Removing all spells of 3rd level and higher

[Luccan]

Exactly what the title says. This is mostly brainstorming and while it might be interesting for a one-shot, I want to see some feedback on potential issues over the long term. I do not plan to spring this on any unsuspecting players. If I ever use this idea, I'll make sure they thoroughly understand, what they're getting into. Ok, Disclaimer out of the way.

The idea is to promote the use of obscure lower level spells, eliminate many of the "problem" spells of higher levels, and overall promote a more balanced playing field between casters and non-casters. I should also make that clear: I'm not eliminating casters above a certain level or their spell slots. Only higher level spells. A few thoughts that have occurred to me on this:


I may allow higher level rituals to remain in the game. The only one I see that gets complained about a lot is Tiny Hut, which could receive a specific ban. Or not. The reason to allow for higher level rituals is mostly for the sake of Wizards and Tomelocks: they like to use their ritual feature and because most higher level rituals really aren't the problem, it seems trivial to let them keep it. What do you think?


Resurrection becomes a problem. I'm considering tying the ability to do so to specific locales and more involved magics. This could be a positive or negative; I see it as a way to increase the dangers of dying, to tie bringing a person back from the dead to the world, and make it a more significant event rather than a respawn. OTOH, it might instead be perceived as annoying drudgery at best and outright player vs DM houseruling at worst. I personally think it's a matter of perspective. The other possibility is to make an exception for at least one or two resurrection spells. I don't like that as much thematically, but I'd rather use most of this idea that none of it, so this whole part is flexible. What are your thoughts on resurrection magic in this case?


For that matter, restorative magics like Remove Curse and Greater Restoration are now out of party hands. Again, something the DM can provide for, but it's worth keeping in mind.


Warlocks. If I keep totally true to the premise, Warlocks lose out on Mystic Arcanum. Maybe they don't need it in this scenario, but I'd like feedback on that. Removing it will leave holes in their abilities, but that only ties them up with Wizards in levels without new class abilities so maybe it isn't too bad. The other consideration is Invocations. Given most higher level spells gained through Invocations are usable once a day and aren't the worst things in the world, I honestly wouldn't mind keeping them, but I'd like some feedback on this too. I want to avoid over or under balancing the warlock here.


There may need to be specific exceptions for certain spells, perhaps by subclass. I can already see that Abjurer's 10th level feature is useless without Counterspell or Dispel Magic and the Conjurer's Durable Summons is rather lacking in... summons. Necormancers and Transmuters have a similar problem. What other such class/subclass considerations are there? What might be done about them?


One that just came to mind, what does this do to Artificer? Are there potential problem Infusions? Or does limiting spells in some way seriously undercut them? I'm not as familiar with this class as others, so I definitely need to know what I should be thinking about for this one.


This idea is still forming, so I welcome feedback that will help shape this into a usable, fun idea.

Perhaps the idea wasn't fully considered. As a full caster player myself the idea intrigued me, but I don't think the general idea has much appeal to most players. I got too caught up with my frustration with spell becoming obsolete to think about the full impact on the game.

[Jerrykhor]

I'm just going to be straight up honest here since you asked for feedback. As a player if i see this, there's no point in playing full casters anymore, they are completely gutted. I will challenge the DM on his knowledge on balance, because it seems like he has none.

I see a few key words that i recognize and strongly disagree with.

'Promote the use of obscure lower level spells' - This won't happen. As a DM, i have tried removing concentration from all smite spells. Player still wont use it. Remove concentration on Ranger's Strike spells, Ranger still uses Hex. The fact is, removing stronger spells won't make the players use the worst spells, they will just use the next best spell. Players wont be rushing to use Witchbolt just because Chromatic orb is banned. Spells like Illusory Script still won't be used. And what is even the point in this? Spells don't have feelings, they won't get mad if you don't pick them.

'Promote a more balanced playing field between casters and non-casters' - I think its safe to assume that you want to nerf casters because you think they are too powerful at high levels. Fact is, they are not. Legendary Resistance makes casters spell choices very limited, and by the time they get a powerful spell to stick, the monster is already dead from the martials high damage.

There just won't be any fun in playing casters at all, might as well make it a low magic setting and ban all full casters.

[Zevox]

I'm just going to be straight up honest here since you asked for feedback. As a player if i see this, there's no point in playing full casters anymore, they are completely gutted.
Concurred. I would either not play a full caster at all or, if multiclassing were allowed (my group normally doesn't), maybe play one up to level 3 or 4 then multiclass to something else. What would you even be doing as a level 10 Wizard with only 2nd-level spells? What fun would there be to have with your character basically not getting any stronger after level 4, aside from a few class features that are intended to supplement or be tangential to your spellcasting? It would be like taking all Extra Attacks away from the Fighter.

