D&D 5E What, if anything, bothers you about certain casters/spells at your table?

[Stormonu]

It is a place for it, but there are points where that design isn't ideal and interrupting that flow or changing it so decisions are made after results are known are also good design.

Hmmm....that does make me ponder. Perhaps for casters it would be interesting to make just a ranged spell attack. If it misses, its assumed it was just a cantrip and no major loss. If it hits, the caster can choose to do cantrip damage or burn a spell slot for a 1st+ spell effect.

Could maybe do it for save effects, but I'd be very wary of doing so - would probably lower spell slots in some way since you're ensuring your spells never fail.

 

[nevin]

\

The allegedly huge variety evaporates rather quickly when you realize that (at least!) half the spells on your class's spell list aren't worth the cost of casting them.

absolutely correct. This is a problem with flavor vs actual utility. There are probably 20 or so spells that are generically usefull in almost any situation. Making them almost required if the caster wants to be generically useful. And most of the limits on the situationally useful spells that have been added with various versions make them almost never useful. And I'd say the ration continues pretty close to that in all 3rd party content. probably 1 out of every 60 or so spells is actually a generically useful spell and the others are only useful if a specific situation arises.

 

[Blue]

Big one is summoning multiple critters. Just slows the game down espicially with indecisive players who want to read stats for a bit before summoning.

5e helps with this, as the player doesn't get to pick what is summoned. So zero time spent on it. (It's in the spell, the caster just picks the CR/number. It's clarified in the SA Compendium.)

That's also a 3E problem as well, lesser in AD&D but can still happen.

Table etiquette you get 30-60seconds to do whatever can't decide dodge action next players turn.

1)multiple summons for pretty much the exact reason Zardnaar stated.

My suggestion when running multiple summons is for them to be split between the other players* to control, taking their action directly after their character (instead of usual). This keeps things flowing quickly. With online it's easy to send a link to a stat block.

*Players who want to run one, some may not.

 

[Blue]

The biggest offender to me? Counterspell. In part because it's annoying, mostly because it's boring. I want my PCs and NPCs to do cool things, not just sit there and shut each other down every time someone casts a spell. Especially when you have multiple casters on both side and it starts the conga line of counterspell. We pretty much decided on the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) fix to this. I don't use it and neither do the PCs.

Counterspell shouldn't be a big issue if you play by the rules. It's quite limited unless the DM is house ruling you know the spell, and it's pretty trivial to get around even in those cases.

• RAW you don't know the spell you are counterspelling until it is already cast and then it's too late. So you are guessing that this is an important spell, and guessing at the level you want to counterspell. People messing it up is the #1 reason they think it's OP. Xanathar's has a way to know the spell - but it takes your reaction.
• Be more than 60 feet away - it has a range 60'.
• Don't be seen casting.
  • Subtle metamagic
  • Aberrant Mind sorcerer psionically casting.
  • Be invisible - casting time of counterspell specifically says "1 rection, which you take when you see a creature...".
  • You can literally duck behind total cover, Ready the spell which casts it to go off when you see your opponent, then move back. Yes, this does use up your reaction and your Concentration.
• You can Counterspell their counterspell, or if they are rolling to counterspell you can use Silvery Barbs on the roll to force a reroll.
  

 

[Blue]

I am not trying to make Swamy’s thread just about shield and playstyle so I will drop it after this but I think you are right in that this seems to be firmly in the region of “depends how people play.” I couldn’t tell you what the average number of combat encounters per adventuring day might be, but at my table we’d never make in-game choices based on that kind of meta-analysis. But would likely try to figure it out based on the scenario, setting, location, previous events related to the particular adventure, etc.

Just a question: characters notice that they do a few encounters per day. Why would it be "meta-analysis" for the characters to act on that?

It's like saying the characters notice the abandoned temple complex is swarming with undead, but it would be meta for them to prepare for it.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

5e helps with this, as the player doesn't get to pick what is summoned. So zero time spent on it. (It's in the spell, the caster just picks the CR/number. It's clarified in the SA Compendium.)

