D&D 5E Anybody have success with a restricted spells game?

[FormerlyHemlock]

I actually don't like that either, as the player or GM, that stuff should ideally always be discussed at character creation. I think in a world where no spells are gained automatically this feels much less arbitrary though.

I think this might be the way to go--take away auto-spells from everyone, and then give spells out appropriately. For example, I think you could give all the PHB cleric spells back to clerics and say it's just part of their religious training (they memorize catechisms which act as mnemonics for spells) but not make them automatic for clerics who multiclass into cleric (they don't get the full training, just like they don't get Wisdom save proficiency); the sorcerer spell list is already restricted enough that I think you could let players spontaneously manifest powers (spells) during play when it's dramatically appropriate (in the player's judgment) as long as they come from the sorcerer spell list and then they become permanent parts of that sorcerer's arsenal (no swapping out spells); for wizards, import or re-invent spell research rules which can be used to derive PHB spells over time, in addition to finding them in treasure.

I think a decent spell research system is an absolute requirement to make this sort of game work. That doesn't mean that the majority of the spells in a PC's spellbook necessarily need to be custom-researched spells, but it should mean that if the player finds a spellbook containing e.g. Wish, the player and the PC should both have some kind of appreciation for just how hard it must have been to create this spell in the first place and/or how you would recreate it yourself. That aligns the PC's and the player's respective emotions about the spell.

And then you can do cool things like create a MacGuffin which is actually a piece of magical knowledge, like a 3rd level 12d6 Fireball spell or a 7th level Magic Jar that works on more than just humanoids.

 

[Li Shenron]

I've never tried this myself, but I think it's a nice idea.

As a player I'd have no problem in playing in such a game, but then I'm the kind of player that has sometimes rolled randomly not only my spells knows, but also everything else of my PC, even the name

As a DM it would allow me to solicite players to make use of lesser-known spells, and avoid cookie-cutter Wizards (or whatever) with always the same spells.

But I think this idea would probably be better applied to ALL spellcasters. Maybe let them choose one free spell per class level at least (maybe 2 for Clerics and Druids), so that the whole idea is not too extreme

 

[GreenTengu]

I don't know to what degree this would help, but...

Remember that spellcasters can, typically, cast the spells they know using a higher spell slot.

In other words, even if due to the way you control what spells a caster can use, they can still fall back on their previously known spells and empower them.

That ought to allow you at least a bit of extra freedom to not grant higher level spells for free.

And the rule need not only apply to wizards. Other classes could imaginably need to see others demonstrate how to use the powers they have better and learn from those individuals.

 

[Saeviomagy]

As long as you're generous with spells, it could work. If you're not, it's just going to end up being boring being a wizard (or other spellcaster).

 

[Tony Vargas]

In older editions, where wizards were (potentially, at higher level) far more powerful than other spellcasters, such an imbalance in spell acquisition made sense.

If you go all the way back to 1e, sure, no one else got 8th or 9th level spells. But, even at lower levels, Wizards got more flashy/powerful offense than other casters. And, the main 'other caster,' the Cleric, was burdened by the need to put many of his spells towards healing.

In the past I have been involved in games where a wizard for example, did not automatically gain any new spells. The only way to gain new spells was to find them, learn them, or possibly research them with no guarantee of success at gaining a particular spell.

That sounds like D&D, to me.

The obvious downsides are that players may feel disenfranchised, class balance issues, and it adds a fair bit of work for the GM.

I have put some severe restrictions on learning new spells at various times, especially on Magic-Users Wizards, particularly in lower-magic games. The thing is, spells in a low-magic game are so valuable/powerful, because of their rarity, because there are no magic-items competing with them, and because enemies are unprepared for them - that it never particularly 'hurt' the affected PCs, if anything, it made them more central to the campaign.

Anyways, has anyone else had fun in games like that (or even been in one), and if so what made it work/not work?

