These legendary spells unfortunately have been lost since 2e and they were 10th, 11th and 12th levels spells. A solution to this problem is to simply make them Opt-in where a DM can allow/disallow Legendary Spellcasting to be part of their game. Perhaps even limit each level where a DM may allow 10th Level, but not 11th and so on.
This would be a good idea as it gives DM's a wider variety of spells to play with for their higher level characters, while giving players the potential to reach that level of spellcasting. These types of spells also give tools for world-building.
Create an entirely new plane, ascend to godhood, create a world-tree, alter history, create a magical artifact, Gain Immortality, Create a Volcano -- The list of ideas goes on and on.
Even if a spellcaster could only learn one of these spells; It would be a great reward for an end of campaign prize.
Obviously, Cast times, Material components and such should be very difficult to come by.
Precious few campaigns get to the point where characters use 7th, 8th or 9th level spells. Seems like the first hurdle would be making existing high level content people will use, before going even higher-powered.
The question is why? What exactly will this contribute to the gaming experience at table?
These powers could very well be simulated by artifacts or events presented by the DM and would have more "role" in a campaign in this way. The overwhelming majority of players practically even had access to ninth level spells, even at the time of 2e and 3e these spells had practically no relevance on the table.
There *was* a market for this level of play way back when. An extremely limited market, but still.
Not in 2e or 3e, believe it or not, but in BECMI days... specifically the *I* in that. But that was a completely different way of doing D&D. The developers of the 'Advanced' line of D&D, which is the primary basis for 5e, have been spending a lot of time smoothing out the levelling curve. The BECMI system had seriously uneven tiers. 1-3 you did dungeons and some limited city adventuring. 3-14 you were basically kicked out of the dungeon and had to wander the wilderness. 15-25 you were dealing with regional politics and the like. 26-36 you expanded into the multiverse. 37+ you were a deity. I'm not sure how many people actually *played* the Immortals set, but there were three modules printed for it.
I think the 2e and 3e 'Epic' rules were attempts to convince the half-dozen people actually playing Immortals to switch to that edition. I get the impression it wasn't particularly successful. Heck, I've been playing D&D since the Fantasy Supplement to Chainmail days, and I think the only time I've played in that tier of game was once I walked into a pick-up game of Immortals at a con in Toronto. They handed me a sheet of paper and said they needed one more player (there was only two + the DM) to playtest a module before publication. I have vague memories of it being vaguely eastern European in flavor, but I can't quite remember *why* I thought that. I... wasn't very helpful as a playtester because I *still* don't quite grok the Immortal rules, not that I've put any effort into trying. :)
I want to know more about these 20th level players first TBH.
I think there's huge portions of data not being understood or analyzed correctly.
Most parties I assume are starting off from somewhere between level 1 and level 3. They end somewhere around level 10.
How much are the average players playing per week/month and how much are they progressing?
I mean for myself, I see 4-6 hours as necessary to rush through a one shot adventure from one of the modules. And that's at a brisk pace with 4 players. In a longer campaign setting that one chapter of a module can be two sessions, sometimes 3.
So I mean unless you are levelling up after every chapter, (and even then), you're talking about a year or maybe even a year and a half of playing the same character.
And as you get further in, remember, levelling is SUPPOSED to be a bit more exponential, meaning the higher levels should take a lot longer to gain, and gameplay itself becomes less combat focused meaning stories slow down...
TLDR; how the hell are people even getting to level 20 when it should take 2-4 years of playing a character to do so,
Fix tiers 3 and 4 before worrying about Epic level feats/boon/spells.
Right now, I think the only way people play in these tiers is campaigns that start in them, very rare for a campaign to go from level 1 to level 20. Most campaigns die level 10-12, so no point tacking on more borked spell options for level 20 when level 13-20 need to be revisited.
I love the idea of powerful spells being on a "at DM permission" list, but we don't need more even more powerful spells, but to move some existing spells to there. Simulacrum, Plane Shift, Meteor Swarm, Tsunami, Prismatic Wall, Wish, Goodberry, Counterspell, Remove Curse, Resurrection, Blue Veil, Clone, Polymorph should all go on a "It's up to the DM if these spells exist in the world" list.
I love the idea of powerful spells being on a "at DM permission" list, but we don't need more even more powerful spells, but to move some existing spells to there. Simulacrum, Plane Shift, Meteor Swarm, Tsunami, Prismatic Wall, Wish, Goodberry, Counterspell, Remove Curse, Resurrection, Blue Veil, Clone, Polymorph should all go on a "It's up to the DM if these spells exist in the world" list.
This.
though counterspell is more of an annoyance, goodberry is only broken if you run survival, and I'd prefer polymorph and planar shift only work on willing subjects. (friends, not foes, and only those that want it).
remove curse is ehhhhhh..... It's fairly circumstantial.
Technically a DM already has veto power on any spell, or on applications that would break a narrative. For instance, the easy fix for Remove Curse is just saying this particular curse is too powerful for the spell; VRGtR already discusses that point for designing curses, so you're not even going outside official material with the idea. Polymorph is also not actually that useful, given that anything you hit with it just snaps back once you reduce the new form's HP or the spell ends. Plane Shift also takes an attack roll and a save to go through, and its touch so most likely your squishy caster is now within 5 ft of the BBEG if it fails.
