[3.PF] Removing high level spells from the game- What's the effect?

[The Vagabond]

This is just something I've been wondering- What would happen if you removed higher level spells from the game? Let's say, you removed seventh, eighth and ninth level spells from the Wizard lists that aren't on lesser casters lists, Eighth and Ninth level spells from the cleric's list, and ninth level spells from the druid's list? How would that affect the game?

To balance this out, most classes gain bonus feats every even level- Mostly these are feats nobody would ever take, like Teamwork feats, but also metamagic feats. So basically, replace higher level spells with metamagic versions of lower level spells.

[Karl Aegis]

Metamagic is the source of all evil. They don't actually need those spells when they can break the game with metamagic.

[Saintheart]

For my part I think you'd only really achieve these aims by taking out all spells at or above fifth level.

Admittedly I've only seen this in the context of Red Hand of Doom, so my perspective is probably very skewed, but when the party mages and clerics start hitting level 8 and 9 there's a quantum leap in spell quality to match it.


Need to reliably break up a wave of 20-odd melee-based opposition so you can pick them off one by one? Confusion.

Need to get someone from another plane to do stuff for you? Lesser Planar Binding.

Need to get somewhere 900 miles away? Teleport.

Need to communicate over 2,000 miles away? Sending.

Need to get somewhere you can't get on foot? Overland Flight.

The enemy is a poisoner? Polymorph into a treant.

Need to Pounce in order to bring your Divine Power to bear on a full attack? Polymorph: Cave Troll.

Need to penetrate the enemy's lair? Scry and Teleport.

Need to become a better fighter? Divine Power, Righteous Might.

Got a problem with being at -10 hitpoints? Raise Dead.


That's all just out of the SRD and without applying metamagic or going anywhere near direct-damage magic (Flame Strike being the most prominent one). I realise all of these spells can be countered by a DM if you're preparing for them and if you're experienced, but I really think it's playing a very different game to when you're pulling fourth level spells or lower. Their strength can be demonstrated in the fact that many of the above tactics remain viable even when you're casting 7th, 8th, 9th level - as opposed to the vast majority of fourth level spells that you don't tend to cast anymore because they're redundant at level 10+ or so.

Of course system mastery helps with these issues. But the 'sweet spot' for D&D is commonly seen as around levels 6-10, and I'd posit it's mainly for the above reason: magic from that point on starts to get practically uncontrollable unless you are a very well-prepared or foresighted DM. And typically the only way to prepare for this sort of magic is more magic to counter it, which is what starts to turn D&D into rocket tag. Magic breaks the game unequivocally from about 10th level onward, never mind that it potentially breaks the game at 1st level.

Consider the (relative) popularity of E6, which stops all progressions dead in their tracks at level 6, allowing only feat acquisition after that. It's done mainly because wizards and clerics get fully onto the Tier 1 podium when they start casting fourth level spells.

[ryu]

Pretty sure the tier one meta shifts to druids being the god tier of the standard three. Eighth level spells are still eighth level spells.

[AvatarVecna]

I believe this is the big idea behind E6 and E10 games; beyond 6th level, you're getting into such ridiculously powerful B.S. via magic that the concept of balanced play disappears.

EDIT: Of course, they realized just how ridiculously powerful spells above 3rd level are and stopped at level 6, but YMMV on that.

[jiriku]

This is just something I've been wondering- What would happen if you removed higher level spells from the game? Let's say, you removed seventh, eighth and ninth level spells from the Wizard lists that aren't on lesser casters lists, Eighth and Ninth level spells from the cleric's list, and ninth level spells from the druid's list? How would that affect the game?

To balance this out, most classes gain bonus feats every even level- Mostly these are feats nobody would ever take, like Teamwork feats, but also metamagic feats. So basically, replace higher level spells with metamagic versions of lower level spells.

