D&D 5E How would you balance this modification to spellcasters?

Hawk Diesel

Adventurer

• May 23, 2018

• #11

Quartz said:

That's beyond the scope of this thread.

Click to expand...

Quartz said:

Well yes. So how would you balance it?

Click to expand...

Sorry, but changes to the rules are typically done for a reason, and usually done to solve some perceived problem. Without knowing the reason for creating this rule, we can't adequately evaluate its viability because we have no criteria to judge it by.

Balance is a subjective thing, and so if we don't know how you define balance or what your purpose for this rule change is, it cripples the community's ability to provide the kind of feedback you seem to be seeking.

For example, this rule will absolutely make spellcasters that are not warlocks more powerful. But we also don't know if you perceive spellcasters to be weaker than non-spellcasters, or if you want some counterbalance to include in non-caster classes to merit inclusion of this rule. There's too much that we need to make assumptions about because we don't know the problem you are addressing, how you see this improving the game, or your ultimate goal regarding this rule. Without this information, we must use our own bias or perspective on how we play or use the game, which could be vastly different to how you play or use the game.

Thus if we are starting from widely differing playstyles, we have no common ground to determine if your suggestion has viability or utility for introduction into the game.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

5

5ekyu

Hero

• May 23, 2018

• #12

Dausuul said:

Then I have nothing to offer. If I don't know what the house rule is trying to accomplish, I can't suggest changes to make it work better.

Click to expand...

Additionally, if its being seen as necessary or desired there are clearly off-book campaign isdues at play and if those necessitate significant power-ups, its folly to try and balance against normal campaign assumptions.

 

jgsugden

Legend

• May 23, 2018

• #13

I would never consider using such a rule.

If I were to include it for some reason, I'd exclude Warlocks from it.

If I were trying to achieve what this seems to be trying to do, I would instead have spellcasters (other than Warlocks) regain up to 1/3 their spellcasting level (as determined by the multilclass rules) rounded up in spells each short rest (following the Wizard's Arcane Recovery template), and regain half their spell slots, per spell level, rounded up on each long rest (meaning that they'd get multiple first through 5th level spells on a long rest after getting past the mid-levels on a long rest).

 

Sorcerers Apprentice

Hero

• May 23, 2018

• #14

How would I balance this?
By using the rules in the PHB instead.

 

M

MechaTarrasque

Hero

• May 23, 2018

• #15

Sacrifice a cantrip for every spell slot you recover. When it is time to recover again, you can change which cantrip(s) you sacrifice. You will be casting more non-cantrip spells, so your need for them will diminish.

Warlocks recover the sum of slots they would recover if they were a different class divided by the level of spell they are casting at (round down), so if the warlock was casting at 3rd level and had a PB of 3, he/she would get (1+2+3)/3=2 spell slots.

 

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer

• May 23, 2018

• #16

Quartz said:

Well yes. So how would you balance it?

Click to expand...

1) Lower spells per day to 1 per spell level.
or
2) Bard/Sorcerer/Ranger/AT/EK: Spells known cut in half. Wizard: Spells prepped = Int Mod + Prof Bonus. Cleric, Druid: Spells prepped = Wis Mod + Prof Bonus, domain/land druid spells not auto prepped. Paladin: Spells prepped : Prof Bonus.
or
3) You must spend one hit die per spell slot regained when spells are recharged per short rest.
or
4) [High power option] Warlocks learn all patron spells by default. If a warlock starts combat with no spell slots, gain one spell slot immediately. Rogue sneak attack uses d12s. Fighters/Barbarians/Monks gain extra ASIs at 3rd, 5th, 7th level.

 

S

Shiroiken

Legend

• May 23, 2018

• #17

You need to limit the amount of spells they cast in a different way, or you need to buff the warlock and every non-caster class (plus Warlock, who gets screwed).

To limit the casters, you could either require a spellcasting check every time a non-ritual spell is cast (DC: 10+spell level) with failure wasting the casting time. Out of combat spells might not be greatly impacted, but it'll make combat spells a risk.

Another limit on caster would be a life force cost. Either the caster or a willing/defenseless creature within 5 ft must lose 1 HP for every level of the spell, reducing their maximum HP by that amount until after a long rest. This would allow for a lot of magic to be used, but it will still cost resources (HP).

I cannot honestly think of a good way to boost the non-casting classes in a meaningful way to balance this. For the warlock, I would keep them the same, but allow them to refresh their spell slots with a 1 minutes ritual once per long rest.

 

cbwjm

Seb-wejem

• May 24, 2018

• #18

Like [MENTION=6803664]ccs[/MENTION], I'd just change it, run with it, and then sort things out later once I've done some playtesting.

As an aside, this rule could lead to the party wanting more short rests, especially as they won't be fully recharged after a long rest but then almost every other class will be recharging on a short rest so it might work out fine.

 

Quartz

Hero

• May 24, 2018

• #19

Dausuul said:

Then I have nothing to offer. If I don't know what the house rule is trying to accomplish, I can't suggest changes to make it work better.

Click to expand...

Try thinking about it in the abstract.

 

5

5ekyu

Hero

• May 24, 2018

• #20

Quartz said:

Try thinking about it in the abstract.

Click to expand...

"In the absyract" and "balance" do not play well with each other.

Its literally like asking for measurements of spices for a dish without telling us the other ingredients or quantity.

I use different amounts of oregano and ancho depending on whether i am making chili or spaghetti and if making it for four or twelve.

In the abstract going for worst case - give all classes not benefiting double hit dice and advantage on q save per level - then see how that plays put and reduce accordingly every ten sessions or so.