D&D 5E How would YOU nerf the wizard? +


log in or register to remove this ad

Warpiglet-7

Satan’s Echo Chamber! Muhahahaha
I think just nerfing the outlier spells or poorly written spells should do the trick (Simulacrum, Hypnotic Pattern, Animate Objects, Glyph of Warding, Forcecage, Wall of Force, Magic Aura, Magic Jar, etc).

Maybe limit casting in armor as well.
I want to think about this more.

I don’t see a ton of wizard abuse in my group but also don’t see all of those spells in play much.

I am not too worried about armor. Except for extreme cases it seems higher level monsters can hit people in armor.
 






Somewhere in the archives there is a very long thread about whether D&D is an RPG. That should prove the hypothesis by itself.
I dunno. The "I didn't comment in another thread" and the "Hungry Happy Hagrid....something H something" threads are out there too with some pretty high post counts.

Not sure where they fall on the arguability spectrum.
 

Stormonu

Legend
Hmmm. Been thinking lately about a "casting" roll for spellcasters.

Right now, spells that require a save have after a fashion a casting roll built in - if the opponent makes the save, the spell fails. Those that require an attack roll fail if they don't hit the target.

However, spells that affect one's self or an ally traditionally don't require a roll of any sort, they automatically work. What if this wasn't so? What if casting spells such as bless or invisibility required a "casting check" - something along the lines of DC 8/10 + spell level? Certain circumstances could apply disadvantage (casting on the deck of a heaving ship) or advantage (a spell of your School specialty or Domain spells) to the roll.

Would it be significant? Would there be any knock-on effects (perhaps more slots, since spells can be failed)?

If this was used, should we change how saves are done? The opponent having static defenses like 4E and the caster has to roll to overcome them?
 

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
Hmmm. Been thinking lately about a "casting" roll for spellcasters.

Right now, spells that require a save have after a fashion a casting roll built in - if the opponent makes the save, the spell fails. Those that require an attack roll fail if they don't hit the target.

However, spells that affect one's self or an ally traditionally don't require a roll of any sort, they automatically work. What if this wasn't so? What if casting spells such as bless or invisibility required a "casting check" - something along the lines of DC 8/10 + spell level? Certain circumstances could apply disadvantage (casting on the deck of a heaving ship) or advantage (a spell of your School specialty or Domain spells) to the roll.

Would it be significant? Would there be any knock-on effects (perhaps more slots, since spells can be failed)?

If this was used, should we change how saves are done? The opponent having static defenses like 4E and the caster has to roll to overcome them?
The way shadowdark does it is there are no hit rolls or saves on top of the casting roll. If I were to implement the shadowdark system into 5E, I would make every spell an active check using the casting bonus, and spells without targets or willing targets would have a level based DC. Otherwise, it would be easy enough to Save + 10 for the DC of targeted spells.

The important thing about Shadowdark, though, is that there are no spell slots. You can cast a spell until you fail to cast it. in 5E I would have limited prep slots and give casters a few "mulligans" before they lose the spell, just because 5E isn't supposed to be as random or punishing as Shadowdark.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top