[sits back to let @Miniman point out the obvious game-breaking flaw in letting haste become permanent.]

[or worse--jump!]

greater invisibility

@nitsua60 Alright, that could cover the mechanical aspect. But how would you explain (in-game) how concentration spells can now last for longer? Also, I'd already nixed Haste when one of my fighters had suggested it.

I guess the main problem I'm having is less with the mechanics than with the RP of it all.

@QuantumDM In that case, although you pose a very good question about a valid problem, I'm not sure if it can have an objective answer. Maybe elaborate on the flavor you're looking for?

[thinking emoji] Permanent Fireball

@nitsua60 Cast haste enough times for it become permanent and now you're a meth-head.

@QuantumDM Are you opposed to the idea of players making their own custom spells that can become permanent? That might be able to solve some of the issues. Make the spell an empowered version of the old one that lasts for longer, isn't concentration, and can become permanent.

The old spells cant become permanent because they require concentration, the new spells (by nature of being more powerful) don't require concentration and can thus become permanent if cast enough times, or with some ritual of some sort.

@QuantumDM I suppose, if I were allowing the above scheme, it'd basically be that the effect is "always at the ready;" the moment I turn my attention (concentration!) to it, it's there. If I drop concentration the effect drops, but I can resume it. At will? At an action-cost?

@MikeQ Yeah, I was expecting difficulties in that area. The best way I can convey an idea of the flavor I'm looking for is to give an example of how I made Barkskin permanent. I based it off Volo's, in which a ritual is described on how to make a Wood Woad by sacrificing a heart and replacing it with a magical seed.

I had my druid make a pact with a powerful Fey creature, who gave him a seed to eat which modified him to make a permanent Barkskin, bu in return he had to guarantee to safety of the forest.

In any case--gotta get some work done. Enjoy your permanent spider climb! (Is that even a spell anymore?)

@Adam Yeah, I had considered more powerful versions of spells, but that really opens up a whole bag of nastiness, such as how to evaluate the potency of the spell, and how to exactly implement it.

Anyhow, I also have to go. I have a class in 10 minutes. Goodbye all, thank you for the suggestions!

@QuantumDM Why do you want to make permanency more accessible?

@QuantumDM Sorry I couldn't offer help. I don't fully understand why "make one's skin always tougher" would require a fey pact or the loss of a vital organ. Of course, if that's how your world works, then that's totally fine, but I don't know how to generalize that. Do you want a different ritual for each individual spell?

@QuantumDM basically, I want to drill down to the fundamental problem you're trying to solve, and ask the question: does this fundamental problem need to be solved with permanency and is it best solved with permanency?

@godskook Why would you not want permanency? Do you mean, as opposed to a magic item with a permanent spell effect?

Permanent create water would be a terrible idea in an enclosed space.

@nitsua60 @NautArch did you guys see the player interaction I posted about an hour ago?

@MikeQ 5e is fundamentally a more limited version of 3.5, with a lot of "plugs" to keep it from being quite as stupidly broken as 3.5 was. Making high-level effects more available for permanency is transitioning back towards 3.5, an idea I at least find antithetical to 5e's base construction. Partially, this is because 5e seems to have made a SIGNIFICANT number of design decisions that prevent magic from stacking quite as well as those same effects would stack in 3.5.

I agree with godskook. And also, a buff you can cast in a battle is an exciting magical ability. A buff you cast once and then forget is just some random stuff taht happened some sessions ago.

@MikeQ thus, probably the best answer to the statement "how do I power-creep 5e" is "just use 3.5 or PF".

@godskook Perhaps @QuantumDM expected something like that, but within the balance of 5e. In which case, a potentially better question would address if permanency could be implemented in 5e without unbalancing the game, and if so, how.

@MikeQ I don't know what "something like that, but within the balance of 5e" means. Its not parsing for me.

@MikeQ Also, this is why I was trying to get him to specify his base problem that he's trying to solve, such that permanency is the solution.

Yeah, I think that's pretty vital here. Could be XY.

@KorvinStarmast Hi!

@godskook i.e., considering how magic generally has less overpower potential from 3.5e to 5e, could there be an analogous method of reimplementing permanency in 5e. Or, is permanency fundamentally too powerful for 5e and would unbalance the game.

I've got no reason to assume its XY, but drilling down will also inform us as to which of several options for permanency would be most appropriate, so I expect the drilling to produce productive information, regardless.

@MikeQ Permanency as in "some magic effects can be permanent" is definitely not overpowered because some spells already allow that by upcasting. But the ones that don't probably don't for at least some hint of a reason.

For example: even a permanent Guidance (a cantrip) means a character gets +1d4 to all attacks and skills, indefinitely.

@godskook His players are "top tier" and they have expressed interest in making certain lower level spells (specifically barkskin in this case), permanent. @QuantumDM is trying to find a way to accommodate them.

@MikeQ guidance doesn't apply to attacks. only to ability checks

Er...right. Okay, then Bless.

@Adam What hte hell does "top tier" mean?

