D&D 5E (2014) [Primeval Thule] House rules for spellcasting

[Hussar]

Hrm, thinking about it, you could take a page from the Wild Mage. Every caster is now a Wild Mage and has a chance of a wild surge every time they cast. To keep the S&S feel, I'd exempt outright rituals from this and possibly add in the idea that if you take 10 minutes to cast any spell, there is no chance of surge.

Might have to make a different surge table - one that's a bit more ... chaotic ... but, that's doable. And makes it very difficult for PC casters to work.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I guess my question would be: if you don't want casters, why not just ban 'em?

Because saying: "You can play a caster, and if you do, then YOU GET SCREWED, SUCKA!" seems like raw un-fun-ium.

I don't know PT that well, but if the setting doesn't come out and forbid casters, maybe the idea is that people will have some fun consorting with dark magic? Maybe that's one of the selling points? "If you love casters, play PT and be a little dark and wicked!"

And if you'd like to ban casters, then maybe just take 'em off the menu instead of putting a "screw you" rule in place?

 

[Psikerlord#]

I guess my question would be: if you don't want casters, why not just ban 'em?

Because saying: "You can play a caster, and if you do, then YOU GET SCREWED, SUCKA!" seems like raw un-fun-ium.

I don't know PT that well, but if the setting doesn't come out and forbid casters, maybe the idea is that people will have some fun consorting with dark magic? Maybe that's one of the selling points? "If you love casters, play PT and be a little dark and wicked!"

And if you'd like to ban casters, then maybe just take 'em off the menu instead of putting a "screw you" rule in place?

For me, I don't want to ban or even discourage casters. But I do want some extra randomness in there, with a strong Cthulu theme, that makes spells more dangerous in general terms. Luck then determines - on a spell by spell basis - whether that danger applies to the caster, to others nearby, or to the target, or to everyone!

So it's not a straight up nerf/discouragement to play a caster. Casters are still fun and powerful, indeed they can be more powerful than ever. But they can also be less powerful. And either way, they are certainly more dangerous, relative to the standard DnD caster, inc the wild mage.

 

[Hussar]

I guess my question would be: if you don't want casters, why not just ban 'em?

Because saying: "You can play a caster, and if you do, then YOU GET SCREWED, SUCKA!" seems like raw un-fun-ium.

I don't know PT that well, but if the setting doesn't come out and forbid casters, maybe the idea is that people will have some fun consorting with dark magic? Maybe that's one of the selling points? "If you love casters, play PT and be a little dark and wicked!"

And if you'd like to ban casters, then maybe just take 'em off the menu instead of putting a "screw you" rule in place?

I have to admit, I'm strongly leaning I this direction. Ban full casters at least. If you have a group with two or three full casters, the campaign basically just becomes stock DnD and I don't want that. I want a low magic campaign and I can't see that happening if casters are dropping spells every encounter.

So, afaic, the options are dropping full casters entirely or making full casters unappealing enough that you only play one of you REALLY want to.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I have to admit, I'm strongly leaning I this direction. Ban full casters at least. If you have a group with two or three full casters, the campaign basically just becomes stock DnD and I don't want that. I want a low magic campaign and I can't see that happening if casters are dropping spells every encounter.

So, afaic, the options are dropping full casters entirely or making full casters unappealing enough that you only play one of you REALLY want to.

I agree you ideally only want 1 caster in the party (if any)

 

[Hussar]

I'll give an example of what I don't want to see. In our current Dragonlance game our 8th level party of four fighter types and two sorcerers have encountered a large fortified dragonarmy camp of about thirty baddies. We are frontally assaulting the camp, confident that our casters are going to turn the camp into a smoking crater.

That's very much not what I want to see in Thule. If you want to assault a camp of thirty, bring about ninety friends and go to town. Letting the casters nuke from orbit is not something I want to be an option.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For me, I don't want to ban or even discourage casters. But I do want some extra randomness in there, with a strong Cthulu theme, that makes spells more dangerous in general terms. Luck then determines - on a spell by spell basis - whether that danger applies to the caster, to others nearby, or to the target, or to everyone!

