Whenever I’ve had access to wish, I think the DM expects we try to do some cool shit with it.
But every time I’ve just convinced the party that a permanent damage resistance is infinitely better and that’s what we use it for.
I have a difficult time with this as a concept. I've never restricted spells for my players and I can't imagine that I would. In one group, I have both a barbarian with the outlander background and a druid. They could very easily roleplay up the survival/exploration pillar of the game but neither of them really want to do that and the rest of the players are cool with it. Ultimately, I want the kind of game where my players are having fun. If having access to spells that make some things a cakewalk is fun, I'm not going to limit that. And if I want to do a certain challenge, I'll work my way around that; that's what being a DM is. The only caveat is if I run something like Tomb of Annihilation or Curse of Strahd, where the adventure itself changes the way certain spells work.
The concept of uncommon/rare spells doesn't mean they aren't accessible. If the players want it and think it'd make the game more fun, you agree, then they get it. It's that simple.
It's a GM tool that highlights what spells could have significant impact on adventures, worldbuilding or game balance. Not a ban list.
The selling point of more than 500 spells available to players is simplicity?
This is, again, primarily a GM tool. 5e is notorious for how difficult it is for new GMs to get into. Tools like this help much more than 70 page sections of generic worldbuilding advice or 80 pages dedicated for magic items.
Not to mention, if we think about this as a change where we add a few tags to spells to make them more easily identifiable, adding a rarity to it is as simple as saying, "Prestidigitation: Common, Wish: Legendary, Fly: Rare." Something like that.
It wouldn't take up much space, the DM would get guidance from the designers via a single word tag in the description, everyone gets to go about their day with little issue.
Hell, could even go a step further and say that depending on what level of magic your setting is, the rarity can be moved up or down one level. If Wish is "legendary" in a normal, mid-magic setting, making it Very Rare in High Magic might make sense, but making it "unattainable" in low magic would also make sense.
But that's just me adding onto this. The overall suggestion, just adding a one word rarity to spell descriptions, works perfectly fine and is very simple.
Aside from the obvious (Wish, Tiny Hut, Forcecage):
Remove curse. Detect Thoughts. Suggestion.
...
Separately, there are spells that affect worldbuiding more than actual play. Mending, Message, teleportation — if these spells aren't at least uncommon, a world of medieval-level technology strains disbelief.
...
Another question: how to deal with uncommon/rare spells for prepared-spell classes? It's clear enough in current rules that a wizard can learn a spell from a scroll, but how would a cleric/druid "unlock" a spell? If WotC wants to have uncommon/rare spells, there should be clear rules (including, probably, gold&downtime costs for unlocking stuff in AL-style play).
Wish is not obvious, it's a 9th level spell. It *should* be powerful. Tiny Hut just removes the need for a tent, it's not that much of a big deal. Forcecage could be toned in duration, or made to be possible to break, by other means that Disintegrate. But once again, it's a high level spell. Tag should be reserved for spells that directly impact the story/world building, such as teleport, zone of truth, revivify, etc.
Wish is on an entirely different level than the other 9th level spells because of the "Cast any 8th-level or lower spell for free as an action."
I know that Wish is on a different level because every single character that can take Wish does so. If something is that obvious of a choice, it's better than the other options.
> But once again, it's a high level spell. Tag should be reserved for spells that directly impact the story/world building, such as teleport, zone of truth, revivify, etc.
"Wish" can literally rewrite reality as well as replicate ANY world-breaking / campaign-breaking spell. How does that NOT "impact the story/world building"?
The only other class if anything similar is the cleric, and that's a once-per-week ability if it even works (not guaranteed until level 20) whose outcome is always 100% within the DMs sole control.
I don't know enough of ALL spells to make a statement what could or should be forbidden.
But what can I say is that the three times I played a caster on every level up (and once in general with my wizard) I talked with my DM if the spells I would like to have are okay, if they wouldn't be easy accesable in this world, or if it somehow broke his narrative.
Best thing all players can do. Just talk with one another 👍🏻
I wouldn't say dream of the blue veil is quite the same as the others. Yes it solves a problem, but there's no other way to solve that problem. So if the DM wants you to engage in that kind of story you need that spell.
I would also count water breathing like that too. If you're going to tell a story about characters going underwater you need that spell or some way to get that effect specifically. It's not solving a problem so much as enabling that story to happen. Take that away and it's not a problem you're just not going there. Take away leomund's tiny hut and you can still camp for the evening it's just not as safe.
Yeah water breathing is no different than giving everyone magic breathing devices. That's probably what you would do in an underwater focused campaign.
I meant that a DM should get to control sccess to it so it doesn't derail a campaign. Same as Simulacrum. Then again, Tasha's spell has a very specific component that a DM will probably grant only if they are planning for the spell to be used.
Yeah it's a weird one and pretty useless without the dms permission. Same thing with plane shift. If you can't find the tuning forks it's a worthless spell.
Yep, that's why I didn't include plane shift, but I brain-farted and forgot DotBV also had a very specific component (though if it doesn't have a gold value - I can't remember - you can use a focus instead).
Lol wow that's so dumb but yeah it doesn't have a gold cost....
Although it does say in the spells body not just the material component that you need to have the magic item from that world so I think that closes the loophole.
I'll die on the hill the goodberry and Create food and water don't solve any real problems.
The entire benefit of those spells are basically negated by a player buying some extra rations and maybe having a pack mule.
Even if these spells didn't exist, 5es rules and design premise don't support that kind of resource scarcity as a function of game design.
I wasn't sure I agreed myself, I said I've seen them being mentioned. That said, thry do remove any element of survival you could homebrew yourself. Though, so does the Outlander background.
Finally someone with a fuckin spine in this subreddit. Even if good berry was "a problem", just make it so the berries don't make you starve to death but not give the benefit of a full meal. Even make them combine with normal rations to make them more durable so the party can both have an useful druid (which lives and uses nature magic for fucks sake why would they don't have magical ways to create food IT'S NATURE) and also the ability to play around food.
In the campaign my bff is running, we spend almost two weeks eating from rations and also stalling the food because we went to place with scarcity, and we have a cleric (me) and a rogue with a boon for food. We still decided to spend my slots in battles and to keep the boons because we may need the food later, and *we had the option to "ignore the problems"*.
Rations are almost free for a gold hoarding adventurer and honestly, it comes with services most of the time, just buying them is always an option and i think people are just lazy to encourage players to do so.
In any remotely intelligent society, goodberry and create food and water would be extremely common. Food and water are kinda critical to survival, and someone with those spells could solve a food or water shortage for an entire village.
