[Sell Me] 5e. A game for a grognard?

[OverLordOcelot]

Speaking of cognitive experiences... the game fiction is better in 2E...
In AD&D you'd probably just read the descriptions for all the saving throws and settle on it being a saving throw vs. paralyzation/poison/death magic, because it most closely matches that description.
This illustrates perfectly the difference between 5E complexity and AD&D complexity: AD&D has more tables and more emphasis on the game fiction, and more variety of mechanical resolutions (which helps it match certain fictions better).

Is "pick an arbitrary line from a table" actually what is meant by good game fiction? I really don't get how 'make a saving throw that has nothing to do with the character's constitution but does depend highly on class and level to determine how long you go without water' supports better game fiction. The idea that clerics inherently survive better without water than fighters even though fighters do more physical training (and can get more benefit from constitution normally), but magic users survive worse even though they're not wearing heavy armor and presumably are not physically exerting themselves as much seem weird from a game fiction perspective. And the fact that a high level fighter or cleric can last almost indefinitely without water (failing the roll only on a 1 or 2) but a magic user or rogue can't because their saves top out higher makes for some really odd fiction.

I find most of the '1e/2e was better' claims tend to involve completely ditching the game rules and making an arbitrary ruling, which isn't edition dependent. The fact that the default action is not to use any published rule but just to do an arbitrary save says a lot about how the game was played in practice vs theory. (there definitely were dehydration rules in the Dungeoneers and Wilderness Survival Guides, though oddly there were none in the 2nd edition DMG even though the 2e PHB refers to them). It's the same way people say that 1e 'to hit' determination was easier to do for large groups than 5e; any rule system is easy to apply to a large group if you completely ignore the majority of the rules involved like weapon length on opening round, speed factor vs speed factor later, weapon vs armor type every round.

[MaxWilson]

Is "pick an arbitrary line from a table" actually what is meant by good game fiction? ... The fact that the default action is not to use any published rule but just to do an arbitrary save

Calm down. That is the published rule. It's right there in the definition of what the paralyzation/petrification/death saving throw represents.

Saving Throw Priority
Sometimes the type of saving throw required by a situation or item isn’t clear, or more than one category of saving throw may seem appropriate. For this reason, the saving throw categories in Table 60 are listed in order of importance, beginning with paralyzation, poison, and death magic, and ending with spells.

Imagine that Rath is struck by the ray from a wand of polymorphing. Both a saving throw vs. wands and a saving throw vs. polymorph would be appropriate. But Rath must roll a saving throw vs. wands because that category has a higher priority than polymorph.

The categories of saving throws are as follows:

Save vs. Paralyzation, Poison, and Death Magic: This is used whenever a character is affected by a paralyzing attack (regardless of source), poison (of any strength), or certain spells and magical items that otherwise kill the character outright (as listed in their descriptions). This saving throw can also be used in situations in which exceptional force of will or physical fortitude are needed.

Save vs. Rod, Staff, or Wand: As its name implies, this is used whenever a character is affected by the powers of a rod, staff, or wand, provided another save of higher priority isn’t called for. This saving throw is sometimes specified for situations in which a character faces a magical attack from an unusual source.

Save vs. Petrification or Polymorph: This is used any time a character is turned to stone (petrified) or polymorphed by a monster, spell, or magical item (other than a wand). It can also be used when the character must withstand some massive physical alteration of his entire body.

Save vs. Breath Weapon: A character uses this save when facing monsters with breath weapons, particularly the powerful blast of a dragon. This save can also be used in situations where a combination of physical stamina and Dexterity are critical factors in survival.

Save vs. Spell: This is used whenever a character attempts to resist the effects of a magical attack, either by a spellcaster or from a magical item, provided no other type of saving throw is specified. This save can also be used to resist an attack that defies any other classification.

(Emphasis added.)

Death saves are used for great physical stress, and no other save has a higher priority, so a death save is exactly what the rules tell you to use in this situation (dehydration), which makes fighters better at surviving without water in a desert than wizards. The only question here is whether or not to use a save at all, and at least unlike 5E, the 2nd edition rulebooks aren't pointing you to two similar-but-contradictory mechanics to resolve the situation (ability checks and saving throws).

