All spells are wild magic, and the percentage of something going wrong scales with the level of the spell? Maybe non-linearly, so that low-level spells aren't at much risk of going wrong, but 9th-level stuff is a serious gamble? Though just removing Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard (and maaaybe Warlock/Bard?) from the options would cut out a lot of the big magic powers, too.
That could work, though it might still be too generous. Definitely Bard - in 3.X, they were kind of a secondary caster, with only 6 spell levels. But they're definitely full casters in 5E, just with a manipulation sort of focus. Warlocks have a few, fast cycling spells, but they're just as powerful (and with their 'grab extra spells' ability, as versatile) as the 'real' primary caster classes. Of course, perhaps their fluff is suitable.
i think magic users having to roleplay and justify their new spells works only if you make others have to roleplay and justify their new skills. if everybody does it, it can be pretty fun.
Ok. Ok ok I think I got it Not to get too into it but in the setting everyone has some amount of magic (I am thinking of giving everyone like. Two cantrip slots that can only be taken up by things like prestidigitation or mending, or even break those up and call them sub cantrips like someone online did), with humans and such usually having very little and elves and fae and such having a lot more inherent magic, but mostly just to the degree that these races have magic as written (elves getting some free cantrips, stuff like that.) In order to get more you either painstakingly train your small amount, learning how to access the magic of the world and incorporate it with your own through a process that takes years upon years- orrrr you just get it from a god/fae/demon/similar source. Of course, when you contract your magic certain rules apply, and certain patrons will only let you cast certain kinds of spells. So the spell lists for warlock, cleric, and druid are all very restricted by subclass. Bard is rejiggered to focus almost entirely on illusion/buffs/debuffs like thing- can possibly learn to shoot fire from your lute, but that would take like. A special subclass, or finding a special battle bard teacher. Maybe give them something to make them a tiny bit more martially capable to compensate, but bards already are fairly capable. Wizards and sorcerers are the kickers. I am considering combining them into one class? Or maybe just replacing wizard with a homebrew scholarly class I find somewhere else. Anyways, they would have access to a much wider range of spells but the higher level the spell, the bigger the chance of it backfiring/wild magicking. Would also wanna find a much larger wild magic table. It is surprisingly hard to find a wild magic table that isn't wierdly fetishy. I already prefer giving level ups based on story and roleplaying (for one, it feels more satisfying, for two, the xp system just serves to rlly emphasize combat in an already combat heavy system, and c, I don't like having to keep track of xp) so it would probably be the same for all characters, especially since the specific campaign is going to be one where they are all members of a guildish thing trying to return a small, dying town on a small, dying island to prominence, so. Lots of downtime, lots of city building, ect ect. Sorry for the rambles, and thank you all!
Seems like a decent basis, but I'd consider not limiting first level spells/cantrips much, since some classes won't have a subclass until after they get those. Plus, as low-level things, they're a good target for getting some versatility. Also, rather than manually restricting spells yourself, I'd suggest just asking that players justify how a given spell fits within the scope of their casting class archetypes. And/or have them need to justify their archetype selection based on the spells they've chosen, as well (want to be a Lore Bard? well, how are your spells guiding you into that role?) It just seems like a lot less work, at least at the higher levels, and kinda brings them into the process a bit more and makes each spell have more narrative weight since they need to know why/how they know it, not just that it's a good spell they want to have. Or have every spellcaster pick a personal concept that their magic is centered around, and make them justify any spells based on that concept, maybe. It's kinda baked into Clerics and Warlocks a little, with their archetypes coming immediately, but you could do the same thing with the other full casters, which don't. I suppose Sorcs kinda get that a bit since they do get archetypes immediately, but their archetypes are mostly pretty broad, and having a concept within that seems like a neat narrowing (like, you're a draconic bloodline style sorcerer? okay, what kind of dragon? green? okay, green dragon sorts of spells, then. Oh, you're a storm sorcerer? sure, but I don't see how you'd learn to cast something like fireball). Everyone having at least one cantrip seems pretty cool, though. A list of some suggested cantrips to make openly available, because I'm getting more into this idea as you talk about it: Blade Ward, Control Flames, Dancing Lights, Druidcraft, Encode Thoughts, Friends, Guidance, Gust, Light, Mage Hand, Mending, Message, Mold Earth, Minor Illusion (maybe with concentration required?), Prestidigitation, Resistance, Shape Water, Spare the Dying, Thaumaturgy. If you're okay with a few that cause damage: Magic Stone, Primal Savagery, Word of Radiance, Produce Flame, Infestation, Vicious Mockery. Of course, if that cantrip says something about who you are, you could use it as the baseline for their other spells, even, in some ways. Or just a way to judge people. What does it say about someone, that their inherent magic leans toward Infestation, versus Spare the Dying? Looking over the list, another way to make magic harder to use? Increase the number of concentration spells, or house rule that concentration spells mean you can't cast other spells while maintaining concentration (or it gets harder, or you need a wild magic roll, or something).
