[Brainstorm] Downgrading Fullcasters

[Amechra]

So, here's a bit of an odd question.

Let's say that, out of nowhere, one or more of the full casters are errata'd to have Artificer-tier spell progression. They're effectively half-casters with cantrips with new/improved class features to compensate, which hopefully allow the class to still satisfy a similar fantasy.

What would these "new" classes look like? What kind of features would you give, say, a half-caster Wizard that would still let you feel like a master of magic?

[DarknessEternal]

How bout starting your thread with actual ideas?

[OldTrees1]

Well, I would suggest adapting a fullcaster that got 9ths but was not about the 9ths. However the one that springs to mind (Dread Necromancer) is not a good fit for 5E.

There are a few routes you might take. Since the core full casters rely on their bland "spellcasting" feature for their offense, reducing that feature is reducing the offensive capabilities. Different routes could be differentiated by how it addresses this problem.

1) Magic Missile Mage is an archetype that spans multiple editions that focuses on spamming a low level spell but buffed to remain relevant. Sort of like how Barbarian and Fighter focus on spamming Attack but with it buffed to remain relevant.

2) New noncaster forms of magic. Imagine a Moon Druid that nerfed their casting in exchange for stronger, more frequent, buffed, and more exotic wild shapes.

3) Passive magical effects. Imagine an Abjurer that had 3-6 passive aura effects similar to Paladin.

[LudicSavant]

Personally I'd much rather see martials be given more, especially out of combat, than nerf the spellcasters much (besides some particular outliers which need tweaking -- simulacrum, minionmancy, Hexblade dips, Ravnica backgrounds, etc).

[Edea]

I remember seeing some 5e dev talk on YouTube that mentioned certain classes being designed to only have relevance to the combat pillar so that players with similar interests didn't feel like they had to leave their comfort zone.

I don't agree with this, but the design process DID account for this odd absence of social/exploratory capability in classes like barbarian and fighter. To roll that back effectively might take quite a bit of effort.

Maybe Fighters should have "4e warlord-esque" functionality built into the core chassis? That would raise their face game quite a bit.

Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin all have a 'power source' that lends itself to diversifying a bit more easily ('the spirits/God is doing it'), so they don't seem as challenging to grant versatility compared to the Fighter. The Rogue's already designed for the social and exploratory aspects, with their answer to combat being "Sneak Attack"; they'd probably benefit a lot more from just having the skill system be less 'fluffy' than it is atm.

[Luccan]

When I read the thread title, I though you might be looking for suggestions on how to make them a bit weaker and I was going to say limit spell level (but not slot level) to 5th. Makes multiclassing between full-casters more appealing and high level Sorcerers get more Spell Point fodder.

As usual the better thing to do would be to make martials better blah blah blah, yada yada yada, sameargumentpeoplehaveeverysixthreads but that's not the point of this thread so lets get to that


So, here's a bit of an odd question.

Let's say that, out of nowhere, one or more of the full casters are errata'd to have Artificer-tier spell progression. They're effectively half-casters with cantrips with new/improved class features to compensate, which hopefully allow the class to still satisfy a similar fantasy.

What would these "new" classes look like? What kind of features would you give, say, a half-caster Wizard that would still let you feel like a master of magic?

Interesting question. Alphabetically now;

Bard: Already fine

Cleric: Also probably fine

Druid: Definitely fine

Ok, there might be some slight adjustments, but those are classes that already get more than "just" magic. I don't think they need any changes to keep up, beyond maybe improving melee capability for non-Moon druids.

Sorcerer: Already disfavored, I think they take the hardest hit. Here's an idea: once a day, after taking a short rest, they can restore their sorcery points. They will actually need this, since they can't trade slots for points nearly as much anymore. Maybe let them wear light armor or something. And/or boost their spells known by like, 4 or 5.

