Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Yair" data-source="post: 993159" data-attributes="member: 10913">Well, since (major) spellcaster classes gain 1 spell level per 2 class levels, what you are essentially doing is (more or less) allowing all save DCs to be based on the highest-level spell the character can cast, instead of on the specific spell cast. While this does strengthen spellcasters, I don't think the effects would be so great as to be "broken" or so on. The chief difference would be of flavor.Now, in order to cast a spell to affect a powerful foe the spellcaster flings his most powerful spells. With your system, he could fling any spell (with the exception of a few HRD dependant spells at el, and with lesser effects, but still). I prefer to have the spellcasters reserve their BIG spells to the foe; I consider it more satisfying. If I wanted to allow them to cast any spell at the big villains, I would simply grant them all the Heighten Spell feat. It takes a powerful spellcaster to penetrate that foe's defense, yes, but only if he is investing all he's got into it. What the experience got him is the ability to cast higher-level spells, not to be able to cast lower-level spells more powerfully. The spell level represents the spellcasters power, not his class level (which is why an adept, for example, would cast less-powerful spells even at high spellcaster levels).That being said, I do consider it an issue of flavor. Your rules would make spellcasters more powerful, but I don't see them as ruining the game for you or your players - which is what it is all about.</blockquote>

Verification