Does the game need 9 spell levels?

[RangerWickett]

I know they want to have D&D Next play like older editions, but does that mean the game has to have spells that go up to 9th level? Could they have less granular spell levels?

For instance, it's obvious that an attack spell that deals 5d6 to a group is better than one that does 5d6 to a single target. But what about a spell that creates a wall of stone versus one that turns you invisible?

I know it's really unlikely this will end up in the core rules, but I'd prefer a system with 4 spell levels - least, minor, major, and arch.

Least spells have only a temporary effect on things, or accomplish something a person could do but in a magical way or at range -- create light, move an object, disguise someone, turn invisible, create small objects, translate languages, stop bleeding and restore vigor, etc. Vaguely equivalent to 1st or 2nd level spells.

Minor spells might have a longer effect, and would do things much like least spells but on a large scale - create blinding light, hurl creatures or fly, shapeshift, create detailed illusions, heal actual wounds. Vaguely 3rd to 5th level.

Major spells have a huge impact. Hurl a house, turn someone to stone, travel vast distances, create a ship with a snap of your fingers, revive the dead. Vaguely 6th to 8th level.

Arch spells are dramatic enough to reshape landscapes and be remembered for centuries. Raise an army of the dead, tear a mountain free and lift it into the sky, curse a whole countryside, protect a city from an incoming comet. 9th level spells or stronger.

Could you accept a game with only those delineations as D&D, or does it have to have 9 spell levels?

 

[BobTheNob]

As long as the caster level is indicative of the degree of power of the spells they can cast I dont really mind how many spell levels they have at all.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Would I go for fewer spell levels, and throw out the spell slots that go with them? Sure.

I would divide them functionally into standard spells and rituals or something of that nature, and non-spell powers, and have a few if any delineations of power level (and give spells prerequisites instead, like feats). Clerics could get channeling, orisons, prayers, and rituals. Wizards could get powers, cantrips, spells, and incantations.

Would the market tolerate it? I doubt it.

 

[Sunseeker]

As long as the caster level is indicative of the degree of power of the spells they can cast I dont really mind how many spell levels they have at all.

Isn't the current indication with Fireball being fixed damage that caster level will not play a role in determining spell power?

----

On the OP, I would personally prefer all spells move up a notch, 0-level moving up to 1st. There are actually 10 spell levels, but the numbers are confusing because there are 0-level spells. When a game is divided into intervals of 10(such as heroic/paragon/epic) or just a max level divisible by 10(20/30), then making spell levels 1-10 is more sound even if the breakdown is the same as 0-9.

 

[BobTheNob]

Isn't the current indication with Fireball being fixed damage that caster level will not play a role in determining spell power?

Yes, but you need to be a certain level to cast a fireball, and the current indication is that you can jack it up by casting using "higher spell slots". So, whether we are talking about a casters level contributing to spells being more powerful because they scale with caster level, or because the caster is just able to inherently cast more powerful spells, the effect is the same = the general power of the spells reflect the caster level.

Thats what I was trying to say.

EDIT : p.s. dont get me wrong, Im all for the proposed change to make spell effects flat (like fireball being fixed damage). Its a good decision imho.

 

[am181d]

Could you accept a game with only those delineations as D&D, or does it have to have 9 spell levels?

Why is this good? Why not go the other way and have 20 spell levels (i.e. as many spell levels as there are caster levels)?

 

[YRUSirius]

Yeah, I'd like to see 20 spell levels. Good, easy and simple for starters.

-YRUSirius

 

[Falling Icicle]

Yeah, I'd like to see 20 spell levels. Good, easy and simple for starters.

If you're going to have that many spell levels, you might as well just have spell points instead. 4e had spell levels that were the same as the level you got them, but even that system didn't have 20 or 30 levels of spells, since you only got a new spell every couple levels or so and dropped lower levels ones as you went up in level. That, and you didn't have to worry about preparing most of them or deciding which spell should go in which slot for greatest effect. Having to micromanage spell preparation when spells can be prepared in different levels and having 20 levels of spells to work with would be a nightmare, IMO.

 

[howandwhy99]

9 spell levels for Magic Users is a fixture of AD&D. There is no rationale I know for it other than the M-U could progress up to level 28 and then have 6 slots in all 9 levels (level 29 was "turning it up to 11" again IMO)

I don't believe the game needs to go so high.

The progression of spells per day was basically an accumulation of 1 / class level. That's the standard D&D system as I understand it. 1 @ 1st, 1 @ 2nd, etc. After two spells in at a single level another level could be taken for the next, so 3rd may get 1 spell slot but at the next higher spell level.

I like this low granularity because it retains spells as extraordinarily powerful acts.

For instance, it's obvious that an attack spell that deals 5d6 to a group is better than one that does 5d6 to a single target. But what about a spell that creates a wall of stone versus one that turns you invisible?

It may not be thought so now, but that stuff was rigorously balanced for effectiveness in combat. I do believe the spell levels were more of a range, so there were spells that were more effective than others, but they were all better than the best spell of the next lower level.

Plus, all spell and ability benefits were situational. It was the balancing of situational occurrence in the game world for different challenges that allowed spells to be judged for overall utility. Not to mention how XP was awarded for a class.

= = =

Least, Minor, Major, and Arch spells sounds fine. What is the cost for their use though? Daily spells means a # / day. 1 Arch spell per day could be a little outside the realm of the game. Overcasting to a higher level balanced by special materia, conditions, etc. could bring back some of the difficulty for spells above one's level. Costs like 1 year of life of the caster could work too, if life span is treated as a resource. It comes down to why aren't these spells being cast every day by however many high level spellcasters are in the world?

 

[RHGreen]

Just thinking about the 6 spells per level thing....

If there are more spell levels that doesn't sound bad.

They could split level 1 spells into 2 levels, meaning, technically, 12 spells from level 1.