How would your players feel about setting specific nerfs? [Archive]

MonkeySage

2017-12-11, 08:52 PM

Whether or not the nerf is your intent as a gm, some specific aspect of your setting nerfs or removes a feature present in the default setting, and rules of the game you're running.

How do your players respond to this alteration, especially when the nerf directly affects them? For example, say teleportation works differently in your setting and as a result, teleportation always carries a risk of mishap.

At what point would you feel it necessary to acquiesce to your players' wishes and remove the nerf? How do you help them to accept the alteration?

In my own experience, there are some players who readily accept most reasonable changes, even if they do nerf certain features as a consequence... I've had players who I've all but felt like I had to throw dog treats at just to keep them interested. On a somewhat tangentially related note, I had a player who thought rangers should get dual wielding at level 1 back in 3.5... Minor change, I discussed it with the group and we conceded him that... But then more requests came and we all realized that was a mistake. When I didn't give him what he wanted, he left the group.

I have two players in particular who are sort of rules lawyers (though they would deny it). When my setting specific changes inadvertently change the way certain things work, these two usually speak up about it. One who might eventually concede to my point, and one who will stand by his point no matter what I say, throwing his arms up in frustration. I actually do value their opinion, though, because it allows me to critically assess whether the change I'm making is necessary.

Geddy2112

2017-12-11, 09:14 PM

As a GM, I try to put all of this out in the open session zero or even before that, so players know any and all setting specific houserules/nerfs/changes that will be present. This way, players know what they are buying into and at the very worst, if they don't want to play no hard feelings. This also lets me get feedback if these are too drastic of a change or a PITA ruling that will make the game more complicated and annoying without any setting immersion.

As a player, I am generally fine with these if I know them in advance. I also give the GM a copy of my character sheet so they can see exactly what I am taking and using, so they can inform me or veto something before I start playing. If they are sprung on me suddenly mid campaign, I tend to throw a major fit. If you want to make teleportation riskier, then I am fine. What is not okay is when you spring it on me as I am casting the spell. It seems like a "gotcha" moment or the DM just trying to screw with me. I trust my gaming group, so I never assume it is a sudden knee jerk reaction, instead something they forgot to mention. I will say I outright refused to play in a majorly reworked version of 5E that was made to be "realistic" in part because the rules were such an abbomination that warped the game, but I was glad I got to read it and say no thanks vs having to play in it.

If it does come up in game and it is really minor, I just ask if I can retrain/reassign the spell/feat/whatever. If teleportation works that way and it is one of my spells known on a spontaneous caster, I would have never taken it to begin with. This can be a huge problem if it invalidates entire builds, and that is not something I want to find out in the middle of combat or using one of my character's mechanics and then suddenly get blindsided that my entire build won't work. It is also much harder to rework an entire build than spot change a feat/skill/whatnot.

When this happens a lot, it is not a setting specific nerf, it is the DM not knowing the rules, or storytime with the DM.

JNAProductions

2017-12-11, 09:28 PM

If it's made clear at Session Zero how this works, then I don't see any issues with it.

Quarian Rex

2017-12-11, 09:48 PM

Geddy pretty much has the gist of it. Transparency about major changes before the game starts (preferably before characters are even created) is a must.

The one thing that I would add would be that consistency is absolutely required in this kind of set-up. If you're running a low (or no) magic campaign and say the PCs have to make mundanes, that's fine. If the PCs then start getting spell-bombed by evil cultists and the local NPC Mage gets brought in as the most unsatisfying of deus-ex-machina, then that is not fine. If you make teleport spells suddenly dangerous to use, that's fine. If NPCs can use them unhindered or just-so-happen to avoid bad results, then that is very much not fine.

In such situations it is hard to see the DM as anything but a jerk keeping the cool toys away from the PCs while flaunting them in their faces. In such situations it doesn't really matter if there is a "reason" for the one-sided imbalance, it just makes players lose trust in the DM.

Fizban

2017-12-11, 09:57 PM

One of the problems with the "session zero" idea is that a group that's not newly formed and isn't specifically embarking on a Specific Campaign, doesn't have anything to "session zero" about. If the DM tinkers with the setting as the game goes on and characters are created and brought in as desired, something will inevitably happen that there couldn't have been a session zero about.

