D&D 5E 11 spell levels... really

[Sadrik]

I just went through the new material, yeah I know a little late. One of the many things that struck me was 11 spell levels. From my past experience with the game, I think this could really use a bit of tailoring. You could make very solid arguments that 3rd level spells are better than 4th and that 5th level are better than 6th and that 8th and 9th level spells are just about the same.

My point here is that they could accomplish a lot by merging some of the upper level spells and making them more definitive. I do not believe that you can separate upper level spells in any kind of consistent way. Why not merge 5 and 6 and merge 7 and 8 and 9 and 10. This really seems key because splitting hairs on the difference of a 7th and 8th level spell is sometimes quite arbitrary and not really consistent.

Give new spell levels every three levels instead of two and you fill up the twenty levels. For a total of 8 spell levels.
Go:
0 -1
1 -1
2 -3
3 - 6
4 - 9
5 - 12 (5th and 6th level spells)
6 - 15 (7th and 8th level spells)
7 - 18 (9th and 10th level spells)

Is anything really gained by having tons of spell levels? Also many people cite the advent of the higher level spells as being the driving force for breaking the game in the mid levels. This pushes them out by a few levels (3rd at 6th, 4th at 9th and 5th at 12th). It will also beef up the higher level spell selections as opposed to only having a few choices it will double the potential choices (pick from the 7th and 8th level list). It also cements the definition of what a particular high level spell is. I cannot stress this part enough. In this it will be very clear what a 5th level spell is and what a 6th level spell is. I only see this as win win for upper level spell management and design.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I agree. Levels one through three feel reasonably well defined, with a spellcaster really coming into his own with third level spells. Levels four through nine fell less defined.

An argument could be made for six spell levels (seven if you count level 0).

One through three represent the first tier of abilities. For example, fire based combat spells reach maturity at third level. Levels four through six represent a higher tier that follows a similar pattern. New concepts arrive at fourth level and mature at sixth.

But, all that said, ten levels does line up well with a 20 level progression, but a lot of thought should go into defining what a spell level means as far as what powers are available.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, one thing I think 4Ed got absolutely and unequivocally right was making there be as many spell/power levels as there were character levels.

Doing otherwise is a regression, IMHO.

 

[MoonSong]

Call me a grognard if you may, but I feel this poll is biased, where is the option to say "the good old nine levels + cantrips is fine"?. Really I don't see anything wrong with having only nine levels of spells. But again I don't really care that much beyond sixth level spells, most games I've played don't even get to 7th level [spells, character level 15 onwards] and beyond.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Personally, I see two possibilities that are worthwhile:

One: nine spell levels plus cantrips/orisons (i.e. the old way)
Two: eliminate spell levels and give spells prerequisites like feats.

The other proposals I'm seeing are confusing and don't add much.

 

[Lanefan]

They've probably gone to a greater number of spell levels to help answer the "I want something new at every character level" whine.

For perspective, keep in mind that in 1e most casters (Illusionists, Clerics, Druids) only go to 7th-level spells; only MUs get 9. Expanding to 9 for all caster types was a 3e thing.

That said, a year or two ago I bashed around the idea of splitting the spells in our 1e-based system so you'd get a new available batch each level. It's feasible, but a surprising amount of work; and didn't fly with the crew. Idea abandoned.

How many spell levels should there be? Doesn't matter, really; though the designers would do well to avoid trying to shoehorn all casters into the exact same system* - just because Wizards have 14 spell levels doesn't mean Clerics need 14; they might be suited for 10 while Bards might get by with 6.

* - in 3e I got the impression that having expanded Clerics and Druids to 9 spell levels they then had to dream up spells to fill those spaces; and some kinda do come across as filler.

Lan-"but what do I care, I'm a Fighter"-efan

 

[Steely_Dan]

In the 1st playtest packet it looks like spells are going to 7.

 

[Shieldhaven]

A long time ago in my blog, I put together the following breakdown to explain why I thought there should be fewer than ten spell levels. Obviously this is based on 3.x D&D.

tl;dr: If you start with modest effectiveness and increase upon it either eight or nine times (that's improvement relative to increasingly potent monsters), how could you not wind up with an unbalanced situation?

• A first-level wizard can cast a first-level spell to moderately injure a level-appropriate opponent (magic missile).
• A third-level wizard can injure a level-appropriate opponent a little bit more, or completely freaking murder a first-level opponent (I'm thinking of scorching ray here).
• A fifth-level wizard can injure a large group of level-appropriate opponents, or completely freaking murder a large group of first-level opponents (fireball, lightning bolt). (Rarely used side note: hold person is great for single-target murder at this level.)
• A seventh-level wizard can inconvenience a large number of level-appropriate opponents (ice storm, wall of fire, whatevah) or slay outright one level-appropriate opponent who fails two saves. (phantasmal killer).
• A ninth-level wizard can significantly injure a large group of level-appropriate opponents (cone of cold), instantly kill a huge swath of low-level opponents (cloudkill), or slay outright one level-appropriate opponent who fails one save (hold monster - okay, maybe technically two, depending on how the coup de grace works out for you). Baleful polymorph also gets a mention here - while they're not dead, a beached carp is not much of a threat, and you can whittle down their unaltered hit point total at your leisure.
• An eleventh-level wizard can kill a level-appropriate target with one failed save (flesh to stone), and instantly kill a potentially very large number of almost-level-appropriate targets (circle of death). Note that we've left hit point damage behind. I regard this as bad, because a fighter and a wizard no longer really contribute to the other's attempt to kill a target. The wizard could keep slinging big evocations, of course, and these will continue to be a big problem for level-appropriate targets, but never really enough to kill an uninjured opponent outright.
• A thirteenth-level wizard can kill a level-appropriate target in a variety of unusual ways, mostly based on spells specific to the creature's Type (banishment, mass hold person) or... kind of whatever. Reverse gravity is always good for a laugh, and it's a great workaround for high saving throws or spell resistance. So is finger of death - it's like disintegrate, but without that pesky ranged touch attack.
• Wizards of fifteenth and seventeenth levels do commensurately more awful things to their opponents. Almost nothing in the ninth-level spell list deals hit point damage, other than meteor swarm, Bigby's crushing hand, and sometimes prismatic wall.

Haven

 

[Lanefan]

tl;dr: ...

side question

Could somebody PLEASE tell me what tl;dr stands for? I keep seeing it around here and have no clue what it means.

/side question

Lanefan

 

[griffonwing]

side question

Could somebody PLEASE tell me what tl;dr stands for? I keep seeing it around here and have no clue what it means.

/side question

Lanefan

Too Long; Didn't Read

Although, there being only 7 posts before his, and the posts relatively short, I am assuming he copy/pasted this from another locations, and neglected to remove the "tl;dr" mention.

EDIT- continuing to post my view

I always wondered about the spell levels, and why they weren't even to character level. With a slight adjustment on the spells, you can simply split them into 20 different levels, create more spells, unique spells, and have a 6th level mage cast a 6th level spell.

Let common sense prevail!