If you look at any set of statistics about players in D&D, you will discover
High level play is rare.
High level has a reputation for being hard to DM, hard to play, and unbalanced.
These observations have been true for every edition of D&D.
Now, if we look for what might cause these problems, there's really only one possible answer: it has to be spellcasters. A 20th level fighter or rogue doesn't really play hugely differently from first level, they just have bigger numbers. Wizards has recognize this for monster design -- if you compare MMM to VGtM or MToF, it's the spellcasting monsters that have been dramatically changed and simplified -- but they've already made two changes in One D&D that cut in the wrong direction:
Classes such as Bard and Ranger are now prepared spells casters, which is a vast complexity increase.
Number of spells prepared is increased. A level 10 ranger in 5e had 6 spells known, in One D&D it's 10 (9 base, hunters mark always prepared). A level 10 bard in 5e had 14; in One D&D it's 20 (15 base, 5 bonus).
Now, a lot of the problem has to do with what spells do, rather than the mechanics for using them, but still: reducing complexity in play (or making it so you can choose complexity at a cost in power -- say, subclasses whose only real benefit is more spells prepared) seems like it would go quite a way to making high level play something people would actually choose to do.
While I would prefer Ranger and Bard be known casters, I don't think this is really much of a problem TBH. High level play is rare, but I don't think that is because it is hard to DM (it isn't really IME) or that it is unbalanced (it is but so is mid tier play). I think high level play is rare becasue most games start at level 1 or level 3 and end before characters get to high level. Add to that very few published WOTC high-level games (I think DOMM is the only one?).
Add to that very few published WOTC high-level games (I think DOMM is the only one?).
Rise of Tiamat and Out of the Abyss go up to Level 15, Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus goes up to Level 13, and Icewind Dale: Rime of the Frostmaiden goes up to Level 12.
Those are the other ones I recall. But Dungeon of the Mad Mage is the only one I recall that goes all the way to Level 20.
High level play is rare, but I don't think that is because it is hard to DM (it isn't really IME)
Maybe not in your experience, but that is anecdotal, and it is indeed one of the more common complaints I've heard about high-level play. That encounter design is much more difficult because the PCs are much more powerful.
Ya this rarity of adventure modules going to tier 4 is a big factor why we don't see tier 4 play. Heck most of the adventures I can think of now that I have been considering (Strixhaven and the new Dragon lance games) both only go to 10. Same with Strahd. It seems the ones I have heard to most good about either end around level 5 or level 10 and don't bother with Tier 3 or 4 of play.
Also, the last thing you want is to take archmage NPCs to their logical conclusion. Otherwise, it would be next to impossible for the PCs to beat them. They could have sixteen demiplanes with thirty clones (extra lives), they could have contingency ready to go to bamf them out of the room as soon as the party even gets close to hitting them. They could have a dungeon littered with a bunch of glyphs of warding (or even symbols if they're feeling mean). The archmage the party beats might not even be the real one, and instead is a simulacrum, and by the time they beat them, the archmage would have already started working on a replacement simulacrum. Perhaps the archmage used imprisonment on a powerful monster at some point before the party even faced them, and then set the condition for said monster to be unleashed as soon as the party "kills" them, except they didn't even really kill them because the clones, which in turn means the party released a great beast onto the world and didn't even get the evil archmage's perma-death in exchange.
And because these NPCs have the power of DM behind them, they functionally don't need to worry about material components or having their spells stick on things prior to being "on screen" like PCs do.
Sounds like my kind of fun. Hardcore. A challenge for the wit that you can't just power through.
While I would prefer Ranger and Bard be known casters, I don't think this is really much of a problem TBH. High level play is rare, but I don't think that is because it is hard to DM (it isn't really IME) or that it is unbalanced (it is but so is mid tier play). I think high level play is rare becasue most games start at level 1 or level 3 and end before characters get to high level. Add to that very few published WOTC high-level games (I think DOMM is the only one?).
