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

[Janaxstrus]

0-9 or alternatively 1-10 (if people are so opposed to cantrips being 0)

It worked well for a long time, and it's the safe choice if you wish to gain back lost fans, and update other old timers who never switched.

 

[scruffygrognard]

Assuming characters advance from levels 1-20 and spells have 10 levels (let's say 1-10 rather than 0-9), how about the following?

Characters can memorize and cast spells with a level equal to their class level/2 (rounded normally).

Levels 1-2: 1st level spells
Levels 3-4: 1st & 2nd level spells
Levels 4-5: 1st, 2nd & 3rd level spells...
and so on, until...
Levels 19-20: 1st-10th level spells.

To minimize the number of spells memorized, give all casters 5 memorized spells per day. They can choose to memorize any known spells... but will probably want to memorize a few lower level spells because:

At 1st-4th level the caster may choose any two 1st level memorized spells. They may cast these spells as often as they'd like.

At 5th-9th level the caster may choose any two 1st or 2nd level memorized spell. They may cast these spells as often as they'd like.

At 10th-14th level the caster may choose any two 1st, 2nd or 3rd level memorized spells. They may cast these spells as often as they'd like.

At 11th-15th level the caster may choose any two 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th level memorized spells. They may cast these spells as often as they'd like.

At 16th-20th level the caster may choose any two 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th level memorized spells. They may cast these spells as often as they'd like.

This way spells have to be chosen wisely (resource management) but there are not 20+ spells memorized per day.

 

[Hassassin]

I'm guessing that WotC will go back to 0-9 because they're trying to appeal to players of earlier editions.

That said, I think the "spell level = character level" system is much, much easier for new players to learn, and that's a good thing. If you don't want 20 levels of spells, then you can just have Level 1 spells, Level 3 spells, Level 5 spells and so on. When you get to 7th level, you can start casting 7th-level spells (even if they would have been called 4th level or something like that in an earlier edition).

I think that's potentially even more confusing in a Vancian system: "What do you mean there are no 2nd level spells? Bob's playing a bard and he has them! I though wizards were supposed to be better spellcasters..."

 

[OnlineDM]

I think that's potentially even more confusing in a Vancian system: "What do you mean there are no 2nd level spells? Bob's playing a bard and he has them! I though wizards were supposed to be better spellcasters..."

Well, it's confusing if you're used to older editions. I was specifically talking about introducing new players to the game.

What you're describing is a good reason to get away from numbered spell levels altogether. If the wizard can cast spell X at 3rd level but the bard can't cast it until 7th level, what level is spell X? Answer: "Purple". Or following [MENTION=63]RangerWickett[/MENTION]'s excellent suggestion, "lesser". Putting a number on it and calling it a spell level is certainly confusing for newer players.

Does that mean that it's insurmountably confusing? Of course not; lots of people have learned and understood the difference between character level and spell level. But it is confusing.

Keep in mind that I'm used to the 4e setup where wizards and bards are casting different spells. I think you're right that D&D Next will contain unified spell lists across multiple classes, and I agree that it's likely some classes will get access to certain spells sooner than others. Thus, I like RangerWickett's proposal - get away from numbers for spell levels.

However, as I said, I fully expect D&D Next to go back to pre-4e spell levels just because they're trying to be welcoming and familiar for pre-4e players. Bringing entirely new players into the game is a lesser goal for Next, I think.

 

[steeldragons]

I think if you did that straight, you'd run into the same issues that caused them to put damage dice caps and similar restriction in the first place. Plus, you need some way to explain what a 1st level disintergrate does. Try that on a dragon, and all it does is remove any mold or dust from his scales.

Hmmm. Yeah, there is that. On the flip side, I suppose there could be "maximums" assigned to the spells...I would think the default would be 10th level....that basically all of your lower level spells are as powerful as they can get...but at the same time, you are now gaining access to significantly MORE immediately powerful spells...

This could also be a case for that 'minimum caster level" bit. Even if it is very very generalized. Which then, also, seems to inadvertently bring back in "spell levels" of a sort.

Like, what were once 1st-3rd level spells go into the "Magician/1st Circle/whatever you want to term it" spells. Any/all magic-users can use these.

What were once 4th-6th level spells go into a single listing of the "Magus/2nd Circle" spells. Minimum caster level 6th.

