So, I agreed to play in a game with a lot of restrictions

[Klorox]

None of the "uncommon" races allowed, no monks, no sorcerers, no feats, no SCAG, and there's a home brewed exhaustion check rule (involving CON checks) for spellcasters.

I'm playing a spellcaster of some kind, and I'm wondering what the best way for me to minimize this exhaustion rule is.

Other than starting off as a level 1 fighter before going to wizard, bard or warlock, I'm stuck. Any ideas?

[JellyPooga]

Tell us the specifics of this exhaustion rule; help us to help you :smallwink:

[Klorox]

Tell us the specifics of this exhaustion rule; help us to help you :smallwink:


Magical Exhaustion
Casting spells takes a toll on a spellcaster, acting as a conduit for the magic can be exhausting. Spell casters have an “Endurance” score, like hit points, that is equal to their Constitution score. During a short rest they can regain 1 Hit Dice of Endurance. A long rest restores all Endurance.
Every time a spell caster casts a spell he must make a Constitution check with DC 12 + the spell level (example: a cantrip is DC 12, Level 1 is DC 13, etc.) A failed check means the spell caster loses endurance equal to the spell’s level +1.

If a spell caster drops to 0 Endurance he falls unconscious, after a short rest he regains consciousness but cannot cast any more spells until he has a long rest. A spell caster may attempt a spell if he has insufficient Endurance to cast a spell, so long as he has a positive number (Example: He has 1 remaining point of Endurance, and wishes to cast a 1st level spell.) Obviously, should he fail the Con check his Endurance falls to 0 and he loses consciousness.


EDIT: pasting the chart didn't help. Hang on for a further edit.

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa109/krunchyfrogg/Mobile%20Uploads/2016-07/29950BDC-CB6D-4D26-97AC-26B4C36B57D6.png (http://s203.photobucket.com/user/krunchyfrogg/media/Mobile%20Uploads/2016-07/29950BDC-CB6D-4D26-97AC-26B4C36B57D6.png.html)

[Klorox]

That's better.

My early inclination is to go with a mountain dwarf wizard, and hope the SCAG cantrips are allowed.

(Level 4 Abjuror) STR 14 DEX 14 CON 16 INT 16 WIS 10 CHA 8

I can pose pretty well as a decent backup fighter with those stats and some medium armor.

Edit: alternately, I can boost those CON checks with a fighter level, and have better stats since I won't have to worry about heavy armor (but not have the level 4 boost yet):

STR 15 DEX 8 CON 16 INT 15 WIS 12 CHA 8

Of course, going fighter 1/wiz X doesn't necessitate the dwarf race either (human):

STR 15 DEX 9 CON 14 INT 16 WIS 13 CHA 11

Or high elf:

STR 8 DEX 14 CON 14 INT 16 WIS 13 CHA 10

Or stout halfling:

STR 8 DEX 14 CON 14 INT 15 WIS 14 CHA 10

I really overthink this stuff. :p

[Chronos Flame]

So this is... pretty bad it looks like? I mean, first off, a DC starting from 12 is pretty outrageous in 5e already. Then you consider that it is in a stat that most casters don't have the points to keep very high... I guess going featless helps that a little, with the strange side effect that any caster worth his salt is also strangely beefy and should multiclass to grab some melee goodness too...

Is it a save or an ability check? Can a skill training be taken for it, like concentration? If it is a save, sorcs (which don't exist) or multiclassing helps a lot. If it can be sepcialized like a skill (if it is an ability check I don't see why it couldn't be?) then that is basically a skill tax for you now. Maybe talk to the GM about making the DC start at 8 or 10 like most things? If he's dead set on it it may as well not completely wipe out the already existing spells per day mechanic.

[Lombra]

Which are the "uncommon" races? You know that's subjective to the setting that your DM is going to fit the adventures in.

Anyways it sounds like having high con is the best way to do it, getting proficient in it via multiclass/resilient feat is necessary for a full caster.

Since blasting with spells doesn't seem like a good idea, bladesinger or valor bard feel like best choices if you want to keep full spellcasting potential. Also warlocks should work pretty nicely.

[CantigThimble]

I would probably go with a valor bard or bladesinger actually. Relying on cantrips sounds unwise, regardless of your constitution and I'd much rather have extra attack for at will damage. Rely on spells when you have to but you can't cast them every round for long.

Is this a replacement for spell slots or just an extra restriction? I ask because it looks very similar to shadowrun spellcasting (which lets you spellcast until you accidentally kill yourself) and playing a high level spellcaster with this would be painfully restrictive. You might want to ask if you can have your endurance scale with level to some extent.

Edit: Also, I find it hilarious that dwarves rather than elves are the most powerful spellcasters in this context. I would bring it up in regards to worldbuilding.

[DeAnno]

Paladin seems good. Just burn those slots into pure damage, no checks required :smallcool:

[Klorox]

Which are the "uncommon" races? You know that's subjective to the setting that your DM is going to fit the adventures in.

Anyways it sounds like having high con is the best way to do it, getting proficient in it via multiclass/resilient feat is necessary for a full caster.

Since blasting with spells doesn't seem like a good idea, bladesinger or valor bard feel like best choices if you want to keep full spellcasting potential. Also warlocks should work pretty nicely.

The available races are human, elf, dwarf, halfling, and tiefling. Tieflings are treated like drow in many settings: they're assumed to be evil and are hunted and feared.

[Klorox]

Which are the "uncommon" races? You know that's subjective to the setting that your DM is going to fit the adventures in.

Anyways it sounds like having high con is the best way to do it, getting proficient in it via multiclass/resilient feat is necessary for a full caster.

Since blasting with spells doesn't seem like a good idea, bladesinger or valor bard feel like best choices if you want to keep full spellcasting potential. Also warlocks should work pretty nicely.

A fighter 1/bladelock might work really well here. Max out that CON.

[Lombra]

Which spell lists do you prefer? If you like the wizard's I'd suggest bladesinger with resilient (CON), this way you retain full spellcasting ability combined with melee usefulness, and since you are going to mostly cast shield spells or cantrips you have to relatively worry very little on those saves.

If scag is not allowed then I'd suggest valor bard or bladelock, full casters very capable in melee combat. If you throw in some fighter levels everything becomes easier, but you lose spellcasting potential, which you want if I understood correctly your position.

