D&D General Progressive Spells?

[clearstream]

I was thinking about the magic in D&D today and how some magic in D&D comes at such a low level compared to what we see in most fiction. That lead me to the idea of requiring spells to be learned in progression. So in order to learn the fly spell, you must learn the spells: gust of wind and levitate. To learn fireball you must first learn: burning hands and firebolt. Basically, you can't learn higher level spells without first learning lesser related spells, regardless of your level. I thought it was an interesting, if not original, concept and I was wondering if anyone has tried it their campaigns.

I guess the first thing is to state the problems that this is solving -

1. Wizards have the most spells: is it a problem that some of those spells end up redundant?
2. Sorcerers have few spells: is it a problem that they must avoid spells that are potentially redundant?
3. etc, considering each type of caster, half-caster and 1/3-caster

That sort of thing - figure out the problems. The problem with the problem implied in the OP is that it seems to be

1. All casters get spells too easily!

Is that really a problem? Are sorcerer's really too strong and wizards really too weak, that this implicit rebalance is merited? Is it high-time to squash the gishes!? The reason I put my problems as I did is that they might lead to ideas like -

• Given I have lower level spells that are made redundant by a higher level spell, having both changes those spells in some way that I enjoy.

I'm not saying my problem statements are right, but you can see how the design-thinking flows.

 

[clearstream]

I agree. It's an interesting approach if the system is built around developing paths and then filling it in with spells (Shadow of the Demon Lord is built this way), but I think it's too difficult to do with D&D's existing, extremely varied approach to spell design.

A doable approach might be to notionally group spells (e.g. all mind control) and apply a change to such spells given you have X of them. A problem is the implied assumption that spells aren't already strong enough, so how you change those spells in a way that is balanced is hard to envision. Maybe you just gain some options with them, like the way Order of Scribes can switch damage types.

In fact, perhaps what the OP is really describing is a sub-class?!

 

[Ath'kethin]

In fact, perhaps what the OP is really describing is a sub-class?!

I actually think part of the issue is that the subclasses don't do what the OP is thinking. And in the 5e wizard chassis, they kind of can't.

For example, I can play a Diviner. Which is cool! But there's nothing in the rules that requires me to actually learn Divination spells if I do that; I can make an Evocation-heavy blaster our of a Diviner that is going to be functionally almost identical to an actual Evoker, give or take a cubclass ability or two.

Since subclasses don't come online until after 1st level, your wizard will always be able to learn spells outside their "specialization," even if the DM chooses to be more restrictive and, say, rule that a Diviner can only learn Divination spells. You'll always have magic missile and sleep, no matter what.

Now, for many of us, this isn't an issue at all, and that's fine. But I don't see the harm in examining how to make it work another way.

 

[Faolyn]

I gather you hated the GURPS implimentation, but do you think it could work for you in D&D or are there things about the concept that you "hate with a fiery passion?"

I could see it being done for wizards, indicating that they have to learn to improve their knowledge, or for sorcerers, indicating that they are unlocking greater powers. However, as @Charlaquin mentioned, you get the feat chain problem, which can be extra annoying if you require wizards to find their spells in the wild.

 

[Faolyn]

On the other hand, if picking a path gives you all the spells in the chain, why would you ever pick "project acid"?

There are a few more acid-damaging spells than that, although no, not nearly as many as with fire. Of course, it's possible to create or convert new acid-dealing spells... you'd just to do so before you create these paths, so as to make them comparable.

 

[clearstream]

I actually think part of the issue is that the subclasses don't do what the OP is thinking. And in the 5e wizard chassis, they kind of can't.

For example, I can play a Diviner. Which is cool! But there's nothing in the rules that requires me to actually learn Divination spells if I do that; I can make an Evocation-heavy blaster our of a Diviner that is going to be functionally almost identical to an actual Evoker, give or take a cubclass ability or two.

Since subclasses don't come online until after 1st level, your wizard will always be able to learn spells outside their "specialization," even if the DM chooses to be more restrictive and, say, rule that a Diviner can only learn Divination spells. You'll always have magic missile and sleep, no matter what.

Now, for many of us, this isn't an issue at all, and that's fine. But I don't see the harm in examining how to make it work another way.

Oh, I mean that the OP could design a subclass to do what they are thinking. That would avoid needing to solve the whole problem at once, and be much easier to set up, balance and playtest quickly. What they learn from that subclass will valuably inform a full design. It's a shortcut.

I don't quite agree about the 5e wizard chassis blocking that, because possibly the most viable route will be to offer benefits for taking the chain, rather than punishing casters who don't want to become one-tricks. An alternative might be to design a full class. There is some sense in that, in the case that you absolutely don't want any straying off the path. I just don't see a little straying as mattering.

It's easy to over-commit in the early stages of design, so I'm just suggesting pathways to getting something into playtest efficiently.

 

[dave2008]

Outside of that - I suggest that if you like this approach, mention it to your players and let them make the choice to do it. Otherwise, let them build their PCs as they see fit.

Oh, we always make changes as a group, never DM fiat

 

[dave2008]

Much like I don't have to learn to make cupcakes before I know how to make a cake, I just don't see manifesting magic in certain ways as being a prerequisite.

I see magic more like math: you need to learn algebra before calculus.

 

[dave2008]

Conceptually I think it's a very interesting idea. An expansion of the idea of spell schools, really.

Practically speaking, though, I think you'd have to redesign significant portions of the magic system to get it to work.

Yes, to do it well it would probably require some specific rework of the current spell list.

For example, if you're a Sorcerer or Wizard that chooses "project fire", you might get Firebolt, Burning Hands, Scorching Ray, Fireball, Wall of Fire, Firestorm, Meteor Swarm, etc. If you choose "project lightning", you get... Shocking Grasp, Lightning Bolt, and Chain Lightning. If you choose "project acid", you get Acid Splash and Melf's Acid Arrow and that's it.

Now you have to resolve the idea of if picking a track takes up a spell known, does each spell in the chain take a spell known? So Fireball takes 4 spells to know? That's obnoxious, especially for a Sorcerer.

I like the idea of more the one path tp some extent. So fireball could burning hands + control flame or burning hands + scorching ray. H

On the other hand, if picking a path gives you all the spells in the chain, why would you ever pick "project acid"?

Agreed, that is back to reworking the spell list significantly. Really, that is something I wish WotC had done years ago.

 

[dave2008]

I guess the first thing is to state the problems that this is solving -

1. Wizards have the most spells: is it a problem that some of those spells end up redundant?
2. Sorcerers have few spells: is it a problem that they must avoid spells that are potentially redundant?
3. etc, considering each type of caster, half-caster and 1/3-caster

There is no problem I am trying to solve. This is not an issue of balance or flexibility or anything like that. It was just an idea of how to express how we learn things. In particular I was thinking about how we learn math. There is a progression from basic match to more advanced math and I was thinking magic would / could be similar. If that is what I want, how would I go about doing that in the simplest way possible. Does that clarify the OP for you?