|
Post by Falconer on Jul 3, 2014 16:38:07 GMT -6
I agree, especially with regard to the incestuous references to TSR’s own literature, which is derivative and weak. I will say I prefer that over the influence of anime and video games. However, it’s funny that they *completely* disregard the entire “back to Appendix N” element of the OSR.
|
|
|
Post by vladtolenkov on Jul 3, 2014 16:50:29 GMT -6
I was fine nine pages in. Then I hit the page that said you level up at 300 xp and I closed the file. ~Scott "-enkainen" Casper That is one of the big changes here. I wasn't sure how I felt about it either, but I'm less opposed now after thinking about it a bit. The assumption here is that you can get to 20th level in a year or two of regular play. That means leveling is going going to be crazy fast, but after my experience with 4th Ed. where fight after fight didn't see us make much progress forward maybe I'm not so opposed to that. I've been playing D&D since 1982 and the highest level character I've ever had (when we played "properly") was something like 7th level. My groups just don't sustain campaigns longer than a year or so (and most last 6 months or less). I'm pretty sure they've also said the DMG will have rules for altering advancement rates (i.e. you can have AD&D/OD&D style advancement).
|
|
|
Post by kent on Jul 3, 2014 19:33:17 GMT -6
I don't think they should even be credited with 'business sense' for integrating their own *cough* novelists into their so called bare plain basic rules for fantasy gaming. Why? Because that woeful fantasy literature comes *from* the game they have the rights to. What Im saying is the mentality of the crap rpg and the crap fiction is one and the same. The designer-publisher management of D&D only have the imagination circumscribed by the novels they publish and the language used in the 5e basic pdf. It's the same thing. They are not cleverly incorporating something outside as if they tried to get sole rights to Eddison for example.
I will say having read through much of the basic pdf, which is an attempt to reproduce a version of the AD&D PHB, that I am immensely proud of what Gygax achieved. AD&D simply isn't something to be imitated. The ideas and the language are bound up in too subtle a form to be unraveled. AD&D exists already in a perfect form. If you want to write another fantasy RPG look at the examples of Warhammer 1e, Runequest 2e, MERP-Rolemaster or Dragon Warriors.
I also want to say it pains me to see Gary Gygax's name so casually credited alongside such a central casting list of non-entities in the pdf.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jul 3, 2014 20:09:23 GMT -6
Spot on.
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Jul 3, 2014 20:14:52 GMT -6
I agree, especially with regard to the incestuous references to TSR’s own literature, which is derivative and weak. I will say I prefer that over the influence of anime and video games. However, it’s funny that they *completely* disregard the entire “back to Appendix N” element of the OSR. Yeah, it's what I think is the biggest weakness of Wizards of the Coast's approach to D&D: they treat it as a brand where the detailed settings and heaps of novels are Really Important. So the influences are D&D novels, which is kind of incestuous; they are creating things that aren't fresh and don't reflect any ideas outside of the D&D "brand." None of which reflects actual play, where the majority of gamers have always thrown all that overboard and played in their own games with material they invent themselves. It's a minority who closely follow the established settings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 21:36:34 GMT -6
I agree with a lot of what I am reading here in regards to the presentation and forced assumptions about what fantasy is according to what numerous authors created in the name of D&D. In all honestly though I think I can look past all the bits of nonsensical fluff provided within the basic rules and really break down the crunchy bits into salvageable scraps from which to implement into my own amalgam of D&D. Effectively, I can create my own vision of fantasy (for my campaign), heck I can create my own house rules (and have), but what I am most interested in seeing is what Mearls (and WotC) did to the rules for D&D5.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 3, 2014 21:46:08 GMT -6
well, in 0d&d you can find a 5000gp gem on the 1st level and all monsters grant 100xp each, so getting to 2000xp doesn't really take that long. Obviously, monsters and treasure receive less xp in DDN. Besides, levels 1-3 in next are inspired by UA 0-level play. So instead of negative levels the "intro" is reserved for 1-3 before emerging a "hero", so it should go by pretty quick. In regards to the fluff descriptions being from old TSR books? What did Gygax use for examples in D&D? Oh right alliterative names of generic characters from no book or campaign! His example characters were just made up names. And somehow referencing Tenser or Otto is fine, but Tika from a Dragonlance module isn't? Should WotC get the rights to Robert Jordan's wheel of time before using Raistlin in an example? What a high standard and faulty memory some people seem to have.
