D&D 5E Reducing High Magic (6th-9th levels) Spell Slots Option

[TwoSix]

If you just don't want to deal with high level magic don't run high level games. Every tool you need to deal with those magic exist in game as it's written. DM just needs to start thinking about big picture and how the PC's are hurting powerful interests with their actions.

One of the great things about D&D is that it's infinitely malleable. If you want to run a high level game (because really, most classes aren't a big problem at high levels in 5e) without high magic, it's fairly easy to do so. Then you don't have to worry about some of the complications that high level magic brings.

No one is saying that high level magic is bad and you shouldn't play it. But high magic does bring a particular flavor to the game, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to run your own games with a different palate of flavors.

 

[DND_Reborn]

But what do you mean by "too powerful"?

In T4, casters are balanced by having a handful of slots for spells that are buckets of dice and effects to wear down enemies. As you shift up tiers, your combat spells shift too. You arent tossing 3rd level fireballs at level 17 in the base game. That's for "trash" obstacles at best or for utility just like the old days. Especially since spells don't autoscale.

So the question is "what exactly do you want casters to be doing at tier 3 and tier 4?"

I mean one high magic per long rest (2 at level 20) is the "good" stuff the PC should pull out to save the party's collective butts when the time comes. But having 4-6 of them is too much for the style of game our group plays--it is "too powerful".

And, we are still tossing around lightning bolts and fireballs, by the way, especially when two or more foes end up in the AoE as 28 damage per target is very respectable in such cases. Which is why I feel having more 1-5 slots makes up for it.

How about this idea: instead of getting more high magic than one slot, the casters get a pool of spell levels they can use for any spell level from 1-5?

So, a level 20 caster would still have a 6th and 9th, but the additional 6, 7, 7, and 8 create a pool of 28 spell levels. He could use them for any spells up to 5th level and get 5 more 5th's if he wanted, or a dozen 2nd's, or whatever?

I'll add that idea to the OP.

 

[dave2008]

Yeah, one full caster wouldn't be nearly as big an issue probably out of a party of 4-6, but also wait until that Wizard gets 9th level spells... then let me know how it is going.

6 person group: one wizard and no cleric or any healer really.

I'm not 2 worried about hitting 20th level. We have done 3 one-off adventures at 20th level to test things out, so I think I have that covered.

 

[Minigiant]

I mean one high magic per long rest (2 at level 20) is the "good" stuff the PC should pull out to save the party's collective butts when the time comes. But having 4-6 of them is too much for the style of game our group plays--it is "too powerful".

And, we are still tossing around lightning bolts and fireballs, by the way, especially when two or more foes end up in the AoE as 28 damage per target is very respectable in such cases. Which is why I feel having more 1-5 slots makes up for it.

How about this idea: instead of getting more high magic than one slot, the casters get a pool of spell levels they can use for any spell level from 1-5?

So, a level 20 caster would still have a 6th and 9th, but the additional 6, 7, 7, and 8 create a pool of 28 spell levels. He could use them for any spells up to 5th level and get 5 more 5th's if he wanted, or a dozen 2nd's, or whatever?

I'll add that idea to the OP.

If 28 damage fireballs are still powerful at Tier 4 then your game is way off the baseline assumptions.

Based on what you are saying is that your game feels fairer when it tilts to "mobplay" and gets wonky when you have too few encounters, too many simple obstacles and hazards, and too many solo and duo enemies.

Tier 1 D&D and Tier 4 D&D play very different. Always has. It seems like you enjoy T1 and T2 and are trying to spread it out over the last 10 levels of the game. My point is that you need to do more than change high magic to do this. Just doing that will have a ton of unintended consequences and you can easily end up hating the result more than standard high level D&D play. You have to rewrite a whole lot.

EDIT: Also. DO NOT DO SPELL POOLS! DO NOT DO IT IF YOU ENJOY YOUR SANITY!

 

[TwoSix]

If 28 damage fireballs are still powerful at Tier 4 then your game is way off the baseline assumptions.

Based on what you are saying is that your game feels fairer when it tilts to "mobplay" and gets wonky when you have too few encounters, too many simple obstacles and hazards, and too many solo and duo enemies.