[Giant2005]

I second the Paladin.
If you want to be a fullcaster, then a Bladelock, Valor Bard, or Bladesinger is the only real choice as you need to be able to do things in combat that don't require spellcasting.
With those extremely restrictive rules in place, your spells will be solely for utility purposes and your exhaustion will run out long before your spell slots do (unless you are a Warlock). With that in mind, the Bladelock is probably the best choice but since you can't use magic for defense, you will want to take Fighter or Paladin levels in order to raise your AC somewhat.
If you don't want to be a Warlock, then you will still want to be able to use your spell slots for something other than spellcasting, which means taking 2 Paladin levels for Smites, or being a Moon Druid to use them for self healing while Wildshaped. The best non-Warlock option would probably be a Paladin/Bard combination - I'd probably recommend taking Paladin all the way to 6, so you may as well go Lore Bard for that little bit more utility than Valor Bard.

Make no mistake though; regardless of what you choose, you would be wrong to call yourself a spellcaster. You will be little more than a martial character with a marginally improved, yet significantly more costly, version of Magic Initiate.

[Klorox]

Which spell lists do you prefer? If you like the wizard's I'd suggest bladesinger with resilient (CON), this way you retain full spellcasting ability combined with melee usefulness, and since you are going to mostly cast shield spells or cantrips you have to relatively worry very little on those saves.

If scag is not allowed then I'd suggest valor bard or bladelock, full casters very capable in melee combat. If you throw in some fighter levels everything becomes easier, but you lose spellcasting potential, which you want if I understood correctly your position.
I am leaning towards the fighter/warlock idea. I have never played it, but I've always kind of wanted to. It could be interesting too: since tieflings are so feared/hated, I could opt to go with one and use that disguise self invocation. It would be interesting, to say the least.

All I've been asked is to fill the spellcasting role. It sounds like there's a cleric in the party, a ranger, and a couple of fighters or barbarians.

No feats, no resilient CON.

[Lombra]

I second the Paladin.
If you want to be a fullcaster, then a Bladelock, Valor Bard, or Bladesinger is the only real choice as you need to be able to do things in combat that don't require spellcasting.
With those extremely restrictive rules in place, your spells will be solely for utility purposes and your exhaustion will run out long before your spell slots do (unless you are a Warlock). With that in mind, the Bladelock is probably the best choice but since you can't use magic for defense, you will want to take Fighter or Paladin levels in order to raise your AC somewhat.
If you don't want to be a Warlock, then you will still want to be able to use your spell slots for something other than spellcasting, which means taking 2 Paladin levels for Smites, or being a Moon Druid to use them for self healing while Wildshaped. The best non-Warlock option would probably be a Paladin/Bard combination - I'd probably recommend taking Paladin all the way to 6, so you may as well go Lore Bard for that little bit more utility than Valor Bard.

Make no mistake though; regardless of what you choose, you would be wrong to call yourself a spellcaster. You will be little more than a martial character with a marginally improved, yet significantly more costly, version of Magic Initiate.

Valor bard / vengeance pally is the ultimate character in this edition, very good damage, very good healing, very good social interaction potential, but it does need resilient CON if he wants to cast something without too much fear of failing: I'd recommend variant human for this kind of character.

Edit: no feats, damn.
Yes bladelock fighter is going to be among the best choices.

[Alerad]

This rule is severe. Colorful, but severe.

If it's a Constitution check no point of starting off as a Fighter, save bonuses don't apply to ability checks. Bard gets a tiny bonus here, being able to add +1 to checks (+2 at level 9, +3 at 17).

That said, you will want to max out Constitution so starting as a Fighter can be helpful to benefit your Concentration checks. Incidentally, concentration spells win here as you only cast them once, so consider this direction.

Consider summons and spells with long durations. Necromancer or Conjurer can help a lot. True strike might be a good investment.

[Giant2005]

Valor bard / vengeance pally is the ultimate character in this edition, very good damage, very good healing, very good social interaction potential, but it does need resilient CON if he wants to cast something without too much fear of failing: I'd recommend variant human for this kind of character.

Edit: no feats, damn.
Yes bladelock fighter is going to be among the best choices.

Resilient Con wouldn't help.
Nothing improves an ability check other than ability bonuses (and rare abilities like the Champion's Remarkable Athlete or Bard's Jack of All Trades) - that is why that concentration system is so restrictive. Even with a maxed out Con of 20, there is still a 35% chance of failing the save when casting something as minor as a cantrip.

The Pally/Bard combo probably is the best choice. Not only does Jack of All Trades make it the most competent caster under this system, but it also has things to do with its spell slots other than casting spells (and being the most competent isn't really competent enough to be able to use all of those spell slots otherwise).

[Klorox]

Resilient Con wouldn't help.
Nothing improves an ability check other than ability bonuses (and rare abilities like the Champion's Remarkable Athlete or Bard's Jack of All Trades) - that is why that concentration system is so restrictive. Even with a maxed out Con of 20, there is still a 35% chance of failing the save when casting something as minor as a cantrip.

The Pally/Bard combo probably is the best choice. Not only does Jack of All Trades make it the most competent caster under this system, but it also has things to do with its spell slots other than casting spells (and being the most competent isn't really competent enough to be able to use all of those spell slots otherwise).
Hmm, I haven't played a bard in 5e yet, either. That's certainly a possibility.

I guess my thing is this: I have been asked to play a spellcaster, and I'm cool with that. But with the restrictions placed on the class, I want two things:

1) I want to learn how to minimize this restriction. (I didn't realize CON save proficiency doesn't help here, so basically going with a high CON is the best scenario, bard is secondary, champion is out of the question with this character).

2) I want to be able to do something useful other than just casting, so I don't have to rely on *only* casting with my character. It will be nice to be able to do something when I'm not casting a spell, or have options if I'm winded after casting too much.

Thanks guys.

[krugaan]

Resilient Con wouldn't help.
Nothing improves an ability check other than ability bonuses (and rare abilities like the Champion's Remarkable Athlete or Bard's Jack of All Trades) - that is why that concentration system is so restrictive. Even with a maxed out Con of 20, there is still a 35% chance of failing the save when casting something as minor as a cantrip.

The Pally/Bard combo probably is the best choice. Not only does Jack of All Trades make it the most competent caster under this system, but it also has things to do with its spell slots other than casting spells (and being the most competent isn't really competent enough to be able to use all of those spell slots otherwise).

Pretty much this. Bank on one concentration spell for CC and smite smite smite smite to end combats as early as possible.

This is going to be ultimately brutal for casters, especially if said DM throws a bunch of enemy spell casters against you.

[Klorox]

Why valor bard over college of lore? Is it to have more combat versatility?

[krugaan]

Why valor bard over college of lore? Is it to have more combat versatility?

Lore relies on spells for almost everything. PC spellcasting is crippled...

[Lombra]

The thing of the paladin though is that you won't be spellcasting as often as the party may expect from you: if they asked for a spellcaster maybe you should consider a conjurer as suggested above.

