5e e6?

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Has anyone considered the old 3rd ed e6 concept for 5e? i.e. - at the risk of having too many "e"s - capping advancement at 6th level, to keep casters in check.

I've only played a little 5e, and all at low-ish level - but it lloks to me like the high level spells are still awesomely powerful. I fear it may get beyond my sweet spot, which was always the sort of sword and sorcery grit of Conan-like settings.

Is it even desirable? Are full casters significantly more powerful than mundanes and half-casters at high level?

How about an alternative of capping spells at 3rd or 4th spell level?

[Ardantis]

Too soon? Maybe?

[Wartex1]

Martials and casters are mostly on the same level. The Paladin is probably the strongest class now too, the Fighter is good, the Rogue is the most balanced, and the casters aren't that much more powerful with the exception of the oft-houseruled Moon Druid which gets infinite HP from wildshaping, but only at 20th level.

I've seen someone rule halving the level of a caster for the purposes of calculating spell slots in a low-magic campaign, but that's about it.

[Naanomi]

I'm away from books so can't look at exact levels, but I'd guess 'e9' or 'e11' would have the same feel; though without feats being so ubiquitous you'd have to work out an advancement system to move past your 'end point'

[Elderand]

e6 was conceived as a way to keep casters and martial competitive. It did this with the very mistaken assumption 6 level was a tipping point. It wasn't, try hard enough and caster break the game right from the start.

This isn't true in 5e, caster supremacy just isn't a thing. Yes, high end spell are still very strong but you'd be mistaken to think that was what mattered before. It was rule interactions and self buffing that was the issue mostly. Well that and frankly until the very end of 3.5 life martial where simply terrible.

In 5th edition caster powers is far more limited than it was in 3rd, what with limited spell slot, concentration limiting you to one buff and martial are far far more competent than they ever where in 3rd.

There is simply no need for something like e6 the game is already better balanced than e6 ever was.

[Clistenes]

I think it's unnecessary. The proficiency bonus (and hence the attack bonus, the skill bonus and the save bonus) cap at +6, so the game is largely sort of an E6 experience already. You get more hit points and class features as you advance, but the monsters are balanced and the classes are balanced to each other too.

[mephnick]

I love e6, buy I agree with Naanomi that e6 would be a little low for this edition. I don't think the mid-level spells are nearly as broken as they used to be, at least not in comparison to the melee classes. Once you get to high level spells, sure I can see that. But I think e9 or e13 or so might be a better depending on where you want to cut out proficiency bonuses and spell levels.

[Slipperychicken]

I think it would be more appropriate to wait until a lot of people have played mid and high-level 5e, then see what they say about it. Who knows? High levels might not run into caster-supremacy problems as much as 3.5 did.

[Once a Fool]

e6 was conceived as a way to keep casters and martial competitive. It did this with the very mistaken assumption 6 level was a tipping point. It wasn't, try hard enough and caster break the game right from the start.

I've got to disagree with your initial premise here. E6 wasn't about balancing martial classes with spell casters; that was just (somewhat of) a byproduct. The point of E6 was to create a more mundane feel for the world as a whole.

In this respect, capping 5e at level 6 would accomplish the same thing. The most potent spells out there will allow someone to fly or toss fireballs.

The other things E6 accomplished are handled with 5e's bounded accuracy.

Just a note, though: if I were doing E6, I would increase the XP needed to pick up feats after level 6, because 5e feats are nearly equivalent to a level on their own.

[Stan]

The point of E6 was to create a more mundane feel for the world as a whole.

For those of use with this motivation, E6 still has a place. Though 20 1st level archers are more of a threat in 5e than in 3e due to bounded accuracy, being able to teleport at will and having death be a temporary inconvenience can feel too far from reality (or too far from the fiction they are emulating). Level 8-10 for the cutoff or so would work as well.


Just a note, though: if I were doing E6, I would increase the XP needed to pick up feats after level 6, because 5e feats are nearly equivalent to a level on their own.

You could just keep using the standard XP table and throw players a bone each new level.

[Once a Fool]

You could just keep using the standard XP table and throw players a bone each new level.

That could be problematic since the 5e XP table does not scale evenly as it advances through the tiers. If your players care about such aesthetics, that is.

