D&D 5E Levels and Spell Levels - what's your preference for 5E?

[Mercurius]

One of the big cosmetic changes that 4E brought about was changing spell levels to equate with character levels, so a 5th level caster casts 5th level spells, where in every edition prior a 5th level caster can cast (at most) 3rd level spells.

To be honest, I don't like either approach. 4E makes more sense but breaks from a tradition that I kind of like. To me the scale of 1-9 (or 10) for spell levels is more aesthetically pleasing; a "25th level spell" just doesn't seem very D&Dish to me. On the other hand, I've never liked the idea that you have, on one hand, character levels and, on the other, spell levels.

So in my view, the solution is simple: keep the 1-9 (or 10) scale but change the name "spell level" to "spell rank" or "circle" or "order" or something else. I personally like "circle" as it has a magical sound to it and is something that characters could actually use ("My ability only extends to the Fourth Circle"). I don't expect WotC to use that, but it would be nice.

What about you? What's your preference? I'll include a poll just for gits and shiggles.

 

[scruffygrognard]

Instead of having 0-9th level spells, I'd like to see them span from 1st-10th level. This would mean that 1st and 2nd level casters would only get what were 0-level spells in 3rd edition, while what were 9th level spells (but would now be 10th level) wouldn't be available until 19th level (instead of 17th level).
As long as casters got more lower level spells (such as 3/day with 1 spell available for repeated casting throughout the day) then I think this might help balance uber casters, as the level of spells they have access to would be pushed back a bit.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Traditional, but, if clerics are still badass melee fighters, they should only get seven spell-levels at the most. Leave the eighth and ninth spell levels to the dedicated and bookwormy casters.

 

[Mercurius]

Traditional, but, if clerics are still badass melee fighters, they should only get seven spell-levels at the most. Leave the eighth and ninth spell levels to the dedicated and bookwormy casters.

Isn't there some rumor that there will be priests and clerics, with the former being more of the casting-only divine caster? That would make sense with what you recommend.

On the other hand, the spell progression could just be slower, especially if levels go up to 30th. In the same sense that attack bonus scales differently, so too might spell levels, something like so:

primary caster: +1 spell level / 2 levels (wizards, sorcerers, priests, etc)
secondary caster: +1 spell level / 3 levels (clerics, bards, etc)
tertiary caster: +1 spell level / 4 levels (paladins, rangers, etc)

So a cleric would still be able to cast 9th level spells, just not until 27th level (compared to 18th level for priests).

 

[tlantl]

I'd like for spell level and character level to be separate. (pre 4e)

 

[Hassassin]

With 20 levels it's much harder to remember which level a spell is or which spells are on a given level. It worked with 4e powers, but probably wouldn't with a traditional Vancian system.

Nine levels is a bit high too, seven might be better if inventing them from the ground up, but it works ok, because you need the lower levels more.

I don't think it's a huge problem that they use 'level' for two mismatching numbers, since it doesn't matter at first level when a beginner creates a character. If they would change the name, it might as well be class based. For example, rank for wizards, order for clerics and circle for druids.

 

[Kingreaper]

Changing the names has no downsides I can see, and makes it easier to see why you can be a 5th level character, who's a 3rd level wizard, but only have access to 2nd level spells.

The traditional version has a big advantage in allowing powers to be shared between classes, but become accessible to different classes at different levels.
Well, I think that's an advantage, I'm not sure. It probably is.

 

[Minigiant]

Spell levels 0-9

I would even make all casters use the same Spells per Day list and have each class have their own Basic Spell Rank

Rank 0: 2 0-th level spells
Rank 1: 3 0-th level spells, 1 1st level spells
Rank 2: 4 0-th level spells, 2 1st level spells
Rank 3: 4 0-th level spells, 2 1st level spells, 1 2nd level spells
Rank 4: 4 0-th level spells, 3 1st level spells, 2 2nd level spells


Wizards and Priests start at rank 1 at level 1 and go up 1 rank/level
Sorcerers* start at rank 0 at level 1 and go up 1 rank/level
Druids and Clerics start at rank 0 at level 1 and go up 2 rank/3 levels
Bards start at rank 0 at level 1 and go up 1 rank/ 2 levels
Optional casters (Rangers, Paladins, Warlocks) start at rank 0 at level 4 and go up 1 rank/ 2 levels... it they choose to be casters.

*Sorcerors get a bonus spell per level.

 

[erf_beto]

I'm divided between 4e style and previous editions. While I prefer the spell level = level you can cast it, the lower granularity of 1-9 makes it easier to compare spells and remember them.
I just don't like calling cantrips "0 level spells". Makes me think of level zero characters, and that they too can cast spells. Silly me, I know

 

[FireLance]

My preference is for no spell levels whatsoever, but that would necessitate a few changes to the traditional D&D magic system.

First, a spell slot is a spell slot is a spell slot. Spell slots don't have levels. The game needs to be balanced around the idea that a spellcaster could fill up all his spell slots with the most powerful spells he knows, if he wants. Most likely, this would be achieved by drastically scaling down the number of spell slots that characters can have.

Second, characters must meet prerequisites before they can learn advanced spells. For example, you might need to learn burning hands before you can learn fireball. Depending on the rate at which spells are normally gained, you can define prerequisites so that characters would only get to learn fireball at 5th level (or whatever) anyway.

I know there probably doesn't seem to be very much difference between "a spell that you need to be 5th level to learn" and "a 5th (or 3rd) level spell", but the former somehow seems less artificial to me.