Spells: How Many Levels?

[Firzair]

Other: spells by effect scaled per level

I'd like to only learn spell effects that are defined for their base values (first level of availability, base range, base number of targets/area of effect, base damage/whatever). Each effect has an evolution-table, for every level you can create different spells just like metamagic.

E.g. the fire effect
Effect - Fire [Elemental, Damage]
Base level: 1
Range: Close
Target: 1 Creature / area 1 map square (5ft x 5ft)
Duration: instantanous
Effect: Damages the target for 1d6 points of fire damage.

Evolution (each alteration costs 1 level of evolution, stacking with themselves and each other):
* +1d6 fire damage (as we don't know what kind of scaling the damage should use, it also could be +2)
* range increase (use next range category)
* +1 target (one attack roll per target) or
area increase (increase the sides of the area by 1 field each or increase the diameter of the spell by 5 ft)
* Duration increase -> 2 rounds -> 3 rounds -> 5 rounds -> 8 rounds -> 13 rounds
* other ideas...

You at level 5 you could throw a fireball with a target area of 15ft x 15ft (3 evolution levels) doing 2d6 damage (1 evolution level) at close range. Or you could throw the firebolt for 4d6 (3 evolution levels) at medium range (1 evolution level). Your choice... the numbers would need some revision according to the scaling of hitpoints.

 

[Tallifer]

Back in the day, I was always confused by spell levels and character levels. Yes, I know that does not make me very bright, but there it is. I think there are not a few others, especially new players, and most especially new players who learned D&D through the Fourth Edition, who will feel like me.

I vote that spells, prayers, exploits and disciplines should be labelled by the character level needed to learn them.

 

[skullking]

Now, a consideration of the 3E spell levels:

In third edition, those first three spell levels really seemed to matter. First level spells felt constrained. Second level spells started to show glimmers of what a wizard could do. Third level spells are when the wizard really opened up.

After third level, spell level stop carrying much weight. What's the difference between a sixth and a seventh level spell? It all sort of blurs.

Level 9, of course, has the capstone powers: Disjunction, Meteor Swarm, Power Word Kill, and others. There's definition there. So, really, it is levels four through eight that lack a strong sense of identity.

I would strongly consider doing some consolidating at this point. Merge levels four and five, six and seven, and eight and nine to leave behind a six level spell progression. Then replace linear spell level progression with something that slows down as a character levels. Fill in the gaps with interesting class features.

For example:

1 1st level spells
2 2nd level spells
3
4 3rd level spells
5
6 Class feature
7 4th level spells
8
9 Class feature
10
11 5th level spells
12
13 Class feature
14
15 Class feature
16 6th level spells
17
18 Class feature
19
20 Class feature

This sequence shows the distance between spell levels growing numerically (+1, +2, +3, +4, +5). Then the gaps were filled so that the wizard never went more than two levels without receiving either new spell levels or a class feature. Unexpectedly, the final ability landed on level 20, which would be perfect for a capstone ability.

QUOTE]

It is a pity that with this progression you get 9th level spells at 37th level - had it been 36th it would fitted in with all those who think levels should go up to 36 as per BECMI.

 

[tlantl]

One of the things I think would help with the belief that high level casters are over powered is to make it more difficult to gain that power. If the game assumes there are going to be 30 levels then the highest level spells should be gained in the late twenties. Giving the most powerful spells to players at 15 and 17th level seems a little foolish.

At one point in time a mage needed 1,875,000xp to reach 15th level. The same caster in another edition needed a measly 105,000xp to reach the same level. The amount of experience given out was less too. the typical 1st level encounter was worth about 100xp where in the 3e they were worth 3 times as much and you needed half as many experience points to advance to the next level than you did if you were a 1e thief (The class with the lowest xp requirement to level).

I guess the biggest reason for 3e being so over the top is how laughably easy it was to get those game breaking powers. Not to mention those ill conceived meta-magic feats that made even the weakest spells so over powered that many games were jokes.

I played the same mage on a regular basis in AD&D for five years, the only time I was actually able to cast a 6th level spell was from a scroll. My multi-classed mages were lucky to see fourth or fifth level spells ever.

Sure it might seem like a waste of some really nice spells but it seemed like something to work for. They are also more like things a demi god would be able to do and reaching that status should take more than a couple of months of play.

Once upon a time people would look at the 18th level caster with awe. They understood the dedication it took to reach that lofty height and that they, most likely, would never be able to.

I think that for D&D next to really capture the feel of the older editions this is one of those things that need to be considered.

