D&D 5E Rethinking casting spells? Simple Implements & Components...

[Roguedeus]

First please understand that I am a dabbler in D&D, and RPG's in general. I rarely get to play them, but have been a lover of them for some 24+ years now. I do not claim to be an expert, I am only asking for feedback on the viability, or necessity, of some minor changes to the way that magic is utilized during play. If this is a subject that has been addressed Ad-nauseam, I apologize. I do not frequent this forum as much as I probably should.

...

THE ISSUE:
I am sure that many would say that my definition lacks nuance, but for the sake of clarity I am paraphrasing as simply as I can.

There seems to be a consensus, however tenuous, that the Warrior/Caster dichotomy is being exacerbated with D&DNEXT, as it was in 3rd Ed. The issue seems to be that Warrior types (Fighters, Rogues, Etc...) are gear bound with abilities that scale very flatly, while Caster types (Wizards, Druids, Etc...) can level almost naked and still quickly make Warrior types superfluous via a combination of Cantrips and abilities that are far more versatile, while scaling Quadratically. The challenge is how to add a sense of balance to casters, without ruining their overall utility, and enhancing the desire of non-caster alternatives in contrast.

...

Again, for the sake of keeping this as digestible as possible, I will attempt to simplify my suggested solution.

A SOLUTION?:
First: ALL spell/like abilities, that utilize slots, (even those used by Sorcerers) should consume some kind of spell component and/or an implements charge (wands, staves). I suggest a simple 'generic' form of component/charge with rarity levels, such as mundane, uncommon, and rare. Thus a common 1st level spell would consume 1 mundane spell component from the wizards component count, or 1 mundane charge from their current implement. A 2nd level spell might consume 2 mundane components, while a 7th level spell may consume 3 uncommon and 1 rare component!

Note: More powerful spells (or scaled spells) utilize more/rarer components/charges.


Second: All spell/like abilities, that utilize slots, (even those used by Sorcerers) should require a charged implement (such as a wand or staff) with stats that the spells primary effects and 'scalability' are based off of (like a swords damage, a bows range and ammunition like arrows). Cantrips can be used as impromptu implements (reduced stats based on the Cantrip), but with no scalability (i.e. no multiple components/charges, thus only the simplest spells).

Note: Perhaps special kinds of Cantrips require a spell slot to function, removing that slot from normal casting use.


Special: For those rare cases where a caster is without their component pouch or implement (relying on Cantrip as an implement), they can use a skill that allows them to improvise components, with whats on hand (with appropriate circumstance adjustments) or risk losing the spell/slot.

...

CLOSING:
I think this solution will work for most cases of disparity by allowing the DM to reign in the auto scaling, non-gear dependent, nature of casters and force them to endure the at least SOME of the necessities of melee based classes. Components are on par with ammunition, and can be found as loots. The utility of the casters items (wand/staff) is made more on par with melee weapons, for spell/ability effectiveness. And the possible removal of both, relegates that caster to a significantly sub par actor, in accordance with a non-caster character who's lost their gear.

In contrast, a rogue (or other non-caster) that has some spell like utility without the need of actual spells, is even more desirable for those moments where the wizard is without implement or components, or when they simply don't want to expend them.

Keep in mind that this will also require a minor tweak to the nature of spell scaling. Instead of being based on caster level, it will be based on implement stats, just like non-casters are. Where a spell might say DC 10 +1 per caster level, it would now be DC 10 +2 per implement bonus. Or some equivalent. Ranged spells would also depend on the implements range, like an archer would use a bow. Also, spells would need to explicitly state what type of implement is necessary to cast the spell. Some may only use wands with a minimum bonus, others only a staff. This would be the most difficult part of this solution.

Thanks for your time.

 

[GX.Sigma]

THE ISSUE:
I am sure that many would say that my definition lacks nuance, but for the sake of clarity I am paraphrasing as simply as I can.

There seems to be a consensus, however tenuous, that the Warrior/Caster dichotomy is being exacerbated with D&DNEXT, as it was in 3rd Ed. The issue seems to be that Warrior types (Fighters, Rogues, Etc...) are gear bound with abilities that scale very flatly, while Caster types (Wizards, Druids, Etc...) can level almost naked and still quickly make Warrior types superfluous via a combination of Cantrips and abilities that are far more versatile, while scaling Quadratically.