The question is open again, you can leave a comment on it there

@godskook This. Muchly agree. 5e is fundamentally a more limited version of 3.5, with a lot of "plugs" to keep it from being quite as stupidly broken as 3.5 was. Making high-level effects more available for permanency is transitioning back towards 3.5, an idea I at least find antithetical to 5e's base construction

@MikeQ I couldn't go through all the spells, one by one, but for example, the only differences between 3.5 Fly and 5e Fly is that 5e Fly is concentration.

That's the ONLY balance change to that spell.

@godskook It is also a HUGE balance change

@kviiri hi back to you, amigo, sorry I missed that. Still thinking on Quantum DM's question.

@Adam The querent has already brought this discussion into chat. I'm expecting he'll be back to chat to rejoin this conversation.

Eventually yes, but they came here as a response to their question on the main site being closed. It's now re-opened.

@godskook Top tier I think means levels 17-20. (Tier 4, page 15 PHB. )

@GreySage Right. Overland Flight is a 5th level spell in 3.5 with hours/level duration and is otherwise even BETTER than 3.5's Fly. Making 5e's Fly in anyway longer or more permanent or less concentration-based is almost impossible without bringing it back to 3.5 values.

After puzzling over on this, I am looking at his original bottom line, which is "experiential answers sought from DM's who have tried to fold "permanency" into 5e."

Good answers to this question will follow the Good Subjective/Bad Subjective rule. I am looking for answers from DMs who have tried granting players some form of permanency in their spells

I'm half tempted to answer that question with "this is how we broke 3.5 so bad they've made 3 different editions attempting to fix it"

permanency here meaning even concentration is ignored?

@godskook Hah :)

The answer I have in mind is based on Robert Heinlein's ols TNSTAAFL: There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. @godskook yeah, that too. :)

@godskook This reminds me of a conversation I had with my boss who is also an avid player of RPGs about Apocalypse World 2e...

Okay, so basically, any implementation of permanency in a 5e campaign would probably be overpowered. Maybe... limiting the availability of permanency effects, such as upping the cost, or setting a tight limit to the number of permanent effects that can be applied to a single creature, could help avoid breaking the campaign.

I was thinking more along the lines of "you have to pay a price for that."

The bigger the effect, the steeper the price.

He, having never played it, asked me if the difference between the editions is major. I said that it's very minor, about 3/4 of the book stays the same, nothing like DnD's edition differences. He said "only games as broken as DnD need that kind of changes between editions" :)

@MikeQ If they're 17th-20th level and spellcasters, they are overpowered. They are already at a point where few campaigns ever get to. And have access to spells with distinctly unbalancing impact. Caring about balance at that level, I think, isn't worth it.

@MikeQ basically, most implementations of permanency in 5e would break what it means to be "5e, not 3.5". At that point, 3.5 is a better documented and researched game for running exactly this sort of thign, so why are you playing 5e and not 3.5?

@Adam I think it's even more worth it than usual, because at those levels spellcasters are already way above "mundanes" in power.

Some might not, some that are EXCEEDINGLY cautious and aware of 5e's choices of balance, but that's a hard line to walk.

Then again, that's spilled milk to the extreme I guess.

@kviiri Why does it matter? If they were playing together with a lvl 3 character maybe. But they're all already demigods. Why does it matter if 20th level characters have unbalancing powers? They already have unbalancing powers by nature of being such a high level.

@Adam "high-level" is does not have to tautologically mean "unbalanced", and I think its quite desirable for those who would want to play D&D(rather than Exalted) at that level for it to be exactly the opposite: somewhat balanced.

@Adam Because no one wants to be useless. If I was the linear fighter at level 20, I'd probably be super-miffed at being so limited in what I can do compared to the quadratic wizard who can literally shape the world to her will. And the proposed change would give the wizard even more power, making my character relatively even more useless.

It's not about absolute power, it's about relative power.

Oh gawd, don't get me started on the fundamental flaw with the "Fighter" class at level 20, when the Wizard is casting Wish and other stupidly strong spells.

I only wish we still had the powers ;)

From, you know, 4e...

Well, fundamentally, Fighters will always be flawed because the Fighter Archetype is level-constrained. The Archetype does not contain fighters who are "level 20", that can stand toe-to-toe with Wizards and, possibly, win.

@kviiri That might be a problem as far as the designers are concerned, but it isn't necessarily an issue at the table itself. If they're all spellcasters, that isn't an issue at all. If the players work out a way to help each other out, it isn't an issue at all. If the DM takes that into account and helps the fighters keep up somehow, then it isn't an issue.

And until game designers are honest about that fundamental flaw in the Fighter Archetype, they'll always be sucky.

As a design philosophy, yes I agree that leaving spell permanence out was a good call. But to not implement it at your table because the designers noted that it would be hard to make it work at every table is fallacious.

@Adam "If the players work out a way to help each other out, it isn't an issue at all." <--- that's a very optimistic view on player personality

I don't personally care about my side or party winning, nor I think do most other players. I care about getting to do things in the game.

