D&D 5E Too Much Spellcasting in Your D&D? Just Add a Little Lankhmar!

[Vaalingrade]

Ironically, punishing non-buff magic encourage only the bards you hate.

 

[Dausuul]

In any campaign where combat is a significant element, this would make playing a spellcaster absolutely miserable, because 5E does not give (most*) casters anything to do in combat other than cast spells. Half the time you would get to cast one spell; the other half (when the party gets ambushed, or you are otherwise prevented from casting in advance), you'd get none at all. You can plink away with a crossbow for pathetic damage, or you can hide behind a rock.

If you want less spellcasting, just ban full casters and be done with it.

*I guess you could play a moon druid, or a hexblade warlock.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I like the concept of magic causing corruption much better, as was introduced in the Conan RPG.

It's super-fun in Dungeon Crawl Classics, too.

Honestly, I think that's the best solution: If there's too much focus on magic in D&D, and that's not a unique complaint, there are a ton of similar games where it's tuned differently.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I concur with the other replies, you're nerfing spellcasters a lot here. That's ok as long as you're also nerfing all the other classes to match, but doing this to just spellcasters makes them utterly unusable compared to other classes.

Essentially, you should play a different game, because 5E is not fitting your style of play.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

And that's my preliminary thoughts on the issue. What do you think? And by that, I don't mean, "I LOVE SPELLS! SPELLS ARE WICKED KEWL! YOU ARE A BAD BAD MAN FOR EVEN SUGGESTING THIS!"

I know I'm a bad, bad man. Just call me Leroy Brown. But I'm more interested in feedback as to whether you think that specific implementation would be successful at the goal of creating a campaign feel, in 5e, similar to that of the prior Lankhmar setting.

To reply directly to the OP's question; no, this would not be successful. Unless the goal is to just stop people from wanting to play spellcasters, which it would. That's a round-about way of limiting magic, but you should probably just ban certain spells instead (or ban spellcasters entirely).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Oh, and anyone of an age/mindset to make a Jim Croce joke is definitely someone who should at least read through the Dungeon Crawl Classics book once. It's a modern game (built off the D20 engine, but almost all of 3E was ripped away from that chassis) built to emulate 1970s D&D, if 1970s D&D had been even more gonzo and if every book had been illustrated with black light posters and van art.

 

[Monayuris]

To reply directly to the OP's question; no, this would not be successful. Unless the goal is to just stop people from wanting to play spellcasters, which it would. That's a round-about way of limiting magic, but you should probably just ban certain spells instead (or ban spellcasters entirely).

I'm not sure. If you want less spellcasting in your game then it would make sense to discourage people from wanting to play spellcasters. This seems to be a good way to have less spellcasting in your campaign without outright banning all spellcasting classes.

You would have to also eliminate or modify ritual casting. Which is probably one of the more egregiously broken mechanics in 5e. I'd probably make ritual casting take at least an hour (perhaps an hour per spell level) and have a gold cost in components.

 

[Dioltach]

I like the idea. You'd probably need to revisit spell lists to provide greater non-combat utility, and perhaps add a bit of bang. It would also encourage multiclassing, with more characters like the Mouser who focus on combat and dabble in spellcasting.

Also, the DM would have to ensure enough for spellcasters to do outside combat. Long-term, it would probably evolve into a closer simulation of fiction: combat only lasts a few rounds, and spellcasters use fewer spells, but more powerful ones, to handle challenging problems outside combat.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I'm not sure. If you want less spellcasting in your game then it would make sense to discourage people from wanting to play spellcasters. This seems to be a good way to have less spellcasting in your campaign without outright banning all spellcasting classes.

You would have to also eliminate or modify ritual casting. Which is probably one of the more egregiously broken mechanics in 5e. I'd probably make ritual casting take at least an hour (perhaps an hour per spell level) and have a gold cost in components.

But no one will want to play spellcasters anymore, because they would become far less fun. Low-level spellcasters are already kind of boring to play, making them even worse will add to that. I understand nerfing high-level spellcasting, but these changes are far too broad to make spellcasters useable by players. They're far more likely to decide "Boo that sucks, I'm playing barbarian!"

 

[jerryrice4949]

I think you're missing the point of this exercise. I was very clear-

To be clear- changing the casting time, extending the casting time, would have a massive and deleterious effect on spellcasting within combat. It would make martial characters much more important for combat, and make spellcasting more of a utility and out-of-combat experience, with only limited uses for combat.

The point of the exercise (just like it is in Lankhmar) is to make spellcasting in combat almost ... unusable. Not completely- there will still be occasions where it is possible (the hidden wizard who has time to cast a fireball at an advancing group, for example), but spellcasting will largely be for the utility and other spells, not for combat.

If people are waiting four rounds to cast eldritch blast, then ... well, that's certainly a choice!


(EDIT- if you are unfamiliar with the AD&D rules, you might not know just how much of a nerf Lankhmar was. Let's use two examples:

The fastest spells were "Power Word," which is why they were so high level (Power Word Stun was 7th level!). They took one segment, which means they now take one round to cast. And if you are hit during this time, the spell is ruined (no concentration check). You add the one round to the initiative ... in effect, there would be two rounds of attacks against you prior to getting the spell cast.

Fireball was also a fast spell- 3 segments. Now, of course, it's three rounds. Which translates into four rounds (see what I did there? ) of attacks, any one of which, if successful, would cause the spell to be ruined.

Lankhmar's rules made it nearly impossible to cast during combat for 1e.

I understand what you are saying but with these rules why would anyone want to play a Wizard or Sorcerer. What are they going to do during a combat encounter? Take 4 rounds to cast a spell or attack with a dagger? You are essentially making these classes unplayable unless you give them some martial abilities to offset these losses.