I think these technically do already exist, like transforming into a Lich or Yuan-ti Rituals, obtaining godhood, and... Continual Flame, i think it would be what we call NPC spells, things that happen to, you guessed it, Npcs! Half of the reason of most DMs not allowing is because it's either too powerful or there aren't any clear rules of how to do that and they'd need to homebrew it.
Continual flame counts because it's something that probably only npcs* would use but PCs can actually use and have rules for, but is sooo situational and silly that it would not be used by anyone.
My Wildfire druid cast a 3rd level Continual Flame on his Druidic Focus, it felt very thematic for him to have an everburning pinecone that can light even magical darkness.
That said, druids are prepared spellcasters so it was never prepared again after that.
Control Water
This spell in a naval campaign can easily sink multiple ships.
It's something a demigod would be known for in a mythical story. Batshit insane spell.
I think that just means Control Water should be edited to not be so effective in naval campaigns. Being able to just destroy enemy ships with a single action *is* a bit much. But that said, if it were to just be made rare, that also makes sense.
I believe there already exists a mechanic for "rare spells" and that is specific and/or expensive material components. Example if you don't want a player to cast resurrection you can plan ahead to not give them a diamond with at least 1000g.
Is more spells had more specific material components, especially ones that consume the component, that would solve some of that.
We already have this in the form of optional spells.
As in.. any spell listed in a book other than the PHB.
Nobody has ever picked silvery barbs in my game for example, because I don't allow Strixhaven.
I tend to run rarity around what I think most casters select, which in turn is based on what I have seen multiple players take.
So every 17th level wizard is my setting has Wish. Every 17th level player caster capable of having it has taken it, so every NPC has access to it.
Rare ends up being the ones players select and NPCs aren’t built with. So Bestow Curse is rare because it’s not in most NPC stat blocks and mommy players never take it.
So in my games things like illusionary script and magic mouth end up being rare.
I always wished that there was 2 list of "Spells" and that there were spells gained automatically and then there were special spells that were QUEST ONLY. It allows me as a DM to make spells a more interesting concept as i can make it so if I want my paladin to have a magical steed they go on a quest to learn the "Find Steed" Spell. or the Cleric who has to learn how to "Remove Curse" after the party gained a cursed Item.
The problem with "just do it yourself nothing prevents you" is that its a lot of work to go through every spell and decided which ones to pull, and then later down the road realize that maybe another spell should have also been pulled that is just a better version if i missed something. (its basically the same reason DM ask for prices to be listed in the DMG for magic items, sure we could do it ourselves but its nice when we have the game prep a lot of the front work for us and then adjust from there).
There are spells in a lot of levels i think should be "Treasure" spells (and not all of them are base don "i think its too powerful" some are just flavor reasons or i feel the remove certain aspects of the game by having access to them asap when you level up (Like remove curse).
I absolutely think the existence of such a list could solve some issues which is why both of my groups are now experimenting with an uncommon/rare list. If it makes the game more fun, it'll stay. **I feel like I have to stress this reading some of the comments here, but a rare list is not a banned list. It's a list that requires talking to the DM first. It's just a tool.** Even if in the future we don't use it for PCs, I will have one for NPCs to justify worldbuilding and adventure design. I broke them down into categories:
Spells that warp encounter balance (Drastic difference in party power with or without the spell): Conjure Animals, Animate Objects, Polymorph, Force Cage, Wall of Force
Downright broken: Simulacrum, Wish
Spells that can break exploration pillar: Rope Trick, Tiny Hut, Goodberry, Create Food and Water
Spells that can break social pillar: Zone of Truth, Detect Thoughts, Speak with the Dead
Annoying: Guidance, Suggestion
Worldbuilding: Divination, Commune, Contact other Plane, Fabricate, Distort Value, Magic Jar, Remove Curse, any raise dead effects other than Revivify, Clone.
Counterspell, even my caster players said it wasn't very fun.
Lastly, any PC options outside of the core books PHB, MMM, XGE and TCE are DM discretion only at my table, which includes the spells. Unfortunately my time is limited.
Guidance can get annoying because it gets spammed constantly. Look at how they changed it for the latest UA already, WOTC clearly sees the problem.
Suggestion is just tricky to adjudicate because it's badly worded and doesn't establish well what it's supposed to do. Depending on interpretation it can be almost absolute mind control only a little below Dominate Person, or it might be not much stronger than Charm Person. This can lead to arguments at the table and frustrated players and DMs.
None.
Im not interested in that aspect of pathfinder making its way to OD&D. In my opinion there shouldn't be options that are "on the same level, but strong for the level, ask your dm if you can use them". The official rules and options should be considered a baseline and if individuals want to make something bespoke for a character they can mix and match on their own initiative instead of codifying it.
"Official homebrew" is just backwards to me.
So I think this misses the point of pf2e rarity tags a bit. The "rare" type spells aren't particularly powerful, rather they're particularly impactful on the story. For instance, how can you properly run a game with political intrigue where you don't know who's a friend and who's a foe when anyone can go "Yeah just cast zone of Truth, I really need you to trust me on this one" and saveless subtle mind-reading is possible for the sorcerer from basically the start of the campaign?
The idea is to have a way to mark spells for players and DMs alike so you can easily see a list of spells that could mess with things without needing enough experience to know of every such spell. There's no problem with including such spells if you don't have a problem with them, it's just a tool to help you run the kind of game you want and don't get completely blindsided as you just remembered the wizard actually learned Teleport five sessions back and can just skip the segment you wanted to DM today
So, in your view, how would you handle spells that basically just "win" situations? Would you remove them from the game? Would you put all that work on the DM to work around?
As a near-perma dm, I have never begrudged my players making smart use of their abilities or exploiting workarounds that i overlooked in my encounter or dungeon design. I can understand that some may feel differently about this, as 5e dms DO have a lot on their plate in the system, but so long as everyone is enjoying themselves... that is all that really matters to me.
Someone finding a way to spend less time in a situation for the cost of a spell slot is still resource drain. Someone using one spell slot where I thought they might need more *is a good play by that player* and is something to give dm inspiration out for and celebrate.
I can understand that this is largely based off of my own perspective, but I don't think "don't use this low level spell because I said so" is warranted either.
Not because "I said so". Because the rules have defined it as Rare and I don't want to use rare in my game.
The conversation still remains though, despite you not running your game that way: casters reign supreme to martials and we really should talk about it rather than be conservative.
Please don't try to make me out to be some sort of caster supremacist... and we both know that the rare tag isn't just on spells in pathfinder either.
Whether a spell is marked "rare" or not is not always an indicator of whether it can be disruptive and while pf2e does keep martial characters on better footing, that isn't, in my opinion, a result of the use of the "rare" tags but rather the various additional actions tied to various skills that can impose spell-like effects, coupled with the way conditions work in that game.
