Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8330091" data-attributes="member: 71699">I feel like a project to renovate spells needn't be constrained to their current slot level, rather that seems to me like one lever for achieving better balance. Which means broadening valid strategies (more spells matter), mitigating trap picks and overshadowing (a player who enjoys some given spells isn't mechanically overshadowed to an egregious extent by one who optimises), and avoiding warping encounters around them (if players have this spell, almost every encounter has to consider it).Weapons too, then! I'm with you in wanting more weapons to matter.One step is to make sure spells explain themselves well. I believe some buffs and debuffs aren't used because it's not clear what the impact will be. For example, blur is super-efficient for high-AC characters, but in my experience hardly ever cast because in the end it competes with spells like haste and greater invisibility which both have far clearer consequences in play.Then both weapons and spells need to do more within existing design space. A minor tweak like extended duration might be all that is needed, or an up-cast option (which many buffs lack altogether). Battleaxe, longsword and warhammer are differentiated on cost, weight, damage type and XGE feat they play into. It seems nearly enough - perhaps if those feats were fighting styles? Pathing into differentiated mechanics is easier to learn (and often very satisfying). Were blur an abjuration spell it might sometimes see play for similar reasons.Additional mechanical features to open up design space come with the cost of more to learn and remember to apply in play. A more nuanced concentration mechanic for example, could be tied to spell schools so that blur being illusion can stack with haste but not greater invisibility. That is too strong, but just by way of example.On the whole, might you agree that 5e is feature rich enough, and the work lies more in using what is there rather than adding complexity?</blockquote>

Verification