A Weird Caster-Nerfing Variant Rule

[Amechra]

So, a random idea I just had:

Casting higher level spells requires you to be attuned to your magic — literally. You need to "spend" the listed number of attunement slots on your spellcasting in order to cast spells of that level:



Attunement Slots
Minimum Level

Spell Levels

Cantrip Damage


0
1st
1st and 2nd
One die


1
5th
3rd, 4th, and 5th
Two dice


2
11th
6th, 7th, and 8th
Three dice


3
17th
9th
Four dice



For example, a 5th level Wizard would have to spend a single attunement slot on their magic if they wanted to cast Fireball or deal 2d10 damage with Firebolt. Otherwise, they'd be limited to upcasting 1st and 2nd level spells in their 3rd level slots, and they'd only deal 1d10 damage with Firebolt. Other than the "magic item" you're attuning to being abstract, this otherwise works like the normal rules for attunement.

The idea here is that magic items that require attunement are supposed to be a utility/power boost for characters who don't have access to the breadth of utility that spellcasters do, much like how 1e and 2e "secretly" buffed up fighters by making a lot of good magic items fighter-only. I'm not entirely sure about the cantrip damage bit, but it felt appropriate.

Thoughts? Riffs? Inevitable complaints?

[Carlobrand]

So, a random idea I just had:

Casting higher level spells requires you to be attuned to your magic — literally. You need to "spend" the listed number of attunement slots on your spellcasting in order to cast spells of that level:



Attunement Slots
Minimum Level

Spell Levels

Cantrip Damage


0
1st
1st and 2nd
One die


1
5th
3rd, 4th, and 5th
Two dice


2
11th
6th, 7th, and 8th
Three dice


3
17th
9th
Four dice



For example, a 5th level Wizard would have to spend a single attunement slot on their magic if they wanted to cast Fireball or deal 2d10 damage with Firebolt. Otherwise, they'd be limited to upcasting 1st and 2nd level spells in their 3rd level slots, and they'd only deal 1d10 damage with Firebolt. Other than the "magic item" you're attuning to being abstract, this otherwise works like the normal rules for attunement.

The idea here is that magic items that require attunement are supposed to be a utility/power boost for characters who don't have access to the breadth of utility that spellcasters do, much like how 1e and 2e "secretly" buffed up fighters by making a lot of good magic items fighter-only. I'm not entirely sure about the cantrip damage bit, but it felt appropriate.

Thoughts? Riffs? Inevitable complaints?

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to accomplish. You started out talking about attunement slots as if they were some new requirement that would somehow limit spellcasting, and then you were talking about magic items. Could you clarify a bit?

[Kylar0990]

So, a random idea I just had:

Casting higher level spells requires you to be attuned to your magic — literally. You need to "spend" the listed number of attunement slots on your spellcasting in order to cast spells of that level:



Attunement Slots
Minimum Level

Spell Levels

Cantrip Damage


0
1st
1st and 2nd
One die


1
5th
3rd, 4th, and 5th
Two dice


2
11th
6th, 7th, and 8th
Three dice


3
17th
9th
Four dice



For example, a 5th level Wizard would have to spend a single attunement slot on their magic if they wanted to cast Fireball or deal 2d10 damage with Firebolt. Otherwise, they'd be limited to upcasting 1st and 2nd level spells in their 3rd level slots, and they'd only deal 1d10 damage with Firebolt. Other than the "magic item" you're attuning to being abstract, this otherwise works like the normal rules for attunement.

The idea here is that magic items that require attunement are supposed to be a utility/power boost for characters who don't have access to the breadth of utility that spellcasters do, much like how 1e and 2e "secretly" buffed up fighters by making a lot of good magic items fighter-only. I'm not entirely sure about the cantrip damage bit, but it felt appropriate.

Thoughts? Riffs? Inevitable complaints?

So you don't want full casters to have magic items that need attunement? If you're the DM you could just limit what magic items the group comes across. I can't think of an magic item in the game that would be worth giving up the main part of your class progression. You do realize this is a cooperative game? Each player brings something to the group; it isn't the wizard vs the fighter. This mostly limits what the party can do as a whole.

