Nerfing All casters - Proficiency in spells

[Cikomyr2]

So.

One big thing that everyone keep mentioning all the time is how spellcasters, especially high level ones, are overshadowing other classes.

So. What if "spell proficiency" was a thing?

What does Spell Proficiency mean? Well, think about an Evoker. His school of choice is about blasting energy on to his enemies. He get the occasional bonuses that makes him a marginally better blaster than a Diviner with the fireball spell, sure, but he won't have a significant edge when casting spells of his school.

What if spellcasters only got to add proficiency bonus to their spell save DC and spell attack rolls for spells they are "proficient" in. Proficiency is determined by the subclass flavoring. So the 8 schools or wizardry are obvious.

Just to make sure I get my point across: the ability to cast spells is not restricted. Wizards can cast all wizard spells, Cleric can cast all cleric, it's just they are great at only some of them, the one following their character thematic.

The Game master is encouraged to grant proficiency to spells outside the natural class and thematic in a way that fits the story.

Example: Now, of you manage to steal the spell book of a powerful conjurer, maybe the non-conjurer wizard not only can copy the spells in it, but with an Arcana check he gets to decipher some special, exclusive knowledge about one of the Conjuring spells he copied.

A priest who gets a special relic of Death can suddenly gain proficiency in the Inflict Wound spell

Etc.. Etc..

I understand this is a significant gimp to the full caster classes, but I feel it will help create a better thematic /mechanic harmony where two wizards of different schools would actually end up pretty different even if they somehow got the same spells.

[quindraco]

So.

One big thing that everyone keep mentioning all the time is how spellcasters, especially high level ones, are overshadowing other classes.

So. What if "spell proficiency" was a thing?

What does Spell Proficiency mean? Well, think about an Evoker. His school of choice is about blasting energy on to his enemies. He get the occasional bonuses that makes him a marginally better blaster than a Diviner with the fireball spell, sure, but he won't have a significant edge when casting spells of his school.

What if spellcasters only got to add proficiency bonus to their spell save DC and spell attack rolls for spells they are "proficient" in. Proficiency is determined by the subclass flavoring. So the 8 schools or wizardry are obvious.

Just to make sure I get my point across: the ability to cast spells is not restricted. Wizards can cast all wizard spells, Cleric can cast all cleric, it's just they are great at only some of them, the one following their character thematic.

The Game master is encouraged to grant proficiency to spells outside the natural class and thematic in a way that fits the story.

Example: Now, of you manage to steal the spell book of a powerful conjurer, maybe the non-conjurer wizard not only can copy the spells in it, but with an Arcana check he gets to decipher some special, exclusive knowledge about one of the Conjuring spells he copied.

A priest who gets a special relic of Death can suddenly gain proficiency in the Inflict Wound spell

Etc.. Etc..

I understand this is a significant gimp to the full caster classes, but I feel it will help create a better thematic /mechanic harmony where two wizards of different schools would actually end up pretty different even if they somehow got the same spells.

On a similar note, I think the game would be better if casters needed to be better at Performance to cast spells with a V component while deafened and Sleight of Hand to cast spells with an S component while under any condition impairing attack rolls. Deafened and Poisoned should both do more to casters.

[Zhorn]

Not entirely against the idea in concept...
Not really something I want in 5e, but as a concept for future editions; maybe?

Big thing I think would be determining the groupings for proficienies. As you're covered it is simple for the eight traditional wizard schools, but for other classes, and the later wizard subclasses it becomes a little less clear.

Trying to do it on a spell-by-spell basis will end up with a lot of bloated unique lists. Just look at the class spell lists in the PHB. Now duplicate that out for all the caster subclasses. That's a lot of pages.

This is where I'm thinking it'll work best as a 'next edition' thing. Extra grouping details can be added to the spell's text for the different categories it belongs to. We already have the schools, but say the text also had a few domains (1-3) under that also for the divine casters?

Then for the spontaneous casters there could be an association with the targeted ability. One may be proficient in WIS save spells, while another has CHA spells.

Just spitballing ideas to get the discussion rolling. Not 100% onboard, but I don't hate it as an experiment.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I think this would actually end up creating less diversity.

For example, why wouldn't I just be an evocation wizard so I can have proficiency in a majority of damaging spells and continue to use the utility spells that don't need my DC or attack bonus? Evocation Wizards are practically untouched, meanwhile someone who may have wanted to play an illusionist has even less incentive to do so now because in most cases their default proficiency does nothing.

Casters would want to pick whichever subclass gives them the most useful spell proficiencies.

The easiest and most likely way to counter that is to give some default proficiencies, but at that point why have we made the change to begin with?

[Boci]

I think this would actually end up creating less diversity.

For example, why wouldn't I just be an evocation wizard so I can have proficiency in a majority of damaging spells and continue to use the utility spells that don't need my DC or attack bonus? Evocation Wizards are practically untouched, meanwhile someone who may have wanted to play an illusionist has even less incentive to do so now because in most cases their default proficiency does nothing.

Based on my admittedly limited experience DMing wizards in 5th ed, because then you'd have to be an evocer rather than a diviner (or necromancer, since they're really cool and popular).

[Xervous]

I think this touches on the issue of wizards being too broad, but misses most problem spells and would generally just hurt the game more than help it.

1. This only affects spells with DCs and attack rolls, doing nothing to address broad utility lists or problematic spells that don’t ask for rolls.

2. This restricts what are generally not problematic spells to only being serviceable in the hands of a specialist as a rule. Being told “you can’t cast that spell” is better than the “it’s on your list but you’ll never be good enough at it” that this spell proficiency produces.

This does not stop people from cherry picking the spells that cause problems when used intelligently. It does not stop the spells that accidentally cause problems. It just tells players to not bother trying with XYZ unless they specialize, reducing the real choices a player has in a manner reminiscent of the hollow choices presented in PF2e.

[Catullus64]

Your post says a lot about the proposed changes, but not very much about the perceived problem for which you think this is a good fix; just the idea that specializations don't fully determine the effectiveness of spells. If you were to articulate in greater detail the problem that you think needs fixing, I might be more on board with the idea, or at least able to critique it more meaningfully.

[PhantomSoul]

Re:OP

I was expecting this would be about treating the Proficiency Bonus + Spell Attack Modifiers and Spell Save Modifiers like it seems from Class tables: a Class Feature, rather than a Character Feature. So if you Multiclass Warlock 2 / Sorcerer 8 with 20 CHA, your Warlock Spell Save DC only includes your Warlock Levels (Spell Save DC = 8 + Charisma Modifier + [Warlock] Proficiency Bonus = 8 + 5 + 2 = 15) and your Sorcerer Spell Save DC only includes your Sorcerer Levels (Spell Save DC = 8 + Charisma Modifier + [Sorcerer] Proficiency Bonus = 8 + 5 + 3 = 16), for example. You have per-Class Spell Save DCs and Spell Attack Bonuses anyhow... and it's listed as a Class Feature... Now it looks like one! :)
(grumble grumble could do this for everything in homebrew / new edition grumble grumble simpler version of per-Class BAB grumble grumble grumble)


EDIT:


Your post says a lot about the proposed changes, but not very much about the perceived problem for which you think this is a good fix; just the idea that specializations don't fully determine the effectiveness of spells. If you were to articulate in greater detail the problem that you think needs fixing, I might be more on board with the idea, or at least able to critique it more meaningfully.

Agreed for wanting to know the problem! Spell failure? (As a counterpart for Attacks Missing for martials) Different gradient Spell success? Like in a response, using Skills more usefully?