[Madfellow]

I've only played a little 5e, and all at low-ish level - but it looks to me like the high level spells are still awesomely powerful. I fear it may get beyond my sweet spot, which was always the sort of sword and sorcery grit of Conan-like settings.

Is it even desirable? Are full casters significantly more powerful than mundanes and half-casters at high level?

How about an alternative of capping spells at 3rd or 4th spell level?


If you're worried about high level spells being too powerful for the world or setting you have in mind, then there are a couple of things you can do. First, you can do something like e6 and institute a lower level cap. In this case, I would set the level cap around 10, rather than 6. At that point, full casters can only cast as high as level 5 spells; they haven't yet broken into the awesome 6+ level spells.

Alternatively, you could keep level progression all the way to level 20 and just not allow full caster classes in your games. This creates more of an old mythic heroics kind of feel.

But neither option is truly necessary for a balanced game. After about a year, the general consensus is that the game is holding up very well in terms of balance at basically all levels. Which is, you know, awesome. :smallsmile:

Hope this helps.

[Hawkstar]

e6 was conceived as a way to keep casters and martial competitive. It did this with the very mistaken assumption 6 level was a tipping point. It wasn't, try hard enough and caster break the game right from the start.
The amount of effort to make casters break the game at level 1 is a level of Theoretical Optimization easy to dismiss as irrelevant to actual gameplay. Level 6 really is a tipping point for all purposes and most tables.

[HarrisonF]

There are two different reasons to play e6:

1. Game balance of martials vs. casters. This is much better in this edition. IMO, until you get to 9th level spells, it isn't that out of balance. The casters can do different things, but not really break the game repeatedly, nor fill the same rolls as the martials. There are some exceptions to this, but you can easily remove those spells from the game (ie. simulacrum). As for 9th level spells, it seems like the designers just decided they didn't care about balance anymore and made them kinda bonkers. The step up from 8th level spell power is large. So I would limit to lower than 9th level spells (say e15).

2. A more gritty, low-magic feel. This is still where you could really want to limit the levels. Spells like teleport aren't broken, but definitely change the feel of the game as you no longer need to spend months traveling around. Similar for other very high fantasy spells like planar binding, elemental summoning, etc... Personally, I wouldn't limit actual levels, but instead remove high level spells entirely. So level 6+ spells don't exist (except when needed for plot reasons), but you still get the slot in order to upcast your lower level spells.

[Elderand]

Why bother limiting it to lower than 9th ? Yes 9th are really strong but so what ? They'd better be, you only get 1 per day. You don't get an arbitrary number of 9th level spells that you can use to cause shenanigans, you get 1.

[mephnick]

Why bother limiting it to lower than 9th ? Yes 9th are really strong but so what ? They'd better be, you only get 1 per day. You don't get an arbitrary number of 9th level spells that you can use to cause shenanigans, you get 1.

It's about keeping the world to certain level of power. Just because you only get 1 wish or time stop doesn't mean the existence of wish or time stop in general doesn't hurt your idea of how the world should work.

[HarrisonF]

Why bother limiting it to lower than 9th ? Yes 9th are really strong but so what ? They'd better be, you only get 1 per day. You don't get an arbitrary number of 9th level spells that you can use to cause shenanigans, you get 1.

A lot of the 9th level spells are mostly really just broken as written and make casters just better than martials. The gap between 8th and 9th level spells is huge. True Polymorph, Wish, Foresight, even Meteor Swarm can radically change the game. Permanently polymorphing someone into a bronze dragon, or doing 40d6 at a 1 mile range really are not even close to anything possible before this level.

8th level spells are good, but not really over the top. Things like maze to remove a single character from combat for a while, or feeblemind to do a single save-or-suck. 7th are similar, forcecage is really good, but limited. They don't allow you to replace the need for the martials, whereas 9th level spells do.

[Hawkstar]

Why bother limiting it to lower than 9th ? Yes 9th are really strong but so what ? They'd better be, you only get 1 per day. You don't get an arbitrary number of 9th level spells that you can use to cause shenanigans, you get 1.

Look at it another way - you get a 9th-level spell every day. There are 365.25 days per year, and a human wizard can live at least 60 years after reaching spellcasting age. That's 21,915 Level 9 spells from just one caster

[ad_hoc]

Another big world building difference between 3.x and 5 is the role of magic items.

