D&D 5E What, if anything, bothers you about certain casters/spells at your table?

[TwoSix]

One thing that I've wanted to do for some time is adapt the system from the "Paths of Power" article from Dragon #216 into 5e. The basically idea was that all the wizard spells (for AD&D 2e) were arranged in paths of conceptually related spells rather than schools. The paths had somewhat evocative names and contained ten or so spells (though some were bigger than others). For instance, the Scabrous Road contained the spells chill touch, choke, ghoul touch, spectral hand, mummy touch, pain touch, vampiric touch, paralyze, mummy rot, ghoul gauntlet, lich touch, and energy drain—basically, all the necromancer touch attack spells. You had a limited number of paths you could learn from, but if you knew every spell on a path that you could cast at your level, it didn't count against that limit. It naturally leads to more focused, thematic casters and invites interesting worldbuilding ideas, like secret paths known only to certain teachers or groups, or rival schools featuring practitioners of different paths of magic. It always seemed to me a good way to moderate spellcaster power by restricting access to spells without feeling arbitrary—maybe you can learn silvery barbs, but you can't get it without losing access to shield and feather fall, etc.

That's pretty much the core magic system in Shadow of the Demon Lord, which is a fairly D&D like system.

 

[CandyLaser]

I hadn't thought about that, but you're not wrong. The paths in the Paths of Power article are a bit less standardized, but it is pretty close. I like SotDL quite a bit, and I'm interested to see how the upcoming Shadow of the Weird Wizard tweaks the system.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But, it does disrupt game flow. Having someone at the table shout out "Stop" at random points in combat after combat is disrupting game flow. I dunno about the tables you sit at, but, we're not talking in the middle of the game, and bathroom breaks are done when it's not disruptive. I certainly would hate to play a table where "continuous game flow" wasn't worried about. Blech.

I meant that at a table there's never any continuous game flow to disrupt. I was facitiously suggesting that game flow doesn't exist when all the friends are fooling around while playing, LOL.

 

[Hussar]

So we'd prefer a game without reactions? Without opportunity attacks? Without legendary actions? (maybe those are OK, they don't interrupt the turn as much...)

I'm curious about the psychology at work there. Reactions offer some off-turn options, some way for characters to stay vigilant and reactive as the enemy does things, a way to encourage seeing combat in your mind's eye as a changeable milieu even as the rules adjudicate that milieu on a round basis, etc. It can be a nice moment of power for a player when their off-turn action stops something potentially devastating from happening to the party.

It does shout "Stop!", but I guess...what's so bad about a player yelling "Stop!"? That's half the appeal of a 4e Fighter!

There's a second part though. It's shouting "Stop!" after the die is rolled but before the result is announced. Fighters, OTOH, almost always work either before the roll or after the roll as a reroll.

I might be misremembering, but, I don't recall 4e adding in the part about "after the die roll but before the result".

I have zero problems with off turn actions. It's one of the best innovations of 4e and I'm happy to see it in 5e. I particularly like off turn actions that grant actions to other players and I wish 5e had more of those because it works so well in keeping everyone at the table involved. I'm specifically talking about the "after the die roll but before the result" interrupts that are the problem.

 

[Hussar]

One thing that I've wanted to do for some time is adapt the system from the "Paths of Power" article from Dragon #216 into 5e. The basically idea was that all the wizard spells (for AD&D 2e) were arranged in paths of conceptually related spells rather than schools. The paths had somewhat evocative names and contained ten or so spells (though some were bigger than others). For instance, the Scabrous Road contained the spells chill touch, choke, ghoul touch, spectral hand, mummy touch, pain touch, vampiric touch, paralyze, mummy rot, ghoul gauntlet, lich touch, and energy drain—basically, all the necromancer touch attack spells. You had a limited number of paths you could learn from, but if you knew every spell on a path that you could cast at your level, it didn't count against that limit. It naturally leads to more focused, thematic casters and invites interesting worldbuilding ideas, like secret paths known only to certain teachers or groups, or rival schools featuring practitioners of different paths of magic. It always seemed to me a good way to moderate spellcaster power by restricting access to spells without feeling arbitrary—maybe you can learn silvery barbs, but you can't get it without losing access to shield and feather fall, etc.

3e tried this with the Shadowcaster from Tome of Magic (3e). I always did love the concept but, unfortunately, it never seemed to gain much traction. But, as an evocative spell system, it's fantastic.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, they at allow the possibility that characters aren't same like they were in the edition that must not be named. And most folks IME experienced that feeling through how the rules worked and were presented, not what spells they cast.

