Separating Attack and Utility Spell Slots

[Grazzt]

No. Leave all spells as slots.

 

[Lwaxy]

Get rid of the boring spells slots altogether already.


As that won't happen, I allow spells to be done as rituals anyway. Heck, if someone wants, they can even do fireball as a ritual (to burn stuff out of the way this was done before).

 

[Paxter]

I agree with the OP. I like separating spells by usage. Sure, fireball can be used out of combat to burn something away, but why wouldn't that player just use a torch instead? Also, if a spell can be used as a ritual (like Alarm), why would a caster ever prep it?

Face it: there are a LOT of spells that would never see use in combat. Just let them have their own category the way 4E did it. Rituals are a useful way of categorizing spells by usage. For example, Knock and Tongues would be 4E-style rituals. Shield and Mirror Image are "utility" powers, but are more combat focused.

Perhaps the better distinction would be "combat" and "non-combat?" Shield and Mirror Image are definitely combat spells, but are not about blasting enemies. Maybe we also need a distinction between offensive, defensive, and non-combat?

My reason for liking a built-in way to separate spells is because, without separation, you could definitely have a player that chooses only non-combat spells. Knock, Alarm, Comp Languages, and others are all perfectly valid spell choices. But when the party needs that fireball, how will they react to the answer of "I'm not that kind of wizard?"

 

[Janaxstrus]

I agree with the OP. I like separating spells by usage. Sure, fireball can be used out of combat to burn something away, but why wouldn't that player just use a torch instead? Also, if a spell can be used as a ritual (like Alarm), why would a caster ever prep it?

Face it: there are a LOT of spells that would never see use in combat. Just let them have their own category the way 4E did it. Rituals are a useful way of categorizing spells by usage. For example, Knock and Tongues would be 4E-style rituals. Shield and Mirror Image are "utility" powers, but are more combat focused.

Perhaps the better distinction would be "combat" and "non-combat?" Shield and Mirror Image are definitely combat spells, but are not about blasting enemies. Maybe we also need a distinction between offensive, defensive, and non-combat?

My reason for liking a built-in way to separate spells is because, without separation, you could definitely have a player that chooses only non-combat spells. Knock, Alarm, Comp Languages, and others are all perfectly valid spell choices. But when the party needs that fireball, how will they react to the answer of "I'm not that kind of wizard?"

The same way a party one of my characters is in now. One of the wizards doesn't memorize a lot of attack spells. He tends to buff the party, rather than deal direct damage.

It's a character choice. A perfectly viable one at that.

For me, personally, D&D spellcasters aren't Combat first, everything else second, if at all.

 

[Paxter]

I just like that in 4E, everyone is on even footing. In combat, everyone can participate. In exploring, everyone can do something. When interacting with NPCs, everyone can do something. (However, I don't like when RPing is tied too heavily to the character sheet, but that's another issue.)

What I don't like is someone NOT being able to participate. If you have a bunch of really good non-combat spells prepped, even though they'll be essential after the fight, during the real time that combat takes at the table, what the heck is your wizard doing?

(To answer my own question: he'll be firing his at-wills. Thank goodness 5E seems to be making SOME progress...)

 

[Li Shenron]

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, oh mamma mia let me go...

I don't care if things would be more balanced. I would just not have the freedom of making a full-combat mage or a full-utility mage or whatever in between I feel like. Freedom is more important than balance to me.

 

[Paxter]

But the freedom of making whatever you wanted also comes with the trap of making a character that can't participate in cornerstones of gameplay. Combat is definitely a large part of the game, it can't be denied. And we all love those great RP sessions, but as far as I've seen, a regular, average session does have a fair bit of combat.

I believe it is unfun to sit around a table in real-time with little to contribute. Even if combat is sped up, that is still where the majority of XP comes from. I don't see why anyone would build a character that could not adequately participate in one of the main pillars of the game.

I understand utility and support. Not every character needs to obliterate enemies. But I hated when my wizard was out of spells in previous editions and was forced to make crappy crossbow shots. How is that magical?

 

[Derren]

Combat is definitely a large part of the game, it can't be denied. And we all love those great RP sessions, but as far as I've seen, a regular, average session does have a fair bit of combat.

Only if you want it to.

But yes, D&D has always seriously neglected the non combat aspect of role playing and is one of the few RPG system in which combat is unavoidable.
In nearly all other RPG systems I know combat might be a prominent part but is still optional and it is entriely possible to create non combat PCs and run meaningfull adventures for them without resorting to freeforming.
But in D&D you have to create a combat character thanks to the class system for example and no matter how the extensive skill system was in previous editions the books never gave you the impression that the system supports any other game type than "killing monsters and take their loot".

 

[Paxter]

I totally agree. It's definitely up to the players and DM as to how much and how heavy the combat is. If it's always a knockdown drag out fight, you better bring your A-game. However, it's entirely possible where the utility-only wizard is the most effective member of the party.

This will, ultimately, be just one hurdle 5E has to try and clear while making everyone happy, which is just plain impossible, unfortunately.

Can't we all just get along?

 

[billd91]

I believe it is unfun to sit around a table in real-time with little to contribute. Even if combat is sped up, that is still where the majority of XP comes from. I don't see why anyone would build a character that could not adequately participate in one of the main pillars of the game.

If the mix of combat and non-combat is up to the player's choices, learn from the experience and choose better the next time you get to reallocate your choices. I think it's important that you have that choice and be prepared to live with the consequences.

I understand utility and support. Not every character needs to obliterate enemies. But I hated when my wizard was out of spells in previous editions and was forced to make crappy crossbow shots. How is that magical?

That issue has really nothing to do with different silos for combat and non-combat spells. That's all about the expending and regaining (or lack thereof) of spell resources in general.