In one campaign - the only 3.0 campaign I ran - gaining new spells, and the list of spells you could learn from - was so restricted that I actually created PrCs - "Ward Initiates" (lifted from the Thomas Covenant series, the idea of secret 'wards of lore' with societies dedicated to deciphering them) - that did nothing but advance your caster level and grant you some otherwise-restricted known spells.

 

[Skyscraper]

I'm leery of taking that much agency out of player hands, especially with a rule that hits wizards but not bards, sorcerers, warlocks, clerics, druids, paladins, or rangers. In older editions, where wizards were (potentially, at higher level) far more powerful than other spellcasters, such an imbalance in spell acquisition made sense. No longer.

I can see ways to possibly make it work, but it would require a lot more changes than just saying "wizards don't gain automatic spells anymore."

Would you care to provide examples of how you'd balance things out?

 

[Skyscraper]

I've never tried this myself, but I think it's a nice idea.

As a player I'd have no problem in playing in such a game, but then I'm the kind of player that has sometimes rolled randomly not only my spells knows, but also everything else of my PC, even the name

So what was his name?

 

[Krachek]

It's remind me of the DM dictator style of the 1985. DM saying openly that it will be a miracle if a wizard find fireball in his world.
It though this style was dead for good with 3ed, and place in a museum with the 4ed.
But no! It seem to be popular again.
Casters are fine in 5ed. Let them live.
Rest is also fine, Pc are meant to go adventuring, not play cards at the inn.

 

[Blue]

This was how it was in early D&D. I remember getting to 4th level Wizard and still never found a single 2nd level spell. And this was with no up-casting, that was introduced back in Wheel of Time d20 and reintroduced in 5e.

 

[Koren]

Some people prefer a lower magic campaign world, more sword and sorcery style. While not directly leading to this sort of world, restricting the spells available to those the DM adds to the campaign will likely lead that way. I think this style of play has its merits, though I haven't seen it pulled off well using D&D as a basis. It can certainly work in theory, though. Changing spell acquisition methods in 5e, you're fundamentally altering power levels of classes which have theoretically been balanced against each other; maybe not in a straight damage-per-round balance, but balanced for overall level of usefulness in a party. It would almost require rebalancing all classes against this new paradigm, which then spirals to needing to rebalance all encounters to compensate, and so forth.

Such a setting works with if the low-magic rules changes are applied to all magic classes equally, and a number of magic-lite class options are banned or seriously restricted, like sunsoul and shadow monks, arcane tricksters, eldritch knights, maybe even paladin and ranger (or converted to more "classic" versions through homebrew archetypes). Full caster classes would all need to acquire their known spells through means similar to the wizard, though clerics, druids, etc. would add the spell to their known list rather than scribe it in a spellbook (or maybe they would require prayer books of a similar sort). The warlock and sorcerer don't fit this paradigm well, as warlocks spells are granted/powered by the patron, but the warlock could still have to seek out new ones through questing or petitioning his/her patron. Sorcerers are the hardest to justify, as their mechanics are tied to the fluff of their magic being intrinsic due to bloodline.

All classes which use magic should operate under the same guidelines for spell research and acquisition. The actual fluff of the mechanics can be different (wizard spends x days scribing an ancient fireball spell in his spellbook, priest communes with his deity in seclusion in a temple until knowledge of the miracle of spiritual weapon is granted, a druid sits out in a thunderstorm on the top of a mountain in order to gain enough insight into nature to harness the call lightning ability, and warlock requires x days of service to her patron before the patron reveals the secrets of hexing her foes.

Further, you could/should enforce similar training requirements for non-magical class features which directly add combat prowess to a character, such as battle master maneuvers, rogue sneak attack increases, monk chi abilities, or learning new feats.

Arbitrarily forcing this only on the wizard class will likely result in a lot more sorcerers and warlocks at the table, and likely fewer players at the table as some won't want the restrictions of this kind of gameplay on their character concept.