"If the players work out a way to help each other out, it isn't an issue at all." is fallacious. It reduces to "its not a problem because we can fix the problem", which fundamentally requires admitting there was a problem worth fixing, right?

Players at 17th-20th level should've been playing long enough that they are friends. If your friend is being a d-bag to you, why are you playing the game together? Frankly, the assumption that all players treat each other like trash or are so self absorbed that they dont care about the group having fun is an overly-pessimistic view of gaming in general.

@Adam When did I ever state such an assumption?

You didn't but it's a trend I'm noticing in chat where it seems like everybody assumes the worst out of their players and their GMs

It doesn't take any sort of malice for the fighter to get outshadowed by their caster peers because the game is designed that way.

@Adam Its not one you're noticing from this conversation. Perhaps let's not bring in external baggage?

Anyhow, would challenging the premise (along the lines of "Don't implement permanency, it will probably break the campaign balance") be a valid answer to @QuantumDM 's original question?

@MikeQ Backed by sufficient experience and reasoning, sure.

@MikeQ Do you have any experience to back up that answer with?

It's called a "frame challenge", they happen on the site all the time. The question is "How do I do X?" and the answer is "Don't do X, because..."

@godskook Probably not enough for a sufficiently strong explanation. While I see that spellcasters are much more limited in 5e than in 3.X/PF, I don't fully understand why a permanent spell effect is so horrendously unbalanced... I'd prefer to see an explanation for myself!

@Adam A lot of the people here (including myself) are programmers or computer scientists. Worst-case analysis and minmaxing comes naturally to us.

I provided a different frame challenge. I think there's already an app for this in 5e.

QuantumDM is right to be worried about permanent spells being a potential self laid land mine.

And anyway, I think for gauging the merits of a given system, it's pretty vital to understand how well/poorly it performs with a GM who's totally clueless with everything that can't be read from the book.

heh, Even in AD&D 1e, with the cost to the caster of one Constitution point, non refundable, our group still could not resist using that one scroll of permanent that was found in a dragon hoard. Care to guess what spell was cast?

@kviiri As in, even if a GM is generally very talented, if they are unfamiliar with a system then the campaign will be sloppy?

8th level magic user

[gimme a sec]

@KorvinStarmast Definitely Bless.

Magic User didn't have that spell in 1e; hint "it was a Magic User Spell"

@MikeQ I mean, assuming a total novice who doesn't know anything about tabletop RPGs picking up the book to and setting off to GM. I think it's a better metric than assuming the GM is experienced and good and makes good house-rule calls, because with such a GM even DeadEarth might be an enjoyable experience.

But it's not really DeadEarth anymore at that point, is it? :P

Ah, right. I hadn't gotten to the right edition in my head yet

@KorvinStarmast yeah, I've got 1ephb open to pp. 91 and 41 right now

read magic?

No, try a higher level

@doppelgreener hi, can you check channels please?

fear

that was my recommendation, but he chose otherwise

either of the protections?

Strength

Bingo

@KorvinStarmast normal missiles?

Alright--gotta run. Picking the girl up from sleepaway camp. See y'all in the manana =)

He cast Strength, permanently, on our Paladin. DM was nice about it. The 15 went up to 18, the other two points were discarded and the DM let him roll. He got a 76%.

Doesn't seem... too bad. At least, it could have been worse

I thought that was real nice of him.

I'd have cast Ultravision on myself, so good thing mister greedypants me wasn't the one with the scroll. :)

(I was playing a human thief)

Yeah, that'd be a solid choice AFAIK. I've not actually played AD&D 1e but I have a couple buddies who did (they then came to my group to skyrocket forward to Pathfinder and still sometimes have knee-jerk reactions to AC going UP)

@kviiri I'm a programmer too. My fiancee is a physicist. Neither concept is foreign to me.

Oh yeah? Well, my fiancee is nonexistent. Beat that.

@Yuuki In about 2 months, my fiancee will also be nonexistent. So I'll get on your level soon enough :p

@Adam So sorry to hear that :(

@Yuuki My fiancee lives several hours away :( (only for... 4 more months?)

@Adam I'm going to be an optimist and assume you're getting married and not breaking up. Congratulations!

@Yuuki That was what I meant yes. I won't have a fiancee because she'll be my wife.

Wew!

That's what I meant too - you know that in Swedish, poisoning oneself and getting married are the same words (gifta sig).

@eimyr channels checkered

Or at least, that's a popular meme here where everyone speaks a bit of Swedish.

The only Swedish I know is what I learned as a child: bork bork bork bork

Jag upptäckt att jag hade enorma krafter den dag jag drog mitt magiska svärd och sa: ge mig kraften, Gråskuld!

(that's from He-Man and I've got absolutely no reason to know it)

@godskook i did not...link?

> He burps in his sleep, and when he burps, he actually says the word burp. It's bizarre.

@BESW My company just voted to call its four new meeting rooms Turing, Hopper, Babbage, and Lovelace. :)

@doppelgreener That's neat!

It is!!

