D&D 5E How would YOU nerf the wizard? +

[Voadam]

I'd be inclined to agree..logically.

That said, I've never found anything that says that manacles (or any other equipment) actually prevent the use of your hands.

The rules do not go down to that level of specificity so it is a ruling situation.

Binding a hand to something seems reasonable to me to say makes the hand not free.

(And there are some interesting knock-on effects if we say that they do, like how a rogue could pick a set of manacles without having the free use of one of their hands)

I don't really see much of a basis for knock on effects for thieves tools from ruling on whether manacles prevent somatic components.

Again I do not think this level of specificity exists in the rules, so whether a manacled rogue can physically access the lock to pick the lock on their wrist manacles while bound seems a DM call based on the situation, not a categorical rules situation that applies universally to spellcasting somatic components and thieves' tool usage.

Manacled and stretched out on a rack seems harder for a rogue to self pick than if the manacles are just attached by a two foot section of chains. I can see a DM ruling a tightly cuffed rogue cannot access the lock, or saying go for it Houdini with your palmed hairpin.

The somatic components description does specify free use of a hand so that is what we have to go on as a starting basis for a ruling.

Lockpicking is not specified but it is a real world and cinematic thing to do so a DM call based on that kind of a view seems the starting point for a DM ruling.

 

[Lanefan]

Most of what I'd do would be to change some of the stuff that's at odds with a lot of genre fiction.

1. Spell failure. Wizard casting is a learned skill. Spells shouldn't be automatic. There should be a risk of failure and consequence for it. (Note: with that in mind, I'd be open to easing restrictions on which spells can be cast from which slots, with the provision that using a higher or lower level slot can increase or reduce the risk of spell failure)

If the spells are powerful when they do succeed, sure. I think the trick is to make casting much more interruptable, and have the risky-consequence possitilities open up when a spell is interrupted.

2. Make casting in melee more risky, whether that's through triggered attacks or DC adjustment for execution, I don't know. Maybe a temporary AC penalty or something.

I'd say it's a given that while casting you lose all active defenses e.g. dexterity, dodging, bracers, etc.

 

[Gammadoodler]

The rules do not go down to that level of specificity so it is a ruling situation.

Binding a hand to something seems reasonable to me to say makes the hand not free.

I don't really see much of a basis for knock on effects for thieves tools from ruling on whether manacles prevent somatic components.

Again I do not think this level of specificity exists in the rules, so whether a manacled rogue can physically access the lock to pick the lock on their wrist manacles while bound seems a DM call based on the situation, not a categorical rules situation that applies universally to spellcasting somatic components and thieves' tool usage.

Manacled and stretched out on a rack seems harder for a rogue to self pick than if the manacles are just attached by a two foot section of chains. I can see a DM ruling a tightly cuffed rogue cannot access the lock, or saying go for it Houdini with your palmed hairpin.

The somatic components description does specify free use of a hand so that is what we have to go on as a starting basis for a ruling.

Lockpicking is not specified but it is a real world and cinematic thing to do so a DM call based on that kind of a view seems the starting point for a DM ruling.

All of this is to say, there is zero rules support for how one disables people's hands through any method other than

Paralysis
Petrification
Unconsciousness
or
Death

I fully agree that we can make rulings on such things..and we should..and yet..

If a PC is frightened of a creature, they have zero ability to move toward that creature.. and this is spelled out clearly in the rules.. in black and white.

Why wouldn't we have conditions (and equipment) that clearly and unambiguously impact spellcasting effectiveness with the same force of rule.

For example, if the "Restrained" condition explicitly mentioned that while restrained you cannot perform Somatic or Material components required for spellcasting. Or if "Poisoned" imposed an end of turn concentration check. Etc.

 

[Lanefan]

Or considering the many players who make up D&D 5e who feel differently, maybe D&D isn't the right system for you.

Ehhh, you're not getting rid of me that easily...

 

[Lanefan]

One more limit them through buffing them.

Give them healing spells on their list so that there is a bit of pressure on them to spend some of their prepared spells and slots on healing the group.

I did this in 3e with giving all casters healing and I felt it worked well for my purposes.

Bards already have healing, giving it to other arcane casters is not a big jump.

And bang goes the Cleric's main reason for existing.

 

[Reynard]

why shouldn't they?

Why should they?

I like the way Shadowdark does it: all spells require a roll to cast, but you can keep casting that spell until you fail, then it is gone until you rest.

 

[Gammadoodler]

why shouldn't they?


spell slots are limited resource, and on a miss/save they should do something.
also damage dealing wizard is just discount fighter, every DM would be happy beyond belief if every spellcaster would only take damaging and/or healing spells.

disabling Verbal components removes about 90% of wizards spells and removing Somatic and Material removes also about 90%.


Sure, there is room to reduce power of offensive spells with certain conditions.

Why should buff and heal spells have a chance of failure? BC you are still fiddling with the arcane. The narrative is still "learned skill gained through study and practice"
Wizards aren't robots, with the precise combination of performance elements programmed into them.

Think of it another way. How do new spells get created? Is there any amount of trial and error to get them right, or do they just emerge, fully formed from the ether? I think that potential "error" part of the process should be a base part of all spellcasting.