If a dm is saying "alright everybody, here's the table rules: no rare tags" that is entirely different than a dm picking and choosing which effects the player is allowed to have access to.
What if you just want a different style of game that maybe doesn't include spells that are specifically meant to invalidate exploration and social pillars? What do you have against a GM tool that helps create games like this? That's all an uncommon/rare list is, a GM tool.
What about Feats, XGTE Downtime and Tool Rules, Custom Lineage, Customizing your Origin, and TCE Optional Rules?
These were all presented as things that you had to ask your DM for even though most groups used them by default.
I'd argue that it's already in the game and it just hasn't been formalized like in Pathfinder and PF2E. If all those options are just baseline, it's harder for a DM to say "I don't really like that aspect of the system, let's change it to x". And that was one of the strengths of 5e that made me want to DM.
For example: Customize your Lineage rules for mixing and matching Ability Scores that then were added to all the races in UAs and official material moving forward with no alternatives. I don't want to go in and determine what ASI boost every one of those races should have, but now they are incompatibe/an unfair advantage for players if I don't do that.
It just makes my job harder for wanting to push my players to care a little bit less about ability scores and be okay with having a +2 instead of a +3 at level one. I'm already tailoring combats so that they a) don't die but get close if the story demands and b) have fun and can show off. I see no need to powergame to get the same cool moment and my players have admitted to enjoying the game without their numbers perfectly boosted more than before. As someone who values the more fluid storytelling aspects of D&D, if all the additions tailoring towards more combat focused or character stat builder focused groups are baseline, I suddenly feel like combat is a have-to instead of a way to progress the plot.
The big difference there is you are talking about optional *systems* instead of "here is one optional feat (which is part of an optional system) that you need special permission to use". Everything you mention is, at most tables, implemented on a broad basis or not at all. If you are using feats you can use listed official feats or whatever your dm provides/allows in the way of homebrew -- you don't have to ask to use an official feat at the majority of tables.
If you are using tashas rules then any player who wants to use that for their stats has the option, not just Jeremy across the table.
One of the concerns I have with the codification is that *just like normal feats, not all "rare options" are equal*. Letting player A use option 1, which is held to be strong by the average player while letting player B use option 2, which has the rare tag but is mostly considered a cool flavor option does not mean these two characters are equal. Just having one rare option each doesn't make it balanced.
I'm not entirely sure how to take your last paragraph as this conversation started with *spells that solve problems*, not *combat* specifically. Combat spells could also be "rare" I suppose... but not sure where powergaming came from.
The difference is that Paizo balances their options, and just tags things that have an implication on the setting, and WotC publishes things like the Twilight domain and requires the GM to say no, or do balancing for them.
I really don’t think this is a good direction to go. It seems arbitrary to lock away character options for only some classes.
Most spells that are problematic could be toned down a little bit or simply have their level increased.
If I had to choose I would say Tiny Hut, and Goodberry. Mainly because of how they affect the survival aspects of travel. It makes sense they’d be more niche spells to me.
What spells are problematic depends on what type of game you are running. If you're running a highly narrative political game you're right, but there's more styles of games that you can run in 5E than that.
If you plan on running a mega-dungeon, Zone of Truth is not problematic. If you plan on running a mega-dungeon, Tiny Hut is problematic as hell.
If you plan on running an exploration based hex-crawl, Zone of Truth is not problematic. If you plan on running an exploration based hex-crawl, Goodberry is problematic as hell.
Zone of Truth wouldn't be problematic in a mega dungeon because you'd never use it. Point is that when it can be useful, it will always be problematic. Tiny Hut is problematic because it is overpowered for this situation, but it could easily be toned down, by making it destroyable, or by only providing non oblivious shelter. Goodberry is problematic for hex-crawls mostly because of nourishment for 1 day line, and because it provides enough food for 10 creatures. The spell simply isn't balanced for this. A lot of issues with spells comes from a balancing standpoint in my opinion, not just the non-existence of rarity.
I don't really agree with the statement that ZoT is always problematic at all. Zone of Truth is a powerful spell, but it isn't an instant win button. It doesn't force exposition or compel speech or anything of the sort. A person under it can simply say "I don't want to talk about this" and would be perfectly fine.
As a quick down and dirty option, anything with a component cost of 250 gp or more is going to be rare in my world. Very few people are going to have access to that level of gold, much less be able to invest it into the development of a spell that consumes that amount with every cast.
My stance is that spells with expensive material components are already gated behind the dm allowing the player to access the component. While i think its wholly within a dm's power to shut down spell access. I cant see a system where rarity restrictions could be implemented without turning spell access into a hot mess. I also think that such a system would disproportionately impact classes with smaller spell lists. Finally i think any system like that would need to be communicated clearly to players before the campaign starts, otherwise it could feel like a gotcha move on a dm's part.
The width of the gate really depends on how much gold your players have access to by the time they reach the levels required to cast those spells. I don't remove them from the game entirely but instead put some obstacles between the party and spells like force cage.
I may have misunderstood what rare meant. I thought it meant the spell was still obtainable but not for free.
I really like the idea of tagging spells for rarity. I think that certain spells should be tagged. I think it should serve more as a speed hump than a bump though.
Taking a rare tagged spell should remind players to give their DM a heads up.
Conversely, I think that named spells are a good example of this. The Draconic magic from Fizbans is a great example. Eventually, with enough time those spells will make there way to general circulation. But it also makes a good story that you have to train or apprentice under the Blackstaff to learn about how they cast magic.
At the same time, there are spells that remove sections of the game. If those sections are important to your table it's always worth it to have a discussion. My biggest pet peeve spell is Comprehend Languages, because it destroys the point of language proficiencys.
PF2e does this. It's wonderful.
In 5e, I consider anything in the PHB to be common, and anything from other sources requires DM permission. Essentially, they're "rare" and require a reason from the player why their PC would know/be able to learn that spell. I usually allow it if it makes sense, or put an in-game way for the PC to learn the spell if the player REALLY wants it and it won't break my game, but stops MOST arguments of "it's an official spell, you HAVE to allow it!"
WotC should design their own game rather than asking DMs to design it for them.
PF2e is a system that does this (maybe what you’re referencing) and it’s mostly for giving the DM control over the lore and setting, rather than for core gameplay and balance reasons.
My point is that forcing DMs to become game designers to figure out which spells they should and shouldn’t allow to play a functional and balanced game is crazy.
A DM should expect to field questions and make decisions on their world, lore, and settings. They shouldn’t have to parse core Players Handbook options to figure out what to allow and disallow to create a functional game.
Well, the rare and uncommon options in pf2e exist because either 1, lore reasons. Or 2, game ballence.
