this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
51 points (94.7% liked)

Dungeons and Dragons

11019 readers
1 users here now

A community for discussion of all things Dungeons and Dragons! This is the catch all community for anything relating to Dungeons and Dragons, though we encourage you to see out our Networked Communities listed below!

/c/DnD Network Communities

Other DnD and related Communities to follow*

DnD/RPG Podcasts

*Please Follow the rules of these individual communities, not all of them are strictly DnD related, but may be of interest to DnD Fans

Rules (Subject to Change)

Format: [Source Name] Article Title

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world
owenfromcanada@lemmy.world
51
How do you feel about the rules regarding bonus action spells, and why? (lemm.ee)
submitted 1 year ago by DonnieDarkmode@lemm.ee to c/dnd@lemmy.world
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I’m feeling a bit torn myself. I understand the thinking behind the vanilla rules; it helps balance out some of the spellcasters’ power, especially at higher levels. But my understanding of balance in 5e is that it’s to balance the players against each other, to avoid having 1 or 2 players be so clearly better at so much that it naturally pulls the limelight away from the rest of the party and causes people to lose interest their own character.

I think totally unrestricted spellcasting carries the potential for imbalance, but doesn’t guarantee that outcome, and if I’m not making my spellcasters manage their resources then I’m doing something wrong. Something like Matt Mercer’s house rule “spells of 2nd level or lower” would also be a good compromise because it allows the utility of things like Misty Step, or for a Gish to summon a shadow blade etc.

What do y’all do at your tables, and why?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MaroonMage@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think the rule is worded really badly in a way that makes it more confusing that it needs to be.

As for the rule itself, my table usually hand waves it and lets you cast whatever you want with your bonus action and action, provided you have the slots to do it. We haven't had any issues with that feeling game breaking for us yet.

[–] boatswain@infosec.pub 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yikes; I've got one player who would go straight for a Sorcerer so he could just do Sickening Radiance followed by a quickened Wall of Force to just microwave whatever he wanted.

[–] Zonetrooper@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I feel like this is one of those rules that's only really necessary if you have a player who cheeses it like that. If a player discovers it and uses it in moderation, well, that's less likely to break things. If you have a player who builds their character to exploit it...

[–] Spuddaccino@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I, personally, think this is a totally valid tactic, and wouldn't be upset if a player used it in my game. One of the first things we go over in Session Zero, though, is that your characters, while unusual, are not unique. Any BBEG worth his stuff is capable of scrying on your tactics and hiring a hit squad that can copy or counter your tactics.

If a player started doing this repeatedly and trivialized many encounters, maybe the next group has his own sorcerer that can do that, or knows disintegrate, or can teleport the big stompy guy into the obvious spellcaster's face. Cheese isn't an arms race the players can win.

[–] DonnieDarkmode@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah I’ve traditionally waived it myself, and both as a player and DM haven’t ever noticed any issues with that. As it stands I see no real reason to enforce it, but I always try to really understand the reason for a rule before I decide to ignore it