Double Spells

[Pex]

It has been a common event in games I play of players getting annoyed when they can't cast two leveled spells on their turn unless the action spell is a cantrip. They abide by it when reminded but are still disappointed. Even DMs. They aren't trying to cheat or Win D&D. They really want to help a party member and do something against the bad guys, Healing Word and Guiding Bolt being quite common. Sometimes it's just a Cool Combo in their eyes they discovered. Only once did I encounter a hostile reaction when reminded, the player dismissed it and did it anyway, and the DM allowed it because he didn't know the rule. Generally speaking almost everyone I've played with hates the rule. However, everyone also understands that Fireball Quicken Fireball isn't a good thing either.

The question is, should 5.5E in 2024 change this rule? Whether they will is to be determined, but should they as a matter of philosophical thought?

1) No, leave it as is. Sorry.
2) Yes, get rid of it completely and let the Sorcerer do Fireball Quicken Fireball.
3) Alter it a little bit but avoid Fireball Quicken Fireball. Perhaps the Action spell can be first or second level but no higher.

[MrStabby]

Should they keep the rule or change it?

Well it depends what else is changed. It is a constraint on classes that would otherwise dominate even more than they do. If the relative strengths and weaknesses of the classes are rearanged such that this is no longer an issue then changing it might be good, otherwise a very, very bad move.

I think the other aspect of this is more than just raw overall power, but rather a kind of regulator. Spell slots gate overall power, but this determines how quickly you can get one character clamouring for a rest and bugging the rest of the party whilst they wish to continue on or the extent to which one player can concentrate all their power in one fight for the day overshadoing others on wha might be the really fun climactic battle.

As for alternaives, I might keep the theme but reword it. Don't limit the other spells to cantrips but instead limit them to spells that you do not expend spell slots to cast. So cantrips yes, but also things like signature spells, spells granted by feats or other class abilities. This would give a little more design flexabiliy to make certain spells really core to a class and to represent a greater facility with them and to have more specialised characters.

[Telok]

Costs sorcery points equal to 1 + the level slot used, minimum 2 for the quickened spell & pay again for any other spells you cast during your turn. Double fireball for 8 sorcery points? Maybe even up the cost a bit more. You'd need an example or good tight wording to shut down the loophole seekers.

You have to something about the cost. Even just double eldrich blasts at the current price is like a caster action surge thats better than the fighter because you can spam it.

[solidork]

Most of the time I ran afoul of this rule was when I wanted to cast Shillelagh and a buff spell in the same turn - I'm not sure you could cleanly word it so you'd be able to do it, or if it would be worth it to do so just for that reason.

[Psyren]

Rather than break the rule for leveled spell + leveled spell, I think it's better to allow characters to do fun and more impactful actions and bonus actions that aren't spells/cantrips via other means - in particular, through racials, subclass features, feats and magic items.

This not only keeps the rule consistent and thus easy to remember (on both sides of the screen), but it also rewards system mastery through careful selection of the other, non-spell elements above.

As an example, the Shadar-Kai racial is quite useful, and it's going to be even more useful on a caster that doesn't have many bonus action spells. And if you pick a class/subclass that has ways to weaponize their bonus action on top of that (e.g. a Stars or Wildfire Druid), you get a lot of options without needing to resort to (or try balancing) two leveled spells per turn.

[Kane0]

The question is, should 5.5E in 2024 change this rule? Whether they will is to be determined, but should they as a matter of philosophical thought?

1) No, leave it as is. Sorry.
2) Yes, get rid of it completely and let the Sorcerer do Fireball Quicken Fireball.
3) Alter it a little bit but avoid Fireball Quicken Fireball. Perhaps the Action spell can be first or second level but no higher.

My vote is get rid of the wonkiness but leave the intention: one levelled spell on your turn. I'd be happy for exceptions to exist (eg action surging fighters, quicken spelling sorcerers, thieves with wands, etc)

[Jervis]

Honestly fireball quicken fireball isn’t even the most broken thing in the world given how bad sorcerers are compared to their immediate competition. You might say metamagic adept as a feat but to that I counter “fighter dip for action surge”. Metamagic in general is undertuned with most of the rules being far too restrictive. Example, did you know that you can’t twin firebolt because it can target objects? In practice twin as is only gives cantrip damage in addition to a leveled spell. I think the leveled spell rules exist for clerics so they can’t cast spirit guardians and spiritual weapon in the same turn

Also 5.5 should remove metamagic adept as an option for nonsorcerers. Just on principle. Metamagic options are largely weaker than what a wizard can do with subclass features. Example, careful spell vs sculpt spell.

[OldTrees1]

5.5E could simplify it to:

Spellcasters can cast 1 spell per round (not 1 per turn).
Readying a spell does not expend the slot until attempting to cast.
Counterspell and Dispel Magic are merged. Counterspelling is when you spend your action to ready Dispel Magic to counter a spell.
Allow Quicken to be a specific exception, and balance accordingly.

This is a comparably bad model.

Or they could leave it as is.

[clash]

I always rule that they can cast spell levels equal to their highest level in a turn. So if you have second level spells second level healing word and cantrip or 1st level healing word, 1st level guiding bolt

[greenstone]

I'd like 5.5 or 6 (or whatever the next one is) just get rid of bonus actions.

I'd like to see, "It's your turn, do one thing."

[Jervis]

I'd like 5.5 or 6 (or whatever the next one is) just get rid of bonus actions.

I'd like to see, "It's your turn, do one thing."

That breaks way to much in terms of features. Cleric just doesn’t work, bardic inspiration becomes almost useless, and any self buff spell is dead on arrival unless it’s like holy weapon duration. Fact is some stuff just isn’t worth an action. You could make it a free action but that’s more than “one thing” and making things you don’t want to not take an action a free action leads to a lot of early 3.5 jank from before swift actions existed. Read shapechange and it’s infinite HP generation + changing forms 100 times a turn to get off more free action effects, and how you can get off a quicker spell, quicken power, swift action spell/power, and standard action spell/power in the same turn for more information. That said I can totally get behind making bonus actions and reactions mutually exclusive like swift and immediate actions, like if you use a BA your reaction is dead until next turn. Wizards use their BA almost 0% of the time, martials only use it some of the time with subclass features unless they have PAM or CBE (in which case this nerfs those a bit by removing AoO options), and BA heavy classes are mostly situational in terms of reactions.


5.5E could simplify it to:

Spellcasters can cast 1 spell per round (not 1 per turn).
Readying a spell does not expend the slot until attempting to cast.
Counterspell and Dispel Magic are merged. Counterspelling is when you spend your action to ready Dispel Magic to counter a spell.
Allow Quicken to be a specific exception, and balance accordingly.

This is a comparably bad model.

Or they could leave it as is.

Honestly i’m surprised at how often things 3.5 did come up as fixes to 5e problems. Just shows to go ya the system isn’t as poorly made as people think outside of some glaring examples.

[Psyren]

I'd like 5.5 or 6 (or whatever the next one is) just get rid of bonus actions.

I'd like to see, "It's your turn, do one thing."

You could do what PF2 does. "It's your turn, do any three things you want. Casting a spell counts as two of them."

[tKUUNK]

It's too powerful. MrStabby has it right.

Besides which, the balance is fine the way it is, and encourages (without forcing) teamwork if you want to create interesting spell synergies.

[Pex]

5.5E could simplify it to:

Spellcasters can cast 1 spell per round (not 1 per turn).
Readying a spell does not expend the slot until attempting to cast.
Counterspell and Dispel Magic are merged. Counterspelling is when you spend your action to ready Dispel Magic to counter a spell.
Allow Quicken to be a specific exception, and balance accordingly.

This is a comparably bad model.

Or they could leave it as is.

This eliminates reaction casting - Shield, Absorb Elements, Feather Fall, War Caster feat. I think this is not a price players would be willing to pay. Also, despite the misgivings for not being able to cast two level spells now players are happy and fine with the allowance of bonus action level spell and action cantrip. This idea is making things worse.

Getting rid of Counterspell specifically is a different matter, especially considering the debate in that other thread. For now I have a neutral stance on it.

[Jervis]

This eliminates reaction casting - Shield, Absorb Elements, Feather Fall, War Caster feat. I think this is not a price players would be willing to pay. Also, despite the misgivings for not being able to cast two level spells now players are happy and fine with the allowance of bonus action level spell and action cantrip. This idea is making things worse.

Getting rid of Counterspell specifically is a different matter, especially considering the debate in that other thread. For now I have a neutral stance on it.

I don’t think you need to remove reaction spells in general. Making dispel magic have a second effect when you ready an action to use it could be specific to it. IMO that’s actually pretty solid because you give up and action to shut down someone else’s action.

[Psyren]

I don’t think you need to remove reaction spells in general. Making dispel magic have a second effect when you ready an action to use it could be specific to it. IMO that’s actually pretty solid because you give up and action to shut down someone else’s action.

Standing there doing nothing round after round just so you might be able to counterspell isn't fun though. There's a reason 3.5 realized this and introduced stuff like Battlemagic Perception and Ring of Spell-Battle.

I would prefer if you could still counter as a reaction, but choosing the costlier option of Readying instead boosted you in some way - either giving you a bonus of some kind to the check, or perhaps raising the autosuccess "floor" slightly, or some other benefit. This would make readying to counterspell into a carrot instead of the stick of taking away the pure reaction version.

[DarknessEternal]

Most of the time I ran afoul of this rule was when I wanted to cast Shillelagh and a buff spell in the same turn - I'm not sure you could cleanly word it so you'd be able to do it, or if it would be worth it to do so just for that reason.

You can, assuming your buff spell takes an action to cast.

[Psyren]

You can, assuming your buff spell takes an action to cast.

Actually no - by RAW, if you cast any bonus action spell, even a cantrip (like Shillelagh), then your action can't be used on a leveled spell.

In other words, your options for two spells are: {leveled bonus, cantrip action}; and {cantrip bonus, cantrip action}. You can't do {cantrip bonus, leveled action} as written.

Not sure why tbh.

[MoiMagnus]

It has been a common event in games I play of players getting annoyed when they can't cast two leveled spells on their turn unless the action spell is a cantrip. They abide by it when reminded but are still disappointed. Even DMs. They aren't trying to cheat or Win D&D. They really want to help a party member and do something against the bad guys, Healing Word and Guiding Bolt being quite common. Sometimes it's just a Cool Combo in their eyes they discovered. Only once did I encounter a hostile reaction when reminded, the player dismissed it and did it anyway, and the DM allowed it because he didn't know the rule. Generally speaking almost everyone I've played with hates the rule. However, everyone also understands that Fireball Quicken Fireball isn't a good thing either.

The question is, should 5.5E in 2024 change this rule? Whether they will is to be determined, but should they as a matter of philosophical thought?

1) No, leave it as is. Sorry.
2) Yes, get rid of it completely and let the Sorcerer do Fireball Quicken Fireball.
3) Alter it a little bit but avoid Fireball Quicken Fireball. Perhaps the Action spell can be first or second level but no higher.

I would personally appreciate having D&D goes more toward Nova playstyle, because using spell slots is fun and not using them is boring. Allowing double spells per turn definitely goes into that direction.

However, I'm convinced that without some significant changes to 5e, it would probably make the game slightly worse. It's already way too easy for the table to degenerate to a 5min workday (or to a "spellcasters have to play half of the day without spellslots because the GM is doing a good job at preventing 5min workday but the players still burn their resource quickly and then just complain that they don't have any spellslots anymore"), so as long as the game is not correctly balanced around it, it's not a good idea to encourage the players to go even more into that direction.