[Giant2005]

The thing of the paladin though is that you won't be spellcasting as often as the party may expect from you: if they asked for a spellcaster maybe you should consider a conjurer as suggested above.

A Conjurer wouldn't be casting any more than a Paladin anyway - they woulld both run out of endurance before they ran out of spell slots. Something like an Enchanter might work though. Enchanters have some extremely useful combat abilities that are spammable and aren't spells so hopefully they won't be subject to that rule.

[Klorox]

Thanks a lot guys.

How would you suggest I go with levels for a paladin/bard?

I'm thinking: paladin 2 then bard X. This would still give me 9th level spells, heavy armor, and tons of smiting.

I am torn between hill dwarf, mountain dwarf, and human.

I would have considered lightfoot halfling, but you need a 13 STR to multi class a paladin.

[Giant2005]

Thanks a lot guys.

How would you suggest I go with levels for a paladin/bard?

I'm thinking: paladin 2 then bard X. This would still give me 9th level spells, heavy armor, and tons of smiting.

I am torn between hill dwarf, mountain dwarf, and human.

I would have considered lightfoot halfling, but you need a 13 STR to multi class a paladin.

Can you not be a Half-Elf? It would easily be your best choice but out of the options you listed, I'd go with a Hill Dwarf. Under this system, Strength is your primary attribute - even if you primarily consider yourself to be a caster (due to the mechanics preventing you from casting a lot of spells in combat).
You will want Extra Attack, so either go Paladin 2/Valor Bard X, or Paladin 6/Lore Bard X. I'd recommend the latter.

[Arkhios]

As Alerad already pointed out, Fighter doesn't get proficiency in Constitution Ability Checks, they gain proficiency in Constitution Saving Throws, both of which are different things.

That being said, a Champion Fighter would get half of his proficiency bonus to all strength, dexterity, and constitution checks which you're not proficient with, but only once they reach 7th level. And while it's rounded up, it's still probably not worth it if you want to focus on spellcasting. Again, I find myself repeating words being said previously, but a 2nd level bard would get similar ability - Jack of All Trades, except that it affects all ability checks you're not proficient with, not just strength, dexterity, and constitution checks, which makes it far more superior than the fighter's nigh-equivalent feature in my eyes.

As was said, you'll want to get as high constitution score as possible and focus in spells that last for a long while with one casting (Concentration spells and a few others).

So, a Fighter might still be a good starting point, but I would consider leaving it only at 1 to 2 levels, and instead of a wizard, go into a bard.

With Mountain Dwarf you could accomplish this fairly effectively, although you could do that with Hill Dwarf if you want to play a bit more caster-ish character)

Mountain Dwarf: Str 16, Dex 8, Con 17, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 15
Fighter 1/Valor Bard 19
5 ASI's (+2 Str, +3 Con, +5 Cha)
Special: Extra Attack, 6 extra spells from any class.

Or

Hill Dwarf: Str 14, Dex 8, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 15
Fighter 1/Lore Bard 19
5 ASI's (+4 Con, +1 to Wis, +5 to Cha)
Special: 8 extra spells from any class (For example Shillelagh if you want to fight well in melee occasionally).

[krugaan]

Alternatively, play pal/bladelock. Hex is no save disadvantage on con checks, that should be fun to torture enemy casters with.

Meh heh heh heh.

[Lombra]

Thanks a lot guys.

How would you suggest I go with levels for a paladin/bard?

I'm thinking: paladin 2 then bard X. This would still give me 9th level spells, heavy armor, and tons of smiting.

I am torn between hill dwarf, mountain dwarf, and human.

I would have considered lightfoot halfling, but you need a 13 STR to multi class a paladin.

Paladin 6 is a very valid choice: aura of protection is one of the best abilities to have around, and oath of the ancients has a decent channel divinity for control options. If you choose to go this way consider lore bard for extended spell list, because valor becomes slightly redundant with the paladin's features.

[Klorox]

Thanks again guys.

Just to clarify: it's standard array, not point buy.

ATM, I'm leaning towards a mountain dwarf pal 2/bard X

15/10/16/8/12/15 is a good starting point, I think. At level 2/4, I can boost STR and CHA to 16. I am under the impression there are a lot of tanks. If this is so, I can boost CON/CHA with the remaining 4 ABI.

[Klorox]

Alternatively, play pal/bladelock. Hex is no save disadvantage on con checks, that should be fun to torture enemy casters with.

Meh heh heh heh.

I wouldn't even need the paladin for that, and it is nasty. Hmmm (dang, I'm all over today).

[JellyPooga]

Urgh. I don't like the look of this rule. I like that casters can "run out of steam", but it puts too much focus on Constitution and HD for casters, making Dwarven Paladins and EK's better, more reliable casters than High Elven Magi.

I would heartily recommend you suggest to your GM to give this rule a second thought. My suggestion would be to have both your Endurance and the check based on your spellcasting ability score (Int for Wizard, Cha for Bards, etc.). That way, Wizards are better at casting spells, for longer periods of time than EK's. If you want to involve Con at all, I'd say involve it in the recovery (e.g. you regain 2x(Con mod) Endurance per Short Rest, perhaps). DON'T MAKE IT BASED ON HD. That's A)confusing when it comes to multiclass characters B)encourages a dip into Fighter or Paladin just to get a 1d10 HD to recover Endurance and C)makes full-casters worse at spellcasting over the course of a full day than half or third-casters.

If you're happy to play by his rules, however, a Hill Dwarf Cleric or Druid would be a solid choice. Bonus Wis for Cleric and Bonus Con for casting, plus decent HD for recovering Endurance. You're not reliant on spamming cantrips for damage output and are a stand-up guy in a fight, with decent weapon/armour options.

I'd go Hill Dwarf Moon Druid;
Str 8, Dex 13, Con 14+2, Int 10, Wis 15+1, Cha 12
ASI's: 4th: +2 Con, 8th: +2 Con, 12th: +2 Wis, 16th: +2 Wis, 19th: Whatever.

Con 20 by level 8 = Endurance 20 and +5 on your check to avoid losing any. Wild Shaping gives you as solid combat presence and you've got a ton of HP, both real and Wild Shapey.

[Klorox]

Urgh. I don't like the look of this rule. I like that casters can "run out of steam", but it puts too much focus on Constitution and HD for casters, making Dwarven Paladins and EK's better, more reliable casters than High Elven Magi.

I would heartily recommend you suggest to your GM to give this rule a second thought. My suggestion would be to have both your Endurance and the check based on your spellcasting ability score (Int for Wizard, Cha for Bards, etc.). That way, Wizards are better at casting spells, for longer periods of time than EK's. If you want to involve Con at all, I'd say involve it in the recovery (e.g. you regain 2x(Con mod) Endurance per Short Rest, perhaps). DON'T MAKE IT BASED ON HD. That's A)confusing when it comes to multiclass characters B)encourages a dip into Fighter or Paladin just to get a 1d10 HD to recover Endurance and C)makes full-casters worse at spellcasting over the course of a full day than half or third-casters.

