Limited spellcasting: Only every other level. Effect?

[Driddle]

How would a "standard" (heh!) D&D campaign change if the DM placed the following limitation at the beginning?: Characters (and NPCs) can only acquire spell-casting abilities every other level; they must multiclass.

This would mean that any mage or priest who reached 20th character level would have a maximum of 10 caster levels.

How would this affect the DM's adventure trappings? A player's decision to play a spellcaster? The setting's so-called overall magic "level?"

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

In no particular order:


Quite a big change would be magic items... If the straight out of the DMG creation lines were used... Nothing over caster level 10 - and IIRC, some types of items would be very rare, forge ring (CL-9), rods would be epic? Wands would also become much more impressive - wand of fireball is now a 'top end' offensive item!

Although that could be changed?

Spellcasters would be have a lot more other abilities!

I guess 'Direct damage' magic would not be particularly effective or popular.

It'd make for a very different game!


If this applies to the 'full casters' - druids, wizards and clerics.

If Paladins and Rangers are left as they are and could be taken every level, then they would probably be more popular. Their spellcasting abilties aren't that far behind a half level wizard. Their fighting ability rather more impressive.

If left alone Bards would be really, really powerful!

Certain Prestige classes may need to be changed? The 'half advance' stuff like the spellsword would now look better?

 

[Driddle]

Let's say paladins and rangers can be left as-is.

Bards, though, I'm not sure about. I'm thinking, perhaps, every other level as well? Or a maximum of two bard levels for every three character levels? ... Wouldn't want to make them more powerful than the standard mage or priest in this campaign.

 

[apsuman]

I recognize that this is perhaps against the spirit of your suggestion, but:

1. Multiclass with another spell casting class. Wizard/Sorcerers. Yeah at level 20 they might not have anything more than 5th level spells, but man would they have a buch of spells to cast.

2. Cleric/Wizards. Heal + Offense. The slow progression would be less than oodles of fun but the effective character would rock!

3. If I had to multiclass, I would choose either Barbarian simply for the Hit points or rogue for the skill points and the sneak attack. Adding Xd6 to certain ray attacks would make that look like a good class to take.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

Benefit: Most save-or-die spells are no longer available.
Benefit: Most troublesome spells (shapechange, teleport, polymorph, scrying, etc.) are no longer available, or available only at very high levels.

Drawback: Some combats will take longer, as it will be more difficult to take out large groups of enemies with one spell.
Drawback: High-level healing will not be available, so most parties will need more than one cleric, or have to rest more often.
Potential drawback: Will creature SLA's also be changed? If not, creatures with high-level SLA's, save-or-die effects, and such will have a significant advantage over the party. One demon with improved teleport at will may be essentially unbeatable.

Benefit/Drawback: Due to caster level requirements, most magic items will be low-level. No weapons/armor above +3, for example. No rings or staves(Forge Ring and Craft Staff require caster level 12). Many fewer rods.
Benefit/Drawback: Because of limited caster levels, special materials will be more valuable. Admantine, mithral, darkwood, etc. don't depend on caster level for their benefits.
Benefit/Drawback: A few skills may have many fewer ranks than normal (knowledge - religion), due to cross-class limits.

It really depends on the type of campaign you and your players want.
*Unless you want to significantly change the rules for item creation, you've automatically weakened item power significantly.
*Unless you use a different hit point system, you'll need more healing.
*Unless you change certain monsters, you'll be more limited in what you throw at the party - the CR's will certainly change based on the party's more limited spells and items.
*Unless you want the characters to be able to avoid these limits, you'll have to study carefully every PrC in the campaign - too many are already unbalanced for normal D&D. They would likely be even more so in this campaign.

Sounds like it would work fine for a more heroic (vs. superheroic) style campaign, but you'll have to be very careful concerning the challenges you throw at the party. It really comes down to whether or not your players will enjoy this style of campaign.

 

[Greybar]

I think it's a good idea, one that I've toyed with but never implemented.

