D&D 5E Hot Take: remove spell slots, use Strain instead.

[TaranTheWanderer]

I have a book (Grimm Tales)where you can cast as much as you want but casting spells is deadly:

You cast a spell and you take 1d8/ spell level in CON Damage.

To be a good caster, you need several feats(I forget the names of the feats but):

• FEAT 1: lets you reduce damage equal to your spellcasting modifier: so 16 INT would reduce damage by 3 on each d6 rolled
• FEAT 2: Makes the Damage Strength instead of Con (so it weakens you physically, but won't kill you
• FEAT 3: reduces the damage from a d8 to a d6 then take it again to reduce to a d4. If I remember, there's always a chance where you take a minimum of 1 damage, even if you Stat is higher than the dice.

This was D20 modern Chassis so you got lots of feats and you had to invest in being a wizard and you could only find spells while adventuring. Nonetheless, I like this system of 'Spell Fatigue' much better. I feel there would be a way to make it work in 5e. Obviously, as written above couldn't work in 5e, but I feel there could be a way where spellcasting slowly wears you down.

 

[Ixal]

Why? Whats the advantage of this?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Why? Whats the advantage of this?

You would not have to track spell slots?

 

[Ixal]

You would not have to track spell slots?

You would still need to track which spell you forgot and which not.

 

[Dausuul]

• Casters have know spells and prepared spells, like usual
• When a player casts a spell, after the action is resolved, they make a ability check based on their casting ability. The check is made against a DC 10+Spell level.
• On a failed check, the spell is forgotten and cant be used until regained by a long rest and re-prepared is necessary
• If the spell has been cast since the last long rest, the check is made with disadvantage.
• If upcasted, a lower level spell must make a strain check against the DC of the upcasted level, and if failed, the forgotten spell is one of the upcasted level. You must have a spell know or prepared of the level you want to upcast your spell.

Interesting system--it would certainly force players to rely on a greater diversity of spells, since you can't just spam the same thing over and over. And I'm a big fan of alternative casting systems to make caster classes feel more unique. I do see a few issues with this version, though:

1. Disadvantage if the spell has been cast since the last long rest introduces extra bookkeeping. I'd prefer to adjust the base DC instead.
2. I'm not a fan of how you can lose a different spell when you upcast. I understand the logic behind it, but it just feels wonky.
3. If I'm a level 5 wizard with 18 Int, I can prepare up to 9 spells per day. Why would I not prepare third-level spells for all nine? Even if I fail every Strain check, that's still nine third-level spells for a 5th-level caster! And the DC is only 13, so I have a 60% chance to make it; that's an average of 22.5 third-level spells per day.

Personally, I would love to explore a system like this for sorcerers. The unpredictability of it feels very sorcerer-like, particularly if you can accept levels of exhaustion to keep going--and it might be able to replace sorcery points as well! I might sit down and crunch some numbers later to see if I can get the expected number/level of spells lined up with the regular spells-per-level chart.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I am more in favor of old school spellcasting personally. You have to prepared each spell the number of times you want to cast it. You can choose to spam a spell, but then you lack the utility of having other spells prepared and it takes strategy to a lower level IMO.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

The first think I asked myself is: What problem is being fixed? I don't see the problem with spell slots like in 5E.

For some missions, it is mission-critical that you can cast a spell twice (e.g. (1) teleport in, teleport out, or (2) invisibility, action where you become visible, re-cast invisibility, or (3) feather-fall on multiple people).
I would be reluctant to undertake such missions in this system... and because of that this would feel like it limits the abilities of the spellcasters compared to the default. If that's your goal, then go for it. As a player, I would not be in favor.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

In terms of narrative I like it a lot. I've always found spell slots from a narrative and worldbuilding standpoint (for most fantasy worlds, they serve the specific Dying Earth story they originated with beautifully and it is an absolute masterpiece). Some sort of less rigid exhaustion is compatible with a lot wider range of approaches to magic.

But, all that said, from a gameplay perspective I really prefer the predictability and balance of the spell slot system, and also don't want to have to do an extra roll after every spell.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This looks like it would make low-level spells dramatically weaker (and basically end all upcasting forever), while making high-level spells actually more powerful than they are.

So...nah, hard pass. Not because of the randomness (though that is also an issue), but because it hard-nerfs the part of spellcasting that least needs it while potentially buffing the part that dramatically does not need it.

 

[Mannahnin]

Why? Whats the advantage of this?

I think the idea is to make D&D spellcasting a bit less Vancian and a bit more unpredictable and unreliable, more like it works in other fantasy fiction.

I'm not sure this particular take quite works (as folks about have pointed some issues with the math), but I've had pretty good results running 5 Torches Deep for the last couple of years, which works similarly. Casters are definitely not as dominant or reliable in that game.