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

[RangerWickett]

I'm a first level wizard. My spellbook contains ten spells, but most of them I can barely cast without leaving myself physically exhausted or mentally stunned. If I stick to the weaker incantations -- which are still powers beyond the ken of most mortals -- I could perhaps cast a spell every few minutes without fatigue. I dare not cast more than one of my mightiest spells per day.

I'm a tenth level wizard. My spellbook contains dozens of spells, several of them unknown even to other mages. Most of them I can cast readily without fatigue, and several times per day I can even call forth a spell that would fry the mind of a feebler mage. But my most powerful spell, well, I would only use it in dire circumstances.



Mechanically? I say to hell with spell levels. I loved the concept of the warlock in 3e in that there were just 4 tiers of invocations. If 5e had cantrips, lesser spells, greater spells, and archspells, you could do something like:

1st to 5th level wizards can cast one cantrip per encounter, and one lesser spell per day. The number of spells you can have prepared is based on your level.

6th to 10th level wizards can cast cantrips at will, one lesser spell per encounter, and one greater spell per day.

11th level wizards can cast cantrips and lesser spells at will, greater spells once per encounter, and arch spells once per day.

16th level wizards can cast cantrips, lesser, and greater spells at will, and arch spells once per encounter. (This is presuming the game caps at 20th level.)

You might still only have, say, 4 spells of each tier prepared at a time.

 

[Li Shenron]

Exact number of spell levels doesn't bother me, but they shouldn't be too many, in absolute terms and also with relation to class levels. 10 spell levels, for example against 20 or 30 class levels is fine.

30 class levels and 30 spell levels is bad, because then you inevitably end up with too few spells per level to choose from, and character diversity is significantly reduced.

I don't care about having something new each level, if this means to reduce diversity. Or if you really want both, then have only 10 class levels and 10 spells levels in the whole game, that's ok for me.

 

[howandwhy99]

Change the names so we can refer to them more clearly. Gygax was going to call them Power (PHB p.8). Feel free to find a way to promote these as campaign specific, even PC specific.

Do not worry about how many Spell Levels there are. We don't need to cap Clerics at 7 or M-Us at 9. I'm running OD&D and Wish is at 5th level, so these things changed over the life of D&D.

Stop making Clerics primarily Spell Casters. I prefer the every other Spell Level method, but it could be optional. Start M-Us at 1st, Clerics at 2nd and have them advance odds and evens.

Provide other options. Heck, use spell points. But keep this stuff magical (awe inspiring). I'd say they are rare yet powerful. And they keep their value when not made at will, but are limited resources which take labor to create.

 

[Libramarian]

I would prefer to have no limitation on the power of spell that a character can cast.

Character level just affects number of spell slots. (Spell slots = level + Int mod).

Characters can use a spell slot on any spell they know, but cannot memorize the same spell twice.

Spells are divided into levels of complexity, but this is only a tool for the DM to aid them in treasure placement. A spell caster must find all of their spells in treasure. If they manage to find a higher level spell they can cast it without restriction.

Clerics do something different.

 

[Mercurius]

You know, reading over this thread - especially with posts like [MENTION=3424]FireLance[/MENTION]'s and [MENTION=63]RangerWickett[/MENTION]'s - it really struck me how central spellcasting is to D&D but, at the same time, how mundane and relatively unimaginative the magic system has always been. One would think that, given the biggest fantasy RPG brand name in the known universe, and the centrality of spellcasting to the D&D experience, the game would have the most kickass magic system out there, and probably not just one but many.

Which got me thinking...if 5E is going to be about modularity, why not go all the way with it? Why not have multiple systems of magic? Sure, there would have to be some common thread, but that's what the core game engine is for. I don't see why we can't, for instance, have Vancian spellcasters (say, "Wizards") and Ars Magica-style spellcasters (say, "Mages") in the same game, with many other possible variations (Summoners, Elementalists, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Necromancers, etc).

Do all spellcasters need to follow the same basic tried-and-true--but rather mundane (dare I say boring?)--"I cast X-level spell" approach?

Imagine a summoner who specializes in summoning and controlling demons. They wouldn't have to cast a 6th level spell to summon a Type whatever demon; what if they make a roll for the summoning and then, depending upon the power of the demon, they have to make checks per round to control it, and then use the demon in combat? Imagine a fire elementalist who draws upon pure elemental fire; the higher the level, the more powerful the effect. Etc. Or imagine a shaman that used psychotropic plants to have out-of-body experiences - that really felt shamanistic, and not just like a cleric that likes to wear smelly furs.

The point being, different types of magic could be better brought to life through different magic systems. The problem with the old Vancian system (or the new Powers system) is that they funnel all types into a singular system, which already has a kind of in-built flavor to it. So a demon summoner like I described, in the Vancian or Powers system, doesn't feel like a differently flavored spellcaster--someone who focuses on summoning and controlling demons; rather, a Vancian demon summoner just feels like a Vancian wizard who likes to cast spells that summon demons.

I do think WotC should keep it relatively straightforward and traditional in the core game, but I'd love to see a "Book of Magic" somewhere down the line that outlined different magic systems that could be added as modular options.

 

[mkill]

*shrugs*

Can't really say I care either way. It's not like spell levels are that significant in-game anyway. I don't think it's that flavorful if two Wizards refer to Fireball as a 3rd-level spell among each other, so I can live without it.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Traditional. If you're catering to most D&D eras, it's the easiest fit. The label really doesn't matter, though.

 

[Mengu]

Very tough call. Pre-4e, I didn't like the fact that you needed to be 5th level to cast 3rd level spells, it's not very intuitive. In 4e, spell levels didn't really mean a thing.

I would not mind some sort of rank system I suppose, but even then, I like to associate a number with something. Maybe there are 4 ranks. Apprentice, Heroic, Paragon, and Epic. And that institutes 4 spell levels, determining the most powerful spells you can cast. But that's stepping too far from D&D.

I don't really have any good ideas at the moment, and nothing I read so far is jumping out at me as "oh cool". Ultimately, I'd like to see a system that can mesh the spell level/character level concepts with Vancian, AED, and power point systems in a smooth and intuitive way. I'm not married to any 3e or 4e ideas in this matter. I'd be happy with something totally different and new.

 

[Tallifer]

I played AD&D in the early 1980s. It was a pain to sort character levels, class levels, monster levels, item levels, caster levels and spell levels. We were all intelligent enough to do it, but that does not make it less of a pain. I do not think it is dumbing things down to make them more transparent and better organized.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I voted for 4e style, but I'd just as soon see the level name changed as well. Of course, what I really want is for Vancian casting to die a quick and painful death, but that isn't likely to happen from what they've been saying.