A couple points:
#1: A spell level isn't necessarily used to compare two equal-level spells as much as to compare two equal-utility spells.
That is to say: Flaming sphere is 2nd level and Fireball is 3rd because in combat Fireball dishes out more damage over a larger area, etc. And Message is 1st level and Whispering Wind is 2nd because when needing to communicate WW has a much larger range, etc. NOT Flaming sphere and Whipsering Wind are 2nd level because they're equally popular and equally effective. It's really misleading to try and compare two spells by some simple scalar quantity such as a "spell level". What metrics are you going by? Can you even find a metric that every spell possesses? That 'spell level' quantity is there to distinguish between spells of similar function, the effect of calling two spells of the same level tantamout is just that: the effect of giving spell levels. Not the reason for spell levels.
If you were to change spell levels by how powerful they were in comparasion to their (spell level) peers, you'd start to notice two things. 1) combat-related spells (or whatever spells benefit the most from the metric you use) will filter up so that you'll never see those spells at low levels. While the utility spells would all filter down and clog the first several spell levels. and 2) Spells of similar function would start to "double up" on spell levels or at least be so close to eachother that one will be dwarfed by the other quickly (this applies to both the high and low 'power' spells).
#2: Frequency of memorization/preperation is no sound basis for determining one spell's power over another.
First reason: It depends so heavily on the campaign. If it's all a hack and slash, kick-in-the-door style of campaign, then of course you'll see the damaging spells and whatnot far more often. If you have a campaign with much less fighting (heavy roleplaying, must overcome enemies without violence, etc), then those damage spells will be all but ignored for such treats as Charm Person, Detect Thoughts, Animate Rope, and Illusory Script.
Second reason: In addition to the first reason, not every spell was meant to be cast several times a day. For example Raise Dead is indescribably useful, but a cleric probably doesn't need three prepared each day and will usually memorize it once when he learns of the need for it. That doesn't mean it's less useful than Flamestrike, which is the same spell level and has a good chance of the cleric having ready one or more times a day. In fact, if faced with the choice of permanently giving up Flame Strike or Raise Dead, I'd imagine many would give up the former (let's pretend he doesn't have access to the higer level versions like ressurection just yet
). Frequency in memorizing tells nothing other than how often a spell's use may come into play each day, which is not the same as how important the spell is to its caster (though it can influence that).
#1: A spell level isn't necessarily used to compare two equal-level spells as much as to compare two equal-utility spells.
That is to say: Flaming sphere is 2nd level and Fireball is 3rd because in combat Fireball dishes out more damage over a larger area, etc. And Message is 1st level and Whispering Wind is 2nd because when needing to communicate WW has a much larger range, etc. NOT Flaming sphere and Whipsering Wind are 2nd level because they're equally popular and equally effective. It's really misleading to try and compare two spells by some simple scalar quantity such as a "spell level". What metrics are you going by? Can you even find a metric that every spell possesses? That 'spell level' quantity is there to distinguish between spells of similar function, the effect of calling two spells of the same level tantamout is just that: the effect of giving spell levels. Not the reason for spell levels.
If you were to change spell levels by how powerful they were in comparasion to their (spell level) peers, you'd start to notice two things. 1) combat-related spells (or whatever spells benefit the most from the metric you use) will filter up so that you'll never see those spells at low levels. While the utility spells would all filter down and clog the first several spell levels. and 2) Spells of similar function would start to "double up" on spell levels or at least be so close to eachother that one will be dwarfed by the other quickly (this applies to both the high and low 'power' spells).
#2: Frequency of memorization/preperation is no sound basis for determining one spell's power over another.
First reason: It depends so heavily on the campaign. If it's all a hack and slash, kick-in-the-door style of campaign, then of course you'll see the damaging spells and whatnot far more often. If you have a campaign with much less fighting (heavy roleplaying, must overcome enemies without violence, etc), then those damage spells will be all but ignored for such treats as Charm Person, Detect Thoughts, Animate Rope, and Illusory Script.
Second reason: In addition to the first reason, not every spell was meant to be cast several times a day. For example Raise Dead is indescribably useful, but a cleric probably doesn't need three prepared each day and will usually memorize it once when he learns of the need for it. That doesn't mean it's less useful than Flamestrike, which is the same spell level and has a good chance of the cleric having ready one or more times a day. In fact, if faced with the choice of permanently giving up Flame Strike or Raise Dead, I'd imagine many would give up the former (let's pretend he doesn't have access to the higer level versions like ressurection just yet
). Frequency in memorizing tells nothing other than how often a spell's use may come into play each day, which is not the same as how important the spell is to its caster (though it can influence that).
