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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Skyscraper" data-source="post: 6776361" data-attributes="member: 48518">Thank you to everyone who participated in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?473415-Limiting-use-of-cantrips-what-are-the-consequences" target="_blank">this thread on limiting number of cantrips</a>. Cool stuff.I'm now looking at implementing the following roster of house rules to spellcasting. I know this won't jive with many of you, and it's fine. I'm mainly looking for constructive feedback on these ideas, not necessarily for an argument on how balanced 5E presently is - it appears to be pretty well balanced and I'm not trying to fix anything here. I'd prefer constructive comments on my intended house rules, and not arguments on whether or not I should house rule at all.So here goes the roster:1) Introducing cantrip slotsnumber of cantrip slots = (2 X number of cantrips known) + ability modifierOne way for players to increase the number of cantrips known is to pick feats or class features that provides cantrips (e.g. warlock pact of the tome), because their number of cantrips known then increases.This is likely to provide somewhere between 12 and 15 cantrips slots, and perhaps more if players invest, at level 5, which if the level at which I intend to start my next campaign. I don't expect the campaign to go beyond level 9.2) WarlocksThe pact of the chain warlock will have a slightly stronger familiar that will be able to attack each roundThe pact of the blade warlock will have a non-trivial magic weapon (in a game where magic items are rare) that will grant bonuses to hit and damage and some powers too, thematically linked to the patron. The pact of the tome warlock already has 6 more cantrip slots through knowing 3 additional cantrips.The pact of the tome warlock gets 3 additional cantrips known in the rules presently, which means 6 additional cantrip slots according to my house rule. I plan on leaving this one unchanged.3) SorcerersThe suggestion in the cantrip thread of providing additional sorcery points sounds good. I'm thinking about 2 more sorcery points and 1 additional metamagic feat: I'll also allow the sorcerer to be proficient in one simple weapon of his choice (no biggie, I know).4) Clerics and druids I'm not planning on any change. I think their melee options will compensate.5) WizardsEdited to remove: cancellation of concentration requirement and increased damage.I kinda want wizards to be interesting and feared. Is there a small bit I could offer them for the class to gain just a bit more of oomph? Not that they need it; just that I want it.6) All castersAll offensive spells that allow a save when cast and then a save each of the target's turns thereafter; will now only allow a save when cast and a single save on the target's first turn.Edit, added: I'm also toying with the idea of allowing damaging spells to do more  damage. For example, damaging spells could do additional damage equal to  (spell level + proficiency bonus).7) Eliminating some spellcasting classesEldritch knights and arcane rogues won't exist. (PCs can multiclass). Rangers and Paladins will be variant homemade spelless classes. I'm mentioning this to highlight notably the fact that they won't be more powerful in view of the above increase in spell power, while not paying the cantrip limit nerf.*****So, comments on the above? I'm not necessarily looking for perfect balance. However, your comments on whether I'm achieving some kind of balance, are appreciated, as they allow me to fine-tune my house rules.Again, if you're only thought is "this general approach is not to my liking and I prefer the game as is", I respect that, but I'd prefer that we avoid this discussion in this thread. Thanks <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses    B-)" data-shortname="B-)" /></blockquote>

Verification