Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 9164104" data-attributes="member: 3400">There are lots of ways spellcasters have been hampered in the past, but like this option, none of them do anything if the table isn't going to abide by them because they're "unfun" or "cumbersome" or different DMs have a very different concept of what rare means. Casting time, concentration, components, being vulnerable in combat - all of these have come up and, even today in 5e, you see people complain, often bitterly, about them.And that's kind of been the history of spellcasting in D&D. Some rules, like 1e's casting time and weird initiative interactions, really were a PITA to manage or even understand through the murk of poorly explained rules. Others were so ignored that the 3e designers felt comfortable omitting them, helping them set up 3e's imbalance issues. I don't think they set out to make "caster edition D&D" like a lot of critics blather about, it was just a net effect of all of the things they did to update the game to meet the more modern player community based on their own experiences and what they heard as feedback over the years.So, rarity of spells is probably best handled by gating some of those spells within the caster subclasses. Want to teleport (7th level spell)? You gotta be a Transmuter (or some other non-school-based subclass like a Space Warper or Transporter or something). Anyone wanting to be in a different subclass, too bad - OR you gotta buy the cross-subclass spell with something expensive like a FEAT.And even then, be prepared to legions of players to piss and moan about how unfun that is and how they'll ignore it at their table.</blockquote>

Verification