Damage Equivalence

[SlyDoubt]

This is still based on gut feeling. It's just they're getting the gut feeling out of the way before hand. Those values and what level spells show up at and such are all just gut feelings.

You can't convert charm person into damage, at all. That gives you no concept of 'balance'. The balance would be in what the DC and duration are. Which again, is still all just going to be gut feeling based on personal experience and history.

This is just a method to make long term organization easier when designing the game. Has very little to do with balance imho.

 

[Hussar]

I'm comfortable with them telling me what the DEFAULT game world looks like, yes.

No, this I disagree with. I don't want D&D to have a strong baseline world. This was one of the best parts of 3e, and even 2e really. The baseline world is what I make it. I don't need or want Monte Cook telling me what my world should look like. I want him to give me the tools I can use to make my own world thanks.

No more having to explain why Continual Light isn't used constantly thank you very much.

 

[pemerton]

charm person is - in my experience - generally used outside of combat

My experience has been more mixed than this.

The AD&D rulebooks certainly envisage it's use in combat - there are rules in the DMG about combat involving charmed creatures, for example, and it also appears on the list of "aggressive" spells in the rules for working out a magic-user's starting spells. Together with sleep, I always saw it described as one of the strongest starting spells because of it's fight-ending potential.

It wasn't until I started playing a system (Rolemaster) in which low-level casters had access to a larger number of spells, that I saw charm person regularly used in non-combat contexts.

Is charm person a spell apprentices learn and possibly abuse the hell out of? If so, it should be first level. Presenting an accurate milieu should come first, balance be damned.

I don't think that WotC will take this approach.