I already think the attunement rules need a second look. I get not wanting characters completely decked out in magic items. There are some cool items that maybe worth an attunement slot at early levels, but don't hold up as you level.

[OldTrees1]

Stuff
It sounds like you want to remove attunement magic items from casters via a class feature and thus make non casters / partial castes feel like attunement magic items are a class feature. One caveat, this won't impact the access non casters / partial casters have to those magic items. They are still subject to the whims of if and what magic items are encountered. This type of change might not address the player's concern.



Inevitable complaints?
If a partial caster uses an attack cantrip, how unhappy will they be? For example if the Eldritch Knight picked Firebolt as a cantrip.


There are more criticisms, but these are the most helpful ones.

[DarknessEternal]

You're going to have to objectively prove that casting, in a vacuum, is overpowered.

Hint, you can't.

[Kane0]

Thoughts? Riffs? Inevitable complaints?

Magic items are optional and even then not all use attunement, so it would vary wildly how much of a nerf this actually is.

[DwarfFighter]

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to accomplish. You started out talking about attunement slots as if they were some new requirement that would somehow limit spellcasting, and then you were talking about magic items. Could you clarify a bit?

I get what the house rule will do: It'll limit your spell caster to casting only first or second level spells (higher spell slots are only good for upcasts) and their cantrips deal a single dice of damage.

Then you can opt to spend attunement slots to unlock the full potential of either your spell selection (you can use higher level spells, not just upcast), or the full potential of your cantrips.

Either way, spell casters are reduced in power, if they use attunement items and/or use damage cantrips.

[DwarfFighter]

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to accomplish. You started out talking about attunement slots as if they were some new requirement that would somehow limit spellcasting, and then you were talking about magic items. Could you clarify a bit?

I get what the house rule will do: It'll limit your spell caster to casting only first or second level spells (higher spell slots are only good for upcasts) and their cantrips deal a single dice of damage.

Then you can opt to spend attunement slots to unlock the full potential of either your spell selection (you can use higher level spells, not just upcast), or the full potential of your cantrips.

Either way, spell casters are reduced in power, if they use attunement items and/or use damage cantrips.

But what is the problem that this is trying to solve?

[JellyPooga]

This actually reminds me a little of Earthdawn with its Spell Matrices etc, so it's not too far off of something that has a proven track record. Is it a nerf? Yes. Are people going to complain about it? Of course. Is it worth exploring as an optional houserule? *shrugs* Why not? :smallbiggrin:

Ok, so the first thing to address is the problem you foresee. Is it just the versatility of spellcasters? Is it not just the range/variety, but the efficacy/power level of spell effects?

Next is how you propose to counteract the problem. No primary spellcaster is going to be giving up their primary feature for magic items, especially given that non-attunement items aren't exactly uncommon. So this houserule doesn't limit spellcasting, so much as spellcasters using magic items. If that's the case, why beat around the bush? Target the rule at what it's actually doing/achieving; limiting magic items.

Then you have to consider if your rule is achieving the intended goal. I don't think it does. It limits attunement items only, for a start and that in itself is an issue. Pretty much all magical Staves and the more powerful Wands are all attunement items. It means the Staff of the Magi isn't going to be wielded by a Mage, but some Thief with UMD. It'd be like limiting a Holy Avenger to Paladins that forgo or nerf their Divine Smite feature. It flies in the face of the games narrative. That's not to say a character shouldn't necessarily have to give something up in order to wield powerful magic items; I think that's a great idea; but it needs to be addressed in a different way. Not by giving up class features.

This one goes back to the drawing board for me. Maybe there's something here conceptually, but I think it's the wrong approach. Target something else, something thematic, to sacrifice in order to use magic items. Make it universally applicable too; don't just target spellcasters, but extend it to other classes in the interest of balance (NB - just because other classes are targeted too, doesn't mean they can't mitigate or are less affected by whatever penalty it is in some way).

[diplomancer]

Don't mess with cantrips; they are definitely not overpowered.