[Hytheter]

It's probably not that big of a deal unless you're doing the 5-minute adventuring day thing, but of course if you are it just enhances the nova power of the classes most favoured by that playstyle.

That said it's definitely a buff either way. As mentioned, rewriting the rule to simply exclude casting multiple levelled spells in the same turn would be a simpler solution.

[Eldariel]

Currently the whole point is that casters don't really want to burn more than one high level leveled spell in an encounter. And thanks to reaction economy they can use low level ones anyways. Largely this wouldn't make casters much stronger; I'd personally be fine with the change though I play by the rule for now. It's just a clunky rule. Mostly it hamstrings Clerics who can't Spiritual Weapon + Spirit Guardians unless they've gotten one or the other out already. Which is fine, Clerics are strong, but I doubt this'll break much of anything on their front. They can already Telekinetic + Spirit Guardians which does more damage and takes fewer resources anyways so in that sense this wouldn't be a power increase in the optimization end.

[diplomancer]

The one thing I believe should be changed (and I believe many DMs already allow it) is the BA Cantrip + Action levelled spell combo.

The only problem I see with this is that a Sorlock could quicken an Agonizing Eldritch Blast, but the way to solve that is to make Eldritch Blast a class feature that scales with Warlock levels (or even just make Warlocks Int-based).

[Willie the Duck]

However, everyone also understands that Fireball Quicken Fireball isn't a good thing either.
The question is, should 5.5E in 2024 change this rule? Whether they will is to be determined, but should they as a matter of philosophical thought?
1) No, leave it as is. Sorry.
2) Yes, get rid of it completely and let the Sorcerer do Fireball Quicken Fireball.
3) Alter it a little bit but avoid Fireball Quicken Fireball. Perhaps the Action spell can be first or second level but no higher.

Most of the time I ran afoul of this rule was when I wanted to cast Shillelagh and a buff spell in the same turn - I'm not sure you could cleanly word it so you'd be able to do it, or if it would be worth it to do so just for that reason.

I think, in general, people would like the non-abusive/troublesome options available while leave the non-abusive/troublesome ones out. Which ones are abusive/troublesome is probably less agreed upon. Fireball/Fireball seems pretty clear. Fireball (or similar)/Misty Step out of retribution's way certainly allows a caster to be a lot more daring (/be limited by their squishiness a lot less), but maybe is a reasonable combo (and scratches that 'just a Cool Combo' itch). What are the other combos that would be a real issue?

Perhaps a solution would be to remove the limitation, and then remove Quicken from the metamagic list (or make the 'and no other levelled spell' clause be part of the metamagic instead of a general rule). Yeah yeah yeah it was an iconic 3e metamagic option, but does that mean it is necessary? If the only spells one could cast alongside main-action spells were the ones pre-designed to be bonus-action (and since we're talking about a new sub-edition, they could go through the spell list and prune/modify any still-existing problem), it might eliminate the problem while still allow the druid to cast Shillelagh/Pro Good/Evil or the cleric to cast Healing Word/Guiding Bolt or other probably-not-a-problem activities.

[diplomancer]

I think, in general, people would like the non-abusive/troublesome options available while leave the non-abusive/troublesome ones out. Which ones are abusive/troublesome is probably less agreed upon. Fireball/Fireball seems pretty clear. Fireball (or similar)/Misty Step out of retribution's way certainly allows a caster to be a lot more daring (/be limited by their squishiness a lot less), but maybe is a reasonable combo (and scratches that 'just a Cool Combo' itch). What are the other combos that would be a real issue?

Perhaps a solution would be to remove the limitation, and then remove Quicken from the metamagic list (or make the 'and no other levelled spell' clause be part of the metamagic instead of a general rule). Yeah yeah yeah it was an iconic 3e metamagic option, but does that mean it is necessary? If the only spells one could cast alongside main-action spells were the ones pre-designed to be bonus-action (and since we're talking about a new sub-edition, they could go through the spell list and prune/modify any still-existing problem), it might eliminate the problem while still allow the druid to cast Shillelagh/Pro Good/Evil or the cleric to cast Healing Word/Guiding Bolt or other probably-not-a-problem activities.

Yeah, maybe the easiest solution would be limiting just the metamagic, and letting "naturally" bonus action spells work normally with levelled spells. The one powerful combo that I can think of that this would open is Spiritual Weapon+ Spirit Guardians; this combo is powerful but doesn't really break anything

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah, maybe the easiest solution would be limiting just the metamagic, and letting "naturally" bonus action spells work normally with levelled spells. The one powerful combo that I can think of that this would open is Spiritual Weapon+ Spirit Guardians; this combo is powerful but doesn't really break anything

Tangent: (and leaning farther into revisions I know aren't realistically going to happen) Honestly I would not mind if they switched they did that first part, then re-looked at SW+SG as a whole as a whole 'nother part of this revamp. Not, mind you, because SW+SG is wildly overpowered, but simply because it is optimal enough that it has drowned out a lot of other strategies and become a go-to/dominating form of Cleric combat-situation strategy and I don't know anyone that says 'this is what I picture when I think of D&D clerics.' I get that we don't want the old 'HP battery for the rest of the party,' and we don't want CoDzilla, but I'd prefer not this. Maybe remove them (except maybe for one domain) and up the domain-dependent powers. A Nature cleric maybe having the Spiked Growth/Gathered Swarm combo that swarmkeeper rangers get; a Moon/Night (instead of Twilight, because, c'mon) cleric who uses Moonbeam and/or a warlock-like Darkness+Devil's sight-esque effect; War clerics getting an actual extra attack (not just Wis mod/day); Tempest Clerics maybe just getting an at-will Thunderwave-like AoE, or being able to get one melee attack in when they cast a thunder/lightning spell or something. Stuff like that -- still being combat-effective, still having battlefield control, but a lot less samey and having the same celestial Angel-Summoner vibe.

[Segev]

One of the things 5e does is give class features and even ongoing concentration spells that let you do "a leveled spell by another name" as a bonus action. Regardless of whether this "should" change in a future edition, if you wa something like this in existing 5e, seek those features or invent your own homebrew ones. The healing dice from Circle of Dreams and Celestial Patron are examples (and I think are bonus actions). Call lightning and flaming sphere are others.

[Keravath]

One change I would consider is allowing up to X leveled spells and 1 cantrip as either actions or bonus action. This would allow things like shillelagh + spell and would allow a sorcerer to quicken a cantrip then cast a leveled spell as opposed to having to say they quicken the leveled spell then cast a cantrip as an action.

It would also still prevent two leveled spells being cast using just 1 action and 1 bonus action, and I think it would be easier for more folks to grasp than the current rule where if you cast any spell as a bonus action then you can only cast a cantrip with a casting time of one action.

Action surge gets a bit more powerful since you could stack 2 leveled spells and a cantrip but I don't think that is much of an issue.

[Keravath]

Tangent: (and leaning farther into revisions I know aren't realistically going to happen) Honestly I would not mind if they switched they did that first part, then re-looked at SW+SG as a whole as a whole 'nother part of this revamp. Not, mind you, because SW+SG is wildly overpowered, but simply because it is optimal enough that it has drowned out a lot of other strategies and become a go-to/dominating form of Cleric combat-situation strategy and I don't know anyone that says 'this is what I picture when I think of D&D clerics.' I get that we don't want the old 'HP battery for the rest of the party,' and we don't want CoDzilla, but I'd prefer not this. Maybe remove them (except maybe for one domain) and up the domain-dependent powers. A Nature cleric maybe having the Spiked Growth/Gathered Swarm combo that swarmkeeper rangers get; a Moon/Night (instead of Twilight, because, c'mon) cleric who uses Moonbeam and/or a warlock-like Darkness+Devil's sight-esque effect; War clerics getting an actual extra attack (not just Wis mod/day); Tempest Clerics maybe just getting an at-will Thunderwave-like AoE, or being able to get one melee attack in when they cast a thunder/lightning spell or something. Stuff like that -- still being combat-effective, still having battlefield control, but a lot less samey and having the same celestial Angel-Summoner vibe.

It would be interesting to see clerics with more options. However, for a melee cleric, SG+SW is just so much better than any of the other options you mention that I could see only the cleric that has these spells getting any play if someone wants a melee cleric.

Similar to how hexblade is the goto warlock for a melee warlock - getting everything needed for a melee warlock in terms of proficiencies in armor and a selection of weapons along with requiring only CHA makes the Hexblade significantly outside the other options in that role. Restricting SG+SW to just one cleric type would do the same for melee clerics since, for example, an extra attack for war cleric really doesn't compare to SG+SW.

I agree with the "sameyness" melee clerics have as a result but that is mostly due to the relatively poor choices available for cleric spells and no real alternatives for a melee cleric. In addition, overall wizards, sorcerers, bards tend to do the crowd control role much better than clerics - take away the few melee spells from most clerics, without adding better options in other areas and clerics fall back to being healbots that few folks want to play in 5e due to the general lack of relevance. Healing, lags behind damage so much that it is often considered a waste of a spell slots except for someone at zero hit points.

[Psyren]

It should be one leveled spell per turn, that's all you need. All other actions/bonus actons/reactions/surge actions/etc on that turn are cantrips, end of.

As far as spells that use both your action and bonus action, we already have a framework for that - just put a bonus action in the spell itself. Flaming Sphere does this for example. The choice of using both your action and bonus action on that same spell for a benefit should be in the hands of the caster.

[Willie the Duck]

<all of post #28.>

Okay, sure. Then remove (/rebuild)SG+SW entirely and rebalance the overall cleric upwards (plus maybe make some of these alternatives more powerful than I envision). We're already in a theoretical space well outside what I think is plausible for the 2024 update. Honestly, the point about "relatively poor choices available for cleric spells" is a primary issue -- 3e expanded cleric spells to 9 levels, but didn't really expand what they did enough to make that list feel great to have (druids have a similar issue, but it really only hits hard in spell levels 7-9, and even then they are a great example of having great non-spell options making them fun and each archetype feel different). Expand the list, make more options good choices (either on par with the current SG+SW, or lessor but then enhance the class overall), or heck don't do so but then make the class a 1/2 or 2/3 caster and really expand their non-spell abilities. Point is I see two main types of clerics in my game: those that are frontline combat focused and rely on SG+SW almost entirely (and their domain mostly informing armor and channel divinity options and maybe OOC spell list) and those that are okay with being supplemental support in combat (Bless and some situational things like ProG&E on the fighter when facing outsiders or the like) and are mostly a cleric for the roleplay/healing/status-removal abilities. Very little middle ground** and I do not love that.
*3 if you include cleric dips
**oh, I guess fireballing Light clerics another exception


Bringing this back to double-spells, what do people think about bonus action Healing Words plus another non-cantrip spells. Are those accidental casualties caught in the 'no two levelled spells' rules, or is that limitation part of the fun part of gameplay tactics ('sure you can get your ally off the ground at range with just a bonus action, but then your regular action is underwhelming. Is it worth it, or do you just spend your main action and give them a full Cure Wounds?')?

[Psyren]

Bringing this back to double-spells, what do people think about bonus action Healing Words plus another non-cantrip spells. Are those accidental casualties caught in the 'no two levelled spells' rules, or is that limitation part of the fun part of gameplay tactics ('sure you can get your ally off the ground at range with just a bonus action, but then your regular action is underwhelming. Is it worth it, or do you just spend your main action and give them a full Cure Wounds?')?

