Level Up (A5E) Improving spells

[FrogReaver]

digital tools are highly flexible if an effort is put into them.

It's better to focus on book layout and ease of rules.

Digital tools can always be updated when new idea comes. With books it's a bit harder

My problem with digital is that there is usually no ownership stake. I basically pay for the privilege of using something until company X goes bankrupt or decides to turn off the "service". Heck, they could make a bunch of changes to the product that I am forced to use even though I don't want to. Those risks factor into the price point I'm willing to pay for digital anything. On top of that the digital tool usually has me pay again for information I've already bought. I'm not a big fan.

I mean digital has alot of pros - easier to use, no wear and tier, the possibility for "free" updates. It's just the con is huge. At some point those digital tools will inevitably go away and likely before many of us are ready for them to.

 

[Lanefan]

@Charlaquin - a further thought: neither of your example spells mention whether or not line of sight/effect is required; and it's a consideration for a whole bunch of spells. My own workaround was/is to add a fourth possible component 'L', the presence of which indicates line of sight/effect is required between caster and target(s) and the absence of which indicates a spell can be cast into (or pull results from, if a divination) an area or space you can't see e.g. behind a closed door or around a corner.

Adding the 'L' component saved me having to type out line-of-sight clauses in about 200 spells.

 

[Haldrik]

Why not? Having the same or similar spells cast by different classes at different levels opens up tons of design space for how classes work, and how to balance them.

A simple example: an Illusionist should be able to cast some staple Illusion spells at lower level (but for the same effect) than a generalist Wizard.

Note, the Wizard gains level 1 spells at wizard level 1. But the Paladin gains level 1 spells at paladin level 2.

Meanwhile, all spell level 1 spells are moreorless equal in power to other spell level 1 spells.

This organization is important for monitoring whether a specific spell is overpowered or underpowered − because it can be compared to other spells of the same spell level. It helps ensure a working gaming system.

 

[Horwath]

Why not? Having the same or similar spells cast by different classes at different levels opens up tons of design space for how classes work, and how to balance them.

A simple example: an Illusionist should be able to cast some staple Illusion spells at lower level (but for the same effect) than a generalist Wizard.

I would rather go with added effects for some specialists than return to the 3.5e cluster"#$% with slinging spells across various levels depending on class.
Like 5E wizard.

If some class is better at certain spells, I would rather have it casted at "free +1 spell level".
I.E. life cleric could have all healing spells at +1 effective spell level instead of fixed heal bonus that they have it now. That is 1st level cure spell would heal 2d8+mod.

If some higher level spells might be a key feature for a class, they can be added as 1/per rest(short or long) as an extra class feature outside of spellcasting slots and levels.

 

[Lanefan]

My problem with digital is that there is usually no ownership stake. I basically pay for the privilege of using something until company X goes bankrupt or decides to turn off the "service". Heck, they could make a bunch of changes to the product that I am forced to use even though I don't want to. Those risks factor into the price point I'm willing to pay for digital anything. On top of that the digital tool usually has me pay again for information I've already bought. I'm not a big fan.

I mean digital has alot of pros - easier to use, no wear and tier, the possibility for "free" updates. It's just the con is huge. At some point those digital tools will inevitably go away and likely before many of us are ready for them to.

If the digital tools are stored at/controlled by the publisher this is true. If they're made available as a .pdf that one can download and edit, however, this issue goes away. The only downside is that you have to do your own editing whenever there's an update; but as I assume any DM is going to be doing their own edits anyway that's no big deal.

 

[Lanefan]

I would rather go with added effects for some specialists than return to the 3.5e cluster"#$% with slinging spells across various levels depending on class.
Like 5E wizard.

I thought 3e's spell organization was one of its better features: the whole lot in one great big list with each spell specifying which classes got it and at what level.

I found it a vast improvement over 1e's listing of spells by class both for ease of use and for reduction of duplication, and I'm rather surprised to see so many in this thread who seem to want to go back to the by-class lists.

If some class is better at certain spells, I would rather have it casted at "free +1 spell level".
I.E. life cleric could have all healing spells at +1 effective spell level instead of fixed heal bonus that they have it now. That is 1st level cure spell would heal 2d8+mod.

That's a solution for some spells, particularly those that - as in your example - auto-scale with level.

