D&D 5E 11 spell levels... really

[Treebore]

I think having more spell levels and spreading gaining them out over 30 character levels would do a lot to make higher level play easier to manage as well as keeping spell casters from being more impressively powerful than non spell casters.

The new Hackmaster essentially did this, and I liked its effect.

 

[griffonwing]

I think having more spell levels and spreading gaining them out over 30 character levels would do a lot to make higher level play easier to manage as well as keeping spell casters from being more impressively powerful than non spell casters.

The new Hackmaster essentially did this, and I liked its effect.

Perhaps, also, introduce Spell Creation into the game. Mages have a set list of spells that have been researched and discovered, a large list, to be sure, but still, a finite amount. Introduce a system that encourages them to create their own, be it hybrid spells or whatever. Pule "role" back into the game.

 

[Sadrik]

I think having more spell levels and spreading gaining them out over 30 character levels would do a lot to make higher level play easier to manage as well as keeping spell casters from being more impressively powerful than non spell casters.

The new Hackmaster essentially did this, and I liked its effect.

I am sorry but you will have to tell me how to differentiate between a 20th level spell and a 30th level spell. That is just silly imo. The only way I can see that as a possibility is if you have 20 different versions of the same spell as opposed to one version and it scales in some fashion (memorize at a higher level for more damage or auto scales based on caster level). I vote for going back to 7 spell levels + 0 level (illusionist, cleric and druid style) for all casters. 30 spell levels is not good.

 

[griffonwing]

I am sorry but you will have to tell me how to differentiate between a 20th level spell and a 30th level spell. That is just silly imo. The only way I can see that as a possibility is if you have 20 different versions of the same spell as opposed to one version and it scales in some fashion (memorize at a higher level for more damage or auto scales based on caster level). I vote for going back to 7 spell levels + 0 level (illusionist, cleric and druid style) for all casters. 30 spell levels is not good.

Several ways
1) Limit the number of spells per level, per haps put it on par with the character level +2 or 3.
2) Introduce other types of spells, not necessarily damage spells, but ones that could be useful.

In all honestly, though, I am just tossing out possibilities, things to grab a hold of and work with. I do not have the knowledge of how to make a Vancian magic system viable for 20 or 30 spell levels. But that's ok. If I did, I would be applying at WoTC.

 

[Zustiur]

I'm still of the opinion that the following should happen:
1) 'Spell Levels' are renamed to 'Spell Tiers'
2) For Cleric and Wizard types, we should continue with 9+1 tiers (i.e. 0-9 tier spells)
3) Those tiers should be split across 30 levels
4) Only character levels 1-20 should be in the PHB
5) Sorcerers should be either a) an alternative casting method wizard, or b) have their funky bloodlines and have a totally different spell list

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes. This is how HackMaster does theirs. But they also include Spell Points mixed with Vancian memorization. You memorize 1 spell per level, along with 2 apprentice and 1 journeyman (cantrips or weaker spells). Non-memorized spells cost twice the base points to cast, and memorized spells never leave the memory, until you choose to memorize another.

You can memorize a 2nd level spell, and cast it as many times as you have the spell points to cast.

I always thought the "points" system was a nice way to pay for spells, but then I come from a long video-gaming background wherein most magic-users have some sort of energy-pool that they use to cast their spells. Spells-per-day simulates this to an extent, but not in a manner that I feel is very clear.

If every spell was given a point-cost based on it's level(lets keep it simple, we've got 10 levels, each spell costs the amount of points from the level it's in) I think it would go a long way to making the Vancian system much less confusing. Metamagic feats would increase point costs, moving spells up "spells levels" to power them up would increase point costs, same with moving them down. Say, 2 points per level, and one extra point per level based on your int/wis/cha mod. If we keep the DDN style of capping at 20, then by 20th level a player has at best roughly 140 points to spend. While that seems like a lot, if a 10th level spell costs 10 points, that's only 14 spells, which should be able to be completely spent in a 20th level encounter.

I dunno, the Vancian system as it has been in D&D has always bothered the heck out of me because it seems to convoluted for no apparent benefit.

 

[griffonwing]

I always thought the "points" system was a nice way to pay for spells, but then I come from a long video-gaming background wherein most magic-users have some sort of energy-pool that they use to cast their spells. Spells-per-day simulates this to an extent, but not in a manner that I feel is very clear.

If every spell was given a point-cost based on it's level(lets keep it simple, we've got 10 levels, each spell costs the amount of points from the level it's in) I think it would go a long way to making the Vancian system much less confusing. Metamagic feats would increase point costs, moving spells up "spells levels" to power them up would increase point costs, same with moving them down. Say, 2 points per level, and one extra point per level based on your int/wis/cha mod. If we keep the DDN style of capping at 20, then by 20th level a player has at best roughly 140 points to spend. While that seems like a lot, if a 10th level spell costs 10 points, that's only 14 spells, which should be able to be completely spent in a 20th level encounter.

I dunno, the Vancian system as it has been in D&D has always bothered the heck out of me because it seems to convoluted for no apparent benefit.

I think making a 1st level spell cost 1 point is too cheap. What about boosting them by pumping more points? It could cost you all of your points for 1 spell.

In HM, you have leveled spells (1st level, 8th, etc) and you have Apprentice (elementary learning spells) and Journeyman (secondary grade spells). Apprentice spells cost 30 Sp, Journeyman cost 40, and leveled costs 40+(10x spell level), so 50 for 1st, 60 for 2nd, 70 for 3rd, etc.. The mage can memorize 1 spell from each level, plus 1 Apprentice and 1 Journeyman.

