D&D 5E Xanathar's Guide to Everything: Spells

[Eubani]

Yay more spells and invocations, but how many Martial Maneuvers? Also more spells to close the gap between spellcasters and martial characters. More spells in itself will further the gap. Have the devs not learned over the last 4 odd decades which rabbit hole all these leads down. D&D Devs......over 40 years of not learning from past mistakes.

 

[cbwjm]

I'm kind of sad that the healing elixir didn't make it in. I'd have liked to see more spells like that but then I guess this allows me to create some of my own.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Yay more spells and invocations, but how many Martial Maneuvers? Also more spells to close the gap between spellcasters and martial characters. More spells in itself will further the gap. Have the devs not learned over the last 4 odd decades which rabbit hole all these leads down. D&D Devs......over 40 years of not learning from past mistakes.

All we need to do is bring back the old limitations on spell casting: Powerful, but easy to interrupt and with odd material components/behavioral restrictions. Say what you want about AD&D, but we never had problems with caster/martial balance in 2e. If anything, everyone wanted to place a fighter/ranger/paladin/thief because magic-users were too weak and clerics had to be religious. Of course, none of that remains true if you allow characters to begin from higher levels.

 

[CapnZapp]

If anything, everyone wanted to place a fighter/ranger/paladin/thief because magic-users were too weak and clerics had to be religious.

A fighter/ranger/paladin/thief?

Then I'd rather play a single-classed Wizard! Or Fighter


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

A fighter/ranger/paladin/thief?

Then I'd rather play a single-classed Wizard! Or Fighter


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Fine. Fighter, ranger, paladin, or thief. Happy?

The mythical fighter/ranger/paladin/thief is, of course, an illegal combo.

 

[Dausuul]

Say what you want about AD&D, but we never had problems with caster/martial balance in 2e.

My college DM would like a word with you, once he gets over his wizard-induced migraine.

 

[Mephista]

Yay more spells and invocations, but how many Martial Maneuvers? Also more spells to close the gap between spellcasters and martial characters. More spells in itself will further the gap. Have the devs not learned over the last 4 odd decades which rabbit hole all these leads down. D&D Devs......over 40 years of not learning from past mistakes.

And yet, the Fighter is by far and away the most popular of 5e classes. Rogue and Barbarian also occupy rankings within the top five classes, along with cleric and wizard. So, what lesson are they exactly supposed to learn right now?

Also, if we're going to talk about lessons from the past (non-3.x) years, we're going to need to look at 4e, of which having non-caster warriors having a wide selection of abilities was deemed an unpopular thing by the vocal crowd. Not sure how true it was, but its just as easy to claim that would be bad.

There WERE weapon feats tested, but they didn't seem to have a favorable response. So, the devs are thinking about it. There's been a lot of testing to fix up the ranger. And the best way to make Fighters have a good story interwoven with it.

All we need to do is bring back the old limitations on spell casting: Powerful, but easy to interrupt and with odd material components/behavioral restrictions. Say what you want about AD&D, but we never had problems with caster/martial balance in 2e. If anything, everyone wanted to place a fighter/ranger/paladin/thief because magic-users were too weak and clerics had to be religious. Of course, none of that remains true if you allow characters to begin from higher levels.

Yeah... roleplay restrictions are massively unpopular. That's never going to happen again, ever. Gets in the way of new character concepts and different ways of having fun.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

My college DM would like a word with you, once he gets over his wizard-induced migraine.

Really. I never saw a character get over 6th level in all my years of 2e. By the book XP is brutal, man.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Yeah... roleplay restrictions are massively unpopular. That's never going to happen again, ever. Gets in the way of new character concepts and different ways of having fun.

Perhaps, but replacing those restrictions with...at will cantrips?...isn't exactly the most logical suggestion, either.

For roleplaying restrictions to be effective, all one would need to do is define them clearly. The ranger's were pretty good, for example. You could never have more than 3 working together and they could never own more than they could carry. They're nice and concrete. The paladin's, however, were a can of worms; I agree.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Perhaps, but replacing those restrictions with...at will cantrips?...isn't exactly the most logical suggestion, either.

For roleplaying restrictions to be effective, all one would need to do is define them clearly. The ranger's were pretty good, for example. You could never have more than 3 working together and they could never own more than they could carry. They're nice and concrete. The paladin's, however, were a can of worms; I agree.

Role-playing restrictions should be set by the world setting being used, not by the core rules. I know they wanted 5E to be simpler and easier, and I like the Realms, but Core and Realms rules being the same, rather than Core being general and Realms being specific, can get annoying.