Warlock: Oh no, they lost their once a day spells everyone complains about. Probably fine. Maybe a couple extra spells known and a bonus spell slot at high level

Wizard: I'm tempted to say just open up the wizard's potential spell list. If you can potentially have every spell (in this new system, at least), you're definitely the master of magic. But I'd offer this other change as well: scrolls you want to copy must be made by a wizard who has the spell in their spellbook. A multiclass wizard 1/cleric 5 can't make you a scroll of Revivify to copy and neither can a straight cleric 6. It would require a wizard of high enough level to know the spell as a wizard and also have the spell in their book. Or you could copy it from their book, but you know how wizards are touchy about that. You can't copy spells you know from other classes into your book either (believe this is already a rule or at least a common ruling, but just to be sure). I'm sure there are ramifications for this I'm not considering this late, but it's what immediately springs to mind.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

When I read the thread title, I though you might be looking for suggestions on how to make them a bit weaker and I was going to say limit spell level (but not slot level) to 5th. Makes multiclassing between full-casters more appealing and high level Sorcerers get more Spell Point fodder.

As usual the better thing to do would be to make martials better blah blah blah, yada yada yada, sameargumentpeoplehaveeverysixthreads but that's not the point of this thread so lets get to that



Interesting question. Alphabetically now;

Bard: Already fine

Cleric: Also probably fine

Druid: Definitely fine

Ok, there might be some slight adjustments, but those are classes that already get more than "just" magic. I don't think they need any changes to keep up, beyond maybe improving melee capability for non-Moon druids.

Sorcerer: Already disfavored, I think they take the hardest hit. Here's an idea: once a day, after taking a short rest, they can restore their sorcery points. They will actually need this, since they can't trade slots for points nearly as much anymore. Maybe let them wear light armor or something. And/or boost their spells known by like, 4 or 5.

Warlock: Oh no, they lost their once a day spells everyone complains about. Probably fine. Maybe a couple extra spells known and a bonus spell slot at high level

Wizard: I'm tempted to say just open up the wizard's potential spell list. If you can potentially have every spell (in this new system, at least), you're definitely the master of magic. But I'd offer this other change as well: scrolls you want to copy must be made by a wizard who has the spell in their spellbook. A multiclass wizard 1/cleric 5 can't make you a scroll of Revivify to copy and neither can a straight cleric 6. It would require a wizard of high enough level to know the spell as a wizard and also have the spell in their book. Or you could copy it from their book, but you know how wizards are touchy about that. You can't copy spells you know from other classes into your book either (believe this is already a rule or at least a common ruling, but just to be sure). I'm sure there are ramifications for this I'm not considering this late, but it's what immediately springs to mind.
Capping spell level at 5 is exactly what my co-DM and I were discussing yesterday. Some 6th level and above spells just change the nature of the game so significantly and trivialize obstacles that I think it's a primary reason most games end at mid levels. Allowing the upcast seems the easiest way to handle this. Perhaps there be still room somehow for the occasional casting of a higher level spell through some sort of extended ritual or sacrifice.

[Waazraath]

Well, I would suggest adapting a fullcaster that got 9ths but was not about the 9ths. However the one that springs to mind (Dread Necromancer) is not a good fit for 5E.

There are a few routes you might take. Since the core full casters rely on their bland "spellcasting" feature for their offense, reducing that feature is reducing the offensive capabilities. Different routes could be differentiated by how it addresses this problem.

1) Magic Missile Mage is an archetype that spans multiple editions that focuses on spamming a low level spell but buffed to remain relevant. Sort of like how Barbarian and Fighter focus on spamming Attack but with it buffed to remain relevant.

2) New noncaster forms of magic. Imagine a Moon Druid that nerfed their casting in exchange for stronger, more frequent, buffed, and more exotic wild shapes.

3) Passive magical effects. Imagine an Abjurer that had 3-6 passive aura effects similar to Paladin.

This one hits the nail on the head for me. Main problems for me that I'd like to solve is:
- far to many casting classes compared to non-casters;
- partly because lots of effects that were non-spells in earlier editions are now spells (warlock powers, they were invocation-only in the edition they appeared, but also stuff like the paladin's warhorse)
- no clear niches for casting classes, especially after ravnica backgrounds and ebberon dragonmark races; but even before that, classes like druid and wizard covered a lot of bases;
- the classes who know really few spells (Sorcerer, warlock, bard) often come up with the same spells; cause they want to to cover as much bases as possible, and most field have one spell that's 'best', so everybody wants fireball, counterspell, fly, misty step, polymorph, etc.
- and some other issues as well, included in the list below.