I used to play e6 so I could have a world that made sense to me. There still needed to be regular working villagers and they still needed to be saved from classic monsters like ogres and werewolves. There were also no magic item shops.

In 5e that is already built into it.

I could see using it if you wanted to stay at a certain tier for longer. Even that is already built into the game with the XP tables.

[LordVonDerp]

The amount of effort to make casters break the game at level 1 is a level of Theoretical Optimization easy to dismiss as irrelevant to actual gameplay. Level 6 really is a tipping point for all purposes and most tables.

Nope.druid
Druid plus animal companion was better than fighter at level one.

[Doug Lampert]

If you're worried about high level spells being too powerful for the world or setting you have in mind, then there are a couple of things you can do. First, you can do something like e6 and institute a lower level cap. In this case, I would set the level cap around 10, rather than 6. At that point, full casters can only cast as high as level 5 spells; they haven't yet broken into the awesome 6+ level spells.

Why limit character level? Just limit spell levels, your level 20 wizard still gets a level 9 slot, but the highest level SPELL that exists is level 6, so he throws a really awesome fly or fireball or whatever.

Or if you think it's only level 9 spells that are the problem, limit the spells to no more than spell level 8.

There's a minor problem with warlocks at high level, but that's easily houseruled (just give them a "daily" slot of appropriate levels).

[1Forge]

So basicly you're trying to hombrew a valorous bard? Y'know an arcane spell caster that's balanced and still has to fight with a sword or bow every now and then, and possibly provide comic relief? One that also gets only some highish level spells, yeah its a bard. Just use bards as the base for your eldritch bard thingy. Instead of having a rapid climb in magic then a cut off give a gradual slope that tapers off in the end. Basically create a pseudo bard with INT instead of CHA, ignore the musicy stuff, change the spell list, fluff it up with DM powers and BAM you have lower level spellcaster that is more realistic and gritty-ish.

p.s. whoever said rogues are the most balanced is wrong its bards all the way. B.F.T.W. (bards for the win)

[Rhaegar14]

The amount of effort to make casters break the game at level 1 is a level of Theoretical Optimization easy to dismiss as irrelevant to actual gameplay. Level 6 really is a tipping point for all purposes and most tables.

In addition to the Druid and animal companion argument, a 1st level Wizard or Sorcerer with Sleep is straight-up ending encounters as a standard action in 3.5e. Granted there are several creature types with immunity to sleep, but the "I win" button should only exist under the most specific of circumstances if at all, rather than "if it's not a construct, an elf, or undead, we're good."

At 3rd level it gets even broader with Glitterdust. Now as long as the monster lacks blindsense or blindsight it's done for.

Admittedly, in both cases the caster still needs a beefy martial type to come along and clean up the now defenseless-or-at-least-crippled enemies, but the fight is already over.

[Theodoxus]

Which has nothing to do with 5th, since Sleep is cheapened with numbers and blindness/invisibility aren't as detrimental.

If you really wanted to keep with the e6 feel, I agree with the people postulating simply making higher level spells non-existent, or ritual only and hidden on ancient scrolls in caves that can't be copied/memorized, but used off the scroll. An epic quest to find a scroll of Astral Projection to track down the BBEG on another plane would be pretty cool.

A similar quest for a scroll of True Resurrection to bring back the Emperor Witch King who died a century ago... or a scroll of Meteor Swarm to defend against another nation that has it, in the D&D equivalent of MAD...

There are reasons you'd want the spells to be available, even if you want them to be super rare and not on demand.

5th Ed IS e6, just with higher spells baked in. Removing said spells, because of the way spell slots work, is super easy.

[weaseldust]

I'd recommend just ruling out spells that don't fit the atmosphere you're going for as DM. After all, Tenser's Floating Disc would be out of place in a typical sword-and-sorcery setting whereas Power Word Stun wouldn't, but the former is a 1st-level spell and the latter is an 8th-level spell. So just ruling out spells above a certain level is too crude a measure. Of course, it might be that when you cut out the spells you don't want you end up with too few spells left in some levels for your players to take, in which case a level cap would be a good idea, but whether that's true will depend on the specific demands of your setting.