If I had to guess, preventing a Healing Word + Cure Wounds nova was definitely part of the intent behind this limitation, and stopping it was no accident at all. That is likely to be one of the most obvious double-spell tactics to occur even to a brand new player.

As far as your regular action being "underwhelming" - I don't know that I agree cantrips should be seen that way. Looking back at 3.5, swift-action spells were pretty rare (especially in core) whereas bonus action spells are all over the place in 5e. I imagine a big reason they were able to open the floodgates like that is because of this rule. In addition, cantrips are pretty meaningful, both due to their character-level scaling and the much more limited nature of spell slots in this edition. Having something free and scaling I can fall back on as a caster usually doesn't feel underwhelming at all; so long as I've cast a leveled spell every turn I'm more than contributing imo.

[Silly Name]

My two cents are that the rule, as it currently exists, is bad becuase it's needlessly complicated, counter-intuitive and poorly presented. It's an hassle to teach to newbies (who are often disappointed by realising the rules are preventing them from doing the cool thing they planned on), and the way it's structured makes it an ache to remember properly ("wait, is the cantrip supposed to be the action or the reaction?" something I've asked myself far too many times).

Now I don't disagree that it serves to avoid some crazy spell interaction shenanigans, but I would rather it be something quick and easy to comprehend like some other forumites' suggestion of simply one leveled spell per turn.

[Intregus182]

What i would try running is this.

Remove the rule altogether. Instead add a general rule that says something along the lines of

"You can't cast the same spell twice on your turn"

That way twinned spell can still work as the specific that breaks the rule.

Granted twinned spell doesnt allow for aoe spells but i think this is the best compromise to avoid dual fireballs and lightning bolts while still allowing fun combos like healing word + Guiding bolt

[Willie the Duck]

As far as your regular action being "underwhelming" - I don't know that I agree cantrips should be seen that way. Looking back at 3.5, swift-action spells were pretty rare (especially in core) whereas bonus action spells are all over the place in 5e. I imagine a big reason they were able to open the floodgates like that is because of this rule. In addition, cantrips are pretty meaningful, both due to their character-level scaling and the much more limited nature of spell slots in this edition. Having something free and scaling I can fall back on as a caster usually doesn't feel underwhelming at all; so long as I've cast a leveled spell every turn I'm more than contributing imo.

I wasn't specifically thinking specifically of cantrips. You can healing word and attack, or would you rather just Cure Wounds? Underwhelming might be overly harsh. How about 'limited?' You aren't getting that healing word off along with a Dispel Magic, or a Spirit Guardians, or Banishment. I'm wondering if people think it is an intended constraint on healing word, or if it just got caught in the bonus action spell crossfire, so to speak.

[Asmotherion]

2) Yes, get rid of it completely and let the Sorcerer do Fireball Quicken Fireball.

Why? Because it's cool, and the Sorcerer needs his cool gimmick. Wizards are... well veratile is an understatement, and Bards get to cherry pick from everyone's spell list. Warlocks get EB and Invocations to boost it. Clerics have access to their whole spell list anytime they rest, and Druids have Wildshape and other gimmicks that make them special.

Sorcerers have Metamagic; Metamagic should give them an edge, and "double fireball" makes it worth choosing to be a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard (Multiclass excluded).

About it being too OP; I don't think so. On Average, a single fireball deals 24 AoE damage at level 5 when it comes online, close to the average damage an averagelly built character would deal (21) with their action, without using any resource at the same level. Action Surge, Divine Smite+Smite Spell, Quickened Eldritch Blast and other "Optimised Builds" deal around twice as much damage.

Overall, I do think it's a powerfull "combo" but not nearly as powerful as a Diviner's Portent or a Paladin-Warlock's Double Smite.

[Telok]

In other words, your options for two spells are: {leveled bonus, cantrip action}; and {cantrip bonus, cantrip action}. You can't do {cantrip bonus, leveled action} as written.

Not sure why tbh.

Sloppy writing & unwilling to admit mistakes is the only reason I've found to make sense.

Like all the jank with melee attack with weapon vs. attack with melee weapon vs. melee weapon attack vs melee weapon spell attack vs. melee spell weapon attack, and all the "whats a weapon" junk that mixes it up. You can just drop it to melee-ranged-spell as the only differences and everything works fine.

[Willie the Duck]

About it being too OP; I don't think so. On Average, a single fireball deals 24 AoE damage at level 5 when it comes online, close to the average damage an averagelly built character would deal (21) with their action, without using any resource at the same level. Action Surge, Divine Smite+Smite Spell, Quickened Eldritch Blast and other "Optimised Builds" deal around twice as much damage.

Average damage would be 28 (8x3.5). I think the issue is the application. AoE and optimal single-target damage serve different scenarios. A caster who gets initiative before the horde closes with the PCs definitely wipes out the goblins (possibly missing some who make their save on a really low damage roll); undoubtedly wipes out the orcs that don't save, but quite possibly not getting the ones who do (need just above average damage to make a sure thing), and certainly won't take the ogres. A double-fireball, well it all but makes certain anything but the ogres (and a bit of luck and they are out too). That has some pretty powerful effect on what kind of challenges a party finds trivial/easy/hard. I don't know whether that fits the bill for OP (honestly, hypnotic pattern plus quickened blindness to take out the important guy who made their save might be a more worrisome scenario), but it certainly changes the game a fair bit.

[diplomancer]

Healing Word + Cure Wounds is not much. What might be too much is Healing Word (to bring back from 0 HP) + Polymorph

[Jervis]

-snip-

One of the problems with clerics in this edition compared to 3.5 is how the mechanics changed. Clerics had and still do have really good buffs, but concentration means you can only have one up. They had some good save or dies at high levels like slay living, but those don’t really exist any more. They had domains that gave massive amounts of customization in terms of spell access to give strong options at every level, but 5e only does subclasses so domains can only give a closed list of spells up to 5th level now and you have no options outside of that. So what clerics got instead is a hyper specialization in the action economy. That’s good but in practice clerics become GamePlan.class. You cast bless from level 1-4. You cast SG from level 5+. You cast SW from 3+. At about round 2 of the combat you get set up with your combo and use your action to heal, cast a cantrip, and shoot a crossbow. Some subclasses will work in a channel divinity. Remove options from this list as needed depending on spell slot expenditure for the day. I love clerics but the cleric playstyle is as unavoidable as taking agonizing blast on a warlock. It’s especially frustrating given how many spells you prepare. Granted that lets you load up on healing and situational options (I once unironically prepared ceremony because I didn’t have anything to lose I cared to grab) but still. It’s like a speedometer that goes up to 200 MPH and only using the first 60, you want to push things a bit harder sometimes

[Psyren]

Healing Word + Cure Wounds is not much. What might be too much is Healing Word (to bring back from 0 HP) + Polymorph

It's not much for one person, no - but being able to heal/revive two people at once may have been one of the things they were concerned about.
I can only go off supposition though.


One of the problems with clerics in this edition compared to 3.5 is how the mechanics changed. Clerics had and still do have really good buffs, but concentration means you can only have one up. They had some good save or dies at high levels like slay living, but those don’t really exist any more. They had domains that gave massive amounts of customization in terms of spell access to give strong options at every level, but 5e only does subclasses so domains can only give a closed list of spells up to 5th level now and you have no options outside of that. So what clerics got instead is a hyper specialization in the action economy. That’s good but in practice clerics become GamePlan.class. You cast bless from level 1-4. You cast SG from level 5+. You cast SW from 3+. At about round 2 of the combat you get set up with your combo and use your action to heal, cast a cantrip, and shoot a crossbow. Some subclasses will work in a channel divinity. Remove options from this list as needed depending on spell slot expenditure for the day. I love clerics but the cleric playstyle is as unavoidable as taking agonizing blast on a warlock. It’s especially frustrating given how many spells you prepare. Granted that lets you load up on healing and situational options (I once unironically prepared ceremony because I didn’t have anything to lose I cared to grab) but still. It’s like a speedometer that goes up to 200 MPH and only using the first 60, you want to push things a bit harder sometimes

To be fair, you need to prepare spells to use them as rituals too (unless of course you're a wizard) so having what looks on the surface to be like more preparations than you can use matters for that reason.


Sloppy writing & unwilling to admit mistakes is the only reason I've found to make sense.

Like all the jank with melee attack with weapon vs. attack with melee weapon vs. melee weapon attack vs melee weapon spell attack vs. melee spell weapon attack, and all the "whats a weapon" junk that mixes it up. You can just drop it to melee-ranged-spell as the only differences and everything works fine.

I agree it's sloppy writing. Far more elegant and workable is something simple like "Leveled spells demand additional focus from their casters. Regardless of which action you use, you can only cast one leveled spell per turn."

[Jervis]

It's not much for one person, no - but being able to heal/revive two people at once may have been one of the things they were concerned about.
I can only go off supposition though.



To be fair, you need to prepare spells to use them as rituals too (unless of course you're a wizard) so having what looks on the surface to be like more preparations than you can use matters for that reason.



I agree it's sloppy writing. Far more elegant and workable is something simple like "Leveled spells demand additional focus from their casters. Regardless of which action you use, you can only cast one leveled spell per turn."

That writing would be a lot better but i’m 90% sure that didn’t do that because of the existence of action surge and fighter dips. That said I wish they would nuke action surge from orbit and give fighters a feature that feels like an actual fighter feature, instead of something that most of the classes in the game can put to better use.

Also yeah the ritual casting bit is a fair point.

[Psyren]

Feels like there are two threads on the same topic :smalltongue:

I don't really care either way whether they keep unrestricted action surge double-spell or not, but if they do, that would be an easy enough exception to bake into Action Surge itself.

[MrStabby]

2) Yes, get rid of it completely and let the Sorcerer do Fireball Quicken Fireball.

Why? Because it's cool, and the Sorcerer needs his cool gimmick. Wizards are... well veratile is an understatement, and Bards get to cherry pick from everyone's spell list. Warlocks get EB and Invocations to boost it. Clerics have access to their whole spell list anytime they rest, and Druids have Wildshape and other gimmicks that make them special.

Sorcerers have Metamagic; Metamagic should give them an edge, and "double fireball" makes it worth choosing to be a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard (Multiclass excluded).

About it being too OP; I don't think so. On Average, a single fireball deals 24 AoE damage at level 5 when it comes online, close to the average damage an averagelly built character would deal (21) with their action, without using any resource at the same level. Action Surge, Divine Smite+Smite Spell, Quickened Eldritch Blast and other "Optimised Builds" deal around twice as much damage.

Overall, I do think it's a powerfull "combo" but not nearly as powerful as a Diviner's Portent or a Paladin-Warlock's Double Smite.

I don't think this is a fair comparison. You undersell fireball badly. Firstly, you underestimate its average damage, but in the bigger picture this is a small issue. When adding up the damage it does do, you don't multiply by the number of enemies it hits. And you seem, as far as I can tell, to be comparing to a fighter that always hits (though with the more modest sword and board type damage - I am guessing an 18 strength, dualist fighting style and a rapier/longsword to get 21?)- and sure some creatures might save vs fireball but even if they do they still take half damage unlike the zero damage from a sword.

I mean fireball is a good spell - double fireball is encounter ending for so much at this kind of level. Remember when you drop an encounter ending effect, you are telling your team mates that they are to stop playing now (or at least to skip combat, because its over). If they also wanted to have fun then this can be an issue. If there is another edition/adaptation of D&D I want less of this kind of thing, not more.

