Quote from: Dumarest;964511I've never played a game of D&D where we didn't just ignore those bizarre restrictions of who can use what kind of weapon. It made zero impact on the games.

Quote from: Omega;964411Easiest solution is to dock all the combat cantrips down a dice step. Especially since some of them have added effects like shocking grasp or fire bolt.

Not a bad solution. Not what I want, but not a bad solution. It's the non-combat cantrips that bother me more, though.

My solution to cantrips is Cantrips = INT attribute (not mod), refresh on an 8 hour Long Rest. And I'd also bring back martial spell interruption -- and keep Concentration spells as is.

There's plenty of other games to get my 'early game' magical wuxia on. I don't want it at my table's D&D.

Concentration is martial spell interruption in a way. Instead of interdicting the spell in the process of being cast, you now interrupt it as its taking effect. Not to mention counterspell, which sorcerers, warlocks and wizards can pick up.

To bring back interruption during casting youd have to overhaul the magic system and lay down what spells take what time to cast, and how long.

You could just say that any spell using a reaction is too fast to counter, possibly the bonus action ones too, or that bonus round spells can be broken only if the caster is hit that round, and that all other spells not specifically rituals take 1 round per 3 spell levels of the spell.

Yeah, I know. But nah, not what I consider a counterspell, more like a disenchant (or dispel). I like the MtG CCG hardline demarcations and perfectly fine seeing Conc failure only as martial dispel, not martial counterspell.

As for issues with timing & initiative? Easy. I already don't use RAW 5e Initiative for my home games, and it is dirt easy to port over 2e values as needed. Also remember, Init Style #1 with group initiative, group mod, does not need individual speeds. Just roll a die per group, whoever goes beforehand has the potential to counter opposing declared spells, if they declared at the caster and hit. Tah-dah! No extra numbers needed.

Quote from: Omega;9644111: Its not a bad idea to have a backup ranged weapon on hand for those occasions casting isnt an option.

Like a magic dead zone. Which is alot more common in 5e. Or so as not to trip off some sort of trap triggered by just casting in the area. Or so as not to alert any magic sensitive monsters in the area. Or even just so no one is tipped off it was you who offed the guard. and so on.

5e wizards have access to only the dagger, sling and light crossbow. But the crossbow does a d8.

Crossbow does D8+DEX. If you decide to do a high DEX/INT build (which you need to, L1 characters don't all start with the same THAC0), you start off at level 1 doing twice as much damage with a crossbow as you would with a cantrip.

QuoteQuick check on wizard cantrips. Note that most, or all of them level up eventually to 4 dice.

You get 4 dice at level 17, which most campaigns never hit. And is it really a problem? So at level 17, your cantrip now is about as powerful as a level 1 spell. But this isn't AD&D. Level 1 spells don't scale up as you level. A 17th level 1e MU's Magic Missile does 8d4+8 damage. A 17th level 5e Wizard's Magic Missile still does 3d4+3 (and enemies have a lot more hit points). Not only that, but he's got 5 L1 slots, whereas the 5e wizard only has 4. So if you're going to nerf cantrips, you need to buff spell progression.

I think you're not considering all the changes to the game as a whole when you're talking about nerfing cantrips.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;964631Crossbow does D8+DEX. If you decide to do a high DEX/INT build (which you need to, L1 characters don't all start with the same THAC0), you start off at level 1 doing twice as much damage with a crossbow as you would with a cantrip.

With a longbow or light crossbow and exceptional dexterity, a wizard can just about double the damage of a 1d8 cantrip (1d8 averages 4.5, and Dex 18-19 gives 8.5 while 20 gives 9.5), but not Firebolt's damage.  To do that, the wizard would need to average 11 damage per hit, and that's the territory of front-rank characters with exceptional strength wielding two-handed weapons (Str 18-19 with a greatsword averages 11).