[silveralen]

Personally I'm not too sure e6 is needed. You can likely stretch that cap somewhat, a lot of stuff in 5e gives a similar feel, like bounded accuracy. I think the popularity of e6 had a decent effect on 5e development honestly.

Now, balance wise you can get to level 12 and still keep things more or less perfectly balanced. Spell slots from 1-6 don't actually disrupt balance much if any.

Thematically, simply having fewer full caster classes works. With arcane trickster and eldritch knight, as well as paladin and ranger, you have access to spellcasting archetypes that never scale much past fairly basic simple spells. Even classes like totem barbarian can (partially) fill the thematic void you'd expect from a low level druid. You also have warlock with his weird line straddling, his restricted spell list and odd spell growth mean he is a prime choice. If bottomless spell casting is an issue, blade pact warlock helps there as well, it means even without never ending cantrips the caster is still useful in a fight consistently (though relaxing some aspects, like allowing the invocations to appy to any weapon used, might be a good idea).

Oddly enough, after looking through the lists, EK, AT, paladin, ranger, and even warlock feel very much like what you expect from more classic fantasy. The most powerful casters are ones touched by dark or other worldly powers (that's very Conan imo), other magic is more limited though eventually the greatest heros have access to power magic (raise dead being almost capstone level for paladin for example).

[Person_Man]

In 5E, I feel like you could just compress all 20 levels of any class down to 10 levels. The high level caster/non-caster problem occurs because non-casters get dead-ish/weak levels. But if you just removed those levels (while keeping their damage scaling), gave casters fewer high level spells, and banned game breaking magic (Simulacrum, Wish, Polymorph, etc) you'd be fine.

[silveralen]

In 5E, I feel like you could just compress all 20 levels of any class down to 10 levels. The high level caster/non-caster problem occurs because non-casters get dead-ish/weak levels. But if you just removed those levels (while keeping their damage scaling), gave casters fewer high level spells, and banned game breaking magic (Simulacrum, Wish, Polymorph, etc) you'd be fine.

I'm not so sure about the dead level bit. I don't see many deadish levels for fighter and rogue for example (unless you dislike feats/ability increases).

The first weak fighter level I see is 9, one usage of indomitable once per day isn't earth shattering I admit. In fact, only 9 and 13 seems even deadish, and that's more a statement about indomitable being a bit meh as a stand alone feature than anything else. If it were a short rest feature I wouldn't see a single weak level (and even then it's worth mentioning 9 and 13 also increase prof).

Rogue I don't see any weak levels. I don't see a single level that lacks a nice feature except maybe some of the archetypes, but even those seem generally strong except for arguably the lvl 3s.

Barbarian again seems solid, brutal critical is rather mediocre. Seems they didn't bother to provide very strong features at prof increase levels (9, 13, 17) so it has the same issue as indomitable. Beyond that... no not really.

Monk doesn't. Maybe elemental monk because that archetype has issues, but beyond that no.

I certainly don't see 10 levels of stuff that needs to be trimmed.

[Vogonjeltz]

Look at it another way - you get a 9th-level spell every day. There are 365.25 days per year, and a human wizard can live at least 60 years after reaching spellcasting age. That's 21,915 Level 9 spells from just one caster

You're right...from that perspective a Human Fighter, who can make 5 attacks every 6 seconds could make over 1,577,880,000....from just one warrior.


What does the e in e6 stand for?

[Celcey]

I think if you're going for the gritty, low magic feel, eliminating spells that don't work for your setting is the best way to go. If they aren't what you and your players want in a setting, that's fine. Definitely don't eliminate the spell slots, though.

Also, in defense of 9th level spells not being OP, I will say that most of them are incredibly impractical if you're not fighting the Big Bad.

[Once a Fool]

What does the e in e6 stand for?

Epic. Meaning everyone in such a world who is 6th level is an epic level (N)PC.

[Person_Man]

I'm not so sure about the dead level bit. I don't see many deadish levels for fighter and rogue for example (unless you dislike feats/ability increases).

Perhaps I stated my opinion poorly. Let me elaborate.

At mid-high levels, non-full casters mostly get increases to damage or additional low level abilities.