[GeneralVryth]

A solution that adds complexity and doesn't really address the problem (or worse creates new ones), is not a good solution. Which describes this solution in a nut shell, at least when applied to 5e.

I can envision spell casting systems where this would work, but they all would have to have some way to tie utility spells to your proficiency bonus or you are going to get unbalanced results. It's a lot easier to just deny access to a spell than to play games with bonuses (which may or may not impact effectiveness).

With all of that in mind I don't agree with the problem statement itself. The game has 6 full casters, 3 half casters, 4 martial classes. Most of the problems are going to be around 2 or 3 of the martial classes and one of the half casters being overshadowed. Which suggests the problem is with those classes needing to be improved, rather trying to nerf at least as many if not more other classes.

[Amnestic]

If you were going to do this you'd probably want a 'spelltags' system for when the spellschool really isn't that important ("Dragon", "Light", "Fey", "Shadow" etc.) but the thematic source is.

I don't think it's entirely bad out of hand but the question of what to do for utility spells is a fair one. Lack of proficiency in illusion doesn't really hurt me when I'm mostly just using it to cast phantom steed.

I wouldn't mind seeing such a concept in a theoretical 6e, but I think the effort required to make it work in 5e in a satisfying manner might be too much for a homebrew 'quick fix'.

[Xervous]

4e admittedly did this better by rewarding specific subclasses with bonuses to specific spells within a class.

[kazaryu]

Agreed for wanting to know the problem! Spell failure? (As a counterpart for Attacks Missing for martials) Different gradient Spell success? Like in a response, using Skills more usefully?
adding spell failure without some further changes to spells would be a big problem. the *Reason* spell failure isn't a thing is that you're giving up a resource in order to cast. if im gonna cast my 7th level spell i don't want to have the outcome determined by needing 2 good rolls (one for my cast, on for the enemy save). i really don't get why people keep trying to make this comparison.

a better way to solve this 'problem' that you're addressing is to put casters and martials on a similar playing field. perhaps giving everyone abilities that they can use under multiple frequencies. a few abilities that are at-will. some abilities that can only be used once in an encounter. other abilities that can only be used daily. and put them all on similar scale of effectiveness (at least for combat.) im sure the players will love it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The only real way to fix the perceived[1] spellcaster dominance is by fixing the spells themselves. There are other things that need fixing about the spell-casting system entirely, but that's separate (more about tone and theme rather than power imbalance).

[1] Personally I find it more of a perception issue exacerbated by DMs who are extra-generous with spell interpretations and extra-narrow/hardline about non-spell action interpretation, but YMMV. There's an issue there, but I don't think it's as big as many make it out to be in the abstract/white-room.

[KorvinStarmast]

One big thing that everyone keep mentioning all the time is how spellcasters, especially high level ones, are overshadowing other classes. They also make great support characters, such as my lore bard and most of the clerics I have played.

So. What if "spell proficiency" was a thing?
We have, IMO, enough fiddly bits already. Casters already slow play down a lot as it is. See chaos bolt and prismatic spray as but two examples.

What does Spell Proficiency mean? Well, think about an Evoker. His school of choice is about blasting energy on to his enemies. He get the occasional bonuses that makes him a marginally better blaster than a Diviner with the fireball spell, sure, but he won't have a significant edge when casting spells of his school.
the ability to shape an AoE spell is a non trivial benefit.

So the 8 schools or wizardry are obvious.
Not really. Next edition we might get the five colors. That might actually be a better basis to work from than 8 schools. The five colors are arranged in a circle, five pizza pie slices like in MtG's diagram. Any wizard is proficient in one color, half proficiency in both adjacent colors, non proficient in non adjacent colors. But bake it in, hard, during the dev and testing stage, and do the hard work to balance the five colors. :smallannoyed: So that's wizards taken care of. What about the rest of the casters? Half casters?


Just to make sure I get my point across: the ability to cast spells is not restricted. Wizards can cast all wizard spells, Cleric can cast all cleric, it's just they are great at only some of them, the one following their character thematic.

The Game master is encouraged to grant proficiency to spells outside the natural class and thematic in a way that fits the story.
Next edition, bake this in. The game was put together without this baked into proficiency.
Xervous summed it up nicely here:

I think this touches on the issue of wizards being too broad, but misses most problem spells and would generally just hurt the game more than help it. Sorcerers would not be helped by this approach at all.

[DarknessEternal]

I think this would actually end up creating less diversity.

For example, why wouldn't I just be an evocation wizard so I can have proficiency in a majority of damaging spells and continue to use the utility spells that don't need my DC or attack bonus? Evocation Wizards are practically untouched, meanwhile someone who may have wanted to play an illusionist has even less incentive to do so now because in most cases their default proficiency does nothing.

Casters would want to pick whichever subclass gives them the most useful spell proficiencies.

The easiest and most likely way to counter that is to give some default proficiencies, but at that point why have we made the change to begin with?

Agreed. This only makes the strong stronger and the weak obsolete.

[Man_Over_Game]

Just let the casters pick the spells themselves.

Each caster gets 1 Signature Spell for each spell slot level they can cast. Boom, done. They're probably going to pick spells that match the subclass (either for synergies or for theme), or spells that solve the problem their core mechanics can't (allowing them to stay more on theme more often), so this is pretty close to the original intent without the problems.

[Cikomyr2]

Just let the casters pick the spells themselves.

Each caster gets 1 Signature Spell for each spell slot level they can cast. Boom, done. They're probably going to pick spells that match the subclass (either for synergies or for theme), or spells that solve the problem their core mechanics can't (allowing them to stay more on theme more often), so this is pretty close to the original intent without the problems.

To be perfectly honest, I was considering something like that.

Like, clerics with their Domain casting makes it pretty obvious what's and what's not thematic. the new sorcerer subclasses also have their new thematic spell list.

in fact, "Thematic spell list" is something I think all casters should get.

[mr_stibbons]

adding spell failure without some further changes to spells would be a big problem. the *Reason* spell failure isn't a thing is that you're giving up a resource in order to cast. if im gonna cast my 7th level spell i don't want to have the outcome determined by needing 2 good rolls (one for my cast, on for the enemy save). i really don't get why people keep trying to make this comparison.


While I'm not a fan of spell failure, perhaps we could implement a system where all targets gain advantage on their saving throws if the caster is impaired in some way? The ability of casters to ignore most of the non-incapacitating conditions in the game by using spells that rely on enemies failing saves might not be the biggest part of spell caster dominance, it's an advantage that annoys me from a design perspective. There should be more ways to hinder spell casters without outright incapacitating them or throwing them in a silence zone.

[Theodoxus]

While I agree it's definitely something more likely to work in a new edition, or at the very least a heavily modified 5E where the idea is 'baked in' as Korvin noted, I am playing around with the idea of "arcane skills", based around the 12 schools I have in my homebrew.

But I've also radically deviated away from straight proficiency. Instead, using a "Novice/Expert/Master/Adept" system of skill progression I first saw in the Adventure Fantasy Game, and pairing it with the Stunt die from the Fantasy AGE system. The idea being that if you're proficient in a skill (any skill), you have a base +2 PB as normal. But to increase proficiency, instead of leveling, you need to roll successes with the skill. But not just any success - you need to succeed on the roll while also rolling a 6 on the Stunt die. When you do, your skill increases by 1/6th (N->O->V->I->C->E), etc.

Once you've completed the Novice level of your skill with 6 successes, you become an Expert, and your PB advances to +4 for that specific skill. Complete 6 successes at Expert and you might advance to Master (it requires 6 separate Expert leveled skills to unlock the Master level (+6 PB)). Adept (+7 PB) requires 3 Masters (and you can only have 1 Adept level skill). There's a theoretical Grandmaster skill level, but I don't think my own campaigns would ever get there.

