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

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

Fantasy fiction has changed a lot since D&D was created. The folks who started with 1E and grew up reading all the Appendix N stuff have very different expectations than the D&D players for whom Adventure Time, Minecraft and Harry Potter are their fantasy fiction touchstones. Neither are wrong, but they are definitely different visions.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Fool, you've only but increased the awesome power of 5e Bards, by nerfing direct combat damage magic, the type of magic they are weakest in and use the least of all casters. Now all spell casters are just a little more Bard-like.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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

Yes! And I suppose there's a ton of threads not devoted to the topic of "too much spellcasting in D&D" and reducing the amount of spellcasting in combat that will help you adequately express your love of casting spells in combat!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Fool, you've only but increased the awesome power of 5e Bards, by nerfing direct combat damage magic, the type of magic they are weakest in and use the least of all casters. Now all spell casters are just a little more Bard-like.

But less sexy.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I mean, I normally play gishes, so I'm certainly not opposed to magic in my combat. But if a DM proposes a variant D&D type game with less overall magic and some thoughtful rebalancing of magic to make it less combat useful and more focused on non-combat utility, I can certainly get on board.

I might even play a fighter! (Which I never do.)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Fool, you've only but increased the awesome power of 5e Bards, by nerfing direct combat damage magic, the type of magic they are weakest in and use the least of all casters. Now all spell casters are just a little more Bard-like.

Or maybe, by turning all spellcasters into Bards, I have performed the greatest trick of all ... making Bards understand that they aren't special and unique, but rather just like their anagram- DRAB.

Q. How do you know if a Bard thinks he's super special?

A. Just talk to him for a second- he'll be sure to tell ya.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yes! And I suppose there's a ton of threads not devoted to the topic of "too much spellcasting in D&D" and reducing the amount of spellcasting in combat that will help you adequately express your love of casting spells in combat!

I'm not trying to derail you, I was responding to a comment about how I'm someone who want to, as was dismissively described, 'pew pew'.

If your intent is to address an issue, it behooves you to understand the people you're trying to address. Your idea isn't just going to effect blaster magi.

Edit: And with all the bard jokes and tongue in cheek humor, who was to know this was a Dead Serious topic that couldn't be questioned?

 

[Monayuris]

But no one will want to play spellcasters anymore, because they would become far less fun. Low-level spellcasters are already kind of boring to play, making them even worse will add to that. I understand nerfing high-level spellcasting, but these changes are far too broad to make spellcasters useable by players. They're far more likely to decide "Boo that sucks, I'm playing barbarian!"

I don't get the backlash. The specific goal is to limit spell casters in general and specifically for a low magic game. In that case: "Boo that sucks, I'm playing barbarian" is a desired outcome.

But they will still have all their spell casting, just it is more onerous to use it in combat. D&D is not just about combat... spell casting classes would still be extremely effective in exploration endeavors.

It sounds like you just dislike the premise, which is completely fine but the original poster specifically didn't ask for that kind of criticism.

 

[Dausuul]

I’m a bit surprised at the backlash at this, there were several supplements back in at least 2E that used this (notably, all the Historical Reference supplements).

2E was the era when TSR was frantically cranking out mountains of product, much of it poorly vetted and untested. The average official supplement in 2E was on par with the average PDF off the DM's Guild today.

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...

I'm used to hearing the "pew-pew-pew" silliness in reference to attack cantrips, but to hear it applied to all combat spellcasting is a new one on me. I've seen some interesting proposals to replace at-will cantrips, and I'd be on board with trying them. What you propose is far, far beyond that.

I would actually like a system that made magic feel more rare and special. But this change would not only fail to accomplish that goal, it would fail in a uniquely unpleasant way. Spellcasters would be near-useless in combat, and at the same time they would be pushed to make even more use of the worst offender in the "magic doesn't feel rare and special" category: Cheap utility spells that trivialize everything from wilderness travel to information-gathering to death itself.

 

[TwoSix]

If your intent is to address an issue, it behooves you to understand the people you're trying to address. Your idea isn't just going to effect blaster magi.

But the intent isn't to address an issue, the intent is to propose a house rule to promote a different type of play. If you're not interested in that style of play, than obviously the house rule doesn't work for you.