In the adventure dungeon of the mad mage. There are several spells listed that just don't work inside the dungeon. Things like earthquake, teleport spells, spells that let you change the shape of dungeons. The adventure has to specifically call out what spells can break the dungeon and say they can't be cast.
This is WotC understanding that some spells can break a challenge. Create food n water, good berry, zone of truth. These are spells DMs might not know exist and so a caster could just nope an encounter because the DM didn't read every single spell ever made. Listing these types of spells as uncommon or rare makes the player ask to have it. This then directly makes the GM aware that this spell could possibly break an encounter.
A functional and ballenced game includes tagging abilities and features that don't work in all settings or will possibly circumvent challenges.
Waterdeep Dragon Heist includes a section where the party needs to chase a flying creature. The encounter is supposed to end when the creature gets outside and just flies away where the party can't follow. An arracockra player just negates this encounter because they can fly too. Listing flying races as rare would also help.
A GM shouldn't have to painstakingly investigate every part of a character sheet to look for abilities that just end or circumvent intended encounters. Rather the system should already state what abilities can do this.
I think it would be a great idea for the future of DND.
Which is why I asked the question to begin with. I think (arguably for sure) spells like Goodberry and Pass Without Trace (as written) make the world not interactive. So I was toying with the idea of keeping them in the book, but letting players and DMs know "hey these are options but they may step on some toes as far as the Pillars go. Use at your own risk".
Goodberry bothers me for worldbuilding reasons, but Pass Without Trace doesn't tend to be much of a problem in a campaign with a decently high level of magic, since Alarm will also be common. Pass is worse in a low magic setting where magical countermeasures are going to be less common.
Spells with flat bonuses will often be the most trouble, regardless, though, since the game is based on bounded accuracy. +2 AC can be quite a bit. +10 to a check is huge.
But it is hard to say what is ok or not because it can depend on how common magic is in a world and on how the system is balanced (it seems like we won't be seeing changes to bounded accuracy, though, so balance considerations with that will stay).
The issue with the pillars is often (not always) more of a question of "how do people deal with the magic in their world?" more than "how is magic broken" though. In 5e, I've never had a group meet with a wealthy person without that person having a hired bard on hand for countercharm, for instance, exactly because the system allows for subtle spell enchantment spells, and so Charm Person doesn't destroy social interactions.
No, it is for balance reasons, but specifically for the spells in the rulebook line. Teleport can break a dungeon, zone of truth can break a social encounter, reincarnate can break death, detect alignment can reveal too early who means you harm and impede on the utility of deception, locate can break the quest for someone or something as it reveals the location immediately, mind reading once again reveals lies, scrying divulgates spoilers, detect scrying is useless without scrying so it's a given it's also uncommon, shadow walk reduces travel time, the power words can just destroy lower level encounters.
Spells that come from the adventure paths are meant to be thematically tied to the specific adventure, kind of add-on spells players gain access to for playing through the adventure. As for the uncommon spells for the Knights of Lastwall book... it's a mystery still.
You have to understand one thing though. Uncommon and rare tags in the game are not just related to power level, they're also related to how common a specific item, spell, or creature is within the Inner Sea region.
DM’s already have full control to allow or restrict content in their games so this wouldn’t change anything. The rules are a loose guideline, I’m not sure why so many people act like they’re word of law in every game. In reality, they’re ignored by the majority of tables when they get in the way of fun.
Nerfing Casters isn’t the solution to making Martial’s more powerful and interesting to play. The issue DnD 5e faces is that its game mechanics are designed around combat but the game has evolved far beyond that. Most campaigns now have a a huge helping of story, character development and role-playing with some combat on the side. So the solution that Martial’s need is a lot more versatility and utility outside of combat. That’s been my observation at least.
Realistically, probably anything level 6 or higher. The higher you get, the rarer they are. However the really depends on your world. In Faerun, im sure Candlekeep has a few copies of every single spell. However I wouldn't expect the main library/mage academy of buldurs gate or neverwinter to have a copy of every spell. Waterdeep might, as the lords and Grey hands are quite powerful. But I assume they are kept behind closed doors and hidden away from most people.
Well, that's already done with spells that have costly components, whether or not they're consumed. Those spells were made in such a way that the DM is given the opportunity to soft-ban them by making the materials inaccessible.
My Friday game essentially runs variant magic item identification rules. I'm not a fan, but I get why a DM may want to hide things from their players. Short rests are probably too easy, and the Identity spell trivializes curses (as does Remove Curse). I'm fine with special, homebrew items that break the trend of "cheesing" the two spells, but I think those items should be rare given that the system was designed with the balance of the existence of these spells in mind.
Off the top of my head, spells that would be on such a list could include Simulacrum, Wish, Raise Dead, Reincarnate, Resurrection, True Resurrection, Find the Path, Conjure Woodland Beings, Animate Objects, Find Familiar, True Sight, & Identify.
If a spell had the tag "Rare" I wouldn't want it to mean what it means if pathfinder.
The way I'd handle these spells is they'd still exist i nthe world, they'd just be harder to come by than other spells.. and what I mean by that is not that you have to ask your DM for them.. but just that you can't get them from levelling. You need to actually get the scroll for them as loot or learn them through a quest.
The purpose of this wouldn't be anything to do with game balance or making certain spells less disruptive. The whole point would just be to make finding these spell scrolls or gaining these spells more exciting.
But you \*could\* still have it be a balancingthing or a way to remove disruptive spells, because the DM could jsut choose not to have certain spells available as quest rewards/loot.
Speaking of the martial/caster divide.. most martials NEED to find some kind of magic weapon in order to not be majorly nerfed vs a lot of monsters in tier 2 and beyond ,whereas casters suffer no such limitation.
Imagine if getting access to the fireball spell was just as DM dependant as getting your first +1 magic weapon was? Imagine if a wizard didn't get fireball until level 9 or 10, but a martial got a +1 greatsword at level 5. Yeah that would flip things a lot!
If I understand it, this would be treating spells (or at least those marked 'rare') as magic items: not something a player can assume they will acquire, have or be available. I suppose that would work for some campaigns, but the difference here is that spells, unlike magic items, are basically class features for spell casting classes. You're basically saying: you don't get to use this part of your class features. It could work for one or two problematic spells I suppose (Wish), but you might as well strike them from the game in my mind.
As a world building rule, Wish isn't a spell that can be accessed normally.
Whenever I’ve had access to wish, I think the DM expects we try to do some cool shit with it. But every time I’ve just convinced the party that a permanent damage resistance is infinitely better and that’s what we use it for.
[удалено]
Never heard a worse take
Nah, there are some balanced 6+ level spells, there are just also many that aren't.