For example, lets look at Fighter levels 11-20:
11th: Extra Attack 2 (damage increase)
12th: Ability Score Improvement (equivalent of 4th level ability)
13th: Additional Indomitable use (worse then Feat)
14th: Ability Score Improvement (equivalent of 4th level ability)
15th: Martial Archetype feature (depends)
16th: Ability Score Improvement (equivalent of 4th level ability)
17th: Additional Action Surge and Indomitable use
18th: Martial Archetype feature (depends)
19th: Ability Score Improvement (equivalent of 4th level ability)
20th: Extra Attack 3 (damage increase)


With the possible exception of the two archetype abilities, the Fighter gets absolutely nothing that expands their options. They get more damage, and more low level abilities. Ability Score Increases/Feats are equally useful/powerful at 4th level or 19th level or any level in between, and Indomitable is worse then Lucky or Resilient. You could make the case that additional Extra Attacks and Action Surge should count as "new" abilities, since they are fairly flexible (damage, Shove, Grapple, triggering magic weapons more often). But that's just 3 out of 10 levels. And most of the time, they're just used for more damage. (And if you don't take them, because of poor multi-class choices or whatever, your damage dealing falls behind).

Compare this to any full caster. Because they can choose from a list of useful options (and those options can be changed each day), they basically get a new ability every time they gain a class level, and those abilities are progressively more useful/powerful as they gain levels. And cantrips scale automatically, so you always deal respectable at-will damage (though sometime somewhat less then a non-full caster) regardless of any multiclass decisions.

What I proposed is compressing the levels from 20 down to 10, and removing the repetition of low level abilities for non-full castes, and reducing the number of spells per day for full casters. It would take some homebrew work on the front end, but would still give players the full range of different cool abilities, but without different tiers of high level classes (hopefully).

[Beleriphon]

What does the e in e6 stand for?

Egh. Its stands of Egh.

Edit: Note I'm referring to the noise that can be made once you realize how things work after level 6, rather than a derisive noise.

[Teh_Noob]

I've only played a little 5e, and all at low-ish level.

That's your problem right there. I think you should give it a try first before you decide something doesn't work or is too powerful.

[Hawkstar]

You're right...from that perspective a Human Fighter, who can make 5 attacks every 6 seconds could make over 1,577,880,000....from just one warrior.
Attacks are not 9th-level magic. Any commoner can make an attack. 6th-9th level spells are bigger than that, even at only 1/day. Especially if you use spells that have effects that last a long time. You can set up a full Tippyverse on a single 9th-level spell slot per day, which is something no amount of Fighter Attacks can do.

[Lolzyking]

Well fighter gets a good amount of Asi's and is not MAD

a battle master could even grab the manuevers feat for more manuevers giving more options, with action surge they could commit a tactical onslaught

An eldritch knight is a 1/3rd caster and would catch up to your nerfed casters

Monks get so many fun things, Open hand gets hokuto no ken save or die, shadow is scorpion, elemental is weak

Barbarian could use more options though, but the rage mage hombrew is interesting

Rogue is pretty decent


I mean the second a wizard gets their 9th level spell, a monk can put his hand on his shoulder, tell him he has 10 seconds to live, and make a con save

[Stan]

But a 20th level caster can just sit at home and alter reality. Noncasters might be able to hold their own at close range (within 500' or so) but they have nothing that matches what casters can do the world as a whole.

[Lolzyking]

if you are worried about the wish spell, it has a 1 in a 3 chance of permanently telling the caster they can never wish again.

also wishes are dm ruled, sometimes a god denies your wish

other 9th level spells aren't reality altering

also what campaign gets to 9th level spells and doesn't experience the horrors of cr20+creatures with Hordes of minions

also

[MeeposFire]

Honestly if you are thinking of making this around 11-13th level you may as well do nothing because most games do not get beyond that point so making a rule set for it just isn't that useful (you can but it would be seldom used that it isn't that helpful).

If you wanted to use this idea to keep low level feeling (and thus limit high level magic and the like) you could just increase the time it takes to level after a certain point by a lot of XP (think 2e XP amounts relative to enemies with no bonus XP for treasure and the like). After that just decide on a few small bonuses to give between levels to keep the players interested and call it a day.


Player swant to feel like they have accomplished something and get something but it does not always have to be a big something.