Now that I think about it, my last group did have a wide change in place. We were in a Forgotten Realms module but the DM was iffy on instant long-range teleportation, so that wasn't available. I asked if I could have a Shadow Walk version of an item made, they okay'd it, and the game ended before I ever had to use it- we picked up an airship and never got in a near-TPK situation so I never needed it. If they hadn't okay'd it I probably would have made a bit of a stink I'll admit, since I wanted an escape clause, but I'd have been able to make do with other effects.

Before that, I did apply a very specific edge case nerf to one PC: one player had really wanted to play gestalt so I allowed it (I was going to run WLD stock and drop my usual helpfulness), but another player who was far more savvy made themselves a simple enough Cleric/Psion. Overchannel damage was racking up and with a whole pile of cleric spells to burn for healing they had no reason not to- so I decided that since their god's fluff was actually kinda opposed to their character's intent (after they went digging for a god with the exact domains they wanted), they should track the overchannel damage separately because their cleric spells wouldn't heal it. They still had a heal belt and other party members so it was effectively a mild inconvenience, but the player was okay with it and it made me feel better knowing they had to be just a bit more careful. And then everyone got tired of WLD before that one really mattered either.

Of course WLD itself carries the no teleportation or summoning caveats, which I think most people can accept as part of the premise. I had an idea for a sort of "mishap" under which I might let them use teleportation just within the dungeon, but they'd have to research it in-dungeon once they had access to the spells. Players seemed interested, but again we stopped before it came up.

Jellyface

2017-12-11, 10:43 PM

I'm curious how much you 'nerfed' teleport. As written it already has a chance for mishap unless you're very familiar with where you're going and even then something can go wrong. If I wanted to complicate my players ability to teleport I'd try to fold something into the action. Like if they use teleport to go back to home base all the time, maybe a night hag moved in nearby and has been watching them, and has decided to make a baby with one of them.

If you want them to accept your rule maybe show them that something good can happen because of it. If you've increased the likelihood of them teleporting somewhere they didn't mean to go, teleport them somewhere where they can rescue someone or stumble across a weird traveler who starts a little quest line. As a player I'd probably be annoyed if it was just that half the time I teleported I lost hp or had to walk a few miles more.

DMG2 I think has some stuff about player psychology that might be helpful for you.

Edit: Thinking about it more, I don't think I'd be annoyed if there was a good reason for it. As another poster said consistency is key.

InvisibleBison

2017-12-11, 11:34 PM

The setting doesn't really exist; it can't cause nerfs. What you're calling setting specific nerfs is simply the DM choosing to use the setting to explain why he nerfed something. So I'd react to a setting-specific nerf the same way I'd react to any other nerf: If it improves the game, I'm for it; if it doesn't improve the game, I'm against it.

Elkad

2017-12-12, 12:10 AM

Burning Sky specifically messes with Teleport. Even short-range stuff.
Sure, it's only fire damage, but it's a concern. You don't just teleport willy-nilly without considering the cost.

Lots of locations (Barrier Peaks, Rappan Athuk, etc) nerf or break summons, planar travel, and various other similar things.

If your players know up front, I don't see the issue at all.
Even if they don't (say the artifact mishap in Burning Sky happened mid-campaign), it's still a minor issue, unless someone has a character concept that revolved around teleport heavily. Which as DM you should probably be discouraging.

And a lot of other things could be considered nerfs. "Everyone is a gnome". "There aren't any magic shops." "Raise Dead isn't a thing." Even "The Gods are Dead, so there is No Divine Magic." Again, as long as they are up front, I've never had a serious complaint from my players.

I make more general changes all the time. They are effectively houserules.

I'm sure some of my regulars think every Ghoul has DR5/silver, because they've never played under another DM or read the MM entry, and my Ghouls/Ghasts are all that way.
Kobolds are dog-people with the (Gnoll) subtype (throwback to 1e), not dragon-people. Similar to the Goblin/Hobgoblin/Bugbear path. So technically that's a Kobold Nerf.

Zanos

2017-12-12, 12:50 AM

In my experience setting specific nerfs have their basis in mechanics the DM doesnt like, so much so he wrote a setting to justify changing them. At least in part.

I'd want to discuss at the least what the DM finds intriguing about the players walking to places they've already been and arent warded that bypassing it isnt acceptable.

