D&D General Circle Magic Concerns In "Heroes Of Faerun"

[Blue]

Given the loosey-goosey, "you're the GM, you figure it out" design of 5e, I doubt this will be even remotely an issue.

5e is never going to be a game where the rules just inherently work out of the box. That was, quite literally, one of the design intents, leaving a portion of the design for the GM to figure out. They're just adding new elements that also expect such.

Wow, I don't think we play the same game. Or even read the same rulebooks.

5e chomped down so much on this. There's no Rule 0, and if you read the (2014) DMG where the DM is supposed to do what your claiming is extremely curtailed.

And frankly, it's run "out of the box" just fine for over a decade of multiple games, multiple DMs, as both a player and a DM.

As in, I have no reference for you to even make that statement.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Wow, I don't think we play the same game. Or even read the same rulebooks.

5e chomped down so much on this. There's no Rule 0, and if you read the (2014) DMG where the DM is supposed to do what your claiming is extremely curtailed.

And frankly, it's run "out of the box" just fine for over a decade of multiple games, multiple DMs, as both a player and a DM.

As in, I have no reference for you to even make that statement.

Okay. I can only go by the rulebooks I read. The ones that repeatedly say things of the form "You can do X. Or you can not do X. You decide!"

Or the absolutely hilarious, legitimately "you can't make this stuff up" level of anti-advice, when the game literally tells you to figure out how much XP to give for noncombat encounter by...telling you to pretend that it is a combat encounter and thus use those rules. Without even spending a single sentence talking about, y'know, how you'd do that.

 

[Charlaquin]

I am really excited about the new Forgotten Realms books that released, but I am a bit concerned about Circle Magic and how it's structured.

For example, someone pointed out to me how you could theoretically use Circle Magic to cast Fireball a mile away and not even need to see the area you are casting it in since the spell doesn't require you to have to see the point of origin (and you could have someone scout it out and report back using another way/feature).

I think the idea is really cool but I can see this causing some issues here. Has anyone heard the designers talk about this? What are everyone's thoughts about this?

The requirement of a clear path to the target is part of the base spellcasting rules. Technically you don’t need to be able to see the target if the spell doesn’t specify, but your target can’t be behind total cover. The 2014 PHB also clarified how this interacts with AoE spells, and though the 2024 PHB eliminated this language in its crusade against wordcount, I think it’s probably still in line with developer intent:

“If you place an area of effect at a point that you can't see and an obstruction, such as a wall, is between you and that point, the point of origin comes into being on the near side of that obstruction.”

So, yeah, you can circle cast fireball up to a mile away, but if you’re not casting it across an open field, there’s a good chance it blows up on the near side of some obstruction between you and your target point.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I am really excited about the new Forgotten Realms books that released, but I am a bit concerned about Circle Magic and how it's structured.

For example, someone pointed out to me how you could theoretically use Circle Magic to cast Fireball a mile away and not even need to see the area you are casting it in since the spell doesn't require you to have to see the point of origin (and you could have someone scout it out and report back using another way/feature).

I think the idea is really cool but I can see this causing some issues here. Has anyone heard the designers talk about this? What are everyone's thoughts about this?

As per page 238 of the PHB, all spell targets must have a clear path from the caster and can't have Total Cover. Which would make the first problem go away, although a magical scout is still a possibility.

 

[Burnside]

Having read the Circle Casting section in full, I definitely have concerns about out-of-combat applications the designers may not have considered.

Example:

Aura of Vitality. With one secondary caster it can last one hour - which gives 1200d6 of healing out over that 160 minutes, or even 200d6 over 10 minutes. Or 700 healing in 10 mins and 4200 healing for an hour...for the cost of 2 3rd level spell slots.

 

[bedir than]

A bright streak flashes from you to a point you choose within range

Can a streak bend or arc? If not that implies line of sight being needed

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yeah, I understand leaving some ambiguity to allow your table to decide. But I feel like as a ruleset, this opens up a whole can of worms to the point that it's probably easier to just not use it as an option at all given how much of a headache this could be and how this could potentially negate encounters, challenges, and plot hooks. But I could be wrong.

If you think you could be wrong... then why not just use Circle Magic if you like the idea and then make your judgement after you use it? The only way you'll find out is by trying.

Now if you don't actually care about circle magic, then you don't need to bother with it or concern yourself on how it plays. Every single DM has parts of the game they just aren't interested in, and they make the choice not to worry about it or put it into action. Like I don't care about Encumbrance... so I don't care what the rules are or worry about whether they work, or any of that stuff. I just ignore it. Circle Magic might very well be the same thing for you.

 

[Blue]

Okay. I can only go by the rulebooks I read. The ones that repeatedly say things of the form "You can do X. Or you can not do X. You decide!"

Can you let me know what rulebooks those are? With examples of rules (not discussions of different styles or advice) where they they tell you you can do rule X or not do rule X, you decide?

Or the absolutely hilarious, legitimately "you can't make this stuff up" level of anti-advice, when the game literally tells you to figure out how much XP to give for noncombat encounter by...telling you to pretend that it is a combat encounter and thus use those rules. Without even spending a single sentence talking about, y'know, how you'd do that.

I see the rules you are talking about on pg 261 of the 2014 DMG. And I'm confused about your comment about "how you'd do that". It's very clear about how to estimate the worth of it as a combat encounter, even giving where to look that up. It's in a section about Experience that starts on the previous page, so it is correct that it rules for running a non-combat challenge are elsewhere. So there's literally nothing missing that would fit the "how you'd do that" unless you have unrealistic expectations that a section of the rules about X should also contain the rules about Y and Z.

Considering there's pages and pages devoted to Creating an Adventure, which includes a lot of non-combat, this is well covered by the rules.

 

[Clint_L]

As far as "Rule 0" goes, it's never left D&D. The current DMG explicitly endorses house rules and interpretations. You're expected to do what works best for your group. So you can adapt circle magic to assuage any concerns.

Personally, I think that if players can work out a way to launch a fireball a mile away, I will be inclined to reward the creativity.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Can you let me know what rulebooks those are? With examples of rules (not discussions of different styles or advice) where they they tell you you can do rule X or not do rule X, you decide?


I see the rules you are talking about on pg 261 of the 2014 DMG. And I'm confused about your comment about "how you'd do that". It's very clear about how to estimate the worth of it as a combat encounter, even giving where to look that up. It's in a section about Experience that starts on the previous page, so it is correct that it rules for running a non-combat challenge are elsewhere. So there's literally nothing missing that would fit the "how you'd do that" unless you have unrealistic expectations that a section of the rules about X should also contain the rules about Y and Z.

Considering there's pages and pages devoted to Creating an Adventure, which includes a lot of non-combat, this is well covered by the rules.

When you start our by saying that all the examples have to be excluded without having specified that there were any limits before, it makes responding rather difficult. I am, of course, specifically talking about the very thing you seem to think is a tiny exclusion, not large sections of the text.

So I'm not particularly interested in continuing a conversation where the rules change in your favor halfway through.