Seven spell levels in the Playtest

[Remathilis]

I voted 7 each, but on reflection 10 sounds right. Here me out.

If you look at levels 1-3 on the playtest, the primary way PCs level up is via damage output. Rogues (appear) to gain Sneak Attack dice almost every level. Fighters gain weapon focus damage every level or so. The main way clerics and wizards gain damage is via increase in spell level. Spells themselves don't improve with level (magic missile being the exception) so to keep up, casters will gain access to a new round of spells every other level (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19).

Burning Hands (lvl 1) does 2d4 + Int to radius
Arc Lightning (lvl 2) does 4d6 + Int to a target
Fireball (lvl 3) will do 5d6+ Int to a radius

and so on.

 

[The Red King]

I like the idea of max spell level being tied either to the INT stat for Wizards Chr for Clerics and Wis for Sorcerers, or something like that.

Not all level 20 wizards are the same, and not all of them should have access to everything.

 

[grimslade]

I would like to see a more granular spell power level, not necessarily more spells granted.
Divorcing spell power from spell level might not feel like D&D. It would require an overhaul of the magic system that might not be in the cards right now.
Caster level would increase with character level either every level or every other level. It would determine damage, range, number affected, duration and all that jazz. It is a little bit fiddly but good modifier for multiclassed spellcasters. Level determines strength of magic but only class levels determine spells available. Less options but still relevant power.

 

[am181d]

I would like one consistent meaning for the word "Level" in 5e. You should take levels in classes and when you add up those levels, you get your total character level. (My character is seventh level because he has five levels of fighterness and two levels of wizardydoo.)

I'd prefer to drop "caster level" (although "levels of wizard" is still consistent with the working definition) and just have everyone cast at their total/character level. Multi-class spellcasters would have FEWER spells and would not have THE MOST POWERFUL spells, but to the extent that lower level spells scaled, they would still be able to contribute meaningfully.

Which brings us to spell level: I'd do what Monte Cook did in Book of Experimental Might. Take the existing spells and spread them out over X levels. (At this point, spells no longer have a *spell level*. They have a minimum required character level or a minimum required levels of wizard.) Provide a range of choice at each level, but keep the choices manageable. (If my Math skills are holding up properly, 10-12 spells per level over 30 levels is still fewer spells that appeared in the 3e PHB.)

 

[The Red King]

I would like one consistent meaning for the word "Level" in 5e. You should take levels in classes and when you add up those levels, you get your total character level. (My character is seventh level because he has five levels of fighterness and two levels of wizardydoo.)

I'd prefer to drop "caster level" (although "levels of wizard" is still consistent with the working definition) and just have everyone cast at their total/character level. Multi-class spellcasters would have FEWER spells and would not have THE MOST POWERFUL spells, but to the extent that lower level spells scaled, they would still be able to contribute meaningfully.

Which brings us to spell level: I'd do what Monte Cook did in Book of Experimental Might. Take the existing spells and spread them out over X levels. (At this point, spells no longer have a *spell level*. They have a minimum required character level or a minimum required levels of wizard.) Provide a range of choice at each level, but keep the choices manageable. (If my Math skills are holding up properly, 10-12 spells per level over 30 levels is still fewer spells that appeared in the 3e PHB.)

I vote right now to have "Wizard" changed to "Wizardydoo"!

Best DNDn change ever!

 

[Arctic Wolf]

6 levels of spells sounds good to me. (one for each 5 player levels). But I would add something else too it. I said this is another thread but it was passed over. Why not have spells have tiers? There would be the tier 1-cantrip, tier 2- advanced, and tier 3- master. Cantrips would be the at-wills, tier 2 would be similar to the power of encounter powers in 4e, and tier 3 would be similar to daily powers. This could also help cut down on so many spells because some spells are just the lower lvl spells with bigger numbers, plus it doesn't really take too much to write the dmg and effect. Here is an example of 2 spells I made up:

Prayer- Cleric Utility
Tier 1- The player you pray for gets a +1 to all actions on their next turn.
Tier 2- "" "" gets a +5 to all actions on their next turn
Tier 3- "" "" gets a +10 to all actions on their next turn

Fire Blast- Wizard attack
Tier 1- Targets takes 1d6 fire dmg.
Tier 2- Targets take 1d6 fire dmg and 5 ongoing fire dmg (save ends)
Tier 3- Targets take 2d6 fire dmg and 5 ongoing fire dmg (save ends)


What do ya think?

 

[Remathilis]

I like the idea of max spell level being tied either to the INT stat for Wizards Chr for Clerics and Wis for Sorcerers, or something like that.

Not all level 20 wizards are the same, and not all of them should have access to everything.

GAH! NO!!!!!

In theory, it means some wizards or clerics who have lower scores don't reach full potential. In reality, it means "every PC wizard is going to have an 18 Int because I'm not hosing myself if we get to high level".

There are already enough reasons to pump up your spellcasting stat; access to high level ability shouldn't be one of them.

 

[The Red King]

6 levels of spells sounds good to me. (one for each 5 player levels). But I would add something else too it. I said this is another thread but it was passed over. Why not have spells have tiers? There would be the tier 1-cantrip, tier 2- advanced, and tier 3- master. Cantrips would be the at-wills, tier 2 would be similar to the power of encounter powers in 4e, and tier 3 would be similar to daily powers. This could also help cut down on so many spells because some spells are just the lower lvl spells with bigger numbers, plus it doesn't really take too much to write the dmg and effect. Here is an example of 2 spells I made up:

Prayer- Cleric Utility
Tier 1- The player you pray for gets a +1 to all actions on their next turn.
Tier 2- "" "" gets a +5 to all actions on their next turn
Tier 3- "" "" gets a +10 to all actions on their next turn

Fire Blast- Wizard attack
Tier 1- Targets takes 1d6 fire dmg.
Tier 2- Targets take 1d6 fire dmg and 5 ongoing fire dmg (save ends)
Tier 3- Targets take 2d6 fire dmg and 5 ongoing fire dmg (save ends)


What do ya think?

I think +10 is a little bit much, but I do like the idea if spells being tiered. It would certianly make the spell list much shorter.

 

[fuindordm]

I like the core idea of casters getting access to a new spell level and therefore new abilities every other level. But I don't see a need to stop at nine!

I'd also like to see a mechanic in place for casters trying out magic beyond their scope, and horrible penalties for failure...

 

[BobTheNob]

This is so "how long is a piece of string". How is 7 better than 9? How is 9 better that 7? Why not 20? Why not 10?

I honestly dont think the number of spell levels has much bearing at all. I would go for 9 personally, but thats only because thats what Im familiar with, but honestly, you could use anything.