To each their own, but I think removing the differing life spans makes the races more flat and indistinct.
Personally I think they’re twice as flat and indistinct when they all live to be 450 years at minimum. From Half-elves to Dwarves to fucking fish people, everything seems to live ten times as long as humans do in fantasy. I agree differing lifespans is interesting, but humans shouldn’t be dying at less than a quarter of the lifespan of everything else.
Aren’t spell ingredients made meaningless by the focus
Not spell components that are consumed. Also, I’ll just leave this post of mine here.
I can sort of understand - a lot of players unfortunately just kinda wanna roll dice and kill monsters. I say, though, that if that’s what you wanna do, play a martial. (Note: I fully realize the way martials are designed is still bad and they absolutely need to be able to do more than just hit things, but as of their current design my point stands.)
This is actually a very fine analogy…for utility magic. But when we’re talking about combat and healing magic and whatnot, I don’t really think it works. Even melee weapons wear down over time. Ranged weapons require ammunition. Yes, you may be using the same gun your entire career as a soldier, but you sure as hell aren’t recovering the same handful of bullets to be reused all the time. The same logic applies here - you may be using fireball to solve all your problems, but you can’t use the same wand or sulfur as ammunition FOREVER. At least, not without some serious upkeep to that wand.
I totally agree! I think it would be a net benefit for the game if we just remove cantrips entirely - magic is too cheap. I get that that would make a lot of players mad. Maybe a compromise would be reduce the damage of attack cantrips…by a LOT. And then make pretty much most non-attack cantrips level 1 spells. Yes, including prestidigitation.
Either way, all these comments mentioning how AD&D and 2e and whatnot does it makes me want to play them. I’ve already looked into playing 3.5e and 4e, but honestly I’m just slowly realizing that 5e is…kind of bad? So maybe that’s unrelated…
I vaguely recall one handbook or another even saying somewhere that a commoner’s stats usually sit around 8 or something, so even a level 1 adventurer is a cut above.
I already knew all of the stuff you mention in this, and this part is just actually wrong outright. I’ve never heard of any of the rules saying commoners would have such low traits, and have always heard it as - 10 is the average amount for a human/commoner. 7-9 is slightly below average, anything below is remarkably low, 1-2 is near death. Now, yes, even a level 1 adventurer is uncommon and more powerful on a base-line than a commoner, but IMO that shouldn’t mean magic should be cheap for them. I suppose I do say uncommon at least, though. Common would probably work too, but requiring attunement would make sense considering it’s supposed to be a sort of conduit for an individual’s magic, and magic is usually considered very personal as far as fantasy tends to portray it.
…Yeah I can’t really hide it. I am very lost. Edit: Why did that take me an entire day
My biggest problem is that searches don’t fucking work anymore. It now defaults to searching the channel you’re in, but what if I’m look for a particular message and I don’t know what channel it’s in? Then there’s also searching PMs is so much more complicated now and doesn’t even show you who sent the message in the results.