D&D 5E (2024) Circle Casting is gonna break a lot of games

[Clint_L]

Let’s not make this another thread about casters vs martials.

In looking at these rules, nothing is really jumping out as particularly problematic in the context of my games and typical party compositions. But I’ll have to play with them a bit to see if that is actually true.

I’m more worried about circle spells complicating and slowing play than being overpowered, from what I’m seeing. Though mostly I don’t see them getting used much.

 

[mellored]

Also I guess you missed the part "at the DMs discretion"

everything is at the DMs discretion.

NPCs doing this need to use the same or higher level slots (so hire 7 more NPC casters of 15th level)

well I don't have the book... so no. I didn't see where it says NPCs need higher level slots.

That helps prevent some abuse.

Like I said less of a difference than Lemund's Hut or a host of 1st level spells.

, that's another good one to prolong.

No it isn't. Haste is a weak spell compared to other 3rd level concentration spells you can cast

depends on the class.
Rogues using it to attack, and then their normal action to ready an off-turn attack for double sneak attack works very well.
As does Valor Bard who dips warlock and can shoot Eldritch Blast with it.

But pick whatever spell you think is best. Spirit Guardians or Moonbeam or whatever.

Either way, you get more power per slot spent.

What do martials have to do with any of this?

Casters got a buff.
Martials got nothing.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You’re assuming Range is synonymous with Area. They aren’t. Earth Tremor’s radius is its area of effect because it emanates from you. Therefore you’d need to expend a slot and add 10’ to the range. You obviously don’t add 1000 feet. Same with animal shapes. It’s good but not ridiculous like you’re suggesting.

Also the DMG clearly lays out visibility ranges for various terrain and spells require line of effect/target to be visible. If you are casting in a tower then cool. But let’s not pretend it affects most encounters.

Lastly sure the dragon gets a Tasha spell at a thousand feet. if it succeeds the dragon drops out of sight. Then hugs the terrain or approaches from another direction… assuming it fails the save which is not a given at level 1.

Not correct. It says range extends by 1000 feet and area by 10 feet. Those spells say range, not area. The rules are very intentionally worded in 5e. That’s the verbiage used. So yes, they do do what is described.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Or really even a possibility if it is an adult with legendary saves.

Folks keep forgetting it will take several rounds of dashing just to get within range with only ONE helper, let alone multiple. How many legendary saves do dragons get? Do the math.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Let's look at the first official campaign, don't even need to look further. At the very start. A blue dragon attacks Greenrest. A dragon has a fly speed of 80 feet (dash 160). A 1st level party of only two caster (very common) can cast Tasha's Hideous Laughter at 1000 feet out. 6 turns before the dragon can even get there. There is still a very real chance the dragon fails it's save. And falls hundreds of feet to the ground. (admittedly this would be freaking hilarious).

That's just one example. Extending the range of a spell by 1000 feet is huge. I see a lot of "well, both casters have to maintain concentration until the spell goes off." in this thread. That's totally moot if the enemy is several rounds away before they can even do anything to you.

That's a hard lesson for Lennithon 2024. He should have cast his at-will Invisibility for his approach to Greenest.

 

[Horwath]

The biggest problem with Silvery Barbs is it slows down the game tremendously.

That is why houserule that it modifies the d20 roll by -5.
it will remove a crit attack but 15+all bonuses will probably still hit and with fixed predictable value(as Shield spell) you can decide if you want to use it or not. Especially on saves.

IE target rolled 19 on its save, your spell DC is 15? Perfect time for Silvery barbs.
It makes it both stronger and weaker, but more stable and reliable.

 

[Horwath]

or if a group of them can spend 10 minutes training to get advantage on all attacks for the next 24 hours.

13th level champion fighter with Vex weapon.
Vengeance paladin
Barbarian
17th level ranger

 

[TheSword]

Not correct. It says range extends by 1000 feet and area by 10 feet. Those spells say range, not area. The rules are very intentionally worded in 5e. That’s the verbiage used. So yes, they do do what is described.

You’ve had your answer do as you will, you were handed a branch to hold onto to pull you out. If you choose not to grab on that’s your call.

I’ll be enjoying circle magic just fine.

I really do suggest you consider going for a walk though. Look around and see how far you can actually see the ground in every direction.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Single spell vs entire subsystem where you need multiple spell casters.

I don't see the relevance of that distinction. It's still a balance issue that has been a bee in people's bonnets for ages and ages. People constantly complain about it, years later, despite it being such a tiny influence.

My point was simply that if such a small thing became such a long-term bugaboo, a BIG thing like this is nearly guaranteed to be so--and that, given people have complained about the balance for a small piece, that is good evidence that people will complain more about a big piece.

Not the first time circle magic has been done.

Also opportunity cost. If youre willing to build an entire party around circle magic theres do much worse combos you can do.

For example you could build a short rest based party. Monk, cleric, fighter, warlock, maybe another warlock.

At level 10 the cleric can divine intervention a prayer of healing.

Or build around weapon masteries, spell combos and forced movements for example.

Yeeting the cleric around to maximize spirit guardians.

Etc.

Okay? So?

"You could do these other things" has no bearing on whether this thing is broken. This is...I mean it's completely irrelevant to the point.

It would be like saying to someone who found an obscure accounting trick that allowed people to pay zero taxes for the rest of their natural lives "okay sure but if you make a private LLC you can make more money". And...? That's completely irrelevant to whether the broken thing exists, and whether it is the fault of the designers for allowing such a broken thing to be included.

Nobody said it was the strongest thing in the game. They just said it's broken. And if there are other, stronger things in the game that aren't broken...maybe that's an admission that the balance of the game kinda sucks?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I know things could be made simpler, that is not what I am arguing about. Don’t try to make it what we are disagreeing about.

I said that ONLY listening to optimizers isn’t how you playtest your game. Balance isn’t #1 of the game design priority in 5e.

Please point to where I said one should only listen to optimizers.