-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Levels and Spell Levels - what's your preference for 5E?
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
Mattachine
Adventurer
"Zero-level" spells annoy me. It's a relic of cantrips being put into the game via Dragon Magazine after AD&D printed rules starting with level 1 spells. It reminds me of the story of the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics.
I like spell level to match the level of the caster. The spell-level/caster level disconnect confused me when I started playing D&D as a young kid, and I see the confusion with new players all the time.
Finally, having more spell levels allows more gradations in power between spells of similar power.
I like spell level to match the level of the caster. The spell-level/caster level disconnect confused me when I started playing D&D as a young kid, and I see the confusion with new players all the time.
Finally, having more spell levels allows more gradations in power between spells of similar power.
jodyjohnson
Adventurer
I wouldn't mind seeing both.
Spells go from 0 to 9th, but characters also cast 9th level spells at 9th and 10th is Name Level and advancement is slow after that.
Kind of like E9 for 4th or the way 1e/2e tended to play out for fighters.
Spells go from 0 to 9th, but characters also cast 9th level spells at 9th and 10th is Name Level and advancement is slow after that.
Kind of like E9 for 4th or the way 1e/2e tended to play out for fighters.
Ratskinner
Adventurer
I honestly find both a little clunky and yearn for some goofy hybrid system between True20 and SWSE.....but I know I'm weird.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
I could be quite happy with any number of options, as long as the options chosen are used to fully take advantage of the benefits of doing it that way. For example:
Traditional D&D method--yes, rename spell "levels" to something else, like "circle", and emphasize that it is not directly tied to character levels equally--i.e. a wizard progresses in arcane circles faster than bards, etc. And really use this for finer gradations, that work--i.e. the bard stays some fixed amount behind instead of getting further and further behind merely to keep a regular pattern.
Or Keep spell level equal to character level in a system that has 20 or 30 character levels, but unlike 4E, do not have the spells or "powers" occur at fixed intervals. The advantage of such a system is that you can have things like "fireball" be a 5th level spell, while traditional "3rd level" spells that were slightly weaker or more powerful than fireball can be a bit higher or lower. That is, a caster might have a "5th level slot," which he can fill with any spell 5th level or lower, but particular casters might have mainly 4th or 3rd level spells to put in it, because that is what is available to them. In other words, having 4E style with "powers" only occurring at fixed intervals kills the main reason for having 30 levels of spells in the first place.
Alternately, keep the traditional cantrip through 9 divisions, rename them levels 1-10, and have each character class only go to 10 levels to match. Now it takes a lot of play to gain a character level. Advantage here would be to have some relatively narrow classes and do some interesting things with multiclassing so that most characters eventually dabble at least a little with another class or two. Getting to 10th level in a class is pretty amazing. Might need some scaled stuff with skills, feats, and the like to occur inside levels, to keep it interesting. If so, people would have the option to grow more organically within a level, or take it all in one big lump (and keep the character the same for long periods of play). Naturally, that would appeal to certain playstyles.
I'd be quite happy with any of those, because at least they are internally consistent and predictable.
Traditional D&D method--yes, rename spell "levels" to something else, like "circle", and emphasize that it is not directly tied to character levels equally--i.e. a wizard progresses in arcane circles faster than bards, etc. And really use this for finer gradations, that work--i.e. the bard stays some fixed amount behind instead of getting further and further behind merely to keep a regular pattern.
Or Keep spell level equal to character level in a system that has 20 or 30 character levels, but unlike 4E, do not have the spells or "powers" occur at fixed intervals. The advantage of such a system is that you can have things like "fireball" be a 5th level spell, while traditional "3rd level" spells that were slightly weaker or more powerful than fireball can be a bit higher or lower. That is, a caster might have a "5th level slot," which he can fill with any spell 5th level or lower, but particular casters might have mainly 4th or 3rd level spells to put in it, because that is what is available to them. In other words, having 4E style with "powers" only occurring at fixed intervals kills the main reason for having 30 levels of spells in the first place.
Alternately, keep the traditional cantrip through 9 divisions, rename them levels 1-10, and have each character class only go to 10 levels to match. Now it takes a lot of play to gain a character level. Advantage here would be to have some relatively narrow classes and do some interesting things with multiclassing so that most characters eventually dabble at least a little with another class or two. Getting to 10th level in a class is pretty amazing. Might need some scaled stuff with skills, feats, and the like to occur inside levels, to keep it interesting. If so, people would have the option to grow more organically within a level, or take it all in one big lump (and keep the character the same for long periods of play). Naturally, that would appeal to certain playstyles.
I'd be quite happy with any of those, because at least they are internally consistent and predictable.
GX.Sigma
Adventurer
The thing is, "spell level = caster level" does not really fit the Vancian system.
If you're a 20th-level Wizard, how many slots do you have for each spell level?