These four figures were foundational to modern computing: Alan Turing helped formalise the concept of the general-purpose computer, Grace Hopper popularised the concept of machine-independent programming languages, Babbage developed what is effectively the first computer, and Lovelace developed the idea of programming that machine to do something other than add numbers together (in particular, she conceived computers might one day be programmed to play music :D).

@doppelgreener In this one company I had a paid internship with, they had a meeting room whose name roughly translates to "Online". I was supposed to attend a training whose place was listed as "Online", so I opened up my IM and waited. Nothing happened, so I just resumed work, thinking the people in charge were busy. An hour later I got a message from the HR that it's really arrogant for an intern to skip educations like this. That's when I learned of the meeting room name.

@kviiri oh no XD

I regret being too shy to talk back about that.

The reason for the odd name was alliteration with the floor numbers while keeping with the usual "we do computer stuff!" theme.

what was that silly game we had featured in a here a little while back where you could basically obtain any skill you wanted?

and the more specific a skill the better you were at it?

@DForck42 Roll for Shoes?

@kviiri yes, thank you!

Although it's not necessarily more specific as it levels up

@kviiri •If you roll all sixes on your roll, you can get new skill one level higher than the one you used for the action. The skill must be a subset of what happened to you in the action (Say, Athletics 2 if you were climbing a wall, or Teeth of Biting 2 if you were eating a cake).

no that's explicitly how it works

but thank you

@DForck42 It has to be a subset of what happened to you in the action, but not necessary a subset of the skill you were using.

Like, if you have Athletics 2 you could plausibly use your well-toned bod to seduce your high-school crush or something, you could upgrade to Seduction 3 even through seduction is not a more specific form of athletics.

@godskook what's the background on that? I'm sorry.

@kviiri So what you're saying is that I could cascade an infinite number of skills from just having shoes.

A notable example comes up in failure: if I use Jump 2 but fail to do what I wanted with my jump, I can still spend XP on that roll and get, say, Injuring Myself 3 or Looking like an idiot 3, neither of which have anything to do with jumping.

Have Shoes -> Can Run -> Run Fast -> Usain Bolt -> Super Famous -> Entourage -> The Boys Are Back.

@Yuuki You could cascade an indefinitely large amount of skills from anything anyway, but more easily, yes.

@NautArch A PC with a new character(Vincent) was evaluating travel times and the feasibility of blowing a 1-way teleport to go back home, re-stock, and come back to their current adventure in a reasonable timeframe, and I had just laid out the travel-time it took Xain/Beisusu to get to where they currently are from their home-base.

@NautArch mostly, I'm sharing for the "the scale of 1 to acused of murder was uninformative" punchline.

@godskook ah - figured that was it :)

@KorvinStarmast I like your answer, and feel it captures a lot of the chat-discussion that evolved. It avoids some of the more 3.5-y elements, but that's not a fault. Upvoted, although I might try to formulate a more 3.5-y answer sometime later today to compete with you :P.

would you say a PC with an INT of 3 could communicate effectively?

@KorvinStarmast [grumbles] no fair--you said 1e, not 1.5 =)

@NautArch IIRC an animal (companion) with INT 3 can understand basic commands. Not really effective for regular conversation.

@MikeQ Dayum. That's gonna make for an interesting RP.

Possibly. I was once temporarily a feebleminded caster in a Pathfinder campaign. Considering the inability to take advantage of any of my character's features, I had to get very, very creative in order to keep contributing. Petitioning the GM was heavily involved.

@MikeQ He's planning on being a barbarian, so could work.

tl;dr Make sure that the character still has something they can do (in most scenarios) even when they are barely capable of thinking or social interaction.

@MikeQ The guy playing him can definitely roll with it. It'll be annoying (because the player will play it an annoying way), but it'll be fine-ish.

Annoying way? How so?

his past two characters have been little PCs (halfing and gnome) with chips on the shoulders who like to mess with others. The gnome took the good-hearted jokes as mean-spirited jokes and the halfling is a Swashbuckler who uses his Panache on other PCs and generally is also a jerk. So I'm expecting something similar with the barbarian and it doing stupid stuff just to get us in trouble and mess with the other PCs.

That seems... not fun to deal with. Are you a player or the GM?

@nitsua60 Strength was a spell in 1e PHB. Want the page number? :) p. 72.

@godskook Cool1 Go for it. Looking forward to your answer.

@KorvinStarmast True, but not one that can be made permanent, per p.91.

@MikeQ player - the guy is also the GM of our main campaign.

the things you either accept or cause you walk away. I've chosen to accept.

@KorvinStarmast Depends on if I have time before PoE eats me tonight and my D&D game preperation eats me for tomorrow.

Anybody else excited for Fall of Oriath?

@NautArch Ah, that is a tricky scenario. Anyway, having a brainless barbarian is probably not as much of a party hit as having a brainless support caster (as was my case).

@nitsua60 Our DM ruled that because Strength was lower level than infravision, it was within the spell's power. Rulings over rules, and 1e FTW! (Plus, I think part of the reason that the DM allowed it was due to the MU being generous and casting it on someone else).