Don't even get me started on how silly 5E Dex saves are. They don't change your position, they don't consume your reaction, they don't render you prone, they don't consume movement. Just what exactly are you doing when you "make a Dex save" to take half damage against a Fireball? You're clearly not dropping to the floor to shield yourself, or dodging behind a wall, so what are you doing besides rolling a die?

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes, 5e is indeed a game for grognards. (Or it can be) Six of eight players in my first 5e campaign (2014) started D&D in the 70's ...

I recently read a post by Rob Conley (who figures in the OSR movement, and runs a fun to read blog) where he made a positive review of the 5th edition. (The specific post was IIRC to do with 5e starter set).

[EggKookoo]

Don't even get me started on how silly 5E Dex saves are. They don't change your position, they don't consume your reaction, they don't render you prone, they don't consume movement. Just what exactly are you doing when you "make a Dex save" to take half damage against a Fireball? You're clearly not dropping to the floor to shield yourself, or dodging behind a wall, so what are you doing besides rolling a die?

Generally, you're angling yourself so that you take less of a direct hit to more vulnerable parts of your anatomy. Failed Dex save = staring right into the blast. Successful Dex save = throwing your arm over your face. Unless you're a rogue, in which case successful Dex save = jumping briefly into hammerspace?

Remember, damage isn't only or even necessarily structural. It's also about pain, shock, fatigue, and disorientation.

[roryb]

Yes, 5e is indeed a game for grognards. (Or it can be) Six of eight players in my first 5e campaign (2014) started D&D in the 70's ...

I recently read a post by Rob Conley (who figures in the OSR movement, and runs a fun to read blog) where he made a positive review of the 5th edition. (The specific post was IIRC to do with 5e starter set).

Thanks for the heads up. I’ll start following his blog.

[MaxWilson]

Thanks for the heads up. I’ll start following his blog.

Might be good to touch base with Rob Conley and see if he's still playing 5E today.

[Malifice]

Calm down. That is the published rule. It's right there in the definition of what the paralyzation/petrification/death saving throw represents.



(Emphasis added.)

Death saves are used for great physical stress, and no other save has a higher priority, so a death save is exactly what the rules tell you to use in this situation (dehydration), which makes fighters better at surviving without water in a desert than wizards. The only question here is whether or not to use a save at all, and at least unlike 5E, the 2nd edition rulebooks aren't pointing you to two similar-but-contradictory mechanics to resolve the situation (ability checks and saving throws).

Don't even get me started on how silly 5E Dex saves are. They don't change your position, they don't consume your reaction, they don't render you prone, they don't consume movement. Just what exactly are you doing when you "make a Dex save" to take half damage against a Fireball? You're clearly not dropping to the floor to shield yourself, or dodging behind a wall, so what are you doing besides rolling a die?

Wizards are bookish nerds.

Fighters are SAS or Navy SEAL action heroes. Professional warriors.

Fighters are trained to be hard bastards, and carry heavy loads long distances using nothing more than willpower and endurance and to survive without food and water.

Wizards teleport instead, or use magic to overcome their physical shortcomings and lack of physical conditioning, or just magic up some food or water or mode of transportation.

Seems to match the fiction just fine.

[MaxWilson]

Wizards are bookish nerds.

Fighters are SAS or Navy SEAL action heroes. Professional warriors.

Fighters are trained to be hard -----, and carry heavy loads long distances using nothing more than willpower and endurance and to survive without food and water.

Wizards teleport instead, or use magic to overcome their physical shortcomings and lack of physical conditioning, or just magic up some food or water or mode of transportation.

Seems to match the fiction just fine.

Yes... in 2E, which is my point. In 5E the situation is rather different.

[Malifice]

Yes... in 2E, which is my point. In 5E the situation is rather different.

In 5E Fighters are proficient in Con saves, and the Champion (the default Fighter) gets half proficiency in Con checks also.

