Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Falling Icicle" data-source="post: 5937452" data-attributes="member: 17077">One thing I think 4e did right was to separate attack and utility spells. You don't ever have to choose between fireball and tongues, or magic missile and feather fall. While 5e is allowing some utility spells to be cast as rituals, and I think that is a great diea, I think this could just further encourage people to prepare lots of combat spells and rarely, if ever, prepare alot of the more situational spells (or just leave those for scrolls). I can see several advantages to separating attack and utility spell slots, the way 4e did:- It makes preparing spells easier, since the player doesn't have so many choices to fill in each slot, and he doesn't have to worry as much about screwing up and picking the "wrong" spells.- Many of the more situational utility spells will see use, because players no longer are "giving up" a "more valuable" and likely to be used fireball or other combat spell for it.- It helps prevent "trap" choices. Players will be guaranteed to have a certain number of combat spells and a certain number of other spells, so less experienced players won't be able to make the mistake of preparing nothing but utility magic and not have any combat ability that day, or vice versa.- It makes PC spellcaster power alot more predictable and managable for the DM, since he knows roughly how much of the PCs resources will be combat magic, and how much will be utility magic. This makes balancing encounters easier for the DM, since PC magic user's competence won't vary wildly from one character to another or one day to to the next.- It helps consolidate the spell lists. Since there will be fewer levels of each type of spell (let's say 4-5 levels of combat spells and 4-5 levels of utility magic, instead of 9 levels of both) you won't need to have 9 levels of both combat and utility spells to fill. This helps to considerably cut down on spell bloat because you don't need to offer several dozen spells of each level and each type for players to choose from. They could easily cut the number of spells in the game down by 1/3 or more this way, combining alot of the redundant spells (like silent/minor/major image).I know alot of people will have some reservations about this. They may feel that this reduces their freedom and choices as a spellcaster, and to a degree, that is true. That was originally my reservation as well. But the more I've thought about it, the less this bothers me, and I don't think one would be losing as much freedom as they might think. "Combat" magic can include a much wider variety of things than fireballs and lightning bolts. Things like charm, confusion, summoned monsters, and so on could easily fit in that category. I think it's important to stress that just because a spell is labeled combat or utility doesn't mean that a combat spell can't have uses outside of combat, or a utility spell within combat.So, what do you think? Should 5e separate attack and utility spells?</blockquote>

Verification