Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How to De-Magic 5e
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 7831735" data-attributes="member: 20564"><p>Okay, throwing some ideas out there.</p><p></p><p>Get rid of cantrips*+, keep the exact same number of spells. Reduce the encounters-between-long-rests expectation to a saner number like 4.</p><p></p><p>[spoiler]</p><p>* Warlock needs EB or a replacement. Sorcerer has the most cantrips and least spells known, they will need some rebalancing. Or maybe that's what makes a sorcerer unique - they among everyone still have cantrips because they are the embodiment of magic. Some others (AK & EK if you keep them) may also need adjustments since they have special abilities around cantrips. Oh, and half the clerci domains do as well.</p><p></p><p>+ Just something that came up in the multiple "get rid of cantrips" threads. Often getting rid of <em>combat</em> cantrips was enough to make them rare again. Allowing the wizard to light his pipe with magic was still considered cool. You could even leave it as "keep druidcraft, thaumaturgy, or prestidigitation".</p><p>[/spoiler]</p><p></p><p>This addresses the biggest pet peeve of mine about the number of encounters being a balance point between the long-rest, short-rest, and at will resource recovery models. And can baance just stripping out (combat) cantrips.</p><p></p><p>To give an example, a caster (past Tier 1) has about the same number of "offense viable" spell slots, even as they go up levels, because low level slots aren't worth the action spent. Those low level slots are used for utility. Those offense viable slots produce a result > than a martial character. Cantrips produce a viable-to-spend-an-action result, but are < than a martial character. Those average out over time.</p><p></p><p>Now, taking out cantrips means that casters will either be using light crosspows, darts, etc which are even less than cantrips (again, we're talking tier 2 and higher), so the average goes down farther. But if there are less encounters per long rest, that means there are less actions that are spent on the very-low-return actions. </p><p></p><p>So even-less-results, but less of them, still works out at a balance point. If it's a valid balance point I say it would need testing. But it's something.</p><p></p><p>Note that this may end up with casters doing less utility casting to keep their slots for combat, since even a 1st level spell does more than a light crossbow.</p><p></p><p>Also that casters are not the only long-rest classes. For example a barbarian will do well with less encounters per day because they can rage in a larger percentage of them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Blue, post: 7831735, member: 20564"] Okay, throwing some ideas out there. Get rid of cantrips*+, keep the exact same number of spells. Reduce the encounters-between-long-rests expectation to a saner number like 4. [spoiler] * Warlock needs EB or a replacement. Sorcerer has the most cantrips and least spells known, they will need some rebalancing. Or maybe that's what makes a sorcerer unique - they among everyone still have cantrips because they are the embodiment of magic. Some others (AK & EK if you keep them) may also need adjustments since they have special abilities around cantrips. Oh, and half the clerci domains do as well. + Just something that came up in the multiple "get rid of cantrips" threads. Often getting rid of [I]combat[/I] cantrips was enough to make them rare again. Allowing the wizard to light his pipe with magic was still considered cool. You could even leave it as "keep druidcraft, thaumaturgy, or prestidigitation". [/spoiler] This addresses the biggest pet peeve of mine about the number of encounters being a balance point between the long-rest, short-rest, and at will resource recovery models. And can baance just stripping out (combat) cantrips. To give an example, a caster (past Tier 1) has about the same number of "offense viable" spell slots, even as they go up levels, because low level slots aren't worth the action spent. Those low level slots are used for utility. Those offense viable slots produce a result > than a martial character. Cantrips produce a viable-to-spend-an-action result, but are < than a martial character. Those average out over time. Now, taking out cantrips means that casters will either be using light crosspows, darts, etc which are even less than cantrips (again, we're talking tier 2 and higher), so the average goes down farther. But if there are less encounters per long rest, that means there are less actions that are spent on the very-low-return actions. So even-less-results, but less of them, still works out at a balance point. If it's a valid balance point I say it would need testing. But it's something. Note that this may end up with casters doing less utility casting to keep their slots for combat, since even a 1st level spell does more than a light crossbow. Also that casters are not the only long-rest classes. For example a barbarian will do well with less encounters per day because they can rage in a larger percentage of them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How to De-Magic 5e
Top