Darth Ultron

2017-12-12, 01:22 AM

I change a lot of the problematic things in the game rules to make them work in a more living world setting. I'm open about this, and the players will be told around half the relevant changes at Session Zero, the rest is more vague warnings about known unknowns, that the players must learn or figure out during gameplay.

Most players are fine with my alterations, even if it directly effects their character. In general, only the bad players have a problem with the alterations.

For example: One of my Polymoprh alterations is the caster needs a bit of the creature they want to change into as a material component(and a single creature can only be used once ever for this). A normal, good player has no problem collecting and keeping track of what creature parts they have and using them. The bad player, that only wanted to be a spellcaster so they could polymorph into a hydra all the time and ruin the game for every one, won't like the alteration and will whine and cry and most likely not even play the game.

There is no point where I'd remove a nerf or alteration. I think they are all good for the game. In theory a player might make a good argument, but this has never happened. Again, only the players that are already bad players complain.

Some players that don't like the alterations or nerfs will often find by game play that they are not so bad....so I do encourage all players to just ''try it out''. And, amazingly, if your not a jerk bad player that looks through all the books for monsters to polymorph into and exploit polymorph, my polymorph nerf does not effect the player in a bad way.

Also a lot of my nerfs have fun things attached to them...like ploymorh again, might have a character loose their mind in their new form. Some players love this bit and will have fun playing a monster.

torrasque666

2017-12-12, 01:26 AM

There is no point where I'd remove a nerf or alteration. I think they are all good for the game. In theory a player might make a good argument, but this has never happened. Again, only the players that are already bad players complain.Hmmm.... getting some certain force-wielding artisan vibes....

ericgrau

2017-12-12, 01:32 AM

I don't see the problem as long as the players know about it before they make their characters. Especially if it ties into the plot.

weckar

2017-12-12, 04:31 AM

If you are going to do this, make sure all of the implications of the nerf make sense.

In Ptolus, for example, any movement out of the 'material plane' is utterly impossible (though one can go to demiplanes contained within it).
This means Calling spells, teleportation and even death (to a degree) are changed at the core - if not entirely impossible.
Allow any of these, however, and you lose the internal consistency that the setting requires.

ExLibrisMortis

2017-12-12, 07:29 AM

Setting should be communicated before session 1. That includes any cosmological or other quirks that might affect character builds.

RoboEmperor

2017-12-12, 08:12 AM

Simply put, if the nerfs prevent the player from doing what they want, they will throw a tantrum and insult you, saying you are a noob and a scrub that bans anything you don't have the brains to handle. If the nerfs doesn't prevent the player from doing what they want, they will quietly go along with it.

Casual and new players usually just want to do something simple, mostly just bash things with a sword and either be a murder hobo or act holier than thou. Mundanes are largely unaffected by massive mechanic changes and the mechanic changes are usually to their favor, so they go along with it. Casual Wizard players are just happy casting spells so they don't complain either.

Some experienced players however (like myself), enjoy the game in unconventional ways. Ways so unconventional that in order to make the playstyle work, serious optimization and full mastery of mechanics are mandatory. These playstyles are highly vulnerable to even the slightest of rule changes and will result in high levels of salt should a nerf destroy their playstyle.

So if you're looking to place blame...
1.if you told your players before the campaign began that you will be implementing a wide variety of nerfs and made the possible nerfs known before the players started building their characters, the players are to blame for building their characters in that way despite your warnings.
2.If your nerfs came as a surprise and destroys your player's build, you are to blame.
3.If you made it known that you will be implementing nerfs but you did NOT disclose all the possible nerfs, things get tricky...
3a. If the nerf is for roleplay reasons like war of the burning sky, so be it. Unfortuntaley for the player the environment killed his character so he has no choice but to ditch. No one is to blame.
3b. If the nerf is for balance reasons, honestly the DM is always to blame. The rules are fine as it is, and a gentlemen's agreement is mandatory for this game, so a DM who isn't a complete master of d&d nerfing random things that can be dealt with within the rules is a terrible DM. Players came to play dungeons and dragons 3.5 or pathfinder, not your weird variant of it. This scenario becomes identical case #2 above and you are to blame.

If it's scenario 2. or 3b., I highly suggest you become better skilled at the game and don't nerf. If it's scenario 1. or 3a., sit down and talk to the players that this is the type of game you are running and if this is not the best fit, perhaps they should invest their time elsewhere, in a game they might enjoy.

