D&D 5E Anybody have success with a restricted spells game?

[happyhermit]

In the past I have been involved in games where a wizard for example, did not automatically gain any new spells. The only way to gain new spells was to find them, learn them, or possibly research them with no guarantee of success at gaining a particular spell.

I really enjoyed those games, and while I can't say that it was never frustrating, it made the magic feel special in a particular way that most games don't. A new spell was a big deal. The GM was able to have whatever level of control they felt was best for their world, keep out spells that conflicted with things or they didn't like, and even create a unique feel to the magic in a particular game.

The obvious downsides are that players may feel disenfranchised, class balance issues, and it adds a fair bit of work for the GM.

Anyways, has anyone else had fun in games like that (or even been in one), and if so what made it work/not work?

 

[mellored]

It's fine, but you just need to make sure to hand out spells a bit more frequently. Including some above level.

Also, you might want to have quests to find specific spells. If the wizard want's to learn fireball, let him search for it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In the past I have been involved in games where a wizard for example, did not automatically gain any new spells. The only way to gain new spells was to find them, learn them, or possibly research them with no guarantee of success at gaining a particular spell.

I really enjoyed those games, and while I can't say that it was never frustrating, it made the magic feel special in a particular way that most games don't. A new spell was a big deal. The GM was able to have whatever level of control they felt was best for their world, keep out spells that conflicted with things or they didn't like, and even create a unique feel to the magic in a particular game.

The obvious downsides are that players may feel disenfranchised, class balance issues, and it adds a fair bit of work for the GM.

Anyways, has anyone else had fun in games like that (or even been in one), and if so what made it work/not work?

I've contemplated such a campaign--it would have a very Vancian flavor to it, with Mazirian hoarding knowledge of spells and runes the way most players hoard magic items--but I keep running into difficulties. For example, what do you do about sorcerers, warlocks, and (especially) bards and Eldritch Knights? Do they just spontaneously gain knowledge of their own spells innately, or do you likewise require the bard to observe a wizard and then replicate the wizard spell he's interested in? Do you make them do the spell research?

I think this is a fun idea, but I don't have an elegant way of working it into the 5E mechanics. If I did I would probably use it instead. Wizards automatically gaining spells kills a whole flavor of fun, from my perspective. I think rediscovering a legendary spell like Simulacrum, Mordenkainen's Disjunction, or Wish should be a big deal!

This bears thinking on.

 

[steeldragons]

Have always, still do, and always will.

Other than letting you pick your cantrips and 3 + Int. mod. 1st level spells to start with, you're on your own. Find, hunt down, buy, trade, undertake positions as assistants to greater mages for a time...sometimes steal...whatever you've got to do.

It's really not "more work" for the DM...and makes scrolls and enemy spellbooks truly valuable treasures.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm leery of taking that much agency out of player hands, especially with a rule that hits wizards but not bards, sorcerers, warlocks, clerics, druids, paladins, or rangers. In older editions, where wizards were (potentially, at higher level) far more powerful than other spellcasters, such an imbalance in spell acquisition made sense. No longer.

I can see ways to possibly make it work, but it would require a lot more changes than just saying "wizards don't gain automatic spells anymore."

 

[Mouseferatu]

And keep in mind that even in the halcyon days of 1E and 2E, where wizards were eventually more powerful than anyone else, PCs still got to choose some of their own spells. It was only 1/level rather than 2, but still.

 

[Maxperson]

In the past I have been involved in games where a wizard for example, did not automatically gain any new spells. The only way to gain new spells was to find them, learn them, or possibly research them with no guarantee of success at gaining a particular spell.

I really enjoyed those games, and while I can't say that it was never frustrating, it made the magic feel special in a particular way that most games don't. A new spell was a big deal. The GM was able to have whatever level of control they felt was best for their world, keep out spells that conflicted with things or they didn't like, and even create a unique feel to the magic in a particular game.

The obvious downsides are that players may feel disenfranchised, class balance issues, and it adds a fair bit of work for the GM.

Anyways, has anyone else had fun in games like that (or even been in one), and if so what made it work/not work?

I have great success with running games like that. I tend to increase the amount of scrolls in those sorts of games. Also, finding the spell books of enemy wizards is important. It's really not that much harder to see to it that spells are more prevalent than in games where the wizard gets to choose what spells he gets, and you get to keep the super broken spells out of the game.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I have no problem with that...but the DM better put some effort into the why's and wherefore's for his reasoning. Nothing annoys me more than a DM who just decides at the last moment..."No. You can't have that spell. I just read it and don't like it. Too powerful". :fume: If you are going to add a more distinct feel to the magic in your game (general "your" & "you" here), then you had better put actual thought and effort into developing why it is the way it is and not the way it is 'in the books'.