[Stan]

Actually, for the campaign I'm working on, I just opted for slower advancement along with reigning in magic with a rule that you have to have more levels in noncaster/halfcaster classes than in full caster classes. But I'm going for a semi-heroic feel instead of skilled yet normal feel that I'd use E6 for.

[silveralen]

But a 20th level caster can just sit at home and alter reality. Noncasters might be able to hold their own at close range (within 500' or so) but they have nothing that matches what casters can do the world as a whole.

That's literally just the wish spell you are describing. The law of averages makes it pretty clear the wizard gets 4-5 such wishes max in his life.

Now, even if you dislike high level spells, i'd say just ban classes. You don't want DnD wizards in your world. There are other options to fill similar roles (all the half casters and, arguably, warlock).


Actually, for the campaign I'm working on, I just opted for slower advancement along with reigning in magic with a rule that you have to have more levels in noncaster/halfcaster classes than in full caster classes. But I'm going for a semi-heroic feel instead of skilled yet normal feel that I'd use E6 for.

I really don't understand why you wouldn't just ban caster classes at that point. I mean... you effectively crippled them to the point most aren't worth taking except as minor dips, conceptually they don't exist in your world.

[Once a Fool]

Honestly if you are thinking of making this around 11-13th level you may as well do nothing because most games do not get beyond that point so making a rule set for it just isn't that useful (you can but it would be seldom used that it isn't that helpful).

If you wanted to use this idea to keep low level feeling (and thus limit high level magic and the like) you could just increase the time it takes to level after a certain point by a lot of XP (think 2e XP amounts relative to enemies with no bonus XP for treasure and the like). After that just decide on a few small bonuses to give between levels to keep the players interested and call it a day.

This would be fine if you only cared about limiting what the PCs will achieve. However, e6 (or any version of eX, really) does more than that; it also defines an upper limit to what the rest of the world looks like. It's kind of the point.

[Stan]

That's literally just the wish spell you are describing. The law of averages makes it pretty clear the wizard gets 4-5 such wishes max in his life.

No it's not. Gate, resurrection/true resurrection, true polymorph, time stop, scrying, teleport, control weather, planet shift, astral projection, clone, demiplane, are some of the of the spells that change the world more than just causing more damage. It's toned down from most earlier editions but a high level caster can still dominate in ways far beyond what a noncaster can do.



I really don't understand why you wouldn't just ban caster classes at that point. I mean... you effectively crippled them to the point most aren't worth taking except as minor dips, conceptually they don't exist in your world.


A multiclass caster is clearly weaker than a full caster but they can hold their own if that is the only path to some spells. Restricting caster classes to half total classes is a common, simple mod that has been used successfully by many people in many campaigns. It may not be to your taste but it creates a landscape suitable for some types of campaigns.


This would be fine if you only cared about limiting what the PCs will achieve. However, e6 (or any version of eX, really) does more than that; it also defines an upper limit to what the rest of the world looks like. It's kind of the point.

Exactly. What if no one could raise dead? What if the toughest warrior in the world still had to worry about simultaneously facing half a dozen competent but unremarkable soldiers? It's like the opposite of Forgotten Realms. You're trying to save the world at ~6th level as there is no one in the world more capable. It's not realism but you can see reality on the horizon from there.

[MeeposFire]

This would be fine if you only cared about limiting what the PCs will achieve. However, e6 (or any version of eX, really) does more than that; it also defines an upper limit to what the rest of the world looks like. It's kind of the point.

The world is whatever you make it to be. If you want there to be no 20th level casters in it you just make no 20th level casters. The DM does not need any special rules in order to make that work. Heck NPCs and monsters are not made with the same rules as characters so this is 100% not a problem. Just make them have what you want.

PCs are the only thing you need to consider because they are the one thing that the DM traditionally does not directly control and thus the players need to know what they can have and do.

[Lolzyking]

Okay so max 10 caster levels, that leaves room for the most stupid gish nova build of all time

Favored soul/fighter/paladin/assassin/monk half orc GWF

8/3/3/3/3

Action Surge/Haste/Smites/assassin insta crit/Flurry of blows/ devotion weapon buff/
also bonus point if as a monk you convince the dm that your greatsword is a monk weapon therefore dex.

