D&D 5E L&L December 1st design finese. Part 2

[Sage Genesis]

I would say make the concentration check a saving throw. 1 through 9 is a fail and 10 through 20 is a pass. 50/50 chance.

First, that is not how saving throws work in Next. Second, what you describe is a 55/45 split, not 50/50.


As to the article, I find it perplexing that it claims that "spellcasters have never been eager to engage in melee" and that to reflect this they use a concentration/disruption rule.

First, the premise is false. Clerics, Druids, Bladesingers, Paladins, Rangers, Bards, Hexblades, Swordmages, and many multiclass or prestige path/paragon path/kit combinations have never been scared to go into melee. The word "spellcaster" is NOT synonymous with "Wizard".

Second, even if Wizards were scared to go into melee, this was mostly due to hit points, AC, and lack of melee weapon skill. This is already a strong enough incentive for Wizards to avoid melee whenever they can.

Third, this presents a strange scenario where either of these three things must be true (as far as I can tell).
A. There exist melee-enhancing spells that are Concentration (e.g. Flame Blade). In other words, there are melee-enhancing spells that shouldn't be used in melee. I find that idea ridiculous.
B. Such spells are no longer Concentration, meaning they can once more stack. I find this very unlikely given the other purpose of Concentration spells.
C. Certain classes or spells use Concentration, except they have a special exception so that they can't be disrupted by damage after all. This would make them an exception nested within an exception. Hardly the type of elegance the article is talking about.

It might just be me, but I don't see a good way out of this. Making Concentration-type spells disruptable by damage opens up a can of worms that it never should've.

 

[n00bdragon]

You don't think you'd have an easier time shooting a target 10 feet away then one that's in your face and messing with you?

(Admittedly, what this suggests to me is that an archer should get advantage when they're firing from outside of melee, not that they should get disadvantage when they're IN melee -- since everybody in melee has someone in their face messing with them.)

Shooting something at point blank is comically easy with a bow, or a crossbow, or any ranged weapon. The difficulty is in parrying the other guy's attacks. What D&D has never satisfactorily represented is that weapons are defensive simply by their nature of existing. This is partially because most characters can just laugh off a few arrows to the chest or sword chops to the face because hit points are an absurd abstraction and it's not quite the rocket-tag that real life weapons are.

I don't understand why there must even be rules to make ranged weapons less desirable in melee. Just drop the penalties. Drop the AoOs. Drop all the finagling garbage. If you must still question why use a sword when you could use a bow make the damage slightly less than that an equal tier melee weapon. It makes it easier to balance AND easier to play.

tl;dr: Good rules are better than bad rules but no rules are best of all

 

[MerricB]

First, that is not how saving throws work in Next. Second, what you describe is a 55/45 split, not 50/50.


As to the article, I find it perplexing that it claims that "spellcasters have never been eager to engage in melee" and that to reflect this they use a concentration/disruption rule.

First, the premise is false. Clerics, Druids, Bladesingers, Paladins, Rangers, Bards, Hexblades, Swordmages, and many multiclass or prestige path/paragon path/kit combinations have never been scared to go into melee. The word "spellcaster" is NOT synonymous with "Wizard".

In AD&D, Cleric spells took so long to cast (even Cure Light Wounds takes 4 segments - 24 seconds) that the chances of the caster being disrupted by a successful hit whilst in melee was very high indeed. And it was rare that any character was unhittable in the early editions.

In the early days of D&D, it was certainly true that if you cast spells, it was normally done from a safe distance.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

First, that is not how saving throws work in Next. Second, what you describe is a 55/45 split, not 50/50.


As to the article, I find it perplexing that it claims that "spellcasters have never been eager to engage in melee" and that to reflect this they use a concentration/disruption rule.

First, the premise is false. Clerics, Druids, Bladesingers, Paladins, Rangers, Bards, Hexblades, Swordmages, and many multiclass or prestige path/paragon path/kit combinations have never been scared to go into melee. The word "spellcaster" is NOT synonymous with "Wizard".

Second, even if Wizards were scared to go into melee, this was mostly due to hit points, AC, and lack of melee weapon skill. This is already a strong enough incentive for Wizards to avoid melee whenever they can.

Third, this presents a strange scenario where either of these three things must be true (as far as I can tell).
A. There exist melee-enhancing spells that are Concentration (e.g. Flame Blade). In other words, there are melee-enhancing spells that shouldn't be used in melee. I find that idea ridiculous.
B. Such spells are no longer Concentration, meaning they can once more stack. I find this very unlikely given the other purpose of Concentration spells.
C. Certain classes or spells use Concentration, except they have a special exception so that they can't be disrupted by damage after all. This would make them an exception nested within an exception. Hardly the type of elegance the article is talking about.