And to be clear, I'm not the super-optimizing sort. I'm currently playing a Halfling Paladin whose main weapon is a mace, and having a lot of fun with it. I have no problem with my group not allowing multiclassing. This just guts full casters so much that even I would see no point in touching them.

[Luccan]

Fair enough. I appreciate the honesty. I'll drop the topic, since I foresee this being the general response.

[DeadMech]

The reason to allow for higher level rituals is mostly for the sake of Wizards and Tomelocks: they like to use their ritual feature

You know what else casters like to use? Their level 3+ spells.

[Amechra]

Fair enough. I appreciate the honesty. I'll drop the topic, since I foresee this being the general response.

I think the response would've been a bit different if you had removed spells of, say, 6th level or higher. 3rd level spells are basically a caster's reward for leaving Tier 2 (in the same way that martials get Extra Attack), and that's where a lot of iconic spells start coming into play.

[Luccan]

I think the response would've been a bit different if you had removed spells of, say, 6th level or higher. 3rd level spells are basically a caster's reward for leaving Tier 2 (in the same way that martials get Extra Attack), and that's where a lot of iconic spells start coming into play.

I mean, that's kinda been done. I was trying for something a bit different. Honestly, I shouldn't have posted anything. This was a monumentally stupid idea and that's all the thread is going to be about.

[micahaphone]

I think you're being a wee bit harsh on yourself. This idea may not work great in 5e (especially without many other changes) but I think the idea of a fantasy rpg where magic isn't a massive force on the world is a good idea. I'm just not sure 5e is the right system for it.


For example, I've been loving the Banner Saga games during quarantine, and I realized this world is definitely unique and fleshed out enough for me to run a campaign in it, but I wasn't sure if 5e is absolutely the best system. I'd at the very least have to restrict races, and I wouldn't want the party to have more than 1 wizard (in universe a mender), and a bard or a cleric. In general, I'd want a less magic based party.
There's even this homebrew repository (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CloY7uJU9YtCGHtnAdef3l5J9JvQMXjw) to help explain the world, and some fun subclasses, but I'm still left with the feeling that maybe a different system would be a better engine to power this adventure.

[Luccan]

I think you're being a wee bit harsh on yourself. This idea may not work great in 5e (especially without many other changes) but I think the idea of a fantasy rpg where magic isn't a massive force on the world is a good idea. I'm just not sure 5e is the right system for it.


For example, I've been loving the Banner Saga games during quarantine, and I realized this world is definitely unique and fleshed out enough for me to run a campaign in it, but I wasn't sure if 5e is absolutely the best system. I'd at the very least have to restrict races, and I wouldn't want the party to have more than 1 wizard (in universe a mender), and a bard or a cleric. In general, I'd want a less magic based party.
There's even this homebrew repository (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CloY7uJU9YtCGHtnAdef3l5J9JvQMXjw) to help explain the world, and some fun subclasses, but I'm still left with the feeling that maybe a different system would be a better engine to power this adventure.

Eh, the idea was intended for 5e specifically because it's what I know. Not sure what other system I'd use, mostly because I don't have experience with many other systems (and it definitely wouldn't work in 3rd, I've been down that road before). But I thought it might work in 5e because for the most part it's a lot less magic dependent. Maybe something like E6 would be better, but that definitely starts touching on the spells that make other spells obsolete more than the level 1 and 2 does. I mean come on, everyone knows Witch Bolt is bad, it's not exactly what I was talking about. What I wanted was for casters to have a reason to use Levitate because they can't just use Fly instead.*

I've played a bit of Banner Saga, it has an interesting world. I'll have to check out the homebrew at least.

*Which doesn't make this a good idea. I just got too caught up in the spell obsolescence of D&D to really think about the impact it has on what other people want from the game.

[micahaphone]

Yeah, I could see an E6 or similar being good. Having Fireball and Fly as a capstone does put some more pizazz to them - the greatest wizards in the world are those that can fly or create big bombs. The most legendary of enchanters can put an entire room of people into a stupor, or cause entire company to flee in terror.

I'll note that the linked Banner Saga google drive does have a rulebook for a D20 based system that seems like fitting the game rules of Banner Saga on top of 5e. I'm not sure I'm down for it, especially with it seeming to need a grid to play, but it's certainly interesting .

[Necroanswer]

Fair enough. I appreciate the honesty. I'll drop the topic, since I foresee this being the general response.

I don't necessarily think its a bad idea. You'd have to ask your players if it was something they would want to play. If they aren't 100% on board with the idea then you'd probably want to drop it. It would make magic classes something that are only dipped into. Are you looking for a world where adventuring parties consist of rogues, fighters and barbarians instead of wizards, clerics and bards?

I might actually enjoy the challenge of playing a wizard or moon druid(not as gimped) in that type of setting. Its certainly possible I would get tired of the character and feels he's useless after awhile, but I'd be willing to try if I could switch out the character later.

