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

[ECMO3]

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.

It is not free, especially if it takes a 10 minutes to cast an action spell, or an hour to cast a ritual. "You guys wait around for 10 minutes while i cast knock on that chest."

Your premise is wrong IMO. Rogues are the most useful class in 5E and Rangers are a distant second (that includes their spells but I am not considering them casters for this discussion). These are also two of the weakest characters.

 

[Maxperson]

Naw, I don't want to ban spellcasting. Far from it!

That's trivially easy. But yes, I am looking at dramatically reducing the use of spells in combat, and I remembered Lankhmar. Back when we played it, we still had spellcasters, but they were a very considered choice. Spells became rare, spellcasting was rare, and that made the overall effect of spells (within the world) that much more interesting.

It's sort of a first sortie into a more complete idea. But yes, if you're the type of person who wants a spellcaster to be able to pew pew pew with spells the same as a martial character does with a sword in combat, this definitely wouldn't work for you. But, you know, that's the idea.

Back then, though, spells actually did powerful things, so it could be worth it to play a spellcaster under those circumstances.. In 5e they've been incredibly nerfed compared to prior editions. It's so bad that my first foray into playing a 5e Wizard might be my last. You'd need to bump up the power level of 5e spells to make it worth the cost of the delay.

 

[ECMO3]

2. Is it possible that there are other tables and other modalities of play that do not agree that reducing the amount of magic in combat is the equivalent of making "certain classes basically useless." If it's possible that there are other tables and other modalities of play that do not agree with you, then maybe your best way to do something isn't the best way for every table to do something?

So would you play one of these characters?

When I read between the lines on what you have posted on this thread I get the idea that you want to play a martial and have casters nerfed to make your martial more powerful by comparison. I may be drawing an incorrect inference here.

If that is not the case, then just play a wizard or bard or other caster and just don't use/get any combat spells. If you don't like magic in combat you don't have to use it. Load up with knock, feather fall, comprehend languages, detect magic, identify, prestigiditation etc.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So would you play one of these characters?

When I read between the lines on what you have posted on this thread I get the idea that you want to play a martial and have casters nerfed to make your martial more powerful by comparison. I may be drawing an incorrect inference here.

You are drawing an incorrect inference, given I would kill to play. Unfortunately, given the dearth of DMs, that is not a luxury I have.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

When I read between the lines on what you have posted on this thread I get the idea that you want to play a martial and have casters nerfed to make your martial more powerful by comparison. I may be drawing an incorrect inference here.

If that is not the case, then just play a wizard or bard or other caster and just don't use/get any combat spells. If you don't like magic in combat you don't have to use it. Load up with knock, feather fall, comprehend languages, detect magic, identify, prestigiditation etc.

It is pretty funny that the OP essentially wrote "I don't like spellcasters, and prefer martial classes... here's my idea to make martial classes better by comparison."

I doubt the OP is thinking, "Ah, know that I've made spellcasters less useful, now I really want to play one!"

 

[Rabulias]

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

Yes, I read what you wrote, and I played AD&D 1e and 2e for years back in the 80s and 90s, so I would say I am familiar with AD&D.

A well-defended caster in AD&D would often successfully cast multi-segment spells in combat. Even when they did not, they still had their chance to act once every round.

Your suggestion is a much harsher penalty to casters. AD&D Lankhmar rules gave a caster's opponents one round to interrupt most combat spells. Your proposal gives opponents 4 rounds to stop a caster. Admittedly, in AD&D all one had to do was deliver 1 point of damage to a caster to interrupt their casting, and the caster could not do anything about it. 5e has concentration checks so merely hitting a caster is not guaranteed to foil their spell.

I know you stated your goal was to reduce/eliminate casting in combat. If your players are onboard with that, great! Have fun! However, I don't think your average player would enjoy playing a caster in such a game. I was trying to offer an alternative that maintained the action balance of the AD&D Lankhmar rules that might make casters more appealing to play under your proposal.

EDIT: I see now that I did misread the Lankhmar rules. I thought any spell measured in segments was a full round. I see now upon re-reading that every segment of casting time became a round (so 3 segments becomes 3 rounds), which does alter the action economy differently.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Not in combat, though. What I haven't seen proposed is blood magic, where hit points are used to fuel spells. You could combine a lesser slowdown of casting times with using hit points to fuel spells. That way if the caster wants to do something in combat badly enough, he can risk death to do it. You'd see far fewer spells cast, without totally removing Wizards from combat outside of arming themselves with crossbows again.

 

[Sithlord]

So how many players do you have lined up to play this way. If you got 4 players I would say start it up and write back to us how much fun your players and having and how the adventures are progressing.

 

[Mort]

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.

Some issues:

This assumes that the campaign at issue isn't primarily combat driven - many are. If you nerf a class's combat effectiveness but have 90% combat, that class will seem subpar.

Assuming you have a good mix of the the 3 pillars, what you've essentially done is force the caster to shift to the other 2. The argument then becomes will a caster who devotes ALL their resources to exploration and social interaction then dominate too much in those realms - and if so, is that OK?

5e has actually done A LOT to reign in caster dominance in exploration and social interaction. From making the knock spell very inconvenient to use to making many charm spells very costly (by engendering a near automatic hostile attitude in the subject) to subtly nerfing spells like find the path. With that AND the combat nerf, is that too much - should some non-combat utility be given back?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So how many players do you have lined up to play this way. If you got 4 players I would say start it up and write back to us how much fun your players and having and how the adventures are progressing.

I'm going to- hoping to see what I'm missing first (notably, issues involving half casters and specifically Paladins ... that's what I'm seeing).

I'd like to the rule to be simple and easy to implement - I liked the way @NotAYakk was thinking, but I prefer simplified rules, and that proposal was a little too finicky.