Seven spell levels in the Playtest

[Blood & Bones]

No one else seems to be talking about this, so I thought I'd give it a go. I thought it was interesting that their were only 7 spell levels for the wizard and cleric in the play test. Now, I don't know if that aspect of the game is still up for discussion, but I kinda like the idea; fewer spell levels means fewer spells. Also means less to keep track of; you only have remember which of the seven spell levels a particular spell comes from instead of nine.

It reminds me of 1st and 2nd edition when Clerics only had 7 spell levels. I thought it was great in 3rd edition when they made both clerics and wizards have the same number of spell levels, and made the level of the spell mean something, but I also found myself wondering exactly what the difference between an 8th level spell and 9th level spell was - there wasn't a clear difference in power or effectiveness.

Where do you all stand on this? Do you like 7 spell levels? Do you want less? Do you want more?

 

[Tallifer]

I want spells to be given levels which match the character's level as in the Fourth Edition. Much more sensible and clear.

So I guess I want 30 levels of spells, but that would not mean that a caster would have that many spells. Just that his highest possible spell would match his own level.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I have to admit, I prefer the greater granularity with spell level=character level. It means you can balance the spells out a bit better. Some spells are really on the high end of the power scale for their level, but, they're not quite powerful enough to be the next level. Add in more levels and it gets a lot easier to balance things.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

There were only really 2 spell levels in the playtest. The character sheets were mocked up by the art dept. who may or may not have just saved space..

 

[Umbran]

fewer spell levels means fewer spells.

Speaking broadly and generally, that's not necessarily true. Fewer spell levels means less granularity in measuring spell power. "Level" is an organizing principle, not a limiting principle.

 

[KesselZero]

1. Where in the playtest does it talk about there being 7 spell levels? (This is an honest question-- I can't remember and don't have the docs with me.)

2. I try really, really hard to avoid ever making this argument but I have to be honest in this case: 9 spell levels just is D&D to me. Totally subjective and biased opinion.

3. My concern about having 20 or 30 levels of spells is that it could lead to power creep, as it creates a need for a HUGE spell list to cover all that area. How do you define a 17th vs. 18th level spell, especially given 5e's stated goal of simplicity? I suppose you could just slowly increase the damage output per level, since they seem to be using damage/HP as the main balancing mechanism by level for 5e, but wouldn't that lead to a bunch of nearly-identical spells with slightly different bonuses? Finally, unless you had an insane number of spells (5-10 per level) you might end up with every caster having a more-or-less identical set of spells, since the options at each level would be few. I'd rather see fewer levels with more options at each, letting casters set themselves apart via their spell choices.

 

[Blood & Bones]

1. Where in the playtest does it talk about there being 7 spell levels? (This is an honest question-- I can't remember and don't have the docs with me.)

2. I try really, really hard to avoid ever making this argument but I have to be honest in this case: 9 spell levels just is D&D to me. Totally subjective and biased opinion.

3. My concern about having 20 or 30 levels of spells is that it could lead to power creep, as it creates a need for a HUGE spell list to cover all that area. How do you define a 17th vs. 18th level spell, especially given 5e's stated goal of simplicity? I suppose you could just slowly increase the damage output per level, since they seem to be using damage/HP as the main balancing mechanism by level for 5e, but wouldn't that lead to a bunch of nearly-identical spells with slightly different bonuses? Finally, unless you had an insane number of spells (5-10 per level) you might end up with every caster having a more-or-less identical set of spells, since the options at each level would be few. I'd rather see fewer levels with more options at each, letting casters set themselves apart via their spell choices.

1) On the character sheets, under spells... It only goes up to seven. 2) I understand that argument - emotion and nostalgia are powerful forces. 3) I agree - there is such thing as too much granularity. What if we had 100 spell levels? How could we tell the difference between a 50th level spell and a 51st level spell? I don't think I could...

 

[Blood & Bones]

Speaking broadly and generally, that's not necessarily true. Fewer spell levels means less granularity in measuring spell power. "Level" is an organizing principle, not a limiting principle.

Okay - you are right. Maybe what I should have said is "The fewer spell levels, the EASIER it would be to control the number of spells any individual has.

 

[howandwhy99]

How many class levels will there be for casters?

I voted less than 7, but I'm assuming a 10 level game, 11+ being epic.

I'm guessing others are assuming 10, 20, or 30 levels per the edition they're currently playing.

 

[Trance-Zg]

I read somewhere on the WotC boards(maybe disinformation) that it will be 10 levels of spells for pure casters, plus 0-level at-will cantrips.

So 10th level spells at lvl19 by current progression.

I'm cool with that.