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

That line of reasoning also contributes to both the unstoppability and indispensability of spellcasters. While a martial character may be stopped or significantly hampered by an obstacle that requires magic to easily overcome, spellcasters end up being the key to getting around or through them. While 5e is better at handling that sort of thing than 3e and AD&D (and I’m not at all convinced 4e is any better at it than 5e), I can at least see the argument that people complaining about the imbalance make.
I don’t think incorporating potential for a little frustration to enter the lives of casters if they cast with poor planning/tactics is necessarily bad.
I dont see how, since I gave alternatives at the bottom of my post.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

FallenRX

Adventurer
This will dramatically change the game and how casters and half casters can be played.

This will pretty mich eliminate the half caster Gish Paladin/Ranger type builds, those characters would need to play like Martials. It would also severely weaken Melee Clerics and Wizards.

You are taking viable build options away from players, I don't think they will like that and I don't see why this is necessary or helpful.
not at all as all of these classes use weapons, and cantrips mainly(which my rule specifically notes out) and have alternative ways of using slots that encourages using them in other ways, plus higher defenses means its less likely to happen. It actually makes the logic of those classes make more sense then it does otherwise on why they use weapons, and were heavy armor if they are a battle mage.
 

My thinking is non-casters need a way to mess with caster AND casters need to not lose their one "BBEG killer" for the day. That could mean that disrupting a spell doesn't lose the slot or that it does lose the slot but you have more slots.

I would go with the former over the latter as more slots mean bigger novas, which is its own problem (interconnected mechanics....). I think 5e's reduced high level spell slot ethos is overall a better path than earlier editions' "fragile artillery barrage". Better is not perfect but it's tweakable. Keeping the slot keeps up the tension ("You are only delaying the inevitable, hero!") While also letting the fighter have a chance ("The only thing inevitable, villain, is your death!")

I think disrupting spellcasting should be spell-level dependent. It should be easier to disrupt a 9th level spell than a 2nd level spell. Cantrips should be as hard to disrupt as a punch: you need to chain them up. Gives casters some discretion to trade certainty for power. It reduces novas (no sorcerers dropping 6 meteor swarms on a city) but it doesn't make casters unassailable except by a CounterSpell caster or some kind of glass cannons who can't get off magic missile when facing halfling children.

Not sure where Mage Slayer and War Caster fits. Maybe anyone can interrupt a caster w/o War Caster but it requires someone with Mage Slayer to reliably cut through War Caster. I don't really want it to turn into a series of Mage Slayer Blocker & War Caster Slayer feats and bring back the bad part of 3/3.5.
 


CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
My thinking is non-casters need a way to mess with caster AND casters need to not lose their one "BBEG killer" for the day. That could mean that disrupting a spell doesn't lose the slot or that it does lose the slot but you have more slots.

I would go with the former over the latter as more slots mean bigger novas, which is its own problem (interconnected mechanics....). I think 5e's reduced high level spell slot ethos is overall a better path than earlier editions' "fragile artillery barrage". Better is not perfect but it's tweakable. Keeping the slot keeps up the tension ("You are only delaying the inevitable, hero!") While also letting the fighter have a chance ("The only thing inevitable, villain, is your death!")
i think casters have more than enough slots as is to eat loosing slots, if you lost your BBEG killer then either tough luck on the bad roll to maintain concentration or you should've positioned yourself in a more secure position before casting it, casters shouldn't be immune to the consequences of making poor tactical decisions just because they're using magic.
 

This isn't explicitly a PC/NPC problem. It's a relative power between PC classes, which are often used as NPCs so it masquerades as a PC/NPC issue. But it's not. it doesn't really matter for NPCs. Because lets be clear, NPCs have infinite power any time a GM wants. "Oh, the bbeg caster? Yeah, actually a shapechanged Balor. Or a dragon. Or a titan. Or an arch fey. They had Mindblank so your true sight couldn't tell." Or just the good old "the BBEG points his staff and says a command word. Roll a death save!" GMs can retcon as they feel appropriate to maintain excitement/narrative tension/win. Always have and always will.

This is a matter of PC balance. How powerful should the spells be, how frequent should they be usable, how reliable should they be and how durable should a PC caster be relative to what the non-casters PCs can do.

The trick is to make the system have risk without it failing horribly due to a few bad die rolls. Too much power/certainty, no risk. Too little power/certainty it ceases to be fun. To much specificity and parties are totally dependent on like 2 classes so they have a chance against level appropriate NPCs using PC classes (even with a GM who doesn't put their thumb on the scale).

Because the system presumes you have casters. Many adventures presume you have radiant or fire damage, that someone can cast faerie fire or dispel magic to counter invisibility, etc, etc.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
In 1E/2E, if the caster got hit before his initiative, the spell was lost. No save or check, a single point was sufficient. In those editions, you stated intent before initiative was rolled (and it was rerolled each round) - spellcasters had to be very careful to ensure they were out of the line of fire, or be very desperate to cast in the middle of a close fight.
Good times. I still prefer they did it that way.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
This will dramatically change the game and how casters and half casters can be played.

This will pretty mich eliminate the half caster Gish Paladin/Ranger type builds, those characters would need to play like Martials. It would also severely weaken Melee Clerics and Wizards.

You are taking viable build options away from players, I don't think they will like that and I don't see why this is necessary or helpful.
I distinctly remember AD&D having paladins and rangers. Did I miss something?
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I don't think these rules really make the game any better. At higher levels, interrupting spells makes a lot more sense. But being interrupted because I cast Burning Hands, or Magic Missile, or Bless? Where's the fun in that? I can't even cast Burning Hands without some small pebble messing me up?

Casters aren't a problem in lower levels due to their spell selections, spell slots, and how low level spells are really, really basic. Casters don't start being a serious problem until they achieve 5th level spells, and really for spells of 6th-level or higher. Maybe if spells of High Magic (6-9th) could be interrupted, that'd be interesting. But I really don't think anything below that is worth it.

On top of this, it isn't fun for the player. This isn't because it's a Weakness, but because it just isn't fun. If I lose my spell slot, my spell, and my action/turn, I'm basically just sitting there doing nothing until the next round. It'd be way more interesting if interrupting a spell caused it go go out of control and effect someone randomly, or to be cast on both me and my target, etc etc. But just saying "Sucks to suck, sit there and do nothing and like it" is pretty lame. There's a reason these kinds of mechanics have, by and large, died out.
Or maybe be a little creative, and come up with something else to do if you run out spells.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
This would dramatically change the game. It would make spells in melee combat, even combat spells intended for melee, like Haste, Blur, Mage Armor and Spirit Guardians much more difficult to cast and less useful.
While I would allow actual melee intended spells to not trigger and AoO and a Conc check, absolutely none of these are melee spells. They're all buffs you precast before going into punching range. No. If you cast those in melee, you get stabbed.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top