Are Spells Balanced by Level?

[WizarDru]

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?

Well, you seem to be mixing three different questions here, IMHO: the first question is something akin to 'which spells should I change to acheive a lower-magic feel to D&D?'; the second is "what formula did WotC use to determine spell levels?" and finally "are these spells actually balanced against each other, and if so, what's so bad about changing their respective levels?"

The first question is a tough-one to answer, because I'm not really sure what kind of low-magic feel you're trying to obtain. Simply removing item creation feats and magic item availability, coupled with changing spell progessions will do that, for example.

WotC, AFAICT, used a combination of spell-type and levels within the class to determine individual spell level. YMMV as to how successful they actually were in this valuation. Being popular doesn't necessarily mean being unbalanced or overpowered. Magic Missle and Fireball, for example, are popular not just because they scale, but because they are very efficient damage spells in a game that centers around combat. Magic Missle DOESN'T MISS. That counts for a lot, and makes the spell valuable for a long, long time. Fireball damages multiple enemies at range...scaling up makes it even more attractive. The Polymorph spells are ultra-utiliatarian.

Within each class, spells are balanced (not always effectively, IMHO) and against each class. Compare Fireball versus, say, Inflict Serious Wounds or Hold Person versus Meld into Stone. Each class has it's specialties, and the overall system reinforces the concepts. Giving some spells at equal levels, and others at higher levels for one class. Does it work? I think it does, but I can see how some folks might not like it. Would it break the game to make Haste or Fireball fourth level? I don't think so...but it would certainly hamper the wizard's effectiveness.

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Re: Are Spells Balanced by Level?

Well, you seem to be mixing three different questions here, IMHO: the first question is something akin to 'which spells should I change to acheive a lower-magic feel to D&D?'; the second is "what formula did WotC use to determine spell levels?" and finally "are these spells actually balanced against each other, and if so, what's so bad about changing their respective levels?"

To clarify, I'm not so concerned (in this thread) with "low" magic; you can ignore that short prolog.

Being popular doesn't necessarily mean being unbalanced or overpowered.

If a spell's popular, it may not mean that it's going to unbalance the whole game, but it does imply that it's more powerful than other spells of that level though, right?

Magic Missle and Fireball, for example, are popular not just because they scale, but because they are very efficient damage spells in a game that centers around combat. Magic Missle DOESN'T MISS. That counts for a lot, and makes the spell valuable for a long, long time. Fireball damages multiple enemies at range...scaling up makes it even more attractive.

You've just listed a number of ways in which Magic Missile and Fireball are more powerful than other 1st- and 3rd-level spells.

Each class has it's specialties, and the overall system reinforces the concepts.

Agreed. That is good.

Would it break the game to make Haste or Fireball fourth level? I don't think so...but it would certainly hamper the wizard's effectiveness.

It goes two ways though. Would it break the game to make Haste and Fireball 4th-level? No, not really. Would it break the game to make Bestow Curse 2nd-level (instead of 3rd/4th)? No. One of those changes weakens Wizards; the other strengthens them.

 

[The_lone_gunman]

Seems to me that the only time "balance" of this nature would be relevent was in situations where players were fighting other players. I dont know about your campaign, but this doesnt happen in mine.

Otherwise, the DM can adjust the encounter, etc. to make it challenging for the party as they work together as a team, with each person pulling his own.

As far as I am concerned balance is pretty much irrelevent unless you are talking about HUGE amounts of power difference. Yes, a caster PC at 11th lvl could kill a fighter PC at that level without a problem, but that isnt really relevent because you dont ever do that. You fight monsters, NPC's, etc. that the DM puts in front of you, and he balances that based upon your current power level.

If there was a HUGE difference in power between casters and other folks, why doesnt large majorities of folks play casters? Discounting the roleplaying reasons, this is because it takes a variaty of abilities to be successful.

TLG

 

[WizarDru]

Re: Re: Re: Are Spells Balanced by Level?

To clarify, I'm not so concerned (in this thread) with "low" magic; you can ignore that short prolog.

So noted.

If a spell's popular, it may not mean that it's going to unbalance the whole game, but it does imply that it's more powerful than other spells of that level though, right?

Look at it this way: in a dungeon, I have twelve combat encounters, two trapped corridors, three locked chests, one wounded captive and a few role-playing encounters. In normal, by the book D&D, the combat encounters will be the centerpieces of the dungeon. They don't have to be, it's true. But these two spells are combat spells in a combat focused game. Unseen Servant and Animate Rope simply aren't going to have as much application, and will be learned, memorized and prepared less often. Secret Page and Illusory Script aren't bad spells....they're just not as useful as Fireball. Mind you, they ain't great spells, either.

You've just listed a number of ways in which Magic Missile and Fireball are more powerful than other 1st- and 3rd-level spells.

Not necessarily more powerful...more useful within the context of a standard D&D game. Fly, Gaseous Form, Leomund's Tiny Hut and Slow are fantastic spells, for example. But Gentle Repose is an example of cross-class enforcement, right or wrong...frankly a wizard shouldn't even get it, IMHO.

It goes two ways though. Would it break the game to make Haste and Fireball 4th-level? No, not really. Would it break the game to make Bestow Curse 2nd-level (instead of 3rd/4th)? No. One of those changes weakens Wizards; the other strengthens them.

If you give as well as take, then I don't see a problem. However, consider this: Bestow Curse is a powerful spell: why isn't is used more? Because mages and clerics don't tend to want to draw targets on themselves. Touch attack spells are difficult to execute without getting pasted, and they still offer a save at those levels...Bestow Curse will still not be favored, because the same inherent weakness of the spell (the vulnerability offered to the user) makes it extremely unattractive to use against the opponents where it would do the most good.