Aint no way in hell I would allow Guidance or Bardic Inspiration to be spammed on a Con save or check for thirst. Your characters [in game] dont know when they're making such a save (and the save reflects 3 days of gradually increasing thirst or hunger), only that they're getting progressively thirsty or more tired over the course of several days.

Unless your party Cleric was spamming Guidance on you 1/ minute, every minute for those whole 3 days, in which case I would object to it on other grounds.

I mean, how does that play out in your mind?

Groxar the Warlock: 'Man, its been days since I've drunk any water. Hey Theodwin (looks to the parties Bard) care to play me a song for a bit? I have a suspicion I'm going to need a confidence boost in the next 10 minutes or so...'

[OverLordOcelot]

Fighters are trained to be hard bastards, and carry heavy loads long distances using nothing more than willpower and endurance and to survive without food and water.

SAS and Navy SEALs can't last for weeks without water, and there's no training that lets you go for weeks without water intake. Having a high level fighter live for weeks without any water is just silly; it's a goofy result from an ad-hoc ruling, not some clever system that produces better game fiction.

[OverLordOcelot]

Calm down. That is the published rule. It's right there in the definition of what the paralyzation/petrification/death saving throw represents.

No, that's not a published rule. That's a vague description of what a particular save generally represents, and the ad-hoc rule you came up with interacts poorly with the fiction and gives downright silly results, like a fighter living for weeks without drinking a drop of water (Which is an absurd result if you know much about dehydration). A published rule is like the clear one on page 185 of the PHB that says clearly what to do and when to do it. The vague mention under constitution states that a DM 'might' call for a constitution check in similar circumstances, but is not actually a contradictory rule. The fact that a DM can decide to handle a specific situation in a different way than the published rule doesn't change the fact that there is a clear, concise rule for how to handle the situation.

This weird argument that 2e is better because you can make weird ad hoc rulings that produce silly results while 5e provides an actual rule you can use, as well as guidance for making an ad hoc ruling if you want to do it differently just doesn't make sense.

Don't even get me started on how silly 5E Dex saves are. They don't change your position, they don't consume your reaction, they don't render you prone, they don't consume movement. Just what exactly are you doing when you "make a Dex save" to take half damage against a Fireball? You're clearly not dropping to the floor to shield yourself, or dodging behind a wall, so what are you doing besides rolling a die?

You mean they work like 2e saves against breath weapon or 2e saves against spells? It's not like 5e is a perfect system, but it has dex saves that work against a fireball or dragon's breath just like 1e, 2e, 3e, or 3.5e did (maybe 4e also), where you simply roll to save but don't change position or consume movement. Going on with a 'don't even get me started on how silly 5e dex saves are' when you're singing the praises of 2e, which handled saves against the same phenomena exactly the same way is, again, absurd. "

[HappyDaze]

Wizards are bookish nerds.

Fighters are SAS or Navy SEAL action heroes. Professional warriors.

Fighters are trained to be hard bastards, and carry heavy loads long distances using nothing more than willpower and endurance and to survive without food and water.

Wizards teleport instead, or use magic to overcome their physical shortcomings and lack of physical conditioning, or just magic up some food or water or mode of transportation.

Seems to match the fiction just fine.

I got news for you: In 5e, even the Strength 8 Wizard can carry around 120 lbs. all day long without trouble. Sure, the Fighter can carry more, but the little can can certainly carry his own load.

[Malifice]

SAS and Navy SEALs can't last for weeks without water, and there's no training that lets you go for weeks without water intake. Having a high level fighter live for weeks without any water is just silly; it's a goofy result from an ad-hoc ruling, not some clever system that produces better game fiction.

No, but they're trained to endure long periods without water (or food) over long distances, and how to find drinkable water and food when they have none (or to make do with filthy water and food).

I can assure you that if a College physics nerd and a Special Forces Operator were dumped in a Jungle somewhere with no food or water, and told to reach an area 100kms away, carrying 50kgs of crap with them, I know who I would have my money on getting there first (or indeed even just getting there at all).

[Malifice]

I got news for you: In 5e, even the Strength 8 Wizard can carry around 120 lbs. all day long without trouble. Sure, the Fighter can carry more, but the little can can certainly carry his own load.

