D&D (2024) The new spell creation rules

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
This ignores though the key final aspect of balance in 5e.... the DM. Classes aren't just about balance, they are about hooks, ways for the Dm to make the classes each feel cool and special.

Take the monk, often feels underpowered. However, if the DM makes it where speed is a big factor in certain fights, and has lots of ranged attacks where the monk can use their ability....suddenly they are looking pretty solid. A ranger that is never in nature isn't going to feel as strong as the ranger where the DM throws some nature adventures into the game. A fighter might be given a cool unique sword or something, etc.

And the same for the wizard, a good Dm is going to throw some scrolls in the game for the wizard to find, because that is part of their hook, part of what makes them feel cool and special.

The key is that the hook is there for the DM to use, now good Dms will know to use these hooks better than others, but you always want that there, that is part of good class design.
No it spotlights the GM because wotc has given us a system that assumes the GM never gives out magic items & such along with years of leading by example. Thus far it's not even hinted at that wotc considers it a problem that 5e was designed for no no magic items unless the GM starts breaking the monster math even worse by adding them. There is strong pressure in the form of monster math that pressures the gm to not give out scrolls & other magic items like in older editions.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
Keep in mind that a character is paying 1,050 gp per spell level for this effect if they want it permanently, plus a significant amount of time.
Given how often the "what the hell are we supposed to do with all this money" comes up in 5E discussions, I don't think the cost is any kind of issue for many games. If anything, putting in something to steadily drain the party's money away -- and something they'll want to do, rather than just passively avoid by doing things like saying they're camping outside of town, rather than staying in an inn -- is a great thing.
And Sorcerers can already cast Careful charm person for 1 sorcery point. Why isn't that broken?
Because they're using an extremely precious resource to do it.
The only issue I see is that it seems really good with cantrips.
It didn't occur to me to make cantrips awesome, but that's a fun idea.
In 5e it's a short list:

Mordenkainen’s Private Sanctum
Scrying
Create Homunculus
Guards and Wards
Create Magen
Simulacrum
Clone
Each of those should have the ritual tag, IMO, other than maybe Scrying. No one is randomly cloning someone in the middle of battle.
I guess I feel like making a spell a Ritual should be limited to spells of 5th level or lower. The game typically assumes you can't cast spells higher than 5th level very often. That seems like a design limitation they've had in the past, but there really are very few available spells for this modification. Is it even worthwhile?
That's a pretty interesting rationale, although this seems like a roundabout way to address it. But are we really worried that high level wizards are going to be filling the countryside with private sanctums?

It's not a bad rule for other theoretical high level spells, though. But even there, instead of creating a rule that doesn't meaningfully affect or balance any existing spells to prevent hypothetical abuses, why not just balance those spells when they appear?
It's also not a new effect to make AoE holes. Sorcerer's Careful Spell can do it at level 2. So can Evokers at level 3, even the playtest Evoker, with no cap on the number of times per day. Sure, those are written differently, but they're de facto the same abilities.
The wizard is already too good at stealing other people's class features, even in 5E, which toned that way down. If they're going to be picking the sorcerer's pocket again, the end result should be less good than what the sorcerer can do.
It is powerful, but I'm not sure it's overpowered. At level 7 it's limited to exactly one spell. At level 9, it costs 3,150 gp and at least a day of effort, and it's probably smarter to wait until level 10 so you can get two modificiations. Targetted Thunderburst is a very powerful modification, but it's also not cheap.
A one time cost for a permanent modification is, across the board, the wrong way to balance. If something is permanently improved, it should have a permanent balancing element.
If the party wants to invest in that, I don't think that's a bad thing, I guess? Like is fireball still that good at level 9?
Killing everyone in the room except for people you like, plus the BBEG and maybe a lieutenant, for a single third level spell? Yeah, that's pretty good.

That means in a single turn, the wizard can take away one of the primary ways meant to balance encounters at higher levels -- all those mooks were there to make sure combat lasted more than one round. Now it'll last just two, one if the wizard goes early in the initiative order and the rest of the party can dog pile the BBEG as usual.
I do agree that there are some concerns that Wizards with unlimited time and unlimited money can significantly boost their class abilities. But... I also think that's 100% on-theme for Wizards. I can imagine the party coming up against a thousand year old archlich, and he just has every spell in the book and they're all fully tuned and modified. Like holy cow no wonder Wizards hide away in towers doing endless research! No wonder they're infamous for becoming greedy! Look at the payoff!
PCs and NPCs use different rules in 5E. Yes, that archlich should be pretty kickass, but the way to accomplish that is with the 2024 Monster Manual, not the PHB.
Overall, I really like the design. Thumbs up from me.
I like 95% of it, to be clear. I just want the final 5% to be highly polished.
 

Dausuul

Legend
The possibility of interrupting a Concentration spell is mainly for narrative flavor. By level 17, I hope every fullcaster has already made an effort to shore up Constitution saves along with Concentration protecting features, to make negligible the possibility of any interruption.
If you get hit for 70 points of damage, which is hardly unheard-of at that level, you're facing a DC 35 concentration save. If you raised your Con to 20, and got proficiency in Con saves, and advantage, and +5 from magic items or something... you still need a 19 to make it. 80% of the time, you fail.

Interruption never becomes a negligible risk.
 