Why is "gear bound" a problem? (Assuming they scale at the same rate, which considering the D&DN fighter gets 2 attacks at 2[W] at level 5, I think they're not doing too bad)

A SOLUTION?:

First: ALL spell/like abilities, that utilize slots, (even those used by Sorcerers) should consume some kind of spell component and/or an implements charge (wands, staves).

Why should they cost two things? Why even have slots if the spell component is the limiting factor? Why even have components if slots are the limiting factor? That amount of resource tracking would get really complicated really fast.

 

[Roguedeus]

Why is "gear bound" a problem? (Assuming they scale at the same rate, which considering the D&DN fighter gets 2 attacks at 2[W] at level 5, I think they're not doing too bad)

If it is, I would guess it is due to the fact that Fighters require a weapon and armor (at minimum), and Wizards require only their spell book (indirectly) and free use of their hands and voice. Perhaps adding a hint of gear restriction to spell casting will help level the playing field, so to peak.

Why should they cost two things? Why even have slots if the spell component is the limiting factor? Why even have components if slots are the limiting factor?

I wouldn't consider components a limiting factor on the level of spell slots. After all, gaining new slots is a factor of class level, where components are simply a factor of cost, and like enchanted arrows, minor limiting factor in uses and scale over time. Especially when away from readily available markets.

That amount of resource tracking would get really complicated really fast.

I only suggest 3 levels of general components. Nothing as byzantine as some 2ed rules suggested. Instead of a ball of bat guano and a pinch of sulfur, you subtract 3 'mundane' components from your pool. A very minor addition to resource tracking... (edit) And not much harder than tracking said arrows.

...

Thanks for the critique! It helps.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I am sure that many would say that my definition lacks nuance, but for the sake of clarity I am paraphrasing as simply as I can.

There seems to be a consensus, however tenuous, that the Warrior/Caster dichotomy is being exacerbated with D&DNEXT, as it was in 3rd Ed. The issue seems to be that Warrior types (Fighters, Rogues, Etc...) are gear bound with abilities that scale very flatly, while Caster types (Wizards, Druids, Etc...) can level almost naked and still quickly make Warrior types superfluous via a combination of Cantrips and abilities that are far more versatile, while scaling Quadratically. The challenge is how to add a sense of balance to casters, without ruining their overall utility, and enhancing the desire of non-caster alternatives in contrast.

...

Again, for the sake of keeping this as digestible as possible, I will attempt to simplify my suggested solution.

A SOLUTION?:
First: ALL spell/like abilities, that utilize slots, (even those used by Sorcerers) should consume some kind of spell component and/or an implements charge (wands, staves). I suggest a simple 'generic' form of component/charge with rarity levels, such as mundane, uncommon, and rare. Thus a common 1st level spell would consume 1 mundane spell component from the wizards component count, or 1 mundane charge from their current implement. A 2nd level spell might consume 2 mundane components, while a 7th level spell may consume 3 uncommon and 1 rare component!

I don't agree. Or at the least, this kind of record-keeping should be an alternate rules module, because there's lots of groups that don't appreciate that, and the basic rules should be as simple as possible.

I don't think the necessity of buying arrows is a "balancing" trait of the archer. Arrows are cheap, easily available, and you can even make your own. You can't (or shouldn't) walk around with 200 arrows though.

If a spell is so powerful it requires 3 regular component doses and 1 rare one to "balance" it, I think the spell is looking for a nerf. (I'm not counting long-term cast/duration spells, which IMO should be covered by 4e ritual-like rules.)

[FONT=&]Note: More powerful spells (or scaled spells) utilize more/rarer components/charges.


Second[/FONT][FONT=&]: All spell/like abilities, that utilize slots, (even those used by Sorcerers) should require a charged implement (such as a wand or staff) with stats that the spells primary effects and 'scalability' are based off of[/FONT][FONT=&] (like a swords damage, a bows range and ammunition like arrows)[/FONT][FONT=&]. Cantrips can be used as impromptu implements (reduced stats based on the Cantrip), but with no scalability (i.e. no multiple components/charges, thus only the simplest spells).

