Separating Attack and Utility Spell Slots

[FireLance]

Mind you, if you wanted it, it would be very easy to house-rule. Just make the split between attack and utility spells yourself, or, for a softer approach, have a table rule that a spellcaster must prepare at least one attack and one utility spell for each level of spells he can cast, and leave the player to decide how he wants to fill the rest.

 

[Bagpuss]

I think that most utility spells should be rituals.

By utility spell, I mean a spell that won't be of any use in 95% of combat, like Comprehend Languages and Alarm.

Spells like Charm Person and Jump are a different matter, as they can help in combat indirectly, even if they offer utility out of combat.

Thing is with the Ritual method in seen in the 5E playtest, you get the best of both worlds. As a player can give up a slot for a spell like Comprehend Languages (Although I don't think this had a ritual in the playtest) if they want, or at least have it as a ritual, if they don't memorize it but find they need it.

So the player that memorized it, could perhaps use it to prevent a misunderstanding leading to a conflict, when they come across a strange tribe in the middle of a jungle that doesn't speak common.

But if the DM needs the players to converse with this tribe, perhaps if the players haven't memorized it, it leads to a conflict, but after the fight, when the players have more time. Then players can use the ritual and at least speak to a wounded warrior when the others flee, or the tribal leader if they get captured.

Same with spells like Jump, a Ritual for it might allow the wizard to get round difficult climb rolls when he has more time and willing to spend cash, but having it memorized might help out in combat, when the time isn't available.

 

[Viking Bastard]

While I wouldn't mind some kind of seperation between Attack and Utility spells in their presentation (or rather, not have it be one long list of hundreds of spells, however they divide it), I don't really like the A&U slot seperation in 4e that much. Not for Wizards, anyway.

 

[Gold Roger]

One problem with siloing spells not yet brought up is that utility and combat spells are just extremes on a sliding scale. There's clean cut combat and utility spells, but many, many spells are somewhere in between. Desintegrate looks like a clean cut attack spell, but the abillity to completely erradicate an objects existance has great utility uses.

If you try to seperate those spells by utility and combat spells, you either end up putting spells that are to versatile for their slot or hack up great spells into their various uses. I find neither desirable.

Also 4e siloing had the tiny problem of putting defensive and movement spells (which you really want in a combat) next to noncombat spells, defeating the supposed purpose of siloing.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I liked the way they had done it in 4e, but I actually liked the 3e way of handling it better. It's more clunky and all, but it does allow you to make characters that aren't primarily combat oriented. The 5e rogue is already an example of this, so why not let the wizard choose.

 

[KesselZero]

People have basically covered all my thoughts as to why separating combat and utility spells wouldn't be good. I just want to explicitly state what some people seem to be hinting at, which is that the original post seems to have a baseline assumption that combat spells are inherently better than non-combat spells. I think this is an artifact of 4e's encounter-based design (as noted above, it's required for encounter balance to have a solid idea of a caster's possible damage output, etc.); 5e has been stated to be moving away from this design ethos and therefore we should see a return to importance of non-damage-dealing spells. Great examples have been given above of how a non-damaging spell can be used to greater effect than a damage-dealer of the same level.

Similarly, Mike Mearls has stated that the guideline for 5e isn't to have perfect encounter balance. It's okay for one PC to dominate a particular encounter, as long as everyone gets a chance to shine over the course of the adventure. For a caster, this could be achieved with a well-placed sleep or burning hands, but also by disintegrating the door that's between the party and freedom, or as suggested above, using comprehend languages to avoid a conflict entirely.

Taking damage spells should absolutely have an opportunity cost as the wizard loses the ability to do anything else. It's a balancing act that should say something about the individual wizard; every wizard shouldn't be made to fit the same pattern.

 

[Oni]

I don't think I can adequately express how much I dislike the idea of segregated slots based on intended usage, that kind of setup leads to designers trying to design things so they fall into clearly desinated catagories, which leads to boring in the box thinking.

 

[CM]

I think giving spells ritual options is the perfect compromise between 4e siloed attack/utility spells and earlier editions. Late in 4e, many new rituals started having short casting times (as little as one standard action) and it works great.

I could totally see some sort of "ritual specialist" feat that lets you use X GP-value of rituals per day at no gold cost, if money is a concern.

 

[Wepwawet]

Other: prepare an "Utility" spell in a slot to cast in an instant, or use it as a ritual without preparation if you need it.

Basically spells with a ritual option

 

[Janaxstrus]

Not only no, but heck no, and other 4 letter prefaced no-s

Sometimes you have to make choices when you play a wizard or other spell caster. That is part of what makes it feel like D&D to me