With the leveled spells, could be an interesting idea if you want to nerf casters, but I'd fiddle with the attunement rules a bit more, or it would be prohibitive at higher levels. Maybe letting you attune to more than one item at the same time, and letting you "disattune" faster, let's say 10 minutes.

[Segev]

Attunement is a neat way around the body slot juggling that 3.5 had, but is already VERY limiting. Making casters have to choose between their class features and magic items is definitely a nerf, and makes certain high-end caster-focused magic items next to useless.

[Frogreaver]

This always amuses me. Every other thread here ends up being about how OP casters are.

We get a thread about a house rule to nerf them and now we are hearing the exact opposite.

It’s just amusing to watch.

[DwarfFighter]

This always amuses me. Every other thread here ends up being about how OP casters are.

We get a thread about a house rule to nerf them and now we are hearing the exact opposite.

It’s just amusing to watch.

Yeah, clearly this forum is unable to make up its mind on matters of subjective opinion. What a bunch of clowns we are.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Attunement is a neat way around the body slot juggling that 3.5 had, but is already VERY limiting. Making casters have to choose between their class features and magic items is definitely a nerf, and makes certain high-end caster-focused magic items next to useless.

I really like the idea, but I'm with Segev here in regards to the high tier caster items being somewhat harshly impacted.

I don't really like the distribution on the levels for attunement, though. I'd have to think hard on finding a situation on where giving up that single 9th level slot (and a die of cantrip damage) for an attuned item wouldn't be worth it, especially at high levels. I might make it 1/2/3 for 0, 4/5 for 1, 6/7 for 2 and 8/9 for all three.

Food for thought, if nothing else.

And you're heavily encouraging multiclassing with this proposed variant rule - if nothing else than to let the more martial classes dip a level in cleric or wizard to nab access to item like the Staff of Power.

[Anymage]

Casters have a higher potential ceiling than noncasters, especially when you mentally assume that "caster" is synonymous with "wizard". I've heard a lot fewer complaints about high level clerics, for instance. Balancing around an assumption of high op isn't always going to hit the average use case right.

The fourth tier lock might well convince wizards to get their ninth level slot out of the way with Foresight and then attune an item immediately after. That extra cantrip damage dice is nice, but not really relevant for most characters. (With the exception of warlocks, who would want a magic item to boost eb damage in very much the same way that an archer would want a magic bow. This " fix" for warlock dipping also hits single class warlocks really hard, see above about high op case vs. typical case.)

In tier 2 this might not be too noticeable, since you're just starting to pick up items and might not have a full complement of things that feel worth the attunement slots. Tier 3 you'll actually see some bite. I just don't know how a de facto "wizards only get one attunement slot in the back half of the game" would fix things in practice.

[Carlobrand]

This always amuses me. Every other thread here ends up being about how OP casters are.

We get a thread about a house rule to nerf them and now we are hearing the exact opposite.

It’s just amusing to watch.

I suspect the people who complain about OP mages are not the people defending mages.

[Xervous]

It feels like this whole arrangement is backwards. Fewer attunement slots later as the party accumulates more and more magic items?

What is the intent here? I don’t see how taking away most/all attuned items from high level casters addresses the main complaints of (specific problem spells), being the only ones who have plot levers, Martials desperately wanting specific items, etc.

[Segev]

On the "maybe buff the non-casters?" side of things, perhaps the classes you feel are underpowered compared to casters should just get more attunement slots at higher levels? +1 attunement slot at level 11, and another at level 15 or 17, and a third at level 20?

[Frogreaver]

On the "maybe buff the non-casters?" side of things, perhaps the classes you feel are underpowered compared to casters should just get more attunement slots at higher levels? +1 attunement slot at level 11, and another at level 15 or 17, and a third at level 20?

This seems a lot simpler to implement and should roughly have the same effect.

Perhaps a more customized solution would be to just add an attunement slots by level to the class progression of each class.

