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

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I would love to see caster's go back to interrupts if all the special abilities martials have that can interupt them had to make saving throw type mechanics when they attempt to intterupt. I think a lot of people who play martials would begin to understand what it's like to play a character who has to allow someone else to roll to determine if thier ability works. that would be a fair compromise.

Martials are routinely subjected to double failure point in terms of both needing to hit and abilities granting a save. Most of the battlemaster maneuvers grant a save, Very few caster abilities require both a hit and a failed save, or two failed saves. Phantasmal Killer is about the only one I can think of, and that spell is rightfully considered garbage from a mechanical standpoint (thematically it rocks).

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

You yadda yadda'd over the point. Burning hands is an AoE.

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.

Stop being in a place where you're dodging swords when inhabiting the body of a sad man in a bathrobe!

Also, daze every turn is a bit much when we're supposed to be pretending trapping reliably more than once an encounter is something other people should be happy with, what?

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.

1) I said I'm good with allowing melee spells be an exception or give the gishes an ability to cast in melee. I'm just not going to acknowledge anyone's 'need' to cast haste while gently nestling a goblin mace between cheek and clavacle.

2) Take spells from rangers. Give them actual class features a ranger would have.

I don't get why giving magical classes something fun to do other then spells is an idea worth arguing against.

The 'Other than the only thing to do allowed to be fun anymore' part.

 

[Shardstone]

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.

I agree, and I think this ties into the real issue which is 5E has over 600 spells, and martial classes get locked out of all of those mechanics, because those are spells. It's really just a silly design decision IMO. Why are there so many spells? And why make it impossible for martials to replicate spell effects?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I agree, and I think this ties into the real issue which is 5E has over 600 spells, and martial classes get locked out of all of those mechanics, because those are spells. It's really just a silly design decision IMO. Why are there so many spells? And why make it impossible for martials to replicate spell effects?

Well, given the number of threads on that and the emotions it evokes, my answer to that is ...

¯\(ツ)/¯

That said, as a general response, you can either (a) nerf casters, or (b) buff martials. This is just the flip side of what you are proposing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree, and I think this ties into the real issue which is 5E has over 600 spells, and martial classes get locked out of all of those mechanics, because those are spells. It's really just a silly design decision IMO. Why are there so many spells? And why make it impossible for martials to replicate spell effects?

Many of them provide explicitly supernatural effects not available without some kind of magic or out of genre technology.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I agree, and I think this ties into the real issue which is 5E has over 600 spells, and martial classes get locked out of all of those mechanics, because those are spells. It's really just a silly design decision IMO. Why are there so many spells? And why make it impossible for martials to replicate spell effects?

Especially the spells that are just 'be good at a thing on a base fantasy level', like... well the entire first level of the ranger spell list.

Run good, jump high, shoot lots of arrows.

 

[Pedantic]

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.

I'd happily trade a yeeted Wizard for removing the Fighter. Let's get rid of the most generic options and take advantage of archetype specificity.

 

[Shardstone]

Many of them provide explicitly supernatural effects not available without some kind of magic or out of genre technology.

Most 1st and 2nd level spells really arent that wild. Burning hands could be oil into a torch, cause fear could be almost anything, jump is just baldurs gate 3 jump, and shield is really just having a shield. And some higher level spells, like delayed fireball, could alchemist fire traps, wall of stone could be debris, suggestion could be a high level charisma check or feat, stone skin could be a high level martial feat represnting endurance, and so on. Its just too many spells doing things that should be available to a broader pool of characters.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Many of them provide explicitly supernatural effects not available without some kind of magic or out of genre technology.

But many of them do not, case in point--

Especially the spells that are just 'be good at a thing on a base fantasy level', like... well the entire first level of the ranger spell list.
Run good, jump high, shoot lots of arrows.

D&D (in general, and 5e in particular) chose to turn lots of things that did not need to be spells into spells. Beyond that, it has chosen to address many problems which do not need supernatural solutions with spells, whether the spells replicated spell-only effects or not (hard to explain a fighter summoning a ball of fire or flying, but in another system they could leverage same-problem-solving abilities like 'have-catapult', 'have squad of archers,' or 'have Pegasus mount').

All of which is a long way of saying this is a D&D-specific problem, which has already been mentioned, so sorry for the repetition.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Most 1st and 2nd level spells really arent that wild. Burning hands could be oil into a torch, cause fear could be almost anything, jump is just baldurs gate 3 jump, and shield is really just having a shield. And some higher level spells, like delayed fireball, could alchemist fire traps, wall of stone could be debris, suggestion could be a high level charisma check or feat, stone skin could be a high level martial feat represnting endurance, and so on. Its just too many spells doing things that should be available to a broader pool of characters.

Fair enough, on some counts. But you also have to consider how often you want characters to do these things. Harder to justify limited use of some these effects if they're just a thing a person can do and not part of a codified system that provides its own verisimilitude.