Brainstorming on Spell LEVEL fixes

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally, I wanted work on a 20-level spell progression and re-leveling to be a part of this thread, but that's asking too much. So I'm starting up this thread.

I think this could be a big plus to the game.

A 20 level progression has some advantages:

1. It's more intuitive- I know most of us are used to the levels of spells not matching PC level, but it remains a stumbling block for new players
2. It gives you more precison when re-leveling spells. A must-have 1st level spell might still be overpowered as a 2nd level spell, but would be just right at third, for example. This also gives more room in the game for lesser/greater versions of spells.
3. If done right, it may also serve so flatten the slope of the power progression of casters vs non-casters, leading to a bigger "sweet spot."

There are potential downsides as well, of course. Do we extend the bonus spells/levels for various classes? Do we keep the number of spells overall about the same- which would result in much less caster flexibility per level- or will there be a bump in number of spells due to there being more levels of spells overall?

(A 3.5Ed 20th level mage at 4 spells/level has 40 spells over the 10 different spell levels, ignoring bonuses. With a 21 spell levels at just 2 per level, that's 42 spells.)

And of course, we'd have to re-evaluate the impact on the LA adjustment of Metamagic Feats.

So, spreading out spells over 20 levels (plus one for cantrips/orisons)...which spells get boosted? Which spells get dropped a notch?

And what do the spell progression charts for full and half casters look like afterwards?

 

[Celebrim]

There are potential downsides as well, of course. Do we extend the bonus spells/levels for various classes? Do we keep the number of spells overall about the same- which would result in much less caster flexibility per level- or will there be a bump in number of spells due to there being more levels of spells overall?

All good questions. Frankly, I don't see how this going to work, but I'll try to help if I can.

(A 3.5Ed 20th level mage at 4 spells/level has 40 spells over the 10 different spell levels, ignoring bonuses. With a 21 spell levels at just 2 per level, that's 42 spells.)

I think you can reasonably assume that they have at 20th level only 1 19th and 1 20th level spell slot, gaining the additionally 19th level spell at 21st level and the 2nd 20th at 22nd level. Bonus spell and maximum spell level available get a lot wonkier and less elegant under this new progression, and both are directly tied to the stat range 10-19. Not sure what do do there, but certainly the total number of bonus spells shouldn't change so you are likely a have a bonus 1st level spell, bonus 3rd, bonus 5th, bonus 7th, etc.

One huge change here is that this forces you to have memorized twice as many types of spells. You will be forced to rely on a larger variaty of spells. Good? Bad? Just different? Of course, you could solve this by putting your favored spell in the next higher slot if you wanted to, and I suspect alot of the time you'd want to. Which raises the question of whether the granularity that we'd add to the spell levels would even be real.

The rules elegant solution on maximum caster ability is to assume you can cast up to 10th level spells with a 10 in your spellcasting attribute, and then for example need a 20 to cast a 20th level spell. But, that's a pretty huge change allowing you to be a 10th level spell caster with just a 10 ability score (as opposed to the 15 you'd normally need).

And of course, we'd have to re-evaluate the impact on the LA adjustment of Metamagic Feats.

Yes, and here, if you recall my discussion from the other thread, you might actually get some advantage here as you solve somewhat the granularity issue with applying metamagic.

The big problems with figuring out caster progression are at the extremes - 0th level spells and 9th level spells. That's because 0th level spells don't really get stretched at all and 9th level spells end up covering 4 levels (17,18,19 and 20) twice as many as the other spells. If we follow an elegant caster level progression at 20th level you'll have the equivalent of 4 of ever level spell but 9th, for which you will have 6(!). The other problem with caster progression is its very difficult to figure out the starting point, which will probably be significantly weaker than current starting points. You'll start out with fewer spells than RAW; first level will suck a little.

Caster progression probably looks something like:

1st: 4 1
2nd: 4 1 1
3rd: 4 2 1 1
4th: 4 2 2 1 1
5th: 4 2 2 2 1 1
6th: 4 2 2 2 2 1 1
etc.

In RAW terms, that's:

1st: 4 1
2nd: 4 2
3rd: 4 3 1
4th: 4 4 2
5th: 4 4 3 1
6th: 4 4 4 2

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I was thinking a little more like 4Ed, in that you'd get 1st level spells at 1st, 2nd at 2nd, and so forth, all the way up the charts. No lag anywhere on the chart.

So you'd have something that looks more like (0 level spells are in the first column, of course):

1st: 4 1
2nd: 4 2 1
3rd: 4 2 1 1
4th: 4 2 1 1 1
5th: 4 3 2 1 1 1
6th: 4 3 2 2 1 1 1

I'm not saying that that is it, just as an example.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

It looks like there has been a slight miscommunication. This...

1st: 4 1
2nd: 4 2 1
3rd: 4 2 1 1
4th: 4 2 1 1 1
5th: 4 3 2 1 1 1
6th: 4 3 2 2 1 1 1

is the same as ...

