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?

  • Spuddaccino@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    When you cast a leveled spell using a bonus action, the only other spells you can cast with your action on that turn is a cantrip.

    I, personally, think it’s confusing and doesn’t really add much in the way of balance to the game. Let the wizard burn all his spells twice as fast and be useless for the rest of the adventuring day. If your adventures have meaningful consequences for taking too long clearing a dungeon, it’ll work itself out.

    • MaroonMage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          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…

          • Melpomene@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If you have a player who builds characters to exploit the system then that’s a player who needs a talking to, most likely.

          • Spuddaccino@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            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.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        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

    • evilgiraffe666@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Even this isn’t exactly correct - that would allow you to cast reaction spells on your turn, but the rules do not.

      When you cast a leveled spell using a bonus action, the only other spells you can cast on that turn is a cantrip, with your action.

      The difference is you can’t cast more leveled spells at all, and you can’t cast any spells including cantrips if they don’t use an action. That last part doesn’t usually matter, unless you have multiple bonus actions, or reaction cantrips (which appeared in the playtest of next edition).

      Edited to reduce misinformation, left the wrong in place so corrections make sense

      • Nikko882@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        As a testament to how terrible this rule is, not even this is the right one. The rule is, when you cast a spell (including cantrips) with your bonus action you can’t cast any other spells except a cantrip with a casting time of one action on the same turn. So casting Shillelagh stops you from casting leveled spells and (although I’m not sure why you would want to) from using your action to start or continue casting a cantrip like Mending, because it has a cast time of 1 minute (Aka 10 actions, aka not one action).

        • caseofthematts@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          This cements two things for me. The first is that I hate the wording of things in 5e, especially it being called a Bonus Action. I think that specific phrase confuses people.

          The second is that this is much easier in Pathfinder 2e. You can cast any spells as long as you have the actions for it using your 3 action turn. Cantrips are usually one action, and greater spells usually range from two to three actions. Simplifies this confusing mess quite easily.

          • Nikko882@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, the more I play DnD and other games, the less I end up liking 5e’s system of action, bonus action, reaction. Systems that just have actions are much more appealing, imo.

    • sbv@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree on the confusing part.

      There’s a pretty small set of bonus action spells though, so a lil asterisk reminding players of the limitation would probably be enough to settle it.

        • DonnieDarkmode@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah it does make quickened spell way more powerful, and there’s not much love for sorcerer amongst the people I DM for, so I haven’t really seen it in combat.

    • HardlightCereal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dungeon World’s Fronts system is awesome. Every time my players take too long, I advance a danger and cackle behind my screen. The players are scared of me.

      • Spuddaccino@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I just make sure there are some consequences, even if it’s something like “There are other things that live in this dungeon you’re camping in, and they just found the pile of bodies you’ve left strewn about and have raised the alarm.”