@MikeQ Yeah, it'll be enjoyable. I may have to use Minor Illusion creatively to help explain things to him or direct him.

@NautArch Considering that he'll have the intelligence of a dumb animal, perhaps you could treat him as the party's pet. e.g., communicate via "Good boy!" and giving treats.

@MikeQ It's like having Scooby Dumb

@NautArch I...generally do not see these sorts of characters, but then, my session 0 tactics include "must want to be on THIS team" as a pre-condition for play.

@nitsua60 IMO, the best spell for Perm was "detect invisibility" for most players. (Infravision for humans coming in a close second, but there were rings for that). There's a whole lot of trouble in the D&D world that Detect Inviso sorts out.

@godskook Yeah, I prefer that sort of thing. This guy definitely has some My Guy issues.

@MikeQ Heh, see OoTS Wolf named Greyview: "Nod, get treats."

@godskook generally do not see these sorts of characters, but then, my session 0 tactics include "must want to be on THIS team" as a pre-condition for play Yeah, I learned over 30 years ago that "this is a team sport" is what kept a table together.

@KorvinStarmast Haha, basically that, except not as many words!

He just HAS to be a Wolf Totem Barbarian, right? :)

@KorvinStarmast I agree. I've had enough bad experiences with problematic players (and/or GMs) that I know the limits of my patience. Rule of thumb: If the antagonist habits aren't culled/resolved early on, then I will strongly consider leaving.

A player who starts horrible could be ok if there's signs of improvement and increased awareness of how they affect the other players. But a player who starts with a few red flags, and then gradually worsens - if not remedied, that can ruin a game for the whole team.

@MikeQ A lot of good DM's aren't good disciplinarians or leaders, though a lot are. It when you get a good/fun DM who can't now and again lay the leadership / counselling on a toxic player that the rest of the players have to Stand Up! (Hey, support your local GM).

By so doing, either the toxic players mends ways and stays, or is shown the door ... and the Good/Fun DM's game does not collapse. (I've seen the latter a few times ... sad each time).

hey, @heyICanChan (or anyone else): what polymorph version/errata was least bad?

True. The least fun game I've ever participated was one of my first. The problem player was the GM's wife, and I was so new to the system that any of my objections were ignored or disregarded.

@fectin For what system?

@fectin Depends on from whose perspective it was "least bad"?

Rich Burlew's system was "better", PF's system was "better", and Shapeshift variant Druids were "better", than 3.5's base stuff, but that's if you're comparing stuff to 3.5. If you're doing 5e, I've got no clue.

@fectin True Polymorph or Polymorph the spell?

5e polymorph is generally relatively powerful. The polymorphed form is its own HP pool - the polymorphed character reaches zero HP, and instead of going unconscious, they safely return to their regular form. This is "good" because of utility, but potentially "bad" because it can cause encounters to run too long.

9th or 4th level?

@MikeQ Yeah, I've also been wondering how convenient that actually is to play out. It's not like combat is very fast anyway, and the added complexity of "hey, adjust your stats to match these" followed by "no, that's stat stays as it was... and that stat... no, that one changes" and all the bookkeeping...

well, it doesn't sound like it's going to be much fun to invoke really.

On the upside, it's simpler than 3.5/PF, where you adjust depending on the creature's size, and based on what spell you use. Whereas in 5e it's just adjusting some stats to exactly what the bestiary entry says.

@KorvinStarmast what's "true polymorph"?

Polymorph (4th level) would IMO benefit at the table from the DM/players having a card with all needed beast stats to be held by the player while Polymorph is in effect. (DM should farm this task out to players.

@Fectin 9th level spell

@godskook dnd 3.0 and 3.5

True Polymorph allows someone with the spell to do the ultimate: Become an Ancient Brass Dragon. Permanently (well, at least until dispelled). is that cool or what?

@fectin Then use Shapeshift-ACF for druids, and then use PF or Rich Burlew polymorph rules.

@fectin Alternatively/additionally, I suggest using E6 as well, which cuts out MOST of Polymorph, but that's a more controversial decision, so.....yeah.

@KorvinStarmast up: rpg.stackexchange.com/a/104762/35386

@KorvinStarmast where is True Polymorph from? Is that 5E?

@Fectin Sory, I was thinking 5e, please disregard my reply

@KorvinStarmast no problem, I should have been clearer up front :)

@godskook I did quick edit to break out a paragraph, upgrade and highlight your experience base since it is embedded in the question, and a few little typos. Please review.

I like the answer, it's along the lies of "this is why we can't have nice things" --- 8^D

The only thing I have a problem with is the Experience-based part, but only marginally on the choice of direction. I'm inclined to agree with you that an upgrade was needed there.

Everything else is "clean up" level changes that I encourage others to do for me when they're so inclined.

@godskook good points. Thanks.

@KorvinStarmast I cleaned up the experience-based section. Not sure I like it pulled all the way out like that, but not sure if I can do better.

@KorvinStarmast "or dispelled" is a good reason to always keep dispel magic prepared.