That's not to say that, at least until 5th level, a wizard can't do more damage with a light crossbow or longbow than Firebolt, because he definitely can if his dexterity is good.  I don't disagree that cantrips are relatively weak and don't need to be nerfed.  It's just that a wizard with a light crossbow or longbow isn't quite as good as you're making him out to be.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964295I never have seen much of this kind of stuff either--with my home groups, at official events, or anywhere else. Even with 3e, with its notorious number of abuses, exploits, etc., the worst I've seen someone try to pull was a cleric with like 20 wand of CLW so they'd never have to waste a spell on healing. Almost like the people who actually want to play an edition (as opposed to all the other options out there) might actually want to make the edition work, and it's the people out on the internet trying to prove some point that really care about whether there are any holes in a given ruleset.

Yes, I have not seen exploits or abuses in real play. In organized play, I've seen a lot of characters built to achieve significant effectiveness; not exploits or abuses, but just consistently building toward what they envision their characters doing, as effectively as possible. And such players generally use effective strategy and tactics as well. That can create a DM challenge when other players are just muddling along, because they can end up feeling overwhelmed or unnecessary if the adventure is brought up to a challenging level for the more effective players. It's not intrinsically a problem, given a cooperative game, but it's a consideration.

Quote from: S'mon;963464I have a 13th level Moon Druid in my Sunday group. Powerful PC but she has not felt overpowered since 4th level. In terms of game impact currently she's probably third behind the Bladesinger Wizard-13 & (just) the Shadow Monk-13, just ahead of the Barbarian-12, and ahead of the new gunslinger Warlock-11.

I limit short rest benefits to 3/day though so max 8 wildshapes per day. I use 15 minute short rests in that game.

The main limiter is her wildshape forms have AC around 12-13 when her companions are mostly AC 22-23; the Bladesinger can get AC to 28 with Shield spells. Also no spellcasting. Compared to the wizard animating 10 tiny objects to smush legendary monsters to pulp, Moon Druid is well balanced.

I have played a Moon Druid to 13th level, and I concur; the Moon Druid was the main power in a 3rd level party but just another decent character as levels increased. This was with being allowed to use any beast in Appendix A of the Monster Manual (but still had to find dinosaurs).

Quote from: CRKrueger;964287If the Goodberry Life bonus is kicking your ass, just put on the Viking Hat, remind people this isn't 4th Edition or Warhammer 40k, you're not going to let interaction of metadata tags destroy your game and GM the problem.

1. The bonus obviously was never meant to add +3 to Goodberry.  It creates an item and is not a "healing spell".
2. Sure, but you can't use a Berry, it has to be a "god-appropriate fruit", like an apple, pomegranate or portobello mushroom.
3. Everyone keeps whining, ok, there is no Goodberry spell.

Pick one, or if you must, let them pick one.

I'd go with 1a: the bonus is to the total of 10 berries that appear when the spell is cast, so you get 13 berries.

Quote from: rawma;964900I'd go with 1a: the bonus is to the total of 10 berries that appear when the spell is cast, so you get 13 berries.

This is one of those other problem points with some of the wording in 5e.

The spell description reads. Up to ten berries appear. Usually that means roll a d10. But its so ambiguous it could mean it makes however many you want. Or it only makes one per party member, up to ten and so on. Older versions had you roll. So who knows. If you ask WOTC one guys going to say "10!" and the others going to say "roll!" because they dont seem to know what the hell they wrote?

And Sage Advice has stated that yes, the Life Cleric bonus does apply to each and every berry. But Crawford has stated they do not provide water as part of the nourishment bonus.

Quote from: Omega;964904This is one of those other problem points with some of the wording in 5e.

The spell description reads. Up to ten berries appear. Usually that means roll a d10. But its so ambiguous it could mean it makes however many you want. Or it only makes one per party member, up to ten and so on. Older versions had you roll. So who knows. If you ask WOTC one guys going to say "10!" and the others going to say "roll!" because they dont seem to know what the hell they wrote?

I'd say it's mostly better than earlier editions in consistency of wording.

QuoteAnd Sage Advice has stated that yes, the Life Cleric bonus does apply to each and every berry. But Crawford has stated they do not provide water as part of the nourishment bonus.

My table is mine, not Sage Advice's. I've rejected several official interpretations, although I'm always willing to listen to them before ruling.