So what I'd do:
- split sorcerer/wizard up in a few specialized classes, a la 3.5 Warmage and Beguiler. Clear niches in which they are very good, and lots of areas in the game where they have to rely on the other characters, like everybody else. Vastly reduce spell choices, allow a 'fire mage' to be the best with fire but not also heal transmute teleport and cast illusions.
- Maybe keep only the generalist wizard as pure generalist, but 1) even this one with 2 schools forbidden;
- make the bard a half caster again, or remove casting completely and make a new mechanic round bardic music (see the next point)
- have supernatural classes without spells. Make class that can shapechange as main feature, with a combat form subclass and an infiltrator subclass. Make warlock invocation only. Bring the Binder back.
- don't have non-caster classes get spells as bonus features. If a barbarian gets some supernaturals, don't let it be "spell X" but something truely unique. Don't make steeds and familiairs and hexes and hunters marks spells.
- in a new edition: leave conceptual space left for a later psionic addition: telekinesis, action economy, mental control, telepathy: don't release these spells and give 'em to the wizard (or other classes), or only partially, so that a new addtion like the psion has stuff it can be unique in.
- 5e build balancing mechanisms into spellcasting (expensive material components, v/s/m), but isn't really clear about how much they should be used to balance the classes out. Many people seem to ignore this, making spells stronger then they are as intended by RAW imo. So I'd either enforce existing constrictions more (and be more clear about how they are meant to be used), or fall back on earlier editions' balancing mechanisms: slower level advance, max con bonus on hp for spellcasters, casting spells increases aging, etc. etc.
- spells are pretty 'absolute' in nature. I miss mechanics where a fighter with magic sword (or supernatural strength) has a chance to slice open a wall or force (to use a good example I saw somebody make in an earlier thread).
- remove some worst offender spells. Stuff like clone, contignency, simulacrum, wish - the game doesn't get worse if you remove them. Yeah, classic, tradition, yadiyadiya - just keep wish in rings, swords & genies and that's enough (and easy to control by the DM to prevent stuff getting out of hand)
- in addition to remove troublesome spells, vastly remove the amount of spells in general. There's a lot of overlap, and some that don't get cast anyway. This makes it more accessible, people who want to play a caster but don't want to read through dozens and dozens of pages of spells have nowhere to go.
- be more concrete on how skills can do supernatural stuff with high enough scores.
- have a complicaded option for martials (and specialist) if they want to. Something like the martial adept, or a rogue with a lot of options (or spell less bard).
- more love for martials: more fighting styles, feats, elemental monk thingies, battlemaster maneuvers, alternative class features...
- world building; for me it's obvious that in a world with centuries of magic, people know magic, and have defenses against it, even mundane. People know disguise self exist, so have guard dog sniffing out infiltrators; know invisibility exists, so guards throw flour on the ground so they can detect an invisible person walking by; known that spiderclimb and fly exists, so windows at the 2nd floor aren't conveniently open; know that 'charm' exists so won't trust it if people suddenly change their behaviour; know familiars exist, so guards might take out a lone snooping rat. Etc. Etc. But that's personal. Some guidelines on this in an official book would be helpful.


Fair enough, not only 'downgrading casters', but you get the point.

Disclaimer: I personally think that the caster/martial gap is highly exaggerated on boards like these, compared to what I've seen in my games - this even goes for 3.x, when there actually was a large gap. But I tried to answer in the spirit of the OP, and even if there isn't a gap, or it isn't as big, I think the changes I purpose can be an improvement to the game (in a new edition probably, a lot of things can't be introduced backward in an existing edition).

[Xervous]

I’d just not progress above level 10. If the level range tells the stories I want that’s the range I use (and a big part of why I won’t hand my players level 1 starts).

[cutlery]

Capping spell level at 5 is exactly what my co-DM and I were discussing yesterday. Some 6th level and above spells just change the nature of the game so significantly and trivialize obstacles that I think it's a primary reason most games end at mid levels. Allowing the upcast seems the easiest way to handle this. Perhaps there be still room somehow for the occasional casting of a higher level spell through some sort of extended ritual or sacrifice.

