D&D 5E Rethinking casting spells? Simple Implements & Components...

[Roguedeus]

Too much bookkeeping. The wizard is already on the high end of the bookkeeping scale for D&D, it doesn't need more. And it's a very bad idea to use modules as a balancing tool. The core game, with no modules in use, should be balanced.

The solution here is much simpler: Scale back the power level of high-level spells. Another thing that would help would be to remove the level bonus to wizard save DCs.

Thanks! Though as a DM I might use the module simply to add another potential pitfall when playing a caster character. Not to mention help me better pace a particularly long, and challenging dungeon/adventure. While its somewhat possible to challenge non-casters via removal of their primary gear, a component/implement link, can supply such an option for crippling casters as well.

I don't think there is anywhere near such a consensus for D&DN. It is true that many have complained about the Quadratic Wizard, Linear Fighter in past editions of D&D, and many arguments (both on and off the internet) have ensued over the issue, but the designers of D&DN have stated they are aware of the issue and are taking steps to mitigate it. I find it strange that you would propose your own solution to the problem without referencing these steps freely available in the latest play test packet. Namely: Wizards get fewer spell slots over all, and particularly higher level slots; spells no longer automatically scale as the level of the caster goes up, one has to use higher level slot to achieve a greater effect (this was a big part of the Quadratic Wizard); Many useful ongoing effect spells require concentration to maintain, thereby preventing the caster from layering on multiple spell effects to vastly alter an encounter; Save or Die (or, to be more inclusive: Save or Suck) spells have been subject to additional mitigating efforts such as Hit Point Thresholds (Easily the most controversial step taken, judging by reaction online); and swift action (or minor action) spells suffer the penalty of not allowing the caster to cast another spell or activate a magic item in the same round, thereby preventing a massive unloading of spell firepower in a round before opponents can act, though still possible through surprise. Not to mention the fact that Martial characters have auto-scaling damage now, which along with bounded accuracy, will help increase their potency into higher levels of play.

I presume you are familiar with these issues but think they are insufficient? That may be true in the end, as this method is still highly dependant on restraint and discipline when designing new spells as D&DN ages and new supplements are published. I still think these efforts, together with further tweaks and adjustments to individual spell power and levels, will yield the best results to mitigate spell caster power while still maintaining the traditional spell casting paradigm.

You are correct. I have not play tested the latest test packet. Nor done more than scan it a bit. I apologize if that diminishes my suggestions.

I have not had a regular group for a few years now, and I have based most of this on an idea I have for a Pathfinder/Trailblazer based campaign world I will end up running for the kids this summer. I asked it as a D&DN question to see if I might shoehorn it into D&DN next summer (assuming its out) and to share the idea.

Everyones feedback is helping me iron it out nicely. Something about having to explain it, helps me finish it in my own mind.

 

[Roguedeus]

... If the problem is wizards dishing out their best spells, often called the 15MD problem, there are numerous ways of fixing it within the rules. Many times it's fixed by writing adventures differently, but I'd rather see a solution that any DM running any adventure can use.

D&DN wizards don't have that many spells per day, but it's possible they still have too many. If cantrips are useful (without being overpowered) wizards could stand having even fewer combat spells per day. (I'd also appreciate flattening the number they get; perhaps starting with more "daily" spells than they get now but not getting many more with levels, instead replacing low-level daily slots with higher-level ones.) Yes, I pretty much just described 4e without encounter powers.

It actually would work better with encounter powers. If you can't cast Finger of Death more than once per 10 minute rest, then you simply cannot do so.

IMO, the 15MD problem isn't just caused by wizards dishing out their best spells and then trying to get an early rest, but also a reaction to how weak 1st-level wizards are. They want to cast a spell per turn but can't because they're only getting ~3 spells per day. I don't think it's unreasonable for wizards to be able to cast a spell each turn (rather than turn back to the crossbow that the fighter is probably better at using anyway), you just need to make sure they cannot dish out all their spells at once. More limits on how many daily spells you can cast per day accomplishes that without extra record-keeping.

I think I understand what you mean, though I tend to react to adding inflexible limitations to address these sorts of issues, the way it seems you react to the idea of generic magic weapons and extra bookkeeping.

I suppose, to me, adding a little bookkeeping and some simple gear-binding to 'weigh' the use of a class is preferable to the alternatives I've seen so far... I am the kind of DM that would rather there be the option of having a 15 minute workday, so long as you can support it and are willing to accept the consequences.

 

[Tuft]

Many players already think tracking arrows is too much bookkeeping.

