Separating Attack and Utility Spell Slots

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I want to see rituals expanded considerably beyond their use in 4e, but I'm not so certain I want to see all 'utility' effects relegated to ritual status-- sometimes you need to teleport to a specific place today, and sometimes you need to teleport anywhere but here right the Hell now, and the latter should absolutely expend your daily combat resources.

Honestly, I think there's a huge variance in the category of 'utility spells', such that some of them should be practically at-will, some that should require spell slots, some that should require expensive material components, and some that should just take a long damn time to cast.

For instance, comprehend languages shouldn't be a spell slot and it shouldn't take long to cast-- but you shouldn't be able to cast it instantly. If it took a minute or so to cast, it would be a powerful utility... but useless if you weren't prepared for the encounter. Someone who chose to learn the language would be able to speak instantly.

Knock should always cost money, and it should always take longer than a Rogue with a set of lockpicks. If you ever need to cast it in combat, tough-- you should have brought a thief with you.

Teleport is a good example of something that should cost a spell slot if you need it now, but something you should be able to do at-will as long as the casting time is longer than the duration of all your buffs.

Raise dead and the like shouldn't cost spell slots, but it should take a damn long time to cast, cost you a lot of money, and have other drawbacks.

 

[howandwhy99]

No

Utility spells are Combat spells. Combat spells are Utility spells.

Creativity comes from improvising new means to use something you already do well, but now in a novel situation. Just because fireballs are great at killing stuff doesn't mean it can't have other uses.

When balancing this stuff it really should be considered in both exploration and combat round applicability. (I don't have any problem with spells being more useful in one or the other aspect though)

 

[Teataine]

I was absolutely in favour of separating those resources from the start.

But I find that the new scroll mechanic and the spell-as-ritual alternative is an adequate solution, so I voted no. Since you can put any spell on a scroll and cast it from there or cast utility spells as rituals without expending a slot, you aren't really wasting combat resources on utilities or vice-versa.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No. They all should be the same slots, but all spells should be castable as rituals.

 

[Yora]

Other: There schouldn't be any spell slots at all.

 

[Derren]

2 and 3 are only valid when you run a H&S game. If not, combat spells are neither less valuable or trap choices.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am afraid siloing like this is ... unpopular with the overall D&D audience. It kinda seems too artificial - why are these classes of spells so different?

I think with a decent ritual magic system, though, you can have your cake and eat it, too. You won't generally use rituals for combat spells (though I would like to see some combat spells that can be used as rituals - kinda more "war spells" then combat spells), and utility spells will often be used as rituals.

D&D 4 had the problem that it tried to classify spells in utility and combat, but it really classified only "attacks" vs "utility" spells. You could still pick utility powers that were mostly combat-focused (movement bonuses, defense bonuses, short range teleports, heals) or you could pick entirely non-combat utility powers (stuff that only helped in skill challenges, boosted social interaction and the like). So the siloing was not really succesful in what I personally would have hoped from it - the ability to define a combat and a non-combat side of my character, without needing to make sacrificing for either side.

 

[Minigiant]

The reason for siloing was the conflict of exploration, interaction, and combat spells taking up the same slots. You either have to grant too many slots and screw over balance or give too fee and now casters will be horribadly screw at certain points of time.

Rituals fixing that.

 

[Dalamar]

I voted other for "Provide a module for that"

I would guess that a character that has their spells split would have to get one or two more of them to account for the fact that he can't go all combat or all interaction. Heck, I'd love if the spells would be split to Combat, Interaction and Exploration, even. With of course the understanding that Exploration would include stuff like expeditious retreat that could be useful in combat as well.

 

[DonAdam]

Siloing spells (and especially rituals) is an artifact of encounter-based design. If you need to know that any given fight will be balanced, you need to have some general sense of spells that are helpful in combat vs. out of combat, recognizing that creative combat uses of non-combat spells are usually situational.

But D&D Next is switching to an adventure-based design. In that world, there needs to be a tradeoff between spells that help win fights and spells that help avoid or bypass fights. If a spell has a payoff--e.g., comprehend languages allows you to read a cryptic clue that tells you what the monster around the bend's weakness is--then the spell needs to have a real opportunity cost (i.e., a benefit internal to the adventure). A fungible spell slot serves this function nicely.