Forgive me if I prefer actual, practical differences over rarely-realized theoretical differences. For some reason, chambers painted the color of snow are coming to mind....can't say why.

absolutely correct. This is a problem with flavor vs actual utility. There are probably 20 or so spells that are generically usefull in almost any situation. Making them almost required if the caster wants to be generically useful. And most of the limits on the situationally useful spells that have been added with various versions make them almost never useful. And I'd say the ration continues pretty close to that in all 3rd party content. probably 1 out of every 60 or so spells is actually a generically useful spell and the others are only useful if a specific situation arises.

Further, with the number of classes who have to work with a limited slate of known spells (Bard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Ranger), there's a major pressure for many characters to pick the most efficient spells they can. You can't afford weird niche spells when you only know one more spell than your character level (and eventually even fewer than that.)

It's really only Wizard (and to a lesser extent Cleric/Druid) that can afford it. Paladin doesn't have the slots, even though it knows all other classes like the Cleric/Druid.

The design of the game itself discourages learning or using quirky, unusual spells (except as rituals). Going back to the draconian method of forcing players to deal with random spell selection is definitely not a workable solution for this in modern D&D. Game design has changed, and audiences have changed. We really do need to find something better.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Forgive me if I prefer actual, practical differences over rarely-realized theoretical differences. For some reason, chambers painted the color of snow are coming to mind....can't say why.


Further, with the number of classes who have to work with a limited slate of known spells (Bard, Warlock, Sorcerer, Ranger), there's a major pressure for many characters to pick the most efficient spells they can. You can't afford weird niche spells when you only know one more spell than your character level (and eventually even fewer than that.)

It's really only Wizard (and to a lesser extent Cleric/Druid) that can afford it. Paladin doesn't have the slots, even though it knows all other classes like the Cleric/Druid.

The design of the game itself discourages learning or using quirky, unusual spells (except as rituals). Going back to the draconian method of forcing players to deal with random spell selection is definitely not a workable solution for this in modern D&D. Game design has changed, and audiences have changed. We really do need to find something better.

I can't speak about other people's games. My players play pretty unique characters, even if they have access to some of the same stuff.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's pretty much the core magic system in Shadow of the Demon Lord, which is a fairly D&D like system.

It's also similar to the (IME, quite popular) PF1e "Spheres of Power" system, where magic is organized into spheres, and players usually need to specialize. Utility effects are often at the base level of the sphere, but power requires focus. I was quite partial to the Light sphere, myself. Had some unusual combos.

Spheres has a 5e implementation as well, but I don't think it's as popular within 5e circles as SoP was in PF1e. (Though that may simply be reflective of the--again, IME--general antipathy for 3PP that hasn't gotten the official Wizards imprimatur, like Exandria.)

I can't speak about other people's games. My players play pretty unique characters, even if they have access to some of the same stuff.

So, it's not the rules that make characters same-y, but rather player choices?

What does that make of the claims that characters of any particular game are "samey"? Because if what you're saying is accurate, then such claims are, and always were, a load of bovine excrement.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's also similar to the (IME, quite popular) PF1e "Spheres of Power" system, where magic is organized into spheres, and players usually need to specialize. Utility effects are often at the base level of the sphere, but power requires focus. I was quite partial to the Light sphere, myself. Had some unusual combos.

Spheres has a 5e implementation as well, but I don't think it's as popular within 5e circles as SoP was in PF1e. (Though that may simply be reflective of the--again, IME--general antipathy for 3PP that hasn't gotten the official Wizards imprimatur, like Exandria.)


So, it's not the rules that make characters same-y, but rather player choices?

What does that make of the claims that characters of any particular game are "samey"? Because if what you're saying is accurate, then such claims are, and always were, a load of bovine excrement.

IME, the AEDU system wasn't a deal-breaker in terms of samey-ness, but it didn't help. Obviously, there's other schools of thought, and none of that was really my biggest problem with 4e anyway.

 

[FrogReaver]

IME, the AEDU system wasn't a deal-breaker in terms of samey-ness, but it didn't help. Obviously, there's other schools of thought, and none of that was really my biggest problem with 4e anyway.

I think it’s important to note… the differences between 4e defenders, strikers, controllers and leaders were vast. They weren’t samey. It’s just the at will powers and attack powers mostly were samey. Basically everything was 1W or 2W or XW + minor effect and there were countless powers like this with just a few gems that were different - at least for early levels. IMO of course.