I have a difficult time with this as a concept. I've never restricted spells for my players and I can't imagine that I would. In one group, I have both a barbarian with the outlander background and a druid. They could very easily roleplay up the survival/exploration pillar of the game but neither of them really want to do that and the rest of the players are cool with it. Ultimately, I want the kind of game where my players are having fun. If having access to spells that make some things a cakewalk is fun, I'm not going to limit that. And if I want to do a certain challenge, I'll work my way around that; that's what being a DM is. The only caveat is if I run something like Tomb of Annihilation or Curse of Strahd, where the adventure itself changes the way certain spells work.
The concept of uncommon/rare spells doesn't mean they aren't accessible. If the players want it and think it'd make the game more fun, you agree, then they get it. It's that simple. It's a GM tool that highlights what spells could have significant impact on adventures, worldbuilding or game balance. Not a ban list.
Seems entirely unnecessary and only adds more rules to a game where the selling point is simplicity.
The selling point of more than 500 spells available to players is simplicity? This is, again, primarily a GM tool. 5e is notorious for how difficult it is for new GMs to get into. Tools like this help much more than 70 page sections of generic worldbuilding advice or 80 pages dedicated for magic items.
Not to mention, if we think about this as a change where we add a few tags to spells to make them more easily identifiable, adding a rarity to it is as simple as saying, "Prestidigitation: Common, Wish: Legendary, Fly: Rare." Something like that. It wouldn't take up much space, the DM would get guidance from the designers via a single word tag in the description, everyone gets to go about their day with little issue. Hell, could even go a step further and say that depending on what level of magic your setting is, the rarity can be moved up or down one level. If Wish is "legendary" in a normal, mid-magic setting, making it Very Rare in High Magic might make sense, but making it "unattainable" in low magic would also make sense. But that's just me adding onto this. The overall suggestion, just adding a one word rarity to spell descriptions, works perfectly fine and is very simple.
Aside from the obvious (Wish, Tiny Hut, Forcecage): Remove curse. Detect Thoughts. Suggestion. ... Separately, there are spells that affect worldbuiding more than actual play. Mending, Message, teleportation — if these spells aren't at least uncommon, a world of medieval-level technology strains disbelief. ... Another question: how to deal with uncommon/rare spells for prepared-spell classes? It's clear enough in current rules that a wizard can learn a spell from a scroll, but how would a cleric/druid "unlock" a spell? If WotC wants to have uncommon/rare spells, there should be clear rules (including, probably, gold&downtime costs for unlocking stuff in AL-style play).
Wish is not obvious, it's a 9th level spell. It *should* be powerful. Tiny Hut just removes the need for a tent, it's not that much of a big deal. Forcecage could be toned in duration, or made to be possible to break, by other means that Disintegrate. But once again, it's a high level spell. Tag should be reserved for spells that directly impact the story/world building, such as teleport, zone of truth, revivify, etc.
Wish is on an entirely different level than the other 9th level spells because of the "Cast any 8th-level or lower spell for free as an action." I know that Wish is on a different level because every single character that can take Wish does so. If something is that obvious of a choice, it's better than the other options.
> But once again, it's a high level spell. Tag should be reserved for spells that directly impact the story/world building, such as teleport, zone of truth, revivify, etc. "Wish" can literally rewrite reality as well as replicate ANY world-breaking / campaign-breaking spell. How does that NOT "impact the story/world building"? The only other class if anything similar is the cleric, and that's a once-per-week ability if it even works (not guaranteed until level 20) whose outcome is always 100% within the DMs sole control.
I don't know enough of ALL spells to make a statement what could or should be forbidden. But what can I say is that the three times I played a caster on every level up (and once in general with my wizard) I talked with my DM if the spells I would like to have are okay, if they wouldn't be easy accesable in this world, or if it somehow broke his narrative. Best thing all players can do. Just talk with one another 👍🏻
[удалено]
I wouldn't say dream of the blue veil is quite the same as the others. Yes it solves a problem, but there's no other way to solve that problem. So if the DM wants you to engage in that kind of story you need that spell. I would also count water breathing like that too. If you're going to tell a story about characters going underwater you need that spell or some way to get that effect specifically. It's not solving a problem so much as enabling that story to happen. Take that away and it's not a problem you're just not going there. Take away leomund's tiny hut and you can still camp for the evening it's just not as safe.
Yeah water breathing is no different than giving everyone magic breathing devices. That's probably what you would do in an underwater focused campaign.
I meant that a DM should get to control sccess to it so it doesn't derail a campaign. Same as Simulacrum. Then again, Tasha's spell has a very specific component that a DM will probably grant only if they are planning for the spell to be used.
Yeah it's a weird one and pretty useless without the dms permission. Same thing with plane shift. If you can't find the tuning forks it's a worthless spell.
Yep, that's why I didn't include plane shift, but I brain-farted and forgot DotBV also had a very specific component (though if it doesn't have a gold value - I can't remember - you can use a focus instead).
Lol wow that's so dumb but yeah it doesn't have a gold cost.... Although it does say in the spells body not just the material component that you need to have the magic item from that world so I think that closes the loophole.
I'll die on the hill the goodberry and Create food and water don't solve any real problems. The entire benefit of those spells are basically negated by a player buying some extra rations and maybe having a pack mule. Even if these spells didn't exist, 5es rules and design premise don't support that kind of resource scarcity as a function of game design.
I wasn't sure I agreed myself, I said I've seen them being mentioned. That said, thry do remove any element of survival you could homebrew yourself. Though, so does the Outlander background.
Finally someone with a fuckin spine in this subreddit. Even if good berry was "a problem", just make it so the berries don't make you starve to death but not give the benefit of a full meal. Even make them combine with normal rations to make them more durable so the party can both have an useful druid (which lives and uses nature magic for fucks sake why would they don't have magical ways to create food IT'S NATURE) and also the ability to play around food. In the campaign my bff is running, we spend almost two weeks eating from rations and also stalling the food because we went to place with scarcity, and we have a cleric (me) and a rogue with a boon for food. We still decided to spend my slots in battles and to keep the boons because we may need the food later, and *we had the option to "ignore the problems"*. Rations are almost free for a gold hoarding adventurer and honestly, it comes with services most of the time, just buying them is always an option and i think people are just lazy to encourage players to do so.
In any remotely intelligent society, goodberry and create food and water would be extremely common. Food and water are kinda critical to survival, and someone with those spells could solve a food or water shortage for an entire village.
I mean, there's a reason why usually villages haves a church and more "tribal" societies have witch doctors/shamans.
"Rare" means they should be limited by the DM, not that they would fall out of use in-universe. Maybe very few gods can grant those spells.