It undoubtedly has a reputation for being difficult, whether or not this is actually true. In practice it depends on how dedicated the players are to hunting out the gamebreaking stuff, there's a lot of complexity that you can sort of ignore as long as everyone is on the same page about doing so.
Add to that very few published WOTC high-level games (I think DOMM is the only one?).
Rise of Tiamat and Out of the Abyss go up to Level 15, Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus goes up to Level 13, and Icewind Dale: Rime of the Frostmaiden goes up to Level 12.
Those are the other ones I recall. But Dungeon of the Mad Mage is the only one I recall that goes all the way to Level 20.
High level play is rare, but I don't think that is because it is hard to DM (it isn't really IME)
Maybe not in your experience, but that is anecdotal, and it is indeed one of the more common complaints I've heard about high-level play. That encounter design is much more difficult because the PCs are much more powerful.
I would not call level 15 high level play, especially when you don't actually achieve it until the adventure is over as I recall, it is like a parting gift if I remember correctly. My experiences are anecdotal, but then so is every example you have read on here of someone saying it is difficult to DM or worse it is conjecture from someone who has not even tried to do it.
I would not call level 15 high level play, especially when you don't actually achieve it until the adventure is over as I recall, it is like a parting gift if I remember correctly. My experiences are anecdotal, but then so is every example you have read on here of someone saying it is difficult to DM or worse it is conjecture from someone who has not even tried to do it.
The Dungeon Master's Guide describes Level 11 to Level 16 (or Tier 3) as the PCs being "masters of the realm". That is, they are generally high enough in level to do things that affect the world at large. So when people generally refer to "high level play", they're talking about both Tier 3 and Tier 4, not just Tier 4 which you seem to be referring to.
Also the adventures I listed had you literally take on cosmic-level threats. Descent into Avernus has you engage the archduke of Avernus (and yes, you can fight her if it doesn't go well), Rise of Tiamat has you attempt to stop the ritual to bring Tiamat into the Material Plane or fight a weakened version of her, Rime of the Frostmaiden lets you decide the fate of Icewind Dale and possibly even fight a weakened Auril herself, and Out of the Abyss allows you to take on one or more demon lords. Not to mention, for spellcasters specifically, the spells you gain access to by Level 13 to 15 are powerful enough that the scope of things the party gets to do becomes significantly larger.
Furthermore, my point about anecdotes is that just because you have no trouble DM'ing games at Level 17+ doesn't mean no-one else does, and it doesn't mean their concerns are invalid.
Ok. I have played all of the campaigns you mentioned and I DMed one of them. I guess we just were talking about different things and I misunderstood your definition of high-level.
Don't get me wrong. I love archmage NPCs for all the craziness you can do with them. People might look at the archmage stat block and just go "meh" without realizing the real power of that NPC is what it can do out of combat, not in combat.
That said, you definitely want to resist the urge to go too crazy with archmage NPCs.
But that's so much fun! There's a whole scenario's worth of stuff, figuring out the defensive measures, devising a plan to overcome them, messing with the archmage's enemies, allies, and minions to not be alone in this, looking for key artifacts that might disrupt his defense mechanisms...
Some people are playing the game for a story. Their character has a life, goals, dreams, ad ideas outside of slaughtering kobolds for experience points. Their character is a [I]character[/I] who may do things that do not immediately net an advantage in combat. Some people play the game more like fighting miniatures. They want the [I]maximum[/I] efficacy in whatever situations they must overcome to level up. The former might take some bizarre skill or ability because it fits their backstory. They might blow a feat on something that is little more than fluff. The latter sees all that as, at best, cute and more often useless.
So player A and player B take their characters into the same fight, but Character B is built to fight and only fight. Their character is the Terminator. Character A has a backstory outside of "how to do a murder on someone" and skills that reflect that. They will certainly feel outmatched, even if both are the same level. Character B singlehandedly takes out 4 opponents, any one of which is a challenge for player A.
