What does a high level character look like in 5e? I'm looking at the differences between 7e and 7e(alt), and it seems to me that 7(alt) considers scores in the 20s to be high, while 7e won't even give the time of day to anyone with less than 40 (I could roll a 36 strength for a dwarf, without invoking TARO).
I'm guessing (from the progression chart in the free rules) that 5e is considers 20s to be high as well.
The stat generation for 5th edition is essentially the same as for 7th, except that TARO isn't used. You can have a starting ST of 36 for a Dwarf in 5th edition too.
Levels are based purely on experience points, so you could technically have a character with all attributes over 100 who was still first level. That would tend to indicate a GM who is very 'generous' with the attribute increases though!
Post by unclecranky on Jun 21, 2009 14:48:09 GMT -5
Well, there are also the talents. Can't forget them. They eased the whole role-playing process greatly in 7e and ed 7.5. The biggest beef is with the spells, which underwent a huge and dismaying metamorphosis in 7e, no doubt to make it less desirable to be a wizard than a warrior.
The biggest beef is with the spells, which underwent a huge and dismaying metamorphosis in 7e, no doubt to make it less desirable to be a wizard than a warrior.
Tell us more Unclecranks... Is it the spells themselves or WIZ, or something else?
I don't have 7.5 yet but I'm fairly familiar with 7.0... The main reason we reverted to earlier editions was that the players felt advancing a level was nigh-on impossible without arbitrary level-boosting magic events and treasures (which made the hard work of tracking every stray AP a tad pointless) but I understand that's been sorted out in 7.5?
*edit* Apologies, I've derailed the thread again!
Last Edit: Jun 22, 2009 9:42:53 GMT -5 by Hogscape
The main reason we reverted to earlier editions was that the players felt advancing a level was nigh-on impossible without arbitrary level-boosting magic events and treasures (which made the hard work of tracking every stray AP a tad pointless) but I understand that's been sorted out in 7.5?
Depends on your view. The advancement would seem to be much quicker in 7.5 as the AP cost is: score times 10, rather than times 100 as it was in 7th. That's an odd fix in my own mind, as that would make advancement and inflation too high too quick.
As far as what unclecranky mentioned concerning magic and the lessened appeal of playing wizards, I can guess that he's referring to Kremm Resistance and such.
Though it looks to me to be balanced with the fact that spells themselves look to have had quite a boost. There's many more of them and many more of them that are quite powerful. If anything, 7.5 seems far more magic-heavy, imho. (Then again, the DEX and IQ costs are different - 1st L spells in 5th ed. require a IQ10 DEX8, while in 7.5, 1st L's require IQ and DEX to both be 10. Plus spells are more expensive, being 1000GP per level. Instead of a 2nd level spell costing 500GP, they cost 2000GP in 7.5)
It seems like a rough attempt at internal balance has been made, but it's all done to serve the fact that stats and levels and so forth have been 'upped'. So, a number of sweeping changes were necessary for something that didn't need to be done in the first place (making stats reflect level). An asinine change in my view. Or at least little better than arbitrary. Your milage may vary.
"Hold off thy hands, or by Heaven I'll make a ghost of him that lets me!" - Hamlet
Post by unclecranky on Jun 22, 2009 23:16:58 GMT -5
Specifically, the wall spells were cut out entirely (7 1/2 curses on those who left them out), the Wiz costs rose a bit, and the effectiveness of spells such as Blasting Power and Freeze Pleeze were diminished, as were the durations of many spells. If you read carefully BP and FP were once multi-target spells that did not have to be aimed. Now they are single-target spells, and you have to get into the Codex Incantatem to find multi-target versions of these spells with a higher wiz cost at that. Magic resistance-well, that I can do with or without, but something HAD to be done to simulate the situation, and this rule works as well as any. The spell prices were a naaasty punch in the wallet for characters, but since a good many of them tend to wind up with more cash than good things to spend it on, this might've been for the best overall. Also, since we now have quicker advancement than in 7e, the idea of reverting to the original spell level structure (levels 1-17 or 1-20) might've occurred. I'm just carping here, my opinion (and gameworld) are my opinion (and gameworld) and people shouldn't take me any more seriously than they do anyone else. I'm just an old fart with a cane and back pain.