Elkad

2017-12-12, 08:27 AM

I'd want to discuss at the least what the DM finds intriguing about the players walking to places they've already been and arent warded that bypassing it isnt acceptable.

I don't know about other DMs, but I find Teleport comes online about the same time the whole party can afford long-distance flight. Or to buy a ship.
So teleport just eliminates those, which make for good settings for encounters.

I'd much rather my players bypass all the terrain on the back of their colossal dragon zombie than via *bamf* *bamf* *bamf*.
Have you ever played a wild melee on griffonback at 10,000 feet above the ground? It's fun.

Turning the entire game into scry&die is not a good thing. It's the 5 minute adventuring day taken to the extreme.

Zanos

2017-12-12, 09:29 AM

I don't know about other DMs, but I find Teleport comes online about the same time the whole party can afford long-distance flight. Or to buy a ship.
So teleport just eliminates those, which make for good settings for encounters.

I'd much rather my players bypass all the terrain on the back of their colossal dragon zombie than via *bamf* *bamf* *bamf*.
Have you ever played a wild melee on griffonback at 10,000 feet above the ground? It's fun.

Turning the entire game into scry&die is not a good thing. It's the 5 minute adventuring day taken to the extreme.
Scry&Die shouldn't work because at the time the party gets teleport and scry, your serious threats should have countermeasures. If they don't, they aren't serious threats. Mage's Private Sanctum is 5th level, lasts all day, and ward an area against divination.

Colossal zombie dragons are cool, but you still need one unless you're teleporting to a place you have already been or can scry and aren't warded. That usually isn't the case for most places PCs go adventuring, because they're typically out of the way and/or warded. Scry can only be targeted on a person you have some kind of connection to, so "I scry some random minion at [location]" doesn't work.

weckar

2017-12-12, 09:34 AM

Mage's Private Sanctum is 5th level, lasts all day, and ward an area against divination.

It also assumes your serious threat never leaves his bedroom.

Zanos

2017-12-12, 09:38 AM

It also assumes your serious threat never leaves his bedroom.
It assumes that he's not overly vulnerable outside his bedroom. Teleporting adjacent to someone surrounded by their army isn't super smart. It even being required assumes that you know who he is or have something of his.

Nondetection also exists. False vision is a same level alternative to sanctum that can also purposefully give misleading or outright contrary information to a scry.

I also reject "bedroom" as an estimate of size. A minimum level sanctum covers 9 30ft cubes, which is 8100 square feet, up to 30 feet high. False vision is less, but a similar area. Considering the average american home is only 2,400 square feet, you can actually ward a pretty sizeable mansion or evil lair with a single casting.

Jay R

2017-12-12, 10:40 AM

How do my players feel about it?

One thinks it's unfair when I rule as the rules describe, instead allowing the clever idea he had.
One considers every ruling carefully, forming an individual opinion each time.
One gets immediately annoyed at the nerf but then accepts it.
One thinks her character is under-powered when she really can't play it well. [She recently changed away from druid because she thought it was underpowered.]
One immediately starts thinking how to play her character best under the new structure.
One shrugs and hardly notices.

People are people. They have different emotions, and deal with them differently.

High level D&D is fraught with unbalanced power. The problem with nerfing a specific example is that it won't reduce by much the inequities, the difficulties, or the problems.

The best solution overall is to avoid the necessity by playing from 1st to about 13th level, and then starting a new game. Some people don't like that solution, but really - at what point do you start feeling the desire to start nerfing individual abilities?

weckar

2017-12-12, 10:52 AM

I also reject "bedroom" as an estimate of size. A minimum level sanctum covers 9 30ft cubes, which is 8100 square feet, up to 30 feet high. False vision is less, but a similar area. Considering the average american home is only 2,400 square feet, you can actually ward a pretty sizeable mansion or evil lair with a single casting.Heh.
It says 'cube'. Not 'cubed'.
Here I was thinking it was a 30ft^3 volume.

...
I need to go reconsider a couple things.

Venger

2017-12-12, 11:36 AM

ayvango

2017-12-12, 02:14 PM

Nerfs are acceptable if all game mechanics are known prior and applies both to player characters and non player characters. Some nerfs hurts the first more that the second. Basically anything that made thing more random works against players, because they need to steadily pass random checks and any disluck would be a TPK if luck plays significant role in game mechanics.