If you're happy to play by his rules, however, a Hill Dwarf Cleric or Druid would be a solid choice. Bonus Wis for Cleric and Bonus Con for casting, plus decent HD for recovering Endurance. You're not reliant on spamming cantrips for damage output and are a stand-up guy in a fight, with decent weapon/armour options.
I'm not going to disagree with you, but I'm the new guy joining an existing campaign; a campaign that's asked for a spellcaster (and I've been told the only other spellcaster in the party is a cleric). I'm not looking to step on any toes, so being a wizard, bard or warlock, with only a dip (if any) into another class is my goal.

I will mention to the DM that those are steep rules, but my line has always been "I'm playing in your sandbox"

[mgshamster]

I like the suggestions in here already, especially with the dwarf (good hearty dwarven Magic).

But really, am I the only one who saw those house rules and thought, "Now that's a damn cool idea"? I mean, everyone always complains about how casters are still way more powerful than martials, even in 5e - and this house rule completely obliterated that while still making them interesting. It limits casters while still giving them 9th level spells. It's kind of cool. I'd love to play a caster in this system (might even implement it in my next game, whether I'm a player or GM).

[Klorox]

I like the suggestions in here already, especially with the dwarf (good hearty dwarven Magic).

But really, am I the only one who saw those house rules and thought, "Now that's a damn cool idea"? I mean, everyone always complains about how casters are still way more powerful than martials, even in 5e - and this house rule completely obliterated that while still making them interesting. It limits casters while still giving them 9th level spells. It's kind of cool. I'd love to play a caster in this system (might even implement it in my next game, whether I'm a player or GM).

I agree. I just wish the DC's were a bit lower.

[Klorox]

Just confirmed: no SCAG content either.

[Klorox]

Since Hex is so nasty against spellchuckers, as pointed out earlier, a mountain dwarf pal2/lock2/bard X would be nasty, but I'm really not sure delaying my primary spellcasting class by 4 levels works for a character who's supposed to be a primary caster.

[mgshamster]

I agree. I just wish the DC's were a bit lower.

I agree. I'd drop them by 3 each.

[JellyPooga]

But really, am I the only one who saw those house rules and thought, "Now that's a damn cool idea"?

I like the notion, just not the implementation. Where are the stories about Wizards that have boundless endurance, or stories about Sorcerers that have hearty complexion and a stout fortitude? They're pretty few and far between, yet this houserule encourages just that. Whether that's a bad thing or not depends on your opinion, but for me, it strains my suspension of disbelief; Your average spellslinger isn't tough, he's weak, pale and catches cold easily because he's spent a childhood studying instead of running around playing with the other boys and girls, or a youth spent in a library rather than hauling logs or rocks as an apprentice to a forester or mason.

Name five fictional series (books, films, tv-series, whatever) that have Wizards with a hearty Constitution and I might change my mind, but this houserule, whilst achieving the purpose of limiting full-spellcasters, fails to do so whilst maintaining the sterotypical image of those self same casters. It's an important consideration for any houserule; ask not only if the rule is balanced or achieves the mechanical end you're aiming for, but also if it makes sense from an in-world perspective. Casters already have enough incentive to go for high Con, they don't need more.

[Giant2005]

I like the suggestions in here already, especially with the dwarf (good hearty dwarven Magic).

But really, am I the only one who saw those house rules and thought, "Now that's a damn cool idea"? I mean, everyone always complains about how casters are still way more powerful than martials, even in 5e - and this house rule completely obliterated that while still making them interesting. It limits casters while still giving them 9th level spells. It's kind of cool. I'd love to play a caster in this system (might even implement it in my next game, whether I'm a player or GM).

Why? I mean, what exactly is there to like?
Spell Slots already limit how much a caster can cast, why bother adding a second system that also limits how much can be cast? It is just extra crunch without any actual positive gains. If you want the casters to be casting less, just reduce the number of spell slots they get - that way you get the same effect without having to go through the hassle of rolling a con check after every spell. That con check would get really annoying, really fast.

[Armored Walrus]

Why? I mean, what exactly is there to like?
Spell Slots already limit how much a caster can cast, why bother adding a second system that also limits how much can be cast? It is just extra crunch without any actual positive gains. If you want the casters to be casting less, just reduce the number of spell slots they get - that way you get the same effect without having to go through the hassle of rolling a con check after every spell. That con check would get really annoying, really fast.

I have to agree that if this limitation exists in addition to spell slots, and not instead of them, this is a huge nerf to casters, and I'm fairly certain I would just roll up a champion, since it seems to me to be a good sign that the DM just doesn't like spell-like abilities, period.

On the other hand, if this is a replacement to spell slots, then it's a neat way to randomize the spell casting limitation, and potentially allow you to cast well beyond normal limits in extreme situations. This feels to me more like Wheel of Time, where wielding the One Power drains the user.

That being said, I think the valor bard idea is a sound one.

[Klorox]

Do y'all think a warlock 2 or 3/valor bard might be a decent multi class?

Chain has the amazing familiar, and a tome lock has the shillelagh abuse. With the standard array, I could worry about maxing nothing but CHA and CON and have a good character.

[mgshamster]

Name five fictional series

I don't know about five, but one of my favorite book series (before I understood the crappy political philosophy associated with it) was the Sword of Truth series. In it, the more a wizard or sorcerer cast, the more likely they were to fall from exhaustion. They could even kill themselves through over-casting if they weren't careful (or sometimes, as a planned tactic, sacrificing themselves).

This system sets that up. I like it.


I have to agree that if this limitation exists in addition to spell slots, and not instead of them, this is a huge nerf to casters, and I'm fairly certain I would just roll up a champion, since it seems to me to be a good sign that the DM just doesn't like spell-like abilities, period.

I disagree that it automatically means the GM hates spell casters. Just because you want to bring something's power down a little bit doesn't mean you hate it. It's a bit of hyperbole. That said, though, I also really like the idea that it should be used in replacement of spell slots, as you're second paragraph suggests.

Either way, it's a system I would play a spell-caster in. I like it.

[TheFlyingCleric]

I really don't like this houserule, for a lot of reasons. Here's a list:

- 1: It's Unnecessary. Casters and Martials are already well balanced, and although there may be parts that could be tweaked to work better, a major 'fix' is definitely not needed. 'But 9th level spells!' I hear you cry. 'Martials don't get anything like that.' But they do get the ability to for instance loose a quiver of 16 arrows in 12 seconds. And then do it again after every short rest. That's a feat impossible in reality. Almost like magic, but it doesn't look like quite as flashy.