 

[Yora]

I think 9th level for everyone is best.

Not that it matters to me, since I never play beyond 10th level.

 

[Hassassin]

1-9 for priests and wizards. 1-7 for bards, clerids and druids.

 

[erf_beto]

I voted for 4e style, though I imagine we won't see that (due to old edition feel), but I'm not bothered with 9 spell levels. And I like the 9/7/5 level limits too.

 

[steeldragons]

I wanted to vote 1)AD&D style...but I never got why mages got 9 and clerics got 7...unless, I suppose you fluff it that Gods get up to 9, so they don-t want any of their follows approaching their power level...but the game never really explicitly got into that sort of thing. So I went with "Other".

As for 'terming" the 1e PHB was very clear that the generic term "Level" referred to numerous different things in the game .The fact that Spell Levels were different than XP Levels or what have you was never, for anyone I ever met/played with, a point of confusion. That's what the spell progression tables are for.

Be that as it may, I have no problem with the semantics being "tiers" as I have often used in my games or "valences". Shemeska uses the latter in his Story Hour and I found it both evocative and elegant.

SO, here's what I would like to see.

AD&D types progression, but more or less streamlined to obtaining access to the next spell 'tier' every other level. More or less how Basic-2e always did it (can't really speak to 3e).

So: 2T[iered] spells at 3rd level, 3T @ 5th, 4T @ 7th, 5T @ 9th, 6T @ 11th, 7T @ 13th...if you're playing above 15th level then an optional/"Higher Magic" module comes into play.

There are 7 tiers of spells, Arcane, Divine, Natural and Primal.

8th, 9th, or greater "epic" level spells and rules thereof can be created/thrown in to the "Epic" level games/rules expansion.

Full "Greater" Casters (Clerics, Druids, Mages) can get up to 7th tiered spells.

"Partial" or "Lesser" Casters (like Bards, Shamans, Witches, Warlocks, etc.) can get up to 5th.

Sorcerers I could see going either way, since the fluff is that they are more or less, using their own body/natural talent to generate their magic, the idea that they would not be able to channel more than 5T amounts of energy without "burning themselves out" (or just plain being consumed in the magic, itself, i.e. save or die) as it were, makes sense to me.

[I would be thoroughly pleased for things like Paladins and Rangers to be fully NON-caster classes. Their skills and powers not, technically, being "Spell Use" nor presented/fluffed as such.]

[I would also be thoroughly pleased for the Bard to return to its Celtic flavored roots and be considered a "Natural" (or "Primal" if they don't make the distinction between the two) spellcaster. NOT "Arcane."]

Everyone, basically, follows the same Spell Progression table. 1 Table. We can handle that, no?

Differences between the classes come from A) What spells they have access to, and B) Ability modifier/added spells for high scores in one's Primary Ability.

(Not counting 0lvl/Cantrippy spells, which I have no problem being Spontaneously cast...or even "at will", but then they should not have any overt "attack" capabilities.)

Caster Level......Spell "Tier"/Level
.......................1......2......3......4......5......6......7
1.....................1
2.....................2
3.....................2......1
4.....................3......2
5.....................3......2......1
6.....................4......3......1
7.....................4......3......2......1
8.....................5......4......2......2
9.....................5......4......3......2......1
10...................5......5......3......3......1
11...................5......5......4......3......2......1
12...................5......5......4......4......2......2
13...................5......5......5......4......3......2......1
14...................5......5......5......5......3......3......1
15...................5......5......5......5......4......3......2

 

[HeinorNY]

Other:
Ancient Monte's idea of having 20 levels of spells.

 

[Mercule]

I voted for 1E style, but only by a hair's breadth. I don't mind Clerics w/ 9th level spells, but if I have to choose....

I think I'm a bigger fan of this, though:

Magic-Users 9
Illusionists, Necromancers, other arcane types 7
Clerics 9
Druids and other divine types 7

Either way, I'd prefer to include this assumption.

But note this assumes a game designed to get only to the mid-teens in level; meaning the PCs never have personal access to the highest-level spells.

To me, this is where 3e really broke with 1/2e. In 1e, name level was as much of a break as epic level was in 3e. The mechanics just worked differently, and you were in rare air. While you could continue to adventure, there was an implication that doing so was unusual.

Note: I don't have an issue with high-level play. It just seems to get missed that anti-magic shell was, essentially, an epic level spell in 1e. Making higher level spells more readily available is a more significant change than just handing out more toys.