So, it *was* a rule, in older editions, that when a magic user is K.O.'d he or she loses all memorised spells for the day. Is it *still* a rule in 5th edition?

I've had this come up - because the sorcerer in the game I'm running drops nearly every combat - and can't find anything in the 5e core book or DMG to back me up on it.

The writers go out of their way several times in the text to say that cantrips are "so practiced" that they can be done no matter what, therefore I've so far been ruling that if K.O.'d the cantrips stay but the spells are lost until the appropriate rest to gain some back (which varies from class to class).

Even if this isn't rule, I am probably going to still stick to my guns on this, because after 14 weekly sessions I am concluding that magic is tremendously more powerful than not having magic, and I really wish it were less reliable. I'm still irritated that the rules have codified the notion that spellcasters just pick their spells as they like. But I'd like to know where I stand with spell memorisation upon K.O.

Any help?

//Panjumanju

No it isn't a rule. In fact I've never heard of it being an official rule in any edition of DnD.

Quote from: Panjumanju;824036So, it *was* a rule, in older editions, that when a magic user is K.O.'d he or she loses all memorised spells for the day. Is it *still* a rule in 5th edition?

That was never a rule in older editions.

Quote from: Panjumanju;824036I've had this come up - because the sorcerer in the game I'm running drops nearly every combat - and can't find anything in the 5e core book or DMG to back me up on it.

It not a rule in 5th edition either. The only way to stop a spell caster is cut out his tongue, cut off his hands, and strip him of all possessions. Once he has prepared spells they are prepared. He could use up all his spell slots in a day but after a long rest will get them back with the spells he has prepared.

A wizard needs a spell book to change his prepared spells. But nothing short of a maiming, or restraints (gag, and manacles) will stop most of the spell using classes.

For clerics this always been the case regardless of edition.

Quote from: Panjumanju;824036Even if this isn't rule, I am probably going to still stick to my guns on this, because after 14 weekly sessions I am concluding that magic is tremendously more powerful than not having magic, and I really wish it were less reliable. I'm still irritated that the rules have codified the notion that spellcasters just pick their spells as they like. But I'd like to know where I stand with spell memorisation upon K.O.

It find if you have a setting in which you setup magic like this. However that not how you are sounding.

It sounds like, you frustrated with your players and their ability to use magic to resolves your adventures. Adopting a rule for this reason is pretty much a dick move for a referee to pull on his players and your players will respond accordingly.

May take offense at my statement but believe it is something I had to learn over 30 years of refereeing my Majestic Wilderlands and other RPGs.

The good news is that if you want to play D&D (regardless of edition well maybe not 4e because that a lot of work to modify). and you want to have a low magic setting it not that hard to do.

For example you could say all spells take a 10 minute ritual to cast. There is no such thing as battle magic. So what good is fireball or magic missile, etc. Well it good on the battlefield when a army can have casters protected by guard launching spells.

It good for creating scrolls and magic devices which you can then use in combat. So to cast magic missile you have to spend the time and money to make a scroll and then you can use it in combat.

The rule originate from background fluff that explains magic works by performing elaborate lengthy ritual. It is a single change that leave all the spell and other magic rules unchanged but completely changes the dynamics of magic in the setting.

Start with a coherent background for how magic works in your setting and use that as the basis for subsequent edition. When you done that then live with the consquences. Remember if the players discovered how to do something awesome, the NPCs can do it as well.

Now what I do for my Majestic Wilderlands is embed the use of magic as part of the context of a larger culture. Society has been dealing with high levels spellcasters for a long time and figure out how to deal with them.

For me it hinges on the fact that clerics are ministers of a religion.  Wizards, Sorcerors, and Warlock can try whatever but in the end what they can do pales in the face of the hold that religions and their clerics have on the hearts and minds of the populace. And because clerics are working for being or forces with their own agenda they wind up being a long term check for the power of the other spellcasters.

Rangers, Druids, and Paladins are also similarly constrained. These three has to follow a higher cause to keep their power.

Wizards have an issue in that they have to study to learn how to use magic. If they are hunted and on the run it is a major detriment for wizards as whole as the current generation of wizards would likely be the last. So it is in the interest of wizards as a whole to keep a lid on things.