[Luccan]

Yeah, I could see an E6 or similar being good. Having Fireball and Fly as a capstone does put some more pizazz to them - the greatest wizards in the world are those that can fly or create big bombs. The most legendary of enchanters can put an entire room of people into a stupor, or cause entire company to flee in terror.

I'll note that the linked Banner Saga google drive does have a rulebook for a D20 based system that seems like fitting the game rules of Banner Saga on top of 5e. I'm not sure I'm down for it, especially with it seeming to need a grid to play, but it's certainly interesting .

Honestly, I'd probably be happy with just an extended XP system or something. Those levels, even in "level when I feel like it"/Milestone games, just fly by. You're level 5 a few months out of character creation.

As for the homebrew, even if it's iffy there's usually something that can be pulled from stuff like that. The grid makes sense with it being based on Banner Saga, but you don't really want that as a requirement for tabletop RPGs.


I don't necessarily think its a bad idea. You'd have to ask your players if it was something they would want to play. If they aren't 100% on board with the idea then you'd probably want to drop it. It would make magic classes something that are only dipped into. Are you looking for a world where adventuring parties consist of rogues, fighters and barbarians instead of wizards, clerics and bards?

I might actually enjoy the challenge of playing a wizard or moon druid(not as gimped) in that type of setting. Its certainly possible I would get tired of the character and feels he's useless after awhile, but I'd be willing to try if I could switch out the character later.

Honestly, I think I'd need to take a longer look at the spells for level 1 and 2, compared to later levels, and find out exactly what's missing. The more specific problem I thought at first might just be combat, but upcast spells still usually make martials look like fancy henchmen, so I suspect it's really the lack of game-changers. You aren't exploring the planes on a whim here. Or even the sea, if I completely left out all spells above level 2.

[Jerrykhor]

Why dont you adopt E6? Sounds like something you would want. You could make it E4, so that not just the casters, now everyone can not have fun.

[Luccan]

Why dont you adopt E6? Sounds like something you would want. You could make it E4, so that not just the casters, now everyone can not have fun.

Really? :smallannoyed:

Fine, I'm done.

[Eldariel]

It could be interesting for one game, and would definitely draw me to the wealth of options on level 2. In the long run though, I do think I'd miss the variety in longer games. After all, the reason I never play martials is because their options are so sharply limited. But certainly an interesting concept and one that would make things more even all-around.

[Jerrykhor]

Really? :smallannoyed:

Fine, I'm done.

Sorry that was uncalled for, I shouldn't have said that.

In all seriousness, why have't you consider E6 though?

[MrStabby]

My initial thouht was pretty similar to everyone elses, but now I am just slightly more positive.

There are a bundle of classes that I think can be pretty fun and appeal to me but that I worry about being made obsolete after a while. In a game that bannedcasters I would play some different classes and be happy to do so. I love playing casters and I wouldn't want casters banned in most campaigns or even a long one, but for a relatively short campaign I could go for this.

Restricting to level 1 and level 2 spells is just a more relaxed version that allows caster dips, half casters and so on - as long as multilassing is allowed this could still be interesting.


My guess is that the way it would be recieved depends on the people in your group. The person who only wants to play casters would be miffed. I the person who likes to play warriors but wants to change it up this time and try something new, the person who has been refining the backstory for a cleric all through the last campaign waiting for the next one... they are all going to have a lgitimate gripe with this.

[Sudsboy]

What is E6? I've been looking for the right low magic system to propose to my DM, who prefers that sort of game.

[Bobthewizard]

As others have said, restricting to second level spells is too restrictive. This would even effect 1/2 and 1/3 casters by mid-game, and full casters would fall way behind martial characters at level 5 which is usually still pretty early in a campaign. In a level 1-10 campaign, I would guess 80% of the campaign happens after level 4. I don't find full casters pulling away until tier 3 anyway.

If you increase that to allow 3rd level spells, I could see it working in certain games. I wouldn't want it as a general house rule, but for a single campaign in the right setting it could still be fun. Tell the players that you want to DM a lower magic setting and tell them this rule before character creation so they could plan their multi class builds to not go above level 6 in a full caster, level 12 in a half-caster or level 18 in 1/3 caster. It's a compromise from just flat out banning full casters and makes for a somewhat mid-magic setting.

I would even recommend increasing the spell level to 4th, since 4th level spells aren't the jump that 3rd and 5th level spells are. With that change, casters would usually only go to level 8, and 1/2 casters to 16. I don't know what E4 and E6 are, so f I just described E4, I apologize.

