D&D 4E Ben Riggs' "What the Heck Happened with 4th Edition?" seminar at Gen Con 2023

Tony Vargas · Oct 16, 2023

James Gasik said:
, I only started playing 5e in 2017, several years after the game came out, when I learned that my FLGS (the now sadly-defunct Grapple Games) was running Adventurer's League games on Wednesday and Sundays. (Having felt disappointed after taking an active part in the Next playtest and finding very little of the things I liked from that playtest in the new PHB, I had continued to play Pathfinder 1e).

Anyways, a friend of mine was involved in the AL games and I was suffering from PF burnout, so I made a character and joined. I quickly noted that despite having much more experience than myself at playing 5e, there were several rules not being obeyed.

I asked if this was just common house rules, and was told "no, we play by the books here". "Well, in that case, how is the Cleric casting spells with a weapon and a shield equipped?"

"A Cleric can use a shield as a spellcasting focus." "Yeah, but that only helps if the spell has both Somatic and Material components, see?"

"...oh. That's weird."

"Also, how did the Cleric cast Spirit Guardians and Healing Word in the same turn?"

"Uh, because one is a bonus action cast?"

"Yeah, but right here, it says you can't cast a leveled spell as a bonus action and another leveled spell in the same turn."

"....huh."

And so on, lol. This is nothing against these people; these are easily missed rules and it's sometimes difficult to understand why they exist in the first place (and I know a lot of games simply ignore them- in my current game, nobody asks the Cleric to put their hammer down to cast spells!).

Once again, 5e captures the feel of the classic game!

pemerton · Oct 16, 2023

@James Gasik

My understanding, from your anecdote, is that in 5e per the rules a cleric can cast a (V,S,M) or a (S,M) spell while holding a spellcasting focus (eg a holy symbol), but has to have a hand free of the focus to cast a (V,S) or (S) spell.

No wonder the table you were playing at ignored that rule - it's silly! Apart from the silliness of the fiction that it entails, it's also silly that adding the M component to a spell makes it easier rather than harder to cast.

James Gasik · Oct 16, 2023

pemerton said:
@James Gasik

My understanding, from your anecdote, is that in 5e per the rules a cleric can cast a (V,S,M) or a (S,M) spell while holding a spellcasting focus (eg a holy symbol), but has to have a hand free of the focus to cast a (V,S) or (S) spell.

No wonder the table you were playing at ignored that rule - it's silly! Apart from the silliness of the fiction that it entails, it's also silly that adding the M component to a spell makes it easier rather than harder to cast.

Oh no doubt, it's a very strange rule, especially in light of the fact that, being a mostly melee-range caster, the Cleric is pretty much intended to carry a shield around, which one would assume is the whole point of being able to declare your shield as a spell focus. My first Cleric took Warcaster because of this, but outside of AL, this rule is pretty much ignored in games I've played, and I imagine a lot of other people do as well.

But it is a rule, if playing by the rules as written is somehow important to you.

Kannik · Oct 16, 2023

James Gasik said:
Oh no doubt, it's a very strange rule, especially in light of the fact that, being a mostly melee-range caster, the Cleric is pretty much intended to carry a shield around, which one would assume is the whole point of being able to declare your shield as a spell focus. My first Cleric took Warcaster because of this, but outside of AL, this rule is pretty much ignored in games I've played, and I imagine a lot of other people do as well.

But it is a rule, if playing by the rules as written is somehow important to you.

Heh yep... and I guess this is why I've heard that "5e has that classic feel," since my very first group (under 1e) ruled that clerics had a loop around their wrist for their mace, thus you could let it drop to cast, and swing it back into your hand to bash with next round, all without a problem or extra action. Same stuff for the past 35 years...

(And, to be clear, we knew that was our house rule, as we had found it likewise strange.)

Peregrinus88 · Oct 17, 2023

pemerton said:
@James Gasik

My understanding, from your anecdote, is that in 5e per the rules a cleric can cast a (V,S,M) or a (S,M) spell while holding a spellcasting focus (eg a holy symbol), but has to have a hand free of the focus to cast a (V,S) or (S) spell.

No wonder the table you were playing at ignored that rule - it's silly! Apart from the silliness of the fiction that it entails, it's also silly that adding the M component to a spell makes it easier rather than harder to cast.

I don't understand how attempting to balance out classes is a silly idea. At least to me, it seems that this was a way for some attempt to discourage clerics to have just as good of AC as a fighter.