So, for spellcasting, you'd need to succeed at making an arcana check vs the Casting Threshold of the spell (equal to 10 + spell level). It's a free action, and if you fail, does not use the spell slot - just determines that for the round, you can't cast a leveled spell - you can still cast a cantrip or take a different action.

Oh, and the skill level determines your maximum spell level (though I'm switching over to Spheres, so that's less important as skill level determines PB which gates spell point expenditure).

Ritual casting is also changed, basically the Casting Threshold is 100x higher, so you make successive arcana checks, adding up your rolls until you meet the threshold. There is no success or failure, per se, just how long it takes to reach the threshold. You can use the average (11+casting mod) to handwave the rolling and determine how many rounds/minutes it will take to complete a ritual if you'd rather. Rolling does allow for opportunities for critical success (meet/beat the CT base with a Stunt, which reduces the total CT by the stunt die amount), so it's possible to significantly shorten the casting time of rituals, if you want to take the time to roll...

Perhaps it's needlessly complicated, but I've found it curtails the quadradic nature of casters. Especially since any spell can be ritualized, and if multiple casters have the same spell available, they can all contribute to the ritual, adding their casting skill to the total CT.

[Gtdead]

I think a proposed nerf that doesn't address wall of force + persistent damage, simulacra (and infinite loops) and other shenanigans isn't really a nerf. It's a very broad redesign that will affect the game in many unintended ways while keeping the "broken" things in the game and fully accessible by the usual suspects. Spellcasting ability isn't a problem. Spells are.

The important part here is that

At lvl 1 to 4, PB bonus makes control spells 20% better against 0 Save
At lvl 5 to 7, it's almost 30%

For save for half blasting spells, the PB bonus is 6% and 9% correspondingly. Why would anyone ever choose blasting spells to specialize? If the "God" build was the #1 build before, with this change it's going to be the only viable build, albeit with a smaller array of tricks.

On the other hand, theoretical discussions and extreme optimization are beside the point of the game and outside of certain circles, people don't care. No one cares for example if a level 20 Cleric can bypass Antimagic Zone by having a deity cast the spell but a lot of people care about Fighter's 4th attack. Also it's telling that if you search for guides on the internet, you won't find many references to the overpowered combos that break the game. Some guides don't even rate the overpowered spells gold/sky blue. At this point I value tradition more than balance.

[jjordan]

So.

One big thing that everyone keep mentioning all the time is how spellcasters, especially high level ones, are overshadowing other classes.

So. What if "spell proficiency" was a thing?
Not very D&D, a lot of people here won't like it (many with very good and well articulated reasons), I love almost everything about the idea and think it's really cool.

[kazaryu]

While I'm not a fan of spell failure, perhaps we could implement a system where all targets gain advantage on their saving throws if the caster is impaired in some way? The ability of casters to ignore most of the non-incapacitating conditions in the game by using spells that rely on enemies failing saves might not be the biggest part of spell caster dominance, it's an advantage that annoys me from a design perspective. There should be more ways to hinder spell casters without outright incapacitating them or throwing them in a silence zone.

i mean, rather than making a broad spectrum change to the spellcasting, i'd just implement some conditions (and more common ways to inflict other conditions) that inhibit casting. technicalyl blindness/deafness both do this. but deafness is...rare. blindness can be rare.

of courser that could cause slowdowns as now casters are needing to look up spell components to see what they're still able to cast.

[PhantomSoul]

of courser that could cause slowdowns as now casters are needing to look up spell components to see what they're still able to cast.

I'd be glad to see them mattering that much tbh

[Sorinth]

Definitely something more for a 6e then a 5e as you'd want to make a ton of changes to spells to get things balanced but overall I think there's merit behind have "specialists" actually specialize in terms of spells, especially if you are limiting the spells you can gain proficiency by subclass.

Presumably this would only apply to prepared casters and not spells known casters, since presumably classes like Sorcerer should have proficiency in the spells they actually know given how limited the list is to begin with.

[Sigreid]

Honestly, I haven't seen the problem come up, even in high tier games. It may be a group thing, but if, for example, I'm playing a wizard, I'm not going to waste time preparing spells to do things that someone in the party can already just do with a skill or class feature.

[Cikomyr2]

I think a proposed nerf that doesn't address wall of force + persistent damage, simulacra (and infinite loops) and other shenanigans isn't really a nerf. It's a very broad redesign that will affect the game in many unintended ways while keeping the "broken" things in the game and fully accessible by the usual suspects. Spellcasting ability isn't a problem. Spells are.

The important part here is that

At lvl 1 to 4, PB bonus makes control spells 20% better against 0 Save
At lvl 5 to 7, it's almost 30%

For save for half blasting spells, the PB bonus is 6% and 9% correspondingly. Why would anyone ever choose blasting spells to specialize? If the "God" build was the #1 build before, with this change it's going to be the only viable build, albeit with a smaller array of tricks.

On the other hand, theoretical discussions and extreme optimization are beside the point of the game and outside of certain circles, people don't care. No one cares for example if a level 20 Cleric can bypass Antimagic Zone by having a deity cast the spell but a lot of people care about Fighter's 4th attack. Also it's telling that if you search for guides on the internet, you won't find many references to the overpowered combos that break the game. Some guides don't even rate the overpowered spells gold/sky blue. At this point I value tradition more than balance.

I mean, it seems the problem you have are with a few select spells that break the rules rather than the entire magic system


Not very D&D, a lot of people here won't like it (many with very good and well articulated reasons), I love almost everything about the idea and think it's really cool.

Thanks!! 😁

[Kane0]

The broad concept of spell proficiency is workable, just not in the current framework. Spell schools aren't equal in a couple of ways, individual spells/class lists is an extreme amount of work, attack vs DC spells are missing entire swaths of spells that use neither (or both), spell duration/range/casting time aren't much better. There's no current metric that we can leverage easily.

You would have to implement one, like spell descriptors from previous editions. Then you can say a caster needs to be proficient in/with [descriptor] spells in order to cast them or whatever other way you want to gate it.

However.

That's just a method of gating spells, the same way we already do via class spell lists, spell levels and spells known/memorized. Adding another onto the pile is bound to end up with diminishing returns.

[Zuras]

Is making full casters lives more annoying or less effective for their non-peak spells going to actually solve a problem? Or is it going to make them more likely than before to hoard their magical nukes fo completely dominate a limited number of encounters?

My direct experience with high level (11+) games is limited, but main problems I experienced were how the higher level spells exacerbated the 5 minute adventuring day problem. A wizard with a simulacrum one shot the final battle with a double Meteor Swarm for an unceremoniously short end my first Tier 4 session.

Given how 5e is designed around resource exhaustion over the “adventuring day” I don’t see a way around this except through encounter design or excising higher level spells. One-shotting the boss with a high level spell can still be satisfying for the whole party if they were sorely tempted to use their magical nuke to bypass one of the earlier encounters but leaned on the martial’s combat prowess instead. Without that resource stress, however, full casters are going to outshine everyone else unless you cap them at 5th level spells or something. The proposed rule change just seems like punishing the full caster players by making their lives more annoying while not making them any less likely to dominate the spotlight in big boss fights.

I’d also agree that it’s the Barbarian, Ranger and Rogue that are the main offenders in terms of feeling limited or irrelevant at higher levels, and the Barbarian and Ranger are the real problems. Fighters, Monks and Paladins have all seemed very effective in my high level games.