- 1.1: It adds an additional limit to spellcasting. This ties in to the above. A caster already has limits in the form of spell slots. Some people may not like the way spell slots work, and replace them with a different system, but to have two different systems at once? Overly complex, conflicting, and redundant; especially when the original system is already good on its own.

- 2: It limits how often you can cast cantrips. This is a really big problem; cantrips are core to the design of full-casters, with the game assuming they can cast them as many times as they need to. Remove that, and you get problems. It's also a limit that you don't see on Martial classes.

- 2.1: It penalizes you for casting utility cantrips. Light, Guidance, Mage hand, even Prestidigation. When you cast these spells, you risk losing some of your precious spellcasting resources. These utility cantrips often play an important part in character development/personality. If a PC can't perform a few minor magical tricks to impress the commoners without risking depletion of an important resource, they are less likely to do so. Roleplaying opportunities are thus lost.

- 3: This mechanic specifically targets (and nerfs) spellcasters. I sincerely doubt that there is also a similar mechanic requiring fighters to make a CON check when they swing around an 7kg weight on the end of a long pole. Meaning that they could do that for 8 hours a day without any penalties, while a Wizard is unable to cast their most basic spells for very long without a rest.

- 4: It makes constitution the second casting stat. It already is to some extent due to concentration saves, but this makes it even more. To the point where it may be better to up your CON before your primary stat, just because it gives you so many more bonuses.

- 5: This mechanic is very messily implemented. It seems like not much thought was really put into getting it right. The DC's are too high, the points are based off of hit dice for no good reason, and the use of CON checks makes things inconsistent; Enhance Ability is much better, and the Bard can make use of both Jack of All trades and Bardic inspiration for his allies.
It's unnecessarily complicated for what it's trying to do, which is nerf casters.

- 5.1: And why nerf Casters when you could buff Martial classes? Positive solutions are better than Negative solutions.

- 6: Much of the mechanic seems to be coming from the idea that Spellcasting Classes are more powerful Martial Classes. Whether or not this is true, it's indicative of the DM having certain opinions on the matter. What I'm trying to say is that playing a caster in a game where the DM has expressed favouritism for Martial classes, and shown they are ready to nerf spellcasters, seems like a bad choice.

[krugaan]

I don't know about five, but one of my favorite book series (before I understood the crappy political philosophy associated with it) was the Sword of Truth series.

You are dead to me.

CREDIBILITY ZERO!

[warty goblin]

You are dead to me.

CREDIBILITY ZERO!

Be fair now, Wizard's First Rule is, so far as I can recall, a pretty decent bit of fantasy. It's not until like book 5 or 6 that things get really whackaloony.

[krugaan]

Be fair now, Wizard's First Rule is, so far as I can recall, a pretty decent bit of fantasy. It's not until like book 5 or 6 that things get really whackaloony.

Every fantasy author named Terry whose last name is not Pratchett is anathema to me.

Er, I apologize for derailing, should stick to topic.

[mgshamster]

You are dead to me.

CREDIBILITY ZERO!

I won't judge you for that.

Still like the magic system in that series, even if the philosophy behind the rest of the books were crap. The idea of having to balance casting with exhaustion seems cool to me, and being able to over cast and self sacrifice yourself is also interesting.

It's a system I'd enjoy playing in, but there are definite tweaks to the presented system in this thread that i'd do. I like the idea that it replaces spell slots. I'd also give the EK some superiority dice to help replenish it more. May or may not have it apply to divine magic (not certain on that). It's not a finished product, certainly.

Used to be a randian myself, back before I got an education. Books 1 and 2 didn't really have much Rand's philosophy embedded into it, but as the series progressed it started creeping in more and more. Book 6 in the series was the most blatant, and it was my favorite back when I was a randian. Then I went to college, reevaluated my philosophies and beliefs a few times, went back and reanalyzed a lot of my beliefs with evidence and critical thinking - abandoned the randian philosophy pretty early into that process. To this day I've never finished the series. I think he's on book 10? I stopped paying attention years ago.

A few years back, though, maybe five or so years ago, I did pick up the series again. Started over at book 1. Enjoyed it. Enjoyed book 2. Started seeing the randian philosophy creep into book 3, and by book 6 I couldn't stand it anymore. God it was bad. Made me think about how dumb I was back then for believing in all that crap.

Ah well. Grow and learn.

[eastmabl]

Honestly, this house rule screams "sorcerer" to me. Why? It's all about the metamagic and flexible casting.

Metamagic makes your spells better, meaning you have to cast fewer spells. Empower Spell lets you reroll damage dice, meaning that bad rolls on your big spells don't necessitate a second casting. Twinned spell gives you twice the bang for your buck. Hell, even Subtle Spell lets you cast spells without the somatic component, meaning that you can more effectively dual wield weapons (more important if you can't spam cantrips).

Flexible Casting lets you convert your low level spells slots into sorcery points, which you can use to focus on your metamagic, making those few spells that you cast each day all that more important. Use your sorcery points and convert your 1st level spells into third, fourth or fifth level spells spells. By casting fewer spells cast per day, you make fewer Constitution checks and, in turn, limit the chance that you succumb to Raistlin Syndrome.

Granted, you lose the flexibility of casting more spells per day; under this house rule, more spells isn't a good thing.

This rule makes Wild Magic Sorcerer into a good choice as well. You can give yourself advantage at least once/long rest with Tides of Chaos (keep that in your back pocket for when the spell that will push you over the limit into unconsciousness). Further, Bend Luck lets you add 1d4 onto your check for those times when you'd fail your check by 4 or less.

[RulesJD]

As stated by TheFlyingCleric, the best spell in your homebrew game is now Enhance Ability.

Cast that prior to entering a dungeon (it lasts 1 hour). Then just go to town on blasting away with non-concentration based spells (I'd go Evocation Wizard just to tweak the DM a bit more).

Alternatively, the ideal setup is probably Bard 2 (Jack of All Trades)/Warlock + from a pure spell casting perspective. Use Pact of Tome to pickup Guidance to use on your first spell cast (unless Enhance Ability is already up).

[Joe the Rat]

I'm looking at the rule, and am not surprised they are light on casters.

What I'm seeing here is an attempt to counter caster novas - ballparking throwing out about your CON in spell levels before needing a short rest... probably looking at 1/2 to 2/3 in regular use between rests.

Implications:
9th level spell = 2 hour nap. Which is a fair approach, but it means you will cast NOTHING until you can short rest... probably twice.