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Jul 4, 2014 0:00:57 GMT -6
It is remarkable that every edition except OD&D and AD&D, in its language and organization, is written for a teenage audience. The core assumption of designers is that readers will never be able to imagine anything for themselves more sophisticated than Tolkien pastiche, that is gamers aspire at best to inhabit the worlds of Tolkien pastiche not Tolkien's or those of writers of his calibre not to mention their own original settings, and that official adventures are the gold standard. The integration of third-rate fantasy literature into the body text is closed minded. That's exactly right, I think. Why no (now public-domain) quotes from Dunsany on Elves, for example? I just wrote a sort of snarky blog post on the game here. The only thing I would add is that even though the post old-school efforts are "babyfied" or maybe "teenagefied", they seem in some ways much MORE complicated than the original more adult efforts. Search me what that means. But I confess that I don't really understand. Why would a teenager, with all the other things going on in his life, want to sit down and fully absorb all of those rules? Why not just play a video game, for example? Is memorizing all of those proficiency bonuses and what all else a macho thing? Or maybe kids these days are quicker (though less imaginative). I have no idea.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 4, 2014 5:35:52 GMT -6
A couple of thoughts so far: (1) For folks who have been playtesting, I don't think that most of this stuff is a surprise at all. The base rules are pretty much what we've seen all along. The "Basic" PDF does add a few details (like names for characters of different races) that I don't recall seeing before. (2) It doesn't surprise me at all that WotC is supporting their own product line with their D&D product line. As others have mentioned, why obtain the rights to use examples from real fiction if you already have a line of in-house fiction to draw from. The "default" setting they chose is FORGOTTEN REALMS and they have a lot of stuff to sell for that. The problem is that we're used to a RPG which was designed for a generic setting which we can then customize, and the newer product is a RPG designed for a specific setting which we then have to ignore. (3) I wish they didn't feel the need to explain so much. I guess one big complaint about OD&D was that they explained too little (so folks would interpret the same thing in differnet ways) but it seems like the new D&D follows the same path as all modern wordy rulebooks by giving me too much to read. Trim it down and assume that we've played a RPG before and I'm a lot happier. (4) I find it disappointing that some folks would fixate on a tiny detail and use that to give up on the entire system. For example, I don't use XP so the fact that folks level up at 300 XP never bothered me. I let characters level up when I feel like they ought to level up, and have control over that facet of the game. (5) It will be interesting to see how reaction changes as the Player's Handbook comes out, because we know that the Basic rules don't include all of the options. For example, the Basic rules only have one domain for the cleric (life) but the PH will have seven. The Basic rules only have core classes and races, but we know that Ranger and Sorcerer and Dragonborn and others will be added with the PH.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jul 4, 2014 7:49:45 GMT -6
(4) I find it disappointing that some folks would fixate on a tiny detail and use that to give up on the entire system. For example, I don't use XP so the fact that folks level up at 300 XP never bothered me. I let characters level up when I feel like they ought to level up, and have control over that facet of the game. I'm still skimming through it, but are there actually any rules for how you get those 300 XP? Are encounters still worth the same number of XP as before and PCs level up faster, or is the whole XP range adjusted so you just don't have to deal with as many zeroes? I've often been tempted to go for the latter approach with old editions but it breaks down at lower levels (not that big an issue, actually).
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 4, 2014 10:06:36 GMT -6
A great question. I'm not sure if I've seen any rules for earning XP yet. As I said, I don't use that rule so I wasn't really looking for one. It may be in the DMG when that comes out, and I don't have any special connections there yet.
|
|
|
Post by vladtolenkov on Jul 4, 2014 10:56:34 GMT -6
The XP material seems to be not in the Basic pdf (I suspect the Starter Set has guidelines about advancement). It will undoubtedly be added with the updates. We still need Monsters, XP info, DM advice. Maybe more on outdoor and dungeon exploration, traps etc.