[Kane0]

Metamagic in general is undertuned with most of the rules being far too restrictive.
Also 5.5 should remove metamagic adept.

Agreed, but that is a separate issue distinct from (but related to) the OP.



What i would try running is this.
"You can't cast the same spell twice on your turn"
That way twinned spell can still work as the specific that breaks the rule



Sloppy writing & unwilling to admit mistakes is the only reason I've found to make sense.

Like all the jank with melee attack with weapon vs. attack with melee weapon vs. melee weapon attack vs melee weapon spell attack vs. melee spell weapon attack, and all the "whats a weapon" junk that mixes it up. You can just drop it to melee-ranged-spell as the only differences and everything works fine.
My current houserule is 'You can only cast one levelled (non-cantrip) spell on your turn'.

I'm still weighing up if I want to make an exception for spells not cast via the Spellcasting or Pact Magic features, such as those gained from race, feats or magic items. An alternative would be 'You can only expend one spell slot on your turn' which also permits things like Shadow Monk Ki spells, aberrant sorc sorcery point spells and wizard mastery/signature spells but encompasses more things that use spell slots as fuel like paladin smites, Moon druid self-heals and artillerist cannons. So pros and cons there.

And yeah, cleaning up the whole weapon/attack nomenclature is another thing I'd like to see happen. Any attack is either melee or ranged, and either physical or magical. Or something like that. Then you hang things off one or two of those aspects at a time, and/or weapon traits if you really need to (but personally I wouldn't bother most of the time).

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Agreed, but that is a separate issue distinct from (but related to) the OP.



My current houserule is 'You can only cast one levelled (non-cantrip) spell on your turn'.

I'm still weighing up if I want to make an exception for spells not cast via the Spellcasting or Pact Magic features, such as those gained from race, feats or magic items. An alternative would be 'You can only expend one spell slot on your turn' which also permits things like Shadow Monk Ki spells, aberrant sorc sorcery point spells and wizard mastery/signature spells but encompasses more things that use spell slots as fuel like paladin smites, Moon druid self-heals and artillerist cannons. So pros and cons there.

And yeah, cleaning up the whole weapon/attack nomenclature is another thing I'd like to see happen. Any attack is either melee or ranged, and either physical or magical. Or something like that. Then you hang things off one or two of those aspects at a time, and/or weapon traits if you really need to (but personally I wouldn't bother most of the time).

So to clarify your houserule, does that mean you could for example:
A) Cast a leveled spell as an action and a cantrip as a bonus action?
But not:
B) Use Silvery Barbs as a reaction on the spell you just cast as an action?

[Kane0]

Currently yes, that's right.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Currently yes, that's right.

My first thought is that I like it. It's a lot cleaner than RAW.

[Ortho]

Seems like the intent is that you can't cast more than one levelled spell in a turn. Caster-martial disparity is still kind of a thing, so I don't think we should give buffs where they're not needed. I say keep the "one spell, one cantrip" limitation and just clean up the slapdash wording so the order of casting doesn't matter. Also allow Sorcerers to ignore it via metamagic.


Bards get to cherry pick from everyone's spell list

Y'know, I've never really understood the hype for Magical Secrets. Bards can nab 6 spells, which is not a high number, and even that is spread across 9 levels. And you can't get the spells back if you want to swap them out, since they're not on the bard spell list. It's a good feature, but it's really not the game-changer I see it presented as.

[Amnestic]

I agree it's sloppy writing. Far more elegant and workable is something simple like "Leveled spells demand additional focus from their casters. Regardless of which action you use, you can only cast one leveled spell per turn."

Not that I really have a problem with this as a result, but it would stop them using their reaction spells on their turn - can't counterspell being counterspelled, can't Shield against an opportunity attack or Silvery Barbs the enemy save throw.

I'm fine with that, but just something to be aware of as a (potential unintended) consequence.

[stoutstien]

Y'know, I've never really understood the hype for Magical Secrets. Bards can nab 6 spells, which is not a high number, and even that is spread across 9 levels. And you can't get the spells back if you want to swap them out, since they're not on the bard spell list. It's a good feature, but it's really not the game-changer I see it presented as.
Depends on table and party but theoretically you're not picking six spells you're picking the very six spells that will have the highest impact for the party including those hiding on the the half casters so bards are the only ones that could potentially gain access to them at that point in the game. Circle of power for example is often overlooked because only T4 pallys have it.

[Asmotherion]

I don't think this is a fair comparison. You undersell fireball badly. Firstly, you underestimate its average damage, but in the bigger picture this is a small issue. When adding up the damage it does do, you don't multiply by the number of enemies it hits. And you seem, as far as I can tell, to be comparing to a fighter that always hits (though with the more modest sword and board type damage - I am guessing an 18 strength, dualist fighting style and a rapier/longsword to get 21?)- and sure some creatures might save vs fireball but even if they do they still take half damage unlike the zero damage from a sword.

I mean fireball is a good spell - double fireball is encounter ending for so much at this kind of level. Remember when you drop an encounter ending effect, you are telling your team mates that they are to stop playing now (or at least to skip combat, because its over). If they also wanted to have fun then this can be an issue. If there is another edition/adaptation of D&D I want less of this kind of thing, not more.

The question is "how many times can you do it"? You can also end an encounter with sleep, a first level spell. Why is sleep not given the "OP" treatment? Because it doesn't kill?

Fact remains you can do your "OP" tricks limited times per day.

If there's a new edition of D&D coming out, I would be more interested in buffing the Fighter around dealing that amount of (AoE) damage (the old edition Cleave and Combat Maneuvers from ToB comes to mind), rather than nerfing the caster to the fighter's level, is what I'm trying to say.

[MrStabby]

Depends on table and party but theoretically you're not picking six spells you're picking the very six spells that will have the highest impact for the party including those hiding on the the half casters so bards are the only ones that could potentially gain access to them at that point in the game. Circle of power for example is often overlooked because only T4 pallys have it.

I think circle of power comes up quie frequently in discussions around why the Twilight cleric is so good.


The question is "how many times can you do it"? You can also end an encounter with sleep, a first level spell. Why is sleep not given the "OP" treatment? Because it doesn't kill?

Fact remains you can do your "OP" tricks limited times per day.

If there's a new edition of D&D coming out, I would be more interested in buffing the Fighter around dealing that amount of (AoE) damage (the old edition Cleave and Combat Maneuvers from ToB comes to mind), rather than nerfing the caster to the fighter's level, is what I'm trying to say.

I would argue that sleep is as bad for stealing other people's fun. The slight difference is that the spell basically only does that for a session or two because you level up to the point where it is more reasonable very quickly indeed.

And the limited times per day argument is just one that I don't buy. So you suck the fun out of an encounter for your team mates "limited times per day" - does it make it OK? If you only have two spell slots so only screw up their fun two times is it OK? And if the other caster in the party does it another two times?

I don't mind spells being quite varied in their power but I do feel that there should be an upper limit on encounter impact that is low enough to allow the rest of the party to meaningfully contribute. Whilst I get that this is an outragious fantasy to have about D&D, I think steps that take us further away from it are bad.

[False God]

No. Opportunity costs are important to game balance.

Having a special effect that lets a certain class do it sometimes is fine. But it should be something that class gets to do at the expense of stuff other casters do normally.

[Psyren]

Not that I really have a problem with this as a result, but it would stop them using their reaction spells on their turn - can't counterspell being counterspelled, can't Shield against an opportunity attack or Silvery Barbs the enemy save throw.

I'm fine with that, but just something to be aware of as a (potential unintended) consequence.

Well, you already can't do those things if you cast a bonus action leveled spell that turn. I agree that preventing those things if you cast an action leveled spell is something to look into though. I think your reaction should always be available for spellcasting since the reaction itself already has restrictions on its use and a hefty opportunity cost.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm just a mean person who hates spellcasting, but I could go for an even simpler rule. One spell period per turn. Then give quicken the ability to also cast a cantrip that turn (basically status quo).

Or the really mean variant: one spell per round. :)

[Amechra]

Related question:

Ignoring outliers like Eldritch Blast, how broken would it be if Quicken Spell was just "You may cast cantrips with a casting time of one action as a bonus action", with no use limit?

I'm considering a houserule where sorcerers get to use metamagic on their cantrips for free, you see.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Related question:

Ignoring outliers like Eldritch Blast, how broken would it be if Quicken Spell was just "You may cast cantrips with a casting time of one action as a bonus action", with no use limit?

I'm considering a houserule where sorcerers get to use metamagic on their cantrips for free, you see.

Does it still lock out casting a leveled spell that turn (assuming default rules)? Because I'd say that's worse than present. Sure, you can use it whenever, but that means you're doing 2 cantrips, which isn't much.

[Amnestic]

Does it still lock out casting a leveled spell that turn (assuming default rules)? Because I'd say that's worse than present. Sure, you can use it whenever, but that means you're doing 2 cantrips, which isn't much.

While item rarity can be a bit...scattershot in 5e, the Illusionist's Bracers (Ravnica) would rate such a feature as equivalent to a Very Rare item and an attunement slot.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While item rarity can be a bit...scattershot in 5e, the Illusionist's Bracers (Ravnica) would rate such a feature as equivalent to a Very Rare item and an attunement slot.

Personally, I think that their attempts at balance (which never were any good to begin with) were completely abandoned for the Ravnica book, in any direction. Of course, that item's a lot better on a warlock with agonizing EB. On a stock sorcerer? Yeah, not so much.

Edit: I guess if you've got a strong source of a regular action, such as Extra Attack, or bladetrips + a source of extra damage (aka divine smite), it gets a lot better. Such as a sorcadin.

[OldTrees1]

Related question:

Ignoring outliers like Eldritch Blast, how broken would it be if Quicken Spell was just "You may cast cantrips with a casting time of one action as a bonus action", with no use limit?

I'm considering a houserule where sorcerers get to use metamagic on their cantrips for free, you see.

Assume the sorcerer was casting a leveled spell. Now they get a free attack cantrip that scaled with their level. Sure Sorcerer cantrips are not as strong as Warlock Eldritch Blast, but it is still an attack that scales with level. (unless this option is still disabled)

Assume the sorcerer was casting an attack cantrip. Now they get x2 damage.

Assume the sorcerer knows Minor Illusion. If Minor Illusion is ever better than an attack cantrip, they can use it in addition to their previous plan.


This sounds a bit stronger than the level 5/11 bumps classes get, partially because it synergizes with and it does not take the Sorcerer's level 5/11 bumps.


That said, I like the houserule because I like passive improvements over resource based improvements. It would be nice if the 5.5 Sorcerer was reconfigured to allow something like this.

[stoutstien]

I usually just let them combine 2 spells together with an increased cost and some form of risk added on.

[Pex]

Related question:

Ignoring outliers like Eldritch Blast, how broken would it be if Quicken Spell was just "You may cast cantrips with a casting time of one action as a bonus action", with no use limit?

I'm considering a houserule where sorcerers get to use metamagic on their cantrips for free, you see.

At its most basic, at 5th level the Sorcerer is doing Fire Bolt Quicken Fire Bolt for two attacks of 2d8 damage each, so 4d8 from 120 ft away. An archer warrior with two attacks is doing in total 2d8 + 8. It gets better for Sorcerers based on what other spell they cast in addition the free Fire Bolt. Will your players be ok with that?

