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

[Sadrik]

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

I do remember this. I thought this boded quite well when I originally saw it. 11 is just too much, low level is pretty defined and well represented. High level spells are split like hairs and arbitrary in level placement.

 

[Li Shenron]

Is anything really gained by having tons of spell levels?

Too few spell levels, and you'll have troubles fitting together spells in the same level, without creating some "must have" and some clear "underpowered" choices at some levels.

Too many spell levels, and you'll either need to design many more of them, or you'll end up with too few choices per level and all your wizards will have nearly the same spells.

I don't know what number of spells would be the best. I know that D&D worked fine with Clerics up to 7th and Wizards up to 9th. If they want to add a 10th level, it probably won't make that much difference... I wonder what they are going to use that level for anyway:

- to push some of the previously 9th spell up one level?
- to design something completely new and even stronger (Greater Wish? Mega-gate? Wail of the Banshees and Siouxsie too? Power Word Kill-and-pulverize-corpse-then-pee-on-your-ashes?)
- not 10th level spells but only 10th level slots, for metamagic?
- a placeholder "uber" level for epic spells?

 

[variant]

I could see epic spells coming in as 10th and 11th level spells much like 2nd edition. That or it would simply give you spell slots for lower level spells to be placed in them if enhanced with something like metamagic feats. It could also be both if you consider the option for modules that may add either or.

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.

No, that's ridiculously bloated. All you ended up with were a bunch of spells that were basically copies of each other.

 

[griffonwing]

Too few spell levels, and you'll have troubles fitting together spells in the same level, without creating some "must have" and some clear "underpowered" choices at some levels.

Too many spell levels, and you'll either need to design many more of them, or you'll end up with too few choices per level and all your wizards will have nearly the same spells.

I don't know what number of spells would be the best. I know that D&D worked fine with Clerics up to 7th and Wizards up to 9th. If they want to add a 10th level, it probably won't make that much difference... I wonder what they are going to use that level for anyway:

- to push some of the previously 9th spell up one level?
- to design something completely new and even stronger (Greater Wish? Mega-gate? Wail of the Banshees and Siouxsie too? Power Word Kill-and-pulverize-corpse-then-pee-on-your-ashes?)
- not 10th level spells but only 10th level slots, for metamagic?
- a placeholder "uber" level for epic spells?

I like the idea of more spells, so that your mages are not cookie-cutter. "Oh look, another fireball user, ooh, yeah he can teleport, whoopdedoo, we all can" types. Triple the spells, put in unique spells. Make some of the more powerful, such as Wish or Planar Teleport or whatever, make them so that you have to character time studying and learning it. Each Wish spell is unique to the caster. A scroll of Wish can be used by anyone, perhaps, because its already cast into the scroll, just released via a trigger phrase. But certain spells, I feel, you should not be able to learn simply from reading/interpreting another's spellbook.

And opening up higher slots for metamagicing higher level spells. For Vancian systems, this would be nice.

 

[Quickleaf]

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.

I'm inclined to agree with Danny. If you're going to call it a spell *level* it makes sense that would correspond to character levels. If not, call it something else: Spell Circles, Spell Tiers, or something.

If I understand 5e correctly, a caster can prepare a spell at a higher spell level to increase damage...so now you've got character levels, spell levels, and casting levels? Just needlessly confusing things IMHO.

Also, another area where I think 4e was mostly successful was breaking spell effects down according to tier. When I think about spell power my mind tends to clump them into 3 groups, much like 4e's tiers:

Game-players: these spells follow the rules or break them in minor ways (eg. Dimension door, fireball, knock, web, limited invisibility)

Game-changers: these spells break the rules in significant ways and redefine the conflict or challenge facing the PCs (eg. Fly, teleport, pass wall, mass resistance, see invisibility, full invisibility)

Game-makers: these spells break and rewrite the rules in dramatic ways which can have long-lasting or permanent effects (eg. Reverse gravity, wish, earthquake, greater curse)

 

[n00bdragon]

Since when did "nine spell levels plus cantrips" become the old school way? I don't remember there be anything about cantrips in "old school" D&D. 3e is not old school people. It's not the definitive D&D. It's just what 90% of people started with.

 

[Sunseeker]

I never understood why spell levels never matched up with the actual game levels. It just makes it needlessly confusing. 10th level? 10'th level spell access! 6th level? 6th level spell access! It's so simple!

 

[Crowsion]

I look at it this way, by turning level 0 spells into At-Wills and adding a 10th level, the number of spell level divides nicely into the number of character levels. So, with this linear scaling you gain 1 spell level for every 2 character levels. By this method you can actually determine the power of each spell level. When WoTC gets around to releasing monster creation rules, having a rule of thumb for power scaling will be essential. It well be easier to estimate the power of characters, monsters, and spells at any given level.

Just as an example, we might expect a level 1 spell to deal about 2d6 damage (thunderwave) and a level 2 spell to deal about 4d6 damage (scorching ray), etc. Thus, giving a distinct power increase for each spell level. So if we have a spell with a certain power, its spell level will be less ambiguous.

Originally Posted by griffonwing
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.

Originally Posted by 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.

 

[griffonwing]

I never understood why spell levels never matched up with the actual game levels. It just makes it needlessly confusing. 10th level? 10'th level spell access! 6th level? 6th level spell access! It's so simple!

Yes. This is how HackMaster does theirs. But they also include Spell Points mixed with Vancian memorization. You memorize 1 spell per level, along with 2 apprentice and 1 journeyman (cantrips or weaker spells). Non-memorized spells cost twice the base points to cast, and memorized spells never leave the memory, until you choose to memorize another.

You can memorize a 2nd level spell, and cast it as many times as you have the spell points to cast.

 

[steeldragons]

Since when did "nine spell levels plus cantrips" become the old school way? I don't remember there be anything about cantrips in "old school" D&D. 3e is not old school people. It's not the definitive D&D. It's just what 90% of people started with.

Cantrips were introduced in 1e's Unearthed Arcana...which, I think we can all agree, is comfortably in "old school" territory.

I also think we can all agree that 3e is certainly not "old school" though I'd be hard-pressed to believe or agree that it's what "90% of people started with."

EDIT: Oh yeah, might as well through in my 2 coppers for the thread topic, huh?

I think it the game could work just fine with severely limited spell lists (like, no more than 15 or 20 per spell level) not exceeding 5 or 6 spell levels for all casters. Though if you want to retain that "traditional" feel of mages having the most spells, then I suppose the 5 levels for priestly types or "partial casters" and 6 or 7 for the "full caster mages".

I'm also a BIG proponent for the idea of separate spell lists for, well, pretty much eveyt caster class, including the specialist mages: illusionistd (own list), necromancers (own list), warlocks (own list), bards (own list), etc. etc. etc. with generalist mages not receiving ALL spells, but a their own list of spells that just happens to have overlap with some of the specialists' spells and some that are theirs alone.

--SD