What were once 7th+ level spells go into a single listing of the "Archmage/3rd Circle" spells. Minimum caster level 11th.

Basically anything usable by a 15th or higher level caster would kinda all be the same thing. Just give them more spell slots for the various circles/levels.

So that way, we don't have to worry about a 1st level mage with "Disintegrate" in their spellbook...Though, actually, I suppose they COULD have it in their spellbook...it would just be unusable/farrrrrr beyond their current capability.

If that's too broad, then you could go "every odd" level like they used to be (the next tier of spells being at PC levels 3rd, 5th, 7th, etc,)...but at that point, you might as well just go back to "Spell Levels" being a different separate system than caster/PC level.

Hmmm...I dunno. Part of me is kinda itchin' to playtest this (and my previous post with the spell effects dependent on the caster level) out and see how it works....

 

[WheresMyD20]

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.

Are you thinking that 7th level cleric spells be roughly equivalent to 7th level wizards spells in terms of power? Or are you saying that it should be more like classic D&D?

Pre-3e, clerics topped out at 7th, but 7th level clerical spells were quite powerful, more powerful than 7th level magic-user spells. Of course, clerics got their 7th level spells at a higher level than magic-users did.

 

[Frostmarrow]

What if there are no spell levels at all. A spell is a spell. Now, some spells are a lot more powerful than others. But that's why we have tiers. Any spell could have three effects depending on tier. Spells cast in a heroic tier game will be subtle and weak. Spells cast in a epic tier game will be flashy and potentially game breaking.

Magic Missile at heroic tier creates a bolt of force that will unerringly strike a target for modest damage. An epic tier magic missile will crush castle walls.

Wish at heroic tier will create sustenance for a day. At paragon wish can cure disease. An epic wish will make you king.

A heroic fireball will suddenly burst from living fire. A paragon fireball will shoot from your fingertips and an epic fireball is a conflagration of doom.

One tier is 10 levels. If you upgrade a heroic game at the end of those levels you start over at first level, but now everything is paragon.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If that's too broad, then you could go "every odd" level like they used to be (the next tier of spells being at PC levels 3rd, 5th, 7th, etc,)...but at that point, you might as well just go back to "Spell Levels" being a different separate system than caster/PC level.

In the Arcana Unearthed design diaries, Monte Cook talked about the major power jumps in traditional D&D magic. I agree entirely with where he put them for arcane magic: 1st level spells, 3rd level spells, 6th level spells, and then the big stuff that makes up the more overpowered options at the end of the scale. Having just reviewed all the spells in the Rules Cyclopedia in the last few weeks, I saw nothing that would disabuse me of that notion.

The line on individual spells by level gets rather fuzzy between 6th and 9th, as some spells around 6th are rather earth-shattering, while some of the 8th or 9th ones are well short of what some of the other spells can do. And of course, there are several 2nd, 4th, and 5th level spells that could easily go either way. I'd move traditional invisibility up into the second tier, for example.

When I mentioned "apprentice", I had cantrips in mind as the zero level stuff, but no reason why that can't be lumped into the first tier, especially if they go through with making the first 3 to 5 levels about putting together a strong character.


Hmm, I wasn't even thinking of 4E tiers when I wrote the above, but that is almost a match. If you divide the 4E 30 levels into 4 tiers, as some of us have discussed before, you can name the spells by the tiers:

• Apprentice Tier - character levels 1-5, traditional spell levels 0-1, some 2s.
• Heroic Tier - character levels 6-15, traditional spell levels 3-5, remaining 2s, a few 6s.
• Paragon Tier - character levels 16-25, traditional spell levels 6-7, remaining 5s, a few 8s.
• Epic Tier - character levels 26-30, traditional spell level 9, remaining 8s, any really cosmic stuff.

Or if you want to compress it to 20 character levels to end up with something closer to the 11th level full caster getting 6th level abilities, same principles. Character level tier breaks at 1-3, 4-10, 11-17, 18-20, is pretty darn close to the actual time full casters picked up the respective power jumps. A 4th level caster is starting to dabble in "heroic" magic, at its lowest power.

Makes me want to start a new topic to see if any existing spells would be hard to place in such a scheme.

Edit: I had not read Frostmarrow's last post when I first wrote the above.