If the DM can’t figure out a way to make the Rogue feel awesome at least once a session they aren’t trying very hard or the players don’t feel empowered to try rule of cool stuff like swapping the enemy’s McGuffin of Doom before the fight with sleight of hand.

Also, while the barbarian lags badly behind the fighter in damage output and doesn’t get anything really new or exciting at high levels, I’ve literally never run into a barbarian player that cared. The reason someone plays a barbarian is basically so they can have this conversation:

DM: The Elder Dracolich deals you infinity damage.

Barbarian PC: Ok, I’m still up but could use some more temp hp.

DM: *sighs*

[Man_Over_Game]

Given how 5e is designed around resource exhaustion over the “adventuring day” I don’t see a way around this except through encounter design or excising higher level spells.

You could look into changing the value of rests, making each night's rest a Short Rest, and the same thing in a town or other safe location makes it a Long Rest. This makes preparation a big deal while making casters acutely aware of their limited resources. Martials will hardly notice.

[Sigreid]

If you really want to balance the functionality, I'd suggest it would be easier to just have more ritual spells that can be cast if you take the ritual caster feat. Possibly even some spells that are only rituals available to anyone with the ritual caster feat or feature.

[Man_Over_Game]

If you really want to balance the functionality, I'd suggest it would be easier to just have more ritual spells that can be cast if you take the ritual caster feat. Possibly even some spells that are only rituals available to anyone with the ritual caster feat or feature.

That doesn't quite solve the problem of "Simulacrum + Meteor Storm", or other magical combos that can run amok at late game.

I think the overall consensus isn't necessarily that "Martials aren't good enough after level 10", but that "Casters are too good after level 10".

Balancing Martials to be that same degree still leaves us with two problems to deal with, they just happen to be the same problems at that point.

[Xervous]

But how much of that problem is trying to force the same types of challenges when the party has outgrown them?

[Man_Over_Game]

But how much of that problem is trying to force the same types of challenges when the party has outgrown them?

Not everyone has outgrown them, only half.

A level 15 Wizard can cast Dimension Door three times, Telepathic Bond twice, teleport to a Demiplane of their own creation, create a Simulacrum of themselves, and can assume control of any three humanoid corpses at their revived full power for 24 hours, every single day.

A Barbarian at that level can Rage 5 times without it ending early, but they still end after 1 minute. So your level 15 feature is a minimum and maximum of 5 minutes of Rage time per day.

Seeing a trend?

It is worth noting that the caster can also flex around what he's expecting to deal with that day. A caster might not use the Featherfall spell he prepared, so he uses that spell slot instead on Mirror Image or Shield in a tough fight.

Barbarian, however, doesn't have the option to trade in his Rages for Disguise Self or something of that nature, even if the value of these two different mechanics were assumed to be the same.

I think a good way to balance it is to make adventures be so exhausting that Long Rests are a pipedream. They're what you get between adventures, not during. You might be held hostage, tortured, escaping from cultists, teleported into a demiplane used to feed a demon, all in the same day.

If your party's level 10 Wizard isn't relying on Silent Image by the end of the day, you're doing it wrong. That's at least one solution that doesn't involve changing the whole game or making everything "Martial" specific.

[Zuras]

You could look into changing the value of rests, making each night's rest a Short Rest, and the same thing in a town or other safe location makes it a Long Rest. This makes preparation a big deal while making casters acutely aware of their limited resources. Martials will hardly notice.

Not saying that doesn’t help, but that’s still just encounter design. You’re just changing the definition of the adventuring day to something more suited to a wilderness/outdoor campaign, and making bleeding the PCs resources seem less forced. It doesn’t eliminate the problem of clever parties bypassing all your encounters—if your players prefer a Combat as War rather than Combat as Sport, either casters are going to feel overpowered or the players are going to feel stymied in their attempts to be clever.

Has anyone tried a full-caster specific nerf, like having all spells 6th level and higher refresh weekly, rather than on a long rest? Otherwise, spacing out long rests puts just as much stress on Barbarians and Half-Caster long rest resources (rages and spells) as full casters. Given my experience that Barbarians and Rangers have more high level troubles than Fighters and Monks, switching times between rests discourages indiscriminate resource usage but doesn’t help class balance.

[Man_Over_Game]

Not saying that doesn’t help, but that’s still just encounter design. You’re just changing the definition of the adventuring day to something more suited to a wilderness/outdoor campaign, and making bleeding the PCs resources seem less forced. It doesn’t eliminate the problem of clever parties bypassing all your encounters—if your players prefer a Combat as War rather than Combat as Sport, either casters are going to feel overpowered or the players are going to feel stymied in their attempts to be clever.

Has anyone tried a full-caster specific nerf, like having all spells 6th level and higher refresh weekly, rather than on a long rest? Otherwise, spacing out long rests puts just as much stress on Barbarians and Half-Caster long rest resources (rages and spells) as full casters. Given my experience that Barbarians and Rangers have more high level troubles than Fighters and Monks, switching times between rests discourages indiscriminate resource usage but doesn’t help class balance.

I came up with one a long time ago, as an attempt to cap casters at around spell level 5-6, although it's been a while.

Essentially, the strategy was to just increase their total spell slots by about 50% and then make them earn the new spell levels after 3 levels instead of 2. I don't have exact numbers right now, but it seemed like it worked on paper.

So you'd get level 2 spell slots at level 4, level 3 spell slots at level 7, etc, with the dead levels (3, 5) buffered with spell slot gains.

It's behind on the damage curve of Martials, but not when you consider how AoE damage scales for them (look at the "AoE" options of the Phantom Rogue, Battlemaster Fighter, and the Swords Bard) and how often they get access to utility-based features (AG Barbarians get Clairvoyance or Augury as a Short Rest feature at level 10).

So as long as you give perspective for Martials to be your Boss specialists, while Casters focus on utility and weaker groups, it works out great.

Because of the increased number of spell slots, and the expense related to spell levels, this also essentially adds value to upcasting and, by extension, caster/caster multiclassing.

[Mitchellnotes]

Not really. Next edition we might get the five colors. That might actually be a better basis to work from than 8 schools. The five colors are arranged in a circle, five pizza pie slices like in MtG's diagram. Any wizard is proficient in one color, half proficiency in both adjacent colors, non proficient in non adjacent colors. But bake it in, hard, during the dev and testing stage, and do the hard work to balance the five colors. :smallannoyed: So that's wizards taken care of. What about the rest of the casters? Half casters?

Next edition, bake this in. The game was put together without this baked into proficiency.
Xervous summed it up nicely here:
Sorcerers would not be helped by this approach at all.

Please, no. There is enough MTG in D&D as it is. The MTG colors don't even always make sense in MTG

[Xervous]

Please, no. There is enough MTG in D&D as it is. The MTG colors don't even always make sense in MTG

As someone who is working on a color based system it is immediately evident that D&D will not map coherently to colors.

Fireball is red
Glitterdust is probably white... white blue
What is tiny hut, green, white?
Undead related is an easy black
Invisibility is blue/black

MTG works because you choose how to mix the colors. D&D would only be moderately recognizable if you were given predetermined splits, but then you’re undermining the real benefit of colors. Point buy system is imo the only way to go for something MTG inspired.

[Doug Lampert]

I came up with one a long time ago, as an attempt to cap casters at around spell level 5-6, although it's been a while.

Essentially, the strategy was to just increase their total spell slots by about 50% and then make them earn the new spell levels after 3 levels instead of 2. I don't have exact numbers right now, but it seemed like it worked on paper.

So you'd get level 2 spell slots at level 4, level 3 spell slots at level 7, etc, with the dead levels (3, 5) buffered with spell slot gains.