Technically a DM already has veto power on any spell, or on applications that would break a narrative. For instance, the easy fix for Remove Curse is just saying this particular curse is too powerful for the spell; VRGtR already discusses that point for designing curses, so you're not even going outside official material with the idea. Polymorph is also not actually that useful, given that anything you hit with it just snaps back once you reduce the new form's HP or the spell ends. Plane Shift also takes an attack roll and a save to go through, and its touch so most likely your squishy caster is now within 5 ft of the BBEG if it fails.
Sure but it feels really bad for e.g. a player who took remove curse to find out that actually it doesn't work in 90% of the circumstances they want to use it for. Polymorph is potentially world breaking because you can use it to turn into any beast with a statblock. Again, it's really not fun for a player to make Polymorph only to be told when they try to use it that they can't turn into a T-rex or a Giant Ape because those creatures don't exist. Likewise it sucks for a Wizard to take Plane Shift or Dream of the Blue Veil only to find out that the components to use that spell aren't available anywhere because the DM doesn't want the players going to different planes.
Whereas, if players are told at character creation: "ask your DM if these spells are available" it avoids these conflicts.
I mean, there’s always a certain degree of “mother may I?” when it comes to spells that do more than inflict damage or a printed condition. It’s something people learn to play the game around, not a reason to take a weed whacker to the spell lists.
I mean, there’s always a certain degree of “mother may I?” when it comes to spells that do more than inflict damage or a printed condition. It’s something people learn to play the game around, not a reason to take a weed whacker to the spell lists.
If that's the case, why not make it explicitly so? As the books are now, people find this out by coming into conflict with a DM or getting told by another player, the books don't give any hints that this is the case, thus create false-expectations and conflict at the table.
I think when something is likely to be controversial or unbalancing (or re-balancing), it's good to call it out as an easy and allowed change ... and not just rely on the implicit ability for the DM to make changes. Sometimes explicit is better than implicit.
I mean, there’s always a certain degree of “mother may I?” when it comes to spells that do more than inflict damage or a printed condition. It’s something people learn to play the game around, not a reason to take a weed whacker to the spell lists.
If that's the case, why not make it explicitly so? As the books are now, people find this out by coming into conflict with a DM or getting told by another player, the books don't give any hints that this is the case, thus create false-expectations and conflict at the table.
That’s exactly what Rule Zero is, and few of your examples are actually that debilitating to a character; Polymorph and Plane Shift are still viable spells even if the DM blocks niche applications; only one class that can learn Remove Curse isn’t a prep caster and that’s Warlock, who won’t take it in the first place unless they know they’ll have reason to use it; Dream of the Blue Veil is likewise so specific in its purpose that almost no one will take it without confirmation that the DM will support it. Pretty much all of this just comes down to going over expectations and exceptions for the campaign; they could stand to expand the Session Zero guidelines a lot more than they need to prune the spell lists.
Rule Zero makes all of the individual changes implicit via a global permission. I think what Agilemind and I are both saying is: this specific option should be explicit and not implicitly rely upon Rule Zero.
Exactly, if your argument is "This doesn't actually change anything because this is already implicit in the rules" then why are you so against simply making it explicit?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
These legendary spells unfortunately have been lost since 2e and they were 10th, 11th and 12th levels spells. A solution to this problem is to simply make them Opt-in where a DM can allow/disallow Legendary Spellcasting to be part of their game. Perhaps even limit each level where a DM may allow 10th Level, but not 11th and so on.
This would be a good idea as it gives DM's a wider variety of spells to play with for their higher level characters, while giving players the potential to reach that level of spellcasting. These types of spells also give tools for world-building.
Create an entirely new plane, ascend to godhood, create a world-tree, alter history, create a magical artifact, Gain Immortality, Create a Volcano -- The list of ideas goes on and on.
Even if a spellcaster could only learn one of these spells; It would be a great reward for an end of campaign prize.
Obviously, Cast times, Material components and such should be very difficult to come by.
Precious few campaigns get to the point where characters use 7th, 8th or 9th level spells. Seems like the first hurdle would be making existing high level content people will use, before going even higher-powered.
How'd you feel about the 3e Epic Level Handbook?
There *was* a market for this level of play way back when. An extremely limited market, but still.
Not in 2e or 3e, believe it or not, but in BECMI days... specifically the *I* in that. But that was a completely different way of doing D&D. The developers of the 'Advanced' line of D&D, which is the primary basis for 5e, have been spending a lot of time smoothing out the levelling curve. The BECMI system had seriously uneven tiers. 1-3 you did dungeons and some limited city adventuring. 3-14 you were basically kicked out of the dungeon and had to wander the wilderness. 15-25 you were dealing with regional politics and the like. 26-36 you expanded into the multiverse. 37+ you were a deity. I'm not sure how many people actually *played* the Immortals set, but there were three modules printed for it.