[KorvinStarmast]

It has been a common event in games I play of players getting annoyed when they can't cast two leveled spells on their turn unless the action spell is a cantrip. They abide by it when reminded but are still disappointed. Waah.


The question is, should 5.5E in 2024 change this rule? No.
Casters already have enough options, but you have to make choices and choices have consequences.
Have them take an Econ 101 class so that they can learn what an opportunity cost is.

[Pex]

Waah.
No.
Casters already have enough options, but you have to make choices and choices have consequences.
Have them take an Econ 101 class so that they can learn what an opportunity cost is.

Ok then. :smallbiggrin:

[Jervis]

Waah.
No.
Casters already have enough options, but you have to make choices and choices have consequences.
Have them take an Econ 101 class so that they can learn what an opportunity cost is.

To play devil’s advocate here. The two classes it would help most are sorcerer, the worst fullcaster in the game who’s only consolation prize is metamagic, and cleric who’s BA is tied up most turns with SW anyway so the main benefit would be getting off more healing and support spells in turns where they matter. Wizards don’t have a ton of BA options, bards have BA competition anyway, the druid is a dire sheep so he can’t do much with this. So the buffs would most benefit a underpowered class who’s biggest draws are casting firebolt in the same turn as a blasting spell and some decent subclasses, and the most pro teamwork caster in the game who wouldn’t use it very often.

[False God]

I'm just a mean person who hates spellcasting, but I could go for an even simpler rule. One spell period per turn. Then give quicken the ability to also cast a cantrip that turn (basically status quo).

Or the really mean variant: one spell per round. :)

Honestly, if every other action Bonus, "Move", "Reaction" is supposed to be a lesser kind of action than your primary Action, one spell per round makes absolute sense. Only an Action has enough "time" to let you cast a spell.

Personally I think D&D should do away with separate Bonus and Reaction entirely. Every player gets 2 Actions per turn (yes I realize this could mean double spells), BUT everything is now an action. Interact with an object? Action. Drop a weapon? Action. Draw a weapon? Action. Reaction? It's now just an Action you didn't use on your turn.

[Jervis]

Honestly, if every other action Bonus, "Move", "Reaction" is supposed to be a lesser kind of action than your primary Action, one spell per round makes absolute sense. Only an Action has enough "time" to let you cast a spell.

Personally I think D&D should do away with separate Bonus and Reaction entirely. Every player gets 2 Actions per turn (yes I realize this could mean double spells), BUT everything is now an action. Interact with an object? Action. Drop a weapon? Action. Draw a weapon? Action. Reaction? It's now just an Action you didn't use on your turn.

This is one of those rules that sounds good in theory until you actually play it it’s it and realize just how bad it screws over martial characters. Full round action to swap to a bow or javelin.

[False God]

This is one of those rules that sounds good in theory until you actually play it it’s it and realize just how bad it screws over martial characters. Full round action to swap to a bow or javelin.

In my experience, it doesn't, because weapon changes are about as common as needing to swap your spellbook, which is to say, almost never.
If you're disarmed, it's just drawing a new weapon, which still leaves the other Action.

I could see the argument for dropping an object as a free action, but you're still only getting one of those per turn.
So if your weapon is broken, you're drawing a new weapon as an Action, and still only getting one Attack Action, which is what we already have now.

You can still include Feats like "Quick Draw" that would allow you to "Draw" or "Stow" up to two times in any combination as an Action.

The purpose of the change is to eliminate unnecessary "actions" that are somehow different or special compared to just good ol' "Action" and to allow more options for the player on when and how they want to use their actions. IME: from my playtime in other games with this rule, it generally makes combat more interactive and gives combat more flow as well as keeps players at the table, instead of allowing folks to "okay i attack" and then walk away until they get attacked or the next round. Running primarily martial characters, I've never felt "screwed over" by this system.

Is being a caster harder than being a martial? Yes, but that's a general D&D problem. The game focuses most combat up-front, and anyone who by design isn't up front gets an easier time of gameplay. It's left largely up to DMs to correct for this problem.

[Psyren]

In my experience, it doesn't, because weapon changes are about as common as needing to swap your spellbook, which is to say, almost never.
If you're disarmed, it's just drawing a new weapon, which still leaves the other Action.

If you're a barbarian trying to keep your rage going with no targets in range, action to drop and action to draw your javelin, none left to throw it. Martial screwed. Yet another horrible idea for them.

[Jervis]

In

You can still include Feats like "Quick Draw" that would allow you to "Draw" or "Stow" up to two times in any combination as an Action.


That my friend is called a feat tax, and for all the love i have for 3.5 it’s the worst thing about the system and why martials get memed on so much. Taking a feat to function isn’t good design, if something is a given that everyone is going to use them just make it part of the base kit. It’s why EB being a cantrip you can pick and Agonizing Blast being technically optional are such bad design.

I fail to see how this makes anything “interactive”. You’re just giving someone the choice to do nothing for a turn or not do nothing for a turn. Casters can just keep doing the same thing while martial classes pay a tax for power they don’t really have to begin with

[Kane0]

-snip-

What about things like the EKs weapon bond?

Also, you know how TWF kinda sucks cause you have twice the number of weapons you need to draw/sheathe but on the other hand archers can draw and knock arrows as much as they want? What about casters pulling out the right components from their pouch or do they get a free pass by using a focus?

[False God]

That my friend is called a feat tax, and for all the love i have for 3.5 it’s the worst thing about the system and why martials get memed on so much. Taking a feat to function isn’t good design, if something is a given that everyone is going to use them just make it part of the base kit. It’s why EB being a cantrip you can pick and Agonizing Blast being technically optional are such bad design.

I fail to see how this makes anything “interactive”. You’re just giving someone the choice to do nothing for a turn or not do nothing for a turn. Casters can just keep doing the same thing while martial classes pay a tax for power they don’t really have to begin with

I've never played a martial character were regular weapon swapping was necessary for functioning. I've done it as an amusing character element but it wasn't necessary to gameplay.

D&D is harder on martials. That's been the case for 30+ years.


If you're a barbarian trying to keep your rage going with no targets in range, action to drop and action to draw your javelin, none left to throw it. Martial screwed. Yet another horrible idea for them.

If you're a barbarian and there are SO MANY targets that keeping your rage going for more rounds is absolutely necessary but none of them are close enough to run up and hit, you're probably in a situation where this is a supposed to be a challenge you have to resolve. And I'm not sure being an automatic javelin-thrower is gameplay I care about supporting.


What about things like the EKs weapon bond?

Also, you know how TWF kinda sucks cause you have twice the number of weapons you need to draw/sheathe but on the other hand archers can draw and knock arrows as much as they want? What about casters pulling out the right components from their pouch or do they get a free pass by using a focus?
TWF has always kinda sucked without a lot of feat support. I'm not here to solve all of D&D's problems, I do that by playing other games. Other games have good ideas for where D&D could improve (IMO).

Nothing I proposed drastically alters the way the game functions now. It just cleans up unnecessary alternate versions of actions.

[bkwrm79]

In my experience, it doesn't, because weapon changes are about as common as needing to swap your spellbook, which is to say, almost never.

I think that's heavily dependent on party composition, as well as the length and complexity of combats. My Eldritch Knight archer is also the only character in that party who can tank, so dropping/stowing/drawing weapons happens most combats, often more than once. I usually need to use the bonus action as well as object interaction rules to pull it off, but it would be completely impossible with the proposed changes.

[False God]

I think that's heavily dependent on party composition, as well as the length and complexity of combats. My Eldritch Knight archer is also the only character in that party who can tank, so dropping/stowing/drawing weapons happens most combats, often more than once. I usually need to use the bonus action as well as object interaction rules to pull it off, but it would be completely impossible with the proposed changes.

It would be possible, just slower.

Poor party composition and your party forcing you to take roles you didn't design for isn't a game design problem. Every class is intended to fill a specific niche/role, and while they can be built for different roles, they still ultimately only occupy one for the majority of gameplay, sometimes with a secondary role that they do less well on the side.

Saying "My character can't do the thing it wasn't built for, therefore the rules are bad!" seems a suspect argument.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It would be possible, just slower.

Poor party composition and your party forcing you to take roles you didn't design for isn't a game design problem. Every class is intended to fill a specific niche/role, and while they can be built for different roles, they still ultimately only occupy one for the majority of gameplay, sometimes with a secondary role that they do less well on the side.

Saying "My character can't do the thing it wasn't built for, therefore the rules are bad!" seems a suspect argument.

Except casters. Who don't pay any of those penalties. They can now even cast two spells per turn instead of just one.

[Tanarii]

Leave it as it is and change Healing Word to an Action to cast.
Then make Cure Wounds a bonus action that explicitly is an exception to the rule, so it can be cast with another leveled spell.

Misty Step and a leveled spell? Nope.
Hex and a leveled spell? Nope.
Smites and a leveled spell? Paladins don't do that so doesn't really matter.
Shillelagh and a leveled spell? Clearly breaks the game. :smallamused:

[False God]

Except casters. Who don't pay any of those penalties. They can now even cast two spells per turn instead of just one.

Which a martial(including ranged types who aren't limited by melee reach) character can do as well provided they have a target to hit. And no, don't suggest the martial needs to switch weapons very turn.

Casters already pay less penalties on everything in every aspect of the game. If they need to be brought down another peg, that's a completely different design issue that more or less Actions per turn does not even attempt to address.

The rule should have been from the start: one spell per turn. There's nothing wrong with it. Two Actions is a rule for simplification of all the extraneous "not-an-action-but-action-like" actions.

There are a number of improvements that could be made to the system, and IMO, "Two Actions" (in place of Bonus and Reaction) is only a part of that puzzle. There hasn't been a fundamental change to the structure of the D&D "turn" for decades and frankly, games not tied to D&D's specific turn setup offer some serious alternatives.

[JNAProductions]

Imma echo the others that the suggested two action system seems bad.

It comes with a bunch of issues, and doesn’t really seem to improve anything.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Which a martial(including ranged types who aren't limited by melee reach) character can do as well provided they have a target to hit. And no, don't suggest the martial needs to switch weapons very turn.

Casters already pay less penalties on everything in every aspect of the game. If they need to be brought down another peg, that's a completely different design issue that more or less Actions per turn does not even attempt to address.

The rule should have been from the start: one spell per turn. There's nothing wrong with it. Two Actions is a rule for simplification of all the extraneous "not-an-action-but-action-like" actions.

There are a number of improvements that could be made to the system, and IMO, "Two Actions" (in place of Bonus and Reaction) is only a part of that puzzle. There hasn't been a fundamental change to the structure of the D&D "turn" for decades and frankly, games not tied to D&D's specific turn setup offer some serious alternatives.

But it makes it worse. Changing the core turn structure is a massive overhaul that touches every other thing. Other systems were designed from the ground up around those systems. There are some things that are baked in and can't really be changed later without rebuilding everything else.

[Jervis]

It would be possible, just slower.

Poor party composition and your party forcing you to take roles you didn't design for isn't a game design problem. Every class is intended to fill a specific niche/role, and while they can be built for different roles, they still ultimately only occupy one for the majority of gameplay, sometimes with a secondary role that they do less well on the side.

Saying "My character can't do the thing it wasn't built for, therefore the rules are bad!" seems a suspect argument.

Expecting a person to take a full round of doing nothing to fill a common party role is the epitome of a game design problem.

[False God]

Expecting a person to take a full round of doing nothing to fill a common party role is the epitome of a game design problem.

Switching your weapons to assume a new party role is not "doing nothing".