If the DM doesn't put in encounters and events that allow Player A to shine, they have to cross the bridge/gulf to player B. If the DM does, player B will likely 'tune out' because they are the useless one in the encounter. Anyone got skill in diplomacy or persuasion? "I've got double specialization with a longsword, blind fighting, dual wielding, and two weapon fighting, does that count as intimidation? Because I can do enough damage to level a small town in 4 actions." In my experience, regardless of player skill, players of type A are much more patient (but not infinitely so) with encounters for player type B than the other way around. It does run out quickly when the gulf between the ability levels starts killing characters, as player type A is usually more invested.
Some people are playing the game for a story. Their character has a life, goals, dreams, ad ideas outside of slaughtering kobolds for experience points. Their character is a [I]character[/I] who may do things that do not immediately net an advantage in combat. Some people play the game more like fighting miniatures. They want the [I]maximum[/I] efficacy in whatever situations they must overcome to level up. The former might take some bizarre skill or ability because it fits their backstory. They might blow a feat on something that is little more than fluff. The latter sees all that as, at best, cute and more often useless.
So player A and player B take their characters into the same fight, but Character B is built to fight and only fight. Their character is the Terminator. Character A has a backstory outside of "how to do a murder on someone" and skills that reflect that. They will certainly feel outmatched, even if both are the same level. Character B singlehandedly takes out 4 opponents, any one of which is a challenge for player A.
If the DM doesn't put in encounters and events that allow Player A to shine, they have to cross the bridge/gulf to player B. If the DM does, player B will likely 'tune out' because they are the useless one in the encounter. Anyone got skill in diplomacy or persuasion? "I've got double specialization with a longsword, blind fighting, dual wielding, and two weapon fighting, does that count as intimidation? Because I can do enough damage to level a small town in 4 actions." In my experience, regardless of player skill, players of type A are much more patient (but not infinitely so) with encounters for player type B than the other way around. It does run out quickly when the gulf between the ability levels starts killing characters, as player type A is usually more invested.
Then one of them needs to find a table that suits them better. Be it a more rp focussed table or a more dungeon crawl focussed table. And I don't agree with your conclusion.
Well, I don't agree with your disagreement, so there is that. I guess we all disagree equally. I have certainly played these kinds of games long enough and with enough different people to move beyond 'thats just an anecdote' level of experience.
As for the solution of "one of them needs to find another table," I would counter that there are probably better ways of helping people fit in and feel included than kicking them out. Radical I know, but using the game as a way to have fun and bring people together doesn't work as well when you tell one of your siblings, friends, or children, "yeah, you really don't belong here," no matter how diplomatically you try to put it. That doesn't even begin to address someone who may already feel like an outsider due to race/religion/sexuality/being adopted/general raging teenage hormones and incomplete brain development/a host of other reasons.
While your idea may work for people playing in a professional league (is there such a thing), for people who play with people they know, they are kind of limited to the people they know. There is only one table.
Some people are playing the game for a story. Their character has a life, goals, dreams, ad ideas outside of slaughtering kobolds for experience points. Their character is a [I]character[/I] who may do things that do not immediately net an advantage in combat. Some people play the game more like fighting miniatures. They want the [I]maximum[/I] efficacy in whatever situations they must overcome to level up. The former might take some bizarre skill or ability because it fits their backstory. They might blow a feat on something that is little more than fluff. The latter sees all that as, at best, cute and more often useless.
So player A and player B take their characters into the same fight, but Character B is built to fight and only fight. Their character is the Terminator. Character A has a backstory outside of "how to do a murder on someone" and skills that reflect that. They will certainly feel outmatched, even if both are the same level. Character B singlehandedly takes out 4 opponents, any one of which is a challenge for player A.
If the DM doesn't put in encounters and events that allow Player A to shine, they have to cross the bridge/gulf to player B. If the DM does, player B will likely 'tune out' because they are the useless one in the encounter. Anyone got skill in diplomacy or persuasion? "I've got double specialization with a longsword, blind fighting, dual wielding, and two weapon fighting, does that count as intimidation? Because I can do enough damage to level a small town in 4 actions." In my experience, regardless of player skill, players of type A are much more patient (but not infinitely so) with encounters for player type B than the other way around. It does run out quickly when the gulf between the ability levels starts killing characters, as player type A is usually more invested.
