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

[Stalker0]

So I'll agree with others that all this does is remove casters from the game, its far too hard of a hammer. I would just remove spellcasting classes instead personally.

If you really do want to lessen casters without removing them, let me recommend some tweaks:

• Non-cantrip action spells take 2 actions to cast (not 4). This allows casters to do SOME offense in combat with their cantrips. Further, remember that even with 2 actions, you have cut caster's offensive power in half...that is still a MASSIVE nerf. Also, considering the average duration of a 5e combat is about 3 rounds, you could actually argue this is a 66% nerf, as a caster could only get off 1 spell in those 3 rounds instead of 3.
• I wouldn't increase the duration of the longer casting spells. No need there, they are already either going to be used or not used depending on how much time the DM alots them, increasing that isn't going to do much.
• Double the number of caster spell slots.

So now your nerfing casters on actions but at least they will feel more free to try and cast spells, especially out of combat. There in combat effectiveness will still be incredibly hindered, but at least their out of combat utility could still be fun and interesting.

 

[CubicsRube]

I don't think it's going to meet your criteria, but my settings rule for 5e is that casting spells age you prematurely. This is inspired by earlier edition spells and is purely cosmetic.

1 day aging when casting a cantrip.
1 week when casting a spell level 1 - 5
1 month when casting a spell level 6+

This isn't going to do much in terms of how a PC would play a spellcaster, but it keeps it thematic to me in how magic is dangerous, why NPCs don't fling spells around willy nilly in the world, and even why elves might be more inclined to use magic (since they have years to spare)

 

[Mannahnin]

It won't produce Lankhmar feel as in Lankhmar spellcasters exist. So do you care about emulating Lankhmar, or do you care about shoehorning your specific rule in? Because you certainly don't get Lakhmanr with it, but you can do Lankhmar without it. Hell, there literally is Arcane Trickster in PHB which produces pretty decent Mouser-like character.

This is incorrect. Mouser does not use magic in combat. Mouser does not use cantrips. Mouser does not use spells to aid his thieving. Mouser is a failed apprentice (and one of the greatest swordsmen in the universe) with a few pretensions of adepthood, who occasionally uses a little magical knowledge, and once or twice casts (and screws up) a powerful spell from a scroll. He has nothing like the day to day magical power of an Arcane Trickster, because such easy, day to day magic is contradictory to the setting Leiber created.

 

[Mannahnin]

I literally quoted your opening post. If your opening post isn't the premise of the thread, how do you expect anyone to know what it is?

It is. You've just misunderstood it, despite his repeated attempts to explain it, alas.

The premise definitely changes the nature and assumptions of the setting and game from the ones embodied by the baseline 5E rules. Given how commonplace, powerful, and reliable PC magic is in 5E, doing this represents a bigger departure from 5th than it does from some earlier editions, but even compared to 1E, Lankhmar as a setting nerfs combat magic hard.

And that's ok! If the DM is trying to emulate that setting, magic is still going to be badass, in part because it will be more rare. Enemies will be less prepared for it, and fewer of them will have it in turn. PC casters will be more special, in part because the hurdles they face will be higher. But a higher percentage of PCs will no doubt be non-casters, which is also a success for genre emulation. In Swords & Sorcery, the protagonists are normally the Swords half of that, with the occasional magical ally, and the Sorcery is usually for the most part found among bad guys.

 

[Stalker0]

And that's ok! If the DM is trying to emulate that setting, magic is still going to be badass, in part because it will be more rare. Enemies will be less prepared for it, and fewer of them will have it in turn.

If I had a musket in a world of machine guns.... sure I have a rare weapon.... a rare and crappy weapon.... doesn't matter how rare it is....its still crappy.

As outline, spellcasting has been made "crappy" from a combat perspective. If that's is the OP intention, to remove spellcasting from combat, that's fine.... but if that is the goal I would just go with a more simple..... "spells cannot be cast during combat". Simple and done. If the goal is "spellcasting should be a little trickier in combat than it is right now"....than the rules presented are way way way too harsh.

I think another simpler method to get this kind of low magic feel is just use this rule:

"You can only take 1 level of a spellcasting class for every 2 levels of a non-spellcasting class you have". So for example: Fighter 2/Wizard 1, Barb 4/Sorc 2. This would mean you would need to be 15th level (10/5) to have 3rd level spells....so yes magic is very rare and precious now.

 

[jerryrice4949]

If I had a musket in a world of machine guns.... sure I have a rare weapon.... a rare and crappy weapon.... doesn't matter how rare it is....its still crappy.

As outline, spellcasting has been made "crappy" from a combat perspective. If that's is the OP intention, to remove spellcasting from combat, that's fine.... but if that is the goal I would just go with a more simple..... "spells cannot be cast during combat". Simple and done. If the goal is "spellcasting should be a little trickier in combat than it is right now"....than the rules presented are way way way too harsh.

I think another simpler method to get this kind of low magic feel is just use this rule:

"You can only take 1 level of a spellcasting class for every 2 levels of a non-spellcasting class you have". So for example: Fighter 2/Wizard 1, Barb 4/Sorc 2. This would mean you would need to be 15th level (10/5) to have 3rd level spells....so yes magic is very rare and precious now.

Agreed.

 

[jerryrice4949]

I may have missed this. But for whomever started this thread…… Do you currently have spell casters in your group and have you run this idea by them? I imagine if/when you do, they will just look at another class anyways.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

This is incorrect. Mouser does not use magic in combat. Mouser does not use cantrips. Mouser does not use spells to aid his thieving. Mouser is a failed apprentice (and one of the greatest swordsmen in the universe) with a few pretensions of adepthood, who occasionally uses a little magical knowledge, and one or twice casts (and screws up) a powerful spell from a scroll. He has nothing like the day to day magical power of an Arcane Trickster, because such easy, day to day magic is contradictory to the setting Leiber created.

Mouser is a Thief with the Ritual Caster feat and a player who refuses to let a mediocre Arcana score stop him.

 

[Imaculata]

It is. You've just misunderstood it, despite his repeated attempts to explain it, alas.

You mean his consistent refusal to explain it.

I get that he wants to make magic in combat less of a thing. I don't have an issue with that in theory. I have run low magic campaigns myself successfully.

I just think his suggestion for doing so is really REALLY terrible. There have been a lot of much better suggestions in this thread.

But I'm getting the impression that agreeing with him, is a requirement for partaking in the discussion. And I can't be alone in that.

 

[Dioltach]

But I'm getting the impression that agreeing with him, is a requirement for partaking in the discussion. And I can't be alone in that.

That's because the discussion is "I have an idea, what are your suggestions for making it workable?", not "Please tell me how bad my idea is and what I should be doing instead."