Err no, if a Strength 8 PC carries over 40lbs, he's encumbered and his speed drops by 10'.

If he carries over 80lbs, his speed drops by 20 feet and he has disadvantage on ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws that use Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution.

Any Con checks or saves he needs to make for exhaustion, thirst, hunger or forced marches etc will be made at disadvantage.

[HappyDaze]

Err no, if a Strength 8 PC carries over 40lbs, he's encumbered and his speed drops by 10'.

If he carries over 80lbs, his speed drops by 20 feet and he has disadvantage on ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws that use Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution.

Any Con checks or saves he needs to make for exhaustion, thirst, hunger or forced marches etc will be made at disadvantage.

That's not the standard rules. Not everybody uses the variant encumbrance rules.

[Malifice]

That's not the standard rules. Not everybody uses the variant encumbrance rules.

They're the encumbrance rules though.

[HappyDaze]

They're the encumbrance rules though.

Which matters not at all since I was referring to carrying capacity (the word "carry" is the clue), not the variant rule of encumbrance.

[Pelle]

Which matters not at all since I was referring to carrying capacity (the word "carry" is the clue), not the variant rule of encumbrance.

The thing is, if you don't use the variant encumbrance rules, you can't complain about that in 5e weak wizards have such a high carrying capacity, that sucks!. That's specifically what that rule solves, and if you are arguing against 5e on that merit you should include it in the comparison. Now, maybe you are not complaining about it, but someone else was.

[EggKookoo]

You mean they work like 2e saves against breath weapon or 2e saves against spells? It's not like 5e is a perfect system, but it has dex saves that work against a fireball or dragon's breath just like 1e, 2e, 3e, or 3.5e did (maybe 4e also), where you simply roll to save but don't change position or consume movement. Going on with a 'don't even get me started on how silly 5e dex saves are' when you're singing the praises of 2e, which handled saves against the same phenomena exactly the same way is, again, absurd. "

Also, since at least 2e, your Dexterity factors into your AC in most cases. So if it's silly that you can make a Dex save without moving, going prone, using your reaction, etc., then it's equally silly that an attack can miss you without you moving, going prone, etc.

[KorvinStarmast]

Might be good to touch base with Rob Conley and see if he's still playing 5E today.

I think he was in the play test (can't be sure) and I know he has run the LMoP for his group, but I don't know if he still 5e's or not.

They started throwing Wisdom into saving throws in AD&D 1e, for certain mental / mind influencing magics.

Example: Wisdom of 18 had +4; Wisdom of 7 had -1

This adjustment applies to the saving throw of the character in question, the penalty for low wisdom, or the bonus for high wisdom, being used to alter the result of the die roll accordingly. The adjustment applies only to mental attack forms involving will force, i.e. beguiling, charming, fear, hypnosis, illusion, magic jarring, mass charming, phantasmal forces, possession, rulership, suggestion, telepathic attack, etc.

The Dex save in 5e seems built on the Reflex save in 3e and makes a certain amount of sense in terms of reflexive/instinctive actions. I don't see the complaint. There are a lot of gamist choices made so that a number in an ability score does something mechanically.

[Willie the Duck]

I don't understand your question. Can you please rephrase or elaborate?

Little arcane, huh? Yeah, can't help. A day later, I have no idea what I was trying to say. Looks like I was drawing a parallel, not refuting something, but other than that, I don't remember. Good example of why if you are rushed to post something (I do know I had a meeting to go to right after that), it's best to wait and post later rather than confuse yourself.

Might be good to touch base with Rob Conley and see if he's still playing 5E today.

I don't think he ever was going to start playing it regularly, and that wouldn't really be the point. Rob is absolutely happy with the OSR as his primary avenue for gaming. He just noted that, yeah 5e was a fine choice too.

SAS and Navy SEALs can't last for weeks without water, and there's no training that lets you go for weeks without water intake. Having a high level fighter live for weeks without any water is just silly; it's a goofy result from an ad-hoc ruling, not some clever system that produces better game fiction.

