D&D 5E (2014) 5e Magic

[Tony Vargas]

Y'know, this automatic assumption that "they'll break all their rules in the splatbooks" is getting annoying. Does anyone have any basis for this assumption?

Past performance. They did that all through the classic D&D era, with 3.x, and with 4e starting around the Essentials release. They've practically promised it in the form of 'modularity.'

They were admirably disciplined throughout 4E. I see no reason to believe they won't be equally disciplined in 5E.

I'd attribute the couple of brief years of relative design discipline in early 4e to Heinsoo. That's just a guess, but as soon as he left we got stuff from Mearls like Magic of the Feywild.

I mean, what do you think 'opening up design space' meant? It meant 'abandoning design discipline' and 'breaking all our own rules.'

Divination remains potentially an issue, but it lets the DM answer with a cryptic rhyme or an omen, which puts some limits on abuse.

Hasn't it 'always' (like back to 1e) worked that way?

 

[skotothalamos]

You have to start taking bucketloads of damage to break DC 10. To hit DC 15 , the wizard took 30 hp from the hit. If he's taking several of those he has a much greater problem at hand. What I might be more tempted to do is have the Wizard make a single Concentration check each round and use that result against all attempts to distract him (either individually or with accumulating penalties). That prevents the M16 of Concentration ending -- forcing a lot of small bundles of damage in an effort to make the caster roll low at least once.

But, in a world where Magic Missile could damage you 3-11 times in one casting, and Guiding Bolt is just going to (maybe) hit you once for a lot, are you sure you want to remove yet another feature that differentiates them? I submit that Magic Missile is designed as a fantastic counter to concentration spells.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

But, in a world where Magic Missile could damage you 3-11 times in one casting, and Guiding Bolt is just going to (maybe) hit you once for a lot, are you sure you want to remove yet another feature that differentiates them? I submit that Magic Missile is designed as a fantastic counter to concentration spells.

That's damage from multiple sources (specified in text as an arrow and a dragon's breath). I'm not convinced that damage from multiple hits of the same spell striking simultaneously should be considered multiple sources.

 

[Mouseferatu]

That's damage from multiple sources (specified in text as an arrow and a dragon's breath). I'm not convinced that damage from multiple hits of the same spell striking simultaneously should be considered multiple sources.

Since they can be targeted at multiple enemies and each has its own damage roll, I'd say it's multiple sources. The arcane equivalent of a barrage of arrows.

 

[Nagol]

But, in a world where Magic Missile could damage you 3-11 times in one casting, and Guiding Bolt is just going to (maybe) hit you once for a lot, are you sure you want to remove yet another feature that differentiates them? I submit that Magic Missile is designed as a fantastic counter to concentration spells.

I certainly won't be making any changes until I've seen all the rules and seen how the game actually plays. If maintaining Concentration becomes a serious problem then I'll look for a house rule that will help. My first thought is if Concentration is a problem, one of the areas of difficulty will be multiple checks per round. Probabilities shift mighty quickly when you start needing multiple checks to be successes.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

Since they can be targeted at multiple enemies and each has its own damage roll, I'd say it's multiple sources. The arcane equivalent of a barrage of arrows.

I'm inclined to agree and interpret the rule as each instance of damage. It's the easiest way to consistently apply it. Otherwise, you'd need to specifically parse attackers, attack type and attacks per attacker.

Similarly to magic missile, swarm monsters with lots of attacks for minimal damage would also be ideal Concentration breakers.

WIZARD: I'm going to cast fly to get past the Evil Swamp.
DM: Okay. Let me roll for wandering monsters. Hmm...you run into a swarm of 20 dire mosquitos. [Rolls attacks for 1 damage each]. That's 13 points of damage and I'll need 13 Con saves at DC10. By the way, what altitude are you flying at...

 

[skotothalamos]

Similarly to magic missile, swarm monsters with lots of attacks for minimal damage would also be ideal Concentration breakers.

WIZARD: I'm going to cast fly to get past the Evil Swamp.
DM: Okay. Let me roll for wandering monsters. Hmm...you run into a swarm of 20 dire mosquitos. [Rolls attacks for 1 damage each]. That's 13 points of damage and I'll need 13 Con saves at DC10. By the way, what altitude are you flying at...

