# Should bring back diverse spellcaster level design.



## Steampunkette

Wizards and Sorcerers should have 9 levels of Arcane Spells.
Clerics and Druids should have 7 circles of Divine Spells.
Bards and Warlocks should have 5 mysteries of Occult Spells.

And they should all map to be equal at max-level for the power of a given spell. And also be largely, but not completely, separate from each other.

Sound insane? It is a bit. But c'mon, at least it would make the caster classes leveling more interesting and varied, and make room for stronger class and subclass abilities in the gap-levels between spell level increases for Bards, Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks.

Wizards and Sorcerers get access to a new level of spell every odd numbered level per usual. Clerics and Druids get a "Gap" level for 5th where they get cool Cleric and Druid themed stuff equivalent to extra attack or third level spellcasting. Same thing happens again at level 15 instead of getting 7th level spells. And, of course, Commensurately fewer spell slots.

Warlocks and bards, on the other hand, don't get 2nd level spells at 3rd, but at 5th their 2nd mystery spell slots are equal to 3rd level spells and they get something cool at level 3, instead. Same thing happens at level 9 and 11, then again at at 17. 

All four of those classes get commensurately fewer spell slots compared to the wizard/sorcerer, with bard/warlock getting the least number of slots out of any 'full caster'.

And then the -actual- half-casters, Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knights, Paladins, Rangers, etc, follow the same sort of format. Tricksters and Knights get 4 levels of spellcasting, Paladins and Rangers only get 3 circles, but cooler tricks that better encapsulate Paladin/Ranger concepts when their circles skip.

L--S C M
1--1 1 1
3--2 2 1
5--3 2 2
7--4 3 3
9--5 4 3
11-6 5 3
13-7 6 4
15-8 6 4
17-9 7 5

I know what you're thinking. "That's too complex! It doesn't make sense!" to which I say "Okay. Cool. Do it anyway. Only way people come to understand is through either laborious discussion or simple demonstration."

They're not gonna do it, obviously, as it would mean more writing, more pages, more balancing between spells... and that's not something they want to do for their steamlined game... But it'd be so nice if they did...


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Steampunkette said:


> Wizards and Sorcerers should have 9 levels of Arcane Spells.
> Clerics and Druids should have 7 circles of Divine Spells.
> Bards and Warlocks should have 5 mysteries of Occult Spells.
> 
> And they should all map to be equal at max-level for the power of a given spell. And also be largely, but not completely, separate from each other.
> 
> Sound insane? It is a bit. But c'mon, at least it would make the caster classes leveling more interesting and varied, and make room for stronger class and subclass abilities in the gap-levels between spell level increases for Bards, Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks.
> 
> Wizards and Sorcerers get access to a new level of spell every odd numbered level per usual. Clerics and Druids get a "Gap" level for 5th where they get cool Cleric and Druid themed stuff equivalent to extra attack or third level spellcasting. Same thing happens again at level 15 instead of getting 7th level spells. And, of course, Commensurately fewer spell slots.
> 
> Warlocks and bards, on the other hand, don't get 2nd level spells at 3rd, but at 5th their 2nd mystery spell slots are equal to 3rd level spells and they get something cool at level 3, instead. Same thing happens at level 9 and 11, then again at at 17.
> 
> All four of those classes get commensurately fewer spell slots compared to the wizard/sorcerer, with bard/warlock getting the least number of slots out of any 'full caster'.
> 
> And then the -actual- half-casters, Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knights, Paladins, Rangers, etc, follow the same sort of format. Tricksters and Knights get 4 levels of spellcasting, Paladins and Rangers only get 3 circles, but cooler tricks that better encapsulate Paladin/Ranger concepts when their circles skip.
> 
> L--S C M
> 1--1 1 1
> 3--2 2 1
> 5--3 2 2
> 7--4 3 3
> 9--5 4 3
> 11-6 5 3
> 13-7 6 4
> 15-8 6 4
> 17-9 7 5
> 
> I know what you're thinking. "That's too complex! It doesn't make sense!" to which I say "Okay. Cool. Do it anyway. Only way people come to understand is through either laborious discussion or simple demonstration."
> 
> They're not gonna do it, obviously, as it would mean more writing, more pages, more balancing between spells... and that's not something they want to do for their steamlined game... But it'd be so nice if they did...




