Brainstorming on Spell LEVEL fixes

One question that has been ignored is whether we want to keep the sorcerer/wizard divide. If we do, then a spell that is Wizard 2 in the new system should also be Sorcerer 3, and we have to divide the first level wiz/sorc spells into both halves (for wizards) and thirds (for sorcerers). Bards and paladins also need consideration, although I don't think there is anything particularly new about them.

A complicated way to handle bonus spells which probably minimizes the power changes would be this. Calculate the number of level N spells per day you would have under the old system, including specialization, bonus spells and any other effect. Call this number Y. You then get Y/2 (round up) level 2N-1 spells per day and Y/2 (round down) level 2N spells per day in the new system. Basically, you alternate allocating spell slots to the lower, then higher, then lower, etc. level.

That probably needs some tweaking when you have level 2N-1 spells but not level 2N. I think then you should get Y 2N-1 spells and at the next level, additional spells all go to level 2N until you have the same number in each.

That's probably too complicated, especially since part of the motivation was to make the system easier to understand for new players. However, we probably want the actual rules to approximate that result.


Since there seems to be a consensus that high level casters are too powerful, we might want to consider splitting one level of spells into three levels somewhere around level 5. That would mean that casters essentially get the next (old) level of spells one level later, and the good ones don't arrive for two levels.

The effect of that would be strongest in the mid-teens. By level 20, it would be a minor effect, as all the spells would be available but many of the high-level spells would use a slot one level higher than otherwise.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

One question that has been ignored is whether we want to keep the sorcerer/wizard divide. If we do, then a spell that is Wizard 2 in the new system should also be Sorcerer 3, and we have to divide the first level wiz/sorc spells into both halves (for wizards) and thirds (for sorcerers). Bards and paladins also need consideration, although I don't think there is anything particularly new about them.

I'm not sure having spells of different levels for Sorcs and Wizes is really all that necessary. The main balance between the 2 classes was that the Sorc had few spells and could cast them at any time with more castings/day- JIT flexibility- and the Wiz had fewer castings/day, but more total spells- overall flexibility.

Maintaining the different spell progression & spell level thing might be a bit of overkill...but you're right, it needs to be considered in depth.

...However, we probably want the actual rules to approximate that result.
Yeah, spells per level for each class- and aspects that can increase those- needs a microscopic analysis.

Just so we've got a comprehensive list on what modifies spells/level:
  1. Class
  2. Casting Attributes
  3. Certain feats
Did I miss any?

Since there seems to be a consensus that high level casters are too powerful, we might want to consider splitting one level of spells into three levels somewhere around level 5. That would mean that casters essentially get the next (old) level of spells one level later, and the good ones don't arrive for two levels.

I don't think we want to do that at the "level" level of examination, but at the particular spells' level of analysis.

By that I mean, I think it will be better if we examine each spell to see if it needs to be higher level, lower level, or unchanged. After all, EVERY level has spells that the power gamers consider to be overpowered- and thus, must-haves- for their current levels.
 


While I like them, they do open up some abuses. I'd be tempted to just redo the ring to double the bonus from your casting stat and make 'em cheap.
 

Don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet but didn't Monte Cook do a 20-level spell progressions with 20 levels of spells in the Book of Experimental Might?
 



Looks like I'll be tracking my copy down, then. Did he just cover the full-casting arcanists, or did he tackle all casters?

Even if he did ALL the work necessary at the time, though, I'm sure that product was limited in the scope of spells it covered, so there's still ample work to be done.
 

Just so we've got a comprehensive list on what modifies spells/level:
  1. Class
  2. Casting Attributes
  3. Certain feats
Did I miss any?

Class probably wants to be divided into "basic spellcasting from class" (a 1st level wizard gets 1 first level spell) and class features like specialization and domains.

Have we had any thought about how to handle domains? Domains are rather a special case. They are essentially a separate spell list, and you never get more than one/level. So by my algorithm, you only get slots for level 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15 and 17. Which is complicated if there is a domain spell that should be an even level in the new system.
 

Other possibilities:
  1. Being able to ignore the first LA adjustment of a metamagic feat for spells within their specialization.

  1. Likewise, this one is even more problimatic. Not only is it erraticly useful, but you've just all but allowed Wizards to wear platemail. Getting Still Spell as a +0 metamagic means never worrying about your spell failure chance. If you go this route you have to I think specify very specific what the enhancement is - evocation can empower for +1 level, or maybe divination gets Still spell at +0 caster level, or maybe transmutation gets Extend Spell at +1 level etc.
    Well, we have some extra flexibility in metamagic costs as well, with more spell levels to work with. If a Stilled or Extended Spell still only costs +1 level to prepare, then we've already increased the power of that metamagic feat. It should probably be +2 levels now, since we have over twice as many spell levels, and so this reduction takes it to just +1--a significant benefit, but it's still not free.
 

Remove ads

Top