SUPER bonus points for metamagic smites.



Sure its not reality altering, but it will on average one shot most enemies at 300hp, if all rolls maxed out you could one shot the tarrasque

[silveralen]

No it's not. Gate, resurrection/true resurrection, true polymorph, time stop, scrying, teleport, control weather, planet shift, astral projection, clone, demiplane, are some of the of the spells that change the world more than just causing more damage. It's toned down from most earlier editions but a high level caster can still dominate in ways far beyond what a noncaster can do.

I'd disagree with probably half of those being particular large or potent. I'd say maybe handful have a real "reshape the world" feel, and that's resurrection and maybe clone (whose entry I haven't read this edition and can't check atm). The rest are good spells beyond a shadow of a doubt, but are too limited in scope and power to be described as fundementally reshaping reality.


A multiclass caster is clearly weaker than a full caster but they can hold their own if that is the only path to some spells. Restricting caster classes to half total classes is a common, simple mod that has been used successfully by many people in many campaigns. It may not be to your taste but it creates a landscape suitable for some types of campaigns.

Okay but it isn't the only path too spells. You said half/partial casters were not limited as such.

There is no reason to try multiclassing with cleric when you could go paladin instead, not in 5e. The rules fight you every step of the way. If I have to play a nature warrior, am I going to try to play moon druid with access forms literally half as strong as normal or just go ranger?

It isn't like mixing a full and half caster class 50/50 would work either. You are still dealing with a premium on actual spell levels, which won't be worth it for an actual even split. There is a reason no optimized build this edition mentions 10/10. Few 12/8 are even particularly useful.

You've created a whole category of trap options in effect. I can't imagine the campaigns you are talking about took place in 5e or actually took those classes as anything but 2-3 level dips.

[1Forge]

Simple either A hombrew wizards to be more like bards without the musicy stuff, this debuffes their spellcasting a bit. This sounds a bit like what your going for spellcasters that are not fireball slinging, wish giving, and lightning throwing bosses; but instead controll "weaker" magics and use guile.

B just say high end spells cant be learned without a scroll or book. Then make those either A impossible to find or B difficult

Or D make those spells dangerous to learn without help, make them have to exceed a DC to learn a spell on their own. fail and they blow up or something.

@arguing peeps: Guys calm down some settings have less magic, just chill a the players probobly know about this and are okay with it. And remember D&D is about fun.

[LordVonDerp]

Make all the casters work like warlocks, get rid of high level spells, and do some other third thing.

[Once a Fool]

PCs are the only thing you need to consider because they are the one thing that the DM traditionally does not directly control and thus the players need to know what they can have and do.

Which is something that e6 provides. While neatly maintaining consistency with the rest of the world.

[Stan]

You've created a whole category of trap options in effect. I can't imagine the campaigns you are talking about took place in 5e or actually took those classes as anything but 2-3 level dips.

It does work out mainly to dips but that's ok. Players have the options to try using levels of full casters. In 3rd with the same setup, taking a few levels of caster could add healing; in 5th that's less important.

[TurboGhast]

I'd recommend just ruling out spells that don't fit the atmosphere you're going for as DM. After all, Tenser's Floating Disc would be out of place in a typical sword-and-sorcery setting whereas Power Word Stun wouldn't, but the former is a 1st-level spell and the latter is an 8th-level spell. So just ruling out spells above a certain level is too crude a measure. Of course, it might be that when you cut out the spells you don't want you end up with too few spells left in some levels for your players to take, in which case a level cap would be a good idea, but whether that's true will depend on the specific demands of your setting.

I think ruling out spells that are too reality altering is a very good solution.

If there aren't enough spells at a particular level due to many being dropped for being off theme, you can just write new spells that take the place of the now unlearnable ones in the spell list for any relevant class that are on theme, e.g. replace an off theme level 9 Wish spell with a new, on theme level 9 conjuration spell.

This could even be done with individual spell lists, i.e. Wizards & Sorcerers lose Wish and get a new level 9 conjuration spell in its place, but Clerics can still cast it (Possibly combined with reflavoring wish as directly asking a deity to intervene). However, the new spells added must definitely be well balanced on their own for this to work well and not seem like complete DM biasery. Wish probably is an bad example for this type of modification anyway.