It might just be me, but I don't see a good way out of this. Making Concentration-type spells disruptable by damage opens up a can of worms that it never should've.

Whatever.

You get where Im trying to go wih this. I say make it a 50/50 chance of disruption and make a feat that a spellcaster can take that would allow them to keep the spell even though it was disrupted that roumd. They would get to hold on to their spell slot.

 

[Teataine]

The reason why "casters" is synonymous with "wizard" is because we're talking about the core game here. Clerics can wade into melee, but only specific builds post 3e can also cast well in melee. They have lower attack bonuses, worse HP, worse AC than fighters and can't take as much punishment. As for 3E high-level self-buffing clerics, we all know they're broken and wish they were gone.
Druids don't cast in melee either. When they want to go into melee, they shapeshift. Which is why Natural Spell was a broken feat, again.

The other mentioned classes, and all the other gish-types either aren't full casters or they are "non-core" variants. The assumption is always that you're giving up some of your spellcasting versatility and power for more melee survivability.

"Caster" here isn't supposed to mean "anyone who can cast a spell" because that would include Paladins, and even Fighters with an Initiate feat. Caster refers to the core three "full spellcasters". This has always been the case in my experience.

Second of all, as for bows, you need to be standing at least the length of your arrow (and probably a little more) away from your target, for it to reach full velocity. If you shoot something at a range where the arrow-tip is too close to the target, it will just stop there.
Second of all, D&D combat has always been about simulating a series of thrusts and parries. Parrying is the most important part of any melee. Armour is the last resort. So when someone is waving a sword in your face, and you're only holding your bow in your hands, you're pretty ed. The Disadvantage is pretty darn sensible, kind even.
Even in swordfighting, if someone moved within your weapon's reach, the smart thing to do was to grapple or punch with the pommel damnit.

D&D is not a simulation, it's abstract. But within that abstraction, you can make certain things desirable and others not, depending on what makes sense in the fictional space as well as the mechanical balance of the rules. Making ranged weapons fully usable in melee would probably make them broken. This is a simple way to tackle that, especially compared with some other solution in the past.

 

[Klaus]

One off-the-wall idea I just had would be to steal the Concentration mechanic and apply it to archers

But you're missing half the point: it's not just for archers, it's for clumsy weapons optimized for striking at a certain distance, like lances or lonspears.

And I'm ok with an attack penalty: you need extra room to pull out your arrow, place it on the bow and draw the string with enough force to release it at a target; or you need room to swivel your spear into position and jab it forward. If your target is too close, you'll have a hard time (not impossible, mind you) to line in a decent shot. All this adds to make the target harder to hit.

An option would be to halve the damage of these weapons when used in a 5-foot range.

 

[Balesir]

But you're missing half the point: it's not just for archers, it's for clumsy weapons optimized for striking at a certain distance, like lances or lonspears.

And I'm ok with an attack penalty: you need extra room to pull out your arrow, place it on the bow and draw the string with enough force to release it at a target; or you need room to swivel your spear into position and jab it forward. If your target is too close, you'll have a hard time (not impossible, mind you) to line in a decent shot. All this adds to make the target harder to hit.

An option would be to halve the damage of these weapons when used in a 5-foot range.

Or just count such weapons at contact range as improvised weapons, or...

That was my point, earlier, really - it's a complex and hairy thing to try to adjudge a "realistic" rule for, so any abstracted rule that provides a suitable disincentive to use such weapons at contact range is fine. I think those who claim that this new version "makes more sense" than the older versions are being beguiled by an illusion; it makes no more or less sense, because "simple" and "sense" don't align, here. But it does the job and it looks fine as a rule.

 

[gweinel]

Actually they aren't pushing damage spells.

Instant Damage and Instant effects spells like fireballs are powerful and can't be interrupted. The drawback is that they are only cost effective in your 3 highest spell levels. At mage level 10, 1st and 2nd level instant damage spells are mostly useless.

Constant damage spells like flaming sphere and flame blade and utility spells have the biggest effects if you keep them going.. They also don't fade in strength as you level as bad as instant spell. The drawback is that the caster must concentrate and use actions to continue the damage.

It's the age old Direct X vs X Over Time. If your mage takes the direct approach, they don't need to worry about concentration Direct mages worry about the "casting at higher level slot" rules.

As you describe it i see there is a general nerf of the spells with the exception of the highest caster level damage spells. If you put in the scene the at will damage cantrips then we have, imho at least, a considerate boost of the dmg dealing spells in comparison with all the others promoting thus a certain playstyle. In previous editions (1-3e) you could play a specialist mage without a single evocation spell. Can you play and have fun a summoner or an enchanter in 5e or you have to rely on damage spells? Can you imagine to play a summoner or an enchanter and have to concentrate constantly in order to keep your spell working? Playing only one or two spells in every combat limits the versality (and the creativity) of a mage character.

edit: I don't want an overpowerful wizard but i am reluctant to this approach since i think this kind of the nerf punishes creativity and for me removes some of the "magic" of the magic user. Make him versatile but fragile. This can be done with local rules (wizard specific, casting spells gives you power but comes with danger ex: spell drawback like a possibility to miscast or a chance the summoning creature to turn against the wizard) or with global rules (casting is dangerous in mellee like 2e spell interuption).