Sorcerers are born not taught so they have the whole thing that Marvel Mutants/X-men have to deal with. Because there is no discipline involved in becoming a Sorceror there probably a lot more bat-shit crazy people who are sorcerors than wizards.

Warlocks are a cross between clerics, wizards, and sorcerers. Basically get their power from a deal with a supernatural entity or source. Unlike a Cleric (or Druid) it more of a one on one deal rather than be part of a larger whole like a religion. So like sorcerors, there are probably a lot of crazies who are Warlocks.

D&D work best where there is a bit of culture and religion defined. You don't have to go into the Nth detail, but if you have no detail or you never emphasis it, then the players will be free to act like maddogs doing whatever the hell they want.







Any help?

//Panjumanju[/QUOTE]

Quote from: estar;824051It find if you have a setting in which you setup magic like this. However that not how you are sounding.

This is how I've been operating since the campaign began. I'm surprised to hear this has not been a rule, and I'm very curious to know how my gaming group got this rule. I swear I've also read it somewhere.

Quote from: estar;824051It sounds like, you frustrated with your players and their ability to use magic to resolves your adventures. Adopting a rule for this reason is pretty much a dick move for a referee to pull on his players and your players will respond accordingly.

You have an entirely mistaken impression. Nobody is being a dick about anything - everyone is having a great time. I'm certainly not frustrated at player's success, I've just noticed a theme of inequity, that the casters are doing markedly better (in a large variety of scenarios) than classes that do not have access to spells.

I had always regarded the (apparently fictitious) rule about K.O.s to be something that balances the classes somewhat. I'm not overly concerned with class balance, but we're discovering that in 5th edition there is a pronounced level of inequity and some of my non-casting players are starting to get annoyed.

None of my players are asking that this not be the case that magic users lose their memorised spells at K.O. - they're fine with it - I was just looking to find solutions to this magic/not-magic imbalance without changing rules mid-campaign, and couldn't find one I was relying on.

So, I come to a community of people who know a lot more than I do. Your mild hostility is unwarranted.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: Panjumanju;824053This is how I've been operating since the campaign began. I'm surprised to hear this has not been a rule, and I'm very curious to know how my gaming group got this rule. I swear I've also read it somewhere.

Quote from: Panjumanju;824053So, I come to a community of people who
know a lot more than I do. Your mild hostility is unwarranted.

It been my experience that referees who have campaigns with that kind of rule are struggling or feeling that players are abusing the rules.

However there is another possibility, one that I done myself and seen in other groups.  That is a group will get it in their head that X is an rule but it really not. They play like that for years until somebody gets on a forum, plays with another group, or goes to a convention. Then they find out it not. It just a house rule they been using.

What you said sounds good to me.

Quote from: Panjumanju;824053I've just noticed a theme of inequity, that the casters are doing markedly better (in a large variety of scenarios) than classes that do not have access to spells.

In older editions of D&D (OD&D, AD&D 1st, etc) Spellcasters have more mechanical flexibility because spells are defined in the rules. People wind up thinking the only things a characters can do are those things in the rules.

The way OD&D and RPGs in general are meant to be played is that players describes what he want his characters to attempt, then the referee comes up with a ruling. If there are no specific rules to use for adjudication, then the referee will have to fall back on the general concepts of the game.

So what winds up happening is that a spellcaster has a spell that allows them to disarm an opponents but all a fighter has a 1d20 roll to whack somebody in terms of mechanics. However in real-life sword wielders can disarm people. It hard but it has been done. So the inclination of some is say no to the fighter that wants to attempt to disarm because the rules have no mechanics for that.

I would say yes, you can try to disarm your opponent. Likely I would say make a too-hit roll at -2 and the target gets a saving throw. If you hit and the target fails then you disarm him.

Why did I made my ruling this way? Well because weapon attacks use a 1d20 in classic D&D. I know that in real-life disarming is more difficult than an attack to do damage. Hence the -2. I also know the skill of the target plays a big part in the success of a disarm. Since D&D doesn't have a skill rolls what mechanic I have that scale up because of the character's level I can use to see if the target avoids being disarm? Ah-ha! The saving throw, which is used in general to allow character to avoid something bad happening to them. Hence the saving throw.