I'm not saying not to modify the spells, just to consider that there are more than just one reason why the spell isn't popular. Unless you change the way Fireball actually works, it will continue to be a preferential spell. Make magic missle a 2nd level spell, though, and you've really castrated the poor wizard and sorceror for a few levels, IMHO.

 

[mmadsen]

Seems to me that the only time "balance" of this nature would be relevent was in situations where players were fighting other players.

Huh?

The issue is not one of Wizards versus anyone else. That's not the kind of balance issue I'm discussing. I'm asking why spells are at the level they're at.

If no one ever takes a spell (even though it should be useful), it's probably because it costs too much; it's too high-level. If everyone seems to take a spell, it probably costs too little; it's too low-level.

After all, why is a particular spell deemed 1st-, 2nd-, or 3rd-level in the first place? Presumably all spells of a particular level are equally powerful -- or they're supposed to be.

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Are Spells Balanced by Level?

If you give as well as take, then I don't see a problem. However, consider this: Bestow Curse is a powerful spell: why isn't is used more? Because mages and clerics don't tend to want to draw targets on themselves. Touch attack spells are difficult to execute without getting pasted, and they still offer a save at those levels...Bestow Curse will still not be favored, because the same inherent weakness of the spell (the vulnerability offered to the user) makes it extremely unattractive to use against the opponents where it would do the most good.

Out of curiosity, what would happen if we lowered Bestow Curse dramatically -- say to 1st level? Would 1st-level Wizards use it much? Would medium-level Wizards use it much? Would high-level Wizards use it much?

 

[Squire James]

Okay, consider Bestow Curse as a 1st level spell:

Would I use it as a level 1 caster? No. Magic Missile, Sleep, Burning Hands, and Shocking Grasp all have a decent chance of killing a low-level foe with (at most) a touch attack like Bestow Curse. If I have (4+Con bonus) hp and something's next to me, I want to kill it, not give it a -6 to an ability score!

Would I use it as a level 6 caster? Maybe. Sleep is now almost worthless, and Magic Missile is now merely decent rather than outstanding. I probably won't be killing that troll with a single Fireball anyway, so knocking his Str down by 6 points (affecting damage too is usually better than -4 to d20 rolls) or a 50% chance to do nothing each round looks pretty good.

Would I use it as a 12th+ level caster? Probably. It actually becomes a good choice for a 1st level slot, and I'd probably prepare a few if I have slots left after Mage Armor, Shield, and Expeditious Retreat (all useful at any level). It becomes an excellent spell for hindering mooks with low Will saves without burning much spell power. That 50% "do nothing" option starts looking VERY good when dealing with those big beasts with +40 attack bonuses!

Summary: As a touch spell that also allows a save, it would probably work decently as a level 1 spell. Ray of Enfeeblement would drop off the list as useless, though.

 

[Squire James]

Okay, now consider Magic Missile as a 2nd level spell:

Would I miss it as a level 1 Wizards? Yes. All damaging spells are basically melee-range now! The Lesser Orb spells from Tome & Blood would become the new standards, and they'd pretty much need to be there to fill the void.

Would I use it as a level 3 Wizard? Yes. It is still pretty good, better than Melf's Acid Arrow in fact.

Would I use it as a level 7 Wizard? Not as many slots as before, but yes. There is a distinct lack of level 2 damage spells, and 4 missiles is still good.

Would I use it as a level 14+ Wizard? Not very often. I'd probably tote 1 or 2 for emergencies, but Silent or Still versions of level 1 utility spells start looking better at this point.

Summary: I could probably deal with it as a level 2 spell, if the Lesser Orbs are allowed in as level 1 spells. They would actually fill a gaping hole in that spell level...

 

[Squire James]

Next up... Haste as a level 4 spell.

Would I miss it as a level 5 caster? A little, yes, but not much. I still have Fireball, Fly, and Lightning Bolt to keep me company (unless, of course, these move up too).

Would I use it as a level 7+ caster? Yes! As soon as I got it, I would use it. I wouldn't stop using it. I'd have one prepared as a backup at 20th level, in case my Quickened Haste and Extended Haste got dispelled!

Summary: Haste would make an acceptable 3rd level spell if it gave an extra partial action OR a +4 always-stackable bonus to AC! Both effects should be level 4 at least. Not to mention that the 4th level spell list is pretty sparse on "good stuff" anyway!

 

[Squire James]

All right... Fireball is a 4th level spell:

Would I miss it at level 5? Yes! It is probably the one spell I look forward to most when I'm advancing as a low-level mage. Removing it from the level 3 list leaves the cupboard rather bare as far as damage spells are concerned (and makes me want to abuse Fly and Haste even more than I normally would).

Would I use it at level 7? Yes, it is still a decent spell, and 4th level is rather sparse on damage spells.

Would I use it at level 11? Maybe. It starts being a bad choice compared to Cone of Cold and Chain Lightning, and the utility spells at 4th level start being good now.

Would I use it at levels 15+? No. Everything seems to be immune to fire now anyway, and after Horrid Wilting just about all the elemental spells start looking bad. It might be decent with certain metamagic feats or the ability to change elements.

Summary: Fireball is not horrifically powerful... it gets chosen a lot for its "coolness" than its power. You don't really get to geek 20 goblins with it very often! It should stay at level 3 (or be banned entirely if it's "not in flavor").