How'd this game get pass session zero, most if not all the the issue shown above are cleared up in that establishment of the social contract.
I don't find Wish to be especially overpowered. All it basically does is let you 'downcast' the slot to any lower level spell once a day. The part where it rewrites reality comes with a lot of caveats. The DM has control over what you can do, and what unintended consequences it has. You take a bunch of damage, and lose your Strength. And there is a 33% chance every time you do it that you can never do it again.
That last part is the biggest one. Most wizards will wait until there is literally no other hope before casting this spell and losing it forever. Or for a dramatically appropriate moment at the end of the campaign. It's usually something you cast exactly once.
The monkey's paw effect makes the caster even more cautious. I've used Wish as a story explanation for a 'curse' more often than a boon. But maybe this is just from my experience with using wishes more frequently in older editions, and the players regretting it far more than the DM. Everyone I know is very wary of messing with the power of a wish.
The Strength is a weird one, since the spellcasters who get Wish usually don't care about it. I would change that to a high level of Exhaustion in the new rules. That's more meaningful, and takes the wizard out of the rest of the day.
I might also make it require a rare component if used for something other than a lower level spell. That would give the DM even more control. And casting an unusual wish would take more planning. There would be a quest attached to it, or a high gold price, limiting is uses further. The only reason I'm not keen on the idea of requiring an extra caster is my personal campaigns rarely include anyone of that level outside of the party. If they do exist, they aren't going to be likely to help. That's more of a worldbuilding problem for me is all.
I can see some room for modification for sure. But overall I think Wish isn't the example we should be thinking of when talking about a Wizard's 'phenomenal cosmic power.'
As for Legendary Resistances, I think they were a great idea when they came out. They let a boss actually last a few rounds. But I agree they are a little too much 'all or nothing.' It doesn't feel good for anyone, the players or the DM. I would give it a bonus number instead, and make it a roll every time. Like:
Legendary Resistance +3 - Every time this creature is targeted with a spell it can roll a d20 and add its resistance modifier. The DC is equal to 10+the spell level. If the creature meets or exceeds the DC, it ignores the spell effect.
This would make it like a counterspell that's always active. Giving any player a chance to get any spell through, but no guarantees, and no set number of uses you have to chip away at until the monster is totally vulnerable. It could be limited further if you want. By either making it take a Reaction or a legendary action. Giving it a number of successes per day before its used up. Or just not having the bonus be too high.
Even low CR monsters could have this kind of resistance with low bonuses. It would work against spells that don't have saves. And it would make boss fights feel more fair.
I had to read it a few times to get how it works, but I do like this solution!
Yeah, I definitely could have written that better haha. I guess you could call it a kind of 'pre-save' before the spell can take effect. Any time a creature with Legendary Resistance is targeted, they get to make the resistance roll first. The target number is 10+the spell level. The creature adds its Legendary Resistance bonus to the roll. If it fails the roll, continue with the spell as normal, including a save if one is allowed.
That way it works against any kind of magic - save spells, attack roll spells, and no-save spells like forcecage. But it isn't automatic. The players won't try to burn through legendary resistances the same way they do now. DMs don't have to choose which spells to shut down. I think it would just be a lot cleaner and more fair all around.
I appreciate you taking the time to work through my ramblings and comment on it. :)
Banishment in the Cleric UA now has the target repeat their save at the end of each of their turns, so I imagine some save-or-suck spells might get a similar nerf to reduce how swingy they can be.
Most save or suck spells already had that, banishment winds up being on the weak side as SoS spells go because it doesn't let you beat on them while they're incapacitated.
Banishment in the Cleric UA now has the target repeat their save at the end of each of their turns, so I imagine some save-or-suck spells might get a similar nerf to reduce how swingy they can be.
Most save or suck spells already had that, banishment winds up being on the weak side as SoS spells go because it doesn't let you beat on them while they're incapacitated.
