Simple Fixes for Toning Down Casters at Higher Levels?

[BigRedJedi]

D) Wizards only get 2 free spells from leveling up until level 5. After that they have to find scrolls. Other wizard spellbooks (PC or NPC) can't be transcibed, only scrolls are translatable into a Wizard's spellbook. Although if you can find someone to pay to make a scroll for you on the Wizard spelllist, that works.

Stealing this, it's great if going for a "Magic is Rare" feel. Creates some interesting potential economic impacts too, good for worldbuilding.



The Great Khan and his barbarian hordes are burning every library in the world to the ground, hoping to cripple the one enemy with the firepower to stop his advance.

*scribbles furiously*

[da newt]

Giving all NPCs/monsters the mage slayer feat pretty much reduces many clerics to just being heal-bots. Spirit guardians is such a key offensive spell for the class that this kind of nerf would really suck the fun out of the game.

I do find the Cleric go to move of "I cast Sponge Guardians and take the Duck-and-Cover action" to be boring - effective but dull and kinda cowardly. Clerics have tons of different spells, but tend to just use the same 2 and healing stuff - yawn. Where is the fun? The cleric all but ceases to exist becoming just an AOE.

But you are absolutely right - mage slayer rules would be a significant nerf for the cleric class and other magic in melee types. I was thinking of backline casters when I suggested that. Fair point.

[MrStabby]

Lol, I realize one of the easiest fixes would just be to add elemental resistances. More enemies resistant to Radiant or Fire damage would go a long way, when the list of monsters resistant to B/S/P is too damn high.

Considering casters can change their damage type easier than most martials (since casters generally don't spend a feat for it), it isn't as punishing as it sounds. Even if they're some kind of fire specialist or something, that's what Elemental Adept is for.

What fraction of the problem spells are problematic due to damage? I would have thought the counterspell, wall of force, hypnotic pattern, forcecage, conjure animals, polymorph standard of spells would be largely unaffected.

[Eldariel]

Giving all NPCs/monsters the mage slayer feat pretty much reduces many clerics to just being heal-bots. Spirit guardians is such a key offensive spell for the class that this kind of nerf would really suck the fun out of the game.

Eh, you can just cast Spirit Guardians more than 5' away. And even if you have to provoke, it's just one more DC10 che k of which you are making plenty anyways. The real sufferers are Touch spells: I simply rule that offensive Touch spells are unaffected. They are bad enough already and it makes sense that they can be wielded as a weapon.

[LudicSavant]

Whilst there are strong spellcasters in tier 1, I think they kind of slip by because they are not strong because they are spellcasters. Hexblade dont stand out because their spells are better than anyone elses, they stand out because of hexwarrior and hexblade curse. Moon druid stands out because of wildshape and so on.

I think Hexblades stand out because of the combination of all their features working in tandem. Take away the spellcasting, Hex Warrior and Hexblade's Curse on their own wouldn't be enough to make you one of the better level 1s -- it'd basically just be d8 HP + Medium Armor + Shield + martial weapon and a 1/short rest +2 to damage buff. Contrast, say, a Fighter with d10 HP + armor + shield + Dueling (always-on +2 damage buff) + Second Wind (1d10+1 / short rest healing).

Also, a Hexblade's ability set does improve spellcasting. For example, Hexblade/Wizard has an unusually good level 2, and is decidedly casting-focused.

Likewise, many Clerics are strong from level 1, and this wouldn't be the case if you took away their casting. And it's not just War Clerics, stuff like Light, Twilight, and Peace Clerics are strong early, too.

And while this may surprise some, when we've had threads on how classes rank specifically at level 1, Wizards were ranked highly by the hardcore CharOp crowd. Not "all casters," specifically Wizards. (Sorcerer for example was generally rated as one of the weaker choices at level 1, with 2 spells per day rather than 3 from the Wizard's L1 Arcane Recovery, no familiar, no rituals, the tactical inflexibility of just 2 spells known, etc. Note these threads were pre-Tasha's).

[MrStabby]

Eh, you can just cast Spirit Guardians more than 5' away. And even if you have to provoke, it's just one more DC10 che k of which you are making plenty anyways. The real sufferers are Touch spells: I simply rule that offensive Touch spells are unaffected. They are bad enough already and it makes sense that they can be wielded as a weapon.

