Spell Exclusivity: Disallowing Duplication of Spells between PCs?

[Wasp]

Hi everyone!

What is your opinion on giving characters in a group spell exclusivity (except for healing spells)? Meaning players have to agree which each other who can pick which spell as no spell can be chosen more than once per group. So only one player can chose greenflame blade, only one find familiar, only one minor illusion etc. The only exception is healing spells (at least if there is no primary healer/cleric in the group).

Feasible? Or too restricting? Alternatively: What if every player can pick a signature cantrip and a signature spell per spell level nobody else can pick?

[iTreeby]

What about weapon exclusivity, feat exclusivity, armor exclusivity, race exclusivity, language exclusivity, and class exclusivity. I mean, why spells even?

If it seems fun... I guess go for it. Sounds like a headache with no benefit to me. Imagine you can't pick dispel Magic because your homie has dibs on if and you have to watch him never cast it right. Imagine playing a game like this where somone is a tomelock.

If you are having problems with everyone picking the same spells, there are probably more organic ways to punish the players lack of diversity.

[Mad Nomad]

Redundancy is a good thing, in many ways.

What happens if the group loses a party member?

What happens if the party needs to split up?

What happens if the party needs to cast the same spell multiple times simultaneously, such as healing multiple wounded party members during a major battle, or having multiple people with Detect Magic so they can search more efficiently?

I personally think you should let the group decide for themselves who covers what role, and allow them the option of redundancy if they so choose. Let the players figure out what works for them and their play style.

I'n not one to arbitrarily limit the player's options, unless there's a very specific reason for it, such as the campaign setting.

At the very least, have an open discussion with the group about the idea, and get their opinions on it first.

[sithlordnergal]

Ehhh, I'd advise against it personally. While I get the idea of wanting there to be variety in one's spell list, I feel like this is a poor way to do it. Especially when it comes to things like Minor Illusion or Find Familiar. You'd also run into issues with spells like Mage Armor, Shield, or Magic Missile. Some spells are staples for a reason, unless you have something far better to replace them you need/want them. And even then, you'll probably want them.

[LudicSavant]

Hi everyone!

What is your opinion on giving characters in a group spell exclusivity (except for healing spells)? Meaning players have to agree which each other who can pick which spell as no spell can be chosen more than once per group. So only one player can chose greenflame blade, only one find familiar, only one minor illusion etc. The only exception is healing spells (at least if there is no primary healer/cleric in the group).

Feasible? Or too restricting? Alternatively: What if every player can pick a signature cantrip and a signature spell per spell level nobody else can pick?

So what the heck happens if there's two clerics?

[Jerrykhor]

What is your reasoning behind this? If you were my DM, I'd probably ask why are you doing this.

[Spiritchaser]

Hi everyone!

What is your opinion on giving characters in a group spell exclusivity (except for healing spells)? Meaning players have to agree which each other who can pick which spell as no spell can be chosen more than once per group. So only one player can chose greenflame blade, only one find familiar, only one minor illusion etc. The only exception is healing spells (at least if there is no primary healer/cleric in the group).

Feasible? Or too restricting? Alternatively: What if every player can pick a signature cantrip and a signature spell per spell level nobody else can pick?

I would not do this.

I feel this would badly limit player agency for very limited (if any) benefit.

Every player is likely to play their character differently, both mechanically and RP. Even with identical builds you won’t have clones.

A few overlapping spells won’t make characters clones either.

Limiting spells this way will unnecessarily limit each character’s role, and create competition between players where it didn’t need to be.

Ever seen an argument over a cloak of billowing? Imagine the argument over who gets to cast fireball.

If you want to make characters more unique, the game has many opportunities to provide that.

The signature spell? I wouldn’t do that either, but it IS less invasive.

All that said... If you do choose to do this please do let us know how it turned out. It certainly would be... different.

[Chronos]

Some spells are only really useful for one character to have. But in my experience, in most groups, the players will agree among themselves on those spells anyway. You don't need to force them to.

This also poses problems from the storytelling angle. The backstory of most groups don't have them growing up together: The party's wizard might have been on a quest for some obscure artifact, the cleric might have been sent on a mission to rescue a temple that's being threatened by monsters, and the sorcerer might have been a mercenary who hired out to the highest bidder, before they all came together. They picked their spells before they knew each other: Why wouldn't there be some overlap?

[Wasp]

I am not planning to do this and I don't have much of opinion on it. I was just interested in hearing opinions on this topic. :smallsmile:

[Son of A Lich!]

In my head-lingo, you're basically asking about what I would call a "Snowflake". (Not to be confused for the political nonsense use of the term in a mean spirited way. PCs are by definition special in the game world, due to being written specifically for and about within the game's narrative.)

So, Joe is playing a wizard; he doesn't want to be just another 3rd level diviner, he wants to be of a lost school of arcana that was [backstory, backstory, backstory] and wants the game to reflect that in play. Joe asks if he can cast magic missile exclusively to the game world; no one knows the spell, it's his.

I would say 'No one knows the spell, except people who also went to the academy, or taught the academy that spell in the first place... you mean...'

Now, when playing out the game, if he uses Magic Missile, the surrounding magickers will note that it is an impressive spell. This could lead to a rival spell caster (Perhaps a Warlock who was denied entry to the school), a band of students learning under a dismissed professor who was notoriously lax on moral thinking, or a professor that is looking to reestablish the school to its former glory and needs the Joe's help.