I'm not saying the change is good or bad. I'm saying this appears to be a way WoTC might be addressing the more "problematic" ones like banishment or polymorph (which is also a potent save-or-suck spell when used offensively and doesn't allow the victim to repeat their save each round).
Ya, but as others have noted, it is kind of what made it a good 4th level spell. Now I feel I could probably do better with a lower level spell. I feel maybe Banishment could become a 3rd level spell with its new rules and be acceptable.
Everyone here loves to bash spellcasters as being gamebreaking yet no one wants to name the elephant in the room. Bad DMs. There are components for a reason. If you get tired of your wizards casting force cage, banish, teleport, or wish, then impose components and make them rare. It will do two things: make your spell casters more wary of casually flinging spells left and right, and make them way more considerate when choosing said spells. Also, as a long time wizard player AND a DM, it's the "everyone is now a spellcaster" mentality in D&D that makes higher levels not enjoyable. Because then everyone suddenly has high powered spells and suddenly the wizard feels like the normal one in the group.
Everyone here loves to bash spellcasters as being gamebreaking yet no one wants to name the elephant in the room. Bad DMs. There are components for a reason. If you get tired of your wizards casting force cage, banish, teleport, or wish, then impose components and make them rare. It will do two things: make your spell casters more wary of casually flinging spells left and right, and make them way more considerate when choosing said spells. [...]
To me, this feels like a bad patch job by an adversarial DM. You are basically suggesting that because some spells are too powerful, the DM should limit how often these spells can be cast based on the arbitrary availability of components that relies on the whims of the DM. In other words, this is the same as saying "you can cast this spell now, but you won't be able to do so again until I let you." This roundabout restriction takes away player agency and is just a worst way of nerfing a spell than, let's say, working with your players to bring the power level of specific spells inline with the power level of the party.
I mean, you won't expect a DM to tell a fighter that every time they use the "Extra Attack" feature or the "Great Weapon Master" feat, their weapon might break and they might not be able to find a replacement weapon in a shop in town. If the issue is that a spell is too powerful for the table, then why not just address the issue head on instead of using this roundabout way to arbitrarily take away players' spells?
Everyone here loves to bash spellcasters as being gamebreaking yet no one wants to name the elephant in the room. Bad DMs. There are components for a reason. If you get tired of your wizards casting force cage, banish, teleport, or wish, then impose components and make them rare. It will do two things: make your spell casters more wary of casually flinging spells left and right, and make them way more considerate when choosing said spells. [...]
To me, this feels like a bad patch job by an adversarial DM. You are basically suggesting that because some spells are too powerful, the DM should limit how often these spells can be cast based on the arbitrary availability of components that relies on the whims of the DM. In other words, this is the same as saying "you can cast this spell now, but you won't be able to do so again until I let you." This roundabout restriction takes away player agency and is just a worst way of nerfing a spell than, let's say, working with your players to bring the power level of specific spells inline with the power level of the party.
I mean, you won't expect a DM to tell a fighter that every time they use the "Extra Attack" feature or the "Great Weapon Master" feat, their weapon might break and they might not be able to find a replacement weapon in a shop in town. If the issue is that a spell is too powerful for the table, then why not just address the issue head on instead of using this roundabout way to arbitrarily take away players' spells?
Its funny that this is the kjind of thing they are specifically trying to get away from in OneD&D. The video on Survery feedback says they are deliberately moving away from any sort of ability design that relies on DM buy in. IOW, they want the abilities to be there and be fun to use when the player wants to use them, not when the DM feels like letting the player use them. This change led to the massive revamp ranger abilities got, and they've implied that it will also be the reasoning behind a revamp of the wild magic sorcerer.
To me, this sort of attitude feels like it comes from the DM vs. Player mindset, where people think that the DM is supposed to be out to beat the players at every turn. I've played in a lot of those games over the years, and I've never found them to be particularly enjoyable, to the point where if I get a sense that someone is that kind of DM, I won't play in their campaign, because I know I won't have a good time.
Players should be allowed to use their abilities. They should be encouraged to use them. Spells like Banishment, Forcecage, Teleport and Wish are fun, and they are high enough level that they should be powerful tools.
