Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="happyhermit" data-source="post: 6870700" data-attributes="member: 6834463">Thanks guys, I was starting to think that I was the only one who ever did stuff like this in D&amp;D.The &quot;hook&quot; aspect is a big part of what I like about it.The fact that there are so many classes/subclasses with spellcasting in 5e does make it a bigger issue if the players are simply choosing from all of them by default. I only mentioned the wizard because that is my most obvious example. Played where the wizard was the only magic user, it was easy, it was also easy for the GM to spend the time to select/approve spells and make them interesting. When adding a cleric, they had to pray/study/meditate to gain new spells or learn them through a ritual from another cleric, this gave the GM a bit more to think about, which isn't always a good thing. When adding a sorcerer, they got it spontaneously, so the problem was to make sure they didn't just surpass the wizard in utility, so it was a bit more thinking for the GM. Bard was similar to wizard. That was pretty much as far as we went, no EK, warlock, etc but I see how they could be done, in theory at least.Yes, I didn't mean to suggest that wizards were the only ones, just that that is what I am most familiar with. As for player agency, that is an issue, but it can be offset by allowing players to make choices in game (as opposed to char-gen and lvl-up) that gets them access to the spells they want, or through some sort of &quot;research&quot; house-rule. I get that for most people the trouble wouldn't be worth the pay off, but I still like the idea.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="happyhermit, post: 6870700, member: 6834463"] Thanks guys, I was starting to think that I was the only one who ever did stuff like this in D&D. The "hook" aspect is a big part of what I like about it. The fact that there are so many classes/subclasses with spellcasting in 5e does make it a bigger issue if the players are simply choosing from all of them by default. I only mentioned the wizard because that is my most obvious example. Played where the wizard was the only magic user, it was easy, it was also easy for the GM to spend the time to select/approve spells and make them interesting. When adding a cleric, they had to pray/study/meditate to gain new spells or learn them through a ritual from another cleric, this gave the GM a bit more to think about, which isn't always a good thing. When adding a sorcerer, they got it spontaneously, so the problem was to make sure they didn't just surpass the wizard in utility, so it was a bit more thinking for the GM. Bard was similar to wizard. That was pretty much as far as we went, no EK, warlock, etc but I see how they could be done, in theory at least. Yes, I didn't mean to suggest that wizards were the only ones, just that that is what I am most familiar with. As for player agency, that is an issue, but it can be offset by allowing players to make choices in game (as opposed to char-gen and lvl-up) that gets them access to the spells they want, or through some sort of "research" house-rule. I get that for most people the trouble wouldn't be worth the pay off, but I still like the idea. [/QUOTE]

Verification