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

[Micah Sweet]

Some people don't see the problem of doubling the proficiency bonus, since it's been reserved to skill so far, which don't have set DC's, and there is great table variance to what a "good" skill bonus is (see recent thread about success rates).

What I do to explain to them why expertise is bad is just have them imagine what would happen if you could double your proficiency bonus for other things, like saving throws, calculating save DC's, or attack rolls. That usually gets their eyebrows shooting into the stratosphere!

On the other hand, expertise helps you succeed, and ime players really hate to fail.

 

[Lanefan]

Wouldn’t that just be spell level?

Maybe, but I think the idea is to have the safe-reliable and dangerous-risky divide exist across all levels.

It's a good idea, but I could see it really adding to the PH page count if each spell has a safe version and a risky version.

 

[Undrave]

The main issue is that things like Wild Magic is a choice (often to troll the rest of the party), where this proposal seals off all spellcasting behind having to deal with press-your-luck mechanics.

Why not? I think it'd be more fun. It shouldn't be as hindering a backlash as Warhammer magic, but enough to make you pause about over using your spells.

Also, it could ditch concentration on buffs, and just have that any Enchantment you cast risk deactivating every OTHER Enchantment you've got cast! The more you buff your allies, the more likely they'll all lose your buffs so better not over do it!

 

[Undrave]

How, then, do you prevent dipping? If class abilities are mostly or entirely front-loaded then in 5e a 2-2-2-2-2 five-class character will be gobs more powerful than a single-class 10th, which is IMO the exact opposite of what should happen.

No more multiclassing. Multiclass concepts should be realized through MC-like feats and MC-like subclasses.

 

[Undrave]

Maybe, but I think the idea is to have the safe-reliable and dangerous-risky divide exist across all levels.

It's a good idea, but I could see it really adding to the PH page count if each spell has a safe version and a risky version.

I wasn't thinking Safe+Risky option but I could see the Risky option basically integrated into a spell the same way you have upcasting integrated into various spells, maybe with the Safe option basically replacing Cantrips to save on pages? Like you could upgrade Firebolt into Fireball by taking the risky option after a certain level?

And some spells would be migrated to a more robust Ritual system, and some of the biggest game breaker would be moved to the DMG as treasures (no one learns 'Wish' through level up, for exemple, but any caster can receive it as a epic boon or high level treasure).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ummm... you realize that you literally just admitted yours was a strawman? It's not the amount of straw that matters. If it's made of straw, it's a strawman.

Also, in case it wasn't obvious, I wasn't seriously suggesting that spellcasting be fixed by removing casters. I was simply demonstrating the flaw in your line of reasoning by offering a similarly absurd "suggestion".

What's absurd about removing 3e-style multiclassing? There are plenty of other ways.

And the straw man thing was a joke.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why not?

Because not everyone likes the stress of press your luck anymore than they like the homework of Vancian casting.

 

[Lanefan]

Note that ‘Push your Luck’ games are popular so I can see people enjoying that sort of gameplay, especially if there was way to mitigate the risk through various tactics (like hiding behind cover to begin casting so enemies can try to disrupt you).

But other things would be to make Cantrips more fun, giving them variety of effects beyond boring damage.

I'd rather get rid of cantrips, because...

Another is that there would no longer be spell slot to track: You can cast Fireball all day if you’re ready to take the heat yourself.

Furthermore, the risk would be relegated to spells that can cause harm to others, or maybe to types of divinations that can ‘cheat’ the game.

I would move a LOT of non-combat utility magic to an out of combat ritual system where failure to perform them properly would just cost some time and some components.

...the main limiter to casters is the fact they're limited in what they can do by their available number of spell slots. Rituals should all become slot-using spells. Cantrips, if kept, should have a limit to how many per day one can cast.

Remove these limits and casting will get even more out of hand than it already is.

The idea would be to make spellcasting more engaging and not a simple point and click exercise where you just use the best option when you have it and use the second best when the best is no longer available. And no matter how many fights you’ve gone through, you always have the option to pull out ‘The Big Gun’ when things turn sour… but your allies might just have to carry your unconscious body out of the fire once you pull that trigger, ya know, even if you succeed. (this would give high STR a solid function in a way).

Make 'em roll to aim those big guns - one fumble and unconscious might be the least of their worries.

I’d probably get rid of ‘preparing’ spells too. You learn a Spell, you know how to cast it.

Yes, I completely agree with this; though there should still be an intelligence-based maximum on how many spells of each level you can learn.

 

[Lanefan]

A fantastic beast with zero magic involved.

A griffin has never existed on Earth, therefore it is a fantastic beast; and therefore it cannotn exist in a non-magical setting.

Or a protoceratops.

Protoceratops, however, did exist on Earth; as did Dodo Birds, Quaggas, and a bunch of other things. They are normal creatures, if extinct.

You limit it to being the product of a very specific origin, never able to be more than just the runoff of magic.

I'm looking at it from the angle of "what is it that allows all these fantastic things to exist in the game world that don't or didn't exist in our own world"; and the answer, of course, is the presence/existence of magic.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Maybe, but I think the idea is to have the safe-reliable and dangerous-risky divide exist across all levels.

It's a good idea, but I could see it really adding to the PH page count if each spell has a safe version and a risky version.

I think rather than versions of each spell, you could have a generic "unintended consequences" table (or maybe a table for each spell level/school/some other classifier).

Then add some target dice rolls and roll quantity values for each spell. Different classes can have different ways of interacting with those targets and quantities. Some classes more consistently avoid consequences, some have more control over consequences, etc.