEGs is because they are really powerful, but not smart.

This is flatly untrue. I have indeed pointed it out, and even quoted the text on p. 128, as I will here again: "Magic items are the DM's purview, so you decide how they fall into the party's possession."

That's the first good quote I've seen. However its in reference to creating magic items and follows the random treasure generation part of the chapter. It can also mean "in addition to the normal methods of using creation and other spells, magic items are the DM's purview, so you decide how they fall into the party's possession."

A better argument would be that you must have seen the magic item in the first place and if the DM never gives one as treasure and never lets the players buy one, then they can't use Creation to make one. No one even mentions that. However if the DM gives a player a +3 Holy Avenger, Creation can in fact make another one for 1 hour (because say, the EDK [Evil Dragon King] had someone steal it from the paladin, won't he be surprised).

I have said different things to you and only responded to things that you directly said to me. Like I said it isn't dogpiling if I am referring to you and you to me unless you are telling me to shut up.

Its dog piling (or shotgun fallacy if you prefer) when multiple posters (you included) bring the same points up and then require a response to each one. I only have a specific amount of time on my hands.

The assumption is that the DM does what the DM does. There is no assumption that the DM will follow anything in the DMG. There is nothing that says that DMs should follow treasure tables or roll for loot at all. And even if he does roll for loot there is nothing that says that he can't modify the tables.

Now you are in lala land. The DMG is literally made to guide DMs on how to run the game. Most DMs are going to follow the DMG because its the first point of reference for running the game. If you don't, then that's great. Others will.

And I said before no rubies is a RAW way to limit or even ban the spell, it isn't a good thing but it is good if house rules makes you go into shock. Maybe the DM is fine letting you find a few rubies to make your pet but doesn't want you to have a disposable PC to do whatever you want without risk, he wants you to actually take care of your toys and not break them.

More than a few situational house rules are bad. Twisting the game up into knots to prevent players using class features as described by RAW is even worse. That is my opinion. Others might not care at all about one or the other.

That says nothing about what i said at all, not even a little bit. I"ll just take this that you understand that it is an asinine situation that someone that wishes to do something will go 20 levels not doing it and then have a problem with it.

No, its about a player that built their character around an idea "best lock picker in the world" and then the DM bypassed the ability of the character to dominate at lock picking by not having locks on doors (or chests) in order to keep the game working. They started with the maximum possible bonus and then it increased as they leveled up. They didn't just suddenly start at 20 and decide to be a master lock picker. The amount of twistery to prevent understanding my points is getting ridiculous.

So yep, Plot Pretzel is "Stuff that NewDM doesn't like". Good to have clarification.

Nope, read the signature. People will have different tolerances, but at some point DMs will have to twist the plot into knots to prevent a spell or mechanic from breaking the game. If you do this, you are making a Plot Pretzel^tm. It has nothing to do with my likes or dislikes.

You assume that worlds must have rubies because... I don't know, why is it that worlds must have rubies again? See this is why I say that Plot Pretzel is a meaningless meme, you can't even explain a good reason why would a world should keep a bunch of gems stockpiled so I can only assume that Plot Pretzel just has anything that you don't want. The words themselves are meaningless because you are using such minor points in the world to make your stand that I can't think you are being serious. So any world that doesn't have rubies for whatever reason is too hard to fathom existing? Or can I take my definition because that makes much more sense?

Worlds must have rubies because spells depend on them and not just Simulacrum. They must have rubies because those dang adventurers keep finding them in the treasures generated by the treasure tables in the DMG and there is no specific rule that says they aren't. Now you can twist your game world into a knot to avoid the problem by making your world not have chromium in it, or you can just house rule the spell to not chain or bypass Wishes limitations. Its your choice.

I find this very amusing, coming from the guy that said that telling you to play another game because this game wasn't for you is an insult.

It is an insult:

Me: "Hey guys, I love this new game, but it has a few things that could be a problem at higher levels and I'm seeing some disparity with casters and non-casters."

Other Poster: "Quit complaining or go play another game."

Maybe not a direct insult, but rude at the very least.

Maybe you should take your own advice. Or maybe I should use your own words and say you are breaking the rules because you have insulted me.

There is a huge distinction between believing someone is incorrect and telling them flat out they are wrong. Believing someone is wrong can be remedied with facts, logic, statistics, and discussion. When someone flat out states you are wrong, they aren't discussing anything.

No, memes are dumb as you can see in this very forum. Unless humor at your expense is on the table but even then that isn't funny at all.

You personally feel that memes are dumb. Many others pepper their posts liberally with memes all the time. I was trying to be amusing. My intent wasn't to annoy you. I mean Plot Pretzels^tm annoy the snot out of me so when people bring them up I'm not amused either, but I don't start a flame war when I see them.