 

[Minigiant]

As you describe it i see there is a general nerf of the spells with the exception of the highest caster level damage spells. If you put in the scene the at will damage cantrips then we have, imho at least, a considerate boost of the dmg dealing spells in comparison with all the others promoting thus a certain playstyle. In previous editions (1-3e) you could play a specialist mage without a single evocation spell. Can you play and have fun a summoner or an enchanter in 5e or you have to rely on damage spells? Can you imagine to play a summoner or an enchanter and have to concentrate constantly in order to keep your spell working? Playing only one or two spells in every combat limits the versality (and the creativity) of a mage character.

It goes to the idea of fitting the mage and other casters into the adventuring day without the hoarding aspect. WOTC is pushing having 4 scences/encounters between long rests as the normal. Easy encounters count as half a normal one and tough ones as double. This way DM can better gauge their adventures predictable toughness (somewhat).

Then they decided to fit casters into this system by giving them slot resources and spell design where they get 1-2 good spells and cantrips per normal encounter/scence/majortrap/conversation. Basically has the system gauge the caster instead of the player having full control (which in the past meant casters did magic few times a day at low levels or could blow up the adventuring day once they had resources)

edit: I don't want an overpowerful wizard but i am reluctant to this approach since i think this kind of the nerf punishes creativity and for me removes some of the "magic" of the magic user. Make him versatile but fragile. This can be done with local rules (wizard specific, casting spells gives you power but comes with danger ex: spell drawback like a possibility to miscast or a chance the summoning creature to turn against the wizard) or with global rules (casting is dangerous in mellee like 2e spell interuption).

This really goes against Mearls's goals. He wants 50-70% of spell casting to be simple so it can act as a core for every Next game. Wacky stuff is optional and linked to indidual spells or variant rules.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But you're missing half the point: it's not just for archers, it's for clumsy weapons optimized for striking at a certain distance, like lances or lonspears.

Quite the contrary, I could see it apply to these weapons, too!

My understanding of the Concentration mechanic is that it is similar to 4e's "sustain" keyword, but doesn't take an action, and if the user takes damage, the effect might end. You can't use two things that need Concentration at the same time, either. I don't have the 5e docs in front of me and it's been a while since I last peeked at them, so I don't know if this reflects the current RAW or not.

So, say, Haste. Cast it and as long as you keep Concentration, your ally is hasted, but if you take damage, the spell might falter (I don't know if there's any check involved to mitigate the falter, but for the sake of a thought experiment, lets go with "no," and say it just ends the spell). Can't use Haste on two people at once.

Anything you need space to use -- anything someone getting up in your face and beating you about the head and shoulders might disrupt -- might use a mechanic something like this:

[COLOR="#FFA07Z"]Concentration
Certain weapons and spells take concentration to use, and are more difficult to use if you are under attack and taking damage. If you have taken damage since your last turn, you cannot take actions that require concentration. You can only use one action that requires concentration on your turn. [/COLOR]
​

That's not meant to be a final rule or anything, just a starting point that accomplishes the goal in a simple way (I'm already imagining CON checks to do it anyway). And it's more thought experiment than serious suggestion. But I kind of like the cut of that jib.

You want to use a lance or a longspear? Or a whip? You're going to need time. Balance. Bracing. Aiming. It's not like a sword or an axe that you can just swing and hack with, these are weapons of precision. That's why you get the guy with the shield in front of you, or ride up fast on a horse, or strike from a distance -- if something disrupts your momentum, you're not going to be able to strike with it.

Heck, that's a flexible enough mechanic to apply to a host of things. A rogue ability a la sneak attack ("Ignore me, and I'll stab ye in the kidneys!") or Hide In Plain Sight ("You take your eyes of that halfling for one second....!"). Most forms of winged flight. Magic item use. Wizard spellcasting, but maybe not Sorcerer spellcasting (really gets at the distinction of cautious, academic magic vs. instinctive, natural magic!).

At the very least, having a unified mechanic for this pursues the "elegance" that Mearls & Co. are supposedly enshrining as The Real Goal, in that it eliminates rules, solves a problem on multiple fronts, and reflects how you'd expect the world to work. It's also a lot easier to look up and remember one rule than it is to remember 2-3 sub-rules that all ultimately kind of do the same thing (that is, stop people from taking actions that require some precision when you're in the midst of a drawn-out melee).