D&D 5E Casters should go back to being interruptable like they used to be.

Lanefan · Dec 6, 2023

ezo said:
Very nice, Snarf!

Also, let's not forget that in AD&D you also had to roll to learn your spells!!

I mean, even at INT 16 you had a 35% chance to fail to learn a spell... tough nuggie, huh? Didn't get fireball when you hit 5th level, try for lightning bolt. Crap! failed that, too, huh??? Sigh... What to do, what to do...?

Well, next level you can try again. Oh, wait, you can't, not until your Intelligence increases...

You sure about that?

I always thought a new (trained) level let you try to learn a failed spell again.

James Gasik · Dec 6, 2023

Lanefan said:
You sure about that?

I always thought a new (trained) level let you try to learn a failed spell again.

So I took a look at the 1e PHB and it had this to say (paraphrased):

When you reach a new spell level, you immediately check to see which spells of that level from the PHB list (including 1st*) you can learn, in any order desired. Should you fail to learn the minimum number of spells for that level, you can then try again to learn a spell you have previously failed until you hit your minimum allotment.

There is a section on "previously unknown spells", future proofing the inevitable addition of more spells beyond the PHB list to the game.

If your Intelligence goes up or down (yikes!) for any reason, you must recheck all spells of a given level group, allowing you to learn ones you failed to learn before...or forget spells you already learned! This section doesn't say that already known spells are exempt from this...

*However, in the DMG, Gary says your starting allotment of spells consists of Read Magic (automatically known to all Wizards), in addition to three other spells rolled from a random table. Further he goes on to say that you can only learn one (and only one!) new spell upon achieving a new level. Then several paragraphs about how NPC's will demand very high prices (such as magic items!) in order to share new spells.

M_Natas · Dec 6, 2023

FallenRX said:
In the older days of dnd, casters were kinda artillery units, they were powerful but slow, vulnerable, and cumbersome, how they enforced this was with the rules for a spellcaster, making it so you had to declare spellcasting at the beginning of the round and it was cast when your turn would come up(it was side based and initative would change every round.), and if you were hit, you lost the spell.

This kept casting a bit more in check during these days, and is the actual reason for the whole "frontline martial, backline caster" thing, the original intent was casters were artillery and martials were the soldiers. But come 3e Wizards kinda removed all of this for the most part due to streamlining and ended up buffing these classes far, while also putting all of the fighters features into feats, and the game has simply never quite recovered from this. It turned casters from Artillery to just heavy hitting as long as they had ammo, and kinda invalidated the other classes right then and there without that limit, with the only downside is ammo, they are just heavy soldiers now, just better but...limited..sometimes...if you play that way.

I feel this should return, casting being interruptable in some form, but i feel there is a better and more modern way to do this.

And if you wanna bring back the old rules of getting hit in the round before your turn loses you your spell cast, but in a modern way, you can just do this.

This is a simple way, and it isn't even new design, this is a sacred cow, this is how they used to work, but modernized a bit.

Im not saying this 100% solves the martial caster gap, but it gives martials at least a gives martial classes a raison d'etre, in a traditional way, plus i think it fits the fantasy of these classes and idea of them way more, and while it isnt for everyone, i feel you can at least make this a variant rule, or something, or make it a core rule and make the old way a variant for those who dont care for it.

I feel this is a better starting point a limit that brings back the original intent of these classes in a way that makes a lot of the design make more sense, like for example, mage slayer becomes better, it makes the defensive abilities make sense more(because they were based on spell where that was the intent and why they had them), and even frontline casters like bladelock and bladesinger still work well since that's why they use cantrips and weapon attacks, with higher defenses, it makes the design kinda come to life more.

Its not perfect but i feel it is a better starting point, and its not uncommon in a lot of dnd-like design(i got this from Worlds without Number lol)

What do you think?

TLDR: Casters should go back to being interruptable like they used to be, it was the thing that made them unique and limited, and made them the artillery units compared to the "soldier" units that were the martials, and i feel it enforces the modern fantasy of the classes better then what we have now, where they are kinda just super soldiers, with only some resource limitations holding them back.

With that rules my wizard would habe died on my round on monday. And the group would probably have TPKed.
Also unless you have only one encounter between long rests, fighters and wizards have a similar damage output.
So you would need to nerf the fighter to balance that again.