Meanwhile, my Goblin chieftan with levels in sorcerer casts "Glazbrin bolts!" which happen to be exactly like Magic Missile in every way. An arcane trickster or EK in the party could learn Magic Missile, they would just rename it and shape its effects (Perhaps a Sorcerer of the dragon bloodline could have it look fiery without it actually being fire damage, to show that her red dragon blood is so potent, it wracks the body despite resistances or immunities to 'Normal fire').

The party has a wizard with an exclusive spell, the party can cast and use the spell, his magic is in no way superior to anyone else at the table but carries significance to him, his character and his arc. This also encourages everyone else at the table to be unique to the world we are sharing and developing. Fluff can go a LONG way if you fluff it up just right.

[Sigreid]

I think this would be a terrible idea at the table with a potential to lead to frustration and hard feelings with no discernible benefit.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hi everyone!

What is your opinion on giving characters in a group spell exclusivity (except for healing spells)? Meaning players have to agree which each other who can pick which spell as no spell can be chosen more than once per group. So only one player can chose greenflame blade, only one find familiar, only one minor illusion etc. The only exception is healing spells (at least if there is no primary healer/cleric in the group).

Feasible? Or too restricting? Some ideas are not good ones. This is one such. That's OK, we each come up with bad ideas and it is sometimes helpful to get your friends to give you that look, or a "whaaaaat?" response.
Arbitrary and pointless restriction with no redeeming value in D&D 5e. In other games, perhaps of value.

[Helldin87]

I feel the root frustration is possibly more rooted in duplication of playstyle. As long as players don't carbon copy eachother's actual story or style I don't have a problem with my PCs duplicating spells. Also you can ask the PCs to flavor their cast with RP. Ex: The warlock casting firebolt might have an ethereal light to it vs the wizard may produce a more traditional spark of fire.

If your encounters are too similar PCs will end up wanting the same kind of spells. ie: if you always throw a horde of enemies at them then fireball is going to be popular. If you vary it up then expect your PCs to have to do the same or suffer penalties.

[ImproperJustice]

On the plus side, OP:

You posed a question or hypothesis, tested it in the arena of piblic opinion, and got some pretty sound data.

I call that good science!

[Rusvul]

When I'm considering houserules, I like to frame it as a cost-benefit kind of thing. For example, a lingering injuries houserule has the cost of "PCs might become unplayable or be taken out of commission for a long time. Players might not like this." The benefit might be "Game feels more dangerous, players are more invested, everyone has more fun" or it could have little to no benefit. At some tables, the benefits of such a houserule outweigh the drawbacks and improve the game. At others, not so much.

At most tables, I think this kind of "niche-protection" houserule does much more harm than good. In my experience, PCs naturally shift to fill different roles. Druid 1 summons & blasts, druid 2 wildshapes and fights. I could see a potential benefit of a gentler form of this rule (like the "signature spell" version) if you have several PCs playing very similar characters and you want them to diversify. Especially if they're new players and you're trying to get them into roleplaying. "That's what makes my wizard unique--I have Colorspray, she has Burning Hands." Just... make sure your players are on board with the idea, and don't let anyone take an essential spell like Shield or Spiritual Weapon.

At most tables, though, I think the consensus of "this is a bad idea" is correct. ImproperJustice is right about the good science. :)

[Kadesh]

Casters are OP already. This is a very minor fix, but hurts characters who take Magic Initiate, and slower casting progression. It is full casters who are the problem not half casters or third casters.

Daft idea.

[Laserlight]

So, if I take "sword", no one else in the group can use a sword?

I would object to this proposal if I were a player at that table

[Wasp]

Soo... I didn't quite pick up on the general sentiment yet. It's a good idea, right?

[ImproperJustice]

Soo... I didn't quite pick up on the general sentiment yet. It's a good idea, right?

It was a fun question worth asking :)

[DeadMech]

... I mean... there is no such thing as a bad question. Everyone else seems to have given a rather negative opinion to this idea and on it's face I'd probably agree. Not that I don't understand what might be the frustration that generated it in the first place. Variety is nice. As a player and a DM I've been frustrated at some people's lack of variety or creativity. And that's not even just a DnD thing. 5e though is a bit lacking in base options for my taste and some questionable balance choices that probably come in both accidental as well as intentional flavours.

Heck I was starting to feel bored with my wizard's spell repertoire and there was only one spell I had in common with anyone at the table. Shield. I pulled out Flaming sphere in pretty much every battle once I had it and pretty much every turn in battle after I had was bonus action it toward the biggest cluster of enemies and firebolt as my action. But you only learn so many spells. Some of them have to be spend on defensive spells, some on utility. And even if I wanted to the offensive and debuffing spells I picked all had different purposes so weren't always applicable in the way DoT was. DM was fond of regenerating monsters too but I only discovered that long after I picked specializing in burninating. And finding new ones was out of the question since loot tables were stingy and scroll buying impossible.

At the very least back to the subject, if you were going to limit the players in such a fashion, or really in any fashion, I recommend giving them something in return. Spoonful of sugar and all that. Cause while as stated earlier in the thread some tables might be receptive even if only in time, you are still likely to find some resentment and issues. Failing that I hope you are okay with being asked to OK dozens of custom spells that all end up doing the same thing as a spell that already exists but with a different element or to a different save or with a different condition and trying to math out in your head how these affect game balance.