For example, if I had a world where the only way to learn new spells was through study and 'reverse engineering a spell found on a scroll/book' was via ancient tomes, parchments and secrets passed down through more accomplished wizards, then there would obviously be heavily guarded 'Spells of Power' (whatever those are). Maybe I'd divide the schools up into Chantry's scattered about the world. Each wizard would need to be a member of ONE of those Chantry's. They could stay a 'generalist', but would never learn the 'really powerful stuff', but would be able to learn a little bit about all schools. Those that took the rituals, rites, and oaths to the Chantry would become "Illusionists", "Evokers", "Necromancers" and the like. Each Chantry would have a list of spells it knows. Different Chantry's (of the same School) would have slightly differing spell choices. This would open up a reason for the wizard to want to adventure and seek out lost magic for himself and his Chantry. A lot of intrigue and politicking could be had as well. Members of other spellcasting classes may be able to become "Junior Members", with an even smaller selection of available spells to them (I mean, the true wizards would keep all the real good stuff for themselves...for various reasons). So a Bard could join the "Chantry of Tibore" that is an Illusionist School Chantry. They would have a dozen spells available to them of various levels. A Wizard (Illusionist) who was able to join would first be a Junior member, then Apprentice, then Full Member, and maybe Master Member...each step up the 'hierarchy' opening up more rare, powerful and esotric magics. Requierments for increasing in Changry rank could be unique to each Chantry...from simple "Must be level X and know these Y spells", to more in-game and role-playing based where the character has to be in good standing, petition others for votes, grease the palms of those of higher rank, promise favours to others, etc (think Game of Thrones...but for Wizards).

Anyway...yeah. I prefer to run my games with "limited magic choice" most of the time...if I have a campaign world I'm actually 'working on and creating'. If I'm just running a "lets play some D&D!" campaign (like right now), I generally don't put that much thought into it.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[happyhermit]

Have always, still do, and always will.
...

I have great success with running games like that. ...

Thanks guys, I was starting to think that I was the only one who ever did stuff like this in D&D.

...
Also, you might want to have quests to find specific spells. If the wizard want's to learn fireball, let him search for it.

The "hook" aspect is a big part of what I like about it.

..but I keep running into difficulties. For example, what do you do about sorcerers, warlocks, and (especially) bards and Eldritch Knights? Do they just spontaneously gain knowledge of their own spells innately, or do you likewise require the bard to observe a wizard and then replicate the wizard spell he's interested in? Do you make them do the spell research?

I think this is a fun idea, but I don't have an elegant way of working it into the 5E mechanics. If I did I would probably use it instead. Wizards automatically gaining spells kills a whole flavor of fun, from my perspective. I think rediscovering a legendary spell like Simulacrum, Mordenkainen's Disjunction, or Wish should be a big deal!
...

The fact that there are so many classes/subclasses with spellcasting in 5e does make it a bigger issue if the players are simply choosing from all of them by default. I only mentioned the wizard because that is my most obvious example. Played where the wizard was the only magic user, it was easy, it was also easy for the GM to spend the time to select/approve spells and make them interesting. When adding a cleric, they had to pray/study/meditate to gain new spells or learn them through a ritual from another cleric, this gave the GM a bit more to think about, which isn't always a good thing. When adding a sorcerer, they got it spontaneously, so the problem was to make sure they didn't just surpass the wizard in utility, so it was a bit more thinking for the GM. Bard was similar to wizard. That was pretty much as far as we went, no EK, warlock, etc but I see how they could be done, in theory at least.

I'm leery of taking that much agency out of player hands, especially with a rule that hits wizards but not bards, sorcerers, warlocks, clerics, druids, paladins, or rangers. In older editions, where wizards were (potentially, at higher level) far more powerful than other spellcasters, such an imbalance in spell acquisition made sense. No longer.

I can see ways to possibly make it work, but it would require a lot more changes than just saying "wizards don't gain automatic spells anymore."

Yes, I didn't mean to suggest that wizards were the only ones, just that that is what I am most familiar with. As for player agency, that is an issue, but it can be offset by allowing players to make choices in game (as opposed to char-gen and lvl-up) that gets them access to the spells they want, or through some sort of "research" house-rule.

I get that for most people the trouble wouldn't be worth the pay off, but I still like the idea.

 

[happyhermit]

Hiya!

I have no problem with that...but the DM better put some effort into the why's and wherefore's for his reasoning. Nothing annoys me more than a DM who just decides at the last moment..."No. You can't have that spell. I just read it and don't like it. Too powerful". :fume:

I actually don't like that either, as the player or GM, that stuff should ideally always be discussed at character creation. I think in a world where no spells are gained automatically this feels much less arbitrary though.

If you are going to add a more distinct feel to the magic in your game (general "your" & "you" here), then you had better put actual thought and effort into developing why it is the way it is and not the way it is 'in the books'.
...
Anyway...yeah. I prefer to run my games with "limited magic choice" most of the time...if I have a campaign world I'm actually 'working on and creating'. If I'm just running a "lets play some D&D!" campaign (like right now), I generally don't put that much thought into it.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Lots to think about, thanks