So it's not a straight up nerf/discouragement to play a caster. Casters are still fun and powerful, indeed they can be more powerful than ever. But they can also be less powerful. And either way, they are certainly more dangerous, relative to the standard DnD caster, inc the wild mage.

It's mild, but it's still basically a "screw you" to casters, a problem they deal with that the other classes don't. It you want to avoid discouraging casters, maybe consider some similar rule for warriors - perhaps equipment breakage, or lasting injury, or some sort of madness check at the monstrous violence they're perpetuating or something appropriately PT-esque.

I have to admit, I'm strongly leaning I this direction. Ban full casters at least. If you have a group with two or three full casters, the campaign basically just becomes stock DnD and I don't want that. I want a low magic campaign and I can't see that happening if casters are dropping spells every encounter.

So, afaic, the options are dropping full casters entirely or making full casters unappealing enough that you only play one of you REALLY want to.

Yeah, trying to make full casters unappealing is just making a trap option, an option you don't really want them to take and will punish them for taking. It's like a restaurant serving steak, but if you order it, it will be pre-chewed and mashed up in old bathwater before you serve it. Just take it off the menu. You don't really want to serve it, anyway. If the kind of game you wanna play doesn't include magic-casters as party members, just don't allow 'em.

I get the sense that PT overall isn't necessarily that kind of setting by default (since they don't ban casters or give rules for gimping them), but it is perhaps compatible with that vibe.

I'll give an example of what I don't want to see. In our current Dragonlance game our 8th level party of four fighter types and two sorcerers have encountered a large fortified dragonarmy camp of about thirty baddies. We are frontally assaulting the camp, confident that our casters are going to turn the camp into a smoking crater.

That's very much not what I want to see in Thule. If you want to assault a camp of thirty, bring about ninety friends and go to town. Letting the casters nuke from orbit is not something I want to be an option.

I think in that DL instance, you'll be disappointed if you expect the casters to do the heavy lifting. They nova'd and helped neutralize some of the big guns, but now they're significantly out of juice. We could've neutralized those big guns cheaper if we had some friggin' nets.

 

[TwoSix]

Having warlocks as the only major caster class seems fairly appropriate for sword and sorcery tropes. Play up the mystical powers of paladins and rangers (paladins are the champions of the gods, and rangers champion the nature spirits). But if you want real spellcasting power (say, 6th level plus), you need to swear yourself to something other, something unnatural.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I guess my question would be: if you don't want casters, why not just ban 'em?

Because saying: "You can play a caster, and if you do, then YOU GET SCREWED, SUCKA!" seems like raw un-fun-ium.

I don't know PT that well, but if the setting doesn't come out and forbid casters, maybe the idea is that people will have some fun consorting with dark magic? Maybe that's one of the selling points? "If you love casters, play PT and be a little dark and wicked!"

And if you'd like to ban casters, then maybe just take 'em off the menu instead of putting a "screw you" rule in place?

I was probably not clear, since I'm still just mulling over ideas, but I do not intend to make casters suck. What I want to do is make magic powerful but dangerous. Whatever tweaks I end up with will include options to balance the scales, at least in part I hope. That's why I mentioned defiling earlier as well as sorcerer-ish warlockery (as an overall single caster class in my setting). I'm considering options to allow the tacking on of metamagic effect(s) to any caster who wants to do so. But in exchange there is inherent danger in choosing to. Risk-reward. The allure of giving in to the darkside will be ever present. And in making it so, magic becomes something I'm hoping (if I do it correctly) will still be a great option for players.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Having warlocks as the only major caster class seems fairly appropriate for sword and sorcery tropes. Play up the mystical powers of paladins and rangers (paladins are the champions of the gods, and rangers champion the nature spirits). But if you want real spellcasting power (say, 6th level plus), you need to swear yourself to something other, something unnatural.

I really like this idea. Only permitting arcane casters as warlocks fits the fluff brilliantly I think. If a player wants to have a more traditional "lots of options" wizard type character, they can just take Pact of the Tome. Awesome.