Besides that, there are numerous instances of D&D expecting you to do just that since it's conception.

And I'm not expecting people to that, because I'm not expecting weapon changes to be a regular thing. The odd instance that you end up "doing nothing" because of the rules as opposed to your game choices on your turn should be fairly rare.


But it makes it worse. Changing the core turn structure is a massive overhaul that touches every other thing. Other systems were designed from the ground up around those systems. There are some things that are baked in and can't really be changed later without rebuilding everything else.

But the game already includes two actions(three technically). They're just called something else and more restrictive. It's still an Action, just an Action with several caveats.

[JNAProductions]

What are the benefits of the two-action system?

Give us the pros of it-because right now I’m only seeing cons.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But the game already includes two actions(three technically). They're just called something else and more restrictive. It's still an Action, just an Action with several caveats.

Except for all the things that currently don't take actions at all, but would under your system. Which conveniently only affect non-casters. Now imagine that
a) pulling a component from a pouch or interacting with a focus costs an action.
b) somatic components cost an action.
c) verbal components cost an action.

So a VSM spell always takes at least 2 turns. Does that seem fair or fun? No.

As with JNA above, I'm not seeing any upsides but lots of downsides.

[Jervis]

Switching your weapons to assume a new party role is not "doing nothing".

Besides that, there are numerous instances of D&D expecting you to do just that since it's conception.

And I'm not expecting people to that, because I'm not expecting weapon changes to be a regular thing. The odd instance that you end up "doing nothing" because of the rules as opposed to your game choices on your turn should be fairly rare.


Dnd also use to expect paladins to loose class features if they accidentally picked up a 6th magic item or played in the same party as a rogue. It expected you to act in initiative during purely social encounters. It expected you too take levels in rogue to use skills that use to fall under the skill system but now had extremely low success rates based on percentile rolls in a class table. It use to expect you to use psionics defense and attack mode rules that made psionic characters twice as complicated as everyone else to play with no real benefit. It even expected you to follow some very skuby rules in 1E that I probably can’t bring up due to forum rules and don’t wish to discuss further. The point is that if you want to use dnd doing it in the past as an argument you should give everyone 3.0 psionics and watch them juggle defensive and attack modes for 5 minutes every combat before getting to the stuff that actually matters.

[SpikeFightwicky]

I don't quite follow the reasoning behind the double spell idea. If it stems from players forgetting and being disappointed that they can't cast two non-cantrip spells a turn... I mean... I've had just as many players disappointed when they realized they already took their reaction for the round. I'm not about to let them take multiple reactions "because they forgot the rules". I can understand house ruling something like that, but not because players keep forgetting they can't cast 2 fireballs a turn. Also, as has been mentioned, giving "spell action surge" to sorcerers seems a bit powerful, and while it sets them apart from the other casters, it kicks martials a bit, and you KNOW every caster will do their best to dip into Sorc to get quicken spell.

[Phhase]

I'd like 5.5 or 6 (or whatever the next one is) just get rid of bonus actions.

I'd like to see, "It's your turn, do one thing."

...I can't see myself agreeing with this. It sounds incredibly restrictive and anemic. Action economy is already really tight as is, depending on what you're playing and what you have. Especially if you want to duel wield. This would just make it worse. 5e is already as simplistic as it needs to be.

[Kane0]

I don't quite follow the reasoning behind the double spell idea. If it stems from players forgetting and being disappointed that they can't cast two non-cantrip spells a turn... I mean... I've had just as many players disappointed when they realized they already took their reaction for the round. I'm not about to let them take multiple reactions "because they forgot the rules". I can understand house ruling something like that, but not because players keep forgetting they can't cast 2 fireballs a turn.

It doesnt help that the rule isnt actually that simple as written. You can cast as many action and reaction spells as you have actions and reactions for, its only when you cast any bonus action spells (levelled or not) that you cannot use your action to cast any spells except cantrips.

[Skrum]

Well this is on the third page, but fwiw, HARD no. Even if sorcerers are the "worst" full caster (debatable; I think bards are the worst), they're still a full caster. I.e., better than most classes.

I understand a lot of people getting blindsided by this rule, but this is core action economy. Don't mess with the action econ, especially not if it makes casters better.

[SpikeFightwicky]

It doesnt help that the rule isnt actually that simple as written. You can cast as many action and reaction spells as you have actions and reactions for, its only when you cast any bonus action spells (levelled or not) that you cannot use your action to cast any spells except cantrips.

For sure it's more of a corner case than an action or reaction spell and not something anyone would automatically know unless they read the section on casting times, but I feel like once the table knows how bonus action spells work, it shouldn't keep cropping up to the point where sorcerers are disappointed their combos don't work. I wholeheartedly agree it should be referenced in the "Quicken Spell" description, but I don't agree with changing fundamental casting rules just because no one read the PHB section on casting times. I'm sure it can be balanced to work out by upping the cost and if they change it, that's fine (assuming WotC does it in a balanced way), but the problem the OP stated sounds more like they need to clarify the mechanics of bonus action casting.

[Kane0]

I wholeheartedly agree it should be referenced in the "Quicken Spell" description, but I don't agree with changing fundamental casting rules just because no one read the PHB section on casting times.

I still reckon it's odd that Sorcerers can quicken Fireball + Firebolt, but not Fireball + quicken Firebolt. The cost and effect is the same either way.

[Jervis]

I still reckon it's odd that Sorcerers can quicken Fireball + Firebolt, but not Fireball + quicken Firebolt. The cost and effect is the same either way.

Mystra did pixie dust that night when she had to change the rules for the 5th and a half time. Poor girl has her hands full.

[Kane0]

Fair enough, good an explanation as any

[Pex]

I don't quite follow the reasoning behind the double spell idea. If it stems from players forgetting and being disappointed that they can't cast two non-cantrip spells a turn... I mean... I've had just as many players disappointed when they realized they already took their reaction for the round. I'm not about to let them take multiple reactions "because they forgot the rules". I can understand house ruling something like that, but not because players keep forgetting they can't cast 2 fireballs a turn. Also, as has been mentioned, giving "spell action surge" to sorcerers seems a bit powerful, and while it sets them apart from the other casters, it kicks martials a bit, and you KNOW every caster will do their best to dip into Sorc to get quicken spell.

To the disappointed players it's not about Fireball Quicken Fireball. They wanted to be Nice, but the rules got in the way. This mostly affects cleric players since they have the commonly used Bonus Action spells. They want to Healing Word the fighter then cast Bless. Protection From Evil on someone because fighting undead then cast Spiritual Weapon. Occasionally a cleric player wants to do Healing Word and Cure Wounds on a dropped PC.

There's nothing wrong with the rule, though I think it should be amended to one level spell total so that Action Level Spell Bonus Action Cantrip is allowed. However, I feel for the players. Sometimes a player wants to do high level spell Quicken high level spell against the bad guys, but he's still not trying to Win D&D. He's enjoying and excited about the combat he Honest True forgets the rule and loses the adrenaline rush when reminded and settles for one of the spells.

In essence the rule is getting in the way of fun, but I acknowledge getting rid of it spills worms from cans. You don't remove a fence until you know why it was built. The question is asking for the conversation about it.

[Psyren]

If you're a barbarian and there are SO MANY targets that keeping your rage going for more rounds is absolutely necessary but none of them are close enough to run up and hit, you're probably in a situation where this is a supposed to be a challenge you have to resolve. And I'm not sure being an automatic javelin-thrower is gameplay I care about supporting.

1) Well luckily for the rest of us, WotC does support it. I'll stick with their game over yours.

2) There are plenty of other reasons you can't "run up and hit" besides distance. Lots of monsters frighten for instance, which keeps you from approaching. Others fly, or teleport, or terrain is an issue, or you may not even know exactly where they are due to stealth or illusions. Chucking a javelin toward them solves all of these simply and elegantly, even if you miss.

[SpikeFightwicky]

To the disappointed players it's not about Fireball Quicken Fireball. They wanted to be Nice, but the rules got in the way. This mostly affects cleric players since they have the commonly used Bonus Action spells. They want to Healing Word the fighter then cast Bless. Protection From Evil on someone because fighting undead then cast Spiritual Weapon. Occasionally a cleric player wants to do Healing Word and Cure Wounds on a dropped PC.

There's nothing wrong with the rule, though I think it should be amended to one level spell total so that Action Level Spell Bonus Action Cantrip is allowed. However, I feel for the players. Sometimes a player wants to do high level spell Quicken high level spell against the bad guys, but he's still not trying to Win D&D. He's enjoying and excited about the combat he Honest True forgets the rule and loses the adrenaline rush when reminded and settles for one of the spells.

In essence the rule is getting in the way of fun, but I acknowledge getting rid of it spills worms from cans. You don't remove a fence until you know why it was built. The question is asking for the conversation about it.

Lol so yeah I completely forgot about Cleric bonus action spells, odd considering one of my favorite characters was a Divine Soul Sorc. That being said... I'm actually coming around to what you're suggesting. If many spells on your list are bonus actions, it would be neat if "something" could be done to allow double spells under certain circumstances. Even something simple like capping spell levels or something. I think this is an area that can be expanded to. Even if it's just a cleric and/or sorcerer thing. Tricky to implement, but I assume not impossible to do. I guess the big thing would be figuring out OP combos and finding out how to mitigate those while still allowing it under other circumstances. Would it be too restrictive to allow an expenditure of a Channel Divinity to accomplish that? Quicken could be modified to alter sorc point cost maybe...

[Kane0]

Which feels eerily similar to the requests for concentrating on more than one spell at a time, especially if one had to be X spell level. It's slowly chipping at the restrictions, and i'm not sure I like it. You could rework how the problem spells function instead (which also applies to the concentration thing).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Which feels eerily similar to the requests for concentrating on more than one spell at a time, especially if one had to be X spell level. It's slowly chipping at the restrictions, and i'm not sure I like it. You could rework how the problem spells function instead (which also applies to the concentration thing).

I absolutely don't like either one. This is how 3e went--chipping away at the "inconveniences" of spell-casting without rebalancing the power. Leading to just borked stuff. And without doing anything similar for martials--3e did the reverse in fact, mainly in the names of "realism" and "unification".

Personally, I'm of the mind that giving boosts (including what seem to be "QoL" ones) to casters at this point is everywhere going to make things worse until the system as a whole is refactored to rebalance things a bit better. Because it's always easier to give casters stuff than it is non-casters. And at some point, the gap becomes insuperable. I don't think it is now, but it's not too far off from that breaking point.

Yes, nerfs are painful. And some of these things are annoying. But the health of the game as a whole comes first, and if that means casters have to live with annoyances...well...welcome to everyone else's world. There are annoyances a plenty. Casters aren't some exempt, special breed that should be catered to. It's time for them to sit down and let everyone else get some attention for a good long while.

[Jervis]

I absolutely don't like either one. This is how 3e went--chipping away at the "inconveniences" of spell-casting without rebalancing the power. Leading to just borked stuff. And without doing anything similar for martials--3e did the reverse in fact, mainly in the names of "realism" and "unification".

Personally, I'm of the mind that giving boosts (including what seem to be "QoL" ones) to casters at this point is everywhere going to make things worse until the system as a whole is refactored to rebalance things a bit better. Because it's always easier to give casters stuff than it is non-casters. And at some point, the gap becomes insuperable. I don't think it is now, but it's not too far off from that breaking point.