One nice side note - Raise Dead becomes a world-shaking spell at the tiptop of abilities instead of just midline. I know a lot of people may like that.

The comment about direct-damage spells being downgraded is exactly the kind of insight that I think would be important to realize. Even more subtle would be that DCs might become easier and easier to defeat. You might want to consider some means of boosting them as part of the rule change. Maybe have the DC work on spellcaster level instead of spell level? Or spell level plus half spellcaster level (plus attribute bonus).

Matching the monsters to the PCs could require some work. Heavy special effect monsters could be a problem and you may just want to elimate them (medusas, anything with a death effect, demons/devils). Any creature with a book-standard SR will be nearly immune to your PC spellcasters. Similarly the lack of magical weapons due to lack of makers will make you want to look carefully at anything with a DR.

what else...

 

[Driddle]

Matching the monsters to the PCs could require some work. ...

True. But I've always been an advocate of DMs tweaking results behind the screen anyway. If, for example, the party has fought hard and well and is clinging to the edge by their fingernails near the end of the battle, I'm not adverse to downgrading a 12HD monster to just 10HD. (Every so often; don't make a habit of it or the threat means nothing.) At least until everyone is able to get a better feel for exactly how tough the scenarios are.

I'd think that downgrading magic overall this way also makes certain monsters a little more dreadful and notable. ... And their treasures more epic.

But it might be helpful to downplay the "leveling up" status change that's inherent within most campaigns, that nebulous area of transition between a character and the player when you exclaim, "Whoo-hoo! I got my next hit die and a Level X spell!" Instead of a big whoop-de-doo about learning new spells as you move from a level-5 mage to a level-6 mage, the character would (for example) move from a level-3 mage to a level-3 rogue (or whatever), and then a level-4 mage later. Would it be implied that he's not a fully committed spellcaster at ever other level? No; it's just that it takes longer to reach the next new spell and that he is still studying magic normally - only that he's learning some other stuff (that other class level) at the same time.

Or so I figure. That's why I was seeking feedback here.

Because I can also imagine a lot of players being frustrated by the imposition when they're reminded that they can't reach those bad ol' spells.

 

[Kaodi]

Super Casters

I thought about this kind of mechanic recently too, and in terms of magic, you can squeeze some pretty crazy stuff out of this kind of system. By no means am I saying that this is necessarily a bad thing, but you could conceivably have a cleric 3/sorcerer 3/wizard 7/mystic theurge 7 that would have 27 combined caster levels able to cast 5th level spells in two classes and 4th level spells in another, which would go a fair way in terms of damage potential. Alternatively, a cleric 3/wizard 3/druid 7/mystic theurge 7 would have a little additional healing power compared to a cleric 10/wizard 10... of course, the second combination is difficult to justify...
One of the best things about this kind of system though is that it makes it possible to have comparitively leveled monsters with decent spellcasting power, if max is half of HD rounded up, or half of ECL rounded up. A lizardman druid 5/barbarian 2 wouldn't be totally outclassed in a party with a wizard 5/fighter 5, as opposed to a lizardman druid 7 vs. a wizard 10.
Just some thoughts.

 

[Driddle]

Sounds as though there would still be plenty of players who would multiclass into another spellcasting profession only for the purpose of gaining more spells - not necessarily as a roleplaying goal.

I was interested in the mechanic primarily for slowing down magic progression for to make a less mana-based campaign. It really didn't cross my mind that the average player would want to multiclass that way. Bummer.

How about revamping the initial guideline, then?: At any point in your career, no more than half your character levels can be able to cast spells.

 

[Kaodi]

More On Levels...

I'm not really sure how that would work out... looking at the number of spells per day a wizard can cast, I notice that at 10th level its 4/4/4/3/3/2, and at 20th level is 4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4/4, which means that the half level wizard only gets half as many of his highest level spells as the full level wizard. A different approach might be to just remove the mystic theurge prestige class in such a setting, limiting players to 20 combined levels, which would keep them from having a more powergamish setup.