I agree that 6e is going the wrong direction. I was hoping for a 5.5e but doesn't look like it is going that way. I do like some of the changes but the majority of the changes are just bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While I would prefer Ranger and Bard be known casters, I don't think this is really much of a problem TBH. High level play is rare, but I don't think that is because it is hard to DM (it isn't really IME) or that it is unbalanced (it is but so is mid tier play). I think high level play is rare becasue most games start at level 1 or level 3 and end before characters get to high level. Add to that very few published WOTC high-level games (I think DOMM is the only one?).
Ya this rarity of adventure modules going to tier 4 is a big factor why we don't see tier 4 play. Heck most of the adventures I can think of now that I have been considering (Strixhaven and the new Dragon lance games) both only go to 10. Same with Strahd. It seems the ones I have heard to most good about either end around level 5 or level 10 and don't bother with Tier 3 or 4 of play.
Sounds like my kind of fun. Hardcore. A challenge for the wit that you can't just power through.
It undoubtedly has a reputation for being difficult, whether or not this is actually true. In practice it depends on how dedicated the players are to hunting out the gamebreaking stuff, there's a lot of complexity that you can sort of ignore as long as everyone is on the same page about doing so.
I would not call level 15 high level play, especially when you don't actually achieve it until the adventure is over as I recall, it is like a parting gift if I remember correctly. My experiences are anecdotal, but then so is every example you have read on here of someone saying it is difficult to DM or worse it is conjecture from someone who has not even tried to do it.
Ok. I have played all of the campaigns you mentioned and I DMed one of them. I guess we just were talking about different things and I misunderstood your definition of high-level.
I call tier 5 high level. :-)
But that's so much fun! There's a whole scenario's worth of stuff, figuring out the defensive measures, devising a plan to overcome them, messing with the archmage's enemies, allies, and minions to not be alone in this, looking for key artifacts that might disrupt his defense mechanisms...
I think it is a bit more complicated than that.
Some people are playing the game for a story. Their character has a life, goals, dreams, ad ideas outside of slaughtering kobolds for experience points. Their character is a [I]character[/I] who may do things that do not immediately net an advantage in combat. Some people play the game more like fighting miniatures. They want the [I]maximum[/I] efficacy in whatever situations they must overcome to level up. The former might take some bizarre skill or ability because it fits their backstory. They might blow a feat on something that is little more than fluff. The latter sees all that as, at best, cute and more often useless.
So player A and player B take their characters into the same fight, but Character B is built to fight and only fight. Their character is the Terminator. Character A has a backstory outside of "how to do a murder on someone" and skills that reflect that. They will certainly feel outmatched, even if both are the same level. Character B singlehandedly takes out 4 opponents, any one of which is a challenge for player A.
If the DM doesn't put in encounters and events that allow Player A to shine, they have to cross the bridge/gulf to player B. If the DM does, player B will likely 'tune out' because they are the useless one in the encounter. Anyone got skill in diplomacy or persuasion? "I've got double specialization with a longsword, blind fighting, dual wielding, and two weapon fighting, does that count as intimidation? Because I can do enough damage to level a small town in 4 actions." In my experience, regardless of player skill, players of type A are much more patient (but not infinitely so) with encounters for player type B than the other way around. It does run out quickly when the gulf between the ability levels starts killing characters, as player type A is usually more invested.
Then one of them needs to find a table that suits them better. Be it a more rp focussed table or a more dungeon crawl focussed table. And I don't agree with your conclusion.
Well, I don't agree with your disagreement, so there is that. I guess we all disagree equally. I have certainly played these kinds of games long enough and with enough different people to move beyond 'thats just an anecdote' level of experience.
As for the solution of "one of them needs to find another table," I would counter that there are probably better ways of helping people fit in and feel included than kicking them out. Radical I know, but using the game as a way to have fun and bring people together doesn't work as well when you tell one of your siblings, friends, or children, "yeah, you really don't belong here," no matter how diplomatically you try to put it. That doesn't even begin to address someone who may already feel like an outsider due to race/religion/sexuality/being adopted/general raging teenage hormones and incomplete brain development/a host of other reasons.
