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

[Dioltach]

I'm not trying to derail you, I was responding to a comment about how I'm someone who want to, as was dismissively described, 'pew pew'.

If your intent is to address an issue, it behooves you to understand the people you're trying to address. Your idea isn't just going to effect blaster magi.

He's not addressing an issue, he's offering an alternative mechanism to change the flavour and tone of the game. I for one think it's worth exploring.

 

[CleverNickName]

I would love to play through a D&D campaign world where all spells are cast as Rituals, except for:

• Cantrips
• Spells that are cast as Reactions
• Metamagic (Quickened) spells
• Spells cast from magic items

I know it won't be everyone's cup of tea, and I'm fine with that. I promise not to show up at your game table and complain about how you run things. I just agree with @Snarf Zagyg that spellcasting has gotten out of hand in the newer editions of the game, and I think this would be an elegant way to pump the brakes on it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

What is even the tone of this thread?

It starts out with 'I'm obviously right and will brook no argument' jokes and then right turns into actually brooking no argument.

 

[Monayuris]

My approach to limiting spell casters so far has been to implement one week long rests. I keep short rests at an hour which benefits the more martially inclined short rest classes. I also require a long rest only in a place of civilization with an allied faction. If you want to long rest and get spells back, you have to set up stakes in the community.

Currently, I still do allow cantrips in my current campaign. If start a new 5e game, I would probably remove cantrips completely and make certain classic cantrip spells into 1st level (light for example). I'd also borrow from classic D&D and have a 'spell declaration' phase. You have to declare you are casting before the round starts and if you are damaged before your turn you have to make a concentration check to not lose the spell. (Players will know when monsters are casting and can take action to disrupt them).

I consider that a more soft discouragement to casting in combat.

I don't see the need to add anything to make up for it. Spell casting classes are still very powerful outside of combat and if they have a decent Dex, they can be just as good at a crossbow as any other character.

D&D is not only about combat, I don't see any need to balance classes solely by that metric. It is ok that fighter and barbarian are more effective in combat because sometimes spell casters are more effective outside of combat due to their spells and special skills. That is an acceptable balance to me.

 

[TwoSix]

Spellcasters would be near-useless in combat, and at the same time they would be pushed to make even more use of the worst offender in the "magic doesn't feel rare and special" category: Cheap utility spells that trivialize everything from wilderness travel to information-gathering to death itself.

Which seems weird to me, because those are the exact kind of spells that make magic feel special and different. Spending my 6th level spell to do 70 damage is nice, but spending it to say "That three weeks of travel to cross the desert? We're going to turn into clouds and get there in 6 hours" is some real magic.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I don't get the backlash. The specific goal is to limit spell casters in general and specifically for a low magic game. In that case: "Boo that sucks, I'm playing barbarian" is a desired outcome.

But they will still have all their spell casting, just it is more onerous to use it in combat. D&D is not just about combat... spell casting classes would still be extremely effective in exploration endeavors.

It sounds like you just dislike the premise, which is completely fine but the original poster specifically didn't ask for that kind of criticism.

What I'm saying is, if you really just don't want people to play spellcasters, don't beat-around-the-bush by putting in these onerous restrictions. Just ban the classes or spells you don't want to see. Or preferably, pick a different game that has less magic usage.

 

[Monayuris]

What is even the tone of this thread?

It starts out with 'I'm obviously right and will brook no argument' jokes and then right turns into actually brooking no argument.

I believe the focus of the thread is to present a set of rules to limit spell casting for a low magic style game and get criticism and advice on them. Its getting a little diluted by those who are rejecting the premise of the thread instead of responding to it.

 

[Marc_C]

Just make a list of classes and sub-classes that are allowed. Everything else is banned. Not every campaigns needs to be an open-bar-all-you-can-eat-buffet. You can even put restrictions on how many spell casters are allowed in the party. Has worked for me for the last 21 years.

 

[TwoSix]

What is even the tone of this thread?

It starts out with 'I'm obviously right and will brook no argument' jokes and then right turns into actually brooking no argument.

Because the OP explictly stated at the end of the post that they weren't asking if they SHOULD nerf spellcasting, they were asking about good ways TO nerf spellcasting. Saying "But I like spellcasters the way they are" is beyond the boundaries of the discussion.

 

[Monayuris]

What I'm saying is, if you really just don't want people to play spellcasters, don't beat-around-the-bush by putting in these onerous restrictions. Just ban the classes or spells you don't want to see. Or preferably, pick a different game that has less magic usage.

It is possible to want to have spell casting but just have be more limited and less of a focus of the game. If the tone of my campaign is to have weaker less ubiquitous and less easy magic then changes would need to be made.

Of course, playing a different game also works and there are tons of better games that suit that style as well.