This! Glad you brought this up. The DM, knowing the spell is on the table, can have a short list of likely candidate creatures available from the MM and/or whatever their chosen bestiary might be.

My suggestion when running multiple summons is for them to be split between the other players* to control, taking their action directly after their character (instead of usual). This keeps things flowing quickly. With online it's easy to send a link to a stat block.

*Players who want to run one, some may not.

Great idea!

As with most complicated things in our games, it is good to have the conversation with the player ahead of time (or after the first time it becomes an issue), knowing they have a conjure animals/woodland beings/minor elementals spell available. If they are going to choose 4 or 8 creatures, they should employ your suggestion @Blue of letting other willing players manage some of them -OR- they should just be sure to be crisp and quick with their turn, perhaps by having all summoned creatures attack the same one or two enemies (or otherwise take the same one or two actions in the round). Roll those dice and keep it moving.

 

[Blue]

Well, I just had a taste of that.

The Heavy armor wearing Artificer mutliclassed into Wizard for exactly this. By 7th level, he could routinely get an armor class of 25. CR 7 or less monsters tap out at an attack bonus of about +8 (or so), meaning that most monsters couldn't hit the character with less than an 18 (give or take) on an attack.

I actually put the character against the other 4 PC's in the party as a test, and the character went 8 rounds, nearly dropping the barbarian and the cleric in the group, before the party finally overwhelmed him with a string of lucky die rolls.

So, yeah, from this point forward, shield will not stack with armor.

Sounds like one of 5e pervasive problems - designer calibration for number of encounters per day. With 6-7 encounters a day of 3-4 rounds each, even burning through higher level slots it won't last. Or if it does it takes everything from a hybrid half/full caster on one aspect, leaving them low on offense and other aspects. But with the amount of encounters per day a normal group does (myself included), yeah it can last through every meaningful hit.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sounds like one of 5e pervasive problems - designer calibration for number of encounters per day. With 6-7 encounters a day of 3-4 rounds each, even burning through higher level slots it won't last. Or if it does it takes everything from a hybrid half/full caster on one aspect, leaving them low on offense and other aspects. But with the amount of encounters per day a normal group does (myself included), yeah it can last through every meaningful hit.

Early in 5E we tried the 6-8 encounters for a year or two.

Once the PCs hit level 5 they took turns casting one big spell per combat. Big spell was fireball or lightning bolt, hypnotic pattern.

It was also the context where I said the healer feat was OP.

1-4 is more typical or players rest wen they run out of big spells regardless.

Some groups burn those spells very fast with 2 or 3 a round

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Just a question: characters notice that they do a few encounters per day. Why would it be "meta-analysis" for the characters to act on that?

It's like saying the characters notice the abandoned temple complex is swarming with undead, but it would be meta for them to prepare for it.

I'm not @el-remmen but, at our table, players are welcome to make meta-analysis decisions - but do so at the risk of their PCs' wellbeing. Best for the PCs to proceed with caution and test what can be tested in the game world. An out-of-game assumption that there will be, at most, 3 encounters in an adventuring day is just one such risk. It's not that the DM is out to get them, it's just that the game world can be more unpredictable than that. Just as a d6 might be rolled 10 times and never reveal a "1". That 11th time? Who knows!

Now, if the campaign runs in such a way that a long rest is granted between every session... well... I guess that is more predictable. It's not my preferred play-style but I know others run their table(s) that way.

 

[grimmgoose]

5e helps with this, as the player doesn't get to pick what is summoned. So zero time spent on it. (It's in the spell, the caster just picks the CR/number. It's clarified in the SA Compendium.)

I would argue 5E doesn't help with this, it just reframes the argument. For the record, I don't really care what gets summoned. I care that if conjure animals is cast at 7th level, I have to deal with 24 (twenty-four) new creatures on the field.

I don't care if it's a snake, camel, rat - it's 24 separate pieces of HP, that take up space, movement, 24 new throws of the d20...

If I have the statblock "pulled up", that saves maybe a minute. In the grand scheme of the time-suck of the rest of the spell, that's negligible.