+1ed, but that's a lot of prefacing for Your campaign is special… just like everyone else's. ;-) And, while I agree with most of this generally, I disagree with some particulars: I think that the game breaks down for the new-ish or unprepared GM at levels 7 through 9 when scrying and dimension door or teleport become available and that slow is, in fact, against many foes a damn fine save-or-suck spell. (Will save and not mind-affecting? Sign me up!)

@HeyICanChan I do note the breakpoint of 7th level later on, and that’s a valid point. But yeah, it’s a lot of prefacing. There was a lot of discussion in chat, and I’m trying to find ways to explain various points from different angles to try to dislodge some misconceptions that have come up.

Great answer! I noticed you didn't hit "low magic hurts fighters more," was that deliberate?

Yeah, I read the chat transcript. I even anticipated the other answers. (Is A game system has no mechanical problems if everyone's having fun an official fallacy yet?) That said, I didn't want to put out my own answer that said essentially the same thing: Any approach that tries to balance magic by classes rather than by spells is doomed to failure. So… um… thanks for taking the hit, I guess?

@fectin Actually, limited magic does at least avoid that particular trap—it affects spellcasting classes but not magic items, so it doesn’t cause those problems. The OP also seems to at least understand the direction of the imbalance, even if he’s not convinced of its severity and insurmountability.

I think this is a great answer, which I have got a lot out of. However, a lot of my angst and concerns came from KRyan's posts around this site to begin with. I proposed something that would help alleviate those concerns. I didn't invent the limited magic, I just realized, combined with less slots, and removing/altering spells that don't fit the pattern of having to heighten to be effective (can be done as they come up), seems to be the best thing I have seen out there. Everyone complains, but no one proposes fixes. Is it a perfect fix? No. Is it an improvement? Maybe?

But in actuality, I am most likely going to do as most answers state: focus on making sure we have fun. As a DM, I control encounters, so I can balance challenge almost indefinitely depending on npc's spells, etc. I can create monsters that feed on spell slots. Whatever. But I think the gist of this post I will take to heart, and revisit limited magic when/if the PC's reach 13th level or so. I can deal with teleport, etc (dimensional anchor, teleport trace). Problem is, if I introduce it later, when wizard goes from 13th to 14th he might be less powerful, and won't want to do it.

@Ἄρτεμις You seem to be having difficulty believing that no one has come up with a fix for this—I think you badly underestimate how difficult game design is. The reason that no one has provided a link to a simple fix for high-level PF, other than just avoiding it, the reason I haven’t suggested some simple fix in every answer I have written on this site, is because none exists. Just avoiding high levels is the only approach I have ever found to be effective, and I have suggested multiple ways to do keep levels low while still having an “epic” campaign. That’s all I’ve got—all anyone’s got.

@Ἄρτεμις But to be clear, while I think most of your suggestions, though they fall well short of a complete fix, are reasonably decent ideas that will probably improve things somewhat, limited magic isn’t one of them. That ruleset is just exceedingly poor, again, apparently written by someone who didn’t understand anything about the problems he was seeking to solve or the system he was writing them for.

@KRyan Agree to disagree on that point, unless you are talking about the added complexity for spell casters having to heighten everything, and do more calculations to optimize, which is a valid point. I went though about 50 spells at random, and it all looks nice, buffs have 1/min duration so still fine, etc. It's all conjecture until actually play-tested, or we hear from someone with actual experience using the system at high levels.

@KRyan 5e seems to have done a lot of the per-spell nerfing you are talking about in this answer, especially at lower levels. I feel like it's worth pointing out it's largely that, rather than the 'less spell slots' thing, that drastically changes spellcaster power there.

@thedarkwanderer There are a few things in 5e: yeah, going through the spells (as such spells come up), spells don't scale with caster level but higher level slots (limited magic, mostly fixed by OP), more spells have a concentration mechanic for one spell (big deal, not fixed here), less high level slots (big deal, fixed in OP). Suggested changes in OP get you 1/2 the way there (KRyan disagrees). Note for the concentration mechanic, just eyeballing through monsters, more PF monsters have dispel magic abilities. Was thinking DC's in 5e are harder to raise, but not really true.

@Ἄρτεμις Yeah, you're totally and completely wrong about that mattering, which is what I'm hoping he'll point out. 5e color spray is a 1 round blind, Pathfinder is an AoE save or die. 5e glitterdust is a strong debuff, pathfinder glitterdust is a ridiculous debuff. 5e Fabricate is cool and useful and rediculously powerful. Pathfinder Fabricate is the same thing on steroids and without any kind of limitations. It's the spells, each spell individually. CL is irrelevant. Concentration is only sometimes relevant. Spell slots are irrelevant.

@thedarkwanderer You’re right, but it’s not worth arguing the point. Certainly, CL and/or save DC matters for some spells—which is my real problem with the rule. It doesn’t actually eliminate the risk of overpowered spellcasters, but it certainly does massively increase the risk of underpowered spellcasters. Some sorts of spellcasters don’t care about the changes. Others are absolutely slaughtered by the changes. Pathfinder really, really does not need more traps.

@SevenSidedDie ? got a message saying I'd been invited here?

@KRyan Sorry! That's a side effect of moving messages. It's invisible to the move-er, so I always forget it does that. For the practical details, I had just moved the new comments on the same answer to chat, which created a new chat room, but for future ease of reading/finding I immediately moved the messages to this existing chat room.

@SevenSidedDie good to know, that is useful; thanks

@KRyan Not always desired, but I suppose it's a good behaviour to default to. Cheers!