D&D 5E What is the logic behind one 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell?

[Sadrik]

I need some help with the logic behind limiting 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells to one per day. On face value it appears this is to combat the quadratic caster. But then the scaling of spells means in high level play you only have up to four spells per day that are effective while the lower level spells are middling.

 

[Evenglare]

I don't understand, its clearly to limit the crazy spells. Also mid level spells and even low level spells aren't irrelevant in this edition. Seemed clear to me.

 

[DaveMage]

It's the "sweet spot" theory in action. The 5E game accomplishes what 4E set out to do as well, and that's keep the traditional level 5-11 (ish) so called "sweet spot" of D&D maintained across 20 levels.

If you enjoyed games that are played higher than the sweet spot, this edition (so far) will disappoint you.

 

[fuindordm]

I'd say it's so that the designers could feel free to make 6th to 9th level spells really awesome in scope. Have you seen Meteor Swarm?

Of course, some of the spells in this category are more awesome than others, but there you go. It's a way of allowing epic magic in the game without completely breaking the balance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters. I think it's a pretty clever way of handling it.

 

[Roger]

I blame intensive-lobbying from the powerful Scroll Scribing guild.

 

[Mercurius]

It's the "sweet spot" theory in action. The 5E game accomplishes what 4E set out to do as well, and that's keep the traditional level 5-11 (ish) so called "sweet spot" of D&D maintained across 20 levels.

If you enjoyed games that are played higher than the sweet spot, this edition (so far) will disappoint you.

I'd change this slightly to "If you enjoyed games with a wider range of power, this edition (so far) will disappoint you."

Given that power level is relative to some degree, high level play in 5E will feel somewhat similar to other editions, it is just that it isn't as "cut off" from lower levels as in prior editions, especially 3E. 5E is not Dust Mites & Demigods, like prior editions.

This is also why 5E may be the ideal edition for sandboxing. Sure, low level characters will be over-matched by more challenging monsters, but the boundaries are softened and more interaction and combat is possible across tiers without instant kills.

Personally I love the fact that I don't feel the need to "partition" PCs in a segment of the setting in which, somehow, only similarly levelled NPCs and monsters inhabit. It feels more...dare I say, realistic?

 

[Piratecat]

As someone who is running two 15th lvl games, I'll agree that mid-level spells remain both relevant and effective. We haven't found the limitation to be a problem.

 

[Ashkelon]

Let's say you are a level 13 wizard. You are confronted by some CR 13 warrior type enemies (who usually have a very low Wis save).

A single hold person spell can disable one of them (or more if you use a higher level spell slot). You are able to disable an enemy of your CR with a single low level spell.

Let that sink in. Your level 2 spell can basically disable a challenging enemy for a whole fight.

Now also let this next fact sink in. At level 13 you can cast Forcecage. You can defeat a whole squad of CR 13 warrior types with a single spell. If you could cast forcecage more than once per day, why would you even need a party?

 

[Dausuul]

Basically, the reason can be summed up in this graph. This is a graph of the estimated* PC power curve by editions:




See the way the 3E curve soars to insane values in the latter half? For casters, that's the result of getting boatloads of high-level spells. (3E spells also scale by caster level, of course, but most lower-level spells are capped, meaning once you're 10th level or so, those spells stop getting better. Save DCs do continue to rise as your casting stat increases, but high-level spells are the main culprit here.)

4E averted this by throwing out the entire system and starting over. 5E is working within the general framework of the 3E rules, so it's much easier to compare the two and see how things have changed. To bring casters down to earth, 5E had to do one of two things: Make high-level spells weaker, or give out fewer of them. They played around with this some during the playtest, but in the end they seem to have settled on "give out fewer of them" almost entirely. This makes sense to me. It's more fun to have a handful of super-awesome spells than a larger number of spells that are just mild improvements on what you had before.

[SIZE=-2]*Using monster XP values as a rough proxy for PC power. In other words, if the edition's encounter guidelines say you can fight monsters worth twice as much XP, you're estimated to be twice as powerful. Yeah, I know 3E's CR system was shaky at best, but it's what we got. The chart is "1st Level" to "Max Level" rather than "1st Level" to "20th Level," because 4E worked on a 30-level scale rather than a 20-level one.[/SIZE]

 

[MortalPlague]

My 15th level game has a wizard, a sorceress, and a bard in it. And up till recently, a cleric. Their high level spells were potent and interesting, and their mid-level spells continued to be a threat all the way up.

Also bear in mind that you can expand some of these totals with scrolls, staves, and wands.