D&D General When to know a rule?

[prabe]

Again, this is fine. I’m certainly don’t want people to think I’m hardline about RAW. I’m not. I use all sorts of non-standard stuff. No problem.

But let me turn it around. Player asks you to see your spells. Even if he can’t use them, he just wants to see them. Maybe to draw inspiration. Maybe to check the math. Doesn’t matter.

Would you hold that no, the player absolutely may not look at your list of homebrew spells? How would you feel about a dm that flat out refuses?

As I said earlier, this just raises so many red flags.

In principle, I have no problem with telling the players what source/s I'm pulling 3pp material from. In practice I often don't know what 3pp spell/s I'm going to place before I do so, so I'm not sure what the player/s would gain. Also, some of my sources include spells that I'd likely hard nope on, and I'd be unhappy to have a player get their hopes up about those. Also, it's not wildly unusual for me to edit 3pp material when I type it up for addition to the game (and once it's in the game, I'll make that available to the players).

But then, if a PC gets hit with an attack with a rider, I'll announce the rider--complete with DCs and further effects--when they get hit. I'm fine with the players knowing the mechanics for what's going on, and I in fact kinda rely on my players to keep track of things like that (they're not the sorts of players who, if I forget the rider, will let it go, even if it makes things worse for their characters).

 

[Lanefan]

It may be tagged General, but Bloodtide runs 5e. He has said so numerous times in numerous threads.

It would seem rather obvious that questions around things like treasury division, player types, dungeon design, worldbuilding, and a host of other topics apply across all editions.

Whether and-or how well the players should (or need to) know the rules is clearly another such topic, no matter what edition the OP currently runs.

 

[bloodtide]

I gotta admit, this is a totally new one to me. The idea that spells are somehow part of world building? Okay, sure. Doesn't explain why my divine characters don't have access. Also, since the only caster that actually writes anything down is a Wizard, I guess all your new spells are wizard only?

D&D 5E rules have spell scrolls, or do you not use scrolls in your game? Or do you just ban divine spell scrolls?

Otherwise, they would be easily accessible by any other caster. After all, no other class actually does spell creation. They just get new spells automatically when they level up. So, if you have a Gnome Knocker spell, which if it is a +100 to hit, I would presume that you've vetted for your game, since your spells, @bloodtide are all perfectly vetted for balance in the game, then why couldn't my warlock or sorcerer have that spell? It exists. Therefore it's part of the game world. Therefore I, as a non-wizard arcane caster, should be able to take it.

If that is true in your houserules only.

But funny how your perfectly written, perfectly balanced spells default to +100 examples.

Only because your misquoting the post.

Would you hold that no, the player absolutely may not look at your list of homebrew spells? How would you feel about a dm that flat out refuses?

As I said earlier, this just raises so many red flags.

I'm fine with this "red flag". If a player wants to look at anything of mine "just because", they are free to leave when I say no. I made the spells for use in my game, you don't get some "right" to see them. I share what and when and how I want too.

Where it breaks a bit, however, is that a caster who can afford to design one new 9th level spell can, in the same time and for much less cost, flood the setting with 100 new 1st-level spells.

Does not seem like a 'break'. 100 spells like 'detect weapons', 'break glass' or 'conjure bucket' or one spell like 'Timeless Timestorm'.

To add to this: if those 5000 spells are indeed all different, and if there's any significant randomness in which of those spells a given wizard has in his-her book, the end result will be that each wizard's spell list might be truly unique. You could have three wizards in a party with three completely non-overlapping spell lists (until-unless they start swapping spells among themselves), which would be a pleasant change from all wizards trying to get the same 20-ish staple spells in their books as soon as they can.

This is my goal. And it works out beautifully, if I say so myself.

The diviner has nearly all divination spells and can really have fun throughout the game play casting spells often to learn things. Not just "acting like a normal wizard, until they find some magic loot and then acting all excited as they can now cast detect magic". The ice wizard gets some obvious spells like 'freeze water' and 'ice plug'(to block a doorway).

The challenge for bloodtide would be to make it such that of those 5000 spells there's not too many that only work in corner-case or unusual situations.

This is why there are so many. A lot of spells, like 'animate dirt' do have lots of uses....but a lot of spells are a bit limited. "Animate rigging' is useless unless your on a ship with rigging...but if your character is sailing a lot...... But then 'knock' is really only useful around doors.....

(Looks at D&D General tag on the post)

By player demand most of my games are 5E, but I still run two classic 3X games....though the 3X spell rules are better written. The rules say "add a spell from the spell list", and most splatbooks say "add these spells to the spell list"....but not all. So, one can just say "the spell(s) are not on the list."

 

[Lanefan]

The diviner has nearly all divination spells and can really have fun throughout the game play casting spells often to learn things. Not just "acting like a normal wizard, until they find some magic loot and then acting all excited as they can now cast detect magic". The ice wizard gets some obvious spells like 'freeze water' and 'ice plug'(to block a doorway).

