20 spell levels instead of 9?

[shilsen]

I'll just settle for them not calling them levels of spells and using something else, e.g. valences, from Sepulchrave's Story Hour. There are way too many areas in the game where the word levels is used.

 

[Kerrick]

I think 10 levels of spells would be enough for non-epic - it'd give you an extra level to play around with (so you can spread things out a bit without stretching it too thin) and keep the logical progression, as Heaven said - L10 spells at Wiz 18, and Sor 19. I'm not sure why they stopped at 9 in the first place...

I'm writing a system of 10th-15th level spells entirely NOT based on the epic rules. At the rate I finish projects it should be out with the announcement of 5th ed. But I am working on it....

I've got one too, but mine continues past 15th level spells.

 

[KB9JMQ]

Well going to 20 different levels of spells would sure help the new player who wants to be a caster. Who hasn't heard this before "What do you mean I am 4th level but can't cast 4th level spells?" or some such variation.

I would love to see it more streamlined or at least don't call them levels anymore. I agree with Shilsen there is enough use of that word in the game now.

 

[The_Warlock]

It's definitely something that I've found an interesting concept, and despite the massive overhauls and house rules to play the way my players and I want to play that I've done, is something I never found the time to do personally.

I'm reminded of an old 2nd ed Dragon article about path magic, where you learn paths of related spells (ie, fire, transportation, fogs and clouds, etc), and that that would provide an interesting mechanic for a 20 level spell system. While it limits the individual lists of spells any given caster draws from, you still have a wealth of spells to customize from.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

How about just making true 10+ level spells?

Yeah I dont like this idea. It's fine the way it is.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

I'll just settle for them not calling them levels of spells and using something else, e.g. valences, from Sepulchrave's Story Hour. There are way too many areas in the game where the word levels is used.

As Rich Burlew illustrated in OotS # 12
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html

 

[GreatLemur]

A new level of spells available with each new Wizard level? Sounds pretty nice to me. And after spreading things out, I imagine they could fill the resulting gaps by applying the "Summon Monster #" format to every spell that would fit it, giving us a lot of spells that are available in 20 different sizes.

But, honestly, if we're going to start down that road, I think I'd really prefer to ditch spells, and just have a big list of effects, which can be used to a greater degree--in terms of damage, healing, bonuses, number of targets, range, duration, etc.--by higher-level casters, and if more spell-casting resource is spent (whether that resource is mana tokens, casting time, spell-levels-per-day, successful skill checks, or what have you). Of course, I don't know if every player would be too enthusiastic about the extra hassles involved in freeform spell casting.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

But, honestly, if we're going to start down that road, I think I'd really prefer to ditch spells, and just have a big list of effects, which can be used to a greater degree--in terms of damage, healing, bonuses, number of targets, range, duration, etc.--by higher-level casters, and if more spell-casting resource is spent (whether that resource is mana tokens, casting time, spell-levels-per-day, successful skill checks, or what have you). Of course, I don't know if every player would be too enthusiastic about the extra hassles involved in freeform spell casting.

I think the optimum system would be a hybrid of free-form and set spells. Certain spells are specific enough that they should remain singular. But many others can be broken down into scaling effects with templates and variable attributes that modify them on the fly. Try to meld the best of both worlds while avoiding the complexity of a truly freeform system.

 

[Technomancer]

Instead of expanding the spell list to 20 levels, why not reduce/compress the number of character levels to 9, so that spellcasters get new spells every level, and other classes get 2-3 times as many kewl powers than normal every level.

 

[Arkhandus]

If you want to see it done, look at the EverQuest d20 system. They used a spell point system, spell levels 1-20, and limited spells prepared to 8 without feats.

I don't know if they did some strange revision that I don't know about, but I got a copy of Everquest D20's Player's Handbook and Monsters of Norrath a couple of years ago. The PHB has 15 spell levels (no 0-level spells), because the classes go up to level 30 in EQ d20. It's the same proportion/rate of spell levels to class levels, just a little different (10th-level spells at 19th-level or so instead of 0-level spells at 1st, etc.).

I haven't had a chance to try it out in play yet (only face-to-face group I've RPed with in recent years has been playing D&D, and I only just started a D20 Modern game with them for a try), but I like EQ d20's spellcasting and mana system on paper. As you say though, casters get only a handful of slots, and might eventually build them up to about 12 slots if they take the feats for it.

I suppose one of the later books may've added class advancement up to level 40 or something, but I only got two books for EQ d20 so far (can't afford any others yet).

Still, EQ d20 doesn't use an equal number of spell levels and class levels. And I don't want to see it in D&D either. Give people 2 freaking levels at least to enjoy their new spells and get the hang of them before tossing another heap on top.