I wonder if they'll put Battlesystem (the mass combat system) into the Basic Rules? They were not sure if they were going to do that last time I heard (although Battlesystem will be in the DMG).
|
|
|
Post by vladtolenkov on Jul 4, 2014 11:00:16 GMT -6
One nice thing in reading Basic D&D is that I have a sense that I could totally hack this into all kinds of stuff (which I didn't have with 4E).
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jul 4, 2014 12:12:04 GMT -6
I wish they didn't feel the need to explain so much. I guess one big complaint about OD&D was that they explained too little (so folks would interpret the same thing in differnet ways) but it seems like the new D&D follows the same path as all modern wordy rulebooks by giving me too much to read. These wordy basic rules bore me to death. Even without any monsters or magic items, they take up over 100 pages. Even when monsters and magic items are included, the basic rules need not take up more than 96 pages. I'm thinking of Holmes and of how much he packed in to 48 pages. I have no doubt that Holmes could have taken the game all the way up to 20th level in 96 pages or less. It's too bad that what could be done by Holmes in his spare time back in 1977 can't be managed by an entire company in 2014.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 4, 2014 12:31:50 GMT -6
I agree that their text is dry and overly wordy and I'm so glad your Carcosa didn't include a chapter on "what is a role playing game", but WotC--the designers of MtG are writing D&D as a tournament game with their Adventure League et al. And so they understandably need to write in a style fit for tournament play.
That being said, I think their rules on alchemy, black smithing et al would work well in any OSR game. Those rules are unhitched from level which is great. Instead of just picking white lotus flowers and grinding them up in a mortar and pestle here are elegant rules on how to use alchemy and potion crafting that don't rely on just amassing and spending 1000's of gold pieces.
I can totally see a character spending a year studying with the bone sorcerer learning lotus alchemy.
To make Green lotus DC 15 Generic poison DC 15 Black lotus DC 20 (victim must make a constitution save DC 8+alchemists int bonus +proficiency modifier or die). All men have disadvantage when saving against black lotus.
It would mean the poison from an apprentice with a 15 int would be DC 11, but a poison from the 3rd level bone sorcerer or black alchemist with an 18 int and proficiency would be DC 14.
Etc etc
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jul 4, 2014 17:05:18 GMT -6
The constant use of "your" is a really awkward way to speak to the reader. "Your intelligence score increases by one" should be "elves add one to their intelligence".
Also, is this the first time WOTC explicitly refers to character creation as "building" a character? I think there use to be at least the pretense of randomness, even if it wasn't there.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 4, 2014 17:32:08 GMT -6
Good catch on the "your". I think it's a result of MtG card descriptions which talk to the player in the 1st person.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 19:16:30 GMT -6
Reminds me of the good ol days when Player represented both the player and the character. However, it does mean that the rules are written for the players to read rather than the DM.
|
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
Post by Azafuse on Jul 4, 2014 21:16:07 GMT -6
The constant use of "your" is a really awkward way to speak to the reader. "Your intelligence score increases by one" should be "elves add one to their intelligence". Because those rules are addressed to players, not only to DMs. The same happened with Mentzer Basic (while Holmes and Gygax seem to have been pretty goofy by using the "you" while describing the Saving Throws only).
|
|
EdOWar
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 315
|
Post by EdOWar on Jul 4, 2014 21:16:49 GMT -6
Having given it a quick read through I'm not surprised that most people here don't seem to like it. My impression is that 5e feels a bit like someone's version of a rules-lite 3e retro-clone.
I started out hating it, but as I read it kind of grew on me. I'd like to try running a modified version of 5e sometime, give it a spin around the block so-to-speak. And it reads like it would be a lot easier to tinker with the rules than Pathfinder or 4e.
At any rate, it's worth a read through just to cherry pick good house rules.
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Jul 4, 2014 22:39:16 GMT -6
I have to admit that it's a bit annoying seeing the positive or semi-positive reviews from many OSR bloggers (some of whom I like and respect very much). In my view, some seem to think it important not to seem too biased or "ideological", so there are Herculean efforts to find some good things about the new edition or explain how it is not quite as bad as its predecessor. There are a various positive things one can "hack" or whatever. On the other hand, stating the obvious, that the game is just well, bad, is thought of as I guess too negative.