Crossbow Wizard's Return. Assuming a +1 mod, you have a 50/50 shot of burning endurance with a cantrip. Don't bother 'bolting below 5, unless your dex is crap.

Casters should be Hale and Hearty and almost supernaturally resistant. You're now a Harry Potter wizard. (Seriously, some of the stuff that happens in the books would flat out kill a normal human.) A good endurance check goes with a good concentration save. You can cast more and hold on to spells longer.

Warlocks fly under the radar, until they explode. You can cast 2...4...6...8...10...15 spell levels of spells between rests. Those first couple of levels, you would need to 'blast spam like bonkers to tap out. By the end, you probably can't cast all of your spell slots - and you can't under-cast to save Endurance without a special ruling. Might as well stock up on scalers, because that darkness doesn't get any darker. Also find out how he rules invocation spells. If it doesn't use a slot, does it count as a cast?

Rituals: Do they count as a casting for endurance? If not, you have a bit more range on utility magic. That makes Wizards and Tomelocks a bit more useful.

Suggestion: Ask if you can spend Hit Dice to regain endurance. This would give casters more recovery, but at the risk of draining their physical reserves. Cast enough, and you'll go into fights ragged and with nothing left to heal with, and the next day isn't looking too hot either.

[eastmabl]

Suggestion: Ask if you can spend Hit Dice to regain endurance. This would give casters more recovery, but at the risk of draining their physical reserves. Cast enough, and you'll go into fights ragged and with nothing left to heal with, and the next day isn't looking too hot either.

"During a short rest, [casters] can regain 1 HD of Endurance."

[Joe the Rat]

They can regain 1 hit die of endurance, but it does not say they spend a hit die to regain that endurance. I was reading that as an automatic recovery. If it is intended to use the HD pool, that should be clarified.

[GorogIrongut]

Do you get access to things like the Swashbuckler? I ask because it could make for a much more thematic character while making you a skill monkey with sharp teeth... All tacked on to your bard. Plus you'd be going before EVERYONE else.

[The Glyphstone]

I'm not going to disagree with you, but I'm the new guy joining an existing campaign; a campaign that's asked for a spellcaster (and I've been told the only other spellcaster in the party is a cleric). I'm not looking to step on any toes, so being a wizard, bard or warlock, with only a dip (if any) into another class is my goal.

I will mention to the DM that those are steep rules, but my line has always been "I'm playing in your sandbox"

I suspect that it's not a coincidence no one is playing a spellcaster except the mandatory healbot...

[Malifice]

Magical Exhaustion
Casting spells takes a toll on a spellcaster, acting as a conduit for the magic can be exhausting. Spell casters have an “Endurance” score, like hit points, that is equal to their Constitution score. During a short rest they can regain 1 Hit Dice of Endurance. A long rest restores all Endurance.
Every time a spell caster casts a spell he must make a Constitution check with DC 12 + the spell level (example: a cantrip is DC 12, Level 1 is DC 13, etc.) A failed check means the spell caster loses endurance equal to the spell’s level +1.

If a spell caster drops to 0 Endurance he falls unconscious, after a short rest he regains consciousness but cannot cast any more spells until he has a long rest. A spell caster may attempt a spell if he has insufficient Endurance to cast a spell, so long as he has a positive number (Example: He has 1 remaining point of Endurance, and wishes to cast a 1st level spell.) Obviously, should he fail the Con check his Endurance falls to 0 and he loses consciousness.


EDIT: pasting the chart didn't help. Hang on for a further edit.

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa109/krunchyfrogg/Mobile%20Uploads/2016-07/29950BDC-CB6D-4D26-97AC-26B4C36B57D6.png (http://s203.photobucket.com/user/krunchyfrogg/media/Mobile%20Uploads/2016-07/29950BDC-CB6D-4D26-97AC-26B4C36B57D6.png.html)

Weird. Why doesnt he just use the Exhaustion rules. Fail a save, cop a level of Exhaustion.

[Klorox]

Do you get access to things like the Swashbuckler? I ask because it could make for a much more thematic character while making you a skill monkey with sharp teeth... All tacked on to your bard. Plus you'd be going before EVERYONE else.

No. PHB only.

[RulesJD]

Weird. Why doesnt he just use the Exhaustion rules. Fail a save, cop a level of Exhaustion.

1 level of Exhaustion = Disadvantage on Ability Checks. The check he has homebrewed is a Constitution Check. If you failed it once, you'd immediately be at disadvantage on all your other attempts.

[CantigThimble]

1 level of Exhaustion = Disadvantage on Ability Checks. The check he has homebrewed is a Constitution Check. If you failed it once, you'd immediately be at disadvantage on all your other attempts.

Also it's practically impossible to remove more than one level of exhaustion per day, so a spellcaster who failed a check would get pretty much one spell per day before they started going into resource-debt.

[Herobizkit]

The group's asked the OP to play a spellcaster under a pretty harsh house rule. Wonder why they want the new guy to the group to play one? ^_^

It's not a bad idea, per se, but the implementation...
* I wouldn't have cantrips be affected - they're supposed to be the spells that casters learn and can always do without prep or reference.
* First spell of the day is 'free' - no need to roll.
* Spells after that have a scaling CON save - start with 8+[spell level]. Every spell thereafter adds to the cumulative save by level (ie a 1st level adds 1 to the DC, 2nd adds 2 etc). Upon fail, the caster gets a level of Exhaustion and the DC resets to base 8. Repeat until your caster passes out or gets a long rest.

Now, for the OP - why do they want you to play a caster? What are they 'missing'?

When you're not sure what to bring to the party, bring a Bard. Bard is always the answer.

Dwarf Bard is cool on its own. Forget Paladin. Medium armor and dwarf weapons makes you a pseudo-Valor Bard at level 1. Jack that CON up and you'll be a pretty beef support.

[Slipperychicken]

I'm not going to disagree with you, but I'm the new guy joining an existing campaign; a campaign that's asked for a spellcaster (and I've been told the only other spellcaster in the party is a cleric). I'm not looking to step on any toes, so being a wizard, bard or warlock, with only a dip (if any) into another class is my goal.

I think it's no surprise they feel the need to put out requests for spellcaster players, when their DM nerfs casters so hard.


I once joined in a 3rd edition game where the DM had a lot of houserules to nerf casters. It turned out that the vacancy had been created by a sorcerer's player leaving the group. I played a caster too, and ended up quite frustrated and leaving for a number of reasons, especially the DMs attitude toward restricting character options. I think this may turn out to be a similar situation, so be aware of any other warning signs you find.

[Malifice]

1 level of Exhaustion = Disadvantage on Ability Checks. The check he has homebrewed is a Constitution Check. If you failed it once, you'd immediately be at disadvantage on all your other attempts.