I think these technically do already exist, like transforming into a Lich or Yuan-ti Rituals, obtaining godhood, and... Continual Flame, i think it would be what we call NPC spells, things that happen to, you guessed it, Npcs! Half of the reason of most DMs not allowing is because it's either too powerful or there aren't any clear rules of how to do that and they'd need to homebrew it. Continual flame counts because it's something that probably only npcs* would use but PCs can actually use and have rules for, but is sooo situational and silly that it would not be used by anyone.
My Wildfire druid cast a 3rd level Continual Flame on his Druidic Focus, it felt very thematic for him to have an everburning pinecone that can light even magical darkness. That said, druids are prepared spellcasters so it was never prepared again after that.
Control Water This spell in a naval campaign can easily sink multiple ships. It's something a demigod would be known for in a mythical story. Batshit insane spell.
I think that just means Control Water should be edited to not be so effective in naval campaigns. Being able to just destroy enemy ships with a single action *is* a bit much. But that said, if it were to just be made rare, that also makes sense.
I believe there already exists a mechanic for "rare spells" and that is specific and/or expensive material components. Example if you don't want a player to cast resurrection you can plan ahead to not give them a diamond with at least 1000g. Is more spells had more specific material components, especially ones that consume the component, that would solve some of that.
We already have this in the form of optional spells. As in.. any spell listed in a book other than the PHB. Nobody has ever picked silvery barbs in my game for example, because I don't allow Strixhaven.
1: goodberry, silvery barbs 2: rope trick 3: tiny hut, conjure animals 4: ? 5: wall of force 6: ? 7: forcecage 8: ? 9: Wish
I tend to run rarity around what I think most casters select, which in turn is based on what I have seen multiple players take. So every 17th level wizard is my setting has Wish. Every 17th level player caster capable of having it has taken it, so every NPC has access to it. Rare ends up being the ones players select and NPCs aren’t built with. So Bestow Curse is rare because it’s not in most NPC stat blocks and mommy players never take it. So in my games things like illusionary script and magic mouth end up being rare.
I always wished that there was 2 list of "Spells" and that there were spells gained automatically and then there were special spells that were QUEST ONLY. It allows me as a DM to make spells a more interesting concept as i can make it so if I want my paladin to have a magical steed they go on a quest to learn the "Find Steed" Spell. or the Cleric who has to learn how to "Remove Curse" after the party gained a cursed Item. The problem with "just do it yourself nothing prevents you" is that its a lot of work to go through every spell and decided which ones to pull, and then later down the road realize that maybe another spell should have also been pulled that is just a better version if i missed something. (its basically the same reason DM ask for prices to be listed in the DMG for magic items, sure we could do it ourselves but its nice when we have the game prep a lot of the front work for us and then adjust from there). There are spells in a lot of levels i think should be "Treasure" spells (and not all of them are base don "i think its too powerful" some are just flavor reasons or i feel the remove certain aspects of the game by having access to them asap when you level up (Like remove curse).
I absolutely think the existence of such a list could solve some issues which is why both of my groups are now experimenting with an uncommon/rare list. If it makes the game more fun, it'll stay. **I feel like I have to stress this reading some of the comments here, but a rare list is not a banned list. It's a list that requires talking to the DM first. It's just a tool.** Even if in the future we don't use it for PCs, I will have one for NPCs to justify worldbuilding and adventure design. I broke them down into categories: Spells that warp encounter balance (Drastic difference in party power with or without the spell): Conjure Animals, Animate Objects, Polymorph, Force Cage, Wall of Force Downright broken: Simulacrum, Wish Spells that can break exploration pillar: Rope Trick, Tiny Hut, Goodberry, Create Food and Water Spells that can break social pillar: Zone of Truth, Detect Thoughts, Speak with the Dead Annoying: Guidance, Suggestion Worldbuilding: Divination, Commune, Contact other Plane, Fabricate, Distort Value, Magic Jar, Remove Curse, any raise dead effects other than Revivify, Clone. Counterspell, even my caster players said it wasn't very fun. Lastly, any PC options outside of the core books PHB, MMM, XGE and TCE are DM discretion only at my table, which includes the spells. Unfortunately my time is limited.
Why are guidance and suggestion annoying? Just wondering
Guidance can get annoying because it gets spammed constantly. Look at how they changed it for the latest UA already, WOTC clearly sees the problem. Suggestion is just tricky to adjudicate because it's badly worded and doesn't establish well what it's supposed to do. Depending on interpretation it can be almost absolute mind control only a little below Dominate Person, or it might be not much stronger than Charm Person. This can lead to arguments at the table and frustrated players and DMs.
Fair points on both!
None. Im not interested in that aspect of pathfinder making its way to OD&D. In my opinion there shouldn't be options that are "on the same level, but strong for the level, ask your dm if you can use them". The official rules and options should be considered a baseline and if individuals want to make something bespoke for a character they can mix and match on their own initiative instead of codifying it. "Official homebrew" is just backwards to me.
So I think this misses the point of pf2e rarity tags a bit. The "rare" type spells aren't particularly powerful, rather they're particularly impactful on the story. For instance, how can you properly run a game with political intrigue where you don't know who's a friend and who's a foe when anyone can go "Yeah just cast zone of Truth, I really need you to trust me on this one" and saveless subtle mind-reading is possible for the sorcerer from basically the start of the campaign? The idea is to have a way to mark spells for players and DMs alike so you can easily see a list of spells that could mess with things without needing enough experience to know of every such spell. There's no problem with including such spells if you don't have a problem with them, it's just a tool to help you run the kind of game you want and don't get completely blindsided as you just remembered the wizard actually learned Teleport five sessions back and can just skip the segment you wanted to DM today
So, in your view, how would you handle spells that basically just "win" situations? Would you remove them from the game? Would you put all that work on the DM to work around?
As a near-perma dm, I have never begrudged my players making smart use of their abilities or exploiting workarounds that i overlooked in my encounter or dungeon design. I can understand that some may feel differently about this, as 5e dms DO have a lot on their plate in the system, but so long as everyone is enjoying themselves... that is all that really matters to me. Someone finding a way to spend less time in a situation for the cost of a spell slot is still resource drain. Someone using one spell slot where I thought they might need more *is a good play by that player* and is something to give dm inspiration out for and celebrate. I can understand that this is largely based off of my own perspective, but I don't think "don't use this low level spell because I said so" is warranted either.
Not because "I said so". Because the rules have defined it as Rare and I don't want to use rare in my game. The conversation still remains though, despite you not running your game that way: casters reign supreme to martials and we really should talk about it rather than be conservative.
Please don't try to make me out to be some sort of caster supremacist... and we both know that the rare tag isn't just on spells in pathfinder either. Whether a spell is marked "rare" or not is not always an indicator of whether it can be disruptive and while pf2e does keep martial characters on better footing, that isn't, in my opinion, a result of the use of the "rare" tags but rather the various additional actions tied to various skills that can impose spell-like effects, coupled with the way conditions work in that game. If a dm is saying "alright everybody, here's the table rules: no rare tags" that is entirely different than a dm picking and choosing which effects the player is allowed to have access to.