@Adam Amen, deacon. :)

@godskook Given that experience is a criterion for the "a good answer" part of the question, it won't hurt. GS/BS questions/answers can get problematic/opinion based quickly. When you show the experience base, you give voters more reasons to +1.

I remember we once fought a wizard who polymorphed a fire elemental into a t-rex, and we had to take it out the old fashioned way. Would've been so much easier if any of us had dispel magic

@Baskakov_Dmitriy I missed the start of that discussion... mind helping me a moment? Was dragged by "one more turn" illness aka Civ V

The adventurer's league DM I'm going to tomorrow told me level up my character... from just hitting 5 to level 8.

This is going to go badly me thinks. Going to have a ton of new spells I won't be familiar with, won't have magic items like everyone else likely has, low gold etc.

@Ryan Well it could be worse. The system doesn't really expect you to have any magic items, so while you won't have as many options as everyone else, you won't be dragging them down any.

@Ryan In 3.5, a level 5 character could co-exist with level 8 characters without TOO much headache, as long as you played carefully around your lower HP pool.

And as I understand it, 5e made this marginally better.

he has level 10 characters at the table about to hit level 11

which should mean those players move on to a Tier 3 table in Adventurer's League... but thats the flaw of adventurer's league. Who wants to switch DMs and groups like that

@Ryan Then don't go.

@godskook ... I want to play. There's not a lot of options

its just a silly system this whole Adventurer's League thing

arbitrary level guidelines that nobody follows anyways

@Ryan Its not going to help you to sit in here complaining about squaring a circle. Yeah, its a bit frustrating, so vent a bit, but resign yourself to either squaring the circle, or not, and then DO your decision, and try to have fun with what you get.

I wasnt venting... was more saying it to see if anyone had suggestions of things to look for when i level him up

and just bored before work, that too

@Ryan Well, what class is he? And who will you be playing with?

I was a Paladin. Now since it seems like I need to level anyways I suppose I could just make any new character at Level 8

@Ryan You're coming off more on the other side of venting, in the "unproductively indecisive" region. I'd offer suggestions for how to setup your character, but I don't know 5e. Ask @nitsua60, @NautArch, @KorvinStarmast, @Adam? (I don't know which of the rest of you particularly play 5e, so sue me :P)

@godskook you rang?

@Ryan Because I like making useful things happen. :P

@Ryan s'okay. If you like your pally, keep him. Level 8 opens up some fun stuff with your first aura.

@Ryan Well, one of the reasons to keep your paladin is that lvl 8 paladins have more slots than a lvl 5 paladin, but no new spell levels. So you don't really need to worry about new spells

@Adam, @NautArch, seems to me, if there were defensive and/or buffing options he could grab, that'd really help, considering he's swinging alongside level 10 allies.

my entire paladin is ... or was based on tanking

What oath is the paladin?

@Trish I was asking what level of power (and which spheres) would the wizards from Tales of Earthsea have. In particular, the Sparrowhawk.

@Ryan that still works. YOu can pick up either an ASI or a feat to help with that. As Adam said, you've got the same spells, just more slots to smite. NOthing really changes, you're just better at it and you've got your extra attack, aura of protection and your oath aura (crown for divine allegiance)

Oath of the Crown (Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide) which gives Champion Challenge, Turn the Tide, and now I'll have Divine Allegiance

@Ryan what's your armor? you in plate yet?

nope

@Ryan don't know how AL works - but by 8th you should have plate. Jumping 3 levels and skipping it isn't...fair?

@Ryan What do you mean he told you to level up your character from 5 to 8?

@T.J.L. exactly what it sounds like

@NautArch Jumping levels in AL is more than unfair, it's completely prohibited.

@NautArch yeah thats what Im saying but seems completely common

If you didn't play the modules to gain the XP, you don't have it.

@Baskakov_Dmitriy Hmmm, most Earthsea mages have two dots in a sphere to actually do something with it. Mainly life, matter and prime I guess (using the book). The Sparrowhawk was the protagonist, right? I think I would class him with... life 4 matter 5 prime 5 at the time he beats himself. Maybe even he is one of the few that have entropy to more than 2 dots... The archmache definitly also is mind 4 (which is illusion stuff mainly) and a lot of them also have forces 3 (fireballs are forces)

the table I did Tier 1 at when new people would join the DM there had them skip to level 2 or level 3 also

@Ryan That is cheating under AL rules - or it means the game is not an AL game at all.

some of the tier 2 tables here say "Adventurer's League Tier 2" but then lists Levels 1-13 in one table I saw. like WTF

I just want to play though :(

@Trish At the start I have said that I want to read the LotR books and fact-check the "Gandalf was a level 5 Wizard" article

@Ryan That's different. If they're using material from the hardcover books, those have a wider level range. They're not tiered at all, other than the latest one (Yawning Portal) because it's really multiple separate adventures.

@Baskakov_Dmitriy Gandalph level 5?! comeon, he is a lvl 20 Wizard/lvl 20 Sorcerer/level 10 priest.