So another generation of hundreds of thousands of children will waste their time and their parents' dollars on this schlock. Schlock that doesn't liberate their imagination but smothers it. I find that disturbing. Wasn't the OSR founded to oppose that idea?
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 4, 2014 22:55:44 GMT -6
Dude, c'mon.
First, the "OSR" was never "founded" by anyone for anything. It's a label that has accreted a jumble of meanings with no actual focus. At best, the label describes a vaguely-defined mindset around one particular approach to playing RPGs. At. Best.
Second, Basic DND is by no objective measurement a "bad" game. ALL the complaints I've seen so far have been subjective judgments of isolated parts of the system conflated into objective condemnation. I mean, if you ant to lean on whatever the OSR is supposed to be, aren't the rules what you make them? Isn't that an enjoyable part of the experience? And everything I've read about what's coming in the core books indicates that they'll be making that an explicit assumption of play---"Here are a ton of options--use the ones you like, ignore the ones you don't, or make up your own!"
AND I find this assumption that countless kids will somehow be wasting their time by playing ANY version of the game, let alone this one, to be patently ridiculous.
I don't think ANY version of DND is a perfect game, if only because none of them exist in a vacuum. The game is what you and your players make it. Period.
|
|
|
Post by oakesspalding on Jul 4, 2014 23:15:41 GMT -6
I knew I'd get that, which is why I almost didn't write it, and that you wrote what you did illustrates the truth of the "some of whom I like and respect very much" caveat. I stand by everything I said, except perhaps for the "founded" part. I guess I just got caught up in the Independence Day thing.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 4, 2014 23:26:27 GMT -6
A vocal majority over at Enworld appear to be loving it. There is talk that 5E Basic is a throwback to the ol' editions, and that 5E encourages a revolutionary style of D&D. Perhaps compared to 4E that might be.
My initial impression is modestly disappointed. Modestly because it is what we knew it would be via the play tests, but disappointed still because with all WotC's resources and energy and years of development they still couldn't deliver a D&D platform to seamlessly include all editions/players.
5E looks like "3E lite" to me; a logical "slimming down" from the crunch-heavy 3.5/Pathfinder editions. I'm convinced 5E is targeted particularly at the 4E/Pathfinder markets. That's where most of the D&D money is afterall, and WotC has a commercial interest in salving the 4E/3E schism and reigning in the Pathfinder market.
I'm saddened that 5E is another character build edition--mainly because more and more kids will never have seen any D&D that is not a build game. The rules now discuss "builds" explicitly and, FWIW, much of the discussion on Enworld is quite naturally about how such and such an option is keeeewl or stinks; or how such and such a build is too weak or over powered. I can hardly wait for another thousand pages of feats and options!
I have to assume it's all market driven, but IMHO it's still a genuine shame that Basic includes imperative stat inflation right off the bat, and also that Basic's scale of numbers and adjustments eclipse the early editions. That, for starters, will make it fiddly to merge Holmes or B/X edition material with the new Basic edition.
If the new Basic is considered "lite", then I guess I had hoped against hope that the new Basic would somehow be only the "microlite" framework underlying what we saw in the play test material.
IMHO Basic needed to be around 48-64 pages of intelligent prose. With monsters. It needed only paragraphs per race, class, and background, not pages and pages. It needed to defer most of the "caption abilities" that slant it toward a 3E/4E feel to the optional realm of subsequent releases. It would not have hurt to defer higher level play to subsequent releases in order to keep it shorter.
Then we could have had a more inclusive, Basic D&D platform upon which to build and share.