Well, this is going back to the question of what a D&D PC (particularly the martial ones) are supposed to be. Are they realistic humans in a low-resolution reality simulator? Are they characters like folklore Robin Hood? Or more like a cinematic action hero? Or a character from some of the more fanciful folklore like King Arthur or Greek myth where heroes are nominally bound by laws of physics (they can't just fly, for instance), but clearly violate what could physically happen (stay awake for 40 days or the like)? If the later, than live for weeks without water is right in line with (and probably mollifies some of the complaints that, in a game with PC wizards, expecting nonmagical characters to conform to rigid reality is being selectively stringent, or however you want to frame that argument). However, I agree that I don't see it matching game fiction particularly well (since there's no agreement on what that is).

No, that's not a published rule. That's a vague description of what a particular save generally represents, and the ad-hoc rule you came up with interacts poorly with the fiction and gives downright silly results, like a fighter living for weeks without drinking a drop of water (Which is an absurd result if you know much about dehydration). A published rule is like the clear one on page 185 of the PHB that says clearly what to do and when to do it. The vague mention under constitution states that a DM 'might' call for a constitution check in similar circumstances, but is not actually a contradictory rule. The fact that a DM can decide to handle a specific situation in a different way than the published rule doesn't change the fact that there is a clear, concise rule for how to handle the situation.

This weird argument that 2e is better because you can make weird ad hoc rulings that produce silly results while 5e provides an actual rule you can use, as well as guidance for making an ad hoc ruling if you want to do it differently just doesn't make sense.

5e has both attribute saves and attribute checks (with fairly different interactions with other rules like bardic inspiration), and some of the guidance on when to use which seems pretty bizarre. 5e could have been tightened up on that and I consider it a reasonable critique of the system. 2e, OTOH, has plenty of this as well. Sticking with the enduring physical hardship scenario, there are proficiency checks, death saves, system shock, and resurrection survival %. In many cases, there's more guidance on which to use when (or at least a precedence, as no, it does not say to use death saves for thirst situation). However, I don't feel that the result is universally better in any way. Certainly not in terms of emulating fiction. Example: in the fiction, having a mad wizard (/witch/curse/whatever) turn you into a frog is supposed to be horrible because, well, you're a frog. In 2e, the ruleset makes one of the most horrible part of it being that you have to make two system shock checks (once when you are turned into a frog, and again when changed back) to survive the experience. Another example (this one perhaps unintended): Ghosts have the ability to possess a PC, as if using the magic jar spell. However, there is no jar, and by (a rigorously harsh interpretation of) the rules, that means that when the ghost is ejected from the possessed individual, the PC's soul/spirit has already left for the afterlife. Getting possessed by a ghost, in the fiction, is supposed to be horrible because someone else has taken control of your body, potentially harming your loved ones, and leaving you to explain your (their actions), not because possession is supposed to kill you.

[OverLordOcelot]

Well, this is going back to the question of what a D&D PC (particularly the martial ones) are supposed to be. Are they realistic humans in a low-resolution reality simulator? Are they characters like folklore Robin Hood? Or more like a cinematic action hero? Or a character from some of the more fanciful folklore like King Arthur or Greek myth where heroes are nominally bound by laws of physics (they can't just fly, for instance), but clearly violate what could physically happen (stay awake for 40 days or the like)? If the later, than live for weeks without water is right in line with (and probably mollifies some of the complaints that, in a game with PC wizards, expecting nonmagical characters to conform to rigid reality is being selectively stringent, or however you want to frame that argument). However, I agree that I don't see it matching game fiction particularly well (since there's no agreement on what that is).

I don't know why people are so desperate to grasp at straws to defend old edition silliness, but the 'high level fighters and clerics can go for weeks without drinking water' is a silly result of an ad-hoc rule made up on the fly, and is wildly inconsistent with the other game fiction about their abilities. I say the ad-hoc rule because the 2e rules don't actually give that result; they don't tell you anything about how often to make saves for lack water - it's not really clear why you'd do one save per day and not per hour, or per turn, or whenever attempting strong exertion, or some other time increment?