I've done this before, back in 3e; nothing above 5th level with a campaign that only really expected to see 15th-16th (low magic world, magic was a crime). One person multiclassed cleric, one person went psychic warrior, one went ranger, one went bard, and one went fighter. The player that had played wizards with regularity before played a fighter/rogue and liked it.

Anyway, to do this with the current system would probably require granting wizards and sorcerers in particular some nice stuff for the back 10 levels; maybe even increasing their hit die. I'd give warlocks more invocations known; probably as many as one for each arcanum lost.

[Amnestic]

I’d just not progress above level 10. If the level range tells the stories I want that’s the range I use (and a big part of why I won’t hand my players level 1 starts).

This is what I'd do, honestly. Maybe 11th instead of 10th but it's the same sort of thing.

If the campaign was still going after that point I'd be looking into alternate progressions instead of pure levels, things like "you can level up, but you can't take a class above [x] level" or epic boons, extra feats, etc.

Spells that might otherwise be inaccessible due to the level cap would be shifted into multi-caster rituals that attract all sorts of attention and require big research/reagents - basically a quest all on its own.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I've done this before, back in 3e; nothing above 5th level with a campaign that only really expected to see 15th-16th (low magic world, magic was a crime). One person multiclassed cleric, one person went psychic warrior, one went ranger, one went bard, and one went fighter. The player that had played wizards with regularity before played a fighter/rogue and liked it.

Anyway, to do this with the current system would probably require granting wizards and sorcerers in particular some nice stuff for the back 10 levels; maybe even increasing their hit die. I'd give warlocks more invocations known; probably as many as one for each arcanum lost.

Given that the title of the thread is Downgrading Fullcasters I wonder if giving a bunch of stuff back is necessary, particularly as there is pretty much consensus that full casters are currently at the top of the food chain.
If the focus is on upcasting, perhaps some spells that can't currently be upcasted could be looked at to open up more options.
Also given the huge amount of printed material around 6th to 9th level spells, perhaps the full casters could access these on a limited basis rather than erasing them entirely. They could undertake a quest to reach hallowed ground (Cleric/ Druid) where a spell could be cast. They could gather in groups (Wizard/ Warlock) and pool their energy for a casting. I'm just spitballing here, but we are looking at doing Out of Avernus next, which I think is meant to end at 13, so it might be a good chance to try something that would come into play for a couple of levels.

[Man_Over_Game]

I've been kinda fond on the idea of making casters have a 1/3 progression instead of 1/2. So they'd cap on level 6 spell slots.

Then just give them double the spell slots to compensate, specifically on the levels that they'd normally be going up in spell level and aren't now (so 3,5,9,11,15,17), as casters were likely balanced around getting a power spike at those levels from their casting.

Fireball, at 20 damage per target after including miss chance, at up to 64 targets, as an Action, never really seemed fitting for a level 5 character feature.

But a level 7? That seems more fitting.

I normally set it for 50% more spell slots, at each spell level, but that actually just turned out to be about as many spell slots with the original system (as it had spell slots more spread out evenly across each spell level).


Full Caster




—Spell Slots per Spell Level—


Level
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th


1st
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


2nd
3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


3rd
7
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


4th
8
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


5th
8
4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


6th
8
6
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


7th
8
7
1
—
—
—
—
—
—


8th
8
7
3
—
—
—
—
—
—


9th
8
7
6
—
—
—
—
—
—


10th
8
7
7
1
—
—
—
—
—


11th
8
7
7
4
—
—
—
—
—


12th
8
7
7
6
—
—
—
—
—


13th
8
7
7
7
1
—
—
—
—


14th
8
7
7
7
2
—
—
—
—


15th
8
7
7
7
4
—
—
—
—


16th
8
7
7
7
5
1
—
—
—


17th
8
7
7
7
5
3
—
—
—


18th
8
7
7
7
6
3
—
—
—


19th
8
7
7
7
6
4
—
—
—


20th
8
7
7
7
6
5
—
—
—

[Dienekes]

Interesting question.

Are we allowed to make our own new classes or are we stuck with Wizard, Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer, Druid, and Warlock?