But... skipping levels is 100% verboten, except for very specific downtime rules to cross the tier gaps.

As one of my friends has noted (probably on a mistake, as others have clarified to me here) that Gandalf has 1) had at least 10 levels in Fighter 2) cast a 6th level spell to summon eagles

@T.J.L. how is his DM through AL doing this? I know nothing of AL.

@Trish Did you not read the article? :3

@Trish I do hope you're kidding?

@NautArch If he is telling people to skip levels, he is not running an AL game, no matter what he thinks.

we're starting to prep our next campaign (the 3d6 straight stat roll). Just found out we get no starting equipment, either. Kind of excited :)

@Trish Here! forum.rpg.net/…!

@godskook I am kidding, Gandalph is a God.

@T.J.L. okay then I guess he's just running a regular game. maybe filling out the DCI stuff so the shop still gets credit. I dont know

@Baskakov_Dmitriy not yet

I just want to play man and there's only so many tables that fit my schedule

@Trish May seem stupid at first, but perhaps is actually true

@Ryan That could be... still isn't right, still isn't AL.

so @T.J.L. I'll just say I'm entering a new game, not AL. The question is the same regarding how to handle my underpowered character

But hey, if you're having fun, so be it. Just don't expect the character to be portable to actual Adventures League events.

@Baskakov_Dmitriy If I would hae to rule out some spheres for most earthsee mages... I would say little to noone has more than 1 dot in entropy. Most would be focussed on matter, life and probably a bit mind, adding forces to that. Correspondence is not too rare... Prime is often but in lowquantities... Which spheres did I forget?

@Trish Also, this article is the thing that inspired E6 rules for Pathfinder

@Trish BTW

@Baskakov_Dmitriy by extension. E6 rules for 3.5 were inspired by it, and Pathfinder E6 was, afaik, the direct child of 3.5 E6

Are we talking the nWoD or oWoD mages? :D

@godskook Well, technically you are correct

Normal E6 rules work well with Pathfinder

@NautArch Rolling for gold?

@Ryan Fair enough. As somebody else mentioned, other than having a smaller hit point pool (and fewer spell slots) forcing you to play a bit more conservatively, the number swings in 5E are a lot smaller than they were in previous editions. Even without magic items, an L8 character should be able to contribute to an L10-11 party.

Normal E6 rules work well with Pathfinder

Fully compatible, as I understand it

@T.J.L. why is Tier 2 level 5 to 10 if level 5s cant keep up?

that seems to make it rather difficult to move on from Tier 1 to Tier 2

@Baskakov_Dmitriy There's a pathfinder E6 somewhere, not sure how good it is compared to Pathfinder and E6, but that's cause I don't go near pathfinder.

I stay in 3.5 pretty exclusively.

@Ryan That's a matter of opinion, really. Player skill is a big mitigating factor. Of course, if you were playing a proper AL game, it's likely an L4 character will already have one or two magic items.

I told my usual party about E6, they were like "WTF, why would anyone want to do that?"

Then I remembered they've never played a high-level campaign :P

@T.J.L. i have one magic item

@kviiri Ahahahaha.

Weapon of Warning. Advantage on Initiative and makes it harder to get sneaked up on

@Adam no gold. just the clothes on our back and he's let me have some loose leaf sheets of vellum as my 'spell book'

@Ryan as a dm, I hate that weapon :) You can't be surprised - nor can your party.

@NautArch Time to separate the party!

@NautArch As a player, it's pretty sweet. :)

@kviiri How high-level does your usual party usually go?

@Ryan Magic Weapon is a good spell to use, if you run up against something where your normal weapon isn't sufficient.

@godskook I didn't see much difference, actually. Probably the list of suggested Epic Feats is different

@NautArch you dont want to know how I acquired it. The more I learn the more I realize my first DM was bad

@Ryan Now I want to know how you acquired it. I shall inquire immediately after your character sheet is ready for your game.

@godskook Before our current campaign, we only played DnD once (4th edition) and got to level 4 or 5 or so. Some of the others have played campaigns in other groups but they've never went further than level 8 or so.

We've been playing some other systems in between and now we're back at DnD, 5e this time.

@Ryan Were there specific concerns you had? I might be able to help out.

And I guess they aren't all that well aware how out of the scales the DnD power levels go :P

@kviiri So none of these people have immersed themselves in 3.5 deep enough to know its flaws?

@godskook I don't think anyone has much 3.5e experience.

@godskook the DM of the table I was at told us we're in a large port town, he then said there's a shop of rare antiquities and basically had us go in and buy one magic item each --- nothing rare and rolled for pricing

They know the most popular memes, like class tiers, linear fighters etc.

But no details.

Everyone else took cloaks of some kind. I wanted the advantage on initiative

@Ryan Yeah... definitely not AL play. There are no cash-purchasable magic items in any AL game.

Faction-related, kinda... very limited list and pricing is static.

@T.J.L. yeah as I said the DM I was at the more I learn, the more I realize was part of the problem.

