Seven spell levels in the Playtest

[Arctic Wolf]

I think +10 is a little bit much, but I do like the idea if spells being tiered. It would certianly make the spell list much shorter.

Oh I meant to add that when you use tier 3 spells, you have a chance to become unconscious since they are really draining your mental energy. So while you have a chance to do game-breaking things, if you fail you could be as good as dead.

 

[Abstruse]

Consistent use of the world "level" would be very nice, since the player in my Pathfinder group who plays the sorcerer was getting very confused with the concept of character level, class level, spell level, and caster level.

However, I don't want that to be at the expense of more simply organized spell lists. 7-9 levels of spells is very simple and easy to understand. Level 1 = Magic Missile (little bit of damage to one target). Level 2 = Acid Arrow (decent amount of damage to one target). Level 3 = Fireball (decent amount of damage to multiple targets). Something says it's a 2nd level spell, you know what sort of power to expect from it.

I also like the idea of a 9 to 7 arcane/divine split on spell levels, at least for PCs. Just personal taste, but it's a flavor thing. A divine caster is channeling the power of his/her god, while an arcane caster can actually become a god. Those last two levels are pretty much the difference between the two in my opinion. I...can't really make a logical argument for it though...

 

[Thalain]

The 7 levels of the playtest struck me as a "Why didn't we get this before" thing. In 1st to 3rd edition, there was often little difference between a 7th and 8th level spell (think of the power words that actually traded places!) and pretty much each school had some gaps either at 4th, 5th or 6th as well.

By folding 4th to 6th level into two and 7th/8th into one, we should have a clearer upper-level progression while also subtly but not excessively reducing high level spell counts. Of course this means you'd now get 7th level spells only at level 17, because they are what was previously called 9th.

Clerics worked great with 7 levels in 2nd edition anyway - nice to see that back.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm for spell levels being the same as caster level being the same as character level. It's just more consistent and intuitive.

That said, I don't think such spell levels would work best the way they did in old D&D. Rather, spells could be separated into 'minor' and standard, or 'lesser' and 'greater' or some other large division. Minor spells could be cast at-will, 'lesser spells' could be cast easily in combat, 'greater spells' could require more time/concentration/material-outlay/risk to cast.

Spell level could, if such detail were desired, simply be the lowest level at which you can cast the spell. There wouldn't need to be any great difference between a 7th and 8th level spell, since a 7th or 8th level spell cast by an 8th level caster would have comparable power - as might a first level spell cast at 8th level.

 

[Ahnehnois]

9 levels is a D&D trope. The 9 + 7 is really the classic version. 9 levels for everyone is less confusing and more balanced. In general, I'd say the fewer levels of spells there are, the better. I'd be quite happy if they just did cantrips and spells and forgot spell level altogether, but that won't happen. (Spells should really work like feats, with individual prerequisites, not this spell level system).

 

[MarkB]

If they're going to separate spell level from caster level, they should stop calling them levels. I think "tier" would be a more appropriate term.

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't have a problem with 7 being the maximum. Anything more powerful than that (like summoning powerful demons, or destroying a castle with an earthquake) should probably be a ritual anyway.

I'm a little more perplexed over unlimited 0-level spell slots, than I am about the missing 8th and 9th level ones. I'll be watching very closely to see how Wizards of the Coast responds to our playtesting feedback.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

9 is fine and "level" should be used for as many contradictory concepts as possible.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

9 is fine and "level" should be used for as many contradictory concepts as possible.

co-signed

Yet another poll that looks like an Italian Parliamentary election result.

Level is just an organizing principle, the key is WHEN the teleporting, disintegrating and Google level scrying begins. (along with the martial class whining and teeth gnashing )

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, Invis Stalker, I was going to say - that is a VERY evenly spaced poll.

I hope, and I'm just spitballing here, that this isn't a really divisive issue. Whatever number they come up with, I would think that players will simply shrug and go with it.

As I said, if I was king of the world and I could decide, I'd go with more granularity simply because, especially at lower levels, certain spells are pretty obviously more powerful than others. Sleep anyone? So, you can either rein in the spells - multiple nerfs to Sleep - or you can spread things out a bit more. Maybe in a Spell Level=Character Level system, Sleep might be a second level spell and maybe Knock is too while Web gets bumped to third or maybe fourth level.

It just makes a bit more space to work with.