When I played Shadowrun, our GM had us track *every* *single* bullet, and what kind was loaded in each slot in magazines and ammo belts...

After all, there were acquisition rolls, street index rolls, bargaining and more, which made purchases difficult, and time consuming.


All this was thrown into chaos when someone asked: "We're supposed to be skilled marksmen, right? What ammo do we use when we train?" Of course, nobody wanted to go through all that rigamarole for training ammo... especially as there was no definition on how much ammo you needed to reach each firearms skill level... Put a big fat layer of ridicule on the whole thing... ^^


So, when do wizards train their spell casting, and what does *that* cost in a component system?

 

[Roguedeus]

When I played Shadowrun, our GM had us track *every* *single* bullet, and what kind was loaded in each slot in magazines and ammo belts...

After all, there were acquisition rolls, street index rolls, bargaining and more, which made purchases difficult, and time consuming.


All this was thrown into chaos when someone asked: "We're supposed to be skilled marksmen, right? What ammo do we use when we train?" Of course, nobody wanted to go through all that rigamarole for training ammo... especially as there was no definition on how much ammo you needed to reach each firearms skill level... Put a big fat layer of ridicule on the whole thing... ^^


So, when do wizards train their spell casting, and what does *that* cost in a component system?

Way back, I always wished I had friends interested in Shadowrun... But alas. That and Earthdawn. I LOVED Earthdawn but never got to do more than read the books.

As for training, I don't see a need to expand the existing rules regarding cost and necessary consumables. I would stipulate that scrolls still need components (never charges) when being created. Perhaps double the normal component requirements. (In exchange for the scrolls convenience)

Edit: Perhaps there could be a feat that reduced the component cost by 50% (making it normal)... Or maybe if your caster level is double the spell level then the scrolls component cost is 50%... Etc... something like that.

 

[n00bdragon]

4E already solved this problem by using this solution more or less: giving everyone of level X the same number of powers for a given period of time. It solved the problem beautifully.

Everyone hated it though because it's "not my D&D". D&D is a lot of things to a lot of people and for many of those people solving any inherent problems with how the game (the part with the dice and the numbers) plays ranges from unimportant to downright inimical.

 

[Roguedeus]

4E already solved this problem by using this solution more or less: giving everyone of level X the same number of powers for a given period of time. It solved the problem beautifully.

Everyone hated it though because it's "not my D&D". D&D is a lot of things to a lot of people and for many of those people solving any inherent problems with how the game (the part with the dice and the numbers) plays ranges from unimportant to downright inimical.

Thanks for your opinion. Though for what its worth, I (for one) didn't hate 4ed. I played it and enjoyed it very much... But I don't play it any more because the kids decided they like Pathfinder better. (Less complex combat)

 

[Dausuul]

4E already solved this problem by using this solution more or less: giving everyone of level X the same number of powers for a given period of time. It solved the problem beautifully.

Everyone hated it though because it's "not my D&D". D&D is a lot of things to a lot of people and for many of those people solving any inherent problems with how the game (the part with the dice and the numbers) plays ranges from unimportant to downright inimical.

That wasn't why I hated it. I hated it because:

• It made all the classes feel the same.
• I don't like the Vancian, "use it and lose it" approach to powers. It always bugged me about wizards in previous editions. 4E shoved it into every single class.
• For the martial classes, most of the powers were just variations on "I hit it with my sword." For that matter, most of the wizard powers were variations on "I blast it with fire/lightning/cold." Non-damaging spells and maneuvers got short shrift in 4E.

 

[n00bdragon]

snip

snip

Thanks for informing everyone why you don't play The Edition Which Shall Not Be Named. My point still stands though. TEWSNBN solved this particular issue, regardless of how many of your parents it may have murdered.

 

[Dausuul]

Thanks for informing everyone why you don't play The Edition Which Shall Not Be Named. My point still stands though. TEWSNBN solved this particular issue, regardless of how many of your parents it may have murdered.

Who says I didn't play it? There were a lot of parts that bothered me, but it also did a lot of stuff really well. In particular, it worked, in that you could run a game without fudging and not have a horrific PC mortality rate. Class balance was far superior to anything that came before. And it was brilliant for creating big set-piece fights that were exciting and interesting. I played and ran it for most of its lifespan. Right about the time my problems with it were starting to outweigh the good points, 5E was announced.

And yes, I agree that it solved this issue. I think this particular solution threw the baby out with the bathwater, but there is no denying that it was a solution.