A Few Balance Changes I'm Considering

[Quartz]

Here are the changes I would make (adds a bit of complexity to the RAW though):

How about applying the KISS principle: if you Dispel or Counterspell using a slot X or more levels lower you apply Disadvantage to the roll. IPOF right now there seems to be no actual benefit to using a higher spell slot if you need to roll.

 

[GMMichael]

So having run several campaigns in 5e, there are a few houserules I am considering for my newest one. Part of this campaign will be that the party operates as team connected to a very powerful city (which even has access to 9th level spells). This means that certain spells that would normally be above the party's paygrade are available to them. Doesn't mean they get them like candy, but there is a reasonable expectation that certain high level "fixes" are out there when needed, especially in crucial moments.

Some things you might want to consider (and some you probably already know):

- Murphy's Law of GMing states that players will always do what you don't expect them to do. The only protection against this is Rule Zero, which should be used prudently.

- While players can do the unexpected in the real world, magic can do the unexpected in-game. Opening up 9th-level spells (or any magic, really) to greater than one-off frequency is likely to warp societies beyond any reasonable expectations. Which is fine as long as your players come from the Harry Potter school of fantasy...

- If NPCs are casting the spells, and not your PCs, you don't need rules for those spells. If a player says, "hey! That's not in the book!", you might remind the player that your NPCs don't have copies of the PHB. They must be using other spellbooks.

 

[Stalker0]

Here are the changes I would make (adds a bit of complexity to the RAW though):

1. The DC 10 plus two times the spell level of the spell your are trying to dispel.
2. For each spell level of the slot used to cast Dispel Magic above 3rd, reduce the DC by 1.
3. A spellcasting check is required for 1-3rd levels spells as well (it isn't automatic).
4. If you fail on the check to dispel, you can only try again using a higher-level slot.

This is a very solid idea. One way to simplify it a bit is to put dispel magics modifier back on the caster.

Dispel Magic: Gain +1 to the spellcasting modifier for every level above 3rd.


Math is exactly the same as yours, but now you can have set DCs and let the caster do the math when they are deciding what level to cast the dispel. It also gives them a greater feeling of control, "I" am getting a bonus by upgraded "my" spell.

 

[Stalker0]

Here is one other counterspell concept that came from one of my players. The idea here is to let counterspell be a "stop the caster from casting this round" but without the super painful "you lose your turn and a spell".

So its great to hold off the wizard without crippling them.


Counterspell

Action: Reaction
Target: One creature within 60 feet that begins casting a spell.

Effect: Make an opposed spellcasting roll with the target. On a success, the target is unable to cast spells or magic item that cast spells until the beginning of your next round. The target does not lose any spells and can take any other actions as normal.

Upgrade: No upgrade options.

Action: Reaction
Target: One creature within 60 feet that begins casting a spell.

Effect: Make an opposed spellcasting roll with the target. On a success, the target is unable to cast spells or magic item that cast spells until the beginning of your next round. The target does not lose any spells and can take any other actions as normal.

Upgrade: No upgrade options.

 

[Blue]

In general I think these charges are well considered, with minimal ripple effects, and supportive of the style fo campaign you are running.

I do have comments on two of them:

1) Divination/Augury/Commune: Every time this spell is cast on the same subject per day, there is a 25% cumulative chance that you get no answer.

Does this mean that organizations with access to several casters (or just one high level one) can intentionally keep everything hazy for anyone else by just casting this about things they don't want others to know about?

Also, the 25% seems to be there to avoid comparing several different paths for the best result. Changing the failure to by subject would allow other subjects to be explored with certainty. High level casters with non-adventuring days on their hands can cast a lot of spells.

This I think has ripples about how it would actually affect the world that I don't think fit your goal.

5) Dispel Magic: A dispel magic check automatically fails against a spell 3 or more levels higher than the dispel.

This is actually an issue I have from my previous campaigns as well. It is way too easy for mid level parties to dispel any magic effect that have with enough casts. "There is a tomb protected by a 9th level effect!" "No problem, just give me a few casts of dispel and we will take care of it".

I don't mind dispels going a little above their pay grade, but the idea that a base dispel from a 5th level character can take out 9th level spells from a 20th level one is just a bit too much for me.

This works for me. Just to point out an alternative I've seen - once a caster has failed a dispel against something, they don't get a chance to succeed until they have gained a (caster) level.

So you would always have a chance, but you can't just spam them waiting for a good roll.

 

[Stalker0]

Does this mean that organizations with access to several casters (or just one high level one) can intentionally keep everything hazy for anyone else by just casting this about things they don't want others to know about?

Yep, and this was a very intentional consequence.

 

[Blue]

Yep, and this was a very intentional consequence.

Okay, if it's going to be used this way, then I'm against it.

It totally negates someone using a resource if will always come back with "Reply hazy, ask again later". That's not fair to the players. Better not to have the spell at all so they don't spend the slot.

And when you're casting a 5th level spell to directly talk to your deity or their divine proxy, and they leave you hanging because some other caster talked to some other god they oppose - that makes no in game sense either.

When intentionally used like this it feels like saying to the players: "if you spend a resource, you're going to get screwed, but you enemies can spend a resource and find out all about you because they have more casters. Oh, and it makes in narrative sense, it's just a mechanics element to screw you".

 

[Aridon]

Hi Stalker0,
Great thoughts! Can you tag this thread as 5E?

The whole board is kinda a mess now that all D&D threads are mixed.

 

[MoonSong]

- If NPCs are casting the spells, and not your PCs, you don't need rules for those spells. If a player says, "hey! That's not in the book!", you might remind the player that your NPCs don't have copies of the PHB. They must be using other spellbooks.

This is immersion breaking. I mean unless you allow your PCs to get their hands on the NPCs spellbook?

 

[Oofta]

Okay, if it's going to be used this way, then I'm against it.

It totally negates someone using a resource if will always come back with "Reply hazy, ask again later". That's not fair to the players. Better not to have the spell at all so they don't spend the slot.

And when you're casting a 5th level spell to directly talk to your deity or their divine proxy, and they leave you hanging because some other caster talked to some other god they oppose - that makes no in game sense either.

When intentionally used like this it feels like saying to the players: "if you spend a resource, you're going to get screwed, but you enemies can spend a resource and find out all about you because they have more casters. Oh, and it makes in narrative sense, it's just a mechanics element to screw you".

What if it didn't use the spell slot? Back in the old days when we had to pay long distance for phone calls, you didn't pay if you didn't connect .. so if you get the deity equivalent of a busy signal, no loss.