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

[TwoSix]

But that's not the trade, you're not getting anything extra.

Except the core rules give you that extra utility outside of combat for free, and don't require a trade-off.

I'm coming at this from the premise that it's obvious that casters are overall more useful and powerful than martials in core 5e. If you think they're actually balanced, than obviously this sort of project seems flawed. From my perspective, you could add 10 minutes to the casting time of every spell in the game and wizard would still be a useful class.

 

[TwoSix]

And you handwave away criticism that this would break spellcasting classes to the point of uselessness.

Because that criticism isn't correct. That's why it gets handwaved. You can absolutely build a useful wizard or bard with no combat spells whatsoever and still be useful.

 

[Greg K]

You are not alone. I have been thinking that I want sever spells to take longer to cast.

I think those house rules would be effective at making it so no one at the table plays a spellcaster. I don't think anyone will want to cast Fireball when it takes 4 rounds.

I imagine in this scenario you would have everyone playing nonspellcasting classes, with someone occasionally picking up Ritual Caster for out of combat utility stuff. Could be fun, but it's not my cup of tea!

In my games, there is no fireball spell to cast

 

[Krachek]

Apart from the sanitation spells, the medicine spells, education spells, wine spells, public order spells, irrigation spells, road spells, the spells that created a fresh water system, and the healing spells, what have the Roman Spellcasters ever done for us outside of combat?

But DnD is not a game to role play a doctor, an engineer or some public service spell caster.
Players are not fool, they will play martial and take ritual caster, healer or inspiring leader feat.
Dont hope to see a player accept to suffer under your low magic rules.

 

[CleverNickName]

But DnD is not a game to role play a doctor, an engineer or some public service spell caster.
Players are not fool, they will play martial and take ritual caster, healer or inspiring leader feat.
Dont hope to see a player accept to suffer under your low magic rules.

Actually, playing a dwarven engineer who uses ritual magic to shape tunnels could be a lot of fun.
Or a gnome doctor who uses rituals to create potions and stitch wounds closed would be awesome.
I don't see a lot of "suffering" here.

 

[Maxperson]

That's basically my opinion too. Spending four rounds to miss with an Eldritch Blast wouldn't be a lot of fun OR make spellcasting seem mysterious.

On the other hand, what if you make all Action Spells 4 x as powerful?

So that Eldritch Blast takes 4 rounds, but if you are successful you deal 4d10 force damage.

4 rounds for a 32d6 fireball? Hmm. That could be very interesting.

 

[Rabulias]

The problem I see with this is that in an AD&D Lankhmar game, casters still got to use a combat spell once per round, matching the original action economy. Most spells intended for use in combat would have a casting time measured in segments, and thus would be a 1 round casting time with the Lankhmar rules. Your adaptation for 5e severely alters casters so their spells can only meaningfully contribute once every four rounds, but the spell's results are not more powerful in return.

AD&D had more save or die/suck spells so potential targets were motivated to interrupt a caster as much as they could. 5e spells are a little more forgiving; even if you fail a save, the effect won't be as bad, or you may have a chance to save again next round. Combatants have to decide how to best use their actions -- is it worth an Opportunity Attack to get to a caster and force a concentration check or is it better to take down melee opponents, who are striking every round?

If you want to introduce a chance for spellcasting to be interrupted, maybe change all casting times of "1 action" to "1 full round" instead?

 

[Greg K]

Unless my memory is wrong Gray Mouser is a half-caster (thief/wizard) and he does cast spells in combat. That is why you get the Arcane Trickster in the PHB. Other Wizards on Lankhmar are NPCs not meant to be player characters. They are scary powerful and half crazy. Completely outside the realm of normal mortals.

Which reminds me that, at least, one of Gygax's players mentioned that 7-9th level spells were never meant for PCs. They were included, because Gary was a completionist and intended them for NPCs.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You're basically eliminating the pure casting classes as PC classes. Almost no one is going to want to essentially sit out every combat. You'll see the partial casting classes like Ranger and Paladin, since those classes can still fight and keep their magic for non-combat situations, but Wizards, Clerics, Bards, Warlocks, and Sorcerers will go away. Druid MIGHT see some play, because you can become a bear and fight stuff.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The problem I see with this is that in an AD&D Lankhmar game, casters still got to use a combat spell once per round, matching the original action economy. Most spells intended for use in combat would have a casting time measured in segments, and thus would be a 1 round casting time with the Lankhmar rules. Your adaptation for 5e severely alters casters so their spells can only meaningfully contribute once every four rounds, but the spell's results are not more powerful in return.

Not sure if you read what I wrote, or are familiar with AD&D?

Here-
Casting times changed, so that any segment (1/10 of a round, 6 seconds) was treated as a round, any round (one minute, 1/10 of a turn) as a turn, any turn (10 minutes) as an hour, and each hour as a day.

...

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.

Yes, some spells would continue to have a full round casting requirement (power word spells, magic missile), but the full round in AD&D under the AD&D rules was a severe handicap in combat. Any combat spell that required more than 1 segment was that much harder.

The general rule in AD&D, by the way, was that offensive spells would take 1 segment per level to cast, which is why fear (4th level spell) took 4 segments to cast, and fireball (third level spell) took three segments to cast. Which would be four round and three rounds in Lankhmar, respectively.

Power Words were the major exception to this rule, and you sacrificed some "oomph" for the speed. If you played AD&D using the base rules (if you're hit while spellcasting, the spell is wasted), Lankhmar made casting even a first level spell in combat ... tricky.