But spells that just do what they do e.g. Locate Object - if you want design space for a Diviner class, for example, having the ability to shift Locate Object's level up or down makes that design much easier.

If some higher level spells might be a key feature for a class, they can be added as 1/per rest(short or long) as an extra class feature outside of spellcasting slots and levels.

I live in a fantasy world in which Level Up does away with ability recovery (other than a few hit points) on short rest, and makes everything daily. I still say it's simpler just to go the 3e route on spell organization.

 

[Eltab]

This Arcane Trickster would like a way to stealth-cast a spell without advertising "Here I am and this is me doing it".
Whether sneaking up to a back door and using Mage Hand plus thieves tools to pick the lock, or casting Dancing Lights from behind an approaching foe to signal my friends to get ready for trouble.

What kind of penalty would counter-balance the advantages?
Maybe 'cantrips only'?

 

[FrogReaver]

If the digital tools are stored at/controlled by the publisher this is true. If they're made available as a .pdf that one can download and edit, however, this issue goes away. The only downside is that you have to do your own editing whenever there's an update; but as I assume any DM is going to be doing their own edits anyway that's no big deal.

Editable PDF's are pretty ripe for piracy - that's why most companies shy away from them.

 

[ThatGuySteve]

We’re discussing the idea of tags (not calling them tags though). Fireball — arcane, evocation, fire. Lists can be dynamically created in various configurations that way. A firemage archetype can use all spells with the fire tag. Very preliminary thinking.

Would some tags be dependant on the caster, rather than the spell? Eg Fireball has the arcane tag when cast by a wizard, but the divine tag when cast by a cleric of a fire god?

Yes to tags and dynamic lists.

 

[Charlaquin]

Close. Switch clauses between Save and Effect, and trim them down, and you've got it. So, your examples would now look like:

Burning Hands__________1st level Evocation
As you hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips.
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: Self (15 ft. cone)
Target: Each creature in the cone.
Effect: A creature takes 3d6 fire damage. Flammable objects in the cone that aren’t being worn or carried ignite.
Save: Each target must make a Dexterity saving throw. Damage halved for that target if save succeeds.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the effect damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 1st.

Hmm... I see what you’re saying here. I’ll have to see how this formatting works with more spells before deciding if I prefer it over mine from the previous post.

Note that I added the word 'effect' into the 'At Higher Levels' line, to avoid confusion as to whether the extra d6 is applied before or after the save. (yes, there's people who would interpret this both ways otherwise!)

I just used the wording from the spell as written in the 5e PHB. Specifying “the effect damage” is probably a little clearer though.

Chill Touch

______________Necromancy Cantrip
You create a ghostly, skeletal hand to assail a creature with the chill of the grave.
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: 120 feet
Target: One creature within range
Effect: Make a ranged spell attack roll against the target. If it hits, the target takes 1d8 necrotic damage and cannot regain hit points until the start of your next turn. An undead target you hit with this spell has disadvantage on attack rolls against you until the end of your next turn.
Save: none.
At Higher Levels: This spell’s damage increases to 2d8 at 5th level, 3d8 at 11th level, and 4d8 at 17th level.

For consistency, every line should appear in the same order in every block - here there was no 'Save' line, so I added it. Otherwise, my first question as both DM and player would be 'is there a save for this or not?'.

I don’t think that’s necessary. I intentionally left the Duration line out of both of these instead of Duration: Instantaneous because it’d just be eating up page to tell you the spell doesn’t have the thing the line it’s there to tell you about. Likewise, if the spell doesn’t have a save, it shouldn’t have a save line, and if it doesn’t hit, it shouldn’t have a hit line.

I also combined your 'Effect' and 'Hit' lines as they are part of the same thing: what does the spell want to do; and tweaked the wording a bit here and elsewhere.

Absolutely not. The entire point of this reformatting is so you can easily tell everything you need to know about the spell at a glance, without having to read through a paragraph of text to find the bit you’re looking for. “How do I know if it works?” and “what happens if it works?” are different pieces of information that need to be hi-lighted separately. Putting them both in the same paragraph will lead to reading one when what you want to know is the other, causing slowdown.

And yeah, doing this for every single spell would be (and, I speak from experience, is) bloody tedious!

Eh, tedium during prep > slowdown during play. IMO.