Well provoking is only part of it. The advantage on saves if you close to within 5ft is probably the bigger issue (though disadvantage on concentration saves is not to be scoffed at here).

I mean you can try and stay more than 5ft away but the enemy is going to have a say in that and you are going to lose a degree of stickiness if you can have them move further away with no attack of opportunity.

[J-H]

As a DM, I've run several encounters recently with NPCs that are the equivalent of 11th-15th level casters, mostly clerics. A lot of the higher level spells I had put on their list are pretty underwhelming against PCs. They almost always save. Artificer, Barbarian (w/ cloak of magic resistance), Monk, Paladin, and anyone near the Paladin all have substantial save bonuses. The Concentration limitations hurt NPCs worse than PCs, because the NPCs usually need the buffs more.

For my next game, which will have some 2e adaptations (lower HP gains after 10th), I'll probably actually let high level casters have more spell slots and more concentration slots.

[Eldariel]

Well provoking is only part of it. The advantage on saves if you close to within 5ft is probably the bigger issue (though disadvantage on concentration saves is not to be scoffed at here).

I mean you can try and stay more than 5ft away but the enemy is going to have a say in that and you are going to lose a degree of stickiness if you can have them move further away with no attack of opportunity.

One of the good parts of SG is that you really don't care about the save that much. It still does damage and halves their movement regardless.

The disadvantage on Concentration I kinda just assumed wouldn't get ported since damage is by far the most common source of Concentration-saves: just making almost all Concentration-saves to be made at disadvantage by default makes no sense. It would just push everyone even harder to get to the +9 ASAP where the roll no longer matters for under 22 damage hits, and probably make War Caster obligatory to roll them straight on higher levels.

As a DM, I've run several encounters recently with NPCs that are the equivalent of 11th-15th level casters, mostly clerics. A lot of the higher level spells I had put on their list are pretty underwhelming against PCs. They almost always save. Artificer, Barbarian (w/ cloak of magic resistance), Monk, Paladin, and anyone near the Paladin all have substantial save bonuses. The Concentration limitations hurt NPCs worse than PCs, because the NPCs usually need the buffs more.

That's just a feature of high level play (provided the party minded their saves and has a Paladin, but it applies double against monsters): there's like 10 offensive spells in the game actually worth casting because spells that offer saves for negation are largely worthless due to Legendary Resistance and Magic Resistance and enemy saves all scaling. This basically means you just use the spells that don't have saves (e.g. summons such as Summon Celestial. Spiritual Weapon or Inflict Wounds in the case of Cleric) or have effects regardless of saves (such as upcast Spirit Guardians). One of the many, many problems with how 5e handles Magic Resistances and OTOH saves.


On a completely unrelated note, I personally "fix" Simulacrum by just running it as it was in 3e: the copy is half as powerful as the original. This means half the spell levels for PC, half the innate casting (basically something you custom for every creature), half the HP, half the attacks, etc. It's still incredibly useful but no longer literally doubles your power. And it generally becomes more interesting to use the impersonation qualities and such of the spell. I like the idea of "True Simulacrum" on level 9, which is fully powered but is also an entirely free agent, essentially a full-blown NPC with no need to follow orders or anything of the sort. But that's an idea I haven't gotten to try yet: but the half-power Simulacrum I have used and I can vouch for it. Still great but no longer easily the strongest spell in the game including the 9th level options.

It's straightforward, still fun and useful, and kinda curbs the absurd power level of the spell a bit.

[Man_Over_Game]

What fraction of the problem spells are problematic due to damage? I would have thought the counterspell, wall of force, hypnotic pattern, forcecage, conjure animals, polymorph standard of spells would be largely unaffected.

Limiting how much damage casters do means that it's a problem they can no longer solve on their own.

It then becomes a party solution, with the Wizard locking down the threat and the Fighter slaying them while they're down. Asymmetry that's still balanced by needing one another to solve a single goal, because nobody else can do your job.

It's how MMOs have pulled asymmetry off for years.

The other option, the one we are trying to figure out, is tit-for-tat:. Every class gets an X power, a Y power, a Z power, all at the same time, where XYZ represents the pillars of your game (different ways to do the same things). This is how most class-based board games do it (and is exactly what 4e did).

[Necrosnoop110]

So I have thought about this some more and I am beginning to think that for my table the following would go along way to making things how we want it to work out at higher levels.