While your idea may work for people playing in a professional league (is there such a thing), for people who play with people they know, they are kind of limited to the people they know. There is only one table.
How'd this game get pass session zero, most if not all the the issue shown above are cleared up in that establishment of the social contract.
Also something, something Stormwind...
I had to read it a few times to get how it works, but I do like this solution!
Thanks, Agilemind!
Yeah, I definitely could have written that better haha. I guess you could call it a kind of 'pre-save' before the spell can take effect. Any time a creature with Legendary Resistance is targeted, they get to make the resistance roll first. The target number is 10+the spell level. The creature adds its Legendary Resistance bonus to the roll. If it fails the roll, continue with the spell as normal, including a save if one is allowed.
That way it works against any kind of magic - save spells, attack roll spells, and no-save spells like forcecage. But it isn't automatic. The players won't try to burn through legendary resistances the same way they do now. DMs don't have to choose which spells to shut down. I think it would just be a lot cleaner and more fair all around.
I appreciate you taking the time to work through my ramblings and comment on it. :)
Most save or suck spells already had that, banishment winds up being on the weak side as SoS spells go because it doesn't let you beat on them while they're incapacitated.
Ya, but as others have noted, it is kind of what made it a good 4th level spell. Now I feel I could probably do better with a lower level spell. I feel maybe Banishment could become a 3rd level spell with its new rules and be acceptable.
Everyone here loves to bash spellcasters as being gamebreaking yet no one wants to name the elephant in the room. Bad DMs. There are components for a reason. If you get tired of your wizards casting force cage, banish, teleport, or wish, then impose components and make them rare. It will do two things: make your spell casters more wary of casually flinging spells left and right, and make them way more considerate when choosing said spells. Also, as a long time wizard player AND a DM, it's the "everyone is now a spellcaster" mentality in D&D that makes higher levels not enjoyable. Because then everyone suddenly has high powered spells and suddenly the wizard feels like the normal one in the group.
That's because it's not the elephant in the room. Yes, a DM can solve balance issues, but the DM shouldn't need to do so.
To me, this feels like a bad patch job by an adversarial DM. You are basically suggesting that because some spells are too powerful, the DM should limit how often these spells can be cast based on the arbitrary availability of components that relies on the whims of the DM. In other words, this is the same as saying "you can cast this spell now, but you won't be able to do so again until I let you." This roundabout restriction takes away player agency and is just a worst way of nerfing a spell than, let's say, working with your players to bring the power level of specific spells inline with the power level of the party.
I mean, you won't expect a DM to tell a fighter that every time they use the "Extra Attack" feature or the "Great Weapon Master" feat, their weapon might break and they might not be able to find a replacement weapon in a shop in town. If the issue is that a spell is too powerful for the table, then why not just address the issue head on instead of using this roundabout way to arbitrarily take away players' spells?
Its funny that this is the kjind of thing they are specifically trying to get away from in OneD&D. The video on Survery feedback says they are deliberately moving away from any sort of ability design that relies on DM buy in. IOW, they want the abilities to be there and be fun to use when the player wants to use them, not when the DM feels like letting the player use them. This change led to the massive revamp ranger abilities got, and they've implied that it will also be the reasoning behind a revamp of the wild magic sorcerer.
To me, this sort of attitude feels like it comes from the DM vs. Player mindset, where people think that the DM is supposed to be out to beat the players at every turn. I've played in a lot of those games over the years, and I've never found them to be particularly enjoyable, to the point where if I get a sense that someone is that kind of DM, I won't play in their campaign, because I know I won't have a good time.
Players should be allowed to use their abilities. They should be encouraged to use them. Spells like Banishment, Forcecage, Teleport and Wish are fun, and they are high enough level that they should be powerful tools.
I agree that 6e is going the wrong direction. I was hoping for a 5.5e but doesn't look like it is going that way. I do like some of the changes but the majority of the changes are just bad.