2 new spells vs Max Spell Level * 2 in spell levels

[Quidam]

Tried to express it succinctly in the subject, but has anyone tried a house rule allowing an arcane caster to, when receiving new spells upon gaining a level, instead of taking, say, two new 4th level spells, takes a 4th and a 3rd and a 1st? Or four 2nd's?

Get my drift?

Now, since a fourth level spell is definitely worth more than any combination of lower level spells that add up to four, it seems like that might be the balancing factor for the added versatility.

This would obviously be more of a boon to bards and sorcerors than to wizards, though they get so few spells, sacrificing higher spell for lower ones would probably be done only rarely.

What do you think?

 

[Chacal]

IMC, we use (only for arcane classes that gains spells as wizards)
Class Level +1 (half of this must be spent in specialised school if any )

We stick to the standard for bard and sorcerers,
probably because our bards and sorc PCs aren't high level enough to
find some usefulness in this kind of house rule.

I don't find it unbalancing though.


Chacal

 

[Kamard]

Its not a terribly bad idea to let your players take two lower level spells rather than the higher level spell... at least that way they have less higher level spells, no?

 

[GuardianLurker]

Tried to express it succinctly in the subject, but has anyone tried a house rule allowing an arcane caster to, when receiving new spells upon gaining a level, instead of taking, say, two new 4th level spells, takes a 4th and a 3rd and a 1st? Or four 2nd's?

No, I haven't. But it's not necessarily a bad idea, if you're keeping the scribing cost the same. I'd be leary of applying it to Bards and Sorcs, however. There's a reason their spell acquistion is fully described.

Now, since a fourth level spell is definitely worth more than any combination of lower level spells that add up to four,

Not necessarily. It depends heavily on the spells involved. And the player. Some players, for instance, might rate the Shield+Haste combo more useful than Stoneskin. Others might not.