D&D 5E A 10-Level Variant for 5E for review and work

[DND_Reborn]

After our session the other day, our DM told us there are basically three "adventures" left in the campaign. One player is also DMing CoS, which we will play for a while before returning to our main game. But, when the main game is over it is my turn to DM.

A while ago I toyed with making an L10 version of 5E and got lots of nice feedback on it. I was giving it some more thought today about implementing it for my new game and adding an aspect for magic.

Basically, the idea is spellcasters will have their normal spell slot progression, but cap out at 5th level for the spells they can learn. 6th and higher levels spells are "High Magic" and have been lost to the past ages. Such magics can be found on scrolls, etc. but casters cannot learn them. So, the higher level slots can still be used to upcast spells of level 1-5.

My concern is whether or not removing 6th and higher level spells will really hurt most casters significantly as long as I am still granting them access to the slots to upcast.

Thoughts?

 

[dave2008]

After our session the other day, our DM told us there are basically three "adventures" left in the campaign. One player is also DMing CoS, which we will play for a while before returning to our main game. But, when the main game is over it is my turn to DM.

A while ago I toyed with making an L10 version of 5E and got lots of nice feedback on it. I was giving it some more thought today about implementing it for my new game and adding an aspect for magic.

Basically, the idea is spellcasters will have their normal spell slot progression, but cap out at 5th level for the spells they can learn. 6th and higher levels spells are "High Magic" and have been lost to the past ages. Such magics can be found on scrolls, etc. but casters cannot learn them. So, the higher level slots can still be used to upcast spells of level 1-5.

My concern is whether or not removing 6th and higher level spells will really hurt most casters significantly as long as I am still granting them access to the slots to upcast.

Thoughts?

If your doing L10, why have higher level slots at all, wouldn't that make it OP in favor of the magic casting classes?

 

[DND_Reborn]

If your doing L10, why have higher level slots at all, wouldn't that make it OP in favor of the magic casting classes?

It is a modified L10 variant where all the classes get their features up to level 20, but compressed. The OP should explain it in more detail if you want to review it.

 

[dave2008]

It is a modified L10 variant where all the classes get their features up to level 20, but compressed. The OP should explain it in more detail if you want to review it.

I went back and read that - sorry.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I went back and read that - sorry.

No problem. Thanks for taking the time. So what are your thoughts about restricting fullcasters to only level 1-5 spells?

 

[NotAYakk]

I assume you intend to make high level casters weaker compared to standard 5e, and not do so for high level non-casters?

 

[DND_Reborn]

I assume you intend to make high level casters weaker compared to standard 5e, and not do so for high level non-casters?

Well, by denying them 6th-9th levels spells, they will be weaker. However, by not denying them the slots, they retain the ability to casts as many spells and with upcasting the lower level spells, hopefully the change is not insurmountable. That is my concern, is it too harsh of a change?

I like it for the flavor of the world. Magic will be very rare. Many rechargeable "at dawn" items either not recharge at all or have longer recharge time (like a week or something). "High" magic spells are lost to the ages past, etc.

But, HP for all monsters is half. Characters will only have 10 levels, and so only a maximum of 10 HD as well. Thus, an upcasted Fireball at level 9 will be much more powerful than it would otherwise be in RAW.

You can look at the OP (if you haven't already) to get a feel for my intent. Will limiting spells to level 5 and under make them weaker? Of course, but the two options I have are to keep higher level slots, or give them additional spell slots for levels 1-5, as shown in the chart:

There are pro and cons to both ideas. One keep the number of spells per long rest and allows for upcasting to make lower level spells more powerful, the other grants more spells per long rest but keep the power level limited to 5th.

 

[TwoSix]

I'd do a little of both; add the extra slots for upcasting (or maybe special magical rituals etc.) and also increase the number of slots, albeit not as drastically as your chart. Something like 5-5-4-4-3-2-2-1-1.

 

[tetrasodium]

After our session the other day, our DM told us there are basically three "adventures" left in the campaign. One player is also DMing CoS, which we will play for a while before returning to our main game. But, when the main game is over it is my turn to DM.

A while ago I toyed with making an L10 version of 5E and got lots of nice feedback on it. I was giving it some more thought today about implementing it for my new game and adding an aspect for magic.

Basically, the idea is spellcasters will have their normal spell slot progression, but cap out at 5th level for the spells they can learn. 6th and higher levels spells are "High Magic" and have been lost to the past ages. Such magics can be found on scrolls, etc. but casters cannot learn them. So, the higher level slots can still be used to upcast spells of level 1-5.

My concern is whether or not removing 6th and higher level spells will really hurt most casters significantly as long as I am still granting them access to the slots to upcast.

Thoughts?

A lot of those spells are a very impressive chunk of caster power (wizard especially). Upcasting is nice & all but rarely as effective as casting a higher level spell & evel more rarely able to duplicate the effects of a nondamage spell of a higher level. The whole lost to past ages thing doesn't really work for every setting though... SK's in darksun can absolutely cast level 6+ spells... Keith Baker has flatly said about eberron that places like the arcanix have spellbooks with spells nobody living can cast (the last war took a toll) but plenty of scholars & arcanists can read them to understand the theories behind how those spells they cant cast actually work plus that The Dragons can cast eleventh & higher level spells.. For sigil it's just silly to suggest those spells were lost to a past age... etc.

If you wanted to put some limit on them you could tie casting them to the construction of a siege staff, eldritch machine, or a greater ritual that takes spell level hours to complete & compensate the awkwardness with some other power bump?

I guess that I'm not sure the point of limiting to 5th level spells & below.

 

[dave2008]

No problem. Thanks for taking the time. So what are your thoughts about restricting fullcasters to only level 1-5 spells?

I don't think it is an issue. Casters will still have the same damage potential, they just will not have the same utility (which other classes don't have, so it might be more balanced). I would suggest that maybe you can allow high level spells as rituals. You mentioned that they exist, but couldn't be cast? I would allow casting them as rituals. That way you can control what spells they get and when they get them. I don't remember the 5e rule, but you could make them ritual scrolls that are consumed when the ritual is complete.