But discussing game mechanics is a rare case. Planning it ahead places great burden on DM. It is much easier to cover story with deus ex-machina magic. Like that some of abilities you relies on simply stops to work in the most crucial time. If NPC should tease and run from players than it would be able to teleport even under dimensional lock and AMF. Master is often tempted with modifying game mechanics on the fly to keep module on rails. Introducing ad-hoc magic items that are too magic or giving NPC unique abilities. That irritates me a lot.

Reworking game mechanics is a hard task. You should compensate loses to those classes that are affected with changes. You should think of how economics and society changes under this circumstance. Many prebuild encounters should be modified as well some monsters.

Suppose you would like to eliminate teleport. Than you introduce remote possession as compensation to arcane casters that suffers the most from disabling teleport. So now society is well aware that you could not use FTL travel with teleport and could not transport material bodies. But you could still convey information and trade on great distance shifts from material products to information. Mages could not travel overseas but could take prepared body and operate it as avatar. Large changes to setting. But if a master willing to develop d20 setting, he is welcome to.

Unfortunately in most cases DM breaks game mechanics just to cover his half-baked module ass.

Zanos

2017-12-12, 02:16 PM

But discussing game mechanics is a rare case. Planning it ahead places great burden on DM. It is much easier to cover story with deus ex-machina magic. Like that some of abilities you relies on simply stops to work in the most crucial time. If NPC should tease and run from players than it would be able to teleport even under dimensional lock and AMF. Master is often tempted with modifying game mechanics on the fly to keep module on rails. Introducing ad-hoc magic items that are too magic or giving NPC unique abilities. That irritates me a lot.
This stuff drives me insane. Especially when I go out of my way to scribe scrolls of dimensional anchor to prevent people from bailing.

Elkad

2017-12-12, 04:22 PM

Scry&Die shouldn't work because at the time the party gets teleport and scry, your serious threats should have countermeasures. If they don't, they aren't serious threats. Mage's Private Sanctum is 5th level, lasts all day, and ward an area against divination.

Colossal zombie dragons are cool, but you still need one unless you're teleporting to a place you have already been or can scry and aren't warded. That usually isn't the case for most places PCs go adventuring, because they're typically out of the way and/or warded. Scry can only be targeted on a person you have some kind of connection to, so "I scry some random minion at [location]" doesn't work.

Sure, you can't drop right into the inner sanctum. Though that does assume that every "serious threat" involves a mage.

Dropping a half-mile away accomplishes most of the same thing. You still get to pop out with all your buffs running (at least the "minutes" or greater ones) and Nova your way through. Then you burn a 2nd teleport to extract, rest&rebuff, and do it again.

Nations, Borders, Terrain Obstacles, Guard Outposts and everything else farther than Long Range from the encounter becomes meaningless if you push it hard enough. The game turns into "Battle Arena".

Zanos

2017-12-12, 04:34 PM

Dropping a half-mile away accomplishes most of the same thing. You still get to pop out with all your buffs running (at least the "minutes" or greater ones) and Nova your way through. Then you burn a 2nd teleport to extract, rest&rebuff, and do it again.

Assuming that you know who you're fighting, you know where their base is, they have no traps, and that you can somehow teleport to an area half a mile away, sure. There's no "scry an area half a mile away from the guy I'm looking for" spell.

GrayDeath

2017-12-12, 05:10 PM

Depends.

1.: Its a central part of the setting (for example in the campaign we are playing at the moment we are on a subplane that is mostly cut off from the regular planes, until we can find out how to circumvent that, or leave, Summonings other than natures Ally, all Callings (say Planar Ally and so on) and most likely (didnt have tot ry yet) ressurection are out. We however knew that we could expect some nerfs, and the GM told the players if their character was aiming for something barelly or not possbile.
Whenever I design a setting, I usually (assuming its D&D) overhaul the classes as well to better reflect the intended fluff, and it includes all info on these spells dont work" etc.

So I am always fine with that as a player too (and aside from that one", you know, the player we all know, who always thinks "it makes sense to work like X", where this is the variant that helps him the most, noone so far complained.

2.: its a balance" Nerf that is applied from the start: usually I tend to be a bit careful wi9th that. But going by a D&D centric view: if it nerfs casters, especially prepared ones, I am usually fine with it. They can deal with it.