It's behind on the damage curve of Martials, but not when you consider how AoE damage scales for them (look at the "AoE" options of the Phantom Rogue, Battlemaster Fighter, and the Swords Bard) and how often they get access to utility-based features (AG Barbarians get Clairvoyance or Augury as a Short Rest feature at level 10).

So as long as you give perspective for Martials to be your Boss specialists, while Casters focus on utility and weaker groups, it works out great.

Because of the increased number of spell slots, and the expense related to spell levels, this also essentially adds value to upcasting and, by extension, caster/caster multiclassing.

As far as I'm concerned, many of the high level spells are conceptually "plot" NPC powers. I like that PCs can access them, but a lot of powers of that sort should need a specially designed ritual at the Mountain of Death during the Total Solar Eclipse during the Year of the Dragon 5325 or whatever.

And only one person can use any given opportunity where the stars and ley-lines are correct to cast such a plot ritual because there is only so much power.

This converts high level spell X from a plot killer to a plot enabler. If the worship of thousands at the high temple of the goddess of healing on her high holy day is required to power a resurrection spell, then getting resurrected is NOT a casual thing. If the only way to destroy the McGuffin of Evil is to cast it into the fires from which it was made, and that volcano is only active for ONE magical event per century, then you may need to beat the big bad there for the chance (or fight him over who gets this opportunity). And of course the Big Bad now has a REASON to need to be at a particular time and place and people can research where and when the ritual opportunities are to find the ones he might use.

If I were redesigning D&D I'd definitely include a rule for such "greater rituals" (they're in my current homebrew). It's simply vastly better if a "Wish" spell or "Simulicrum" spell or even summoning a Paladin's mount or Wizard's familiar is something that needs a special occasion to work (occasions for the low level spells can be pretty common, but not ubiquitous; for D&D just rate the ritual opportunities by level and have some gated by type of spell as in the Healing Goddess's one).

[Boci]

As someone who is working on a color based system it is immediately evident that D&D will not map coherently to colors.

Fireball is red
Glitterdust is probably white... white blue

To elaborate on the point you're getting at here:

Glitterdust is white maybe blue based on its effect, since blinding in Magic is typically reducing attack without effecting toughness.

Based on actual lore of the colours, glitterdust could literally be any of then colours, including glass/devoid. Any colour in magic can produce a fine powder that clings to you and goes in your eyes blinding you. Green would produce something natural and life-based, like pollen or beast hair, red would produce fine, rare earth particles (or beasthair too), blue or black would produce something more synthetic (and black would also have a sinister creation process or name). White doesn't lend itself to an inherent method, but sandshaping and other such abilities are within the flavour of white.

And that fits. Glitterdust is conjuration, and if you're assigning D&D school to magic colours, all 5 (or 6) get conjuration.

[Man_Over_Game]

As far as I'm concerned, many of the high level spells are conceptually "plot" NPC powers. I like that PCs can access them, but a lot of powers of that sort should need a specially designed ritual at the Mountain of Death during the Total Solar Eclipse during the Year of the Dragon 5325 or whatever.

...

If I were redesigning D&D I'd definitely include a rule for such "greater rituals" (they're in my current homebrew). It's simply vastly better if a "Wish" spell or "Simulicrum" spell or even summoning a Paladin's mount or Wizard's familiar is something that needs a special occasion to work (occasions for the low level spells can be pretty common, but not ubiquitous; for D&D just rate the ritual opportunities by level and have some gated by type of spell as in the Healing Goddess's one).

That's kinda how ADND did it. Level 12 Druids literally had to beat one of the 9 "Actual Druids" in their area in a duel to steal their title. Then you basically dueled Druids for their powers each level until you reach the head honcho (who's level 15).

The head honcho Druid doesn't duel you, instead you have to be his intern until he decides to retire and picks you out of his council of 9 Archdruid interns, and he passes his bonus spells onto you. During retirement, he progresses as a Hierophant and basically learns how to survive anywhere in the cosmos through level 20. That's how you become a level 20 Druid.

So they tried the whole "Only people of this level of significance can cast these or use these abilities". Great for diehards, not so great for folks just trying to play DnD. Absolutely terrible for those who want to use their own worlds.

[Sorinth]

As far as I'm concerned, many of the high level spells are conceptually "plot" NPC powers. I like that PCs can access them, but a lot of powers of that sort should need a specially designed ritual at the Mountain of Death during the Total Solar Eclipse during the Year of the Dragon 5325 or whatever.

And only one person can use any given opportunity where the stars and ley-lines are correct to cast such a plot ritual because there is only so much power.

This converts high level spell X from a plot killer to a plot enabler. If the worship of thousands at the high temple of the goddess of healing on her high holy day is required to power a resurrection spell, then getting resurrected is NOT a casual thing. If the only way to destroy the McGuffin of Evil is to cast it into the fires from which it was made, and that volcano is only active for ONE magical event per century, then you may need to beat the big bad there for the chance (or fight him over who gets this opportunity). And of course the Big Bad now has a REASON to need to be at a particular time and place and people can research where and when the ritual opportunities are to find the ones he might use.

If I were redesigning D&D I'd definitely include a rule for such "greater rituals" (they're in my current homebrew). It's simply vastly better if a "Wish" spell or "Simulicrum" spell or even summoning a Paladin's mount or Wizard's familiar is something that needs a special occasion to work (occasions for the low level spells can be pretty common, but not ubiquitous; for D&D just rate the ritual opportunities by level and have some gated by type of spell as in the Healing Goddess's one).

You can also have a halfway between option by using spell failure that gets offset by ritual stuff. So straight casting a Wish might have a 5% chance of success, performing it as an 8hr ritual increases that to 15%, using an ingredient acquired via a CR 20+ challenge in the ritual increases it to 50%, doing it in conjunction with a cosmic event it's 75%, etc...

[PhoenixPhyre]

You can also have a halfway between option by using spell failure that gets offset by ritual stuff. So straight casting a Wish might have a 5% chance of success, performing it as an 8hr ritual increases that to 15%, using an ingredient acquired via a CR 20+ challenge in the ritual increases it to 50%, doing it in conjunction with a cosmic event it's 75%, etc...

Better to just cut down the power of those spells. Making them annoying to use just makes them wastes of space and (ironically) makes the power even worse--now that they're one-in-a-million shots, they better be darn powerful.

For wish, say "here are the things you can do [list of safe stuff]. Your DM may allow more, but may require conditions or rituals to be performed and/or may twist the wish.". For simulacrum, hard enforce the AL rules + reinforce that it cannot regain any resource. Period. Not just spell slots but HP (barring the expensive healing process), HD, bardic inspiration, etc. And is an NPC under the DM's control (that will obey commands, but you don't have direct control over it).

Etc.

[Sorinth]

Better to just cut down the power of those spells. Making them annoying to use just makes them wastes of space and (ironically) makes the power even worse--now that they're one-in-a-million shots, they better be darn powerful.

For wish, say "here are the things you can do [list of safe stuff]. Your DM may allow more, but may require conditions or rituals to be performed and/or may twist the wish.". For simulacrum, hard enforce the AL rules + reinforce that it cannot regain any resource. Period. Not just spell slots but HP (barring the expensive healing process), HD, bardic inspiration, etc. And is an NPC under the DM's control (that will obey commands, but you don't have direct control over it).

Etc.

In no way does it make the power level worse. They are already darn powerful, no need to increase the power level to compensate for them being not likely to succeed, the whole point is to nerf these spells. Nerfing via spell failure chance is basically the same concept as Divine Intervention.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In no way does it make the power level worse. They are already darn powerful, no need to increase the power level to compensate for them being not likely to succeed, the whole point is to nerf these spells. Nerfing via spell failure chance is basically the same concept as Divine Intervention.