Last edited:

If you get hit for 70 points of damage, which is hardly unheard-of at that level, you're facing a DC 35 concentration save. If you raised your Con to 20, and got proficiency in Con saves, and advantage, and +5 from magic items or something... you still need a 19 to make it. 80% of the time, you fail.

Interruption never becomes a negligible risk.
Don't get hit for 70 points of damage...

70 points of damage often means you don't roll for concentration at all. Only if your con is somewhere near 20.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
The known spells gained automatically while leveling should probably come from the Wizard Subclass. Or, since there are two spells at each new level, one must come from the Subclass list and the other can come from either Class list or the Subclass list.

The UA Wizard Spellbook needs better design. Besides it being unclear how to replace it, the Spellbook feature can be simpler and more elegant.



The number of prepared spells starts arbitrarily with 4 at level 1 reaching 22 at level 20. Maybe simplify this to:

Number of Prepared Spells = Intelligence modifier (at least 1) + Wizard level



Make "rituals" a separate design space, unrelated to spells and spell slots.



Because the Arcane classes differ in flavor, it makes less sense to use the same Arcane spell list.

Revamp the spell schools for clearer thematic organization of spells. Then have each class refer to specific school lists. For example, the Bard uses the school lists of Abjuration, Enchantment, Divination, Transmutation.

The Illusion school can be quasi-real objects made out of force, along with other force effects, like Arcane Armor, Magic Missile, and Fly. (Things that are made out of "magical energy" are made out of force.) Then, "phantasm" spells that are strictly subjective (being a manipulation of physical senses and nonreal) would reorganize into the Enchantment school.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
I like how all UA casters "prepare" spells. So, this becomes the technical term for any spell that a "slot" can cast.

Separately, to "know" a spell is now a special term that is unique to the Spellbook mechanic, where a spell can be "known" without yet "preparing" it for spellcasting.

This new UA terminology is a cleaner presentation of the mechanics.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
I notice that a Wizard "knows" cantrips, rather than "prepares" cantrips.

That is a bit confusing.

I guess, the switch in terminology means that one doesnt "spend" slots to cast cantrips, thus doesnt "prepare" cantrips for slots.

But cantrips do occupy slots. Also they disresemble the spells that are in a spellbook that are "known".

Anyway this ambiguity of a technical jargon caught my eye.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
The technical term "Innate" needs a specific definition in the glossary. Because reading this lengthy description for "innate" over and over again gets distracting. Something like:


RULES GLOSSARY

INNATE

An innate spell (or a spell that you can cast innately) is always prepared in addition to any other spells you prepare. After each Long Rest you can cast it once. You can also cast it using any spell slots you have. You can cast it without a spell component. Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma is your spellcasting ability for it.

Some descriptions might specify some modification of an Innate spell, for example, After each Long Rest you can cast it a number of times equal to your Proficiency Bonus.

An innate cantrip is known in addition to any other cantrips you know. (Like other cantrips, you can cast it at-will.) You can cast an innate cantrip without a spell component. Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma is your spellcasting ability for it.


Example of Use

ARDLING
...
Divine Magic. You innately know the Guidance cantrip.
Keen Senses. ...
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
If wizards add spells to their spellbook via the scribe spell spell, does that mean dispel magic can be used to remove spells from a wizard’s spellbook? Are the spellbook’s pages blank while it’s in an antimagic field?
 

Yaarel

He Mage
If wizards add spells to their spellbook via the scribe spell spell, does that mean dispel magic can be used to remove spells from a wizard’s spellbook? Are the spellbook’s pages blank while it’s in an antimagic field?
The snafu of the Scribe Spell (about replacing a Spellbook without it) needs clarification − or maybe fixing or rethinking.


But I read the following part this way.

Because the spell duration is "Instantaneous", the effect of the spell is no longer magical.

In other words, magic was used to create the object. Afterward, the magic is done. The object itself isnt magic. (Compare the Create Water spell, where magic is used to create it, but the water itself is nonmagical and endures normally.)

The final result of the Scribe Spell spell is a NONMAGICAL SPELLBOOK.


Here a particular spell gets scribed into the Spellbook.

"
When the scribing is complete,
the spell becomes one of your known spells in the book,
appearing on its own page if the book was out of pages.
The spell appears in a cipher that is understandable only to you
or someone casting Identify or Scribe Spell,
and if the book was blank before the scribing,
that book is now your spellbook.

"

So, this is a "known" spell. Meaning it is a spell that one oneself knows, understands, and can rewrite over and over anywhere.

The problem is, nobody else understands the language that this spell is being written in. It is written in a unique "cipher" that only one person understands.

Other people can use magic to crack this code, namely Scribe Spell.


(Scribe Spell also mentions "Identify". The Identify spell description doesnt do anything like deciphering a code. I suspect, the general idea is supposed to be, a person casting Identify would understand what the gibberish is about, but still wouldnt "know" the spell.

But actually, here is the wording of Identify.

"You learn whether any spells are affecting the item."

− Well, no, there are no spells "affecting" the Spellbook.

"lf the item was created by a spell, you learn which spell created it."

− Well, yes. The Spellbook was "created by a spell". And the caster of Identify discovers magically, that Spellbook was created by the Scribe Spell spell.

But Wizards already know that Spellbooks are created by the Scribe Spell spell, so casting Identify here is moot.

The Identify spell description doesnt say what the Scribe Spell spell description seems to think it says.)
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top