D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

[Bill Zebub]

Oh I see, so you're saying since higher CR enemies are more dangerous, that spellcasters reaching higher level shouldn't make them any stronger than their foes.

No, I wasn’t saying that, although it might seem like an implication of what I was saying, which is just that a simple, clean, elegant way to build risk mechanics into D&D spellcasting would be to make risk proportionate to slot used.

A corollary is that the casters ability handle risk should also go up, so that as you level the risk of using low level spells decreases.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I know a guy who constantly gripes that he hates level based systems, because, to his way of thinking, you should be able to improve what you want to improve instead of having to wait for some arbitrary level.

Of course, every time he runs a non-level based system, he complains that his players all end up cripplingly overspecialized, because they can't tell what a "good" number is, and just keep improving their primary abilities, lol.

Everytime we try people max out what they want tobe good at then say "i'll go back later to round out" then never do...

In wod a 5 dex or 5 str is the max any human can have... and you conbine 1 with a skill that also maxes at 5.

I watch as players push 6 dex 6 str 6 brawl 6 dodge and 6 melee... then complain how much that cost to get.

DUDE, you are superhuman in combat...

but I see it on GM sides too

 

[GMforPowergamers]

hmmm give Fighters expertise in Athletics/Acrobatics and Wizards Arcana and so on and everyone gets "Mastery" in a skill they have expertise in at level 11.

please god let WotC playtest skills so we can all suggest this

 

[James Gasik]

Everytime we try people max out what they want tobe good at then say "i'll go back later to round out" then never do...

In wod a 5 dex or 5 str is the max any human can have... and you conbine 1 with a skill that also maxes at 5.

I watch as players push 6 dex 6 str 6 brawl 6 dodge and 6 melee... then complain how much that cost to get.

DUDE, you are superhuman in combat...

but I see it on GM sides too

WoD is a great example of this. There's no real "benchmark" for what is good/great/extraordinary. The fact that the result of an die is random doesn't help either- you could have a whopping 13 dice to roll and still fail on occasion, in a game where victory or death hinges on a single roll, so people advance until they hit a roadblock.

GURPS, ironically, is better at this, since you start seeing diminishing returns for higher skill ranks. Of course, that doesn't stop people either, as I saw when I played GURPS (and the fact the game has many other problems doesn't help either, lol).

So I do prefer level based systems, even if they aren't exactly logical (master chefs being 10 HD characters, for example).

 

[James Gasik]

please god let WotC playtest skills so we can all suggest this

I think expertise is somewhat problematic to begin with with their bounded accuracy system.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Everytime we try people max out what they want tobe good at then say "i'll go back later to round out" then never do...

In wod a 5 dex or 5 str is the max any human can have... and you conbine 1 with a skill that also maxes at 5.

I watch as players push 6 dex 6 str 6 brawl 6 dodge and 6 melee... then complain how much that cost to get.

DUDE, you are superhuman in combat...

but I see it on GM sides too

I think a big part of that is (whether actual or perceived) systems that reward specialization over generalization.

IME, people typically prefer having a narrow skill set that they can succeed with most of the time over a broad skill set with which they can fail slightly less often.

If having a 5 in a skill cost as much as getting a 4 in three skills, people would likely be more open to generalization. But in many systems it's closer to having a 5 in one skill will get you a 3 in two skills and a 2 in another. In which case, I can't really fault them for going with the 5.

 

[Undrave]

I just meant that risk increases with spell level. If that doesn’t work because some Nth level spells seem like they should be more/less risky than other Nth level spells, that’s a sign that the spells themselves are either poorly designed or should be a different level.

Is there some reason why a 5th level evocation spell should be more/less dangerous to cast than should a 5th level divination or transmutation spell? I don’t think so.

Ideally, if I was building a system where you didn't have slot but just have risk when casting, I'd make sure to examine each spell individually. I could see each spell having a 'backfire' section, with a few recurring one: Anything that inflicts damage can turn on you, any divination might leave you blind for a period of time, transmutation fail would probably leave you stunned or paralyzed, that sort of thing.

No, I wasn’t saying that, although it might seem like an implication of what I was saying, which is just that a simple, clean, elegant way to build risk mechanics into D&D spellcasting would be to make risk proportionate to slot used.

A corollary is that the casters ability handle risk should also go up, so that as you level the risk of using low level spells decreases.

I would also have the risk increase the more risky spell you cast, as you strain and exhaust your 'magical muscle' (so to speak), so that your first big spell of the day will have almost no chance of failing, unless an enemy specifically try to interrupt you. As you'd gain level, the number of spell you can cast before racking up penalty would also increase.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think expertise is somewhat problematic to begin with with their bounded accuracy system.

Also delete bounded accuracy.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If having a 5 in a skill cost as much as getting a 4 in three skills, people would likely be more open to generalization. But in many systems it's closer to having a 5 in one skill will get you a 3 in two skills and a 2 in another. In which case, I can't really fault them for going with the 5.

I agree somewhat... the system we use is Current ratingx2 and upping your stat cost current rattingx4

so assuming you started with a 4 dex a 3 str and a 3 brawl and 3 dodge and 3 melee (very doable)
level 5 dex costs 16 level 4 and 5 of str cost 28 level 4 and 5 of each skill is 14 each

getting your 1st dot in a skill is 3 so for the 14 pts upping any 1 skill from 3 to 5 you could buy 2 new skills (3 each for 1) and up them to 2 (2 more each) and buy 1 to 3 (8) and only cost you 4pts more. then upping the 3 to a 5.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ideally, if I was building a system where you didn't have slot but just have risk when casting, I'd make sure to examine each spell individually. I could see each spell having a 'backfire' section, with a few recurring one: Anything that inflicts damage can turn on you, any divination might leave you blind for a period of time, transmutation fail would probably leave you stunned or paralyzed, that sort of thing.

How would you incentivize playing this spellcaster vs a class that doesn't kill itself to use its class features?