I've been considering running a game where I cap the maximum spell level at 5th level. I'd be using the spell-point variant, and I'd be keeping the available spell points at each level and the cost for spells of each level the same as listed in the DMG. The primary change I'd be instituting is at what levels the classes get access to higher level spells.
1st lvl spells @ 1st level,
2nd lvl spells @ 5th level,
3rd lvl spells @ 9th level,
4th lvl spells @ 13th level, and
5th lvl spells @ 17th level.
What I'm attempting to achieve by doing this is to create a feeling that high-end magic is less powerful in the game setting, and that the world's distant gods means no access to high-end miracles. However, I'm not trying to punish people for taking a caster class; hence the casters don't receive any fewer spell points.
What do you think of this approach? Do you have any thoughts, concerns, or criticisms.
I have a few different points on this. Each is basically separate from the others.
1. Accessability of abilities - the game seems that some abilities aren't available before a certain point, but ARE after that point. An encounter with flying enemies where the barbarian is allowed to fly. Hordes of foes and area effect (damage or crowd control), etc. These assumptions are baked into other parts of the game (class features offered outside spells, monster abilities, adventure design if using modulesetc.) This is just something to be aware of, that you may need to address these when they pop up elsewhere.
2. Question, where does upcasting fit into your picture narratively? Can a more powerful caster give a spell more oomph (for more spell points) even before learning the next level of magic?
In other words, is that list access to spells known/prepared, or access to spell slots?
Note that in the vast majority of cases, upcasting is still less effective/efficient then casting spells with an on-level slot - a 2nd level AoE cast at 3rd level will be very inferior to a Fireball cast using the same slot.
2a. One of Warlock's balance points is the auto-upcasting, how does that fit in?
3. This will be a nerf to casters no matter what. In 5e, the "default" is a cantrip. The effect of using a slot is not above no action, it's above what the cantrip does. With the same spell points but cutting out the more expensive slots, you end up with more spells cast per day. But that casting is above what a cantrip does, not above no action. And things like 1st level attack spells have little to no advantage over a cantrip at 5th level.
If you allow upcasting it's still a nerf (lack of utilities like fly, lack of buffs like haste or greater invis, less efficient damage, etc.) but not quite as bad, since you get back to spells stay worthwhile to use your action on, not just staying at cantrip level.
So you should consider a balance point to help keep them competitive in either case.
(Side note: If you make cantrips weaker that will be removing a large balance point between casters and other classes and would be another nerf - one that would make them completely uncompetative with both changes in play.)
4. This impacts half-casters a lot in terms of getting access to archtypical spells. It may also compeltely kill Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight - getting 2nd level spells at 15th level is just not worth it compared to the other subclasses.
5. I personally probably would not play a full caster with this set up. Maybe a Valor or Sword Bard, but still I'd likely go elsewhere. I'd play a paladin since I can still smite, and ranger isn't hurt too bad - but they already are lower on the power curve so this may be the last straw to look elsewhere. This is personal feedback, not a critique of the system as a whole.
