D&D (2024) How to reign in full casters for 1D&D? Maybe remove 6th to 9th level spells as a Variant rule.

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
Again this is a real issue. A staff of fire or wand of lightning bolt each takes a single attunement slot but can change how many “not damage but I win” spells the wizard can use
I try not to give out those items (ever) in 5e after noticing the same. I think the 2014 neovancian style of spell prep exacerbates the issue badly. A caster doesn't need a wand or whatever limited charge item to devote exactly as few or as many of a given spell slot level to x spell & they can usually even upcast if they need more.

The need for a wand or whatever of x spell created a concern about going crazy with it because it wouldn't recharge and finding a replacement might be hard to impossible. Having to prep each slot meant a caster always needed to weigh the cost/benefit of casting a given spell against the risk of potentially needing it more but not having it available later. All of that is gone now & it's just all "I Put on My Robe and Wizard Hat" dialed to 11 all the time .
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Undrave

Legend
That’s the thing way back when playing a full caster was hard. The easier we made it the more and more it stepped in the non casters.

It didn't exist in a vacuum and the system still carries elements devoted to supporting it... Which was why there were so many scrolls along with wands and other magic items carrying various low level spells a caster could rely on after getting them (usually through the gm in some way). There are still a bunch of them in the magic items tables for similar reasons to why there are so many magic swords compared to maces daggers and so on.
It's just a really fiddly system that doesn't make playing the actual game more interesting. Plus, it really feeds the superiority complex of Wizard players...

I'm also not a fan of stapling system complexity to a specific archetype.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
It's just a really fiddly system that doesn't make playing the actual game more interesting. Plus, it really feeds the superiority complex of Wizard players...

I'm also not a fan of stapling system complexity to a specific archetype.
Those choices are interesting, "fireballfireballfireballlet'stakearest" is not interesting. Fiddly" is a phrase used in 5e to dismiss an issue without going into reasons or pros and cons. Just it's fiddly and shall not be discussed.
 

HammerMan

Legend
It's just a really fiddly system that doesn't make playing the actual game more interesting. Plus, it really feeds the superiority complex of Wizard players...

I'm also not a fan of stapling system complexity to a specific archetype.
I’m not sure I would want 2e back. But I will say it didn’t feel as much like there was a huge power difference. Yeah wizards and clerics COULD get powerful but the limits where there
 

Milieu

Explorer
I’m not sure I would want 2e back. But I will say it didn’t feel as much like there was a huge power difference. Yeah wizards and clerics COULD get powerful but the limits where there
Yeah, AD&D magic-users were intentionally designed to suck at low levels and be the most powerful at high levels. The 1e PHB explicitly says
Thus, while magic-users are not strong in combat with weapons they are possibly the most fearsome of all character classes when high levels of ability are finally attained. Survival to that point can be a problem, however, as low-level magic-users are quite weak.
In 1e, 1st level magic-users had 1d4 HP (probably no Con bonus) and could cast 1 1st-level spell a day. So in a sense, it was "fair" that they got to be the most powerful eventually. And even then they were pretty much glass cannons, and had a lot of limitations that kept them at least somewhat in check. 2e reduced some of the restrictions a little, but 3e really let them loose, fixing the issue of them being really weak at low levels, but also removing most of the limits that kept high-level casters from running away with it. 5e classes are higher-powered in general, but they managed to remove even more of the limits on wizards. I think it's totally reasonable to add a few back in, though maybe not necessarily the same ones.
 

HammerMan

Legend
Yeah, AD&D magic-users were intentionally designed to suck at low levels and be the most powerful at high levels. The 1e PHB explicitly says

In 1e, 1st level magic-users had 1d4 HP (probably no Con bonus) and could cast 1 1st-level spell a day. So in a sense, it was "fair" that they got to be the most powerful eventually. And even then they were pretty much glass cannons, and had a lot of limitations that kept them at least somewhat in check. 2e reduced some of the restrictions a little, but 3e really let them loose, fixing the issue of them being really weak at low levels, but also removing most of the limits that kept high-level casters from running away with it. 5e classes are higher-powered in general, but they managed to remove even more of the limits on wizards. I think it's totally reasonable to add a few back in, though maybe not necessarily the same ones.
I don’t have much 1e experience I joined this ride in2e. However I remember more than one really powerful mage that got dropped due to a bad roll or two.
It wasn’t until a ways into 3e maybe even 3.5 that casters were being seen in my games as Star stealers.
 

Undrave

Legend
Those choices are interesting, "fireballfireballfireballlet'stakearest" is not interesting. Fiddly" is a phrase used in 5e to dismiss an issue without going into reasons or pros and cons. Just it's fiddly and shall not be discussed.
Look, having to pick each spell for each slot is needless complicated. If you want to change it up mid game that usually takes a while and non casters just end up twiddling their thumbs while the caster player makes difficult decision.

I’m not sure I would want 2e back. But I will say it didn’t feel as much like there was a huge power difference. Yeah wizards and clerics COULD get powerful but the limits where there
It doesn't have anything to do with their actual power level, but rather the idea that they are better player and much smarter player because they play the Wizard, that they have a SPECIAL STATUS for being Wizard players.
 


Lately I've been in the weeds designing my games magic system from the ground up.

Whats been interesting so far is just how far Ive been able to push my perspective that combat magic can be as high octane and jacked up as one wants, so long as utility magic is reasonably limited.

How I approached that came from two directions, lore and mechanical. Lorewise, magic is inherently dangerous; it fundamentally isn't capable of doing anything without destroying something. This basic tenet gives the fiction justification for splitting magic up into two different Skills (sort of paralleling the difference between say, Light Armor and Heavy Armor, but not quite) which govern how magic is accessed and utilized.