(1) Multiple Spell Restriction: If you cast a spell of 1st-level or higher, you can’t cast other spells except cantrips for the rest of the character's turn.

(2) Feats: The following feats are no longer available.

• Resilient (Con)
• Warcaster

(3) Restricted Spells: The following spells cannot be selected by way of normal spellcasting and class abilities. However, they may still be found in the game by way of artifacts or other in-game rituals.

• Contagion
• Forcecage
• Polymorph
• Simulacrum
• True Polymorph
• Wall of Force
• Wish

Please give me feedback on this three pronged approach. Especially, with suggestions of problematic feats and spells to add to the list. Keep in mind we are going for toning down casters without having to housebrew new content or do massive revisions.

[Man_Over_Game]

So the thing I notice is that this doesn't do anything to a well-paced caster. Like a boring full-caster would not care about any of this. Combos are not common, Concentration is part of the formula (and is actually very important), the spells listed are mostly there for the last 5 levels of the game (which most people never touch) and aren't quite the spells that are needing attention.


So I just play a Transmutation Wizard and do...wizard stuff for 10 levels. Maybe I put ASIs into Constitution instead, or start a Fighter.

I do see where you're going - removing smaller pieces is a lot more manageable and legible than juryrigging some weird homebrew, it's pretty smart - I'm just not sure if the problem can be solved without something a bit complicated and risky, since the disparity starts at level 1 (Find Familiar, Warlock Invocations) and escalates throughout (Font of Inspiration, Fireball, Dimension Door, etc).

[Sigreid]

Decide what the highest level spell/spell slot count you want to stick to is and tell them any full caster after x level has to multiclass to a non-spellcasting class.

[Man_Over_Game]

Decide what the highest level spell/spell slot count you want to stick to is and tell them any full caster after x level has to multiclass to a non-spellcasting class.

Gives me an idea, no more than 1/2 of your levels can be in any one caster class (except level 1).

Unfortunately, I don't think it fits the concept of removing content for what you're looking for, though, sorry.

[J-H]

My level 14 party with only 1 full caster (a Life Cleric) obliterated an Aaracokra strike force made up of NPCs replicating roughly the following class levels:
2 level 7 fighters
2 level 9 melee clerics
2 level 9 wizards
2 level 15 clerics

The whole fight lasted about 3 rounds. The monk, barbarian, and paladin PCs all deal more damage per round than a caster using Blight or Harm, and more reliably.
I'm still not seeing caster-types as overpowered for high levels.

Maybe with 9th level spells... but at least half my level 14 party could tank out a Meteor Swarm and then do some kind of Haste/Dimension Door (artificer/paladin) combo and drop about 250 melee damage on the enemy wizard before the wizard gets to cast again.

[Eldariel]

My level 14 party with only 1 full caster (a Life Cleric) obliterated an Aaracokra strike force made up of NPCs replicating roughly the following class levels:
2 level 7 fighters
2 level 9 melee clerics
2 level 9 wizards
2 level 15 clerics

The whole fight lasted about 3 rounds. The monk, barbarian, and paladin PCs all deal more damage per round than a caster using Blight or Harm, and more reliably.
I'm still not seeing caster-types as overpowered for high levels.

Maybe with 9th level spells... but at least half my level 14 party could tank out a Meteor Swarm and then do some kind of Haste/Dimension Door (artificer/paladin) combo and drop about 250 melee damage on the enemy wizard before the wizard gets to cast again.

Though your party is armed to the teeth with magic items which affects things as well. But it's true, damage is a good all purpose solution. It's also the spell choices: Harm is pretty bad. Blight is pretty bad - the high level damage spells just don't do all that much damage, being single target and saving for half (but even on a failed save). Most spells that offer saves for none are pretty worthless and Harm is basically just a 24 damage nuke (it actually doesn't do much more than Spirit Guardians, Spiritual Weapon or the like - when doing math I came to the conclusion that in most cases it's generally better to upcast Inflict Wounds on the same slot instead). For dealing damage as a high level Cleric, I'd tend towards Inflict Wounds, since it doesn't have a save but I'd never cast it without sufficient hit boosters to make landing it likely (preferably just a Diviner though to guarantee the hit since wasting high level slots sucks).