The issue is that psychologically, adding in the spell failure chance means DMs and players give it more wiggle room. Which ends up being more power, especially if there're ways around the spell failure.

Nerfing via spell failure is annoying. It was annoying for ASF in 3e. Random "you can't do that right now" is just obnoxious (or it's trivially avoided, as ASF was). If the spells are too powerful, nerf the spells directly. Don't make them annoying to use.

[Man_Over_Game]

The issue is that psychologically, adding in the spell failure chance means DMs and players give it more wiggle room. ... Don't make them annoying to use.


In no way does it make the power level worse. They are already darn powerful, no need to increase the power level to compensate for them being not likely to succeed, the whole point is to nerf these spells. ...


You can also have a halfway between option by using spell failure that gets offset by ritual stuff...


As far as I'm concerned, many of the high level spells are conceptually "plot" NPC powers. I like that PCs can access them, but a lot of powers of that sort should need a specially designed ritual at the Mountain of Death during the Total Solar Eclipse during the Year of the Dragon 5325 or whatever.


I mean, it sounds like the solution everyone agrees with is gating level 6+ spells behind special rituals or requirements. You know, like quest-related stuff.

Anyone disagree with that?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean, it sounds like the solution everyone agrees upon is just gating level 6+ spells behind special rituals or requirements.

Anyone disagree with that?

I do, to some degree. Because most level 6+ spells are just fine. It's a few particular ones that are a problem. Beyond that, gating them behind rituals/requirements means worldbuilding impact, which I'm always wary of.

[Man_Over_Game]

I do, to some degree. Because most level 6+ spells are just fine. It's a few particular ones that are a problem. Beyond that, gating them behind rituals/requirements means worldbuilding impact, which I'm always wary of.

To be frank, I think not doing so has greater worldbuilding consequences. Most of us don't dream in a fantasy world where level 6 spell slots exist, which is why DMing for it is so damn hard.

I wouldn't be against making them some kind of "Epic Spell", where you can only pick one spell for that spell slot and can't swap it out until you level up. Might be enough to change it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To be frank, I think not doing so has greater worldbuilding consequences. Most of us don't dream in a fantasy world where level 6 spell slots exist, which is why DMing for it is so damn hard.

I've not had that issue. But then again, my world has strongly decreasing power levels--the current party is the only known "legendary" (ie level 11+) party currently active in the main area, and there's exactly one archmage-caliber person out there in the main area...and he's ancient and rather more interested in his attractive "apprentices" than in casting spells. So there just aren't many people casting level 6+ spells out there.

[Boci]

I've not had that issue. But then again, my world has strongly decreasing power levels--the current party is the only known "legendary" (ie level 11+) party currently active in the main area, and there's exactly one archmage-caliber person out there in the main area...and he's ancient and rather more interested in his attractive "apprentices" than in casting spells. So there just aren't many people casting level 6+ spells out there.

So then why would gating 6th level spells behind rituals have world building consequences, if in your world for example, people aren't casting them, ritual or no?

[Theodoxus]

I'm ok with gating 6+ behind some special feature, whatever is decided.

Personally, I'd go with making spellcasting 1-5 recharge on a short rest (with reducing spell slots to 2 max level 1, 1 max levels 2-5) and grant a Mystic Arcanum type casting ability for 6-9th level spells. I'd also grant every other long rest class ability a short rest version (dividing uses by 1/3 where appropriate/easy). Then you can decide if you want to use standard rest rules; gritty rest, or something between (hour long "short", week long "long") for instance.

Yeah, that has the effect of potentially making 6+ spells akin to Divine Intervention... Another compromise might be letting 6th & 7th level spells recharge at dawn and 8th and 9th recharge after a week. Just spitballing, really.

What I really like about everything recharging on a short rest is every class can equally nova - but not particularly well. And Warlocks are the only spell user that has auto-upcast, so they're the only class that can sling two 5 level spells. (Or two fireballs at 5th level - for the fiendish among us.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

So then why would gating 6th level spells behind rituals have world building consequences, if in your world for example, people aren't casting them, ritual or no?

Because there are a few people (including some of the BBEGs), and I don't want to have to worry about those.

And more than that, it's the principle of the thing. I don't like forced worldbuilding from the rules, because it sharply restricts what you can do with the setting. Or becomes vacuous and a waste of space in the books. Making all 6+ level spells require rituals means that 90% of the spells become useless, because they're 1-action combat spells. I also don't see the need, since it's really only a small handful of spells that are an issue at all. Most of them are just fine.

[Man_Over_Game]

Personally, I'd go with making spellcasting 1-5 recharge on a short rest ...
What I really like about everything recharging on a short rest is every class can equally nova - but not particularly well....

Also known as the "4th Edition Method".

Seriously, everyone basically got the same amount of Short Rest and Long Rest Powers that you picked from a curated list for each class. Fighters got Battlemaster stuff, Clerics targeted enemies and buffed/debuffed at the same time. Monks danced around the battlefield. You built every class the same way (except Psionics), each class just played dramatically differently.

It was a great, streamlined system, was just way too much Fantasy Chess for it to be DnD. People say it was designed like a video game on tabletop and they aren't wrong, it just happens to do it well and it had vastly different priorities than what DnD players actually have.

Would've done great as a spinoff, I think.

[Boci]

Because there are a few people (including some of the BBEGs), and I don't want to have to worry about those.

I think you're misusing the term "worldbuilding" here. The abilities of a BBEG, or even the PCs, don't really factor into worldbuilding, there needs to be a number of NPCs capable of it to reach critical mass and become a world building issue.

That said, I can appreciate that people can find it more elegant to minimise how many exception to the rules the PCs and BBEG are given, though this is a feature of 5e, which legendary actions and class features.

[Man_Over_Game]

I've not had that issue. But then again, my world has strongly decreasing power levels--the current party is the only known "legendary" (ie level 11+) party currently active in the main area, and there's exactly one archmage-caliber person out there in the main area...and he's ancient and rather more interested in his attractive "apprentices" than in casting spells. So there just aren't many people casting level 6+ spells out there.

There's also the reverse definition of "Power Curve". That is, the players are messing with powers that are beyond them, always the underdog. That the world always has a place for people like them.

For that to happen, level 10+ can't be considered legendary. As you've said, this solution doesn't solve a problem in your games, but I think that's because you've already found another way to solve that problem to begin with.

[Sorinth]

There's an argument that they can/should make an E6 like variant an official variant like Gritty Realism.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think you're misusing the term "worldbuilding" here. The abilities of a BBEG, or even the PCs, don't really factor into worldbuilding, there needs to be a number of NPCs capable of it to reach critical mass and become a world building issue.


It's less the worldbuilding effect of having the spells (because most of them just don't have any). But if you require certain specific rituals (such as ley lines, conjunctions of moons, or whatever), that restricts the setting. Or the "has to be a ritual" thing is just an empty annoyance balance factor.

And when most of the spells are just fine, it's much easier to just fix the bad spells themselves.

[Theodoxus]

Also known as the "4th Edition Method".

Seriously, everyone basically got the same amount of Short Rest and Long Rest Powers that you picked from a curated list for each class. Fighters got Battlemaster stuff, Clerics targeted enemies and buffed/debuffed at the same time. Monks danced around the battlefield. You built every class the same way (except Psionics), each class just played dramatically differently.

It was a great, streamlined system, was just way too much Fantasy Chess for it to be DnD. People say it was designed like a video game on tabletop and they aren't wrong, it just happens to do it well and it had vastly different priorities than what DnD players actually have.