Caster progression probably looks something like:

1st: 4 1
2nd: 4 1 1
3rd: 4 2 1 1
4th: 4 2 2 1 1
5th: 4 2 2 2 1 1
6th: 4 2 2 2 2 1 1
etc.

Except that Celebrim's table only grants two of any spell-level at the maximum.

Also, I believe that Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might touched on this somewhat. I'm away from my books ATM, but you may want to check that out.

 

[Celebrim]

Except that Celebrim's table only grants two of any spell-level at the maximum.

My goal was to not make the already powerful full-caster classes more powerful by granting them more spells.

The progression I gave is essentially the new 'Wizard' progression, and takes each existing level (except 0), and divides it in half with the net effect of not increasing the number of spells.

If we double the number of spell levels, and we still keep the max of 4 spells per level, then we've doubled the number of spells available to the caster. Essentially, it would be like having each caster be able to cast (in existing terms) 8 1st level, 8 2nd level, 8 3rd levels, etc. spells. And not only that, but the rate of spell slot acquisition would increase greatly as well.

Of course, this doesn't address what we are going to do about Wizard specialization, because if we use the existing mechanic of +1 spells per spell level, then the specialization offers twice as many additional spells per day as it used to.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

My goal was to not make the already powerful full-caster classes more powerful by granting them more spells.

You succeeded at that, quite admirably.

Of course, this doesn't address what we are going to do about Wizard specialization, because if we use the existing mechanic of +1 spells per spell level, then the specialization offers twice as many additional spells per day as it used to.

That's true. Encouraging specialization (which this side-effect of the expanded spell-level progression will do) may be a feature, rather than a bug...

Edit: A way to make up for the additional spells might be to further restrict the schools from which a specialist wizard can cast, forcing them to give up an additional school or forcing them to give up specific schools, depending upon their specialization.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It looks like there has been a slight miscommunication.

[EdMcMahon]You are indeed correct, sir![/EdMcMahon]

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's true. Encouraging specialization (which this side-effect of the expanded spell-level progression will do) may be a feature, rather than a bug...

And Focused Specialist suddenly gets a big boost as well.

A way to make up for the additional spells might be to further restrict the schools from which a specialist wizard can cast, forcing them to give up an additional school or forcing them to give up specific schools, depending upon their specialization.

A word of caution.

Going this route has a hidden pitfall. Currently, some schools only have 1 or 2 spells per level as it is. When spread out over a broader range, some won't have ANY spells of a particular level...which is why one thing I mentioned in the other thread is lesser and greater versions of spells.

One thing I was thinking about specialists is to possibly drop the bonus spells per level and give them a boost to the power of spells within their specialty. To me, it always seemed a tiny bit nonsensical in terms of internal systemic logic that specialists could cast extra spells per day. What they really should be is better within their specialty, so their spells should do more damage, or be harder to save against or whatever.

Then with Focused Specialist, you could go either way: +1 spell/level or a further boost in spell potency; player's choice.

Other possibilities:

1. Being able to ignore the first LA adjustment of a metamagic feat for spells within their specialization.
   
2. A chance to retain a specialized spell after casting once per day/3 caster levels; DC partly based on spell level

 

[Celebrim]

Then with Focused Specialist, you could go either way: +1 spell/level or a further boost in spell potency; player's choice.

An additional word of caution here. One extra spell per level is too many spells. Things like +1 caster level with a school (which is the obvious small) boost are not only erraticly useful, but much more favor certain schools than other (it's better with evocation than conjuration, for example)

Being able to ignore the first LA adjustment of a metamagic feat for spells within their specialization.

Likewise, this one is even more problimatic. Not only is it erraticly useful, but you've just all but allowed Wizards to wear platemail. Getting Still Spell as a +0 metamagic means never worrying about your spell failure chance. If you go this route you have to I think specify very specific what the enhancement is - evocation can empower for +1 level, or maybe divination gets Still spell at +0 caster level, or maybe transmutation gets Extend Spell at +1 level etc. I'd have to think about the particulars. But truly flexible cheapened metamagic is IMO bad news and likely to lead to problems.

A chance to retain a specialized spell after casting once per day/3 caster levels; DC partly based on spell level

I think some variation on this is absolutely the way to go. This lets you simulate the Specialists extra spells a day in a way that gets us back to the limited number we desire, without having an inelegant table.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Good critiques all around- which is why we're brainstorming.

The thing about Focused Specialist is that you're giving up a LOT of schools for that benefit. You're trading off flexibility- which is powerful in and of itself- for power in a very narrow field.

Personally, I think its worth it, but I don't know what the general consensus on it is. And I'm not sure exactly what it would feel like in the redone system.

Perhaps...perhaps just like the variant specialists in Unearthed Arcana, the benefit granted by Focused Specialist should vary with the school of specialization.