D&D 5E Increasing the power of spells?

[Skyscraper]

I like for spellcasters to be powerful. I'm fine that martial types do not compete, damage-wise, with spellcasters.

I was thinking about perhaps increasing the power of spellcasters a bit.

One idea that came to mind, is to have a 1-round delay for any saving throw on a spell that affects a creature. So any spell that requires an initial save still requires that save, but then when you get to try to shake off the effect, you have one round withouth possibility of saving; and then you start saving as usual.

Spells that allow to dispel magic would become more interesting to consider.

I'm also thinking of increasing the damage on any non-cantrip spell by 1 per die rolled (or 1 per level, I haven't made my mind up yet).

Any thoughts on the above?

 

[RhaezDaevan]

If this is a decision after playing the game for a while, then go for it. If this is from just reading the rules, then I'd say first play as is. Casters still can do a lot of things the noncasters cannot do., both in and out of combat.
Also keep in mind what your players think of this change.

 

[Astrosicebear]

If it works for the players, it should be the same for monsters/NPCs... which could lead to TPK's really easy.

 

[Zaran]

My thoughts on a high magic campaign would be go back to prior editions and let spells be cast at higher level for free. So a 9th level caster would cast all 2nd level spells as if they were using 5th level slots but spending 2nd level slots.

 

[Freejackk]

Why would anyone bother playing a martial character in your campaign if they know you are actively working for (even higher) caster supremacy?

 

[Celtavian]

Caster supremacy has been destroyed in the most important encounters in the game in 5th edition. Might not hurt to give them something.

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

Hmm.. I guess it is a sign of a rather well balanced ruleset, when the number of forum posts claiming that non-caster classes are under-powered, more or less equal the number of forum posts, that claim casters need more power...

 

[Sitara]

Caster supremacy has been destroyed in the most important encounters in the game in 5th edition. Might not hurt to give them something.

How exactly? Can you provide concrete examples?

If yo mean save or die spells or the fact that only 1 spell can be concentrated on at a time, these are good things. No more spending rounds and slots on buffs and buffs; that was utterly ridiculous. Have you ever read a fantasy novel or seen a movie where that happens?

However, spellcasters still rule with blaster/evocation type spells. Nothing beats Fireball.

 

[ren1999]

One thing you might try is to scale all the numbers of the spell.
Start all the spells out at a 30 ft. range
+5 ft. every higher casting level.
with a 10x10 cube ft. area.
Increase the spell area at 5th, 10th, and 15th casting level by +5 ft.
Spend a higher spell slot to increase the area size by +5 ft. with an increase in damage by +1d.

Disallowing saving throws is right up there with automatic damage. It angers players and they want to take their dice and go home.

 

[Gadget]

I think allowing auto stun-lock on Legendary monsters would probably not be a good thing. Though maybe adding casting stat bonus to cantrips might help, it you don't mind the casters overshadowing others. That said, I largely support 5e's attempts to adjust the QWLF (Quadratic Wizard, Linear Fighter) issue. My one observations is that many higher level spells (6-9th) don't seem quite worth the increasingly rare spell slot it costs to cast them. Some, like teleport, have had their effects and level adjusted to account for how they change the campaign or battlefield; yet others may need more adjustment. We just had a big thread on how Drawjim's Instant Summons seems a little weak, given it's limitations and the relative lack of high level spell slots. I would also be interested to know how Monderkien's Sword does as it feels a little meh for its level, considering that Spiritual Weapon does the same thing, but better.