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

[Minigiant]

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.

I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be done. I'm saying that the it's not as simple or easy as it might seem. Like I said, there might be unintended consequences. Painting all 20 levels in the paint of T1 will look different because some types of foes common in T1 don't appear often in T4. A T4 goblin cave can easier by a death trap if you don't do a bunch of extra work.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be done. I'm saying that the it's not as simple or easy as it might seem. Like I said, there might be unintended consequences. Painting all 20 levels in the paint of T1 will look different because some types of foes common in T1 don't appear often in T4. A T4 goblin cave can easier by a death trap if you don't do a bunch of extra work.

I can't speak as to published adventures. But as someone who only runs stuff I make up myself, I can tell you it's objectively easier to make adventures for my Tier 3 party with no full casters then my party with 4 full casters.

 

[Helldritch]

If the DM sets the expectation right away that high level spells won't be a feature in the game, then there won't be any player expectation that they'll earn the right to use them.

Anyone can read the PHB. Gimping casters even more is not a solution. Expectations will not change. They might agree at first, but once there, they'll regret their decision. But, to each his own...

Minigant is perfectly right about what is assumed by the games' mechanics. The logic of his arguments are sound and up to the point. If high level spells are a problem, just send more enemies with counter spells in their arsenals. Send them in waves.

And the silence spell is deadly if you can't get out of the spell area because you are surrounded. Change your tactical approach against your players. It works wonders. Apply the gritty realism, make resting a bit more dangerous with random encounters. Force them to think resource conservation. You'll soon see that the nerf is unwarranted.

 

[TheSword]

It is interesting that you describe it as High Magic, it makes me think of the precious High Magic of elves, particularly for the creation of mythals and cooperative magic.

If you have multiple casters perhaps there are opportunities for ritual casting or higher levels spells when casters cooperate. Maybe they all contribute a level 5 slot the more casters that cooperate the more powerful the spell. Two caster can cooperate for a level 7 slot, Three for a level 9 (provided they are a higher enough level to cast level 9 spells). You could have the spell take a full round taking effect once the first caster that begins casting reaches their next turn. Giving more chance to interrupt.

And/Or you could say high magic spells can’t be pinned down into a single scroll or spell book. A caster can at best hold one spell at a time in their mind but after that a lengthy ritual (1 min at least) is needed to cast the spell - taking those combat ending spells out of general use but still allowing more utility based magic.

There are always ways of allowing higher level casters to do more per day. Maybe a set of stone tablets are needed to cast wish and the tablets drain a hp from everyone within a mile when cast. Or perhaps some spells are limited unless cast in a certain location - temple, Druid grove, laboratory.

By linking high magic to items you are removing the free form nature.

One other option is to say casters don’t get to learn High Magic, they have to be discovered in game. This can keep problem spells out of the equation.

In essence if this is how you want to proceed there are lots of ways the DM can soften the blow and actually make Higher Magic seem epic.

 

[jayoungr]

Because that 36 damage (when they get hit and actually take the damage, mind you...)

Just how good an AC are your spellcasters rocking?

Or do you need to goose the to-hit bonus on the enemies?

 

[Minigiant]

I can't speak as to published adventures. But as someone who only runs stuff I make up myself, I can tell you it's objectively easier to make adventures for my Tier 3 party with no full casters then my party with 4 full casters.

I would agree.

The assumptions of T3 weapons combat and skills are much easier to manage than the assumptions of T3 magic.
It also scales better.

 

[Laurefindel]

Couldn't you do an level 12 capped game and then just give out the higher level features by fiat, as rewards or boons? Give out high level spells as rituals with story-limited material components.

This is most likely the least "invasive" method IMO. Even high(er) level features and spells as one-offs are a lot of fun, and it opens-up a whole new realms of magic item possibilities (a barbarian sword that gives me +1 dice for my Brutal Critical feature? Sweet! A necklace of Persistent Rage? Nice!)

 

[Stalker0]

My goodness so many people are missing the point of this thread.

The OP has mentioned a houserule to deal with his specific group at a high level, this is not a permanent change to all of Dnd-hood. So lets shove away all of the comments about concentration, and 3 casters being powerful and xyz, and just get back to the basics at hand.


The first question the OP implied, do I think the addition of more lower level spellslots will compensate for the loss of the higher level ones? That answer to that is no. In my experience (I have run one campaign that ended at 20th level in 5e), casters have enough of the lower level magics, especially when rituals are factored in, and those magics are not the equal of the higher level powers. So this houserule is a nerf to high level casters. Whether your group believes casters need a nerf at high level is completely up to your group, but I would say this is one.

Then the question comes down to...is the problem your trying to solve preventing the "nova" or the "everyday nova". For example, one houserule I've been tinkering with is the notion that high level magic slots are per adventure instead of per day. But they would keep their slots as is...or maybe even have more slots. So this means that a caster could throw down on a given day when they need to....but once that high magic is blown, its blown for a long time. Part of my desire for this is just to change the world issue of "why don't high level casters just run everything". If high level magics are literally moments of story, powers that a wizard may not recover for years (at least for npcs that don't adventure)....then it makes them a lot "cooler" and less spammable.

 

[Helldritch]

Casters are already weak as they are. No need to nerf them further. The nova thing can be controled easily and should not be a problem. Casters going nova all the time should not do so without risks. But again, to each his own. I think its more a priblem of playstyle than a problem of the game's conception.

 

[TwoSix]

Casters are already weak as they are. No need to nerf them further. The nova thing can be controled easily and should not be a problem. Casters going nova all the time should not do so without risks. But again, to each his own. I think its more a priblem of playstyle than a problem of the game's conception.

Yes, but no one is arguing the game's conception is wrong. The OP is discussing changing the game to suit his playstyle. A lot of the pushback seems to be "you should just change your playstyle" despite it being fairly obvious from the OP's other posts that he doesn't want to change his playstyle.

I think a lot of the division seems to be some people having the belief that you should modify your playstyle before you think of houseruling; I would argue that it's better to houserule the game to suit your playstyle. (Assuming you're an experienced DM who knows the game, of course, and has a developed playstyle.) Nothing from the OP indicates to me that he isn't already familiar with "mix up your encounters" and "use counterspells".