5e has both attribute saves and attribute checks (with fairly different interactions with other rules like bardic inspiration), and some of the guidance on when to use which seems pretty bizarre. 5e could have been tightened up on that and I consider it a reasonable critique of the system.

No. P185 of the PHB has very clear and simple rules for how to handle lack of food and water that produce a realistic (and rather scary) result. Those rules lay out very clearly and simply how to handle a lack of food and water, and which checks to use. In 2e you can vaguely guess at 'well, this wording says maybe I'd use a saving throw at some timing under some circumstance for this', in 5e you get 'if you go with inufficient water, do X, if you go with no water, do Y, and a mention that you can do ad hoc rulings for other things. The fact that you have to do an ad hoc ruling with no significant guidance in 2e is not a strength of the system, and the fact that the example fails so badly at fitting the game fiction highlights this.

[MaxWilson]

However, I don't feel that the result is universally better in any way. Certainly not in terms of emulating fiction. Example: in the fiction, having a mad wizard (/witch/curse/whatever) turn you into a frog is supposed to be horrible because, well, you're a frog. In 2e, the ruleset makes one of the most horrible part of it being that you have to make two system shock checks (once when you are turned into a frog, and again when changed back) to survive the experience. Another example (this one perhaps unintended): Ghosts have the ability to possess a PC, as if using the magic jar spell. However, there is no jar, and by (a rigorously harsh interpretation of) the rules, that means that when the ghost is ejected from the possessed individual, the PC's soul/spirit has already left for the afterlife. Getting possessed by a ghost, in the fiction, is supposed to be horrible because someone else has taken control of your body, potentially harming your loved ones, and leaving you to explain your (their actions), not because possession is supposed to kill you.

AD&D 2E's advantage isn't that it emulates a particular (folk tale-based?) genre fiction of how magic works--it's that it tends to define abilities in terms of game fiction and not game jargon. When AD&D tells you that bards can countercharm, it tells you what they're doing and why, and then gives a mechanical effect to apply stemming from that fiction. This makes it easier for a DM to adjudicate ad hoc questions like "what if the wizard Polymorphs me into something very similar to my true shape, like an ape? Does that still count as massive trauma which requires a system shock roll? Is being smooshed into a frog's body more traumatic than becoming an ape?" because everyone is thinking in game world logic already instead of in jargon.

You're right that ghost is bit of an exception here in that it just refers you to a spell that doesn't really work, although I'd say the strictest interpretation here is actually "the ghost does nothing" leading to the DM immediately rewriting the ghost to either have an actual Magic Jar object or having a different ability. As a rule though, AD&D is far less likely than 5E to give you bare mechanical descriptions shorn of fiction a la "you can use a bonus action to make a Perception roll" or "when you make an attack while Raging you gain N temporary hit points" or in fact the very rules for temp HP in the first place: why in game fiction terms does the Heroism spell cause Armor of Agathys to stop freezing your enemies when they hit you? mechanically it's clear that Armor of Agathys ends as soon as you accept temporary HP from another source, but that's a purely RAW jargon answer.

These things are WotCisms and they make 5E more complex than it appears at first glance.

[EggKookoo]

As a rule though, AD&D is far less likely than 5E to give you bare mechanical descriptions shorn of fiction a la "you can use a bonus action to make a Perception roll" or "when you make an attack while Raging you gain N temporary hit points" or in fact the very rules for temp HP in the first place: why in game fiction terms does the Heroism spell cause Armor of Agathys to stop freezing your enemies when they hit you? mechanically it's clear that Armor of Agathys ends as soon as you accept temporary HP from another source, but that's a purely RAW jargon answer.

I don't mind the game providing a fiction-based explanation for some things and not others. Often, however, in 5e the fiction is used to support the mechanics, or vice versa. For example, the fiction for Bardic Inspiration says you "inspire others through stirring words or music." Then it describes the mechanic: "To do so, you use a bonus action on your turn to choose one creature other than yourself within 60 feet of you who can hear you." The "who can hear you" is part of the mechanic, which supports the idea that the bard is doing something verbal, which in turn is part of the fiction. Not saying 2e doesn't do the same but I have to jump into a meeting soon so I don't have time to look it up.

