D&D 5E Feat to negate disadvantage in casting spells at close range?

[PnPgamer]

Or pick out a melee friendly cantrip, instead of wasting a stat boost/feat gain.
It will also help to get another damage type, in case you encounter resistances or immunities.

 

[Rocksome]

there should be a feat that removes the penalty for dropping below 0 hit points, and another that lets you have unlimited spells slots and AC.

not every penalty should be easily negated. it's like a maze with no walls.

I agree, that not every penalty should be easily negated, but this is a minor penalty removed at substantial cost, not the same thing.

 

[rjfTrebor]

I agree, that not every penalty should be easily negated, but this is a minor penalty removed at substantial cost, not the same thing.

it has nothing to do with a cost/value ratio and everything to do with promoting a sense of solidarity to the rules. i can't tell you how many times as a DM that i've explained that someone has cover or that something is in darkness only to have a player smugly say they aren't affected. from my perspective as the constructor and operator of the game world, this is just limiting my ability to accurately use the game to model the scenarios i come up with for the adventure.

i'd rather them not add in little loophole cookies for players to buy so they can feel tricksy.

 

[CapnZapp]

it has nothing to do with a cost/value ratio and everything to do with promoting a sense of solidarity to the rules. i can't tell you how many times as a DM that i've explained that someone has cover or that something is in darkness only to have a player smugly say they aren't affected. from my perspective as the constructor and operator of the game world, this is just limiting my ability to accurately use the game to model the scenarios i come up with for the adventure.

i'd rather them not add in little loophole cookies for players to buy so they can feel tricksy.

Sorry but then this is not the game for you. D&D has always been about finding ways around restrictions.

The most blatant example?

Magic.

To get around obnoxious limitations set by reality.

 

[JesterOC]

... only to have a player smugly say they aren't affected..

The role of the DM is to create situations where the players can shine. Giving a PC a chance to use the feat they spent limited resources on is a good way of doing that. So it is a better game for players to tell you that their feat is helping them out, not a worse one. The worst thing a DM can do is to remove that element from the game, making the player's choice of play style worthless.

If the PC can attack with Ranged attacks in melee, send them melee monsters. If they can see in the dark, have some dark encounters, if they can speak Goblin, make sure they can overhear the goblin's plans. Immune to fire, send them fire wizards and have them be pissed and upset that their magic does not work.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The role of the DM is to create situations where the players can shine. Giving a PC a chance to use the feat they spent limited resources on is a good way of doing that. So it is a better game for players to tell you that their feat is helping them out, not a worse one. The worst thing a DM can do is to remove that element from the game, making the player's choice of play style worthless.

The role of the DM is to arbitrate. Taking the abilities of a PC into consideration is a way of introducing bias. So it is a better game for players if you allow their feats to work when they work, and not become personally invested. The worst thing a DM can do is to introduce an element into the game based on what the PCs can do, thus forcing the player's to take the meta-game into account.

 

[Dausuul]

The role of the DM is to create situations where the players can shine. Giving a PC a chance to use the feat they spent limited resources on is a good way of doing that. So it is a better game for players to tell you that their feat is helping them out, not a worse one. The worst thing a DM can do is to remove that element from the game, making the player's choice of play style worthless.

If the PC can attack with Ranged attacks in melee, send them melee monsters. If they can see in the dark, have some dark encounters, if they can speak Goblin, make sure they can overhear the goblin's plans. Immune to fire, send them fire wizards and have them be pissed and upset that their magic does not work.

I mostly agree, but I do feel there is a balance to be struck: Give the players plenty of chances to use their cool abilities, but now and then throw them situations where those abilities don't work, to keep them on their toes.

My wizard routinely wrecks the day of NPC casters by using counterspell. He's 13th level, so he can afford to spend a couple midrange spell slots to shut down a rival caster. Most of the time, my DM just rolls with it (theatrically cursing, of course). Once in a while, however, he sends an NPC at us who also packs counterspell, and uses it to counter my counters. I'm happy with this, even if my PC isn't. It means the party faces more varied threats--sometimes we have to reckon with enemy magic instead of simply shutting it down--while still letting me get good value out of the spell.

 

[Astrosicebear]

D&D is a system with limits. There are limits on the magic, limits on the weapons people use, etc...

The GAME is about breaking those limits. Because that's what people in real life do. Adventurers are the most ruthless, ambitious type of people you can find. They would never settle for the status quo.

The system and game will survive and your players will thrive if you say YES more than NO.

 

[AmerginLiath]

Sorry but then this is not the game for you. D&D has always been about finding ways around restrictions.

The most blatant example?

Magic.

To get around obnoxious limitations set by reality.

But the casting of magic is still limited by the restricted physical caster. Regarding "D&D has always been about finding ways around restrictions," I'm reminded first of all about the first half of my D&D playing where racial restrictions meant that reality limited what lists what one could cast from and how high-level the spells one could reach. And, in the latter part of my 'gaming career,' it's only been a short time where a caster's allowance for unlimited advancement/any class has coupled with not tying spell levels to particular stat values (the raising of which through advancement or items is still an opportunity cost). So no, D&D has always been – even in magic – a game about playing smartly within restrictions (there's a reason that so many of us have love Raistlin Majere as a character for decades, for example).

I think the best advice so far remains to have a range of spell options. Since a caster has more spells than he has feats – even the most list-restricted caster – one can pick up combat spells (often, as noted, with additional status riders) that prove tactically more useful in certain circumstances, as well as give things like other elemental damages that may come in handy. Even in the case of classes like Clerics or Bards with fewer damaging cantrips, spending an Initiate feat on picking up cantrips & spells from another list gives additional versatility rather than looking at merely altering circumstances on the one spammable attack they've otherwise used.

And limitations set by reality aren't obnoxious, they're necessary challenges. Otherwise, we have the case of two kids playing cowboy shouting "I shot you!," "no you didn't!," at each other all day long at the gaming table...

 

[Nebulous]

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] has it right.

That's fine by me, but the feat title makes that very confusing.