As a lifelong D&D player, I'm clearly not in the target market.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2014 23:54:21 GMT -6
I picked up the Starter Set yesterday as one of the LSGs had it in stock. The player book covers everything outside of character creation that's listed within the Basic pdf (aside for the fact that only the first 3 spell levels are presented). I thought the adventure was well done and covered a fair amount of options for adventuring. With a bit of work someone unfamiliar with the Forgotten Realms could re-skin the setting fluff and use the map for an entire campaign. My biggest gripe with the entirety of 5th is the whole powering up of the characters at the lower levels (this was the same issue I had with 3rd/3.5 and why I pursued OD&D and basic). Yet with the powering up of characters they have also powered up the monsters. For example a bugbear from the Greyhawk supplement had 3+1 HD and an AC of 5, whereas a bugbear in 5th has 5d8+5 HD and an AC of 16 (retroactively the armor class hasn't changed). Additionally the 5th edition bugbear has the ability to dole our large amounts of damage with its Brute ability (when it hits the bugbear adds an additional die of weapon damage). Yet I do feel as though the experience rewards for the monsters is acceptable as the aforementioned bugbear is worth 200xp which is four times the value suggested for a bugbear in Greyhawk.
Also, as far as earning experience, in the short paragraph detailing the concept it would seem that XP is earned by defeating monsters, achieving milestones (quest rewards, attaining personal character goals etc.), and overcoming other challenges (for instance in one part of the adventure the characters can each earn 100xp for circumventing a cleverly hidden pit trap). Even so I think that the current rules set as it stands can easily be modified to accommodate the original rules and vice versa. Or what is more likely is that there is probably enough innovations within 5th that can be house ruled into a workable OD&D form.
After reading the rules for character death I finally feel as though they had gotten this right (for the most part). While these rules give players the chance for a favored PC to survive lethal combat the danger of death is still significant and real for the characters. I can imagine a scenario where an unconscious pc has made 2 successes and 2 failures while the party faces off against a villain who casually runs the struggling player through (not out of DM's spite, but as emphasis on the mercilessness of the antagonist).
Overall as a 2nd edition player who jumped on the 3rd edition bandwagon in 2000, then subsequently sought out the original rules after becoming disillusioned with 3.5 and the d20 system, I would say that the designers at WotC did a fair job on the 5th edition. Though the first change I'd make is deflating the stat bonuses to reflect those in BCMI (14-15:+1, 16-17:+2, 18-19:+3 and so on).
|
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
Post by Azafuse on Jul 5, 2014 1:23:32 GMT -6
IMHO Basic needed to be around 48-64 pages of intelligent prose. Prose is amazing, but prose is IP. And IP is not shared for free to avoid legal issues (for both paths). I'm saddened that 5E is another character build edition Isn't OD&D a character build edition too? If you don't use the Chainmail Combat Matrix you know that a dagger (3GP) is better than a sword (10GP), because a dagger (3GP) deals the same amount of damage (d6) and you can also hire an archer (5GP) and a light foot (2GP) with the same 10GP. A better initial choice is a better build: this has been, is and will always be true for every RPG and wargame, before and after 1974. A wargamer deals with an army build approach if he wanna increase the chances of winning. A roleplayer deals with a character build approach if he wants his PC to have more chance of survival.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Jul 5, 2014 1:27:16 GMT -6
There were no less than 3 distinct combat systems that shipped with 0d&d, what's one more? Yes, the character generation rules in 5e are the most detailed column in the triumvirate of combat/exploration/role-playing.
The question is, if you want to keep the 0d&d character generation/combat system...are the 5E exploration, proficiency, and RP rules worth incorporating into your game? For me, the answer is yes. The modular nature means that if you want to Run B2 Keep on the borderlands as is, you can and still incorporate the excellent rules on proficiencies and overland travel and fatigue and thief skills etc into your game.
There's nothing stoping anyone from playing a 2 hit point magic user with a 20 thac0 and detect magic as his one spell from also having his chance to be surprised shifted from a static 1-2 on a d6 to 10+wis bonus (if any). Or for all thief skills to be 10+Dex bonus+proficiency bonus on a d20.
I mean, is ad&d grappling rules better than 5E?
People who seem to dislike 5E seem to focus on character creation...but that's the easiest part to ignore and for old school sensibilities...the least important: Arneson said you can play a balrog if you want, who cares if someone wants to play a dragonborn warlock?