Also humor at my expense is on the table as long as people can separate that humor from my more serious points. Many seem unable to do this and not a single person has pointed out that you shouldn't kill your players, but instead kill their characters. So my jokes do fall flat a lot.

Because it doesn't work, I am not complicating things I am applying logic and reasoning, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny as I said because things has to lead up to the event. Especially someone who might not even do something so foolish as bet all his money at once. You'd need to have a specific Fighter for it to work and I can't believe that any Fighter would be willing to blow his money on a stupid bet unless he has a gambling problem. Plus I would think a tavern bet would be a few gold pieces, not enough to buy a mount.

If the fighter wouldn't do that then the Wizard would use a different false memory that would be believable. The point is that the Wizard can use alter memory to gain access to the mount. Unless this is another Plot Pretzel^tm moment (brought to you by Grognard's Are Us) where the spell is not worth taking because the DM will always declare the memory unreasonable?

It won't work because the text itself says that a memory that is nonsensical the creature won't believe at all, no checks to disbelieve he just won't.

Like I said you are changing your position all over the place just to seem that you are right, you started out that the Fighter is the Wizard's mount and now you are saying that the Fighter is betting money enough money at once to lose to the Wizard. You sure are putting a lot of thought into this for the express purpose of giving players grief.

My position hasn't changed. My examples have. My position is that the Fighter can be convinced in some way that the mount is the Wizards via use of the Modify Memory spell. Your point is that the spell simply doesn't work ever, am I wrong?

Don't get him started again. He'll go around the whole circle again for no better reason than proving his "logic, statistics and RAW" against common sense, fun and RAI.

Nope. What people consider common sense is far from common, because logic is common sense codified into easy to follow rules.

At this point, I think NewDM is seeing this as an endurance marathon, and the last one standing wins.

Nope, just countering the shotgun fallacy tactic. If I get inundated with walls of text, I reply with as much text as was sent my way. If you don't want this, make sure you don't repeat points that were already brought up and only respond to things that are serious. No need to start semantic wars.

In conclusion,

• 5e has some very open-ended spells (Creation, True Polymorph, etc), which require a certain amount of adjudication to keep things sane
• Simulacrum is straight ridiculous.
• Skills aren't mathematically reliable or well-defined; have a conversation about what different DCs mean and how you intend to handle rolling checks (especially contests or situations where everyone can try).

Am I missing anything? I feel like we talked about other stuff before vanishing down s RAW-argument rabbit hole, but I can't remember if we came up with anything interesting useful. (Beyond my own complaint, at least; I'm sure there were more but, well, memory)

Yes, True Polymorph is anything but open ended. By any reading of the spell you get all the features of the new form including spells and speech, if it has spells and speech. It either requires a house rule or a Plot Pretzel^tm to keep from breaking the game. This is because an equal CR to level creature is meant to challenge around 4 characters of the same level. You can permanently (until dispelled or dropped to 0 hp) turn into a creature that is meant to challenge 4 of you. The Wizard can do this to each character that wants it once per day unless they lose their form, then they must use their slot to repolymorph themselves into a nice form.

Simulacrum is similar it requires twisted plots and reading into the spell things that are just not there (if this doesn't work with Creation, it does not work with Simulacrum) or house rules to prevent abuse.

[Shaofoo]

Its dog piling (or shotgun fallacy if you prefer) when multiple posters (you included) bring the same points up and then require a response to each one. I only have a specific amount of time on my hands.

You respond to each one individually and I don't know which points have been said or not already since you reply in kind. Maybe you should bunch up all the same topics in one response, I am not responsible for the people that you wish to discuss. I do not care about your time like I am sure you do not care about mine, this is a forum you have all the time in the world to formulate your response.

Now you are in lala land. The DMG is literally made to guide DMs on how to run the game. Most DMs are going to follow the DMG because its the first point of reference for running the game. If you don't, then that's great. Others will.

There is a huge difference between a DM following the DMG and the DM having to follow the DMG. And like I said this is no justification for saying that rubies exist in the world either. Please keep on point.

Also thanks for that little insult right there, really appreciate it.

More than a few situational house rules are bad. Twisting the game up into knots to prevent players using class features as described by RAW is even worse. That is my opinion. Others might not care at all about one or the other.

There is nothing twisting about my methods. You don't have to like it but I think it is straightforward and to the point.

And like I said house rules are good for the game if the DM is mindful of things. Sure one shouldn't just try to house rule everything that one doesn't like either, there has to be a balance.

No, its about a player that built their character around an idea "best lock picker in the world" and then the DM bypassed the ability of the character to dominate at lock picking by not having locks on doors (or chests) in order to keep the game working. They started with the maximum possible bonus and then it increased as they leveled up. They didn't just suddenly start at 20 and decide to be a master lock picker. The amount of twistery to prevent understanding my points is getting ridiculous.

