Spells: How Many Levels?

[Tilenas]

I voted "other" because I'd acutally like to see fewer spell levels, like 5. This could work well with the flattened power curve and makes balancing spell lists against another easier. Finally, I think the nine-tier-system has too many redundant spells that can be cut by reducing the number of levels, while keeping the classics intact.

 

[keterys]

Having just clarified this last weekend, again, for a new player whose wizard leveled to 2 and wanted to know why he can't gain a 2nd level spell...

I voted for spell level = level you get it at. I don't need it to follow 4e's structure.

Alternatively, it could just not use the term "level" at all, but I find that unlikely. Like, I'd be totally fine with the idea of spells not having a level at all, but their effects are based on your level, or how much you put into them, or whatever.

Example: Fireball at 1st level is a 1d6 damage spell that covers a 5 ft burst. At 5th it's 5d6 in a 25 ft burst. At 17th it's a veritable swarm of meteors for 17d6 in an up to 85 ft burst. Or whatever.

 

[Mattachine]

Even Monte has said in past blog posts that he was constrained by the 9 level spell structure in 3, since spells of different levels weren't of similar power. He dealt with it in AU/AE by creating spell rarity/difficulty, but it would also be easy to spread out spells over a wider range.

Like Keterys, it was always weird explaining the disparity between spell level and character level to new players. I know it isn't hard, but it isn't intuitive, and why bother having a legacy that puts that twinge in new players?

 

[1Mac]

Other: Fie on spell levels! Why should a spell's power be tied to an arbitrary level, when no other power, ability, or stat in the game works that way? It's counter-intuitive, it bloats the spell list with different levels of the same spell effect, and it generally makes being a magic-user an unnecessarily complicated affair.

 

[The Human Target]

Something new.

I don't think we need many different ones, if any.

 

[Henry]

My personal preference is to have spell level correspond to character level -- this way, you get a more gradual power progression among the spell power levels, and you don't get oddball things such as detect magic being lumped in with color spray or magic missile - it's why there are 0-level spells in 3E in the first place.

It's also an idea Monte Cook favors, which he "experimented" with in Book of Experimental Might. Other than "sacred cow" reasons for only 9 spell levels, it just made more sense to me, and cut down on one more ambiguation of "level."

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Alternately, do the 4E synchronization treatment to earlier versions, but do it the classes instead of spells. After all, the confusion of a 5th level wizard getting 3rd level spells can be solved either way.

So treat cantrips as spell level 1 instead of zero, and slide everything else up a notch (i.e. fireball is now a 4th level spell). Or if you can't stand this, keep cantrips as freebies, level the spell levels largely alone, but have 10 of them. Move individual spells around to flesh out the 10 levels, sliding more powerful ones up a notch. Wish become 10th level.

Then make all classes 10th level. A 4th level wizard can cast 4th level spells.

Obviously, you have to cram a lot more into each level, but could probably work around this with some creative multiclassing for breadth (and solve a lot of multiclassing issues at the same time). As long as it takes the kind of effort that people expect for that wizard to get to where he can cast fireballs, it's all just numbers.

 

[SKyOdin]

Cut it down to three: Least, Lesser, and Greater spell levels (to borrow the 3E set of names, better ones could be invented). Spells should scale properly with level as well. All three spell levels should be available from the outset. The difference between them being which spells are designed to be more limited in use compared to spells that are more balanced to be more freely usable. For example, Magic Missile being Least, Fireball being Lesser, and Summon Monster being Greater. New spells become unlocked as the caster reaches certain levels.

I have no love for the 9 levels of spells at all. That entire framework is full of massive holes. It is bloated, difficult to balance, and forces designers to create a ton of filler spells to pad out the levels. I would rather the designers focus on more iconic and evocative spells.

 

[dangerous jack]

On the one hand, I initially liked 4e for getting rid of spell levels vs class levels (and no mention of dungeon levels!). I also liked splitting out utility spells from attack spells.

On the other hand, because of 4e's power frequency, a level 5 spell (daily) is more powerful than a level 7 spell (encounter). This is a little jarring, but I'd rate it no more strange than spell level vs character level.

As others are suggesting, coming up with a different term and restricting to about 7 distinct levels seems sufficient to me. (and oh so cool if they'd use Shemeska's "valences").

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

Just have it as it is in 4E. Spells of level x are available at level x. This was a good thing for the game. The former counter intuitive spell system chased away too many new players.