D&D (2024) Playtest 8 Spell Discussion

[UngeheuerLich]

But just because I tell my players "Find Traps sucks as a spell, I made a better version" doesn't mean I didn't change a rule. Sure, giant monster throwing things makes sense. It also makes sense that the Barbarian should be able to throw their Greataxe. That doesn't change the fact that there are rules for how throwing weapons work, and that those rules exist.

But make no sense in that context... So you rather use a guideline of the DMG to adapt the game.

Regarding siege weapons and tremor sense. Could be seen as rules. The question is: are equipment lists rules? Are monster abilities rules? Or are those just lists you can interchange and still play the game with the actual rules...

 

[Maxperson]

But make no sense in that context... So you rather use a guideline of the DMG to adapt the game.

Regarding siege weapons and tremor sense. Could be seen as rules. The question is: are equipment lists rules? Are monster abilities rules? Or are those just lists you can interchange and still play the game with the actual rules...

They could be seen as rules if they were rules. The difference between a rule and a guideline is the strength of the statement. The DMG calls out the other two books as guidelines in order to weaken strength of the statements.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That holds true of the PHB. There is no rule saying I can't become proficient in Ukulele nor is there a rule that my magic missiles must be three glowing darts and not three magical birds that divebomb the enemy. The notion that the PHB is sancrosact and the other books are merely suggestions is a silly distinction. They all are equal parts guidelines and rules.

I did not say that. Or probably i was sloppy. The PHB contains most of the rules (roll a d20, compare vs DC) and guidelines.

 

[Stalker0]

could we please please please please get this thread back on topic. We’ve had a 10 page discussion of components that has nothing to do with the playtest 8 spells and I don’t has changed anyone of their position.

How about we take this to the general thread where it belongs

 

[Yaarel]

Where?

UA Playtest 7

The RAW says, it is impossible for Wizards to understand each others spellbooks.

Only magic can "translate" the unique and unshared language of each caster.

 

[Yaarel]

As a final thought.

It seems problematic for Playtest 7 to introduce the concept of spellbook unreadability. I suppose it is a throwback to the Read Magic spell of earlier editions. 2014 seems to be better off discontinuing the concept. It seems awkward for 2024 to dredge it back up again.

A better, "modern" approach, does better to utilize the 5e skill system.

For example.

Each Wizard learns to do magic following local cultural traditions and personal tastes. In other words, magic works similarly to artwork. There are artistic styles, genres, and histories. But ultimately, each artist is unique.

When Wizards look at someone elses spellbook, it is normally fairly obvious what each spell is and what it does. So something like an Intelligence (Arcana) check for DC 10, at least for the low slot spells, such as a slot 0 cantrip, to recognize a spell. Maybe DC 11 for a slot 1 spell.

But to figure out how to reproduce a spell − to actually do it − is more difficult. Then an other casters spellbook is more like clues for how to do something. Possibly the ability to "know" the spell (putting it in ones own spellbook) is base DC 15, or maybe even DC 20. With failure representing the loss of time to research the spell.

But the spells that a Wizard gains while leveling, are personal spells that the Wizard was working on already, and these are automatically "known".


An example of the process, the spell from Shakespeare: "Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble." It is fairly obvious what the purpose of the spell is, some kind of curse spell, DC 10. This is being performed by a "ritual", instead of being cast with a spell slot. But the context of the spell might give enough clues for a particular Wizard to figure out how to cast it oneself. When successfully reproducing the spell, the Wizard records how in ones own spellbook, adapting it to ones own "artistic" style and taste.

 

[Maxperson]

UA Playtest 7

The RAW says, it is impossible for Wizards to understand each others spellbooks.

Only magic can "translate" the unique and unshared language of each caster.

So nowhere. Until it hits the core books, and it may never make it because that's how playtests work, it's not a rule of any sort.

 

[Yaarel]

So nowhere. Until it hits the core books, and it may never make it because that's how playtests work, it's not a rule of any sort.

Of course, playtesting and evaluating this future RAW is what this forum is about.

If the future RAW looks problematic, rethink it.

Spellbook unreadability is less than cool, doesnt match reallife concepts about magic, and is somewhat of a rabbit hole in its implications.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course, implementing, playtesting, and critiquing this future RAW is precisely what this forum is about.

Potentially future rule. It's not RAW until AFTER it's released as a rule. I personally think it's foolishness, but all it does is underscore that magic is a separate language that you need "read magic" to understand. 5e is using identify because read magic doesn't exist like it did for 1e, 2e, and 3e. No idea if it was in 4e. If what we do end up with this playtest rule, it will mean that magic is its own language.

By the by, the way it's written the identify spell is only needed by NPCs to read PC books. The expanding and replacing your spellbook section of Playtest 7 only requires PCs to spend 2 hours and 50GP for each level of the spell to transcribe a new spell into the PC's book.

 

[Yaarel]

The implication of a readable spellbook is, a Fighter can pick up a spellbook and try to figure out how to cast a spell.

The Fighter lacks spell slots. So it is impossible to for the Fighter to spellcast during combat.

But the Fighter CAN attempt to perform a "ritual".


This is actually awesome.

2024 should embrace the possibility that anyone can attempt to perform a ritual.

Apply an ability check, using the relevant ability and skill depending on the class of the ritual, to see if the ritual succeeds.


Even better make a "fumble" (a critical failure on the ability check) mean that ritual goes wrong.

A caster can spend a spell slot to guarantee the success of a ritual. But most of the time, a caster wants to save ones slots for combat, and will also risk fumbling a ritual.