D&D 5E The Decrease in Desire for Magic in D&D

[GMforPowergamers]

Also delete bounded accuracy.

yes and no... keep it but expand it a bit

if everyone and everything had access to expertise (like say fighters could get long sword expertise or short bow expertise) and give everyone jack of all trades (half prof to everything you aren't prof in) you will find teh system improves...

my fighter not prof in wis saves still has +3 in it by end game, and can have expertise in Con saves for +12 (both before stat)

 

[Gammadoodler]

How would you incentivize playing this spellcaster vs a class that doesn't kill itself to use its class features?

Make the chances low enough and the reward worth the risk.

The wild magic sorcerer is already a thing people play. I'd wager good money that you could graft the Wild magic table as is onto basically any spellcaster in the game, put the odds of rolling on it at like 5% or lower, and see no movement in how popular the class is.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The downside of course, is that your local Fighter doesn't get that many buffs, because most of them aren't worth the concentration to cast as opposed to other spells...

Do you think it would be a good solution if there was the choice for either the caster or the recipient to maintain concentration on a buff spell?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I would also have the risk increase the more risky spell you cast, as you strain and exhaust your 'magical muscle' (so to speak), so that your first big spell of the day will have almost no chance of failing, unless an enemy specifically try to interrupt you. As you'd gain level, the number of spell you can cast before racking up penalty would also increase.

Yeah, that's essentially what I have thought about in the past. Where the 'risk' ranges from simple spell failure all the way up to brain damage. (Temporary brain damage, of course, because this is 5e...)

Some spells could also describe custom failure effects. E.g., "On a level 3 failure, a more powerful demon is summoned than intended, and it's pissed."

Or a % table, kind of like the Wild Magic table, of all sorts of things that can go wrong. Could be a ton of fun. Maybe that's how the Sorcerer class could be really different from the Wizard. No spell slots, just risk.

 

[reelo]

Yup. Get rid of multiclassing and that problem goes away.

Dual-classing with front-loaded classes would be a good thing. You level up twice as slowly but both classes stay equal level all the way up. No multi-classing, no dipping, and no "build-optimization". That's the way I'd do it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

How would you incentivize playing this spellcaster vs a class that doesn't kill itself to use its class features?

back in 2e we had rules for crafting 10th level spells... in 3e we had some kind of ritual redo of it called epic spells. It took spell seeds set DCs of skills (arcane and religion mostly)to get basic effects. You could 'build' your spell with seeds and modifiers and limitations and costs (the last two to lower the DC) then you roll to get the spell off.

I would use a system like that and give the spell casters X number of seeds and Y number of modifiers they know as they level. Best part is you can keep the spells we have and just pre make them and explain the DCs...

 

[Bill Zebub]

Dual-classing with front-loaded classes would be a good thing. You level up twice as slowly but both classes stay equal level all the way up. No multi-classing, no dipping, and no "build-optimization". That's the way I'd do it.

Or simply that if you multiclass, whenever you go up a level you must increase your lower (lowest) level class.

 

[BrokenTwin]

I think that's probably a good approach for front loaded classes.

I've dabbled with this myself in class design, where 1st level had a robust kit, but multiclassed characters would have to gain 3 levels to get the same package of abilities (Apprentice > Journeyman > 1st level).

I've seen other approaches. I don't recall the system but there's one with classes designed such that at 1st level you get a core feature that is really good and enhances your other abilities. Multi-classed characters get everything except for that core feature (such that they'll always be a lesser variant compared to someone who started as that class).

I know Fantasy Craft does this, but I wouldn't be surprised if other systems did as well.

 

[SirGrotius]

Harkening back to the OP and the question of WHY he is desirous of a low-magic approach to 5E, a couple thoughts come to mind.

It almost reminds me of the defrocking of dinosaurs; before they were terrible lizards, now they are...birds! But in all seriousness, there seems to be an antipathy toward exceptionality in today's zeitgeist and that all people have a set of skills which are relative to them alone and not any one person should stand out as above others in any measurable way, such as having a higher Intelligence score and casting spells which break the bounds of the quotidian.

 

[FrozenNorth]

On the other hand, hypnotic pattern hits a lot of enemies, and if you're facing a group, they're weaker individually than you are and might not have a great save against the spell.

My experience has been that Hypnotic pattern is a pretty good use of a spell slot even against tougher enemies. 3 CR 5 trolls is a supposed to be a tough fight against a 9th level party, Cast Hypnotic Pattern with a 20 Int Wizard, and with a 15% chance of succeeding their save, that encounter just became a cake walk due to a level 3 spell.