Regarding agathys and heroism, well, yeah, it's a quirky thing. I do wish they clarified that you get the cold damage while agathys is up as long as you have temp HP from any source (which is how I rule it as I do have a Levistus tiefling in my current party). It helps a bit to remember that HP, even temp HP, are an abstraction that encompasses a bunch of characteristics that roll up into "fit to fight." If you imagine the temp HP from heroism being a kind of momentary surge of determination and heroism drawn from the magic of the spell, you can (maybe?) visualize how it overrides or supersedes the sense of determination and power drawn from armor of agathys. The real question is, if you use up your temp HP from heroism and then the spell wears off, do you get your unspent agathys temp HP? I would rule yes but it's not clear from the manual.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The real question is, if you use up your temp HP from heroism and then the spell wears off, do you get your unspent agathys temp HP? I would rule yes but it's not clear from the manual.

The RAW answer is no, and pretty clearly (IMO) so. You can only have one set of temp HP--if you switch sets, the previous ones are discarded rather than suppressed. More specifically, armor of agathys only gives the temp HP on cast, not on subsequent turns, so there's no way to get them back. If, however, it said that you got them every turn for the duration (like heroism), you'd have another source of them and you'd get to pick each turn which set to use.

[HappyDaze]

The thing is, if you don't ... , you can't complain about ...

Sorry, that's not how the internet works, and that's not how real life works either.

[olskool]

Well sure, if you are making the campaign about the deck of many things, than clearly it isn't going to destroy the existing campaign. I think the general point is that olskool inferred that 5e was a significant contributor in the game he was playing going off the rails, and then proceeded to explain that the DM had decided to utilize a plot event (finding a DoMT) which is designed to introduce maximum randomness into a campaign (and Envyus was pointing out that much more significant contributing factor). Exactly what small part the game being 5e (as opposed to another D&D edition) was supposed to play in this is just not clear (and massively dwarfed by this DM's apparent desire to play a mad circus, something you really have to turn your eyes and squint to say that one edition does differently than another).

D&D5e is a "significant contributor" to issues like the one I experienced because, LIKE EVERY OTHER EDITION OF D&D, 5e has NO hard limits on the player's power. The OP is coming back to D&D from other games. The majority of other games place hard limits on magic use and character advancement through a number of different methods but 5e never adopted such limits. When you combine this with the general attitude of players coming from 21st Century video games, that can create a "perfect storm" of potential abuse. My original post was a warning to the OP that if not kept in check, power gamers can do great damage to any campaign he might start. I then was asked by a third poster to elaborate about my own experience which I did. Somewhere along the way, other posters seemed to have confused my originally related concern about 5e with the description of what happened in my character's campaign. The story of my character's death was just an example I used of how power gamers CAN abuse a 5e campaign. Once again, I was trying to warn the OP that if you are coming to 5e from another system to be aware that there are NO Hard Limits on a player's power unless YOU introduce them yourself.

As a father example of the potential for abuse that exists just look at the poster comparing 3.5e to 5e. The person in this thread is complaining about how "nerfed" 5e is compared to 3.5e. This is just one more example of what I was warning the OP about. How is a game that gives Wishes as a SPELL in any way "nerfed?"

[JoeJ]

How is a game that gives Wishes as a SPELL in any way "nerfed?"

The Wish spell is not unlimited; it has certain defined things it can do. Anything beyond that is explicitly gated behind DM permission, and carries a risk of never being able to use the spell again. Plus, it is only available in the end game; you have to be at least 17th level to cast it.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Wish spell is not unlimited; it has certain defined things it can do. Anything beyond that is explicitly gated behind DM permission, and carries a risk of never being able to use the spell again. Plus, it is only available in the end game; you have to be at least 17th level to cast it.

Or find an efreeti bottle or a luck blade.

[JoeJ]

Or find an efreeti bottle or a luck blade.

This is not under the player's control, however, since you can only find what the DM has put there to be found.