What would happen if all the spells were in one great big "bucket", as it were, for each level without division into spheres or schools? That's what I was getting at when thinking of wizards ending up with random and probably unique spell lists.

This is why there are so many. A lot of spells, like 'animate dirt' do have lots of uses....but a lot of spells are a bit limited. "Animate rigging' is useless unless your on a ship with rigging...but if your character is sailing a lot...... But then 'knock' is really only useful around doors.....

...and locks, and treasure chests, and stuck-shut jam jars, and anything else the opening of which needs a magical push. Far more universal in use than what Animate Rigging sounds like it'd be...I'd probably just make that one Animate Ropes instead.

One thing I do consider when deciding whether to add a new spell* is how often it's likely to see use in play; as if it's never going to get used, why bother with it? There's spells in my current game that have been there for decades and in all that time have never been cast in play, which means I could (and, one day, will) prune them out and not lose a thing.

* - exception: PC-designed spells always get added and kept, no matter what.

 

[TiQuinn]

This is why there are so many. A lot of spells, like 'animate dirt' do have lots of uses....but a lot of spells are a bit limited. "Animate rigging' is useless unless you’re on a ship with rigging...but if your character is sailing a lot...... But then 'knock' is really only useful around doors.....

I don’t think there’s much problem with having “useless” spells. They’re usually meant for NPCs rather than players though sometimes I’ve seen players learn some very specific spell they thought was cool.

 

[ezo]

Hm. How has that worked out for you? It seems fairly trivial to make cantrips and low level spells.

Well, not when you are in tier 1. Frankly, we haven't used this a lot, often players used it to create versions of spells from earlier editions.

That's not an awful table as a starting point, but I'd like to see some variability to it; also a means of reducing the check's DC by spending extra time and-or money over and above what's listed. For example, by the table a 2nd level spell takes two weeks and 500 g.p.; a researcher who throws 2000 g.p. at it and spends 3 months researching it should be able to knock that DC of 12 down to about 6.

The monetary costs for 0th-3rd level spells are also far too low, but then again low-level types in 5e tend to be dirt poor compared to what I'm used to: the table as written probably works if the researchers are only working on spells of the highest level they can cast.

Sure, you could easily add rules to allow additional funds and/or time to affect the DCs, but personally I wouldn't lower them more than 3 regardless.

Where it breaks a bit, however, is that a caster who can afford to design one new 9th level spell can, in the same time and for much less cost, flood the setting with 100 new 1st-level spells.

If a 17+ level spellcaster wants to create 100 1st-level spells, they can knock themselves out doing it I guess. I wouldn't see much point, but whatever.

 

[bloodtide]

What would happen if all the spells were in one great big "bucket", as it were, for each level without division into spheres or schools? That's what I was getting at when thinking of wizards ending up with random and probably unique spell lists.

You don't want to go too random. A lot of spells...or anything else...depend on the player. Give some players Animate Dirt and they will use that spell a lot as it has a lot of utility uses. Other players will refuse to use the spell, or just won't be able to think of a way to use the spell. So it that player gets it as part of a limited spell pick...it will be a waste of a spot.

...and locks, and treasure chests, and stuck-shut jam jars, and anything else the opening of which needs a magical push. Far more universal in use than what Animate Rigging sounds like it'd be...I'd probably just make that one Animate Ropes instead.

That's two different spells Until you get to the higher level spells that mix spell effects together.

One thing I do consider when deciding whether to add a new spell* is how often it's likely to see use in play; as if it's never going to get used, why bother with it? There's spells in my current game that have been there for decades and in all that time have never been cast in play, which means I could (and, one day, will) prune them out and not lose a thing.

* - exception: PC-designed spells always get added and kept, no matter what.

I agree. I make spells for players to use....but also for me to use. Plenty of my spells get used by NPCs.

I don’t think there’s much problem with having “useless” spells. They’re usually meant for NPCs rather than players though sometimes I’ve seen players learn some very specific spell they thought was cool.

It does depend on the player a lot.

 

[SkidAce]

Again, this is fine. I’m certainly don’t want people to think I’m hardline about RAW. I’m not. I use all sorts of non-standard stuff. No problem.

But let me turn it around. Player asks you to see your spells. Even if he can’t use them, he just wants to see them. Maybe to draw inspiration. Maybe to check the math. Doesn’t matter.

Would you hold that no, the player absolutely may not look at your list of homebrew spells? How would you feel about a dm that flat out refuses?

As I said earlier, this just raises so many red flags.

I usually post them on my wiki after they encounter them.

 

[SkidAce]

Me too, and I was paid for a million and a half words that made it into print. I know that people make mistakes of all kinds no matter how experienced they are and how carefully they scrutinize their own work. Editors and proofreaders are absolutely necessary for the lowest error rates. Period. Nobody produces as reliably correct text on their own.

I read that as "paid a million and a half for words that made it to print....

 

[Autumnal]

I read that as "paid a million and a half for words that made it to print....

And I was! Not amount in USD, of course. Maybe baht or something.