If we’re stuck with the old band, as always I suggest looking into the fluff and theme of the class to attempt to make them feel more like they’re “supposed” to. At least in my head, others will probably disagree.

The most obvious one is Bard. It’s supposed to be a musician who inspires others with their performances. Rallying people around it to fight harder, march longer, and give more than they thought it could. Historically, musicians were supposed to coordinate. They don’t really do any of that at a mechanical level. They mostly just cast spells. Their main high level feature is just casting secret spells. Song of Rest is technically a performance but that could be fluffed to be anything. You could call it “Deep Massage” and it’d make just as much sense. And Countercharm. Which is just bad.

So I’d definitely focus on them making various performances that require some form of skill check or saving throw to give everyone nearby some kind of benefit or penalty. At later levels I’d let them cast spells amidst one of these performances.

Wizards are a bit of a problem. They’re “the spell class.” Their whole shtick is that they can get a lot of spells. Their subclass is just “what kind of spells do I want to focus on casting?” Their lore is that these are the people who focus on the rigorous study of magic.

Were I designing the class from scratch. My head would automatically go to them getting able to play with and modify their spells. To truly show their mastery of Spellcraft. Where others can cast a fireball, they can make the fire dance.

But that’s metamagic. And that was given to Sorcerers.

So we can’t do that. How else to show magic mastery? Maybe I’d allow them a few higher level spell slots? Not the spells that go there. But they have the means to upcast spells more powerful than other classes.

Sorcerer. Honestly, going along with the “wizards should get metamagic” I kind of think sorcerers should be the ones to get that upcast into higher level slots ability. They’re the ones bursting with magic power. But as is, I’d really develop the metamagic system. Giving a lot of weird and interesting options to choose from at later levels.

Warlock. This ones pretty easy. Dig deeper into higher level invocations. Make ‘em weird. Stuff that would make other people stand up and notice something is wrong with either the warlock or the type of magic they’re casting.

So clerics are a bit of a problem. There’s a part of me that wants them to behave more like a warlike cleric. Getting involved leading people in danger, being proactive. But that’s what a Paladin is doing. Pretty well. So it kind of makes me want to go the other way. Make the cleric more backline, miracle worker. There’s a part of me that wants to make some form of mechanic around converting your enemies to your point of view. Or leading your allies in prayer. But I kind of feel those mechanics may be problematic. I’ll need to think on this more. I’m leaning toward some more in depth way to bless allies. Giving them boosts that aren’t spells. And differentiate itself from the Bard by being more individualized and focused. But unable to change the benefits to the whole group at the drop of a hat like a Bard changing their musical performance.

Druid. Make cooler wild shapes. Move Beast Spells up (perhaps in a limited form) much earlier. Additional ways to manipulate animals and plants as they level up that don’t directly involve spells. To the point a high level Druid can shape the battlefield as they want with vines and trees and whatnot.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

I’m intrigued.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Interesting question.

Are we allowed to make our own new classes or are we stuck with Wizard, Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer, Druid, and Warlock?

If we’re stuck with the old band, as always I suggest looking into the fluff and theme of the class to attempt to make them feel more like they’re “supposed” to. At least in my head, others will probably disagree.

The most obvious one is Bard. It’s supposed to be a musician who inspires others with their performances. Rallying people around it to fight harder, march longer, and give more than they thought it could. Historically, musicians were supposed to coordinate. They don’t really do any of that at a mechanical level. They mostly just cast spells. Their main high level feature is just casting secret spells. Song of Rest is technically a performance but that could be fluffed to be anything. You could call it “Deep Massage” and it’d make just as much sense. And Countercharm. Which is just bad.

So I’d definitely focus on them making various performances that require some form of skill check or saving throw to give everyone nearby some kind of benefit or penalty. At later levels I’d let them cast spells amidst one of these performances.

Wizards are a bit of a problem. They’re “the spell class.” Their whole shtick is that they can get a lot of spells. Their subclass is just “what kind of spells do I want to focus on casting?” Their lore is that these are the people who focus on the rigorous study of magic.

Were I designing the class from scratch. My head would automatically go to them getting able to play with and modify their spells. To truly show their mastery of Spellcraft. Where others can cast a fireball, they can make the fire dance.