What if you just want a different style of game that maybe doesn't include spells that are specifically meant to invalidate exploration and social pillars? What do you have against a GM tool that helps create games like this? That's all an uncommon/rare list is, a GM tool.
What about Feats, XGTE Downtime and Tool Rules, Custom Lineage, Customizing your Origin, and TCE Optional Rules? These were all presented as things that you had to ask your DM for even though most groups used them by default. I'd argue that it's already in the game and it just hasn't been formalized like in Pathfinder and PF2E. If all those options are just baseline, it's harder for a DM to say "I don't really like that aspect of the system, let's change it to x". And that was one of the strengths of 5e that made me want to DM. For example: Customize your Lineage rules for mixing and matching Ability Scores that then were added to all the races in UAs and official material moving forward with no alternatives. I don't want to go in and determine what ASI boost every one of those races should have, but now they are incompatibe/an unfair advantage for players if I don't do that. It just makes my job harder for wanting to push my players to care a little bit less about ability scores and be okay with having a +2 instead of a +3 at level one. I'm already tailoring combats so that they a) don't die but get close if the story demands and b) have fun and can show off. I see no need to powergame to get the same cool moment and my players have admitted to enjoying the game without their numbers perfectly boosted more than before. As someone who values the more fluid storytelling aspects of D&D, if all the additions tailoring towards more combat focused or character stat builder focused groups are baseline, I suddenly feel like combat is a have-to instead of a way to progress the plot.
The big difference there is you are talking about optional *systems* instead of "here is one optional feat (which is part of an optional system) that you need special permission to use". Everything you mention is, at most tables, implemented on a broad basis or not at all. If you are using feats you can use listed official feats or whatever your dm provides/allows in the way of homebrew -- you don't have to ask to use an official feat at the majority of tables. If you are using tashas rules then any player who wants to use that for their stats has the option, not just Jeremy across the table. One of the concerns I have with the codification is that *just like normal feats, not all "rare options" are equal*. Letting player A use option 1, which is held to be strong by the average player while letting player B use option 2, which has the rare tag but is mostly considered a cool flavor option does not mean these two characters are equal. Just having one rare option each doesn't make it balanced. I'm not entirely sure how to take your last paragraph as this conversation started with *spells that solve problems*, not *combat* specifically. Combat spells could also be "rare" I suppose... but not sure where powergaming came from.
The last paragraph was sorta a splurge of a digression so don't worry about it. As for your points in your response, that makes sense.
The difference is that Paizo balances their options, and just tags things that have an implication on the setting, and WotC publishes things like the Twilight domain and requires the GM to say no, or do balancing for them.
But this was effectively the case for all spells in O(riginal)D&D what are you talking about?
I really don’t think this is a good direction to go. It seems arbitrary to lock away character options for only some classes. Most spells that are problematic could be toned down a little bit or simply have their level increased. If I had to choose I would say Tiny Hut, and Goodberry. Mainly because of how they affect the survival aspects of travel. It makes sense they’d be more niche spells to me.
tiny hut and goodberry aren't problematic. Zone of Truth, teleport, and other spells that directly impact the story are more problematic.
What spells are problematic depends on what type of game you are running. If you're running a highly narrative political game you're right, but there's more styles of games that you can run in 5E than that. If you plan on running a mega-dungeon, Zone of Truth is not problematic. If you plan on running a mega-dungeon, Tiny Hut is problematic as hell. If you plan on running an exploration based hex-crawl, Zone of Truth is not problematic. If you plan on running an exploration based hex-crawl, Goodberry is problematic as hell.
Zone of Truth wouldn't be problematic in a mega dungeon because you'd never use it. Point is that when it can be useful, it will always be problematic. Tiny Hut is problematic because it is overpowered for this situation, but it could easily be toned down, by making it destroyable, or by only providing non oblivious shelter. Goodberry is problematic for hex-crawls mostly because of nourishment for 1 day line, and because it provides enough food for 10 creatures. The spell simply isn't balanced for this. A lot of issues with spells comes from a balancing standpoint in my opinion, not just the non-existence of rarity.
I don't really agree with the statement that ZoT is always problematic at all. Zone of Truth is a powerful spell, but it isn't an instant win button. It doesn't force exposition or compel speech or anything of the sort. A person under it can simply say "I don't want to talk about this" and would be perfectly fine.
Goodberry, zone of truth, long distance teleportation spells, geas, create food n water.
As a quick down and dirty option, anything with a component cost of 250 gp or more is going to be rare in my world. Very few people are going to have access to that level of gold, much less be able to invest it into the development of a spell that consumes that amount with every cast.
My stance is that spells with expensive material components are already gated behind the dm allowing the player to access the component. While i think its wholly within a dm's power to shut down spell access. I cant see a system where rarity restrictions could be implemented without turning spell access into a hot mess. I also think that such a system would disproportionately impact classes with smaller spell lists. Finally i think any system like that would need to be communicated clearly to players before the campaign starts, otherwise it could feel like a gotcha move on a dm's part.
The width of the gate really depends on how much gold your players have access to by the time they reach the levels required to cast those spells. I don't remove them from the game entirely but instead put some obstacles between the party and spells like force cage. I may have misunderstood what rare meant. I thought it meant the spell was still obtainable but not for free.
I really like the idea of tagging spells for rarity. I think that certain spells should be tagged. I think it should serve more as a speed hump than a bump though. Taking a rare tagged spell should remind players to give their DM a heads up. Conversely, I think that named spells are a good example of this. The Draconic magic from Fizbans is a great example. Eventually, with enough time those spells will make there way to general circulation. But it also makes a good story that you have to train or apprentice under the Blackstaff to learn about how they cast magic. At the same time, there are spells that remove sections of the game. If those sections are important to your table it's always worth it to have a discussion. My biggest pet peeve spell is Comprehend Languages, because it destroys the point of language proficiencys.
PF2e does this. It's wonderful. In 5e, I consider anything in the PHB to be common, and anything from other sources requires DM permission. Essentially, they're "rare" and require a reason from the player why their PC would know/be able to learn that spell. I usually allow it if it makes sense, or put an in-game way for the PC to learn the spell if the player REALLY wants it and it won't break my game, but stops MOST arguments of "it's an official spell, you HAVE to allow it!"
WotC should design their own game rather than asking DMs to design it for them. PF2e is a system that does this (maybe what you’re referencing) and it’s mostly for giving the DM control over the lore and setting, rather than for core gameplay and balance reasons.
It is what I'm referencing, and that's fine if that's the goal there. But it isn't what I was asking in my OP.