If I were an enemy with enough data about the party, I would:
- Cast long duration buffs (the enemy durability can at least somewhat be enhanced by the Clerics casting all the Aid/Death Ward/Warding Bond/Heroes' Feast-type effects on each other before the fight - if they can get right to the fight, they could actually just have someone not coming cast Bless and stuff to ensure the Concentration doesn't drop)
- Before TPing in, cast short duration buffs (any Summon spells [refluff Summon Celestial as summoning a fallen angel, or give them Summon Fiend instead?], Bless on the whole party, Spirit Guardians from a high level slot, Holy Aura on the whole party, etc.) and then get in there
- Try to split the party up (this is something Clerics aren't very good at but Wizard 9s have Wall of Force and Wall of Stone and Resilient Sphere and Sleet Storm and such)
- CC spells I'd generally forgo when facing adversaries of this calibre: Monks and Paladins especially make hitting their saves a low percentage play, though AOE save-or-X effects hitting the whole party can still be worthwhile as long as the Pally isn't near everyone
- Melee Clerics just decking themselves in armor and Dodging while trying to keep Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon up and perhaps using Sanctuary on each other to make attacking them annoying (though it depends on the enemy; against the Pally it's probably not gonna do much but against the Zealot, it can be very worthwhile) - of course, if they have Holy Aura, they have no reason not to take offensive action (I'd have them start up with Contagion or Inflicts depending on how much they believe Poisoned-condition would benefit them; if enemy is already attacking at Disadvantage, probably not all that much)

All told, by the sound of it, the enemy is also hitting the party in their strong points and that might affect things. And you have 6 level 13+ characters which makes 2 level 15, 4 level 9 and 2 level 7 enemy party probably be overmatched even before accounting for the magic items (also, as you said, NPC numbers are low which really wreaks havoc on bounded accuracy - even with Bless they'd be hardpressed to hit reliably).

[MrStabby]

My level 14 party with only 1 full caster (a Life Cleric) obliterated an Aaracokra strike force made up of NPCs replicating roughly the following class levels:
2 level 7 fighters
2 level 9 melee clerics
2 level 9 wizards
2 level 15 clerics

The whole fight lasted about 3 rounds. The monk, barbarian, and paladin PCs all deal more damage per round than a caster using Blight or Harm, and more reliably.
I'm still not seeing caster-types as overpowered for high levels.

Maybe with 9th level spells... but at least half my level 14 party could tank out a Meteor Swarm and then do some kind of Haste/Dimension Door (artificer/paladin) combo and drop about 250 melee damage on the enemy wizard before the wizard gets to cast again.

If your metric of power is damage, then yes - martial characters do pretty well. If you metric of power is anyting other than damage, then they look less good.

If what you want is to defeat enemies in the shortest number of rounds then martials are pretty good. If you want to defeat enemies with the fewest party deaths or with the highest probability of success (but don't mind if it takes a round or two longer) then casters are pretty sweet.


I also think you should be very careful about generalising from the damage output of clerics in one fight to the power levels of all casters more generally. You are picking a class without much blasting power (compare blight to something like an upcast fireball that can hit three PCs), measuring success with blasting power and missing out on a lot of depth.

How did the barbarian deal with being banished? How many people failed saves vs an upcast hold person? How did the party deal with 4 summoned celestials hitting the party from range and flying with 10 attacks per turn? Did the party rely on any buffs that got dispelled in comedic fashion (like say... the fly spell).

[DevilMcam]

It really depends on who play said caster and how.

My current table plays at level 13 with 2 full caster, 2 non caster and a paladin.
The fighter and barbarian have huge personalities and good backstories and usually have lot of spotlight in social scenes.
The caster usually spend a lot of time protecting and enabling the martials in combat and thr paladin is sort of the party mascot.

There is no such thing as martial irrelevance at our table. And the best weapons we have are +1 weapons that not everyone used ( the paladin currently use a plain non magical longsword without shields)

Best players play with the party and not to win DnD so it really doesn't matter

[BoutsofInsanity]

Honestly, I know I'm late but here are a few things you could do that would bring everything more in line. Remember that it's really not too bad even at high levels like it was in previous editions.

1. Limit spell choice - Certain spells are stronger than others, some spells should be quest items, and feel like you have earned them over just selecting them. Force Cage is a good example of a spell that could be found, but not just picked up from your regular spell selection. It's just that powerful.