I think the 2e and 3e 'Epic' rules were attempts to convince the half-dozen people actually playing Immortals to switch to that edition. I get the impression it wasn't particularly successful. Heck, I've been playing D&D since the Fantasy Supplement to Chainmail days, and I think the only time I've played in that tier of game was once I walked into a pick-up game of Immortals at a con in Toronto. They handed me a sheet of paper and said they needed one more player (there was only two + the DM) to playtest a module before publication. I have vague memories of it being vaguely eastern European in flavor, but I can't quite remember *why* I thought that. I... wasn't very helpful as a playtester because I *still* don't quite grok the Immortal rules, not that I've put any effort into trying. :)
I want to know more about these 20th level players first TBH.
I think there's huge portions of data not being understood or analyzed correctly.
Most parties I assume are starting off from somewhere between level 1 and level 3. They end somewhere around level 10.
How much are the average players playing per week/month and how much are they progressing?
I mean for myself, I see 4-6 hours as necessary to rush through a one shot adventure from one of the modules. And that's at a brisk pace with 4 players. In a longer campaign setting that one chapter of a module can be two sessions, sometimes 3.
So I mean unless you are levelling up after every chapter, (and even then), you're talking about a year or maybe even a year and a half of playing the same character.
And as you get further in, remember, levelling is SUPPOSED to be a bit more exponential, meaning the higher levels should take a lot longer to gain, and gameplay itself becomes less combat focused meaning stories slow down...
TLDR; how the hell are people even getting to level 20 when it should take 2-4 years of playing a character to do so,
Fix tiers 3 and 4 before worrying about Epic level feats/boon/spells.
Right now, I think the only way people play in these tiers is campaigns that start in them, very rare for a campaign to go from level 1 to level 20. Most campaigns die level 10-12, so no point tacking on more borked spell options for level 20 when level 13-20 need to be revisited.
I love the idea of powerful spells being on a "at DM permission" list, but we don't need more even more powerful spells, but to move some existing spells to there. Simulacrum, Plane Shift, Meteor Swarm, Tsunami, Prismatic Wall, Wish, Goodberry, Counterspell, Remove Curse, Resurrection, Blue Veil, Clone, Polymorph should all go on a "It's up to the DM if these spells exist in the world" list.
This.
though counterspell is more of an annoyance, goodberry is only broken if you run survival, and I'd prefer polymorph and planar shift only work on willing subjects. (friends, not foes, and only those that want it).
remove curse is ehhhhhh..... It's fairly circumstantial.
Technically a DM already has veto power on any spell, or on applications that would break a narrative. For instance, the easy fix for Remove Curse is just saying this particular curse is too powerful for the spell; VRGtR already discusses that point for designing curses, so you're not even going outside official material with the idea. Polymorph is also not actually that useful, given that anything you hit with it just snaps back once you reduce the new form's HP or the spell ends. Plane Shift also takes an attack roll and a save to go through, and its touch so most likely your squishy caster is now within 5 ft of the BBEG if it fails.
Sure but it feels really bad for e.g. a player who took remove curse to find out that actually it doesn't work in 90% of the circumstances they want to use it for. Polymorph is potentially world breaking because you can use it to turn into any beast with a statblock. Again, it's really not fun for a player to make Polymorph only to be told when they try to use it that they can't turn into a T-rex or a Giant Ape because those creatures don't exist. Likewise it sucks for a Wizard to take Plane Shift or Dream of the Blue Veil only to find out that the components to use that spell aren't available anywhere because the DM doesn't want the players going to different planes.
Whereas, if players are told at character creation: "ask your DM if these spells are available" it avoids these conflicts.
I mean, there’s always a certain degree of “mother may I?” when it comes to spells that do more than inflict damage or a printed condition. It’s something people learn to play the game around, not a reason to take a weed whacker to the spell lists.
If that's the case, why not make it explicitly so? As the books are now, people find this out by coming into conflict with a DM or getting told by another player, the books don't give any hints that this is the case, thus create false-expectations and conflict at the table.
I think when something is likely to be controversial or unbalancing (or re-balancing), it's good to call it out as an easy and allowed change ... and not just rely on the implicit ability for the DM to make changes. Sometimes explicit is better than implicit.
That’s exactly what Rule Zero is, and few of your examples are actually that debilitating to a character; Polymorph and Plane Shift are still viable spells even if the DM blocks niche applications; only one class that can learn Remove Curse isn’t a prep caster and that’s Warlock, who won’t take it in the first place unless they know they’ll have reason to use it; Dream of the Blue Veil is likewise so specific in its purpose that almost no one will take it without confirmation that the DM will support it. Pretty much all of this just comes down to going over expectations and exceptions for the campaign; they could stand to expand the Session Zero guidelines a lot more than they need to prune the spell lists.
Rule Zero makes all of the individual changes implicit via a global permission. I think what Agilemind and I are both saying is: this specific option should be explicit and not implicitly rely upon Rule Zero.
Exactly, if your argument is "This doesn't actually change anything because this is already implicit in the rules" then why are you so against simply making it explicit?