D&D 5E 5E's versatile spellcasting

[GMMichael]

Cantrips means a caster is never without some magic, spell slots are versatile but concentration and the limited number will keep them from being abused.

Never without magic? So, my dream that was born with the 3rd edition (and 3rd sequel FF) warlock continues:

Emperor Gestahl, here is your army of magic-spewing slaves. Their power output is nigh-unlimited, which means that your slave-empire will ultimately crush those freedom-loving kingdoms! Mwa ha ha ha ha!

(insert Kefka laugh here)

Seriously though. If I allowed warlocks in my game, 99% of them would be on a chain gang, using magic missiles instead of pickaxes, and casting fire orbs into the forges of respectable, hard-working, clichèd dwarf smiths.

 

[Howndawg]

I've proposed "Groovian" in honor of the way they described it in the magic chapter. I'm hoping it catches on.

I think I'll create a necromancer called The Groovian Goolie.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I love it.

Cantrips means a caster is never without some magic, spell slots are versatile but concentration and the limited number will keep them from being abused.

Oh, and knock makes a loud knocking sound. Anyone trained in thieves tools?

I'm with Rem on this. First impressions wise.

 

[Emerikol]

I don't love it but it's not a deal breaker for me.

If I designed my own game I wouldn't have at-will magic. It feels like magic is cheapened when it's at will. Maybe I houserule that cantrips can only be cast 50 times per day. That still practically means unlimited but it removes all the world wonkiness that would really result from truly unlimited magic.

 

[Branduil]

I guess if a player wanted to abuse Cantrips by spamming them constantly out-of-combat for some reason, I would probably just rule that after 10 minutes or so he needs to start making Constitution saves each round against an incrementing DC. If you fail the save you "burn-out" your Cantrips until you take a short rest. Taking a short rest also resets the 10-minute counter for the Cantrips.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Yeah I would treat it in the same way I would a Fighter wanting to hit something with his axe for 6 hours. Nothing in the rules says you can't but I wouldn't allow it just like that. It is not going to happen without some rolls and downsides - fatigue burnout or whatever.

 

[Nebulous]

I don't love it but it's not a deal breaker for me.

If I designed my own game I wouldn't have at-will magic. It feels like magic is cheapened when it's at will. Maybe I houserule that cantrips can only be cast 50 times per day. That still practically means unlimited but it removes all the world wonkiness that would really result from truly unlimited magic.

Well, in this make believe gameworld of elves and goblins and endless dragons, i don't think at-will magic is going to mess up mess up verismilitude too much but hey if you want to change it go ahead!

 

[skotothalamos]

Never without magic? So, my dream that was born with the 3rd edition (and 3rd sequel FF) warlock continues:

Emperor Gestahl, here is your army of magic-spewing slaves. Their power output is nigh-unlimited, which means that your slave-empire will ultimately crush those freedom-loving kingdoms! Mwa ha ha ha ha!

(insert Kefka laugh here)

Seriously though. If I allowed warlocks in my game, 99% of them would be on a chain gang, using magic missiles instead of pickaxes, and casting fire orbs into the forges of respectable, hard-working, clichèd dwarf smiths.

In my first 4e game, the cleric caused a volcanic eruption by shooting Lance of Faith into the caldera for ten straight minutes.

 

[Emerikol]

Well, in this make believe gameworld of elves and goblins and endless dragons, i don't think at-will magic is going to mess up mess up verismilitude too much but hey if you want to change it go ahead!

I think such comments reveal a lack of having contemplated the subject very much.

I always study the rules and I look for consequences for those rules. I try to imagine a world where these rules are the norm. I extrapolate out and see what happens as I see the consequence build up. When I see an outcome that turns the world in a bad direction, I houserule it. For example in past editions, I changed continual light to be 24 hour light. That way the world doesn't develop street lamps using continual light "bulbs". I don't want Eberron which is what probably happens with lots of unlimited magic.

People always say dragons and elves, versimilitude is busted by those things so why bother. I do not agree. I've seen many fantasy movies and let me say that while many of them have dragons and elves, I find some to be very believable (from a suspension of disbelief perspective of course) and some are just stupid. The company that figures out how to make moves I can get into are the companies that get my money at the theatre.

Anyway. I know it was an offhand comment. This has just become a pet peeve of mine. I'm not picking on you personally.

 

[mips42]

I never liked the Vancian of 2e. It seemed too "bookkeeping"-ish to be Magic. 3e was better and 4e was about the same (only a different flavor). I haven't tried 5e yet (hopefully soon) but it seems okay.
I hope the spell-point option is workable as that seem most like what I would like. I wish we could get away from the cookie-cutter spell lists, though.
I'd love to see some type of free-form magic system where every Magical character could have really unique spells that make other Magical characters go "WOW! You've gotta teach me that!" without it being a monster headache to figure out the spell in game terms. Good luck, right?