2.: B: Blanace" Mods during Game Play: I hate them. 2 times this happened they severely reduced my characters effectiveness at his core concept (and at none of these 2 we players were of the opinion that the nerfs were needed, exception see above^^).
If I as GM fell the NEED to do something like that (which so far has not happened) I would at least wait until the adventure is over to give the players downtime to (depending on the system) adapt to the change.

Elkad

2017-12-12, 07:50 PM

Assuming that you know who you're fighting, you know where their base is, they have no traps, and that you can somehow teleport to an area half a mile away, sure. There's no "scry an area half a mile away from the guy I'm looking for" spell.

You appear to be stuck on the scrying part.

There has to be a hook that says "Take 5-8 9th level characters and go to the Giant-Filled Mountains to find out why all these giants are invading the lowlands". (unknown to them, a Necromancer is turning all the giants into giant undead, and the giants don't like that, so they are migrating)

Group A walks the whole way. Encountering every level inappropriate lost farmer and goblin roadblock. Just like when they were 3rd level...

Group B takes their flying carpet, has a random encounter with some flying critters (a group of Rocs also fleeing their mountain nests?). Then they spot a Giant camp far below. They could attack or parley (gaining information either way), or bypass it. We'll assume they bypass. They circle the mountain and see the Giant Fort, with Giants walking around. They land and "surprise, Undead Giants!" Having prepared wrong, they beat a fighting retreat, camp and return the next day, where the enemies have learned something of their capabilities and prepared as well. Alternately, they didn't skip the camp encounter and actually know what they are up against. So they land well-prepared and make a major incursion. Either way, if they retreat outside to rest&prepare, they have to worry about war parties hunting for them, more random encounters, etc.

Group C finishes their tea in the comfort of the inn, looks out the window at the Mountains 200 miles away, and just teleports directly there from the dining room. After all, they can see it - no need for Divinations. One of them flies around a bit, spots the fort, with a fire giant leading some hill giants and ogres, and returns, they port back to town. Divinations reveal nothing about the inside (shielded in any number of ways). Next morning they roll out of their warm beds, buff up, and port directly to the front door with the perfect spell loadout. "Surprise! You brought mind control and some cold damage vs Undead Immunities." Not wanting to give any information away about their capabilities, the party retreats back to town immediately. The enemy will be warned if they return tomorrow, but still can't make specific preparations, while the party can. And there is no reason they can't just wait a week until the alarm dies down (probably with a Teleport Shopping Trip to fine tune their equipment selection as well.)

Now I don't mind Teleport. I find it very suitable for parties at 13th level or so. They should be moving on to world-altering events by then, that involve continent hopping at least, and probably a bit of planar travel.
But if you skip directly from Group A to Group C, I think you miss out on a lot of fun with travel via flight, underwater, ships, hiking through the Underdark, etc.

So yeah, I like to nerf Teleport. I don't ban it, but I move it up a spell level, or reduce the number of friends you can bring, or make missing something you REALLY don't want to do. "You miss by 2 miles. Straight Down. You are now entombed in solid rock."

Fizban

2017-12-12, 09:22 PM

Re: Teleport vs other fast travel; yup. The other group fast travel spells all come up at the same or later level, but Teleport is just so much faster and more arbitrary they really don't compare. Phantom Steed doesn't really count, because you need to burn 4 or more castings to hit the entire party, they can be destroyed in combat which forces another casting or slows the whole party for a day, and they still don't fly until after the other fast travel spells are online.

If you want to break your game into three layers of transporation- slow, fast, and instant, then Teleport completely screws that over by showing up before fast travel does. So you have to push the fast travel forward to lower levels where the PCs are still fighting things that aren't that impressive, with proper Giants being a good example of things outside that range. With the absurd prices the game puts on fragile flying mounts, you have to "break" WBL and just give them the stuff if you want to do it "on time" before Teleport makes thing moot.

5e gets it, with the 5th level Teleport being a slower "town portal" effect and proper teleport requiring 7th level. Of course 5e sheared off everything past 3e's 7th level spells anyway, leaving the game closer to three layers than the four it has in 3e.

And the altering of spell level seems to be an exceedingly overlooked way of fixing things. So, so, so many effects can be fixed instantly and painlessly if you just move the spell level to wherever you think it's appropriate. No need for crafting elaborate fail states or countermeasures or trying to shave the numbers off things that are defined by their big numbers. Just put the spell where you want it to be and done.