D&D 5E Casters should go back to being interruptable like they used to be.

[Vaalingrade]

You have some simple spells that you like but because apparently casting burning hands in melee is equivalent to jumping up and down and screaming like a fool, you just can't do it.

That's why it's an AoE cone instead of a melee spell.

Stop being in melee. And If you're a wizard player who doesn't like dudes running into melee to mess you up, stop advocating to keep martials from having options like being sticky.

Or stop playing wizards so we can drop this albatross from around our necks and have a better game overall once all design no longer must go through the wizards first.

 

[nevin]

Or stop playing wizards so we can drop this albatross from around our necks and have a better game overall once all design no longer must go through the wizards first.

Really....

How about no melee? come on.....or we could just play without oxygen.....Now can we actually talk about reality or at least what passes for reality on the forums.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Really....

How about no melee? come on.....or we could just play without oxygen.....Now can we actually talk about reality or at least what passes for reality on the forums.

Both Wizards and wizards are perfect and how dare anyone defy their glory?

 

[Shardstone]

That's why it's an AoE cone instead of a melee spell.

Stop being in melee. And If you're a wizard player who doesn't like dudes running into melee to mess you up, stop advocating to keep martials from having options like being sticky.

Or stop playing wizards so we can drop this albatross from around our necks and have a better game overall once all design no longer must go through the wizards first.

In 5E, not being in melee isn't as easy as a lot of people make it sound. And since there's only a handful of martial features for specifically keeping people off of squishies, it just doesn't make sense to me, especially at higher levels. Furthermore, my big problem isn't necessarily that casting in melee should be allowed, it's that these magical classes need other magical fallbacks they can enjoy other than Cantrips, even if they aren't as good as leveled spells. There are few things less fun then having to fight with a dang sling and darts dealing d4 damage to enemies with high double digit HP.

P.S: I don't like Wizards, I just choose them out of convenience. I'm with you that Wizards need to go.

 

[Shardstone]

Really....

How about no melee? come on.....or we could just play without oxygen.....Now can we actually talk about reality or at least what passes for reality on the forums.

This kind of hyperbole is so annoying. Why can't people on this forum respond to something without exaggerating the opposing viewpoint into absurdity?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Really....

How about no melee? come on.....or we could just play without oxygen.....Now can we actually talk about reality or at least what passes for reality on the forums.

I mean, when the fans caterwaul about anything that might potentially, possibly unseat the Wizard in any of the things it does, it's more than a little tempting to just say, "Alright, if you consider small tweaks to be tantamount to removing the class...why don't we just bite the bullet and do that?"

And if you think I'm engaging in hyperbole here, I'm not, @Shardstone. The sheer volume of Wizard-fan hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth that came out because of the UA "Spell Versatility" feature for Sorcerers is proof positive of what I'm talking about. Or you can go back further, to where Rob Heinsoo explicitly said in an interview that he had to constantly fight a rearguard action against other designers continually dropping little buffs on it until it was just a little bit better than every other class.

There really is a demonstrable push for Wizards specifically, and spellcasters generally, to just be the very best, like no one ever was. Sometimes, it's enough of a thing to genuinely make me wish we could just yeet the Wizard (and Cleric) into the Sun and completely overhaul the way D&D characters approach magic.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Furthermore, my big problem isn't necessarily that casting in melee should be allowed, it's that these magical classes need other magical fallbacks they can enjoy other than Cantrips, even if they aren't as good as leveled spells. There are few things less fun then having to fight with a dang sling and darts dealing d4 damage to enemies with high double digit HP.

I mean that's why cantrips autolevel and some people hate them.

Plus, after the 0 levels and you hit 3, you've got enough slots that it's not often going to come up.

 

[Shardstone]

I mean that's why cantrips autolevel and some people hate them.

Plus, after the 0 levels and you hit 3, you've got enough slots that it's not often going to come up.

Why would casting a Cantrip be any easier then casting a spell? It's easier to cast a 2d10 firebolt (11 fire damage) then it is to cast burning hands (11 fire damage)? Blah blah blah it's a cone blah blah blah.

Cantrips, for the most part, are not interesting. Firebolt is not interesting. I'd much prefer to have a FUN mechanic to fall back on if my spells can be wasted by people interrupting them. If I can't make weird handsigns and say funny words while dodging swords, give me something interesting to do while dodging swords. Having to dodge swords just to do the only thing my class can do isn't really worth my time. But if dodging swords and having another option, like the Components one I mentioned above, would be way more fun. If I could raise my Crystal Ball and daze my opponent with visions for a turn (reliably), and so on, that'd be dope.