Yes, nerfs are painful. And some of these things are annoying. But the health of the game as a whole comes first, and if that means casters have to live with annoyances...well...welcome to everyone else's world. There are annoyances a plenty. Casters aren't some exempt, special breed that should be catered to. It's time for them to sit down and let everyone else get some attention for a good long while.

Counterpoint. Make everyone broken so then no one will be. Give fighters fly speeds for no adequately explained reason, let rogues steal years of their enemies lifespan, let barbarians break down walls of force with a strength check. Make the game as OP and bonkers as possible. Then burn the whole thing down and start over with a new edition where everyone is a fullcaster or a nonmagical fullcaster.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Counterpoint. Make everyone broken so then no one will be. Give fighters fly speeds for no adequately explained reason, let rogues steal years of their enemies lifespan, let barbarians break down walls of force with a strength check. Make the game as OP and bonkers as possible. Then burn the whole thing down and start over with a new edition where everyone is a fullcaster or a nonmagical fullcaster.

But then you have Exalted. And we already have Exalted at home.

[Telok]

But then you have Exalted. And we already have Exalted at home.

True. But by your description, taken at face value, not only is Exalted more balanced than 5e but the way to balance 5e is to reduce what the casters can do to the same stuff as the fighters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

True. But by your description, taken at face value, not only is Exalted more balanced than 5e but the way to balance 5e is to reduce what the casters can do to the same stuff as the fighters.

No, exalted is just broken. Abandoning balance is one alternative.

And systems that are designed around gonzo can do that. Ones that aren't, like 5e, can't really do so without just shattering.

And the key to balance is deciding what you want to support and going from there for everyone. Not giving casters a free pass from any kind of annoyance or limits while holding martials to limits. But limits are essential for everyone.

Edit: oh yeah, and the first rule of holes. When you're in one, stop digging. The fact that it's already out of balance isn't an excuse to make it worse! In fact, it's a warning to stop making it worse by giving casters more and more "free stuff"! Even if you take the (bad) path of just buffing things, you'll never reach anything like sanity by buffing the one that's already ahead relative to the other. But it's worse than that--no amount of "nice stuff" can really bring things into balance more than temporarily, because the paradigm of "spells are easy, features are hard" means that the next book will take you back out of balance again. And the only way you can reach balance under the current paradigm is to make everyone full casters and turn everything into a spell. Which...won't be well received (cf 4e, which basically did that, just without saying the word "spell"). Instead, you have to change the paradigm. Abandon the "spellcasting has no limits except for what spells are printed so far" idea. Abandon the idea that casters (or anyone) should be able to do it all. Embrace the diversity of magic. Embrace archetypes and teamwork, knowing that it means you are going to usually not have the perfect answer to anything. That victories come when the team works together, not when they take turns pressing their win buttons. In fact, destroy all the win buttons. No more "this solves the situation" features, spells, or abilities. And yes, that means heavy nerfs for spell-casters...because spell-casters currently have too much of their feature-set wrapped up in win buttons (even if they're individually niche). Once you're on a sane foundation, then and only then can you start adding back in "cool stuff". Doing otherwise is building your house upon the sand.

[Psyren]

Counterpoint. Make everyone broken so then no one will be. Give fighters fly speeds for no adequately explained reason, let rogues steal years of their enemies lifespan, let barbarians break down walls of force with a strength check. Make the game as OP and bonkers as possible. Then burn the whole thing down and start over with a new edition where everyone is a fullcaster or a nonmagical fullcaster.

I truly can't envision there being sufficient demand for this version of 5e to make it a remotely good idea for WotC to try making official. But if I'm truly not seeing the groundswell of demand for this that exists out there, throwing it up on DM's Guild should prove the thesis.

[Jervis]

I truly can't envision there being sufficient demand for this version of 5e to make it a remotely good idea for WotC to try making official. But if I'm truly not seeing the groundswell of demand for this that exists out there, throwing it up on DM's Guild should prove the thesis.

To be perfectly honest I have been working on my own “ok, I’ll do it myself” 5e patch that changes most of the game, at least on the players end, the math is the same so monster statblocks work fine. It puts me in an awkward position though because I don’t like DMsguild rules, namely the fact that you loose the rights to what you publish there. Yeah you get to use content outside of OGC but I can’t say that benefit is worth it for any project more complex than a subclass pack. So if I finish this it’s most likely going up on DTRPG with just the stuff anyone can Sue of their own games included.

[Psyren]

To be perfectly honest I have been working on my own “ok, I’ll do it myself” 5e patch that changes most of the game, at least on the players end, the math is the same so monster statblocks work fine. It puts me in an awkward position though because I don’t like DMsguild rules, namely the fact that you loose the rights to what you publish there. Yeah you get to use content outside of OGC but I can’t say that benefit is worth it for any project more complex than a subclass pack. So if I finish this it’s most likely going up on DTRPG with just the stuff anyone can Sue of their own games included.

I can't and won't give you legal advice of course, but have you read the DM's Guild FAQ (https://support.dmsguild.com/hc/en-us/articles/217520927-Ownership-and-License-OGL-Questions) and run it by your lawyer?

[Jervis]

I can't and won't give you legal advice of course, but have you read the DM's Guild FAQ (https://support.dmsguild.com/hc/en-us/articles/217520927-Ownership-and-License-OGL-Questions) and run it by your lawyer?

Without going into legal advice and potentially getting bonked by the mods, the specific reason is that they get exclusive rights to publish anything you sell through there so you can’t have versions of it posted elsewhere, free or commercial. You also can’t sell physical copies of it without some pre-existing agreement with them that I’ve heard is hard to arrange. I have other reasons for not wanting to use DMsguild but it’s mostly that the potential legal awkwardness and WotC/DTRPG taking a bigger share isn’t worth the benefit of being able to mention Mystra by name and referencing spells I’ll probably not be using anyway from existing sourcebooks. At least not to me.

[Waazraath]

" 1) No, leave it as is. Sorry."

Just in case voting is still open.

[Segev]

The big thing, these days, that seems to hold martials back is structure: spells are highly modular and can be slotted in to classes all over the place. An old 1e and 2e solution that is also a 5e solution is to have a lot more spell access, even for martials, just keeping (in 5e) a higher focus on "martial-like" spells for the martials. But the more a class is dependent on class features alone, the more narrow its power is going to be, because class features are limited to 23 or so at maximum at level 20. Spellcasters - particularly full spellcasters - might get half that or fewer, but also will tend to have at least 23 spells on top of that, and the spells, again, are highly modular and flexible in what you can pick while class features tend to be rigid and pre-chosen. Even the most flexible subclasses have a handful or two of options to choose from for their features.

I stand by the notion that we need more martial maneuvers, more four-element monk elemental abilities, more totem warrior totems, and possibly more subclasses that access these for various classes to help justify the expansion. Alternatively (for the four element monk, at least), a list of spells that they can take in place of their listed choices, which are fueled by the ki formula given in the subclass entry.

Martials are not, at least in modern incarnations in 5e, held back nearly as much by "realism" or "guy at the gym" issues, but rather simply by having fewer options that are less easily expanded upon with supplemental material.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The big thing, these days, that seems to hold martials back is structure: spells are highly modular and can be slotted in to classes all over the place. An old 1e and 2e solution that is also a 5e solution is to have a lot more spell access, even for martials, just keeping (in 5e) a higher focus on "martial-like" spells for the martials. But the more a class is dependent on class features alone, the more narrow its power is going to be, because class features are limited to 23 or so at maximum at level 20. Spellcasters - particularly full spellcasters - might get half that or fewer, but also will tend to have at least 23 spells on top of that, and the spells, again, are highly modular and flexible in what you can pick while class features tend to be rigid and pre-chosen. Even the most flexible subclasses have a handful or two of options to choose from for their features.

I stand by the notion that we need more martial maneuvers, more four-element monk elemental abilities, more totem warrior totems, and possibly more subclasses that access these for various classes to help justify the expansion. Alternatively (for the four element monk, at least), a list of spells that they can take in place of their listed choices, which are fueled by the ki formula given in the subclass entry.

Martials are not, at least in modern incarnations in 5e, held back nearly as much by "realism" or "guy at the gym" issues, but rather simply by having fewer options that are less easily expanded upon with supplemental material.

The bold is what I was talking about with "spells as easy". And the options really are
a) give everyone spells (aka 4e)
b) rework how spells work so they're not so easy and modular.

And neither one is particularly popular. Personally, I'd prefer (b), moving spell-casters to be more dependent on fixed features and less on 'floating' features (aka spells). Does that make the game narrower? Yes. Good (IMO). I don't believe that 'can do anything you can think of' is a good, stable place for a game. You can do it for something like GURPS by having tons of modularity that the GM has to sift through and whitelist pieces, but it doesn't really work in a class-level system.

Because what happens with spells and other 'floating' features (and yes, this includes feats) is that you have a bad point-buy system--one that assumes that all these things have the same[1] cost (a feat costs a feat whether it's Charger or PAM, a cantrip is a cantrip, a maneuver is a maneuver). And teh whole balancing point of a point-buy system is differing costs for things of differing power.

And to compare things:
A champion fighter in a featless game has 22 features, of which 9 (7x ASI, 2x fighting style) have any choices associated with them. And those choices are from a very small list, for the most part.

An evocation wizard in a featless game has 13 core features, of which 7 have direct choices associated (spellcasting, 4x ASI, spell mastery, signature spells). About the same? Well, but spellcasting alone counts as 49 features just at level up (44 "free" spells + 5 cantrips), each of which is a choice from a huge list (the number of 1st level wizard spells is comparable to the total number of feats and grows much faster). And every day they have 25 (assuming max INT) choices from that list of spells. So not even counting re-arranging spells each day, a wizard has 61 features, of which 55 are choices. And can get features outside of leveling up. And has at least as broad a selection of magic items available to them as the fighter does, so that doesn't balance out.

And adding feats only broadens the choices available to the fighter, but does nothing about number or frequency. And going to a Battle-Master fighter only increases the total choices by a few (what, 9 total maneuvers known?)--A BM has 31 features, 18 chosen. Still only half of the level up features as a wizard.

[1] or nearly the same--any first level spell has the same cost as any other first level spell, etc.

[Telok]

I stand by the notion that we need more martial maneuvers, more four-element monk elemental abilities, more totem warrior totems, and possibly more subclasses that access these for various classes to help justify the expansion.

But thats, like, work or something. Why bother when you can just whack out a few more spells & magic items and let the people who compulsively buy D&D books throw money at you? I think we can safely say martial-caster imbalance doesn't negatively impact sales (Strixhaven junk).

[Psyren]

I'd definitely be happy if they expanded the maneuvers system and made it easier for more martials to access. Alternatively they can just give martials (especially monks and barbarians) more feats so they can do it themselves.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd definitely be happy if they expanded the maneuvers system and made it easier for more martials to access. Alternatively they can just give martials (especially monks and barbarians) more feats so they can do it themselves.

AKA the 3e solution--PRINT MORE CRUFT!. We know how well that works. Ie not at all. You can't fix a structural problem by papering it over.

[Segev]

The bold is what I was talking about with "spells as easy". And the options really are
a) give everyone spells (aka 4e)/QUOTE]Eh, no. The problem with 4e was that nobody had spells. Everyone was a martial adept.

5e actually is getting away with being more generous in handing spells out to more classes because the spells remain distinct from the class features, enabling identity of character type to remain distinct rather than every character being a martial adept and every martial adept using the same basic structure for all abilities.