I thought it was a Con save.

[Ruslan]

Magical Exhaustion
Casting spells takes a toll on a spellcaster
1. Play a Paladin
2. Use your spell slots only to Smite.
3. ?????
4. Profit!!!!

[eastmabl]

I thought it was a Con save.

Go to your last post and re-read the house you quoted.

[Klorox]

This went from a fun experiment, to me now hoping I have fun later on tonight.

I'm still not set on whether I'm going to play a straight bard or a paladin 2/ bard, but this spellcasting thing really is a drag.

Am I really going to be exhausted after viciously mocking somebody?

[Giant2005]

Am I really going to be exhausted after viciously mocking somebody?

As long as you stick to low level spells, you should be relatively okay.
For example, with 16 Con, you should be able to cast an average of 36 Vicious Mockeries before passing out. It is only when you start mixing in some higher level spells that it becomes a serious issue.

[Malifice]

On the bright side, youre gonna have huge HP.

Gnome (high Con and Int) Lore Bard (jack of all trades for +1-3 to the Con checks)/ Diviner (rerolls) for the win.

Grab Guidance as a cantrip for another +1d4 to those Con ability checks.

[Joe the Rat]

I understand how it works, but "make a con check so you can be better at a con check" is kind of funny.
With a decent CON, you will have a fair pool of endurance. You just have to go carefuly as you start burning it down through the day.

Confirm that smiting does not count as casting. As written, that should be the case, but as we are dealing with house rules, "I also meant" is an issue. If smites count, switch to full bard. Or take 2 levels of Moon Druid. That way when you run out of endurance, you can fall back on "I'm a bear." Hmmm, kind of reverses the usual strategy: instead of casting spells when you are all out of bear, you bear up when you're out of spell juice.
"I'm here to cast spells and bear wildshape, and I'm all out of bear"

[Markoff Chainey]

The exhaustion rule is pretty funny, but badly done because it messes up the game balance.

A smart player will simply avoid playing a mage.. do you want to be a "smart" player or do you enjoy to be mocked by the DM?

I would tell the DM that the rule is funny but unbalanced and as long as there is no penalty to non-caster classes as well, I would not play a caster.

Under the described conditions, I would play a paladin.. as someone mentioned above and smite like no tomorrow or play a rogue.

[CantigThimble]

The fact that magic is costly to use does not necessarily make non-casters better than casters. There are a lot of things casters can do that martials just can't, ever. Just remember that since you're only going to be casting a few spells per day you should probably stick to the real game-changers and deal with most situations with good old fashioned mundane violence.

[Cybren]

It doesn't really matter if the rule is balanced or not- it's the rule the game is working with. I think it would be incredibly rude and disrespectful for the OP to show up with the 99 thesis on a why this house rule is terrible.

If you started at a high enough level, a lore bard can use peerless skill + Jack of all trades to succeed on the con check, but it might be miserable getting there from level 1

[Markoff Chainey]

The fact that magic is costly to use does not necessarily make non-casters better than casters.

Either you think the game is substantially unbalanced in favor of martials, or that statement is simply wrong.

That stated rule screws all casters. At the moment, casters and martials are roughly on par when it comes to power, at least IMO.

True, casters can do stuff that martials never ever can... AND martials can do stuff that casters never ever can... at least in D&D.

You are supporting the same facepalming logic that obviously said DM uses.

[Markoff Chainey]

It doesn't really matter if the rule is balanced or not- it's the rule the game is working with. I think it would be incredibly rude and disrespectful for the OP to show up with the 99 thesis on a why this house rule is terrible.

If you started at a high enough level, a lore bard can use peerless skill + Jack of all trades to succeed on the con check, but it might be miserable getting there from level 1

rude?
When I DM and make up a rule and a player approaches me and says: "Hey, that rule might be flavorful, but martials are now heavily preferred, I think that should be addressed or else it is not fun to play a caster." - How on earth is that rude?

It is more "rude" to invent a rule as a DM that takes away the fun for the players.

Why use rules at all when it does not matter if it is balanced or not? - The very reason to use rules and not just make everything up on the fly is balance.

[Temperjoke]

What I don't get is how the DM doesn't realize that this rule needs some work. I mean, if they need casters, then that usually means no one wants to play a caster. That would indicate that there's a reason no one wants to play a caster. Unless the DM doesn't like casters, I've heard that this can be the situation when rules like this are made. I hope, OP, that it goes better than it seems, I mean, you did agree to play with them, so it would seem impolite (to me at least) to start nitpicking the rules that they've been playing by when you're the new person.

[Cybren]

rude?
When I DM and make up a rule and a player approaches me and says: "Hey, that rule might be flavorful, but martials are now heavily preferred, I think that should be addressed or else it is not fun to play a caster." - How on earth is that rude?

It is more "rude" to invent a rule as a DM that takes away the fun for the players.

Why use rules at all when it does not matter if it is balanced or not? - The very reason to use rules and not just make everything up on the fly is balance.
The rule is the rule, the other players bought in, and this is the game the DM is running. The OP is free to decline playing in this particular group, but, yes, it is rude for them to demand changes just because they perceive it as unfair, especially before any play sessions. It would be one thing, after playing a few sessions and seeing the results, to say "hey what about an ability like a feat or an item that gave casters proficiency on the check and increased their exhaustion limit" and another to say "YOUR GAME IS WRONG YOU ARE PLAYING D&D WRONG"

[RulesJD]

So yeah, if they actually want a caster, your best bet in this game is to be a Bard 3 (I'd go Valor for non-spell fun)/Fiend Warlock+.

1. Auto-leveling spell slots = more bang for your limited magical use buck. Hex + EB + AB = most damage from relatively low spells (1 hr duration if you aren't using Enhance Ability)

2. You get access to Guidance relatively easily.

3. You get access to Enhance Ability.

4. You (eventually) get access to Dark Ones Own Luck.

5. You get access to Jack of All Trades.

With those 4 things, you should be able to pass those Con Checks fairly reliably, while generally relying on low level cantrips (thus lower checks) to still do pretty impressive damage for a caster.

[Giant2005]

I think Warlock is a really bad idea - this system is far more punishing for high level spells than it is low level spells. Losing the ability to cast spells with low level spell slots would be really crippling.
For example, with 16 Con you can cast an average of 36 Cantrips before falling unconscious, but that same 16 Con could only cast an average of 4 level 5 spells before falling unconscious. That would be okay if you got all of your endurance back on a short rest, but you don't get back nearly enough to maintain that expense.
You need enough flexibility to be able to cast things at their lowest possible level, or you aren't going to be casting much at all.