2 level 1 spells
2 level 2 spells
2 level 3 spells
...
...
2 level 20 spells
That's 40 spells memorized. How many spells of each level do you know?
5 level 1 spells
5 level 2 spells
5 level 3 spells
...
...
5 level 20 spells
That's 100 spells known. How many spells exist?
10 level 1 spells
10 level 2 spells
10 level 3 spells
...
...
10 level 20 spells
That's 200 spells in the game, and that's just for the Wizard list. I wonder how many pages of the PHB that works out to..?
The Vancian system works when there are few spell levels, and lots of spells for each level, and enough slots (memorization slots and "spells known") of each level to make it a meaningful choice. If there are 20 or 30 spell levels, that's kind of impossible (without drastically increasing the number of options, or changing the system in a big way).
I don't find it complicated to say that spell level and caster level are not the same. Just check the table to see what you get when you level.
If anything, I'd prefer fewer spell levels.
If you're a 20th-level Wizard, how many slots do you have for each spell level?
2 level 1 spells
2 level 2 spells
2 level 3 spells
...
...
2 level 20 spells
That's 40 spells memorized. How many spells of each level do you know?
5 level 1 spells
5 level 2 spells
5 level 3 spells
...
...
5 level 20 spells
That's 100 spells known. How many spells exist?
10 level 1 spells
10 level 2 spells
10 level 3 spells
...
...
10 level 20 spells
That's 200 spells in the game, and that's just for the Wizard list. I wonder how many pages of the PHB that works out to..?
The Vancian system works when there are few spell levels, and lots of spells for each level, and enough slots (memorization slots and "spells known") of each level to make it a meaningful choice. If there are 20 or 30 spell levels, that's kind of impossible (without drastically increasing the number of options, or changing the system in a big way).
I don't find it complicated to say that spell level and caster level are not the same. Just check the table to see what you get when you level.
If anything, I'd prefer fewer spell levels.
Last edited:
am181d
Adventurer
I really prefer spell level to equal the level you got the spell at. Where I think 4e went wrong is that the spell selection was so limited. (At level X, you pick 1 Utility Spell, etc.)
I'd prefer to see something closer to the 3e spell list spread out over 20 to 30 levels. I seem to remember someone presenting a variant rule like that for d20. Now who was that?
I'd prefer to see something closer to the 3e spell list spread out over 20 to 30 levels. I seem to remember someone presenting a variant rule like that for d20. Now who was that?
Nimblegrund
Explorer
I would like to see the 3.5 higher levels compressed or pushed off into the "epic" realm, with the "sweet spot" spell levels stretched out longer.
Quickleaf
Legend
I like some of the deep end suggestions coming up. A cross between True20 and SWSE? Sure, why not
Here's another one for the pile...Domain-based or path-based wizardry. So if you know the "Art of Fire" you get some basic manipulation of the element, character level scaling fire damage spells for single target ("flame arrow"), close burst ("burning hands"), and for area attacks ("fireball"), and a list of unique spells you get every X levels (though they're not referred to by level, they're simply part of the "Art of Fire"). Probably not good for Vancian magic, but better for a sorcerer type.
Here's another one for the pile...Domain-based or path-based wizardry. So if you know the "Art of Fire" you get some basic manipulation of the element, character level scaling fire damage spells for single target ("flame arrow"), close burst ("burning hands"), and for area attacks ("fireball"), and a list of unique spells you get every X levels (though they're not referred to by level, they're simply part of the "Art of Fire"). Probably not good for Vancian magic, but better for a sorcerer type.
I voted for 0-9, because it was a distinct "wizard-ism". Im not really for Vancian memorization though. Would far prefer a system where I can cast any spell I like as often as I like, but a spell roll is involved where we roll a d20, adding level and Stat bonus and subtracting something based on spell level
Good Spell Roll = Enhanced Effect
Moderate Spell Roll = Normal Effect
Poor Spell Roll = Penalties, like...
* Loss of spell from memory (must study to get back)
* Stunning yourself or causing damage
* Permanent (cosmetic) mutations
* Backlash (Ooops, just fireballed the party. My bad!)
* (If this was Darksun) Accidental defiling
So whether I can cast a spell is not a question of "How many I have left?" its "How much risk am I willing to expose myself to?". Far more interesting for gameplay IMO
Good Spell Roll = Enhanced Effect
Moderate Spell Roll = Normal Effect
Poor Spell Roll = Penalties, like...
* Loss of spell from memory (must study to get back)
* Stunning yourself or causing damage
* Permanent (cosmetic) mutations
* Backlash (Ooops, just fireballed the party. My bad!)
* (If this was Darksun) Accidental defiling
So whether I can cast a spell is not a question of "How many I have left?" its "How much risk am I willing to expose myself to?". Far more interesting for gameplay IMO
Similar Threads