[Catullus64]

I'm intrigued, not because I think there's a balance problem that this addresses or solves, but because this system could potentially be a really fun springboard for other neat interactions, such as:


The ability to temporarily break one of your spellcasting attunements, granting you a burst of power, like a free upcast or metamagic-like effect, at the cost of weakening your spellcasting until you take a short rest and can re-attune.
Attunement magic items that are themed and designed around new applications of your spellcasting power, increasing your versatility at the cost of your overall power.
Special artifacts, boons, or rituals to increase your attunement cap. Obviously that's a boon for anybody, but now spellcasters would especially covet it.
Attunement-breaking as an attribute of powerful anti-magic monsters.


If your casters were cool with the added limitations on faith that you would implement some such such cool interactions, I could see it adding a lot to a game.

[KorvinStarmast]

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to accomplish. Me either. Zero value added level of complexity is what it looks like to me.

You're going to have to objectively prove that casting, in a vacuum, is overpowered. Strictly speaking it's impossible for any spell with a verbal component. :smallbiggrin:

[Xervous]

Strictly speaking it's impossible for any spell with a verbal component. :smallbiggrin:

No no, he’s asking for proof that subtle spell is overpowered!

[KorvinStarmast]

No no, he’s asking for proof that subtle spell is overpowered! Golf Clap. :smallsmile: Well played!

[Jerrykhor]

So a caster can only cast 1 or 2 big spells per day, and then is completely useless? I think its really dumb. Look at it yourself, would you want to play with this? Is it fair or fun? Nope. You might as well just ban full casters because nobody will play them.

[Catullus64]

So a caster can only cast 1 or 2 big spells per day, and then is completely useless? I think its really dumb. Look at it yourself, would you want to play with this? Is it fair or fun? Nope. You might as well just ban full casters because nobody will play them.

I'm not sure you've got the mechanics of Amechra's proposal exactly right; you don't have to spend your attunement slots each time you want to cast; rather, you have to essentially dedicate your attunement slots to unlock your full spellcasting, but once you've paid that price your casting works exactly as it does in the base game. Functionally, it turns your upper-level spellcasting features into a series of attunement magic items.

Somehow I don't think that will turn you around on it, but it's not nearly as steep an imposition on casters as you make it sound.

[Battlebooze]

On the "maybe buff the non-casters?" side of things, perhaps the classes you feel are underpowered compared to casters should just get more attunement slots at higher levels? +1 attunement slot at level 11, and another at level 15 or 17, and a third at level 20?

This idea seems much more reasonable. It would also be less book work as well, as you won't have casters constantly attuning and de-attuning to adjust their spell casting.

[Ionathus]

I'm generally against a change that makes a player's core abilities weaker for no added benefit to entertainment or complexity. I like having to make tough decisions and weigh my options between two tradeoffs, maybe not realizing the full implications until much later. This ain't it. It's a half-baked (quarter-baked?) solution to a problem that I don't think exists, which also takes away one of the shiniest and most motivating parts of the game (magic items).

When homebrewing, the first question I ask myself every time is "will this make playing the game more interesting?" If there's an added enjoyable challenge, or it makes fights more dramatic, or it makes me ration out my PC's resources, or it incentivizes me to make varied choices throughout a fight, or it skips over boring stuff, it's much more likely that the change will be well-received.

But this idea falls into the trap of "change for change's sake." Effectively preventing full casters from leveling up unless they sacrifice their attunement slots, just as they reach levels where cool magic items start showing up, is a fundamentally terrible design choice. I have never met a player who doesn't get excited at finding a magic item. It is an iconic aspect of D&D and people will expect it. It's one thing to do a low-magic campaign where magic items are rare or even nonexistent...it's a much, much worse thing to permanently restrict certain PCs from using cool magic items while they watch their fellow party members swing around that Flame Tongue.

And don't pretend like it's a "choice." No player in the world is going to sacrifice their chance to cast a 7th, 8th, or 9th level spell for anything short of a Cloak Of You're A God Now, so this effectively just bans high level full casters from getting to use magic items. Just like crit fumbles for a 20th level fighter, it penalizes players for leveling up.

If you want to require tougher choices for spellcasting, just restrict or fiddle around with material components, or switch to longer periods between long rests. I don't want it to feel like I'm jumping down your throat, but as-is this is an awful idea for 5e.