The first, Arcana, is considered to be the raw manipulation of The Mana. The user simply draws upon their internal stores of it to make something happen. Its through this skill that the improvisation of magical effects is attempted, which mechanically includes nearly all utility uses one might want.

The second, however, I have named Runewrite, the structured application of the Mana for a specific effect. Runewrite is what governs the explicitly codified Spells most are familiar with from other games, and is the skill that guides the creation of such spells, as all characters who use them will be intended to create their own. Unlike Arcana, which isn't going to terribly useful for a Combat (outside of my in-progress draft of my Sorcerer, that is), Runewrite is all about combat, and through it you can push spells to incredibly high highs, and can indeed access some of the few explicit utility spells that will exist in the game (behind a high skill gate and a higher crafting gate).

But what really keeps these balanced in my games context, aside from being split up so that no character is automatically good at both, is something Im integrating from DCC: Corruption.

As noted, magic in this system has to destroy something. So, for users of Arcana, while they can generally reliably succeed at casting any basic little spell effect they want once they get a few skill points in (but will still need to "get gud" to fire off really critical effects), it will often come at the cost of taking on a Corruption; sometimes these will be innocuous, other times debilitating, and sometimes even near deadly. Trying to spam your way out of situations is not ideal, and even those who max out their skill with Arcana will still be quite vulnerable.

All of which, finally gave me a solid enough basis to get after designing the classes themselves, the first of which in the Sorcerer is almost finished for its initial draft. Its core mechanic is also a adaptation from DCC in a magical version of the Mighty Deed, which I've called the Mark of Arcana. The basic idea is that the Sorcerer is designed as a mostly simple to play magical brawler, making improvised spell attacks utilizing Arcana Dice to drive damage and to enable you to make a Mark of Arcana, letting you, as with the Mighty Deed, do more or less whatever you want, with the only limitation being, like my Rogues Cunning Act, also a Mighty Deed adaptation, that whatever effects you induce cannot cause any direct damage in excess of your Arcana dice. If you rolled, say, 25 total, then thats as much damage as you'll do with however many Casts (like Attacks for Martials, but for mages) that you have, and that anything that isn't strictly a combat effect (offensive or defensive) will induce an automatic Corruption. So you could absolutely use your Mark to unlock a door in the heat of combat, just hope you have to deal with tentacle arms instead of a heart attack. (I just made these up lol)

But, in addition to this, the Sorcerer also gets Master of the Elements, an ability chain that gives them a variety of unique riders for all 10 of the different Elemental spells. For instance, the chain opens with Crackling Fire, which gives you a typical Chain Lightning effect, but also gives you the ability to rain Embers with your fire spells. These Embers emit at random from your fire magic and you can will them to be placed anywhere on the battlefield. When any entity enters the Embers tile, it explodes dealing 1d6 damage.

And the Sorcerer has more than this, but I want to keep going with that Ember effect so I can get to the point of this ye olde essay, as one of the subclasses, Fire Caller, is built around greatly expanding on it.

Fire Caller starts off by making the Embers more frequent and twice as powerful. Firing off fire magic at this point will start to litter the battlefield with them. As the Fire Caller progresses, the Embers become even more powerful, and it eventually culminates in the capstone Immolator, which among other things induces the Embers to, rather than simply peter out as they do normally, instead automatically explode at the end of the round. Fire Callers at this level are basically literring the battlefield with potentially a dozen or more mini nuclear bombs. Great fodder for the Martials and other Casters that can fling mobs to certain points on the battlefield. An Orc might get its head bashed in by a Barbarian, weakening it, only for that Barbarian to then use their Slam! reaction to throw them into the middle of some embers. Big booms, heckin good time.

Now I explained all that to support the original point, that combat magic can be as nuts as you want without issue. In this context, that same Barbarian can easily keep up with the damage the Sorcerer is putting out (they're actually mechanically symmetrical in that regard, funnily enough) and if that Barbarian happened to be a Beastheart Barbarian, they'd actually be outpacing the Sorcerer.

And meanwhile, both classes have a slew of things they can do for utility not only within their ability chains but also across the variety of skills both would be pursuing to level up, with virtually no overlap.

With magic set up the way it is, and the skill system a foundational part of the game, and yes, deliberately designed classes, theres a balance that lets everybody feel like they're going hogwild when mechanically they're right in the grooves they ought to be in.

Thats why, in regards to this topic, my view is and ever will be to just nerf the crap out of utility magic. Too many of these spells in DND only exist as "turn off these mechanics buttons", and even with reasonable failure rates, just their explicit existence is going to cause framing issues in regards to whats possible and what tools players actually have.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
Look, having to pick each spell for each slot is needless complicated. If you want to change it up mid game that usually takes a while and non casters just end up twiddling their thumbs while the caster player makes difficult decision.


Nobody used a magic slate to record spell selection. You are massively distorting how it was actually done in play by painting a picture of casters started with a blank sheet and filled in each slot whenever they recovered spells. Spells were recorded on paper. With pencil so they could swap out the niche things quickly if there was cause. Prefacing the distortion with "look" does not change the way it played out at the table.

Nearly every caster PC quickly settled into a rather static spell list where they might swap a couple spells. That was even quicker because the bread and butter spells were pretty stable with just the same couple oddball just in case niche spells getting rotated to some other oddball niche spells.
 
Last edited:

Split the Hoard


Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!

A competitive card game for 2-5 players
Remove ads

Top