2. Make sure you aren't stingy with Martial Characters and their items. They need a Weapon, some way to be mobile, and a strong defensive item. Further, adding spell casting to their weapons or effects that mimic spells really makes martial characters feel good. Remember, martial characters don't need a lot of tools, but if they can get some they really start feeling powerful in their party makeup.

3. Lastly, you have to be forcing hard decisions during game play. This is a little more tricky, but your casters need to be burning resources to survive the encounter. Caster's need to be burning actions and resources trying to survive hits that are coming in from the enemy creatures. Snipers, teleportation enemies, grapplers, tentacles, other spell casters. All of them need to be targeting your casters. If they aren't burning resources, than they are disproportionately affecting the battlefield.

4. Finally, make skills matter a lot more. And classes and backgrounds. The Stuffy Wizard who studied the arcane arts, unless it's in their background rolls with disadvantage on intelligence checks dealing with warfare. And has a higher DC. Where the fighter with the soldier background? Might have advantage or a lower DC. Backstory, environments, and actions should also come into play, limiting other character options while expanding others.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So my group in which I DM, is switching over from 3E to 5E. Back in 3E game I had a list of houserules for ways to try and keep the martials from not being overshadowed by the casters (or at least my best attempt). I have been runing as a PC in another 5E campaign for years so I have a decent understanding of the rules set. As a DM, we are soon starting a new 5E campaign that will run from 1st to 20th character levels. What I was curious to know is does anyone have any simple houserules or fixes that could do the same for 5E in the later tiers of play?

One thought I had was requiring at least 4 levels of multiclassing by 20th level so as to limit the highest level of spells (maybe requiring 2 class levels taken before reaching 10th character level, and 2 after 10th). I am not interested in doing any extensive rewrites or "line-item" houserules I am just looking for a simple "patch" that will tone the casters down a bit after 10th level so the martials don't begin to feel worthless. Half my table only plays martials (they literally refuse to play casters) and I don't what them to become obsolete in the back half of the campaign.

Any suggestions?

Seems like a lot of extra work...

Personally? I say just don't play high levels.

Adjust monsters down to lower levels and have the game cap out at 10th level. I've been doing this with the mostly core and homebrew classes for years and it keeps the game a lot more balanced.

In 3e there was a thing called "Epic 6", it's the same idea.

[Schwann145]

Honestly? It sounds like D&D just isn't the right game for you and your group. (Don't take that the wrong way; I'm in the same boat for my own reasons. :P )

5e spells are weaker than they've ever been, and 5e spellcasting is likewise weaker than it's ever been. There is more limitations put on spellcasting than has ever existed before, even to the point of frustration at times (like spell lists full of concentration spells, ensuring you don't get to explore your list much!) And martial characters are stronger, with more options than they've ever had before.
If you and/or your group still finds the martial/caster disparity too much, it's pretty clear evidence that the high-fantasy style of D&D is wrong for you, and you should probably look into more Sword&Sorcery games that put an emphasis on physical combat and make magic either super rare, dangerous, or limited to the villains only.

D&D is a high magic kinda game, and high magic is capable of things that non-magical characters will never compete with, and it's this way by design. There are little tweaks you can make here and there (many of which are likely already offered advice here in this thread) but you're fighting against the current here. Martials are relevant through all tiers of play, even if they kinda sorta fall behind casters here and there. That's better than you're gonna get without wholesale rewriting the system into something it was never trying to be in the first place.

[GeoffWatson]

So I have thought about this some more and I am beginning to think that for my table the following would go along way to making things how we want it to work out at higher levels.

(1) Multiple Spell Restriction: If you cast a spell of 1st-level or higher, you can’t cast other spells except cantrips for the rest of the character's turn.

(2) Feats: The following feats are no longer available.

• Resilient (Con)
• Warcaster

(3) Restricted Spells: The following spells cannot be selected by way of normal spellcasting and class abilities. However, they may still be found in the game by way of artifacts or other in-game rituals.

• Contagion
• Forcecage
• Polymorph
• Simulacrum
• True Polymorph
• Wall of Force
• Wish

Please give me feedback on this three pronged approach. Especially, with suggestions of problematic feats and spells to add to the list. Keep in mind we are going for toning down casters without having to housebrew new content or do massive revisions.