I'm playing in a game on Facebook where they revised the time requirements of short rests and long rests, and that has a big impact into how primary spellcasters use their spells. When a "short rest" requires 8 hours of inactivity, and a "long rest" requires 3 days... little workings like cantrips, and things like scrolls and potions and equipment, become a lot more influential than the spell slots.
My sister did a watercolour painting of my dragonborn paladin spooning the party supplies/funds in her sleep and it is the most goddamn adorable thing.
The party I'm DMing is acquiring pets at an alarming rate. The Ranger already had a dog (a big ol' mastiff who's bigger than his halfling owner!) He now has a book of conjurable garden birds, a thank-you gift from the wizard the party rescued a few sessions ago. During the first session, the Ranger had already got one bird from the book. Pet total: 1 dog, 1 bird. THEN he meets the new arrival to the party, a Firbolg Paladin, right? He's never met a firbolg before, and he's very excited....but very shy because he's smol and the firbolg is tol and he's got a bit of a puppy-crush on this charismatic nature-lover. So he nips home to get his bird book. (He left Bird 1 at home with his dad.) He meets back up for an evening get-together outside of town....and bashfully presents the Paladin with a red-crested waxfinch. Pet total: 1 dog, 1 bird. And now, the session after that, the Ranger rolled a nat 19 for Animal Handling when the party found a lost old dog. This dog is sticking to him like glue. 2 dogs, 1 bird........and at least 4 more potential birds, because he's still got the book. As a DM, I fear for how many critters I'll end up keeping track of....but I don't mind, everyone's happy and most of the animals fly/run away if a fight starts. As long as the Ranger doesn't start weaponising his arsenal of birds I think we're good...? xD
Sorry for always spamming with questions but...does anyone know a good system for like a school life simulator? With magic ia fine, but i want something where going to classes and achool drama are important most of all
5E? By default, animals don't fight. There's the Beastmaster ranger, but that is... suboptimal, TBH. You're trading your action for an animal companion to take action instead, and that animal's action is almost always worse than what you could do otherwise.
There's a way to make critters weaponizable without beastmaster ranger or circle of the shepherd druid but it puts the control in the player's hand so THEY have to keep track of all the critters. Otherwise companions without adventurer levels default to "nope" and will try to flee until combat's over We're collecting strays in our first game, most notably a pair of goblins our bard is training to do tricks for his shows (which he's working on sheets for so they'll actually be helpful in a fight instead of garden variety gerblins) and a geriatric dwarf who's also our employer.
I mean, to be fair, I'm not sure that beastmaster ranger really weaponizes critters very much, either, unfortunately.
Oh yeah, I'm aware - I fear my post read inadequately tongue-in-cheek! The mundane animals are mundane animals and are always gonna scatter when there's a threat unless they've got their own motivation to aggress someone/thing involved in the fray. By "weaponising the birds," I'm more predicting....shenanigans. With the exclusion of a somewhat volatile hawk, the contents of the book is nothing but standard fantasy garden birds. Though to be clear, I would not complain about shenanigans! (Ranger is a Beastmaster, as it happens! But none of us at the table are particularly concerned about being optimal - Ranger just enjoys having a massive dog friend who goes boof at things and who protects him when there's baddies.)
beastmaster isn't great in combat, but can be pretty good support. i've got a beastmaster who frankly dislikes fighting quite a lot, bc he is a literal park ranger rather than an aragorn expy, and his python pet is a very handy beastie to have around for getting into tight spaces, tracking, sensing heat and vibration, and holding enemies still so you don't have to kill them. the snake's attacks don't do anywhere near as much damage as the ranger's, but since cecil of the jungle is not out to kill anyone anyhow, he prefers to say "mister tuttle, hug!" and have the python do a grapple. in a combat-heavy campaign, he'd be a liability, but since it's more exploration and discovery, the beastmaster is quite an asset.
The Revised Ranger UA significantly improves the combat utility of the Beastmaster, since it gives the animal its own initiative and attack--I started a Beastmaster with the PHB version of the class and switched to UA at level six, and suddenly her boar worked much better as more than a meatshield. Either version, though, has always paired better when she's fighting ranged rather than melee--the UA Coordinated Attack is fantastic for it, but even vanilla PHB she mostly used him to distract her target. (It was also a fun RP thing because she was a coward who tried to avoid fights whenever possible, but the boar loved the party and she loved him, so I could use him to drag her into engagements she'd otherwise run from.)
That's neat to know - I might make him aware of the Revised Ranger, in case he'd prefer it! :) (Also, I love the thought of using an animal companion to pull your ranger into situations she wouldn't usually go into without it, that's really fun.)
God our Party keeps collecting strays too. Our airship has two tresymys and four kenku (ok technically the kenku are crew) one of which is a bard, (his name is F#) Our wizard has a ghost dog and her owl familiar Rigby The cottage holds currently six warforged of various sizes (2 recon + roboOwl, 1 Lorge Melee, 1 commander, 1 ballisdog and 1 honest to god Siege engine...) And the party has a friendly mimic of holding because a bag of holding doesn't have enough self-defense options. Admittedly, most of them aren't actively traveling with us, only Luggage and Rigby are with the party most of the time...but they do all have stats somewhere