M_Natas · Dec 6, 2023

Hell0W0rld said:
Back to the topic at hand, I agree with the premise. Being able to disrupt spellcasting with opportunity attacks should be the default.

A similar feat to Combat Casting from previous editions can be reintroduced for those casters who want to cast in melee, rather than adding to the burden of melee attackers with the Mage Slayer tax.

But you would need to rebalance everything.
On monday my group (Wizard, Bardlock, Psi-Rogue and Cleric turned Ghost) was ambushes by a group of undead.

If they would have been able to interrupt our spellcasting, we would have TPKed.

At the moment there is an actual balance in 5e in Combat between Martials and Casters.
If you weaken casters, you would need to weaken maetials, too to reach a new balanced state or martials will be extremely more efficient in combat.

ezo · Dec 6, 2023

James Gasik said:
*However, in the DMG, Gary says your starting allotment of spells consists of Read Magic (automatically known to all Wizards), in addition to three other spells rolled from a random table. Further he goes on to say that you can only learn one (and only one!) new spell upon achieving a new level. Then several paragraphs about how NPC's will demand very high prices (such as magic items!) in order to share new spells.

But even this spell must be learned, and the dice rolled to see if you learn it.

Unfortunately, at that point it is up to the DM (since there is ambiguity) if you get to choose another spell to attempt to learn or if you are just out of luck.

James Gasik · Dec 6, 2023

ezo said:
But even this spell must be learned, and the dice rolled to see if you learn it.

Unfortunately, at that point it is up to the DM (since there is ambiguity) if you get to choose another spell to attempt to learn or if you are just out of luck.

Ah ok, I read that passage a few times and I didn't see that he clarified it one way or the other, so I (foolishly) went with the interpretation that would be beneficial to the player, forgetting Gary's obvious disdain for Magic-Users.

Hell0W0rld · Dec 6, 2023

But you would need to rebalance everything.
On monday my group (Wizard, Bardlock, Psi-Rogue and Cleric turned Ghost) was ambushes by a group of undead.

If they would have been able to interrupt our spellcasting, we would have TPKed.

At the moment there is an actual balance in 5e in Combat between Martials and Casters.
If you weaken casters, you would need to weaken maetials, too to reach a new balanced state or martials will be extremely more efficient in combat.

Erm, no? There are a whole bunch of imbalances in D&D 5e. Making spells be interrupted targets two of them, namely the disparity between casters and non-casters and the one between melee and ranged. Once a martial combatant gets close to a caster (who has access to so many denial tools like Web, Spike Growth, Spirit Guardians etc.), they should be able to shut that caster down.

If you need arguments about why specifically martials and casters are imbalanced, there's quite a few threads illustrating the gap on these boards.

James Gasik · Dec 6, 2023

I'm a little confused how making it so martials can interrupt casters helps balance anything outside of a PVP environment. What's actually happening is, all monsters and enemy NPC's can now interrupt casters, and the occasional enemy NPC that can cast spells is now nerfed and harder for DM's to use effectively.

And when the martials are like "hey Cleric, come over here and heal me", the Cleric is like "sorry, Cure Wounds is a melee spell, I'll be hiding back here with the Wizard!".

Vaalingrade · Dec 6, 2023

M_Natas said:
At the moment there is an actual balance in 5e in Combat between Martials and Casters.

Where?

And don't say DPS.

Lanefan · Dec 6, 2023

M_Natas said:
But you would need to rebalance everything.
On monday my group (Wizard, Bardlock, Psi-Rogue and Cleric turned Ghost) was ambushes by a group of undead.

If they would have been able to interrupt our spellcasting, we would have TPKed.

At the moment there is an actual balance in 5e in Combat between Martials and Casters.
If you weaken casters, you would need to weaken maetials, too to reach a new balanced state or martials will be extremely more efficient in combat.

Martials should be more efficient in combat! It's their job!

If the non-martials are in melee then something's gone wrong. An ambush certainly qualifies, and cases like that are where the martials get to shine while the non-martials just hope to survive. The flip side is when you can see the enemies coming from far away, and the casters can lay waste to 'em before the martials get their weapons drawn.

D&D 5E Casters should go back to being interruptable like they used to be.

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun

M_Natas

Hero

M_Natas

Hero

ezo

Where is that Singe?

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun

Hell0W0rld

Explorer

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun

Vaalingrade

Legend

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Similar Threads

Voidrunner's Codex