Seven spell levels in the Playtest

[Yora]

I don't care. For me the game ends at 10th level.

 

[Janaxstrus]

9 for Arcane, preferably 9 for divine. I could live with 7 for Divine for the old school feel.

Spells every level, no thanks.

 

[ren1999]

Spells and Feats need to have the same mechanics.

Do away with spell levels and just make each power available when a character reaches the class level.
In other words, organize powers by class level.

How about 3 powers at 1st level and +1 power every level-up.

If there are only 20 levels then about 23 powers.

You can use any power as many times as you want in a fight except burst spells which can be used only 1 time an encounter.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I voted 9, but I could go for 9/7 or 7 total. The 10 levels (0-9) works for me as well.

My games tend to play for years, sometimes decades. 1st ed went to mid 30s (level) the two 3rd games both went well into epic (high 20s).

I think that spells at every level is too granular. What would be the different between a 1st and 2nd level spell. Larger granularity means that each spell level gives a perceivable increase in ability.

 

[the Jester]

Spells and Feats need to have the same mechanics.

What? Why?

Do away with spell levels and just make each power available when a character reaches the class level.
In other words, organize powers by class level.

How about 3 powers at 1st level and +1 power every level-up.

If there are only 20 levels then about 23 powers.

So 4e but with more powers?

You can use any power as many times as you want in a fight except burst spells which can be used only 1 time an encounter.

That's... pretty arbitrary. Not to mention that 'burst' isn't an effect type in 5e at this point.

I don't think your suggestion feels like D&D, personally. It expands the option overload issue tremendously, is not in line with anything from the game's history and doesn't sound like it would promote the kind of play experience I want.

 

[TerraDave]

Just a quick clarification spell level=charecter level not the same as one new wave of spells per level. You could still have say 5 tiers=1st level, 3rd level, 5th level...

But, I don't know if that is really clearer, and for old school purposes, would prefer seven or even six level of spells. Supplement I adding those high level spells really was the ultimate in power creep.

 

[erleni]

Actually in 4e you didn't have 30 levels of spells, but 7 or 8 levels in each category (encounter, daily, utility). So more or less D&D always stayed between 7 and 9 spell levels and I guess any would really work.
I'd go for 7 to get more distinction between one level and the next one.

 

[Mengu]

Whatever they want, I don't really care, 7, 9, 20, 42... As far as I'm concerned, there are 3 spell levels, low level, mid level, and high level. Highest level spells a character has access to, should correspond to the appropriate power level, that is all I care about.

 

[Ratskinner]

I want the basic rules to only go up to 7. However, that's in part because I think I'd prefer the basic rules to only go up to around level 10 or so. I'd rather see higher level play be "moduled" out, because there seems to be more pronounced philosophical variation on what high-level play means and because so few campaigns actually play in those realms.

So, I voted "think for yourself".

 

[Gold Roger]

I voted 7 divine and 9 arcane. That seems to have been the longest running version and despite having started with 3.0 I like my D&D traditional.

I'd be fine with between 7-10 spell levels, if it goes into the highest of epic level.

More I feel gets to granular and develops 4e problems of "I've got only three choices and I think I've seen at least one a few levels before".

Less, and spell power differs to much within the same spell level and the individual spell level easily get cluttered.