Keep in mind none of what people are saying in this thread makes the half-casters any more fun to play. Rangers already have a hard time using spells due to almost all of them requiring concentration. Now they can't use spells when they melee? Now my Paladin can't use bonus action smite spells due to melee? It's just not fun, man.

I don't get why giving magical classes something fun to do other then spells is an idea worth arguing against. What is it about this that you disagree with? It's wrong to want my Sorcerer to be able to spend a sorcery point to punch the heck out of someone if I can't cast spells in melee? It's wrong if I want to burn spell slots to use Channel Divinity since I can't cast in melee??

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, when the fans caterwaul about anything that might potentially, possibly unseat the Wizard in any of the things it does, it's more than a little tempting to just say, "Alright, if you consider small tweaks to be tantamount to removing the class...why don't we just bite the bullet and do that?"

And if you think I'm engaging in hyperbole here, I'm not, @Shardstone. The sheer volume of Wizard-fan hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth that came out because of the UA "Spell Versatility" feature for Sorcerers is proof positive of what I'm talking about. Or you can go back further, to where Rob Heinsoo explicitly said in an interview that he had to constantly fight a rearguard action against other designers continually dropping little buffs on it until it was just a little bit better than every other class.

There really is a demonstrable push for Wizards specifically, and spellcasters generally, to just be the very best, like no one ever was. Sometimes, it's enough of a thing to genuinely make me wish we could just yeet the Wizard (and Cleric) into the Sun and completely overhaul the way D&D characters approach magic.

To be fair, there are plenty of other games where spellcasters don't operate like they do in any version of D&D.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Why would casting a Cantrip be any easier then casting a spell? It's easier to cast a 2d10 firebolt (11 fire damage) then it is to cast burning hands (11 fire damage)? Blah blah blah it's a cone blah blah blah.

Cantrips, for the most part, are not interesting. Firebolt is not interesting. I'd much prefer to have a FUN mechanic to fall back on if my spells can be wasted by people interrupting them. If I can't make weird handsigns and say funny words while dodging swords, give me something interesting to do while dodging swords. Having to dodge swords just to do the only thing my class can do isn't really worth my time. But if dodging swords and having another option, like the Components one I mentioned above, would be way more fun. If I could raise my Crystal Ball and daze my opponent with visions for a turn (reliably), and so on, that'd be dope.

Keep in mind none of what people are saying in this thread makes the half-casters any more fun to play. Rangers already have a hard time using spells due to almost all of them requiring concentration. Now they can't use spells when they melee? Now my Paladin can't use bonus action smite spells due to melee? It's just not fun, man.

I don't get why giving magical classes something fun to do other then spells is an idea worth arguing against. What is it about this that you disagree with? It's wrong to want my Sorcerer to be able to spend a sorcery point to punch the heck out of someone if I can't cast spells in melee? It's wrong if I want to burn spell slots to use Channel Divinity since I can't cast in melee??

It's not that any of your points are bad. But this (your post) is why D&D has had the issues with the martial/caster balancing.

Let's ignore everything else. What's the real difference between a martial and a caster? Well, a caster gets spells, and martial doesn't. That's pretty much it, right?

So here's the thing- people that play casters want to be able to do the "cool things" that martials do. You know, so they won't get bored. As you write, what is it that people can disagree with? Why shouldn't casters get something ... um ... other than spells?

But that brings up back to the original distinction- martials don't get spells. But casters want their spells, plus they want the stuff that martials do.

Which is why we've seen this ratcheting up of abilities- casters get more and more "martial-like" powers (more hit points, more ability to wear armor, more weapons, scaling cantrips so they don't have to abide by stupid martial weapon restrictions, more skills if you go down the dark path of the bard, and so on). Plus they get all the spells. Meanwhile, martials, increasingly, either turn to spells (Paladin, Ranger) or have to just live in the satisfaction that they're not spellcasters ... or something.

What you want is totally normal, and certainly the way that the game has moved. But it comes with a cost- the marginalization of non-spellcasters, which has, in turn, led to increased spellcasting for all classes. This may, or may not, be a bad thing. But there's a reason that people propose fixes like this.