Spells: How Many Levels?

[El Mahdi]

I voted Other. I want a spell system that does something more like the following:

Spells have no levels, they only have prerequisite spells. You can't learn a more complex spell without first learning it's simpler, prerequisite spells.

Spell effects however are based on level, be it damage, saving throws, etc., regardless of the complexity of the specific spell.

 

[Kaodi]

As much as I turned to being a fan of 3X/Pathfinder after trying 4E for a while, I think 4Es approach to spells being the level you get them at just makes for a cleaner game. If spells are handled more like they were prior to 4E, I would go so far as to say there ought to be as many spell levels as there are class levels. It was always the case that every level of spells had weaker and stronger examples.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I wouldn't mind seeing the spells ranked by tiers, such as cantrips (which would be at-will), heroic, paragon and epic (or some other names, this is just an example).

 

[Minigiant]

I depends.

If they go back to (10+ spell levels + Mod), then the max level of spell should be 150% of the high natural ability modifier for full casters.

If they don't but keep spell levels
9 for full arcanists
6 for half arcanists
7 for full divine and primal casters
4 for half divine and primal casters

4e style spell progressions is for non-traditional magic users like warlocks.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

First, some random brain spewing:

Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might revised the spell list to be a 20 level progression, and I admit that I really liked it.

On the other hand, that level of granularity has it's own difficulties. It becomes more difficult to remember what level different spells are, and you end up with a 20 levels worth of spell slots to choose.

On the third hand, 20 levels of spells means that there are fewer spells at each level, making potentially easier to choose your daily allotment of spells.


Now, a consideration of the 3E spell levels:

In third edition, those first three spell levels really seemed to matter. First level spells felt constrained. Second level spells started to show glimmers of what a wizard could do. Third level spells are when the wizard really opened up.

After third level, spell level stop carrying much weight. What's the difference between a sixth and a seventh level spell? It all sort of blurs.

Level 9, of course, has the capstone powers: Disjunction, Meteor Swarm, Power Word Kill, and others. There's definition there. So, really, it is levels four through eight that lack a strong sense of identity.

I would strongly consider doing some consolidating at this point. Merge levels four and five, six and seven, and eight and nine to leave behind a six level spell progression. Then replace linear spell level progression with something that slows down as a character levels. Fill in the gaps with interesting class features.

For example:

1 1st level spells
2 2nd level spells
3
4 3rd level spells
5
6 Class feature
7 4th level spells
8
9 Class feature
10
11 5th level spells
12
13 Class feature
14
15 Class feature
16 6th level spells
17
18 Class feature
19
20 Class feature

This sequence shows the distance between spell levels growing numerically (+1, +2, +3, +4, +5). Then the gaps were filled so that the wizard never went more than two levels without receiving either new spell levels or a class feature. Unexpectedly, the final ability landed on level 20, which would be perfect for a capstone ability.

Overall, I won't say this is my preference, just that I would like to see it tested.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I like the 3e style, but I think 9th level spells should only be the core spells-- and that high-level full casters should get 10th level spells for learning the 9th level spells from classes with the same power source, and for learning "epic" spells when they're available.

And I vote for including 0th level spells the way Pathfinder does.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I'd prefer to get rid of spell levels entirely, to be honest. Balance all spells at the same level of power, but make them scale and evolve as the caster gains in level.

 

[Lanefan]

Other:

Magic-Users 9
Illusionists, Necromancers, other arcane types 7
Clerics 9
Druids and other divine types 7

But note this assumes a game designed to get only to the mid-teens in level; meaning the PCs never have personal access to the highest-level spells. This is very intentional, as part of what reins in the really high-level spells is that the PCs can't cast them on a whim, they have to either find a scroll or device or ask (and pay!) someone to do it for them.

I have no problem whatsoever with having spells out there that PCs cannot cast.

Also note that there can always be outlier spells that don't directly tie in to the level system. For example, in my game I have a Necromancer spell called Necromantic Continuation; it is the spell that - with lots of other preparations as well - turns one into a Lich or other high-powered undead. It is listed as a 7th-level spell (the highest they get) for convenience of record-keeping but it cannot be attempted by a Necromancer of less than 20th level.

Lanefan

 

[Serendipity]

I would be quite happy with an across the board 7 levels of spell progression, at least for the more traditional classes (Wizard, Cleric, and so forth).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

9 levels for simplicities sake. makes importing from older editions easier.
I believe apriest should have 9 levels too.
A cleric 7, a bard 6, paladin and ranger 4
Everything else: anything between 1 and 9.
Rituals should have 9 levels too and a relevant skill/attribute check attached to it, with level somehow involved. You can caste them easily if you match the level, otherwise you need more time