Tier 1 D&D and Tier 4 D&D play very different. Always has. It seems like you enjoy T1 and T2 and are trying to spread it out over the last 10 levels of the game. My point is that you need to do more than change high magic to do this. Just doing that will have a ton of unintended consequences and you can easily end up hating the result more than standard high level D&D play. You have to rewrite a whole lot.

You really don't have to rewrite much. After all, a party of a barbarian 17, rogue 17, ranger 17, and wizard 9/sorcerer 8 is still a Tier 4 party, but you don't need to drastically change play like you do with a party of wizard 17, cleric 17, druid 17, and bard 17.

It's not like there's a lot of published guidance as to what Tier 4 gameplay should look like, anyway. If you don't have some of the game-altering spells, you can simply run Tier 4 adventures like Tier 2-3 with more hit points and stronger enemies.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If 28 damage fireballs are still powerful at Tier 4 then your game is way off the baseline assumptions.

First, I didn't say they were "still powerful" I said they were "very respectable" which is a very different thing. And in D&D, what baseline assumptions are you talking about LOL?

Just doing that will have a ton of unintended consequences and you can easily end up hating the result more than standard high level D&D play. You have to rewrite a whole lot.

Well, I disagree since this is my idea for a fix from the things we have been experiencing at our table over the last several months.

Your objections have been noted, but I disagree with them. Thank you, regardless, for your input.

 

[Minigiant]

You really don't have to rewrite much. After all, a party of a barbarian 17, rogue 17, ranger 17, and wizard 9/sorcerer 8 is still a Tier 4 party, but you don't need to drastically change play like you do with a party of wizard 17, cleric 17, druid 17, and bard 17.

It's not like there's a lot of published guidance as to what Tier 4 gameplay should look like, anyway. If you don't have some of the game-altering spells, you can simply run Tier 4 adventures like Tier 2-3 with more hit points and stronger enemies.

I'm not taking about classes, I'm taking about how the spellslot system is supposed to work. The game assumes that a full caster contributes in combat and exploration with his/her/its top 4-5 levels of spell slots and cantrips. The lower slots become "filler junk" used for fodder and buffs.

By removing or limiting the top levels of spell slots, you drastically change what the caster can do and thus must shift the game to make their contribution remain the same.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not taking about classes, I'm taking about how the spellslot system is supposed to work. The game assumes that a full caster contributes in combat and exploration with his/her/its top 4-5 levels of spell slots and cantrips. The lower slots become "filler junk" used for fodder and buffs.

By removing or limiting the top levels of spell slots, you drastically change what the caster can do and thus must shift the game to make their contribution remain the same.

I agree with all of what you said, I would simply argue that's the feature of the proposed change, not a bug. The whole point is to allow the gameplay to shift.

And really, level 4-5 spells are still useful well into Tier 3-Tier 4. Monsters don't become immune to banishment or animated objects.

 

[Minigiant]

And in D&D, what baseline assumptions are you talking about LOL?

The assumptions of when certain effects are "unlocked" by spell levels.
The assumption of damage spells do by base level
The assumptions of defenses and offenses of monsters.

5E has the most spell assumptions of any addition. It's just not stated. But they exist.

The pit fiend was built with the assumption that your casters if you have them have 8th and 9th level spells. Trading in those slots for an extra 3rd is a huge deal.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The assumptions of when certain effects are "unlocked" by spell levels.
The assumption of damage spells do by base level
The assumptions of defenses and offenses of monsters.

5E has the most spell assumptions of any addition. It's just not stated. But they exist.

The pit fiend was built with the assumption that your casters if you have them have 8th and 9th level spells. Trading in those slots for an extra 3rd is a huge deal.

The are all still unlocked. It is just you will only get 1 (or 2 at level 20).
The second assumption has nothing to do with it.
Again, immaterial assumption and it has nothing to do with the concept at hand. Defenses and offenses of monsters don't change except the same as PCs.

All of those "assumptions" are the same in every edition, btw, and have no bearing on the concept.

Oh, and FWIW our party defeated two pit fiends, while in hell, with other devils helping them, at levels 17-18, without much issue.