But that’s metamagic. And that was given to Sorcerers.

So we can’t do that. How else to show magic mastery? Maybe I’d allow them a few higher level spell slots? Not the spells that go there. But they have the means to upcast spells more powerful than other classes.

Sorcerer. Honestly, going along with the “wizards should get metamagic” I kind of think sorcerers should be the ones to get that upcast into higher level slots ability. They’re the ones bursting with magic power. But as is, I’d really develop the metamagic system. Giving a lot of weird and interesting options to choose from at later levels.

Warlock. This ones pretty easy. Dig deeper into higher level invocations. Make ‘em weird. Stuff that would make other people stand up and notice something is wrong with either the warlock or the type of magic they’re casting.

So clerics are a bit of a problem. There’s a part of me that wants them to behave more like a warlike cleric. Getting involved leading people in danger, being proactive. But that’s what a Paladin is doing. Pretty well. So it kind of makes me want to go the other way. Make the cleric more backline, miracle worker. There’s a part of me that wants to make some form of mechanic around converting your enemies to your point of view. Or leading your allies in prayer. But I kind of feel those mechanics may be problematic. I’ll need to think on this more. I’m leaning toward some more in depth way to bless allies. Giving them boosts that aren’t spells. And differentiate itself from the Bard by being more individualized and focused. But unable to change the benefits to the whole group at the drop of a hat like a Bard changing their musical performance.

Druid. Make cooler wild shapes. Move Beast Spells up (perhaps in a limited form) much earlier. Additional ways to manipulate animals and plants as they level up that don’t directly involve spells. To the point a high level Druid can shape the battlefield as they want with vines and trees and whatnot.
I'm in full agreement with it seeming weird that Bard is a full caster. My 2e background self thinks 'Jack of all Trades' when I hear the word Bard, and that doesn't scream full caster. Cleric and Druid: same thing. I just don't think anybody with d8 hp needs to be a full caster.

[Kyutaru]

The spell slots I don't think are much of a problem so it's mainly the spells themselves. If they're downgraded to have only this many spell levels then why wait till 17 to grant them? This ends up being what makes people not like multiclassing out of them and what people find so broken about them.

So instead, rebalance the casters to have their 1st to 5th at their normal levels. This is the knowledge of wizards and they all eventually master and understand the simple universe and how to shape it. But for the second half of the class progression focus on spell upgrading and tiers of power. Spell slots up to 9 are still available but now they're being used to enhance existing spells in the way of potent mages. A fireball cast by a level 5 is very different from one cast by a level 15. Perhaps even the wizard has learned all manner of personal touch modifications like upgrading elements, increasing the size, multiplying the effect, and overall upcasting the spell is an empowered fashion. Condense spellcasting to rely on this method. We don't need Power Word Kill if we have a minor death effect that scales with HP according to wizard power. Low level wizards might be able to kill instantly things with 20 hp or less. Something they already can do with cantrips.

Basically, first 10 levels should be the undergrad stage when wizards-in-training are learning their spell repertoire. The latter 10 levels should be the postgrad stage when wizards are learning to make magic their own and apply their knowledge to sharpen their basic tools. Ridiculously overpowered god-tier magic that can't be scaled should just die in a fireball.

[Necrosnoop110]

- spells are pretty 'absolute' in nature. I miss mechanics where a fighter with magic sword (or supernatural strength) has a chance to slice open a wall or force (to use a good example I saw somebody make in an earlier thread).

Just curious, what edition/rule-set allowed that?

[cutlery]

Given that the title of the thread is Downgrading Fullcasters I wonder if giving a bunch of stuff back is necessary,


Depends on how long the game goes. Some of them (wizards, some sorcerous origins) don't really get a great deal from 11-18 or so, if higher level spells are gone. Lots of dead levels, probably making them feel worse off than Barbarians in that space.

Probably better to just cap them at a max level if the campaign will go longer than that (say, above 9th), and encourage multiclassing.

Multiclassing is a different can of worms, though, and sometimes can result in some very strong characters relative to some other combinations, if you care about that (and I assume you do, if reining in casters is on the table).