I made my argument for these nerfs based on narrative considerations more than balance. I don't really care about the value of a spell slot in isolation, bc I am willing to figure out whatever would be needed to balance the scales. I just do not think spells should be 100% predictable and free from risk. If there need to be other mechanisms in place to make that risk worth it, fine.

There is a vanishingly small number of ways to shut down either verbal or somatic (much less both) components in combat, and most all of them can only be done by another caster.

Heck..it's not that easy to do outside of combat.

 

[CleverNickName]

Get rid of the Counterspell spell. In its place, allow opponents to Counterspell as a readied action, using an Intelligence (Arcana) check.

I had a chance to test this out at last Friday's game. It works really, really well.

First, I gave a group of hobgoblins this ability:

Disrupt Spell: As a readied action, the hobgoblin can counter a spell that it can see being cast within 30 feet. To counter the spell, the hobgoblin must first make a successful Intelligence (Arcana) check, and the DC is equal to 10 + the incoming spell's level. This ability otherwise works as per the Counterspell spell.​

They were otherwise just bog-standard hobgoblins--they weren't spellcasters, they weren't even trained in Arcana. I described them as standing vigilantly, their weapons at the ready and watching the characters' every move, hoping to distract or interfere at the first sign of an incantation.

Having to decide whether to attack or ready a counterspell every round, and weighing the costs and benefits of spending both an Action and a Reaction to stop an incoming spell, made combat a lot more dynamic and interesting. Spellcasting became a lot less reliable and required careful consideration and tactics. Hobgoblin archers were harrying the warlock, negating his Eldritch Blast cantrip half the time. The cleric having to cast healing spells from cover, where the readied hobgoblins couldn't see her. That sort of thing.

I probably won't make it a permanent house-rule, but I liked it well enough.

 

[nevin]

NOTE: If you wouldn't nerf the wizard... CONGRATULATIONS. But this may not be the thread for you. Also, we don't need to relitigate the question of martial versus caster supremacy. let's just take it as a given here, please.

Going with the presumption that in 5E D&D (of whatever particular flavor, 2014 or 2024 or ToV or A5E or whatever) and you wanted to bring thew wizard (and other full casters) down to ensure more parity with primarily martial characters, how would you personally, in your campaigns that you would actually play, do that?

There are a lot of potential options, from curating spell lists to instituting casting rolls to reducing the availability of cantrips and/or spell slots. So, what would you do.

For my part, my favorite implementation of most D&D tropes is actually Earthdawn from FASA in the early 90s, so I would take a page from that game. Spellcasting would require a check, with failure to cast exposes the wizard to potentially catastrophic attention by horrible entities from beyond space and time. It is important to note that this isn't just a "fumble chart" although that is a potential component. the real problem is that the wizard starts to collect corruption and attract the attention of the entities. There are lots of "horrors" in D&D that can play the part, depending on the flavor of magic. Magic is allowed to remain powerful, but wizards have to be careful. The more you cast, the more you roll, and the more you roll, the more likely you are to fail. Note that this system also allows the wizard to set up a small number of "safe" spell in matrices, which adds an element of important decision making regarding which spells to safely prepare.

What would you do?

first you have to agree what the wizard's places in the game are. I'd start by redoing wizard generalist, then come up with the specialty versions of wizard you want to fill in stuff desired. Generalist should be the standard Utility wizard, the one every one on the forums who hates wizard talks about. I'd have a damage dealing specialist, a knowledge or diviner specialist, an artificer specialist, a battlefield controller specialist, and a summoning specialist. Then I'd redo all the spell lists from 4th to 9th level and have seperate lists of spells even if there was some overlap so that each specialist had a viable useful position in a game that a 20th level Generalist wizard couldn't just bypass or do as well. I'd force all the really powerful spells like clone, wish, etc back to using experience and require mythical spell components that not only have to be obtained but are a freaking pain to preserve and transport back. For instance that dragon heart has to be kept fresh, cant leave the plain and you can't cast any mortal magic on it. (perhaps a bit over the top but think of this as a worst case for say a clone component, and no you can't cast it at the dragon because you have to have the storage place already built and ready . Unless you can restrain the dragon while you prep the vault in his lair. ....heh). Players would whine but some things should be hard. I'd codify what I've already got in my own homebrew the rules for what happens and who intervenes when a wizard fucks with reality enough. A wizard who makes multiple clones for example, a guy wishing all willy nilly everytime he wants something, The diviner who manages to understand and then subvert the will of the gods, the summoner who starts calling HIGH level creatures from other planes and using them to do things against thier alignment all of these things would have consequences. A wish to heal the party might not be noticed but a wish to bring that 20th level cleric back from heaven bypassing thier god, could bring some unwanted attention and the mage should be worried about that. And yes before anyone goes there, its by design that the 20th level cleric doesn't get that when he or she does it. They are asking divine permission thier god can always say no.

Really in my opinion the only reason the wizard is broken is DM's aren't taught to make consequences part of the game. But I do concede that close to 50 years of ad hoc spell additions and "cool" supplements have broken the class if the wizard has access to everything.

 

[Vaalingrade]

How Would You Nerf The Wizard?

a) actually nerf the wizard

b) make them old school without concern as to whether that would be a nerf to the people who made the wizard the thing that needs to be nerfed in the first place: Vancian Magic, removing cantrips, making things more random, etc.