You could even allow spell slots to increase above 4th so if someone wanted to take moon druid to 10 or finish paladin 20 they could. Or if you want to cap spell slots, then you should allow spell slots to be added for each class instead of using the multi class table. So a level 10, wizard 5 / sorcerer 5 would have 8 1st, 6 2nd and 4 3rd level slots. Bring on my dragon sorcerer 6 / evoker 2 build for empowered, sculpted fireballs!

[Contrast]

What is E6? I've been looking for the right low magic system to propose to my DM, who prefers that sort of game.

Its a thing that was more common in previous editions - level 6 becomes the maximum level and you stop gaining levels once you hit it. Depending on what rules are being used you might still count XP and gain feats or other boons but broadly speaking your power level gets capped roughly at that of a 6th level character.

I don't know if anyone has attempted to formalise a similar thing for 5E. They probably have if you google around.

[KorvinStarmast]

Its a thing that was more common in previous editions - level 6 becomes the maximum level and you stop gaining levels once you hit it. Depending on what rules are being used you might still count XP and gain feats or other boons but broadly speaking your power level gets capped roughly at that of a 6th level character.

I don't know if anyone has attempted to formalise a similar thing for 5E. They probably have if you google around. yes some one has, and they have play tested it somewhat (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/143090/22566).

[opaopajr]

Part of the setting conceit for Birthright is most spellcasters are capped at 3rd level spells. Only those who have been given birthright and domain (basically a bit of divine blood lineage AND control of land/s AND a priestly ritual to tie the land/s to you) can allow you to be a caster of 4+ spells AND opens Domain Spells. It makes domained casters extremely rare and dangerous and very unlikely to be prevalent in a regular adventuring pary. Further, all domained (blooded, landed, & linked) PCs/NPCs have a lot of management to bother with and would not easily pair with other domained leaders on a casual lark.

Your idea would fit quite well with porting 5e into AD&D Birthright. :smallcool: Go ahead and explore it more. Just because some vocally do not want it does not mean your fun is universally not interesting to others. You may be surprised how well it wwill be received among your group.

[JNAProductions]

I'll echo the others who've said it really flipping guts full casters.

Let me try another tack, though-what 3rd through 5th level spells are really problematic? As has been mentioned above, 6th level spells is when things really get crazy, so cutting those out could make some sense, but what's in the 3-5 range that seems like an issue?

[Grod_The_Giant]

I think you're being a wee bit harsh on yourself. This idea may not work great in 5e (especially without many other changes) but I think the idea of a fantasy rpg where magic isn't a massive force on the world is a good idea. I'm just not sure 5e is the right system for it.

Eh, the idea was intended for 5e specifically because it's what I know. Not sure what other system I'd use, mostly because I don't have experience with many other systems
That's very true. There are plenty of systems out there, and very few of them feature magic quite as powerfully or prominently as D&D does. Just off the top of my head... Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, REIGN, Dungeon World, 13th Age, Riddle of Steel, and Dungeon World are all high-quality dedicated fantasy systems-- and that's not even getting into generic systems like GURPS, Savage Worlds, Fate, d6 Fantasy, and STaRS. There are also games like Mage and Ars Magica that do feature prominent and powerful magic, but make it a centerpiece of the experience rather than presenting it at the same level as the guy with the sword.


(and it definitely wouldn't work in 3rd, I've been down that road before). But I thought it might work in 5e because for the most part it's a lot less magic dependent.
It's true that low magic in 5e works better than it does in 3e. It's generally doable-- ban full casters and boom, those 2nd level slots are relevant a lot longer-- but doing it well will require replacing options, not just removing them. Don't just remove the Wizard, offer a Scholar or Alchemist or Ritualist base class as a replacement.

[OldTrees1]

5E supports the idea of using upscaled low level spells better than any prior version of D&D. So your idea had/has merit.

Obviously E6 does NOT suit your needs because the idea is closer to the Magic Missile Mage. You are using low level spells in higher level slots.

[Dimers]

Personally I'd be willing to try a full caster in that setup -- maybe not high in the second tier, but certainly before. Even in standard play I tend to pick spells that upcast well and then actually USE that option.

If anyone tries to put this idea into play, I'd recommend allowing ritual spells of all levels, just not castable with spell slots.

[Specter]

I've played in a game where the highest level of spells was 6th. So full casters went up to 6th, Rangers/Paladins to 4th, and EK/AT to 2nd.
It worked well around the idea of a low-magic world, and casters suddenly didn't have all the answers all the time.
If that's what you're looking for, it could work, even stopping at 3rd level.

[Dork_Forge]

I think the idea has merit and would be worth trying it, I think you just need some incentive to compensate for having higher level slots. So maybe casters can burn slots for additional damage or to impose disadvantage etc.

As for the Artificer, I don't think there's any issues with infusions.

Personally I'd consider moving the line to 4th level and above, but that's just where I feel things start getting out of hand, 3rd and above might just suit what you have in mind better.