If the Rogue couldn't lock pick and he really wanted to do so why did he wait till level 20 to raise a stink. This isn't twisting this is just plain common sense. It'd be like saying that you can't cast magic but you still level up as a Wizard and only at level 20 do you ask why can't you cast magic.

Really I am not twisting anything, but I sure don't know what is your point.

Nope, read the signature. People will have different tolerances, but at some point DMs will have to twist the plot into knots to prevent a spell or mechanic from breaking the game. If you do this, you are making a Plot Pretzel^tm. It has nothing to do with my likes or dislikes.

You have been throwing that term around so much that even when you actually say the meaning it is meaningless. You were saying it is a plot pretzel when one material is removed from the world (justified or otherwise) so I can only assume that it means what I say because I can't think of a plot where rubies are front and center that couldn't be changed with some other gemstone.

Worlds must have rubies because spells depend on them and not just Simulacrum. They must have rubies because those dang adventurers keep finding them in the treasures generated by the treasure tables in the DMG and there is no specific rule that says they aren't. Now you can twist your game world into a knot to avoid the problem by making your world not have chromium in it, or you can just house rule the spell to not chain or bypass Wishes limitations. Its your choice.

Fallacious statements the both of them.

Saying that worlds need rubies because the spells needs them is meaningless, just because a spell exists doesn't mean that the materials for the spell has to exist. The materials could have run out and thus left with dud spells. It is like saying if there are cars then that means that gasoline must exist, in a world where fossil fuels have been utterly depleted.

And the tables is just you trying to pull hairs at this point. Tables are for the DM's benefit he can change or not even use them as he sees fit. Some DMs have great pride in not rolling for treasure and put every single piece of loot being mindful, if you can tell me somewhere that directly says that the worlds needs rubies then you'd have a point but as it stands rubies are not guaranteed not by the PHB or DMG.

It is an insult:

Me: "Hey guys, I love this new game, but it has a few things that could be a problem at higher levels and I'm seeing some disparity with casters and non-casters."

Other Poster: "Quit complaining or go play another game."

Maybe not a direct insult, but rude at the very least.

Yeah I didn't say that but that is besides the point, take your own advice first and maybe don't be so touchy.

There is a huge distinction between believing someone is incorrect and telling them flat out they are wrong. Believing someone is wrong can be remedied with facts, logic, statistics, and discussion. When someone flat out states you are wrong, they aren't discussing anything.

It is kinda hard to have a discussion when you liberally ignore points that I raise as well. Maybe you believe I am telling you that you are wrong because you aren't reading what I have to say and instead just goes for the reply without actually reading it

You personally feel that memes are dumb. Many others pepper their posts liberally with memes all the time. I was trying to be amusing. My intent wasn't to annoy you. I mean Plot Pretzels^tm annoy the snot out of me so when people bring them up I'm not amused either, but I don't start a flame war when I see them.

Also humor at my expense is on the table as long as people can separate that humor from my more serious points. Many seem unable to do this and not a single person has pointed out that you shouldn't kill your players, but instead kill their characters. So my jokes do fall flat a lot.

Friendly tip: If you want people to take you seriously don't try to use jokes, makes some people think you are a troll in the later stages of discussion. And I seriously doubt you mean that.

If the fighter wouldn't do that then the Wizard would use a different false memory that would be believable. The point is that the Wizard can use alter memory to gain access to the mount. Unless this is another Plot Pretzel^tm moment (brought to you by Grognard's Are Us) where the spell is not worth taking because the DM will always declare the memory unreasonable?

You are playing Fighter, Wizard and DM in your examples. You are basically contriving the situation so it must work in your head. It cannot work if anything changes, you sure can't just take the Modify Memory spell and try that on an NPC (lets say NPC unless you truly are the kind of person who would grief players) without knowing what is up with that NPC. Modify Memory actually requires some forethought because it must all make sense or none of it does. Modify Memory is not mind control.

Also this is a perfect example why I don't believe your definition of Plot Pretzel, you are literally saying that how another player would play his character (this is a fighter) or how the DM says the character reacts is a plot pretzel even though the spell says directly that there is no compulsion for the victim to follow the memory, he doesn't have to act on it if he thinks that there is something nonsensical about his memory.

My position hasn't changed. My examples have. My position is that the Fighter can be convinced in some way that the mount is the Wizards via use of the Modify Memory spell. Your point is that the spell simply doesn't work ever, am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong.

Can it work? Yes it could technically work but you will have to make it believable, you handwave making it believable by making the situation itself so contrived that the Wizard had to do no effort on his part at all. It works because you say it works not because it is the logical end of a situation, especially when it working depends on another person (DM or player... do you really think that a player would let you do that to his character?)

So while the Fighter could be convinced you haven't given a good enough example, nor I care to hear it actually.

[krugaan]

{Scrubbed}