[DarknessEternal]

Remember, OP isn't trying to nerf casting classes. It's trying to unilaterally nerf spellcasting directly.

So it's trying to convince us that all spells at any given level are exactly equal to each other in terms of potency, eg Wish and Weird have exactly the same impact on the game.

[OldTrees1]

Remember, OP isn't trying to nerf casting classes. It's trying to unilaterally nerf spellcasting directly.

So it's trying to convince us that all spells at any given level are exactly equal to each other in terms of potency, eg Wish and Weird have exactly the same impact on the game.

I believe this is a bit unfair. The OP is trying to nerf users of higher level spells. It is accepting that the Game assigns a variety of spells to the same level. If you have criticisms about spells of the same level not being equally valuable, then that criticism comes prior to the OP's suggestion. So I feel it is unfair to burden the OP with a criticism of something else.

To explain it another way: You feel Weird is not worth a 9th level spell slot. What if you fixed Weird to be 6th level instead? How does your criticism of Weird relate to this thread?

[noob]

The issue with that variant rule is that it literally changes nothing at tables where gms gives 0 magic items which happens sometimes.

[Frogreaver]

The issue with that variant rule is that it literally changes nothing at tables where gms gives 0 magic items which happens sometimes.

Perhaps it's not being used at a table where the gm gives 0 magic items.

[sithlordnergal]

So...correct me if I'm wrong here, the way you've written it, it takes:

1 attunement slot to cast 3rd - 5th level spells

2 attunement slots for 6th - 8th level spells

3 attunement slots for 9th level spells

Meaning if you want to cast all levels of spells, you'd need 6 attunement slots total, am I reading that right?

Because if I am you're effectively banning 9th level spells, and banning full casters from using magic items that require attunement. Otherwise the cast would have to choose between casting a 9th level spell, having a magic item, or being able to cast 3rd through 8th level spells.

This is a horrible idea, full stop. This isn't just a nerf, you're basically saying full casters are not allowed to get their capstones, because make no mistake, 9th level spells are a caster's capstone. Are you going to make similar nerfs to a fighter? They can only make 4 attacks if they spend 2 to 3 attunement slots to do it?

[OldTrees1]

So...correct me if I'm wrong here, the way you've written it, it takes:

1 attunement slot to cast 3rd - 5th level spells

2 attunement slots for 6th - 8th level spells

3 attunement slots for 9th level spells

Meaning if you want to cast all levels of spells, you'd need 6 attunement slots total, am I reading that right?

I believe it is cumulative. At 2 attunement slots you get 1-8th. At 3 you get 1-9th.

[Sigreid]

Easier if you just as DM decide not to give out things like robes and staves of the arch magi etc. Only an idiot full caster would give up their spell casting abilities for any magic item so you may as well just remove the spellcaster centered high level magic items from the game and call it a day.

[Kvess]

This is a nerf that will make casters (slightly) less interesting, not less powerful. A wizard doesn't need magic items in the same way martial classes do. At level 20, a fighter can do an extra 8d6 damage every round with a flametongue greatsword. At level 20, a wizard can cast meteor swarm. Or wish. Or imprisonment.

There are a handful of magic items that directly interact with the class feature that sets casters apart: Spellcasting. If you want to keep casters in check, don't hand out items which provide bonuses to spell save DCs and spell attack rolls.

By restricting Robes of the Archmagi or Arcane Grimoires from loot, you achieve the biggest benefit from your proposed rule change with less complexity, and Wizards can still mess around with Helms of Telepathy, Rings of the Ram, Robes of Eyes and other interesting but non-augmenting magic items.

[KorvinStarmast]

I believe this is a bit unfair. The OP is trying to nerf users of higher level spells. DMG spell points system, go.
:smallsmile:
You only get 1 spell of level 6, 7, 8, 9 per day.
Warlock: Go. Similar restriction.

[Pex]

I'm starting to get bothered of people complaining about spellcaster power proposing a "solution" that makes one wish they never played a spellcaster. There is a point to not wanting uberpower, the shenanigans of Wish/Simulacrum chaining and Coffeelock. Put a stop to those loopholes. Fine. However, spellcasters are allowed to cast spells. Their spells are allowed to be powerful. They don't deserve to lose access to magic items, hit points, ability scores, turns, the ability to function at all for the audacity of casting a spell. It's not literally everyday someone proposes such, but it feels like it.

