D&D 5E 3/4 Caster: Its Absence and Design Space in 5E

[Yaarel]

The 5e fullcasters are already bare bones at the highest levels, only one for each of the highest level slots. I cant imagine it being even worse.

I lack interest in a nerfed spellcaster, a hypothetical 2/3s or 3/4s caster that wouldnt get much for the single slot 8 and single slot 9, anyway.

 

[Yaarel]

5e was designed with 6-9th level spells being the broken spells . The 1/2 caster isn't supposed to get them.

Adding a 3/4th caster requires defining the difference between 6th and 7th level spells and 8th and 9th level spells outside of power.

Actually, slot 5 spells have many very powerful spells. By contrast, slots 6 to 8 tend to disappoint and often are noticeably subpar enough to belong in one of the lower levels. Only one or two spells per slot are worthwhile. Thus the high slots are less effective than one might hope.

Few games reach these slots. There would be more complaints if they did.

Generally, restricting spells by class severely interferes with the ability to ensure that the spells of the same slot balance with each other.

Slot 9 tends to be powerful.

 

[Yaarel]

Wish is exceptionally powerful. It merits being its own spell, at slot 10, becoming available at level 19.

Wish is a universal magic, the essence of magic itself. It seems to me, any fullcaster can gain this spell at level 19, by means of various thematic flavors.

 

[Minigiant]

Actually, slot 5 spells have many very powerful spells. By contrast, slots 6 to 8 tend to disappoint and often are noticeably subpar enough to belong in one of the lower levels. Only one or two spells per slot are worthwhile. Thus the high slots are less effective than one might hope.

Few games reach these slots. There would be more complaints if they did.

Generally, restricting spells by class severely interferes with the ability to ensure that the spells of the same slot balance with each other.

Slot 9 tends to be powerful.

The 6th-9th level spells and slots tend to have easier ability to warp campaigns.

5th level and below are powerful but tend to have duration, target, or restrictions that limit abuse.

 

[NaturalZero]

D&D doesn't need more casters. D&D needs more non-casters.

I'm just stick to death everything using spell slots and the same master spell list from the PHB. I like supernatural stuff like the echo knight, the psi knight, and the runeknight, but what makes them stand out so much is that most of the 5e subclasses keep going back to the well over and over and over and over.

 

[Yaarel]

The 6th-9th level spells and slots tend to have easier ability to warp campaigns.

5th level and below are powerful but tend to have duration, target, or restrictions that limit abuse.

I agree in principle.

With regard to the actual spells, the slots 6 to 8, are highly imbalanced compared to each other, mostly conspicuously subpar compared to other spells.

For example. Sunbeam and Freezing Sphere are more comparable to slot 5 spell. Circle of Death is more comparable to a slot 3 spell. And so on.

The high slot spells tend to imbalance thus be less useful as a metric to determine class balance.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I would say that the "Gain" is that all of them have the ability to whip out the same magnitude of magic for game balancing purposes in a given encounter, while also differentiating the classes significantly through available spell slots. The Bard winds up with a lot less slots than the Wizard or even Cleric, so they must rely on other aspects of their class once their limited spells are expended.

It also hearkens back to AD&D's "Seven Circles" of Cleric spells.

If the phrasing is too much, call them Level for Arcane, Circle for Divine, Cycle for Primal, and Stanza for Bards.

In which case a 9th level spell is as powerful as a 7th circle spell or a 5th stanza spell.

I played plenty of 2e and 3.x back in the day, and I didn't find that spells at different levels made things more interesting, just more wonky.

What you're proposing with the bard is effectively the same as eliminating every even level spell from their spell list (in 5e). While that would certainly differentiate them, it would do so in a way that simply doesn't add much that I can see, beyond a greater potential for dead levels.

 

[Minigiant]

I agree in principle.

With regard to the actual spells, the slots 6 to 8, are highly imbalanced compared to each other, mostly conspicuously subpar compared to other spells.

For example. Sunbeam and Freezing Sphere are more comparable to slot 5 spell. Circle of Death is more comparable to a slot 3 spell. And so on.