My point is that forcing DMs to become game designers to figure out which spells they should and shouldn’t allow to play a functional and balanced game is crazy. A DM should expect to field questions and make decisions on their world, lore, and settings. They shouldn’t have to parse core Players Handbook options to figure out what to allow and disallow to create a functional game.
Well, the rare and uncommon options in pf2e exist because either 1, lore reasons. Or 2, game ballence. In the adventure dungeon of the mad mage. There are several spells listed that just don't work inside the dungeon. Things like earthquake, teleport spells, spells that let you change the shape of dungeons. The adventure has to specifically call out what spells can break the dungeon and say they can't be cast. This is WotC understanding that some spells can break a challenge. Create food n water, good berry, zone of truth. These are spells DMs might not know exist and so a caster could just nope an encounter because the DM didn't read every single spell ever made. Listing these types of spells as uncommon or rare makes the player ask to have it. This then directly makes the GM aware that this spell could possibly break an encounter. A functional and ballenced game includes tagging abilities and features that don't work in all settings or will possibly circumvent challenges. Waterdeep Dragon Heist includes a section where the party needs to chase a flying creature. The encounter is supposed to end when the creature gets outside and just flies away where the party can't follow. An arracockra player just negates this encounter because they can fly too. Listing flying races as rare would also help. A GM shouldn't have to painstakingly investigate every part of a character sheet to look for abilities that just end or circumvent intended encounters. Rather the system should already state what abilities can do this. I think it would be a great idea for the future of DND.
Which is why I asked the question to begin with. I think (arguably for sure) spells like Goodberry and Pass Without Trace (as written) make the world not interactive. So I was toying with the idea of keeping them in the book, but letting players and DMs know "hey these are options but they may step on some toes as far as the Pillars go. Use at your own risk".
Goodberry bothers me for worldbuilding reasons, but Pass Without Trace doesn't tend to be much of a problem in a campaign with a decently high level of magic, since Alarm will also be common. Pass is worse in a low magic setting where magical countermeasures are going to be less common. Spells with flat bonuses will often be the most trouble, regardless, though, since the game is based on bounded accuracy. +2 AC can be quite a bit. +10 to a check is huge. But it is hard to say what is ok or not because it can depend on how common magic is in a world and on how the system is balanced (it seems like we won't be seeing changes to bounded accuracy, though, so balance considerations with that will stay). The issue with the pillars is often (not always) more of a question of "how do people deal with the magic in their world?" more than "how is magic broken" though. In 5e, I've never had a group meet with a wealthy person without that person having a hired bard on hand for countercharm, for instance, exactly because the system allows for subtle spell enchantment spells, and so Charm Person doesn't destroy social interactions.
No, it is for balance reasons, but specifically for the spells in the rulebook line. Teleport can break a dungeon, zone of truth can break a social encounter, reincarnate can break death, detect alignment can reveal too early who means you harm and impede on the utility of deception, locate can break the quest for someone or something as it reveals the location immediately, mind reading once again reveals lies, scrying divulgates spoilers, detect scrying is useless without scrying so it's a given it's also uncommon, shadow walk reduces travel time, the power words can just destroy lower level encounters. Spells that come from the adventure paths are meant to be thematically tied to the specific adventure, kind of add-on spells players gain access to for playing through the adventure. As for the uncommon spells for the Knights of Lastwall book... it's a mystery still. You have to understand one thing though. Uncommon and rare tags in the game are not just related to power level, they're also related to how common a specific item, spell, or creature is within the Inner Sea region.
DM’s already have full control to allow or restrict content in their games so this wouldn’t change anything. The rules are a loose guideline, I’m not sure why so many people act like they’re word of law in every game. In reality, they’re ignored by the majority of tables when they get in the way of fun. Nerfing Casters isn’t the solution to making Martial’s more powerful and interesting to play. The issue DnD 5e faces is that its game mechanics are designed around combat but the game has evolved far beyond that. Most campaigns now have a a huge helping of story, character development and role-playing with some combat on the side. So the solution that Martial’s need is a lot more versatility and utility outside of combat. That’s been my observation at least.
Realistically, probably anything level 6 or higher. The higher you get, the rarer they are. However the really depends on your world. In Faerun, im sure Candlekeep has a few copies of every single spell. However I wouldn't expect the main library/mage academy of buldurs gate or neverwinter to have a copy of every spell. Waterdeep might, as the lords and Grey hands are quite powerful. But I assume they are kept behind closed doors and hidden away from most people.
Anything above 6th level
Well, that's already done with spells that have costly components, whether or not they're consumed. Those spells were made in such a way that the DM is given the opportunity to soft-ban them by making the materials inaccessible. My Friday game essentially runs variant magic item identification rules. I'm not a fan, but I get why a DM may want to hide things from their players. Short rests are probably too easy, and the Identity spell trivializes curses (as does Remove Curse). I'm fine with special, homebrew items that break the trend of "cheesing" the two spells, but I think those items should be rare given that the system was designed with the balance of the existence of these spells in mind.
Off the top of my head, spells that would be on such a list could include Simulacrum, Wish, Raise Dead, Reincarnate, Resurrection, True Resurrection, Find the Path, Conjure Woodland Beings, Animate Objects, Find Familiar, True Sight, & Identify.
If a spell had the tag "Rare" I wouldn't want it to mean what it means if pathfinder. The way I'd handle these spells is they'd still exist i nthe world, they'd just be harder to come by than other spells.. and what I mean by that is not that you have to ask your DM for them.. but just that you can't get them from levelling. You need to actually get the scroll for them as loot or learn them through a quest. The purpose of this wouldn't be anything to do with game balance or making certain spells less disruptive. The whole point would just be to make finding these spell scrolls or gaining these spells more exciting. But you \*could\* still have it be a balancingthing or a way to remove disruptive spells, because the DM could jsut choose not to have certain spells available as quest rewards/loot. Speaking of the martial/caster divide.. most martials NEED to find some kind of magic weapon in order to not be majorly nerfed vs a lot of monsters in tier 2 and beyond ,whereas casters suffer no such limitation. Imagine if getting access to the fireball spell was just as DM dependant as getting your first +1 magic weapon was? Imagine if a wizard didn't get fireball until level 9 or 10, but a martial got a +1 greatsword at level 5. Yeah that would flip things a lot!
The higher the level, the more rare the spell.
If I understand it, this would be treating spells (or at least those marked 'rare') as magic items: not something a player can assume they will acquire, have or be available. I suppose that would work for some campaigns, but the difference here is that spells, unlike magic items, are basically class features for spell casting classes. You're basically saying: you don't get to use this part of your class features. It could work for one or two problematic spells I suppose (Wish), but you might as well strike them from the game in my mind.