Would've done great as a spinoff, I think.

I suppose if you squint it looks like 4E. Though 4th had such significant changes from 3.5 that it was easy to poke at any one aspect and say "this isn't D&D" (30 levels, Class Roles, Powers not abilities/spells, Defenses not saves,, etc.). 4th Ed Powers are no where near what 5th Ed abilities are. Getting a smorgasbord of options, picking the few you liked/fit your theme/matched your stats =/= to how 5E classes are remotely built.

Having 1, then 2 and eventually 3 (before infinite) rages a short rest would make barbarians much easier to play for newer players (and I know as a DM I've had more than one player, playing a barbarian "conveniently forget" how many rages they'd used since their last long rest... it's not a game breaking change to say the least.

Maybe I'm just not seeing the slippery slope, but changing all LR attributes to SR ones does not make the game remotely 4th Edition...

Full disclosure - I'd far prefer to play 4E over 5E these days... the tactical side of the game is much richer - but there aren't any 4E players in my area (or at least none willing to advertise or answer my own requests).

[Doug Lampert]

That's kinda how ADND did it. Level 12 Druids literally had to beat one of the 9 "Actual Druids" in their area in a duel to steal their title. Then you basically dueled Druids for their powers each level until you reach the head honcho (who's level 15).

The head honcho Druid doesn't duel you, instead you have to be his intern until he decides to retire and picks you out of his council of 9 Archdruid interns, and he passes his bonus spells onto you. During retirement, he progresses as a Hierophant and basically learns how to survive anywhere in the cosmos through level 20. That's how you become a level 20 Druid.

So they tried the whole "Only people of this level of significance can cast these or use these abilities". Great for diehards, not so great for folks just trying to play DnD. Absolutely terrible for those who want to use their own worlds.

Huh?! There's NO limit in the proposal on how many people can cast such spells or on needing to fight someone to hit a particular level or needing to be of special significance.

The limit is that such spells can ONLY be cast as part of a special ritual at a special time and place. The time and place are of special significance, the caster is simply anyone strong enough to use it.

There's no real similarity to the Druid/Monk rules where you had to fight someone to level up. You are fighting for LOOT! Because a chance to cast a PLOT spell is in fact LOOT.

[Man_Over_Game]

I suppose if you squint it looks like 4E. Though 4th had such significant changes from 3.5 that it was easy to poke at any one aspect and say "this isn't D&D" (30 levels, Class Roles, Powers not abilities/spells, Defenses not saves,, etc.). 4th Ed Powers are no where near what 5th Ed abilities are. Getting a smorgasbord of options, picking the few you liked/fit your theme/matched your stats =/= to how 5E classes are remotely built.

Having 1, then 2 and eventually 3 (before infinite) rages a short rest would make barbarians much easier to play for newer players (and I know as a DM I've had more than one player, playing a barbarian "conveniently forget" how many rages they'd used since their last long rest... it's not a game breaking change to say the least.

Maybe I'm just not seeing the slippery slope, but changing all LR attributes to SR ones does not make the game remotely 4th Edition...

Full disclosure - I'd far prefer to play 4E over 5E these days... the tactical side of the game is much richer - but there aren't any 4E players in my area (or at least none willing to advertise or answer my own requests).

I agree. 5e's are very...passive. When this thing happens, you can do this or you get this benefit for later. Outside of spells and attacks, rarely do you get "I DO THIS THING HERE".

For instance (and this is for everyone else), the 5e Vengeance Paladin has the Oath of Emnity that grants him Advantage against the target against attacks after the Oath has been made. It later on gets the passive ability to move for free after making an Opportunity Attack.

The 4e Avenger class (who the Vengeance Paladin was made after) gets the same Oath of Emnity at level 1 (except the Oath target can't have another enemy adjacent to them, and you can recast it when the target dies), but also gets:

Channel Divinity, Divine Guidance: An ally who attacks your Oath target gets Advantage, once per encounter.
Overwhelming Strike, Cantrip: Attack an enemy. On a hit, move 1 space and drag them into your old spot. Good for isolating your Oath target.
Bond of Retribution, Cantrip: Attack an enemy. On hit, if another enemy attacks you, the first enemy takes bonus retaliation damage. Good for picking on your Oath target.
Avenging Echo, Encounter: Attack an enemy. Gain an aura that deals 5 damage to any enemy that ends its turn near you or tries to attack you. Good for picking on your Oath target.
Temple of Light, Daily: Attack an enemy for high damage. They gain a 2-square radius aura. Any enemy within that aura takes an additional 1d6 damage from your attacks.


And there are like 2 more cantrips, 3 more encounters, and 4 more dailies I could have picked from. And this is at level 1.

Different times, man.

[JackPhoenix]

Do what Shadow of the Demon Lord did: divide the spells in multiple thematic traditions, and let the players pick only few of them. The spellcasters will be more thematic and focused, you won't be able to have all the strongest options on a single character.

https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0728/41/1590878662366.png

Every time you get to pick a spell, you can either unlock another tradition or pick a spell from already unlocked tradition. That means most spellcasters have access to 2-3 traditions only, if they want to have any decent selection of spells.

[Kane0]

Do what Shadow of the Demon Lord did: divide the spells in multiple thematic traditions, and let the players pick only few of them. The spellcasters will be more thematic and focused, you won't be able to have all the strongest options on a single character.

Thats basically the mystic and disciplines approach, which would have been wonderful if it wasnt butchered.

[DwarfFighter]

On a similar note, I think the game would be better if casters needed to be better at Performance to cast spells with a V component while deafened and Sleight of Hand to cast spells with an S component while under any condition impairing attack rolls. Deafened and Poisoned should both do more to casters.

Wizard: I cast Fireball at the Goblins

DM: OK, your Performance?

Wizard: Uh, - 1? Charisma, non-prof.

DM: You put in your best effort, but the Goblins... They hear the words, but they don't feel the sincerity.

[Boci]

Wizard: I cast Fireball at the Goblins

DM: OK, your Performance?

Wizard: Uh, - 1? Charisma, non-prof.

DM: You put in your best effort, but the Goblins... They hear the words, but they don't feel the sincerity.

The proposal was the performance being required to make sure the vocal components are articulated clearly enough whilst deafended, so it would have been more:

DM: You try your best, but the ringing in your ears throws you off. You cannot hear your own words to be certain, but something must have been off, as no fire manifests

[jas61292]

I like the general idea behind what this thread proposes, because I agree with what it seems to be implying is the biggest issue: every caster being a generalist that can do everything.

The issue with casters can be fixed in two ways, either you reduce the actual power level of magic, or you limit what magic a character can have. While I think the ideal solution would actually be a bit of both, I would be far more interested in seeing a version of D&D when simply choosing to be a spell caster doesn't mean you can have access to and be good at spells for every single situation.

The problem with the OPs suggestion is that it only has an effect on offensive spells with DCs. While subclass features do also matter, all this would really do is make a few of the specializations for each class more favorable than others. Not having proficiency with buffs and utility spells would not make a difference, while not having proficiency with offensive or debuff spells would be crippling. In the end, this might make a few subclasses less powerful, but it won't do much to nerf casters overall. To people who think Wizards are the most powerful class in the game, it might make Diviner or Bladesinger or whatever less of a top tier pick than they used to be, especially compared to things like Evoker and Illusionist, but it won't do a thing to change the perception of the class as a whole.

Rather, if you want to actually make casters more balanced by going after the way they can so easily cast anything, regardless of their subclass or theme, then you need to actually attack (and eviscerate) the spell list itself. You can't just make non-Evokers have worse Fireball, and non-Abjurers have worse Shield, especially if "worse Shield" is not actually worse because it has no DC. You need to just take Shield away whole-cloth.