I don't think they should be required, but I don't think it hurts the game to have those spells being hindered without an implement. (Perhaps they deal half damage, or require a stat check, or inflict a penalty to duration or save DC.) A fighter caught without his weapon can use his fists. It's not nearly as good as chopping up someone with a greataxe, but at least it's possible.

I guess I don't appreciate item-based balance. This extends to trying to limit how many spells a caster knows. (If the spells are balanced, this is hardly a problem.)

Personally I'd like to see generic magic weapons vanish. You shouldn't require a +1 sword at X level to balance a fighter. Of course, this would create a situation where a +1 sword makes the fighter more powerful, and that's not cool either. I'd rather there be no such generic magic weapons. You would buy a flaming sword because 1/day it can deal extra fire damage (and perhaps can switch between normal and fire at-will, with no bonus damage). A wizard wouldn't, or couldn't, get a plain +2 staff. They might still get a staff of frost, because 1/day it can make your frost spells more powerful.

 

[GX.Sigma]

A very minor addition to resource tracking... (edit) And not much harder than tracking said arrows.

Many players already think tracking arrows is too much bookkeeping.

 

[Roguedeus]

I don't agree. Or at the least, this kind of record-keeping should be an alternate rules module, because there's lots of groups that don't appreciate that, and the basic rules should be as simple as possible.

I agree. I have not been following D&DN as closely as many people, but whatever I am suggesting would always be an optional thing. I think I have read it called a module.

I don't think the necessity of buying arrows is a "balancing" trait of the archer. Arrows are cheap, easily available, and you can even make your own. You can't (or shouldn't) walk around with 200 arrows though.

If a spell is so powerful it requires 3 regular component doses and 1 rare one to "balance" it, I think the spell is looking for a nerf. (I'm not counting long-term cast/duration spells, which IMO should be covered by 4e ritual-like rules.)

I am not suggesting that components balance spells (in effects), only that they add a cost that is extrinsic and requiring a meta-game strategy to their use... Much like managing potions. If I cast this, then I may not have the components to cast that as often as I would like, etc... It may help prevent casters from slinging their biggest and baddest spells at every problem without consideration to the future consequences of doing so. In a way, that is all enchanted arrows do as well.

Also, the option of improvised components is always available. Though you risk failing the spell doing so. And the DM always has the last say as to whether a rarer component level is even conceivably improvised in the players current surroundings.

I don't think they should be required, but I don't think it hurts the game to have those spells being hindered without an implement. (Perhaps they deal half damage, or require a stat check, or inflict a penalty to duration or save DC.) A fighter caught without his weapon can use his fists. It's not nearly as good as chopping up someone with a greataxe, but at least it's possible.

I guess I don't appreciate item-based balance. This extends to trying to limit how many spells a caster knows. (If the spells are balanced, this is hardly a problem.)

Personally I'd like to see generic magic weapons vanish. You shouldn't require a +1 sword at X level to balance a fighter. Of course, this would create a situation where a +1 sword makes the fighter more powerful, and that's not cool either. I'd rather there be no such generic magic weapons. You would buy a flaming sword because 1/day it can deal extra fire damage (and perhaps can switch between normal and fire at-will, with no bonus damage). A wizard wouldn't, or couldn't, get a plain +2 staff. They might still get a staff of frost, because 1/day it can make your frost spells more powerful.

I understand! But then we are talking D&D and generic magic weapons sorta define it. I am just trying to add something that keeps the game we all know and love (see: tolerate), while 'tweaking' it just a bit.

Thanks for your input!

 

[Dausuul]

Too much bookkeeping. The wizard is already on the high end of the bookkeeping scale for D&D, it doesn't need more. And it's a very bad idea to use modules as a balancing tool. The core game, with no modules in use, should be balanced.

The solution here is much simpler: Scale back the power level of high-level spells. Another thing that would help would be to remove the level bonus to wizard save DCs.

 

[Gadget]

...