Mind you, I played mostly a cleric in my 3E days. We never played RAW rules and mostly played with the rules I learned from the black box from '94, and let go of such "silly" ideas. To me, that was probably a bad idea, as I think it led to the whole spellcaster vs martial debate. I mean, some people might think wizards having spell failure from wearing armour is a "silly" idea, but it was a balancing idea (and for me personally to fit more with a Gandalf type of spellcaster). Plus, I wonder if you didn't do a loophole method of stringing the holy symbol to the wrist or the like and then digging it out of your equipment wouldn't draw an attack of opportunity.

But this is why I prefer playing BEMCI or Castles and Crusades. Balancing classes weren't so hard with the "lack" of rules and trying to observe every little thing in the rule book! But I understand some people prefer stronger characters, so dismissing this rule sounds fine at some tables, but on the other hand some tables might prefer it. Either way, I don't think the label is silly is justified.

Peregrinus88 · Oct 17, 2023

Zardnaar said:
Magic missile is just to classic to mess with. It kinda sucks in 5E barely see it cast.

AbdulAlhazred said:
The most amusing part of this is that the ORIGINAL Magic Missile spell in D&D itself says nothing about being auto-hit. Its just a magical arrow that you have to cast using a spell. Basically you're better off just buying a bow! I assume Gary and Co noted this deficiency and made it an automatic hit with no save just to save the spell from total oblivion in 1e. Never played enough Basic to recall how it even works there.

So, the 4e MM is actually pretty much a return to the original idea, except the At-Will makes it actually useful in that form.

Voadam said:
Eh, the original from OE Greyhawk does not even say an autohit.

Magic Missile: This is a conjured missile equivalent to a magic arrow, and it
does full damage (2–7 points) to any creature it strikes. For every five levels the magic-user has attained he may add an additional two missiles when employing this spell, so a 6th-level magic-user may cast three magic missiles at his target, an 11th-level magic-user casts five, and so on. Range 15”.

I remember Holmes Basic being the same way but do not have a PDF to check on.

AbdulAlhazred said:
Which is not the MOST clear, but pretty convincingly tells me you DO have to make an attack roll. Oh, and Holmes explicitly limits Magic Users to ONLY daggers, nothing else!

I don't know if your interested but Dorks of Yore from youtube has a clip of Tim Kask describe how he had to convince (fight tooth and nail) with Gary Gygax to make the change for Magic Missile to become an auto-attack.

pemerton · Oct 18, 2023

Peregrinus88 said:
I don't understand how attempting to balance out classes is a silly idea.

I didn't assert or imply that it is.

I said that a rule which makes it easier to cast a spell which includes (S,M) rather than just (S) is silly. For two reasons: (i) adding (M) was originally (ie in AD&D) meant to be an additional burden on casting the spell, not a buff - so the 5e rule is an example of a legacy element with its game play completely distorted; and (ii), the aesthetics of it (the cleric yo-yo-ing their shield and weapon) are just silly.

AbdulAlhazred · Oct 21, 2023

pemerton said:
I didn't assert or imply that it is.

I said that a rule which makes it easier to cast a spell which includes (S,M) rather than just (S) is silly. For two reasons: (i) adding (M) was originally (ie in AD&D) meant to be an additional burden on casting the spell, not a buff - so the 5e rule is an example of a legacy element with its game play completely distorted; and (ii), the aesthetics of it (the cleric yo-yo-ing their shield and weapon) are just silly.

Hey a razor-edge yoyo is a DEADLY FRIGGIN' WEAPON!!!!

Zeromaru X · Oct 21, 2023

AbdulAlhazred said:
Hey a razor-edge yoyo is a DEADLY FRIGGIN' WEAPON!!!!

SRW30 Combattler V - Super EM YoYo #shorts #gameplay #games #srw30 #superrobotwars

Combattler V - Super EM YoYo

youtube.com

James Gasik · Oct 21, 2023

AbdulAlhazred said:
Hey a razor-edge yoyo is a DEADLY FRIGGIN' WEAPON!!!!

D&D 4E Ben Riggs' "What the Heck Happened with 4th Edition?" seminar at Gen Con 2023

Tony Vargas

Legend

pemerton

Legend

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun

Kannik

Hero

Peregrinus88

Villager

Peregrinus88

Villager

pemerton

Legend

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

Zeromaru X

Arkhosian scholar and coffee lover

SRW30 Combattler V - Super EM YoYo #shorts #gameplay #games #srw30 #superrobotwars

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun

Similar Threads