Now with all that being said, magic is going to be more useful over the mundane means of doing something. First it is how it is presented in the stories that spawned D&D and because D&D implicit setting is at the level of the middle ages in terms of technology.

Does it mean that magic comes without consequences? No, for clerics they are not their own master as they are beholden to a religion. Wizards have to study at some point and need some type of support if they want to have clothes, eat, and have shelter.

If you do not have those considerations in your campaign then magic is going to be the way to go for adventurers.

Quote from: Panjumanju;824053I had always regarded the (apparently fictitious) rule about K.O.s to be something that balances the classes somewhat. I'm not overly concerned with class balance, but we're discovering that in 5th edition there is a pronounced level of inequity and some of my non-casting players are starting to get annoyed.

First of all Fuck Balance. Yeah I know that sounds hostile. It not directed at you. D&D was nearly ruined by trying to achieve "balance". What is needed is for magic to properly reflect the setting. Or in the case of D&D the implicit setting found in the core rulebooks.

For classic D&D that implicit setting was that high level spellcasters are that good. The only way a thief or fighter can compete is with the right magic items.

In D&D 3e and 4e, there was a attempt to "balance" the classes. And it didn't work. So for 5e Wizard deliberately returned to the implicit setting of classic D&D. Hence why spellcasters seem better than other classes.

Quote from: Panjumanju;824053I was just looking to find solutions to this magic/not-magic imbalance without changing rules mid-campaign, and couldn't find one I was relying on.

What worked for me is asking myself, "Why isn't everybody in the campaign a wizard/cleric/druid/etc?".

For cleric and druid, the answered involved setting up religions. I did not focus much on the deities but rather on the culture that surrounds the worship of the deity.  Once I had my religions, players had to follows the strictures of their characters' religions or ceased being clerics. Not quite as strict as what people imagine for paladin. But definitely enough to establish that the players is not a free agent. He is a servant of another and his goals have to mesh with that of his religion or quite being a cleric.

For Wizards it was the fact they had to supported while studying. That studying to be a wizard and to gain experience as a wizard cost time and money. And it wasn't the personal cost to the character that really made my players think twice about being a wizard. But rather the social pressure created by the NPC wizards on the PCs not to fuck it up for them.

And if they weren't members of the relevant organization, mage's guild, etc. Then the nobility and the populace took a real dim view of even their benign activities. Basically the PC independent Wizard got hassled in-game all the time.

The result was a reasonable spread of classes among the players. The players of fighters and thieves felt more in control of what they did while the cleric and wizard had all this extra stuff to deal with. The attitude among my players is like "Yeah you get these cool abilities but you get the hassle that comes with them as well. I think I will play a fighter and load up on magic items."

Decide how things work for *your* setting.
Decide what makes sense in the game *you* want to run.

Tell the players what the rules are and why.  Let them know you want to run a world that makes the most internal consistent sense *to you* and the rules as written don't quite jibe with that, so you're going to alter them.

Remind them 5th Edition makes it quite clear that the GM uses what rules they wish (or not) and alters them accordingly, and that they are 100% free to do the same thing in the 5th games they run if they don't like yours.

Keeping playing or GMing with the adults, even if they don't all play in your 5th campaign, you can still agree to disagree and play with them or GM with them in other's campaigns.

Flush the screaming children.

In other words, same as every other edition.

Random question this thread made me think of: if they get spells back via a long rest and the wizard sleeps during his long rest does he still get the spells? Because in game the long rest is when he prepares it. But if he is asleep, then...

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;824071Random question this thread made me think of: if they get spells back via a long rest and the wizard sleeps during his long rest does he still get the spells? Because in game the long rest is when he prepares it. But if he is asleep, then...

From what I understand, spell preparation is separate from resting, and spells must be prepared after the rest.

This gets really complicated with an elf's rest - something that was going to be the subject of another thread, because if the elf only needs to trance for 4 hours to achieve rest, must they continue to rest for the other 4 to get their hit die back? Or do they need to rest for all 8 - even though they only have to trance for 4 - to get all their spells back? The rules are very unclear.