Obviously this is a much bigger change, but I think the only real way to reign in caster power without directly attacking the spells themselves is to attack the spell lists. Massively shrink the list of each class, and then give every subclass its own themed list to supplement it. A lot of work, but I think it would be worth the payoff.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Obviously this is a much bigger change, but I think the only real way to reign in caster power without directly attacking the spells themselves is to attack the spell lists. Massively shrink the list of each class, and then give every subclass its own themed list to supplement it. A lot of work, but I think it would be worth the payoff.

I agree, but think that both need to be done if you really want a good change. Fortunately, there aren't that many outlier spells in 5e. And most of them are the "let me go rummage through the MM and other monster books for a perfect stat block" type, which is a long-standing broken thing that should die in a fire.

[Mitchellnotes]

I always like 2nd editions style of having opposed schools. It meant that a specialist wizard really did feel like a specialist in that school. Ah! Found it:

Abjuration is opposed by Alteration and Illusion
Conjuration/Summoning is opposed by Greater Divination and Invocation/Evocation
Greater Divination is opposed by Conjuration/Summoning
Enchantment/Charm is opposed by Invocation/Evocation and Necromancy
Invocation/Evocation is opposed by Conjuration/Summoning and Enchantment/Charm
Illusion is opposed by Necromancy, Invocation/Evocation, and Abjuration
Necromancy is opposed by Illusion and Enchantment/Charm
Alteration is opposed by Abjuration and Necromancy

The others could have similar restrictions. War magic being very evocation/abjuration focused etc. The Tasha's sorcs, eldritch knight, and arcane trickster already build on this idea (as do the fey touched and shadow touched feats)

[Theodoxus]

I agree, but think that both need to be done if you really want a good change. Fortunately, there aren't that many outlier spells in 5e. And most of them are the "let me go rummage through the MM and other monster books for a perfect stat block" type, which is a long-standing broken thing that should die in a fire.

One reason I much prefer Tasha's Summons to Conjure X spells. I think Simulacrum could be given a similar rewrite, removing more of the egregious effects. If it was more on par with how Korvin is using his in the game his bard is playing in - wherein it's more of a decoy - a particularly powerful decoy, to be sure - but its running its own mission distracting a BBEG from the party shenanigans. Now, how you codify such a thing, outside of "if you're within 300' of your simulacrum, neither of you can cast spells" silliness, I'm not sure.

Really, the only drawback I see to using pre-generated "one size fits all" stat blocks is the tendency down the line to go the PF route of then making all transformative spells follow suit. I think 5E druids, for instance, would be poorly served with "Wildshape I through IX" instead of being able to pick MM/PHB beasts. While the CR concept is kind of all over the place, it does allow for more distinct druids... a forest Moon Druid with bear and wolf and raven forms feels different than a plains Moon Druid with lion, horse, and buzzard forms... Something like Tasha's beastmaster fix would feel very flat in comparison.

[GeneralVryth]

I agree, but think that both need to be done if you really want a good change. Fortunately, there aren't that many outlier spells in 5e. And most of them are the "let me go rummage through the MM and other monster books for a perfect stat block" type, which is a long-standing broken thing that should die in a fire.

I think I agree with everything PhoenixPhyre has said in this thread (which is amusing given our opposing discussions on spellcasting in the past) with the exception of the above quote agreeing with the idea of killing off the generalist option amongst full casters.

In general I would wager most of the worst examples of spell casters being way overpowered or outshining the group would go away if you deleted the 5 (10?) more unbalanced spells from the game. Number 1 obviously being Simulacrum. Which really points to the idea that many problems boil down to their being broken spells rather than the spell casting system itself being broken. I would add my customary comments about up-casting being broken as well but that is less relevant to this topic.

I also think the concept of not balancing spells by making them annoying/difficult to use really needs to be hammered home. Complicated rituals are not a solution for spells that are overpowered, such spells should be nerfed or deleted. If they are strong enough they don't belong in the general spellcasting system as is, then they shouldn't be a player selectable option. That's not to say there shouldn't or couldn't be powerful rituals in a game world a DM creates (or that PCs couldn't learn them) but they should be treated like magic items and be accessible at the discretion of the DM. In fact a lack of these kinds of greater rituals from something like the DMG is a weakness.


On a different note, about the idea of recharging level 1 through 5 spells on a short rest (and occasionally 6 and 7th level spells) I actually sketched out rules for doing just that. I use them to build NPC spell casters (and would offer them to any PC interested) so the NPCs players run into have a mechanical reason not to dump a days worth of spells into the PCs in one battle.

[Dark.Revenant]

Casters being broadly-useful problem solvers is the game working as intended. That isn't to say that some specific spells shouldn't be nerfed or banned, nor that martial characters shouldn't gain or be given means to act meaningfully in the other pillars of the game. But a wizard getting to live the fantasy of "I prepared wisely, picked the right spells, conserved my strength, and saved the day when it counted" is exactly what we're looking for.

I do think that casters should require more planning and preparation in general, so if you want a caster nerf you could consider going back to "memorized spell slots" like in 3e. Alternatively you could make higher-level spells take up more "spells prepared" or something.

[jas61292]

But a wizard getting to live the fantasy of "I prepared wisely, picked the right spells, conserved my strength, and saved the day when it counted" is exactly what we're looking for.

While it will always be a matter of tastes, I very strongly disagree with this. At least in part. I like the idea of conserving strength and bringing out the big guns when needed. That is the fun part of a caster. But the idea that casters should be broadly applicable and have answers to nearly everything is something I despise. And a large reason for this is the fantasy of it. Sure, its a nice power fantasy to always be able to fix everything, but when I see players making characters, they generally are trying to emulate some cool idea that they had which was inspired by some other work of fiction.

As they are, I find D&D casters, and particularly the Wizard, to be poorly designed because the optimal way to play them is indeed to play the "I have the answer to everything guy," yet this is not really a common character archetype from other fiction. Most casters I know from fiction are very limited relative to D&D, either in scope of their powers, or how much they can use them. I've always thought that a D&D caster does a poor job emulating anything but a D&D caster (without intentionally gimping themselves), and I wish that wasn't the case.

[Dark.Revenant]

While it will always be a matter of tastes, I very strongly disagree with this. At least in part. I like the idea of conserving strength and bringing out the big guns when needed. That is the fun part of a caster. But the idea that casters should be broadly applicable and have answers to nearly everything is something I despise. And a large reason for this is the fantasy of it. Sure, its a nice power fantasy to always be able to fix everything, but when I see players making characters, they generally are trying to emulate some cool idea that they had which was inspired by some other work of fiction.

As they are, I find D&D casters, and particularly the Wizard, to be poorly designed because the optimal way to play them is indeed to play the "I have the answer to everything guy," yet this is not really a common character archetype from other fiction. Most casters I know from fiction are very limited relative to D&D, either in scope of their powers, or how much they can use them. I've always thought that a D&D caster does a poor job emulating anything but a D&D caster (without intentionally gimping themselves), and I wish that wasn't the case.

What I mean by "broadly useful" is that magic can have a greater scope than purely mundane activities. If that weren't the case, why would you ever bother using magic in the first place?

In general, no, a spellcaster should not have all (or even most) of the answers at any one time. Wizard, in particular, is meant to be the guy who is kind of underwhelming generally, but is truly amazing when prepared for specific situations. 5e certainly captures the latter half of that fantasy, but clearly isn't accomplishing the former half, so that's what a nerf should target.