(1) is already part of the rules, if I remember correctly.
(2) I disagree with: Con saves are important for many characters, not just casters; Warcaster has other uses (mainly for semi-casters who mainly fight but might want to cast occasional spells).
(3) looks fine to me.

[Man_Over_Game]

(1) is already part of the rules, if I remember correctly.

Kinda. The rule is "If you cast a spell as a Bonus Action, all other spells you cast must be Cantrips".

Basically, the only difference is that OP's suggestion now removes Action Surge doublecasting.

D&D is a high magic kinda game, and high magic is capable of things that non-magical characters will never compete with, and it's this way by design.

There's always the opposite approach: make Martials high magic. For instance, change Expertise to be 1/2 of your class level, rounded up, giving every Martial expertise with a skill or two (with Rogues getting more than their default). Then allow skill rolls that go beyond 20 to duplicate magical effects, like Stealth making you invisible, Athletics duplicating Catapult, Perception being able to see magic, etc.

Martials do what they do through skills and rolls, mages do it through spells and spell slots.

I suppose you could make Martials have "High Magic" in other ways, but it'd be tricky to do it in a way that doesn't require Homebrew for every class.

[heavyfuel]

Feature, not bug IMO. The point is to incentivize people to do things without relying on spells.

That's a noble goal that I generally agree with, but it does come with a verisimilitude problem.

Say a player wants to be Legolas and shoot some baddies while skating down some stair on top a shield. You think that's cool, so you call for a Dex (Acrobatics) check DC, say, 12. This check means that anyone, even a commoner that has never done anything acrobatic in his life, can succeed at this task 40% of the time.

You might think increasing the DC to 15 solves this, but now the commoner still has 25% chance of doing something that he should have 0% chance of doing, and the player has a high-ish chance of failure, which might demotivate them.

A better (IMO) solution, is to be more generous with Expertise. Let every character gain a number of Expertise equal to their base class skills proficiencies. If a character gains a "proper" Expertise feature, then allow it to triple the PB instead of doubling it if applied to a skill the char is already proficient with.

Now you can have reasonably high DCs while still maintaining verisimilitude.

You might think this steps on the Rogue's toes too much, but it's actually very helpful to them, as triple the PB means they are extremely likely to suceed at any given task.

It's not perfect, but it's better.

[Tanarii]

(2) Feats: The following feats are no longer available.

• Resilient (Con)
• Warcaster

This and preventing easy access for Wizards/Sorcs/Warlocks to heavier armors from a 1 level dip are probably the two most helpful changes. The AC issue is worse at low levels though, although it always will have an impact. Easy Concentration saves is a bigger issue at mid to high levels.

[Schwann145]

There's always the opposite approach: make Martials high magic. For instance, change Expertise to be 1/2 of your class level, rounded up, giving every Martial expertise with a skill or two (with Rogues getting more than their default). Then allow skill rolls that go beyond 20 to duplicate magical effects, like Stealth making you invisible, Athletics duplicating Catapult, Perception being able to see magic, etc.

Martials do what they do through skills and rolls, mages do it through spells and spell slots.

I suppose you could make Martials have "High Magic" in other ways, but it'd be tricky to do it in a way that doesn't require Homebrew for every class.

The problem with this approach is it alienates everyone who appreciates non-magical characters. D&D already struggles with this as is, so doubling down on it just pushes more of the audience away than it needs to.

If you're the type to see the martial/caster disparity as a problem, then it certainly goes a long way towards balancing it. But not everyone likes a "wuxia" type of game.
(I think it would be better all around if WotC stopped pretending D&D isn't a high magic game and just embraced that it is, instead of having developers and writers constantly insisting that it's meant to be low magic. But that chases away too many people and would be bad for the bottom line. :P )

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's a noble goal that I generally agree with, but it does come with a verisimilitude problem.

Say a player wants to be Legolas and shoot some baddies while skating down some stair on top a shield. You think that's cool, so you call for a Dex (Acrobatics) check DC, say, 12. This check means that anyone, even a commoner that has never done anything acrobatic in his life, can succeed at this task 40% of the time.

You might think increasing the DC to 15 solves this, but now the commoner still has 25% chance of doing something that he should have 0% chance of doing, and the player has a high-ish chance of failure, which might demotivate them.

A better (IMO) solution, is to be more generous with Expertise. Let every character gain a number of Expertise equal to their base class skills proficiencies. If a character gains a "proper" Expertise feature, then allow it to triple the PB instead of doubling it if applied to a skill the char is already proficient with.

