Seven spell levels in the Playtest

Raith5 · Jun 13, 2012

Hussar said:
Yeah, Invis Stalker, I was going to say - that is a VERY evenly spaced poll.

I hope, and I'm just spitballing here, that this isn't a really divisive issue. Whatever number they come up with, I would think that players will simply shrug and go with it.

As I said, if I was king of the world and I could decide, I'd go with more granularity simply because, especially at lower levels, certain spells are pretty obviously more powerful than others. Sleep anyone? So, you can either rein in the spells - multiple nerfs to Sleep - or you can spread things out a bit more. Maybe in a Spell Level=Character Level system, Sleep might be a second level spell and maybe Knock is too while Web gets bumped to third or maybe fourth level.

It just makes a bit more space to work with.

Agree. I prefer the 4th ed idea of spell level equally character level because it makes more sense to me, but I could certainly live with 9 or 10 levels.

For me the way spells are organized is something where they should try something new and move away from the 'legacy' of previous editions. For instance I would like to see the idea of spell lists to stretch the granularity of the spell effects

So a first level sleep could sleep one target, second level multiple foes could be made drowsy, third level sleep multiple foes or something like this.

When I saw the spells in the playtest I thought I recognize this and it certainly D&D but it just looks boring to me. I hope they can push the envelope here and do something more interesting and fresh here.

GX.Sigma · Jun 13, 2012

I voted lemon because I don't really care. 9/7 is traditional, 9/9 is traditional enough, slvl=clvl makes sense. It would be cool to see a more traditional or more modern version, rather than a seemingly random number like 7/7. But I don't really care that much.

Hussar · Jun 13, 2012

GX.Sigma said:
I voted lemon because I don't really care. 9/7 is traditional, 9/9 is traditional enough, slvl=clvl makes sense. It would be cool to see a more traditional or more modern version, rather than a seemingly random number like 7/7. But I don't really care that much.

I want pi.

Vael · Jun 13, 2012

What about getting rid of using numbered levels and use descriptive titles? We already have cantrips, so instead have Initiate, Acolyte, Expert, Master, Epic ... etc. Spells.

Thunderfoot · Jun 13, 2012

7 & 9...
Only because it worked in the past. 9 & 9 would be my second vote.

I really wanted the level=spell level thing to work. It didn't, not even a little bit IMO. Scrap it. If 7 & 7 is workable, then so be it.

Honestly, I don't care as long as the system works. Spells being finite would be the best way to get level=spell level to work, but then you have 20 levels of fireball (or fireball like spells), but with different names (which is just dumb).
S=SL is the one place I wouldn't mind seeing a tree system in place as was suggested in another post.

Li Shenron · Jun 13, 2012

I really hope that the playtest was limited to 7 just because anyway it's up to level 3 and the didn't bother to specify further.

9 levels for wizards is a must.

OTOH I am undecided between 7 or 9 levels for clerics and druids.

Bluenose · Jun 13, 2012

My preference would be five levels of spells that can be cast routinely by spell-casters. Anything more powerful than that is a ritual, taking a lot of time and resources to cast. It's not going to happen that way, though.

Falling Icicle · Jun 13, 2012

I would rather they have fewer spell levels. Even the 1st level characters in the playtest had 3 1st level spells per day plus cantrips. If you have 3-4 spells of each level, and 7+ levels of spells, that's just way too many spells, IMO. I really don't want high level casters to have dozens of spells per day. If they only give 1-2 spells of each level at the higher levels, I think the granularity of spell levels will really limit caster's choices. I think the best solution is to reduce the number of spell levels.

I'd like to see 3 "levels" of spells (i.e. rudimentary, advanced and epic), plus cantrips, and maybe give casters up to 5 or so of each per day, depending on their level. I think giving the spell categories names adds a good roleplaying and immersion element to it, as well.

Blood & Bones · Jun 13, 2012

Hussar said:
I want pi.

220px-Pi_pie2.jpg

Sadras · Jun 13, 2012

grimslade said:
I would like to see a more granular spell power level, not necessarily more spells granted.
Divorcing spell power from spell level might not feel like D&D. It would require an overhaul of the magic system that might not be in the cards right now.
Caster level would increase with character level either every level or every other level. It would determine damage, range, number affected, duration and all that jazz. It is a little bit fiddly but good modifier for multiclassed spellcasters. Level determines strength of magic but only class levels determine spells available. Less options but still relevant power.

Cant XP you, but THIS.
Damn I'm hungry for decent burger, slay some cows already, especially that fat one called Hit Points.

Seven spell levels in the Playtest

How many spell levels should casters get?

Less than 7.

7 spell levels (as in the playtest)

Divine casters 7, Arcane casters 9 (1st/2nd edition)

9 Spell Levels (3rd Edition)

More than 9

Think for yourself - Question Authority.

Raith5

Adventurer

GX.Sigma

Adventurer

Hussar

Legend

Vael

Legend

Thunderfoot

Hero

Li Shenron

Legend

Bluenose

Hero

Falling Icicle

Adventurer

Blood & Bones

Explorer

Attachments

Sadras

Legend

Similar Threads