D&D 5E Too Much Spellcasting in Your D&D? Just Add a Little Lankhmar!

[Urriak Uruk]

But a spellcaster can still participate. They have weapons, and can still provide concentration spells. They can still have been fun and be helpful.

On the margins, sure they can be helpful. But no, I don't think spellcasters would have much fun; it's the big reason why 5E made clerics more than just healers, as buffing and healing isn't usually much fun. People like to make stuff explode and kill the bad guys, and this would remove that for spellcasters. Most players who enjoy spellcasters would not enjoy such changes to weaken them.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

At least for me it's a ridiculously convoluted way of banning spellcasting when you just want to ban spellcasting.

If a gaming group is going to be okay with making it so anyone who wants to play a spellcaster suffers, they'll be okay with just cutting out the middleman.

Naw, I don't want to ban spellcasting. Far from it!

That's trivially easy. But yes, I am looking at dramatically reducing the use of spells in combat, and I remembered Lankhmar. Back when we played it, we still had spellcasters, but they were a very considered choice. Spells became rare, spellcasting was rare, and that made the overall effect of spells (within the world) that much more interesting.

It's sort of a first sortie into a more complete idea. But yes, if you're the type of person who wants a spellcaster to be able to pew pew pew with spells the same as a martial character does with a sword in combat, this definitely wouldn't work for you. But, you know, that's the idea.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

But a spellcaster can still participate. They have weapons, and can still provide concentration spells. They can still have been fun and be helpful.

No one who plays a spellcaster is excited about getting to fire a crossbow instead of using a spell. ENWorld shook with fury when that was pushed as their primary contribution in the low levels of 3E play.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

No one who plays a spellcaster is excited about getting to fire a crossbow instead of using a spell.

Real Magic Users explode if they touch a crossbow.

Darts, if they're lucky.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Honestly, this makes the fact that casters get ad infinitum spammable damage cantrips even more perplexing in my mind.

It's about matching player expectations. A fire bolt that does the same thing as a crossbow bolt is largely the same thing from the DM's perspective, but for a player who's playing a spellcaster because they want to cast spells, it's a very big deal.

But yes, this wasn't something that spellcasters could do until 4E. In late 3E, they introduced the concept in some of the later spellcaster-focused splatbooks and D&D fans were divided on it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Real Magic Users explode if they touch a crossbow.

Darts, if they're lucky.

For real, you should pick up Dungeon Crawl Classics. I think you'd love it and its sense of humor and 1E mindset* on things.

* 1E if your DM had done a lot of drugs before coming to the table.

EDIT: Also, DCC has a whole series of Lankhmar books and boxed sets.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

For real, you should pick up Dungeon Crawl Classics. I think you'd love it and its sense of humor and 1E mindset* on things.

* 1E if your DM had done a lot of drugs before coming to the table.

If?

To paraphrase my friend, Blaster Bob, "Snarf, there is a time and place for everything, even drug use. And that time is now, and that place is EX1 and EX2."

 

[LoganRan]

It's about matching player expectations. A fire bolt that does the same thing as a crossbow bolt is largely the same thing from the DM's perspective, but for a player who's playing a spellcaster because they want to cast spells, it's a very big deal.

But yes, this wasn't something that spellcasters could do until 4E. In late 3E, they introduced the concept in some of the later spellcaster-focused splatbooks and D&D fans were divided on it.

I understand why people who like to play casters (in the interest of full disclosure, I prefer playing martials) want to be able to do something "magic-y" every round but cantrips are the thing I dislike most in 5E because, to me, magic is supposed to be a rare and finite resource. Spammable cantrips completely "de-magic" magic in my mind.

I'm actually a little surprised that people who like the notion of being magical are fully on board with making magic so...mundane.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's sort of a first sortie into a more complete idea. But yes, if you're the type of person who wants a spellcaster to be able to pew pew pew with spells the same as a martial character does with a sword in combat, this definitely wouldn't work for you. But, you know, that's the idea.

Pew Pew is not what I want to do, though I feel like that's splitting away a massive chunk of why people would want to play casters.

Me? I want to throw up walls and shields. I want to attack my foe's mind or weaken them. I want to call upon some horrible monster to slaughter those who oppose me. I want to make the fighter a giant. I want to teleport around the battlefield.

I want to do anything but 'be bad at using basic weapons aggressively'.

I ply a spellcaster because--shockingly--I want to cast spells.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm actually a little surprised that people who like the notion of being magical are fully on board with making magic so...mundane.

Personally, it's because I equate magic to 'supernatural' instead of 'rare' or 'special'.

In fact, I HATE special.