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jul 5, 2014 1:34:41 GMT -6
Prose is amazing, but prose is IP. And IP is not shared for free to avoid legal issues (for both paths). I'm not sure what this means? The 5E Basic D&D PDF is WotC's IP and the text therein is their copyright. edit: Isn't OD&D a character build edition too? If you don't use the Chainmail Combat Matrix you know that a dagger (3GP) is better than a sword (10GP), because a dagger (3GP) deals the same amount of damage (d6) and you can also hire an archer (5GP) and a light foot (2GP) with the same 10GP. A better initial choice is a better build: this has been, is and will always be true for every RPG and wargame, before and after 1974. A wargamer deals with an army build approach if he wanna increase the chances of winning. A roleplayer deals with a character build approach if he wants his PC to have more chance of survival. I don't agree Azafuse. In-game character behaviors (such as choosing to buy a superior weapon, or to hire an archer) are the result of player strategy in response to the in-game circumstances. That is distinct from character build choices made when designing a character in a vacuum from a list of possible options. Build choices tend to be made out-of-game, to be limited only by "the allowable options", and to be permanent choices for that character. Build choices can be discussed and researched at great length, and "optimal" builds found by other researchers, and then re-used by all so-informed players thereafter. Whereas in-game strategy choices are made in-game; they tend to be limited by imaginary in-game constraints (time of day, location, equipment/gold on hand, etc.), and to be transient. They must usually be made on the spot, in-game, by the player in question. With regard to wargames: there are many wargames that lack, or have very limited, army build components (including most historical scenarios with fixed army lists). Regardless of this, in the majority of wargames rules I've played, in-game strategy plays a much larger role in winning or losing than does army build. IMHO, OD&D is similar in this; it has very limited "build" options, which means players have to rely primarily upon in-game strategy if they want to improve their chances of success. (Not all players do, of course, but that's their choice too).
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jul 5, 2014 5:03:38 GMT -6
I have to admit that it's a bit annoying seeing the positive or semi-positive reviews from many OSR bloggers (some of whom I like and respect very much). In my view, some seem to think it important not to seem too biased or "ideological", so there are Herculean efforts to find some good things about the new edition or explain how it is not quite as bad as its predecessor. There are a various positive things one can "hack" or whatever. On the other hand, stating the obvious, that the game is just well, bad, is thought of as I guess too negative. So another generation of hundreds of thousands of children will waste their time and their parents' dollars on this schlock. Schlock that doesn't liberate their imagination but smothers it. I find that disturbing. Wasn't the OSR founded to oppose that idea? Because D&D 5e is firmly in the family of retro clones. It is no S&W, L&L, or OSRIC. Rather It more akin to Lotfp or Blood & Treasure or Castles & Crusades. Having played and refereed it I play most similarly to the a Blood & Treasure campaign I am playing and it feel similar to how I referee the Majestic Wilderlands It does have a distinct feel just like OD&D core book only has a distinct feel that differs from other editions of classic D&D. Because of that people happy with a particular edition of D&D probably will not switch. No more than OD&D fan wants to switch to AD&D. But it will serve well in the role of a second favorite RPG as an OSR gamer can easily pick it up and learn to play it. Especially players of this forums who are immersed in OD&D. 5E in terms of mechanical balance is most akin to OD&D than any other edition. Characters can do certain things better than other characters but any character can attempt just about anything.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 5, 2014 5:45:39 GMT -6
One thing I liked about Castles & Crusades is that it was sort of like a blend of AD&D and 3E so players of both games could enjoy playing side by side. I think that 5E fills a similar niche. And my understanding is that that the DMG is supposed to contain information on how to emulate a particular edition, if the DM so chooses. After all, if there are parts you don't like you can ignore them.
For example, the wizard gets to pick a school or the cleric gets to pick a domain somewhere along the line. One could elimimate those and the characters would have an older feel to them. Essentially, a DM has the option of picking the choices for the players and saying "that's how it's done in this campaign" and still have it follow the rules set.
I like 5E. Is it "better" than older rules sets? Probably not, but there are some things my players like better. It gets rid of some of the boredom that my players felt at early levels, where they only had one spell and one hit die. For some that would be a bug, but my players are glad to have bypassed some of that.
|
|