@Ryan If you're still in a position you can change it, I'd go with a Sentinel Shield over a Weapon of Warning. Doesn't have the no-surprise thing, but it gives advantage on Initiative and Perception.

@T.J.L. it seems like I can do whatever I want :\

If there was another Tier 1 table to join that fits my schedule I would just start from scratch

@godskook The big thing they should know from 4e and 5e, except not through experience of course, is that the power levels of magical characters in particular grow to rather unusual proportions considering the usual heroic fantasy tropes :)

maybe Ill just give up on 5E for a while and stick with AD&D

Ill go tomorrow as Level 8 and see what happens but I got a bad feeling about the entire thing

@Ryan inc.com/marcel-schwantes/…

@kviiri Do you get into 3.5 much?

@godskook Nah, I'm not very much into DnD in general.

@kviiri That's....odd considering you know what E6 is enough to bring it up in conversation :P

I've only played 4e and 5e, and would rather try out 13th Age instead of 4e and 4e instead of 5e.

@godskook I try to be cultured! :)

(I guess that's what reading RPG.SE does to you)

@kviiri Why 4e over 5e?

@Baskakov_Dmitriy There is no nWoD, there is WoD and CoD ;)

@godskook Powers. I like martial classes having as much diversity in their abilities as casters.

That's the biggest reason I guess. Although I'm a fan of its more focused design as well.

@kviiri I accomplish this by making multi-classing mandatory and encouraging ToB-use. Players really really have to work to make "I attack again" their only option.

@godskook What's ToB?

@kviiri Tome of Battle

I'd like to try some Gestalt-ish thing in 5e, maybe.

@godskook More "mundane" combat options?

("mundane" as in not magical)

@kviiri Its a book that had 3 martial-types who's progression was based around "maneuvers" which were spammable spells that were easily refreshed, sometimes even mid-combat.

@godskook Neat. That's the kind of stuff I wish Fighters had...

@kviiri Crusader/Swordsage were semi-mundane, depending on your choices, while Warblade was almost pure mundane.

@kviiri, widely considered, by 3.5 experts to be the unofficial "patch" to Fighter, Paladin, and Monk.

@kviiri Yeah, they're like spells but with more fists and less bat guano. Pathfinder also has a similar thing, though it's technically 3pp (Path of War).

@doppelgreener Cool.

@fectin Well, it's not a Halloween mask and a tie-on tail.

Another reason why I like 4e is that I feel 5e depends too much on the GM's whim at times... for example, I feel a bit short-changed as a Bard because 5e Bard doesn't work too well as an exclusively support caster because of the Concentration limits, and utility magic is all too situational.

While 4e powers are almost all combat, and utility picks are IIRC completely separate from combat picks.

That reminds me of a story I heard where a guy in a game design company was interviewing WoTC when 5e was coming out and he said "You know, I really love 4e. Why should I get 5e?" They didn't have an answer for him

@Adam Nice :D

I've been hankering to try out 13th Age ever since BESW recommended it to me here. It's supposedly 4e except it tries to iron out some of the traditional DnD problems it has.

@Adam Honestly, I don't think that's an easy question to answer, as 5e seems to have abandoned what would've made 4e good, if one could call 4e good.(I'm still bitter...) 5e is clearly based moreso on 3.5, although there do seem to be some similarities between 5e and 4e in terms of how they fixed a few of 3.5's issues.

There's some rather interesting choices: many classes always deal damage on basic attacks, even misses, resulting in less "wasted turns". There's an escalation die that ramps up turn by turn if combat proceeds, and it applies a bonus to PC to-hit, making combat less likely to slog. And there's even a way for split party members to participate in battles...

anyway, it's my bedtime. See you!

13th Age also has 3.5-ish elements, like using the spell system as an overlay. It's interesting to see a 3.5/4e mashup that isn't constrained by "TRADITION!" the way D&D is.

ttfn

My favorite part of 13th Age has to be the One Unique Thing.

Is 13th Age just a 3.5 variant that where classes could gain more than 1 HD per level and there were a few more houserules? ~Basically~?

No.

Cause looking at Barbarian in 13th Age, it really doesn't look like they wandered that far, else-wise.

13th age was fairly explicitly a 4e takeoff, IIRC.

It's a collaboration between the lead designers of 3.5 and of 4e, and draws on both, as well as on other, more narrative/indie RPG concepts that D&D can't use without alienating its TRADITION audience.

Roughly speaking it's a narrative-hacked d20 System game that implements experiential design learning from 4e.

It looks most like 3.5 at a glance, and classes like Barbarian which are designed to engage with the rulesets as simply as possible can reinforce that impression. But when you go to look for skills, or see how major NPCs tie into the mechanics, or notice how many classes use the unmodified attack roll to trigger secondary effects, the shape of the game starts to come into focus.

Lead designers from Orcus, not 3.5 IIRC. (Orcus was an early candidate for release as 4E. Supposedly, Bo9S was repurposed Orcus material)

@Trish You are so right. :3

Ah, my bad. Tweet was lead designer of 3.0 and Miniatures.

I am getting tired of not seeing the sun due to wildfire smoke.