Scaleable spells

[Boarstorm]

Why would they need to write 20 different possible effects?

Just one to three should do it, I'd imagine.

 

[dkyle]

Why would they need to write 20 different possible effects?

Just one to three should do it, I'd imagine.

And also, my guess is we'll be going back to "Spell Levels", so it would only be 9 effects, at most. But I agree that there's no need for a different possible effect at every level; three different levels for most utility spells would be enough.

 

[Boarstorm]

I imagine it working like metamagic feats in 3.5, but without the feat. Mass (spell): +4 spell levels. Swift (spell): +3 spell levels. Extended duration: +1 spell level.

And so on. But again, that's just the IMPRESSION I'm getting. I could very well be massively wrong.

 

[Blackwarder]

Actually I think it's going to be akin to Monte Cock EA system where each spell have a normal (base spell level) minor (spell level -1) and major (spell level +1) so fireball for example will have a minor version to use with 2nd level spell slot, a normal version for 3rd level spell slot, and major for 4th level spell slot. And personally I think that the changes as a general rule shouldn't scale level but add interesting stuff to spells.

For example, major fireball would be up to 5 five foot radius mini fireball so the wizard can hit targets without hitting his allies.

Warder

 

[Lanefan]

It seems like spells in 5e are going to more flexible in relation to their spell rank placement, for example shield as a first level spell will have the normal duration that we know from previous editions but if the wizard will learn it as a second level spell it's duration will become one hour instead of one round.

Interesting.

A few things immediately leap to mind:

Is this going to make the spell write-ups too unwieldy? It takes enough space now to describe the effects of most spells, particularly if they (as they should) go into the what-ifs and interactions with other spells/effects. How long will they get if they have to write up in effect several spells at once?

Or - and perhaps contradicting my previous paragraph - if two effects from the same spell are going to be as different as this (which should be 3rd-level by the way, as opposed to the classic 2nd-level version):

Knock- second level- the spell creat a golden magical key that can be used to open locked doors up to 1d4+1 times, the key will disappear after 3 hours. Spell focus - a key worth 50 GP, the key have a 50% chance of disintegrating if all the spell charges are used.

vs. the classic Knock which opens up to two locks at once, then why not just make it a separate spell?

I don't mind spells' duration, range, damage etc. scaling with level - even my more mathematically-challenged players can handle 2 rounds per level duration or 50' + (15'/level) range or d6/level damage - but I think I'd rather see different spells for anything other than an obvious by-level scale.

Lanefan

 

[EvilDwarf]

Scalable spells would also allow for the system wherein spells become At Will when they're a certain number of levels below the caster level.

So, Fireball lvl 3 slot would do 5d6 damage.

Fireball lvl 9 slot might do 9d6 damage (or whatever).

Spell slots 3-4 or more levels below the caster level = At Will slots, with a max number of spells prepared at those slots.

So, if I can prepare spells in lvl 9 slots, my lvl 3 5d6 Fireball would be AW, but my lvl 9 Fireball would be once/day.

Notice, too, as for spell descriptions, that 4E powers already kinda do that: something like 1w at lvl 1, 3w at lvl 11 with an extra effect, etc. Not much more room or complexity needed.

I like the notion of spells having more/different effects when prepared at different levels, a lot!

 

[dkyle]

Is this going to make the spell write-ups too unwieldy? It takes enough space now to describe the effects of most spells, particularly if they (as they should) go into the what-ifs and interactions with other spells/effects. How long will they get if they have to write up in effect several spells at once?

Hopefully, we'll get a coherent and well-defined set of rules that makes spell/effect interactions obvious and intuitive, eliminating ad-hoc spell text descriptions for that purpose.

I don't think it would be too unwieldy to have lines at the end of spell descriptions like:

As 2nd level spell: Cast as Swift action, instead of Standard
As 3rd level spell: Cast on up to 6 targets, instead of just 1

 

[Blackwarder]

I admit that my knock version is a bit on the errr.. long side but I would be a bit disappointed if the differences between spell levels will be mundane and boring.

Warder

 

[Lanefan]

Hopefully, we'll get a coherent and well-defined set of rules that makes spell/effect interactions obvious and intuitive, eliminating ad-hoc spell text descriptions for that purpose.

While this would be nice, unless spells and effects are made incredibly bland and boring I can't see it happening.

I mean, let's take what should be a simple example: how do Light and Darkness spells interact with each other; then how do both interact with Continual Light, Continual Darkness, and, for 3e fans, Deeper Darkness*; Everburning Torches, and whatever other light and darkness spells and effects are out there? Each of these spells needs to have noted how it interacts with the others, even if it is just that they simply negate or trump each other as appropriate.

* - at least I think that's what it's called; mid-level spell, generates evil darkness.

I don't think it would be too unwieldy to have lines at the end of spell descriptions like:
As 2nd level spell: Cast as Swift action, instead of Standard
As 3rd level spell: Cast on up to 6 targets, instead of just 1

For something simple like this one, no problem (assuming things like swift and standard actions are still in). But the other example, where someone is taking Knock and turning the higher-level version into almost a different spell, can't be summed up in just a few words.

Lanefan

 

[dkyle]

I mean, let's take what should be a simple example: how do Light and Darkness spells interact with each other; then how do both interact with Continual Light, Continual Darkness, and, for 3e fans, Deeper Darkness*; Everburning Torches, and whatever other light and darkness spells and effects are out there? Each of these spells needs to have noted how it interacts with the others, even if it is just that they simply negate or trump each other as appropriate.

How about, as part of the rules on Zones (i.e, persistent area effects):

If two overlapping zones produce directly opposite effects, the higher level one supersedes the other. If equal level, they cancel out, and neither of the opposing effects operate in the overlapping area.

Then, Light and Darkness could simply be slotted into any slot higher than their minimum spell level, and the interactions between various versions are produced naturally via a single rule that generalizes to other potential interactions involving other spells and effects.