Just thinking about being bitten by 13 mosquitos at once has made me unable to concentrate. eesh.

 

[Andor]

Since they can be targeted at multiple enemies and each has its own damage roll, I'd say it's multiple sources. The arcane equivalent of a barrage of arrows.

I wouldn't, especially since the spell explicitly says they all hit simultaneously. Would you also make the wizard save against each of the greatswords 2d6 seperately? How about the rogues dagger and the sneak attack dice?

To be sure, there is some grey there, but to me a single spell is a single source. Otherwise you start running into bag-o-rats territory where the Bob the peasant takes down any wizard with a handful of pebbles.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I've been persuing the Magic section of the basic rules and some thoughts occur to me.

Concentration is a commonly used mechanic, although it's less limiting than in any previous edition of D&D. Basically you can't cast another spell that requires concentration and you don't want to get hit. Movement and combat are fine. It's used as a gating mechanism to control how much nifty stuff you can do at once. Probably these limits will fade with the coming of the splat books.

They seem to have reduced the quadratic wizard problem by giving spells flat damages with increases paid for by consuming higher level spell slots. Seems like it will work although I fully expect splat books to eventually reintroduce (lvl X d6) spells.

If a splat book introduces spells that defy the core system, that isn't the core system's fault. But I doubt very much that we're ever going to see a return of (lvl x d6) type spells, at least in any book published by WotC. Concentration may be different. There could be balanced ways of allowing spellcasters to occasionally concentrate on more than one spell, assuming that they have enough drawbacks and restrictions of their own.

Spell balance seems ... off. Compare guidling bolt with magic missile. Not neccesarily a bad thing, I think balance as the holy grail has become a major hobgoblin in RPG design and needs to die a gruesome death. Which is not to say that balance doesn't matter at all, just that it's not sacred.

Magic missile always hits, so that gives it a big advantage over GB, which can miss.

OTOH "Detect plot" spells like find the path and divination are well supplied.

I don't see how those spells ruin plots. All find the path does is tell you the physical route to a destination. That doesn't mean that route won't be filled with traps, monsters, and other hazards. It can also easily be thwarted by magical portals and similar things that make it so that the shortest route isn't the same as the shortest physical route. Divination only gives you a cryptic omen. It's only as useful as the DM allows it to be.

The biggest plot-ruining spell of all time was detect evil, and that spell is no longer a "spot the BBEG and ruin any intrigue-based adventure" spell. Now it only detects fiends and undead.

I don't see any animate dead type spells. Moved to NPC realm or just not in the basic spell list?

There was an animate dead spell in the playtest. It will most likely be in the PHB. It seems like they wanted to avoid spells that summon or create minions in the basic rules, finger of death being the one notable exception.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I wouldn't, especially since the spell explicitly says they all hit simultaneously. Would you also make the wizard save against each of the greatswords 2d6 seperately? How about the rogues dagger and the sneak attack dice?

To be sure, there is some grey there, but to me a single spell is a single source. Otherwise you start running into bag-o-rats territory where the Bob the peasant takes down any wizard with a handful of pebbles.

I don't think it's the equivalent of each d6 on a great sword. That's a single instance of damage expresseed as two dice; this is two instances of damage, even if simultaneous. It's the equivalent of--to use an example from a prior-edition--using the multishot feat. Multiple arrows from a single attack.

MM isn't an area attack; it's X damage per missile. Per each separate missile. The fact that it's one casting makes no difference, in my mind. It's still multiple projectiles, both descriptively and mechanically.

If it's "one casting = one attack," what happens when I'm hit a second time with the cleric's spiritual weapon? That's a single casting. It may not be simultaneous, but then we're back to the arrows. Or, say, the twin hooves of a rearing horse. Or the aforementioned swarm damage.

Any ruling but "each separate instance of damage" opens up a whole can of corner cases, IMO. (And no, I don't buy the "commoner with pebbles" argument. We're talking genuine damage here, not annoyances.)