//Panjumanju

First off it goes without saying you can house rule whatever you want for your campaign. You are asking what the RAW rules are saying.

Quote from: Panjumanju;824114From what I understand, spell preparation is separate from resting, and spells must be prepared after the rest.

That correct.

Page 30 of the D&D 5e Basic rules

QuoteYou can change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of wizard spells requires time spent studying your spellbook and memorizing the incantations and gestures you must make to cast the spell: at least 1 minute per spell level for each spell on your list.

Quote from: Panjumanju;824114This gets really complicated with an elf's rest - something that was going to be the subject of another thread, because if the elf only needs to trance for 4 hours to achieve rest, must they continue to rest for the other 4 to get their hit die back? Or do they need to rest for all 8 - even though they only have to trance for 4 - to get all their spells back? The rules are very unclear.

No Elves still need to take 8 hours for a long rest they only spend 4 of it zonked out.

Source
http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1900-D-D-5th-Edition-Sage-Advice-from-Designers-Mearls-Crawford#.VSFn3_nF-So

Unless a feature specifically mentions an exception to the rule. The general rules applies.

Specific Beats General

QuoteThis book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins. Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don't have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other examples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. For instance, an adventurer can't normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules.

QuoteTrance. Elves don't need to sleep. Instead, they meditate deeply, remaining semiconscious, for 4 hours a day. (The Common word for such meditation is "trance.") While meditating, you can dream after a fashion; such dreams are actually mental exercises that have become reflexive through years of practice. After resting in this way, you gain the same benefit that a human does from 8 hours of sleep. Languages. You can speak, read,

Doesn't mention any effect on long rest hence the general rule of long rest still applies to an elf.

From a balance perspective,  non-spellcaster classes seem to do pretty well, and we've achieved 10th level. The fighter mops up lots of monsters and the wizard has settle into a nice support / utility role. In essence they don't have a lot of "I Win" buttons and the ones they do have are limited. So to me the idea of a KO also dropping spells slots seems particularly harsh for no specific reason.

Maybe have them lose a set die of spells known for the day but retain their slots to still cast spells they have been able to retain? It's still rough because their losing out on versatility but they don't lose out on valuable resources.

As others have noted. Its never been a rule in D&D. Not even in BX.

There was though a rule in one of the books or Dragon that introduced the idea of head trauma via critical wiping the wizards prepped spells. It was very rare to happen.

If its happening every time the caster goes down then that is WAY WAY too harsh. Moreso if the DM is making sure the group cannot long rest unless they are in a secure locale and have the prep time to waste.

In AD&D spell memorization took forever at the higher levels. 12 hours prep time if one of the spells was 9th level. Not to mention the required 4 hours actual rest. Thus recovering your cast magic missile and fireballs took 6 hours study + the 4 hours snoozing. 10 total. Just recovering your 1st level heals tool 4 hours + the 4 hour rest.

AND 1/4th hour per level of spell to be memorized. 45 more minutes just to imprint in the grey matter 1 fireball.

I remember when playing TSR D&D editions that a spell caster who was slain then revived, lost all memorized spells, so in B/X with death at 0 hp, it was true that a KO wiped out spells.

In AD&D when it was possible to get dropped without actually dying, we only counted the spells as lost if the character actually died.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;824163I remember when playing TSR D&D editions that a spell caster who was slain then revived, lost all memorized spells, so in B/X with death at 0 hp, it was true that a KO wiped out spells.

In AD&D when it was possible to get dropped without actually dying, we only counted the spells as lost if the character actually died.

In BX there is no mention of losing memorized spells on death.

As for AD&D. I thought you did lose spells on death. But a read through the DMG and PHB oddly did not turn up anything?

QuoteElves still need to take 8 hours for a long rest they only spend 4 of it zonked out

Correct. The elves advantage is that they can do OTHER things in a long rest, mostly subtle and not directly combat related.

Quote from: Omega;824169In BX there is no mention of losing memorized spells on death.

As for AD&D. I thought you did lose spells on death. But a read through the DMG and PHB oddly did not turn up anything?

Hence why Lichdom was a serious option back then no matter the consequences or risks.