I understand that spells take a large amount of page space but they would be better doing half the character levels and giving more spells per character level then doing more character levels with less spells.
I wonder how much this could back fire no matter witch way they go.
I imagin that 6 spells per level over 20 levels (well 9 spell levels) would be 54 spells. Imagin if the game only went 12 levels (6 spell levels) but each level has 10 spells per level still sounds like so few (60 spells). If the game only went to level 6 (3 spell levels) you could have 18-20 spells per level and be way more in line with 2e or 3e.
I don't think anyone would be happy with a 6 or 7 level core, few would want a 10 level core, I bet most could deal with a 12 level core, but to get the most out of it atleast 15-18 levels is the minimum... and atleast a few will feel 30 is the lowest.
I am unsure how such an exchange can be made.
I personaly would want to see 60-70 spells per class (with some over lap so they are not all unquie) over 11 spell levels over 20 class levels.
I would start with 4-5 0th levels 7-8 1st through 5th level spells 4-5 6th-7th level spells and 3-4 8th and 9th level spells, and 1 or 2 10th level spells
so about 60 spells each, if we figure cleric, wizard, druid, and sorcerer all got 20 unque spells, and 15 spells appear on all 4 lists, and the rest cross over between 2, then it is 145 spells for those classes. If we assume that paliden, ranger, assasin, and one I am forgeting (just in case) each make up most of there spell list from the other lists and 6 unqie ones (bringing us up to 170 spells)