I'd sooner think about curtailing upper level spell lists, making wizards have to memorize specific slots (perhaps only above 4th, if you wish). Stuff like hold monster and dominate probably aren't the end of the world, so just remove the usual suspects.

Of course, that sort of thing means removing more wizard spells than other caster's spells, but that's probably fine, especially if the campaign only goes to 11 or 13, there's only one or two levels of spells that need to be trimmed.


But leaving the classes as-is and taking them to 18+ with no spells over 5th might drag.

[Waazraath]

Just curious, what edition/rule-set allowed that?

As far as I know: none. I saw another poster make this point a week or so a go, and I thought it a very good idea. Because 1) it gives martials weapons against high level spells, 2) it's by using what they are good at themselves: strenght and using weapons. There is some precedent though; martial adepts in 3.5 could learn maneuvers that granted short range teleport, which allowed escape from magical traps (and even from effects that shut other spells down, cause they weren't spells or supernatural abilities but non-magical extraordinary abilities - that was a distinction that edition).

I don't think it's that hard to enhance martials in similar other ways. Give them blindsight at high level, allowing them to feel/hear/deduce where the enemy is (a la the finale of Bloodsport, for example, or the cliché blind martial arts master); allow them to to rip open a portal through another world, with their weapons or just their bare hands (as certain 3.x prestige classes did); etc. 3.5 Book of 9 swords might also give some inspiration (we have quite a lot of it already in 5e, at least for the parts that aren't redundant - but there will be stuff in there that could be usable).

[cutlery]

As far as I know: none. I saw another poster make this point a week or so a go, and I thought it a very good idea. Because 1) it gives martials weapons against high level spells, 2) it's by using what they are good at themselves: strenght and using weapons.

That would be pretty neat, actually. I could see +2 or so being required to cut your way out of a wall of force (+1 for resilient sphere?), and perhaps a +3 for forcecage; and maybe make it take a round or two (or more) so a disintegrate is still the best short term option.

Having them be basically impossible to escape for martials sucks.

[Snowbluff]

Depends on how long the game goes. Some of them (wizards, some sorcerous origins) don't really get a great deal from 11-18 or so, if higher level spells are gone. Lots of dead levels, probably making them feel worse off than Barbarians in that space.

Probably better to just cap them at a max level if the campaign will go longer than that (say, above 9th), and encourage multiclassing.

...


But leaving the classes as-is and taking them to 18+ with no spells over 5th might drag.

No you're absolutely right. Giving casters basically nothing past level 9 is a raw deal. It's just not a fun or exciting way to have the game progress.

It's a false premise anyway. Most spells are pretty balanced, with the problem being that people just don't make the adventuring day long enough to make it a choice whether or not they should just nova their spell slots (which is a good argument for implementing the gritty realism or some variant thereof if you only have a fight every other day or so).

Furthermore, a lot of players don't gravitate to the stronger spells innately. Playing a caster effectively, or at least to the best of the class's ability, is actually quite difficult, with spell selection taking way more way in and out of combat compared to "Am fight Am attack action." By not having casters be effectual, you're just giving a less rewarding experience to players who are putting in more effort.

[cutlery]

Playing a caster effectively, or at least to the best of the class's ability, is actually quite difficult,

The number of times I have wanted to cast a spell that was not prepared (but was learned) is probably as great as the number of rounds of combat I have had with a wizard. It isn't as painful as previous editions, but but it still happens.

One of the things I really miss about other casters is the simplicity - either you have the option or you don't. It's also really easy to change your prepared list based on yesterday (which will not serve you well today).

Warlocks by contrast are pretty easy. Burn the slots quick, then you're a magical archer. blam blam blam.

[Amechra]

OK, this went off the rails quickly. :smalltongue:

This is not a "boy, casters are too strong, let's nerf them!" thread. This is a "full-progression casters tend not to have room for cool features outside of spellcasting, since it eats up 8-9 of the 15 non-ASI levels each class gets." The idea is that, if you downgraded, say, the Cleric to Artificer-tier casting, you would obviously need to give them some cool new features in exchange. Because otherwise the result would be pretty bad.