There seems to be a consensus, however tenuous, that the Warrior/Caster dichotomy is being exacerbated with D&DNEXT, as it was in 3rd Ed. The issue seems to be that Warrior types (Fighters, Rogues, Etc...) are gear bound with abilities that scale very flatly, while Caster types (Wizards, Druids, Etc...) can level almost naked and still quickly make Warrior types superfluous via a combination of Cantrips and abilities that are far more versatile, while scaling Quadratically. The challenge is how to add a sense of balance to casters, without ruining their overall utility, and enhancing the desire of non-caster alternatives in contrast.

I don't think there is anywhere near such a consensus for D&DN. It is true that many have complained about the Quadratic Wizard, Linear Fighter in past editions of D&D, and many arguments (both on and off the internet) have ensued over the issue, but the designers of D&DN have stated they are aware of the issue and are taking steps to mitigate it. I find it strange that you would propose your own solution to the problem without referencing these steps freely available in the latest play test packet. Namely: Wizards get fewer spell slots over all, and particularly higher level slots; spells no longer automatically scale as the level of the caster goes up, one has to use higher level slot to achieve a greater effect (this was a big part of the Quadratic Wizard); Many useful ongoing effect spells require concentration to maintain, thereby preventing the caster from layering on multiple spell effects to vastly alter an encounter; Save or Die (or, to be more inclusive: Save or Suck) spells have been subject to additional mitigating efforts such as Hit Point Thresholds (Easily the most controversial step taken, judging by reaction online); and swift action (or minor action) spells suffer the penalty of not allowing the caster to cast another spell or activate a magic item in the same round, thereby preventing a massive unloading of spell firepower in a round before opponents can act, though still possible through surprise. Not to mention the fact that Martial characters have auto-scaling damage now, which along with bounded accuracy, will help increase their potency into higher levels of play.

I presume you are familiar with these issues but think they are insufficient? That may be true in the end, as this method is still highly dependant on restraint and discipline when designing new spells as D&DN ages and new supplements are published. I still think these efforts, together with further tweaks and adjustments to individual spell power and levels, will yield the best results to mitigate spell caster power while still maintaining the traditional spell casting paradigm.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Glad we can calmly disagree

It may help prevent casters from slinging their biggest and baddest spells at every problem without consideration to the future consequences of doing so. In a way, that is all enchanted arrows do as well.

Considering you get enchanted arrows in batches... (Of course, you don't get batches of arrows of slaying. Or at least you probably shouldn't find them like that.)

If the problem is wizards dishing out their best spells, often called the 15MD problem, there are numerous ways of fixing it within the rules. Many times it's fixed by writing adventures differently, but I'd rather see a solution that any DM running any adventure can use.

D&DN wizards don't have that many spells per day, but it's possible they still have too many. If cantrips are useful (without being overpowered) wizards could stand having even fewer combat spells per day. (I'd also appreciate flattening the number they get; perhaps starting with more "daily" spells than they get now but not getting many more with levels, instead replacing low-level daily slots with higher-level ones.) Yes, I pretty much just described 4e without encounter powers.

It actually would work better with encounter powers. If you can't cast Finger of Death more than once per 10 minute rest, then you simply cannot do so.

IMO, the 15MD problem isn't just caused by wizards dishing out their best spells and then trying to get an early rest, but also a reaction to how weak 1st-level wizards are. They want to cast a spell per turn but can't because they're only getting ~3 spells per day. I don't think it's unreasonable for wizards to be able to cast a spell each turn (rather than turn back to the crossbow that the fighter is probably better at using anyway), you just need to make sure they cannot dish out all their spells at once. More limits on how many daily spells you can cast per day accomplishes that without extra record-keeping.

 

[Dausuul]

D&DN wizards don't have that many spells per day, but it's possible they still have too many. If cantrips are useful (without being overpowered) wizards could stand having even fewer combat spells per day. (I'd also appreciate flattening the number they get; perhaps starting with more "daily" spells than they get now but not getting many more with levels, instead replacing low-level daily slots with higher-level ones.) Yes, I pretty much just described 4e without encounter powers.

On the contrary. If the goal is to bring down the wizard's "nova potential," they should get more spells per day, but the power level of those spells should be scaled back. The 15-minute workday happens because wizards can easily burn up a day's worth of magical firepower in a single fight.