Are Spells Balanced by Level?

[mmadsen]

In the past, while discussing ways to achieve a "low magic" feel (not really low, but that's another topic), I recommended shifting around some of the spells to different levels -- and this brought the expected cries of "Game balance! You'll destroy the game balance!"

Really though, are the spells balanced as they stand now?

We all know certain spells are vastly more popular than other spells at the same level. So my first question is: Which spells have you found most popular (and powerful) at each level?

Second, Which spells have you found least popular (and powerful) at each level?

If you were already going to be modifying the game with extensive house rules, which spells might you bump up or down a level?

Edit: Fixed spelling of "achieve". Whoops.

 

[jasamcarl]

No, the spells are not balanced by level, nor were they intended to. They are balanced by class. Tome and Blood makes this clear that, when assigning a spell level to a new spell, compare it to the quintessential spells, i.e. magic missle, fireball, time stop, etc. The game would loose the balance if these spells were to change levels, because you would be weakening the spellcasting CLASSES as a whole. The so-called 'underpowered' spells are utility spells, only likely to see use in certain situations; there level is determined either for flavor reasons, or by the amount of resources one would have to expend to accomplish the same thing if they were not there. Regardless, the balance of wizards and sorcerers was meant to rest on spells often erroneously labled 'overpowered'.

 

[Crothian]

They are blanaced by level, but only within a class spell list. And that only sort of works. I think increasing spell level of spells to reflect a low magic system would work very well.

 

[zoroaster100]

Not balanced by level

Most spells are decently balanced but a few "sacred cows" that are slightly out of balance with the others were allowed to remain at the old 2nd edition level. I think fireball and haste should be 4th level, for example, and harm is definitely too powerful for 6th level without a save. Magic missile is definitely more powerful than other damage spells of 1st level. I would say that failing to fix these spells so that they are either less powerful or higher level was the only disappointment I had with 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons. It is also the one thing I would most wish they would change years from now when they do a 4th edition. It is possible to houserule minor changes to the spells to balance them, but these are the most popular spells and therefore it impacts so many assumptions in many published adventures, monster descriptions, etc. that it is a pain to make these changes.

 

[mmadsen]

No, the spells are not balanced by level, nor were they intended to.

Then what are the levels for?

They are balanced by class.

What's the difference between a 1st-level Wizard spell and a 2nd-level Wizard spell then?

Tome and Blood makes this clear that, when assigning a spell level to a new spell, compare it to the quintessential spells, i.e. magic missle, fireball, time stop, etc.

So then spells are intended to be balanced by level. And, again, I ask: Which spells have you found most popular (and powerful) at each level? Magic Missiles and Fireballs certainly seem quite powerful and quite popular.

The game would loose the balance if these spells were to change levels, because you would be weakening the spellcasting CLASSES as a whole.

Obviously if you raise the cost (level) of some spells, you weaken the class that casts those spells. If that's not your goal, to weaken the class, there's an obvious cure: you lower the cost (level) of other spells.

Any spell that fits the theme you'd like (e.g. Bestow Curse) that never gets used should have its cost (level) reduced -- just as any spell that gets used all the time (e.g. Fireball) should have its cost (level) increased.

 

[Celebrim]

No. They never did.

The situation only got worse when the mechanics changed but the spell levels did not. This created in some cases a situation similar to converting a 1st edition module without changing the level of play.

On the other hand, some notoriously overpowered spells were toned down to reasonable levels (fireball for instance).

On the other hand, some spells which had been carefully restricted (polymorph other/self for instance) to keep them from becoming overpowering in the hands of a twink were rewritten less restricting - with predictable consequences.

But the system doesn't necessarily need a complete overhaul. Probably tweaking a dozen or so spells would solve most of the glaring problems.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Didn't this same topic come up a while ago?

Yeesh. ^_^

I think the spells are balanced by class, yes. It's not so much that Fireball is too powerful for 3rd level as it is that a 5th level wizard or 6th level sorcerer should be able to cast Fireball.

Basically, spellcasting classes get a list of special abilities at each level that they can select from to do things. Clerics get a lot of special abilities, but only a few uses per day. Wizard get a few special abilities, and a few uses per day (but get bonus feats to make up for it), Sorcerers get few special abilities, but MANY uses per day (and a slightly delayed progression).

A 5th level cleric shouldn't be able to Fireball like a 5th level wizard, because the classes fill different niches in the party. So if the cleric wants to fireball, they should have to pay more (in the form of waiting more levels) before they can do it.

Balanced by class.

Are there "better" choices? It really depends on your character and campaign. The rules assume one "healer," one "tank," one "special ops," and one "big booms." Arcane casters fill the role of big booms. If you don't have anyone to fill that role otherwise, it gets a bit wonky, just like if you don't have a tank or a healer or a rogue -- it gets a bit tough to overcome some of the challenges, because there's an expectation that isn't met.

My current sorcerer/psion doesn't have magic missle and won't get fireball, simply because it doesn't fit a character concept. Yeah, we're a bit suffering from not having a decent big boomer...ah, well. Suck it up, yo.

If you want a low magic feel, see d20 Modern -- this looks perfect. It assumes NO magic as a base. Translate it into medieval times, and you've got it. It's got a different assumption of party composition and challenge than D&D does. Even gets grittier.

Basically, I guess I don't see why people are upset about some of the spell levels....Harm, maybe (more an issue of needing a save than of needing a bump in levels, since 5th level spells can kill things outright)...but yeah. I don't see a problem. ^_^

 

[Ravellion]

I'd say they are mostly balanced by level per spell list, with the favourite list of "Polymorph other", "Haste"(very slightly), "Magic Missile" and "Harm", being especially powerful for their level within their spell list.

Rav

 

[mmadsen]

Spell Scaling

I almost brought this issue up in my original post: what's the deal with scaling? Some spells have a different version at every level (Summon Monster I through IX), while others just get better at no additional cost. Is such scaling a sacred cow?

Some spells are great at the level they're introduced (e.g. Sleep), but after a few levels, other spells of the same level get much better. Is that good game design? Or is something we're all just used to?

 

[Ravellion]

Re: Spell Scaling

Is that good game design? Or is something we're all just used to?

I think the game needs scaling, otherwise low level spell slots can hardly be used for anything productive at higher levels. Of course, because of this, I'd prefer a Sleep spell that would scale as well. Say, 1HD per level.

The only reason that psionics does well without the scaling is because of the Power Point system. That's also why you won't ever use low level powers later on anymore though.

Rav