D&D 5E Variant spellcasting

Skyscraper

Explorer
Thank you to everyone who participated in this thread on limiting number of cantrips. Cool stuff.

I'm now looking at implementing the following roster of house rules to spellcasting. I know this won't jive with many of you, and it's fine. I'm mainly looking for constructive feedback on these ideas, not necessarily for an argument on how balanced 5E presently is - it appears to be pretty well balanced and I'm not trying to fix anything here. I'd prefer constructive comments on my intended house rules, and not arguments on whether or not I should house rule at all.

So here goes the roster:

1) Introducing cantrip slots

number of cantrip slots = (2 X number of cantrips known) + ability modifier


One way for players to increase the number of cantrips known is to pick feats or class features that provides cantrips (e.g. warlock pact of the tome), because their number of cantrips known then increases.

This is likely to provide somewhere between 12 and 15 cantrips slots, and perhaps more if players invest, at level 5, which if the level at which I intend to start my next campaign. I don't expect the campaign to go beyond level 9.

2) Warlocks


The pact of the chain warlock will have a slightly stronger familiar that will be able to attack each round

The pact of the blade warlock will have a non-trivial magic weapon (in a game where magic items are rare) that will grant bonuses to hit and damage and some powers too, thematically linked to the patron. The pact of the tome warlock already has 6 more cantrip slots through knowing 3 additional cantrips.

The pact of the tome warlock gets 3 additional cantrips known in the rules presently, which means 6 additional cantrip slots according to my house rule. I plan on leaving this one unchanged.

3) Sorcerers

The suggestion in the cantrip thread of providing additional sorcery points sounds good. I'm thinking about 2 more sorcery points and 1 additional metamagic feat: I'll also allow the sorcerer to be proficient in one simple weapon of his choice (no biggie, I know).

4) Clerics and druids

I'm not planning on any change. I think their melee options will compensate.

5) Wizards

Edited to remove: cancellation of concentration requirement and increased damage.

I kinda want wizards to be interesting and feared. Is there a small bit I could offer them for the class to gain just a bit more of oomph? Not that they need it; just that I want it.

6) All casters

All offensive spells that allow a save when cast and then a save each of the target's turns thereafter; will now only allow a save when cast and a single save on the target's first turn.

Edit, added: I'm also toying with the idea of allowing damaging spells to do more damage. For example, damaging spells could do additional damage equal to (spell level + proficiency bonus).

7) Eliminating some spellcasting classes

Eldritch knights and arcane rogues won't exist. (PCs can multiclass). Rangers and Paladins will be variant homemade spelless classes. I'm mentioning this to highlight notably the fact that they won't be more powerful in view of the above increase in spell power, while not paying the cantrip limit nerf.

*****

So, comments on the above? I'm not necessarily looking for perfect balance. However, your comments on whether I'm achieving some kind of balance, are appreciated, as they allow me to fine-tune my house rules.

Again, if you're only thought is "this general approach is not to my liking and I prefer the game as is", I respect that, but I'd prefer that we avoid this discussion in this thread. Thanks B-)
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

MoocowTG

Villager
My question is: What exactly are you trying to achieve with these variant rules? It seems you're making spells more powerful at the cost of cantrips, but why?
 

spectacle

First Post
I think with those rules you will get an all-wizard party. You are giving the arcane caster that is least affected by the cantrip nerf the biggest buff in return. Removing concentration is game-breakingly powerful.
 

Ranthalan

First Post
7 will go a long way to getting the feel you want. My wife plays an arcane trickster and it rubs me the wrong way, but you know... she's my wife.

I think you're right about clerics, ours turned out to be the muscle of the group. Limiting cantrips didn't change that fact.
 
Last edited:

Skyscraper

Explorer
I've edited my above post to remove from the wizard's modifications, that they would not require concentration to maintain a spell because it seems like too much to give them.

I also moved the additional damage option from wizards to all classes.

I'd still like to get something of a Oomph for wizards, what can it be? I don't think they are weaker than other classe, but I wish for them to be strong(er).
 

Ranthalan

First Post
I'd still like to get something of a Oomph for wizards, what can it be? I don't think they are weaker than other classe, but I wish for them to be strong(er).

The quickest/easiest way would probably be to increase their spell slots progression. I agree with the prior poster who said everyone will want to play a wizard, then. Personally, I'd be ok with that.
 

bganon

Explorer
I really like the wizard specializations, so if I wanted to give them more oomph I'd grant them earlier and/or make them more powerful. Grant the 6th level feature as an extra 2nd level feature (or level 5, since that's where you're starting), 10th at 6th, etc. Since you don't intend to go past level 9 it should be fine to not have anything left past level 10. Alternately (or in combination), more hp for the abjurer's ward, extra portent dice, etc.

For sorcerers, I really liked 4E's elementalist subclass. I think granting free Rune powers (as from the UA article) could be reskinned as a way of emulating that.
 

NotActuallyTim

First Post
Wizards are honestly already very, very strong. You could buff every other class in the game (except Druids) and Wizards would be either OK or capable of outdoing a lot of classes. People already fear Wizards.
 

mellored

Legend
I've edited my above post to remove from the wizard's modifications, that they would not require concentration to maintain a spell because it seems like too much to give them.

I also moved the additional damage option from wizards to all classes.

I'd still like to get something of a Oomph for wizards, what can it be? I don't think they are weaker than other classe, but I wish for them to be strong(er).
Why not replace arcane recover with...

Level 2: Arcane Multiplex. When you cast a concentration spell while you have another concentration spell, you can can use your bonus action to concentrate on both spells at once until the end of your next turn. You can use your bonus action on subsequent turns to continue this effect. While concentrating on 2 spells, you have disadvantage on concentration checks, and lose both spells if you fail a concentration roll.


That gives them a bigger nova at the cost of longevity, and risk of losing both, which seems to be what your going for.
 

Skyscraper

Explorer
Great input here, as always. Creative people frequent these boards, I say!

I really like the wizard specializations, so if I wanted to give them more oomph I'd grant them earlier and/or make them more powerful. Grant the 6th level feature as an extra 2nd level feature (or level 5, since that's where you're starting), 10th at 6th, etc. Since you don't intend to go past level 9 it should be fine to not have anything left past level 10. Alternately (or in combination), more hp for the abjurer's ward, extra portent dice, etc.

For sorcerers, I really liked 4E's elementalist subclass. I think granting free Rune powers (as from the UA article) could be reskinned as a way of emulating that.

I actually really like the idea of allowing quicker access to the school specializations. I also like them a lot - very flavorful. This is probably what I'll do.

As for sorcerers... I'm not sure about the rune powers. I think I'll stick to the additional sorcery points and metamagic feat.
 

Remove ads

Top