Now you can have reasonably high DCs while still maintaining verisimilitude.

You might think this steps on the Rogue's toes too much, but it's actually very helpful to them, as triple the PB means they are extremely likely to suceed at any given task.

It's not perfect, but it's better.

I'd prefer to say the following:
* If it's something really special, then it's a feature. Even if it's a one-off "here's something you can do when you make an X(Y) check. Only people with your training can do it" permission slip based on backstory/character design. I'm pretty free with those. Someone without this feature would just get the hard "no" answer. Or would face a very high DC (but that's unlikely).
* Un-gated ability checks are for things that almost anyone (any adventurer, that is, NPCs don't make ability checks off screen or as part of their normal lives) can have a chance of doing. And adventurers are special--they (even the specialists) are competent in a large number of fields. Not perfect, but enough to get by.

So sliding down a banister on a shield, shooting people? If it's something the world says only a few people can do, then it's a feature that gets attached to a PC, providing special rules (which may or may not require an ability check; it may be a Dex save instead). It the world says most people can do it, at least occasionally, then it's an un-gated ability check.

[Morty]

I'm inclined to agree with those who suggest to accept it or not run high levels. D&D 5E is deliberately designed in such a way that spells progressively eclipse everything else. Even on low levels, if you don't cast spells you're effectively playing half of the game. By high levels, the gap becomes insurmountable. There's no way to play a non-caster and participate in the game fully on high levels, so you need to make sure everyone's on the same page - either they accept that or they play someone who does cast spells. Which is generally pretty easy - again probably deliberate.

[BoutsofInsanity]

That's a noble goal that I generally agree with, but it does come with a verisimilitude problem.

Say a player wants to be Legolas and shoot some baddies while skating down some stair on top a shield. You think that's cool, so you call for a Dex (Acrobatics) check DC, say, 12. This check means that anyone, even a commoner that has never done anything acrobatic in his life, can succeed at this task 40% of the time.

You might think increasing the DC to 15 solves this, but now the commoner still has 25% chance of doing something that he should have 0% chance of doing, and the player has a high-ish chance of failure, which might demotivate them.

A better (IMO) solution, is to be more generous with Expertise. Let every character gain a number of Expertise equal to their base class skills proficiencies. If a character gains a "proper" Expertise feature, then allow it to triple the PB instead of doubling it if applied to a skill the char is already proficient with.

Now you can have reasonably high DCs while still maintaining verisimilitude.

You might think this steps on the Rogue's toes too much, but it's actually very helpful to them, as triple the PB means they are extremely likely to suceed at any given task.

It's not perfect, but it's better.

Actually, you have to change how you do DC's.

The commoner to succeed at that acrobatic maneuver? DC 18. Near impossible. The farmer hasn't ever even looked at stretches, much less balancing on a shield.

Your Rogue or Dexterity fighter? -> I might hand-wave the roll, what mechanical benefit are they even receiving? If they are looking to slide down faster or use the shield as a way to gain the dodge action ability as part of their movement then I might call for the roll. DC 12 makes more sense for them. Failure they have disadvantage on their attacks as they maintain balance making it harder to shoot. Different people have different DC's. A fighter trying to understand the complexities of Arcana versus a Wizard is different. Same if the Wizard is trying to understand logistics and troop movements versus a soldier. The soldier just knows things where the Wizard is having to use active thinking.

[Tanarii]

Hidden bonuses or penalties to skill checks based on class would make me walk away from a table.

Now, a player saying they'd have no chance of succeeding because, despite their generic bonus, their specific character has never done a thing? Sure. But that's player buy in, not hidden DM bonuses & penalties.

[noob]

While I agree with most of this list, I don't think wish is game-breaking. It's base effect of copying an 8th level spell is really good, but not game-breaking in the context of it being a 9th level spell. Anything else you do with it, you have a 1/3 chance of losing it forever, and it comes with a caveat allowing the dm to grant the wish as they see fit. It literally has a built-in balancing mechanic.

Wish for mirage arcana and according to the game devs "you can drown in illusory water" so you can probably drown in illusory heavy glue too.
Mirage arcana is balanced by its lack of ability to be cast mid fight so you can not just catch people in it by surprise if they are walking with any way to detect magic or illusions.