[QUOTE=Telok;25497117]But thats, like, work or something. Why bother when you can just whack out a few more spells & magic items and let the people who compulsively buy D&D books throw money at you? I think we can safely say martial-caster imbalance doesn't negatively impact sales (Strixhaven junk).But... why is it less work to make more spells than to make more martial maneuvers, for example?


AKA the 3e solution--PRINT MORE CRUFT!. We know how well that works. Ie not at all. You can't fix a structural problem by papering it over.You can when the "structural problem" is that you're only printing "cruft" for one subset of characters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You can when the "structural problem" is that you're only printing "cruft" for one subset of characters.

It's not. If you try to match the same sort of thing that casters have with spells...you'll just reinvent spells by a different name. And you have a crapton of catching up to do, and you have to completely rewrite all the non-casting classes. And then rebalance the whole mess. That's basically creating a new system.

Because just adding more options to the list of feats doesn't change the fact that non-casters only get 7 feats max, where the worst caster gets ~20 spells plus feats. If you add maneuver-like options to all the classes, you're looking at a full rebuild. And even those are only 9-ish choices, not the 30+ you need to keep up with wizards.

The only way to bring sanity is to cut things out. You can never reach sanity by piling on more cruft. As a software developer, that's something I've learned good and hard.

Also, just piling on more cruft means that the system becomes more and more baroque and impenetrable for new people. And ends up being pay-to-win--you have the new books or you can't build a character that can keep up.

[Psyren]

It's not. If you try to match the same sort of thing that casters have with spells...you'll just reinvent spells by a different name. And you have a crapton of catching up to do, and you have to completely rewrite all the non-casting classes. And then rebalance the whole mess. That's basically creating a new system.

Because just adding more options to the list of feats doesn't change the fact that non-casters only get 7 feats max, where the worst caster gets ~20 spells plus feats. If you add maneuver-like options to all the classes, you're looking at a full rebuild. And even those are only 9-ish choices, not the 30+ you need to keep up with wizards.

The only way to bring sanity is to cut things out. You can never reach sanity by piling on more cruft. As a software developer, that's something I've learned good and hard.

Also, just piling on more cruft means that the system becomes more and more baroque and impenetrable for new people. And ends up being pay-to-win--you have the new books or you can't build a character that can keep up.

"Cut things out" is a nonstarter when you make money through adding content though. Trebly so when you can ask any three people what should be cut, and get seven mutually-exclusive opinions in response.

So given that add-more-stuff is clearly the business model, "add more stuff to the classes that need it more" is the lesser evil.

Lastly, I think there is a middle ground between "add more stuff to martials" and "everyone is a caster."

[Tanarii]

But it's worse than that--no amount of "nice stuff" can really bring things into balance more than temporarily, because the paradigm of "spells are easy, features are hard" means that the next book will take you back out of balance again. And the only way you can reach balance under the current paradigm is to make everyone full casters and turn everything into a spell. Which...won't be well received
Worth noting that's the approach Exalted took. They made everything a Charm.

[KorvinStarmast]

To play devil’s advocate here. The two classes it would help most are sorcerer, the worst fullcaster in the game who’s only consolation prize is metamagic, and cleric who’s BA is tied up most turns with SW anyway so the main benefit would be getting off more healing and support spells in turns where they matter. Fiend's advocate says: sorcerers have meta magic. All they need (if anything) is one more MM chosen at level 7, and a spells known list that ends up with 21 total. (Two at level and one more per level after that with no gaps. IMO it would be fine to have one 'domain/origin' spell choice at spell levels 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 (like cleric gets for domain spells but):
Only one, selected from spells not already on the Sorcerer spell list (how to pick/assign those is a matter of feel, probably).

Give us the pros of it-because right now I’m only seeing cons. Another case of "trying to fix what isn't broken"

Edit: oh yeah, and the first rule of holes. When you're in one, stop digging. The fact that it's already out of balance isn't an excuse to make it worse! This also.

" 1) No, leave it as is. Sorry."
Just in case voting is still open. If I may pile on ... :smallsmile:

[Kane0]

If adding is the lesser of two evils, add something that casters will not get access to. Feats, skills, class features etc are all things casters get in addition to magic, so adding to those also adds to casters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If adding is the lesser of two evils, add something that casters will not get access to. Feats, skills, class features etc are all things casters get in addition to magic, so adding to those also adds to casters.

Very much agreed. If you have to add stuff, add things that casters can't get (or at least don't get nearly as much of). I have a wip draft of some weapon specialization features where access is gated inversely by the spell access, including subclasses. So an EK gets fewer than a champion, and a paladin gets even fewer, and a full caster gets almost none.

[Psyren]

If adding is the lesser of two evils, add something that casters will not get access to. Feats, skills, class features etc are all things casters get in addition to magic, so adding to those also adds to casters.

My suggestion was to add bonus feats (not necessarily more ASIs, though you could certainly do that) directly to the non-casters, at non-dippable levels. So that wouldn't buff the casters in any way that I can see.

[Kane0]

My suggestion was to add bonus feats (not necessarily more ASIs, though you could certainly do that) directly to the non-casters, at non-dippable levels. So that wouldn't buff the casters in any way that I can see.

Thats what they did for the fighter in 3e and 5e, and I dont think it worked. Same with rogues and skills.

[MrStabby]

Thats what they did for the fighter in 3e and 5e, and I dont think it worked. Same with rogues and skills.

I used to think that the extra ASI on the fighter in 5th sucked. To me, it was the epitome of boring class design. "Here, have something everyone else can get, not something special to your class".

Now whilst I still think that somewhat, I have to admit that the range of extra feats is sufficiently cool and flavourful and powerful that this extra ASI is able to get you something that is actually really cool. Yes someone else could get it, bu there are enough solid feats now that they probably won't.

[Psyren]

Thats what they did for the fighter in 3e and 5e, and I dont think it worked. Same with rogues and skills.

That's not a useful comparison imo. 3e Fighter was built on a fairly rotten foundation, being e.g. starved of class skills, unable to move and full-attack, no other features beyond their feats, awful saving throws and above all, no bounded accuracy so they were forced to pump Strength for their whole careers (even for archery builds, hilariously) or else be bad at even the one thing they were even halfway good at, dealing damage. Meanwhile 3e Rogue was slightly better off due to its skills (especially UMD to make them a watered-down caster) but the sheer number of things immune to sneak attack in 3e led to them being failures too.

In short, of course polishing those two turds with feats and skills didn't really help their situations much. 5e doesn't have nearly the same systemic issues however.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's not a useful comparison imo. 3e Fighter was built on a fairly rotten foundation, being e.g. starved of class skills, unable to move and full-attack, no other features beyond their feats, awful saving throws and above all, no bounded accuracy so they were forced to pump Strength for their whole careers (even for archery builds, hilariously) or else be bad at even the one thing they were even halfway good at, dealing damage. Meanwhile 3e Rogue was slightly better off due to its skills (especially UMD to make them a watered-down caster) but the sheer number of things immune to sneak attack in 3e led to them being failures too.

In short, of course polishing those two turds with feats and skills didn't really help their situations much. 5e doesn't have nearly the same systemic issues however.

But one of the big issues was that the fighter feats in 3e just weren't that impressive.

And 5e has an analogue of that--you could give a Fighter an extra Feat every single level with the stipulation that you can't take the ones that give spell-casting[1], independent of an ASI...and they'd still fall way short of a wizard's versatility. Like....orders of magnitude. And they'd mostly run short of feats to take--there just aren't that many feats that apply to any given character.

And the wizard could still swap out 25 of their features every single day.

Basically, the only knob the developers have given themselves that actually can give people versatility is giving them spells. Note that so many of the new feats have been "Magic Initiate, but...". Because they've painted themselves into a corner where the only "new things" they can do are spells.

You know what they could do that would open up a lot of things without rewriting most of the classes? Break out a lot of the "utility" spells into 4e-style rituals that anyone can learn and remove them from spell lists. Now teleport and raise dead and sending aren't locked behind the "only spells can do cool things" wall. Anyone can get them, anyone can learn them.

[1] to avoid the "you're just giving them spells" justified complaint. And even if you allow those...casters still get more versatility from them because they have spell slots from which to cast them more than once per day.

[Psyren]

Achieving "a wizard's versatility" is very much not my goal when playing a Fighter, and I'd argue it's not most other Fighter players' goal either.

[MrStabby]

I also think that versatility is somewhat situational. You can only solve the problems put in front of you. If you only face two or three types of problem, being able to solve 87 types isn't really as much of a boost.

I think this is one of the awkward things about balance; so much depends on the DM and their campaign and what's needed there. Some classes are so much better in some campaigns than others that its hard to compare.

It also changes a LOT between groups. Optimised play (or close to) is a very different balance to non optimised. If you play a wizard or bard focussing on enchantment spells because that's the character you want to play, you will be sitting out a lot of fights at higher levels due to legendard resistance and conition immunities because you chose to play a character not a class. On the other hand if you build a batman wizard that covers all bases and uses all the tools available then you will have a very different experience. When we talk about changes that could be made I want things that don't nerf the former but do nerf the latter (adjusting the distribution of power so that they are not all or nothing is fine though).

[Segev]

It's not. If you try to match the same sort of thing that casters have with spells...you'll just reinvent spells by a different name. And you have a crapton of catching up to do, and you have to completely rewrite all the non-casting classes. And then rebalance the whole mess. That's basically creating a new system.Martial maneuvers already have a non-spell mechanic. Adding more of them doesn't make them spells. Nor does it require rebalancing things any more than adding more spells does.


Because just adding more options to the list of feats doesn't change the fact that non-casters only get 7 feats max, where the worst caster gets ~20 spells plus feats. If you add maneuver-like options to all the classes, you're looking at a full rebuild. And even those are only 9-ish choices, not the 30+ you need to keep up with wizards.And I did not suggest adding more feats. That happens already anyway. Books have new feats second only to how frequently they have new spells.


The only way to bring sanity is to cut things out. You can never reach sanity by piling on more cruft. As a software developer, that's something I've learned good and hard.Declaring your preferred solution the only sane one doesn't make it so. The problems are not as big as you seem to think they are, in my experience, and the solution is just "more options." It's not "cruft."


Lastly, I think there is a middle ground between "add more stuff to martials" and "everyone is a caster."Agreed. "Everyone is a caster" is slightly - slightly - better than "everyone is a martial adept," but only because spells aren't eating all the subsystems. It's still a dull approach when there exist other modular subsystems that are easily expanded.

[Pex]

Which feels eerily similar to the requests for concentrating on more than one spell at a time, especially if one had to be X spell level. It's slowly chipping at the restrictions, and i'm not sure I like it. You could rework how the problem spells function instead (which also applies to the concentration thing).

Yes and no. I get your point but see it as two different issues. It's been talked about before. People have been wanting to be able to concentrate on more than one spell, even accepting not at first level, for a long while. It was years ago in an old thread I offered being able to concentrate on a number of spells equal to half your proficiency bonus, rounded down. However, in my experience no one is disappointed in the concentration rules. It's not interfering in the fun of play.

Restrictions to magic isn't a bad thing. The rule as is isn't causing problems other than the major disappointment I see in people's faces when reminded of it. The rule is not a bad rule, but is it interfering with players' fun. If 5.5E doesn't change it, doesn't even offer an alternative, says absolutely nothing new on the matter I won't be upset about it. I just wonder if this is a case of a rule that could/should be changed based purely on fun factor, not balance or functionality, and if so how to avoid problems of balance or functionality.