The high slot spells tend to imbalance thus be less useful as a metric to determine class balance.

That's more from WOTC being willy nilly and inconsistent with damage spells

 

[Steampunkette]

Not really. I mean, a tiny bit, but not really.

Fair.

Tons. Which is why I'm not at all keen on EVER going back to the ways it does things.

Also fair.

I'm aware. I'm also aware of (a) the serious balance problems it created and (b) the very good reasons why 5e didn't replicate that. (One of the few design decisions in 5e that I unequivocally support, actually.)

It definitely caused some balance issues. Which this suggestion fixes by bringing the levels you get access to spells to the same character level even if your individual class's "Spell Level" is a bit different. But that's kind of beside the real point that you're making, and I respect that.

That's what you said. But if it actually ends up balanced, I honestly don't see what the difference is between this and 4e powers with a funky schedule; they'll all be unique to each class, or so it was implied, since your proposed 5th level stanza Bard spell is meant to be the equivalent of a 9th level Wizard spell or a 7th circle Druid spell. And if it doesn't end up balanced, then yes, you would have reinvented the old way of doing things, which would cause a lot of problems. I had assumed you were not interested in intentionally making unbalanced mechanics. Are you meaning to disabuse me of that assumption?

See... I don't get the "Powers" thing that you're going for, here. Maybe I didn't play enough 4e to understand your particular perspective. This part kind of helps, though:

So it seemed pretty clear to me that you were inventing class-specific lists of opt-in actively-spent abilities, where the rate at which one gets them is radically different from one class to another. Which is quite easily read as "4e powers, but without the common resource schedule."

So... What I'm taking from this is: All Spells are basically 4e Powers, but this design decision breaks it from the "At Will/Encounter/Daily /Utility" structure that 5e has in the form of near-identical spell slot availability across full casters.

Feel free to correct me on this if I've misunderstood, but that's what I'm taking from this 4e comparison.

And the answer is... I don't feel like it's nearly the same. In any regard. Yeah, Bards would wind up with fewer spell slots compared to Wizards and Clerics (Lacking parity in the form of 2nd level, 4th level, 5th level, and 8th level spell slots, as compared to the Wizard. So where a Wizard would get 22 Spell Slots per day (Plus Arcane Recovery) the Bard would get 12, just about half, as it stands. (Though that could probably be workshopped a bit, for balance purposes)

But, honestly... how many characters cast 22 spells in a day? We often talk on these boards about how combat rarely lasts more than 3-4 rounds and practically no one uses the 6 encounter 3 short rest day. 6-10 rounds of combat means the Wizard will be dumping their highest level spells and so will the Bard, but where the Wizard has 7th level spells to follow up that 8th and 9th, the Bard would only have the 8th and then be down to 6th. And thus have to rely on other class abilities in place of them. To also play "Fighter" or "Rogue" or, y'know... Bard.

Where it would really matter is in the first 10 levels, anyhow, where most D&D play takes place. And in that range the Bard is losing 2nd and 4th level spell slots. So they'd have 9 spell slots compared to a Wizard's 15. 3/5ths of the available slots is pretty strong, but without the flexibility and granularity of the Wizard.

Personally I think that's pretty fun. And in place of the 2nd and 4th level spells: New Class Abilities that better suit Bards. Which is where your final position steps up.

It's not those specific things, and it's a bit tedious that you are taking it as such, as I felt I was pretty clearly giving examples of the kind of thing that it sounded like you're talking about, not "it would be EXACTLY this SPECIFIC thing and NEVER anything else." Like...could you have at least a little charity in reading what I wrote? I was giving those as examples of classes with actually unique ways of doing things, that had class-specific abilities on entirely different schedules from one another (as in, not even commensurate the way 5e spells currently are). You specifically described it as "the same level of power"--rather than them actually being literally identical spells. Which, I mean, if you had meant they were literally the same spells, you could have just said, "a 5th-stanza Bard spell is a 9th-level Wizard spell" (though the practicalities of how that would work are...complicated at best, and I think you have an extremely rosy perception of how easy it is to design such things).

