D&D (2024) What do you want & expect to see in 2024's 5.5e?

[Micah Sweet]

I've no great quarrel with that. My only point was that DMs themselves seem not to be using this aspect of the game very much; it only comes up when a player first mentions it.

By analogy, I have no special complaint against the rules for encumbrance; I've just noticed that hardly any DMs ever concern themselves with it unless and until the players do.

Most DMs don't, no. That's why I'm making a stand!

 

[Yaarel]

I don't want magic to feel innate, at least for classes that narratively learned their spells (wizards and artificers, mostly). It would basically make them indistinguishable from a sorcerer (which i think should work as you describe).

Spells are class-agnostic.

But classes can have different flavors. For example, the Artificer absolutely is about magic items and magical technologies. Even its name refers to artificial (non-innate) magic. But this is about class features, not spells per-se.

Spell descriptions need to function for innate magic concepts. But class descriptions can be non-innate.

Also, races can refer to casting spells innately, and the spell descriptions and the balancing mechanics should work for these too.

 

[Yaarel]

See, I feel making use of material components aids in immersion, and makes casting a spell feel like casting a spell and not using a super power. I dislike component bags for that reason.

For me, material components feels like Hellenistic (mainly Greek-Egyptian) magic. To some degree also Celtic magic, with regard to the crazily convoluted ingredients and requirements for potions.

 

[Parmandur]

Spells are class-agnostic.

But classes can have different flavors. For example, the Artificer absolutely is about magic items and magical technologies. Even its name refers to artificial (non-innate) magic. But this is about class features, not spells per-se.

Spell descriptions need to function for innate magic concepts. But class descriptions can be non-innate.

Also, races can refer to casting spells innately, and the spell descriptions and the balancing mechanics should work for these too.

It may be better to make "you ignore the material component" as a Sorcerer Class feature, for story reasons.

 

[Yaarel]

It may be better to make "you ignore the material component" as a Sorcerer Class feature, for story reasons.

Ignoring the material component is easy. Indeed, I consider the Sorcerers own magical blood (or similar) to be the material component for any spell. The Sorcerer is a living wand.

The problem is the costly component that is too annoying to ignore.

 

[Parmandur]

Ignoring the material component is easy. Indeed, I consider the Sorcerers own magical blood (or similar) to be the material component for any spell. The Sorcerer is a living wand.

The problem is the costly component that is too annoying to ignore.

I mean that if you want, you can waive that requirement for a Sorcerer in your games. Some Feats and lass/Rave abilities do so already. Specific trumps general.

 

[Yaarel]

I mean that if you want, you can waive that requirement for a Sorcerer in your games. Some Feats and lass/Rave abilities do so already. Specific trumps general.

I want 50e to make it officially so.

Obliterate the problematic costly component.

Heh, if you want to continue charging costly components, you can homebrew that requirement in you own games!

 

[Parmandur]

I want 50e to make it officially so.

Obliterate the problematic costly component.

Heh, if you want to continue charging costly components, you can homebrew that requirement in you own games!

Probably not going to happen, since the Spells in question involve setting up genre expectations.

 

[tetrasodium]

I've no great quarrel with that. My only point was that DMs themselves seem not to be using this aspect of the game very much; it only comes up when a player first mentions it.

By analogy, I have no special complaint against the rules for encumbrance; I've just noticed that hardly any DMs ever concern themselves with it unless and until the players do.

I require encumbrance and always have butwotc poisoned the well there on two counts.

Firstly they listed container sizes but never actually said that they needed to be used and gave such insane carrying capacities that players just assume they can be ignored because the encumbrance rules are either basically bottomless or very restrictive and punishing with almost no in-between thanks to excessive simplicity

Secondly there is the more glaring problem where dndbeyond did not even have support for containers until like late last year. That cemented in the heads of players who started with 5e that the container rules you almost need to intuit to fill in the missing rules simply do not apply to PCs

Many 5e players IME simply take a catch me if you can approach to tracking inventory weight and refuse to put in any effort unless the gm takes the time to tell them the weight of literally anything they pick up including things like weapons & armor that are listed in the phb.

 

[Krachek]

Recently I gave to the pc cleric an item that allow to cast once per day a cleric spell without material component. voilà!
There is no need for a revision to alter such low scale rules.
costly Components are there to flavor and to bring some incentive to gather them and make their use more valuable. If it is annoying for a setting ( wilderness, post apocalypse) a Dm can simply ignore them.