[Markoff Chainey]

The OP is free after playing a few sessions and seeing the results, to say "hey what about an ability like a feat or an item that gave casters proficiency on the check and increased their exhaustion limit" and another to say "YOUR GAME IS WRONG YOU ARE PLAYING D&D WRONG"

It is obvious that the game rules are strongly shifted, why should it be forbidden to state an opinion? I did never suggest to complain all the time nor to say something stupid like "your game is wrong", whatsoever.

My suggestion for the OP is to tell the DM once, before generating the char "This seems rather unbalanced in favor of martials", nothing more. And I personally would not play anything else but a martial or a caster that can easily bypass those rules, but that is my preference because I hate it to play a game and sit around without the opportunity to be helpful. So I would also tell the DM that, if they want me to take part, with the given rules, I won't play a caster if not everybody else is playing a caster too.

[Klorox]

I understand how it works, but "make a con check so you can be better at a con check" is kind of funny.
With a decent CON, you will have a fair pool of endurance. You just have to go carefuly as you start burning it down through the day.

Confirm that smiting does not count as casting. As written, that should be the case, but as we are dealing with house rules, "I also meant" is an issue. If smites count, switch to full bard. Or take 2 levels of Moon Druid. That way when you run out of endurance, you can fall back on "I'm a bear." Hmmm, kind of reverses the usual strategy: instead of casting spells when you are all out of bear, you bear up when you're out of spell juice.
"I'm here to cast spells and bear wildshape, and I'm all out of bear"
I asked about smiting and his response was "I haven't thought about that yet, I'm not sure"

I'm going pure bard. Mountain dwarf, not sure if lore or valor yet. Level 4, stats look like this:

STR 10 DEX 14 CON 16 INT 10 WIS 12 CHA 16

Hat bothered me was, when I asked about this rule, he said he didn't like how the elf wizard was using firebolt all day. I don't know if he was using firebolt incorrectly, but a DEX 14 fighter does more damage with his bow than a wizard with firebolt.

[Klorox]

What I don't get is how the DM doesn't realize that this rule needs some work. I mean, if they need casters, then that usually means no one wants to play a caster. That would indicate that there's a reason no one wants to play a caster. Unless the DM doesn't like casters, I've heard that this can be the situation when rules like this are made. I hope, OP, that it goes better than it seems, I mean, you did agree to play with them, so it would seem impolite (to me at least) to start nitpicking the rules that they've been playing by when you're the new person.

I will politely criticize. I'm meeting them in person in about an hour or so.

I am new to the group, and I am joining an ongoing game.

That being said, when I asked what the party was made up of, I was immediately hit with "we need a caster, we go through casters like Spinal Tap goes through drummers"

My impression is the DM doesn't like casters, so he tried to limit them. In doing so, he's over-limited them.

[Cybren]

I will politely criticize. I'm meeting them in person in about an hour or so.

I am new to the group, and I am joining an ongoing game.

That being said, when I asked what the party was made up of, I was immediately hit with "we need a caster, we go through casters like Spinal Tap goes through drummers"

My impression is the DM doesn't like casters, so he tried to limit them. In doing so, he's over-limited them.

Whoops wrong thead, two windows at the same time :O

[Temperjoke]

I will politely criticize. I'm meeting them in person in about an hour or so.

I am new to the group, and I am joining an ongoing game.

That being said, when I asked what the party was made up of, I was immediately hit with "we need a caster, we go through casters like Spinal Tap goes through drummers"

My impression is the DM doesn't like casters, so he tried to limit them. In doing so, he's over-limited them.

Yeah, diplomatically point out that things are really weighted against casters, but you'll do your best with what you've chosen. If you start to experience frustration over things, or if they wonder why their caster isn't casting, just point out that the extra rule is making it difficult.

[krugaan]

Yeah, diplomatically point out that things are really weighted against casters, but you'll do your best with what you've chosen. If you start to experience frustration over things, or if they wonder why their caster isn't casting, just point out that the extra rule is making it difficult.

seriously...

- DM makes draconian caster hindrance rule
- they "go through casters like Spinal Tap goes through drummers"

maybe ... a correlation?

[brainface]

Hat bothered me was, when I asked about this rule, he said he didn't like how the elf wizard was using firebolt all day. I don't know if he was using firebolt incorrectly, but a DEX 14 fighter does more damage with his bow than a wizard with firebolt.

This is a terrible, terrible sign. ^^

I hope you enjoy the game regardless.

[Arkhios]

Hat bothered me was, when I asked about this rule, he said he didn't like how the elf wizard was using firebolt all day. I don't know if he was using firebolt incorrectly, but a DEX 14 fighter does more damage with his bow than a wizard with firebolt.


This is a terrible, terrible sign. ^^

I hope you enjoy the game regardless.


Oh, lord... ^^ welp, let's hope your DM won't ban bards too, eventually.

[Klorox]

First session went really well.

I'm not a cheater, but the DM wasn't keeping tabs on the exhaustion stuff (I wasn't casting every round either). I honestly did forget sometimes.

[Lombra]

First session went really well.

I'm not a cheater, but the DM wasn't keeping tabs on the exhaustion stuff (I wasn't casting every round either). I honestly did forget sometimes.

So you went valor or lore bard?

[Armored Walrus]

Did we ever clarify if this rule is in addition to the spell slot limits or in place of them?

[Arkhios]

Did we ever clarify if this rule is in addition to the spell slot limits or in place of them?

This, here, is actually a very good point. If this system was to replace spell slots completely, it might be very interesting to try out.

[CantigThimble]

Either you think the game is substantially unbalanced in favor of martials, or that statement is simply wrong.

That stated rule screws all casters. At the moment, casters and martials are roughly on par when it comes to power, at least IMO.

True, casters can do stuff that martials never ever can... AND martials can do stuff that casters never ever can... at least in D&D.

You are supporting the same facepalming logic that obviously said DM uses.

My point is more that a party of four martials will still perform worse than a party of three martisls and a caster, even with this rule. You're going to use your spells differently for sure, every cast is more valuable than under standard rules. Simple damage spells usually won't be worth it but the value of utility and control spells goes through the roof due to how rare they become. Think of it in terms of supply and demand.

Edit: just to be clear, I'm not judging whether this rule should be used or not, I'm just saying that if I accept that it is a fact of the game I'm playing I'd still choose to be the only caster instead of another martial because that would be better for the party.

[Klorox]

So you went valor or lore bard?

Lore.

I realized valor might get more play, but when I thought about the team praying for a spellcaster, I thought I'd take the more spellcastery option.

[Klorox]

Did we ever clarify if this rule is in addition to the spell slot limits or in place of them?

In addition to. :(

[Armored Walrus]

Well, if your first session went well, maybe we're overthinking this. Hope you have fun! :)