Given that DarknessEternal rightly pointed out that I should have included some ideas of my own in the OP, here's what I've been thinking:


Bards would focus on Bardic Inspiration, and would maybe replace Expertise with a "skill smite" feature, where they could pitch a spell slot to give themselves a bonus to skill rolls.
Clerics would get many more uses of Channel Divinity - I could see them getting the "trade a spell slot for a Channel Divinity use" feature from the Class Features UA, as well as some other features that burn your uses. I'd actually move them away from combat and towards the social pillar, to further distinguish them from Paladins.
Druids would have more ways to use Wild Shape than they currently do. I'd also love to see them get a smattering of ribbons to help the class fantasy - I should be able to talk to animals without burning a spell slot, dang it!
I kinda agree with Dienekes that Sorcerers would get features that boost their ability to upcast - maybe a feature that let you burn two spell slots to cast a spell using the sum of their levels (i.e. burn a 2nd level slot and a 3rd level slot to cast a spell as if you were using a 5th level slot)? I kinda want them to keep metamagic, since it helps deal with their lower spells known.
Warlocks... more/better invocations? I'm not sure they count in this particular instance, since they are so mechanically different.
For Wizards, I'd focus on their overall versatility. I'd probably steal Magical Secrets from the Bard and give it to them, along with some features that make them better at Rituals. This is probably the trickiest one, I'll admit, since Wizards have no real identity other than "good at spells".


I have to admit, the Sorcerer concept actually seems pretty tempting...

---

Let's also add in the opposite question - what if non-casters were upgraded to Paladin-/Ranger-type half-casters? Would Rage becomes some sort of Smite? Would Monks be expected to run around with a suite of Concentration buffs?

[Dienekes]

Out of curiosity, Anechra. How would your Sorcerer here be meaningfully different from just having spell points casting? I’m not opposed to it. Actually I think just giving them spell points while everyone else has slots is an interesting method of differentiating them.

But would that truly count as meaningful higher level abilities?

[Amechra]

Out of curiosity, Anechra. How would your Sorcerer here be meaningfully different from just having spell points casting? I’m not opposed to it. Actually I think just giving them spell points while everyone else has slots is an interesting method of differentiating them.

But would that truly count as meaningful higher level abilities?

The idea is that you'd, for example, cast a spell from a 3rd level slot. And then, because you wanted it to be stronger, you'd burn a 2nd level slot to upcast it to 5th level. Think more along the lines of Divine Smite than spell points. You'd also be able to burn spell slots to boost your cantrip damage as well - which would help you save on spells known, if nothing else.

My only real concern is that they'd burn through spell slots very quickly, with less to show for it than a "normal" Sorcerer. Clearly, they'd have to get some extra spell slots from somewhere, but I'm not sure where.

[Kane0]

Let's also add in the opposite question - what if non-casters were upgraded to Paladin-/Ranger-type half-casters? Would Rage becomes some sort of Smite? Would Monks be expected to run around with a suite of Concentration buffs?

I'll see and raise you:

Drop 20 levels down to 12, with corresponding drop in spell levels from 9 to 5. All classes become casters of some variety, the slowest progression starting at 1/4 progression then 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 3/4 and full casting. If we have 12 classes that's enough for two of each progression.

We could even really dive down the rabbit hole and have only a handful of spell lists rather than one for each class, separating ASIs/combat feats/noncombat feats, rebalance resources and rests vs expected encounters per day, unifying what level subclass features occur at for all classes, even redoing some of the core six attributes, saves and skill/tools.

[Bobthewizard]

It's just a few spells that really destroy the game. Nerf those and you can leave the rest alone. Here are the ones I would remove.

Conjure Woodland Beings - take out pixies.
Planar Binding
Mass Suggestion
Forcecage
Simulacrum
Maze
Wish
Evoker/Hexblade/Magic Missile combo
Mirage Arcane/Illusory realty
Chronurgy Wizard's level 10 feature.
Maybe a few more that I can't think of right now.

Once those are taken out, you can easily play into the higher levels.

[Valmark]

Conjure Woodland Beings - take out pixies.


How's CWB broken? A DM can not give pixies (or a low enough number) and that would be exactly how the spell works. Conjure Animals is way more broken if any.