Hooray for spellcasters bringing the dead to life, teleporting, plane hopping, doing lots of damage, making illusions, charming people, healing, changing their shapes, changing the shapes of others. No, they don't need to be able to do all of this in one character/class. Again, don't have the uberpower, but stop punishing the spellcaster for doing a significant bit more than "I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage".

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm starting to get bothered of people complaining about spellcaster power proposing a "solution" that makes one wish they never played a spellcaster. Good all around post that said something I was feeling better than I was able to say it.

[Segev]

I'm starting to get bothered of people complaining about spellcaster power proposing a "solution" that makes one wish they never played a spellcaster. There is a point to not wanting uberpower, the shenanigans of Wish/Simulacrum chaining and Coffeelock. Put a stop to those loopholes. Fine. However, spellcasters are allowed to cast spells. Their spells are allowed to be powerful. They don't deserve to lose access to magic items, hit points, ability scores, turns, the ability to function at all for the audacity of casting a spell. It's not literally everyday someone proposes such, but it feels like it.

Hooray for spellcasters bringing the dead to life, teleporting, plane hopping, doing lots of damage, making illusions, charming people, healing, changing their shapes, changing the shapes of others. No, they don't need to be able to do all of this in one character/class. Again, don't have the uberpower, but stop punishing the spellcaster for doing a significant bit more than "I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage".

I get the impression that a lot of "caster nerfs" are "neat ideas" somebody had they just want to share, rather than being specific attempts to solve actual problems they encountered in-play. I know I've had a few ideas like that; I've tried to preface sharing them with an acknowledgement that it's more a rules toy than a specific solution for a specific problem when I do, though. (I tend not to have "caster nerfs" on my mind as a thing in the first place, though.)

[Sigreid]

I get the impression that a lot of "caster nerfs" are "neat ideas" somebody had they just want to share, rather than being specific attempts to solve actual problems they encountered in-play. I know I've had a few ideas like that; I've tried to preface sharing them with an acknowledgement that it's more a rules toy than a specific solution for a specific problem when I do, though. (I tend not to have "caster nerfs" on my mind as a thing in the first place, though.)

Thing is, we never know when/if some WoTC employee or exec will stroll in here, see something and decide it's the bees knees.

[Segev]

Thing is, we never know when/if some WoTC employee or exec will stroll in here, see something and decide it's the bees knees.

As flattering as that might be (to the forum as a whole and to the poster in particular), I rate that only slightly above "winning $10k or more in the lottery" as a likelihood. :smallwink:

[Sigreid]

As flattering as that might be (to the forum as a whole and to the poster in particular), I rate that only slightly above "winning $10k or more in the lottery" as a likelihood. :smallwink:

Oh, that wasn't meant to be flattering to this board or it's members, more of a disparagement of the human tendency to place way too much weight to what they see online.

[BloodOgre]

This sounds to me as though the DM has already handed out too many magic items and is looking for a way to reign the casters in... or they've created some other problem they are trying to solve.

I can kind of understand it for a Wizard, since at higher levels, they not only have spells from level advancement, but have probably copied spells from scrolls or captured spell books as well. Or for Clerics and Druids, who have access to all the spells at their level.

But Warlocks and Sorcerers are already spell-limited (and a Warlock is spell-slot limited as well) so this just adds insult to injury for them. This does not make sense to me.


EDIT: Actually, the only way I think this would work is that if ONLY full casters could use attuned magic items.

[Kane0]

Hows this as a refinement:

- Everyone has attunement slots equal to Prof bonus
- The more powerful a magic item is, the more Att slots it requires. For example a +1 sword uses one vs a +3 shield that uses three
- The spellcasting and pact magic class features requires one attunement slot. Ritual casting, cantrips and casting gained from race/feat up dont have this requirement.

Edit: alternatively, casting from any source of 0-2nd level are free, 3-5 requires one att and 6-9 two att.