D&D 5E The Spellcasting Table and Apprentice Levels

[hbarsquared]

Preface: I'm a fan of wizards and of spellcasting, and I'm a fan of "apprentice levels" and not having full-blown class abilities until a couple-few levels in.

Given that, I truly like the idea of "subclasses" beginning at the same level, instead of every class being different, or "complex" classes starting at 2nd instead of 3rd or 4th.

So.

What's wrong with spell levels being a strict 1/2 level?

A 1st-level wizard only has cantrips and a class feature or two.

2nd-level: you get 1st-level spells!

3rd-level: choose your subclass! Get a bonus 1st-level spell from your school!

4th-level: 2nd-level spells!

What I see: all classes get a subclass at 3rd level, and 1st and 2nd are still apprentice-like. Iy even makes sense that even a 1st-level apprentice wizard does not have true 1st level spells.

Thoughts?

 

[GX.Sigma]

Probably not going to happen; too much of a change from classic D&D.

A 1st-level wizard only has cantrips and a class feature or two.

2nd-level: you get 1st-level spells!

I'd personally go the other way, and only give at-will magic to really high level spellcasters.

 

[Sadras]

It even makes sense that even a 1st-level apprentice wizard does not have true 1st level spells.
Thoughts?

Agree. As DM you could easily incorporate that into the setting by determining what spells are available for him/her to learn. Perhaps at 1st he can only cast cantrips and has access to a few Rituals only.

At 2nd he gains 1 or 2 normal 1st level spells.

As DM you have the ability to determine how spells and how many spells are acquired in the setting so essentially all it requires is for you to make it happen. Perhaps he/she requires training to go up levels or to understand a new spell level. Its an open malleable system. Go wild!

 

[Li Shenron]

Preface: I'm a fan of wizards and of spellcasting, and I'm a fan of "apprentice levels" and not having full-blown class abilities until a couple-few levels in.

Given that, I truly like the idea of "subclasses" beginning at the same level, instead of every class being different, or "complex" classes starting at 2nd instead of 3rd or 4th.

So.

What's wrong with spell levels being a strict 1/2 level?

A 1st-level wizard only has cantrips and a class feature or two.

2nd-level: you get 1st-level spells!

3rd-level: choose your subclass! Get a bonus 1st-level spell from your school!

4th-level: 2nd-level spells!

I like your suggestion.

Honestly, I don't understand how the same people who hardly notice (not to mention bother) that there are no real vancian casters anymore in 5e, can be bothered by a change in spell level progression "because it's traditional".

 

[Gadget]

I can kind of get behind this notion. I really would also like to see some of the spells re-jiggered on what level they appear. Most of the direct combat spells are okay (though I'm sure there are some improvements to be made) but some of the utility spells could stand to be moved around a bit. Creating extra-dementional spaces as a first level spell? Really? For my taste, flight and such appear much to early in the game as well. There was a thread around here a while back about problems with the spell list, I wish I could dig it up.

 

[the Jester]

Preface: I'm a fan of wizards and of spellcasting, and I'm a fan of "apprentice levels" and not having full-blown class abilities until a couple-few levels in.

Given that, I truly like the idea of "subclasses" beginning at the same level, instead of every class being different, or "complex" classes starting at 2nd instead of 3rd or 4th.

...snip...

Thoughts?

Sorry. I think this is unnecessary symmetry that doesn't really do anything good to the game and has the cost of undermining certain classes' rationale (e.g. clerics) in the minds of many gamers.

The discussions that I've seen of the idea that all subclasses should start at the same time tend to have a large and vocal "clerics don't make sense without focus on a specific deity at level 1" crowd, and I absolutely agree with it. I don't really see any particular advantage to be gained worth this cost.

 

[am181d]

Sorry. I think this is unnecessary symmetry that doesn't really do anything good to the game and has the cost of undermining certain classes' rationale (e.g. clerics) in the minds of many gamers.

I agree with this. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." (The quote is a little insulting, so sorry about that, but it's got a hobgoblin in it, so at least it's thematic!)

 

[Falling Icicle]

Thoughts?

I think that would make low level spellcasters even less fun and interesting to play. So I vote no.

Probably not going to happen; too much of a change from classic D&D.
I'd personally go the other way, and only give at-will magic to really high level spellcasters.

I feel just the opposite. At-will cantrips serve an important purpose - giving mages something to do when they can't or don't want to use daily spells (either because they've run out of slots or want to conserve them). This is particularly important at low levels. At higher levels, mages have enough spells per day that it isn't much of an issue.