If you're going to do this, I'd cut off spells of 7th level and higher for everyone, cold turkey. Clerics and druids have better class features than the wizard to compensate for their slightly weaker spell lists. They can take the hit. I also think there would be little need to "compensate" the nerfed classes in any way. They don't need bonus feats. I am inclined to think that the practical effect in most campaigns would be VERY slight -- PCs don't get to use these spells consistently until levels 13-14, which is beyond the normal play range of a lot of gaming tables. Now, the absence of these spells changes the game world somewhat, but in practice most game worlds act as if these spells don't exist anyhow (in most game worlds you don't see fabricate, sending, and teleportation circle having any impact on society as a whole, which they absolutely should be doing).

In a high-level campaign, the cat is really already out of the game balance bag by 12th level, but the reliance on metamagic may encourage groups to team up effectively -- Reach Spell and Chain Spell can make party-buffing very efficient, and those feats are obvious choices for someone who has nothing better to do with their high-level slots. Casters who buff can do a lot to keep lower-tier characters "in the game" at high levels. I don't think you're preventing rocket tag -- mailman sorcerers and save-or-die specialists actually prefer the lower-level spells because they can support more metamagic.

[Crake]

Honestly, since the majority of games hardly even make it to those levels, I'd only look at this from a world building perspective, how does the lack of 7th/8th/9th level spells impact a campaign setting?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Honestly, since the majority of games hardly even make it to those levels, I'd only look at this from a world building perspective, how does the lack of 7th/8th/9th level spells impact a campaign setting?I'm with jiriku on this one. The elimination of high level spells actually improves the internal consistency of most settings by itself.

[Scheming Wizard]

Bunch of angry wizards that's what.

Seriously though the real effect is just that the party is weaker assuming they had a cleric, druid, wizard, favored soul, healer, sorceress etc. in the first place. If your party didn't then the effect is nothing. If you ban 7,8, and 9th level spells Bard becomes pretty awesome.

You're probably going to need to tone down the monsters as well. Even if you banned the high level spells a pit fiend is still using Meteor Swarm unless you choose not to cast it as the dm. A lot of resources pc's use like greater teleport and true resurrection are closed off to them as well.

The excuse "a wizard did it" works a lot less. You'll need to start using "a god did it".

Nothing wrong with a low magic setting it just is what it is.

[AzraelX]

I can't say I know what the effect of removing all high level spells is like, but in my experience, removing high level spells along the lines of Wish/Miracle/True Resurrection/etc has a drastic improvement on the campaign (at least, compared to campaigns which both have those things and use them; but it seems like any DM who includes those spells in their setting ends up predictably falling back on them as soon as it's easier than having an original idea).

Knowing that you will never have an option to undo severe consequences (like someone's corpse being destroyed, for example) makes the gameplay feel more meaningful, in my opinion as a player. It's similar to the reasoning that The Giant uses for not allowing his characters access to these spells.

I'm not sure if removing the other high level spells would enhance this effect any further, but I suppose it's worth consideration.

[jiriku]

I want to clarify as well -- the game will still be riddled with exploits. I could still build a wizard who would know every spell of 6th level and lower and cast them all at will. I could still build a psion with infinite power points and infinite actions. I could still chain-bind infinite outsiders.

[SkipSandwich]

What if we went even further and borrowed the d20Modern paradigm of requiring at least 3 levels in a basic class before you can qualify to take a spellcasting advanced class? You get 10 levels of "Wizard" as an advanced class, and may then qualify for say, the 5 level prestige class "Abjurer".

So Apprentice3/Wizard10/Abjurer5/Apprentice2 would have 10 levels of arcane casting, +5 levels of abjurer specialist casting on top of that, and lets be nice and say that apprentice levels increase caster level but do not on thier own grant casting so you still have a caster level of 20 by the end. You get up to 5th level spells as a generalist, and can get only select 6th-8th level spells from a specialized list after that, however you get those spells at least 3 levels later then a typical character would under the normal system.

[ZamielVanWeber]

If you let monsters keep access to high level spells it would certainly up their mystique. A Zodar has the ability to rewrite reality by sheer force of will, something no mortal has ever done. You just have to be careful about how deadly encounters can become in that situation.

[Taelas]

It's an intriguing idea. But the full impact can only really be seen by play testing it.

On the surface, though, I tend to agree that the game would still routinely be broken by magic.