At 3rd level, you have 260 Spell Points. 70+60+50+40+30=250. You have enough points to cast all of your memorized spells, plus 10 points over to boost some. Alternatively, you could be in a situation where you never had to cast them all. You could, in fact, cast your memorized apprentice spell 8 times, or your memorized 1st level spell 5 times, or your 3rd level spell 3 times. Any non-memorized spell, if you have the spellbook, costs double.

 

[MoonSong]

I always thought the "points" system was a nice way to pay for spells, but then I come from a long video-gaming background wherein most magic-users have some sort of energy-pool that they use to cast their spells. Spells-per-day simulates this to an extent, but not in a manner that I feel is very clear.

If every spell was given a point-cost based on it's level(lets keep it simple, we've got 10 levels, each spell costs the amount of points from the level it's in) I think it would go a long way to making the Vancian system much less confusing. Metamagic feats would increase point costs, moving spells up "spells levels" to power them up would increase point costs, same with moving them down. Say, 2 points per level, and one extra point per level based on your int/wis/cha mod. If we keep the DDN style of capping at 20, then by 20th level a player has at best roughly 140 points to spend. While that seems like a lot, if a 10th level spell costs 10 points, that's only 14 spells, which should be able to be completely spent in a 20th level encounter.

I dunno, the Vancian system as it has been in D&D has always bothered the heck out of me because it seems to convoluted for no apparent benefit.

Well I don't find it specially confusing, but again the only time I used vacian was in the old times when I just said "Three heals, done." Starting on 3rd edition only sorcerers and bards (and favored souls) for me thank you (Ok, I also enjoyed clerics and healers, but no wizards). However I have no choice but defend it, when vancian falls it dies dragging along the spontaneous slot casting with it, so until people (and designers) realize that the very same spell cast by the very same level of caster with the same caster stat has wildly different outcomes if the caster is an spontaneous or a vancian caster I have no choice but to err on the side of vancian. (And spell points are too fidly IMHO) Oh and 9 is a pretty number, doesn't feel like too many or too little levels. 11 feels like too much, more than 9 levels and spell levels become insanely granular and sounds like harder to book keep.

Oh and [MENTION=1544]Zustiur[/MENTION], I don't agree with most of your points, specially on sorcerers, having the same spell list doesn't makes them just alternative wizards, and for the sake of fairness they need to be judged and balanced on their own merits, otherwise they become needlessly weak. If the dev team manages to balance wizards into the same power level as fighters and just decide to use the same exact numbers for sorcerers without further thought, the sorcerer will suck big time.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think making a 1st level spell cost 1 point is too cheap. What about boosting them by pumping more points? It could cost you all of your points for 1 spell.

Well, if a first-level spell is all you have access to, and lets assume you're also 1st level, that would mean(by the system presented above) that even with a perfect roll and a +2 racial bonus, you'd only have 6 spell-points, which would mean you could only fire off that 1d3 or 1d4 spell 6 times before you're spent.

I really don't think that's all too unreasonable at first level. I wouldn't be opposed however, to allowing the player some simple at-will magic, but I wouldn't favor it being the entire palette of 1st-level spells. A player could choose to take say, 2 first-level spells that they could use as at-will, no cost magic. These could never be retrained, and they could not be augmented by spending more points.

In HM, you have leveled spells (1st level, 8th, etc) and you have Apprentice (elementary learning spells) and Journeyman (secondary grade spells). Apprentice spells cost 30 Sp, Journeyman cost 40, and leveled costs 40+(10x spell level), so 50 for 1st, 60 for 2nd, 70 for 3rd, etc.. The mage can memorize 1 spell from each level, plus 1 Apprentice and 1 Journeyman.

At 3rd level, you have 260 Spell Points. 70+60+50+40+30=250. You have enough points to cast all of your memorized spells, plus 10 points over to boost some. Alternatively, you could be in a situation where you never had to cast them all. You could, in fact, cast your memorized apprentice spell 8 times, or your memorized 1st level spell 5 times, or your 3rd level spell 3 times. Any non-memorized spell, if you have the spellbook, costs double.

I still favor keeping the math simple and making point-cost equitable to the spell level, and likewise using that to keep the number of points any player could ever get down as well. 1-10 levels, 1-10 spells, 1-10 points. I don't like artificial categorizations of spells unless there is some real good reason why spells in levels 1-4 are "beginner", 5-7 "journeyman" and 8-10 advanced", such as a significant power jump.

 

[Sunseeker]

Well I don't find it specially confusing, but again the only time I used vacian was in the old times when I just said "Three heals, done." Starting on 3rd edition only sorcerers and bards (and favored souls) for me thank you (Ok, I also enjoyed clerics and healers, but no wizards). However I have no choice but defend it, when vancian falls it dies dragging along the spontaneous slot casting with it, so until people (and designers) realize that the very same spell cast by the very same level of caster with the same caster stat has wildly different outcomes if the caster is an spontaneous or a vancian caster I have no choice but to err on the side of vancian. (And spell points are too fidly IMHO) Oh and 9 is a pretty number, doesn't feel like too many or too little levels. 11 feels like too much, more than 9 levels and spell levels become insanely granular and sounds like harder to book keep.

That's generally how I've felt about it too. But healing Clerics did sort of bridge between vancian and spontaneous. My party's Favored Soul healer is stupid good atm.

And yes, it's sad that designers can't seem to separate A from B when it comes to vancian and spontaneous casting.