You're using something I have no reference to which was bad game design and saying "This thing was bad game design." and I'm like... "Okay... so ... don't do bad game design?"

Maybe we should talk about what special thing we'd give Bards at 3rd or 4th level to offset the loss of 2nd level spellcasting and then try to design and balance it well, then compare it to the loss? My idea was some form of Magical Performance that they can keep active every turn as a Concentration Effect (Since they'll have less spell slots to use Concentration Spells in) which apply party buffs or enemy debuffs. Maybe something like granting extra movement and a d4 to attack and damage rolls to up to 10 characters, or a distracting performance which applies disadvantage to various skill checks for enemies, or some kind of staccato performance which lets the Bard expend their reaction to impose disadvantage on enemy attack rolls by playing a harsh note right when they swing or something... And having the Bard get access to several of these performances at different levels. With performances learned at higher levels being stronger than lower level performances.

Basically giving them Concentration Spells that are specific and explicit to the Bard Class and baked into the chassis itself to help reinforce the idea of Bards being performers and buff/debuff/manipulators. Sort of how Warlocks gain Invocations to help reinforce their specific narrative of being "Strange Spellcasters Empowered by Weird Methods".

As to the Stanza/Circle/Level thing... Sure. I apologize for not getting my point across that they could share spells between lists fairly effectively, so long as the power-level was respected. No giving Bards access to Wish as a 4th "Stanza" spell, for example (Equivalent to 8th Level Wizard Spells). That's really on me.

And I think I finally understood the 4e thing, here. Because you thought I was talking about making a whole boatload of Bard-Only spells and that was the only spells they could take, compared to Wizard-Only and Cleric-Only. Yeah, that wasn't my intention, and I apologize for failing to get it across.

Been there, experienced that, didn't much like it there, and double don't like trying to graft it into the 5e system of spell levels and upcasting.

Fair.

Mostly did, and I don't fancy going back to that system if I can. It was largely preserved in Pathfinder due to OGL and compatibility. But it's not exactly some mystery why the 3E spell system got dumped by 4E, 13th Age, 5E, PF2, or nearly any designer who worked on or touched 3E. It was a hot mess.

Mostly fair. Though the reason it got dumped by 4e was to try and make the game Mini-Wargames-Style so all spell concepts had to go out the window in favor of making it all inter-class-compatible for balancing purposes.

13th Age was never meant to be D&D and wasn't based on 3e, 5e picked up the shattered pieces of 3e and 4e and put them back together, and PF2 completely shifted their paradigm to "Everything is FEATS! You want a Feat for your Feet? HAVE FEET FEATS!!!" so they did their own total restructure...

But. That's different from what I've suggested, as well.

I played plenty of 2e and 3.x back in the day, and I didn't find that spells at different levels made things more interesting, just more wonky.

What you're proposing with the bard is effectively the same as eliminating every even level spell from their spell list (in 5e). While that would certainly differentiate them, it would do so in a way that simply doesn't add much that I can see, beyond a greater potential for dead levels.

Fair. It does have an opening to create Dead Levels. Though the core idea is explicitly to fill those Dead Levels with something specific to the class, such as Bardic Performances or some kind of Cleric Rite or something similar. Just something to better differentiate the classes outside of their spellcasting.

 

[Aldarc]

Mostly fair. Though the reason it got dumped by 4e was to try and make the game Mini-Wargames-Style so all spell concepts had to go out the window in favor of making it all inter-class-compatible for balancing purposes.

You say this as if this was the only reason it got dumped as opposed to there being multiple reasons it got dumped in 4e.

13th Age was never meant to be D&D and wasn't based on 3e, 5e picked up the shattered pieces of 3e and 4e and put them back together, and PF2 completely shifted their paradigm to "Everything is FEATS! You want a Feat for your Feet? HAVE FEET FEATS!!!" so they did their own total restructure...

13th Age was designed by Jonathan Tweet (3e Lead Designer) and Rob Heinsoo (4e Lead Designer) to essentially be a spiritual hybrid of 3e and 4e D&D.