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

[Sithlord]

So Elves and Bards are like the Dark Side of the Force. It's the power that tempting; never mind the evil. No matter how much you try to tamp them down, they will still be there. Doesn't give you license to succumb and murder all the younglings.

But I am relatively unworried about the idea of people making spell casters that are competent in melee without spells. That's the idea.

The issue of half-casting melee classes (Paladin, Ranger) is something I haven't really thought about yet- I think many people enjoy the various ranger variants that do not have spells for a reason. As for Paladins, the issue is primarily smite; honestly, other than not allowing smite but continuing to allow them to use spells for other reasons, I can't think of a better proposal. But that's why we have the wisdom of crowds, right?

Without smite you are better off reworking paladin as a fighter archetype. Smite is their core feature that the entire class is built around. Heck or just make it a background.

 

[Imaculata]

1. I understand that you do not agree with the premise of the thread; do you think that if you keep saying that you disagree with the premise, I will suddenly be moved to agree with you, despite what I wrote in the OP?

You misunderstand. I don't disagree with the premise of the thread at all. I just think that your idea for achieving it is... well, frankly terrible. Which is why I've offered alternatives.

The base classes of 5e, unmodified, are relatively balanced. Each class can for the most part perform on an equal level. The classes may differ in the amount of base damage they deal, but they don't differ greatly.

What you are proposing, is to make all spellcasting classes deal an inferior amount of damage, in comparison to all other classes. How is that not rendering that class useless? Why would anyone want to play that class? Why would anyone want to choose to be the fifth wheel of the group?

Hey, here is another "great idea"! How about we add a rule that whenever a paladin attacks, they lose 1d6 gold. Hey, I'm not saying you can't play a paladin.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You misunderstand. I don't disagree with the premise of the thread at all. I just think that your idea for achieving it is... well, frankly terrible. Which is why I've offered alternatives.

Fair enough- what do you think the premise of the thread is? Because I've seen your alternatives (such as eliminating classes) and, well ... I already addressed that in the opening of the thread when I say that I've seen those proposals. If I've seen them, and I'm proposing something different that has a different and specific effect, is it possible that maybe you don't understand the premise of the thread?

 

[Imaculata]

Fair enough- what do you think the premise of the thread is? Because I've seen your alternatives (such as eliminating classes)

You misunderstand again. That was not my suggested alternative to what you are trying to do. What I said, was that if you choose to make classes so unfun, broken and unbalanced to play, you might as well eliminate them from your game entirely.

Which to be fair, is a thing you could do, but not what I would suggest you do. I merely was trying to illustrate that breaking a class with house rules, is on the same footing as eliminating it. Which raises the question, then why not just eliminate it? Because no one is going to play that class with what you suggested.

What I proposed instead, was:

-a cooldown on individual spells
-a corruption rule (similar to the Conan RPG), where spellcasting risks corruption of the soul
-making spellcasting a crime in the setting.

 

[TwoSix]

The base classes of 5e, unmodified, are relatively balanced. Each class can for the most part perform on an equal level. The classes may differ in the amount of base damage they deal, but they don't differ greatly.

What you are proposing, is to make all spellcasting classes deal an inferior amount of damage, in comparison to all other classes. How is that not rendering that class useless? Why would anyone want to play that class? Why would anyone want to choose to be the fifth wheel of the group?

I thought the premise was that for a certain game, some players would accept being less useful in combat in exchange for having a bunch of utility outside of combat. I'd accept that trade, certainly.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You misunderstand again. That was not my suggested alternative to what you are trying to do. What I said, was that if you choose to make classes so unfun, broken and unbalanced to play, you might as well eliminate them from your game entirely.

Which to be fair, is a thing you could do, but not what I would suggest you do. I merely was trying to illustrate that breaking a class with house rules, is on the same footing as eliminating it. Which raises the question, then why not just eliminate it? Because no one is going to play that class with what you suggested.

What I proposed instead, was:

-a cooldown on individual spells
-a corruption rule (similar to the Conan RPG), where spellcasting risks corruption of the soul
-making spellcasting a crime in the setting.

No, I don't misunderstand. At all.

None of that is what I want. Again, what is the premise of the thread? Not what problem do you want to solve with your solutions... what was I looking at, and why do you think your proposed solutions don't really address it?

If you can't be bothered to understand what the thread is about, you might want to stop saying that the OP is misunderstanding your proposals.

EDIT: @TwoSix gets it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I thought the premise was that for a certain game, some players would accept being less useful in combat in exchange for having a bunch of utility outside of combat. I'd accept that trade, certainly.

But that's not the trade, you're not getting anything extra.

 

[Imaculata]

Again, what is the premise of the thread? Not what problem do you want to solve with your solutions... what was I looking at, and why do you think your proposed solutions don't really address it?

You think there is too much magic in 5e, and you want to limit spellcasting in 5e. You want to make martial characters much more important for combat, and make spellcasting more of a utility and out-of-combat experience, with only limited uses for combat.

As I understand it you think that the best way of accomplishing this, is the Lankhmar Solution, by introducing ludicrous changes to spellcasting, that make spellcasting in combat basically not an option.

And you handwave away criticism that this would break spellcasting classes to the point of uselessness.
But there are other (better) ways to accomplish this, without your ludicrous new rule, and without breaking those classes.

If that is not the premise of the thread, maybe you should do a better job stating what the premise is?

 

[ph0rk]

But that's not the trade, you're not getting anything extra.

Yeah, I don't see playing a caster there. The utility stuff alone isn't worth it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You think there is too much magic in 5e, and you want to limit spellcasting in 5e. You want to make martial characters much more important for combat, and make spellcasting more of a utility and out-of-combat experience, with only limited uses for combat.

And you think that the best way of accomplishing this, is the Lankhmar Solution, by introducing ludicrous changes to spellcasting, that make spellcasting in combat basically not an option.

And you handwave away criticism that this would break spellcasting classes to the point of uselessness.
But there are other (better) ways to accomplish this, without your ludicrous new rule, and without breaking those classes.

One final time- no.

If you don't get it now, you won't. Thanks for your input, which has been no help whatsoever, but I appreciate that you continue to explain to me that you understand what I am doing so much better than I do.