I honestly don't think it is a good Idea.
Part of that balancing was having the same spell at different levels for different classes.


----------



## Slit518

Bards used to go up to 6th level spells.

If I recall correctly, 2e spell progression:
Wizard 9th level
Clerid & Druid 7th level
Bard 6th level
Paladin & Ranger 4th level


----------



## cbwjm

Slit518 said:


> Bards used to go up to 6th level spells.
> 
> If I recall correctly, 2e spell progression:
> Wizard 9th level
> Clerid & Druid 7th level
> Bard 6th level
> Paladin & Ranger 4th level



Close, rangers only got 3rd level spells. class kits that granted spells tended to use paladin spellcasting so things like the ninja kit that had illusion spells and the defender from savage coast followed the paladin chart.

Personally I don't think I'd want to go back to the system in 2e (unless playing 2e), I much prefer the way things are now as it allows spell slots to increase when you mix and match spellcasting classes.


----------



## Rabulias

cbwjm said:


> [...] I much prefer the way things are now as it allows spell slots to increase when you mix and match spellcasting classes.



Yeah this would be a nightmare to sort out with multiclassing.


----------



## Baron Opal II

Steampunkette said:


> Wizards and Sorcerers should have 9 levels of Arcane Spells.
> Clerics and Druids should have 7 circles of Divine Spells.
> Bards and Warlocks should have 5 mysteries of Occult Spells.



Other than opening 9th level spells to clerics, they have a god after all, I wholeheartedly endorse this idea.


----------



## Alzrius

Steampunkette said:


> Wizards and Sorcerers should have 9 levels of Arcane Spells.
> Clerics and Druids should have 7 circles of Divine Spells.
> Bards and Warlocks should have 5 mysteries of Occult Spells.
> 
> And they should all map to be equal at max-level for the power of a given spell.



I was in agreement until that last sentence. If a particular class is going to receive fewer spell levels, it strikes me as counterintuitive that it should also be expected to allow for the same degree of power (which I'm assuming is a shorthand to cover both actual damage potential as well as versatility of effects) as spellcasters who receive more spell levels.

Back when I played AD&D 2nd Edition, I used to think that a cleric's 7th level spells were meant to equal a wizard's 9th level spells, which always struck me as odd since they very clearly weren't. It took a while for me to figure out that they weren't supposed to be; that wizards having 9th level spells was their class benefit, whereas the cleric got better Hit Dice, attack progression, the ability to turn undead, etc.

That strikes me as the better way to go about it, if you're going to stagger spell progression between classes. Give the classes with less spells other stuff to make up the difference.


----------



## dave2008

I wouldn't be completely against this, with same caveat as @Alzrius, they shouldn't be the same power level. 

However, I would we get most of the magic users away from spells.  Make spells the feature of the wizard class and give all magic class different types of magic, but not spells.  Think Turn Undead and a paladin's smite, but expanded to all of their magic abilities.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

I am reminded of a concept I heard recently from the MMO critic Josh "Strife" Hayes: the idea of MMO designer gluttony as the overproduction of systems for their own sake.



Steampunkette said:


> I know what you're thinking. "That's too complex! It doesn't make sense!" to which I say "Okay. Cool. Do it anyway. Only way people come to understand is through either laborious discussion or simple demonstration."



While it is true that people come to understand things only if they are taught, that does not actually respond to the first criticism: "that's too complex." You may believe "that's too complex" and "that doesn't make sense" are synonymous, but you would be incorrect. Things not making sense is a fault of the explanation process, which can be fixed as you suggested, by giving better explanations. Things being unnecessarily complex cannot be fixed by better explanations; they can only be fixed by making them less complicated.

One of the big problems with D&D is that it can be difficult to get into. It has extremely effective word of mouth marketing, because anyone who wants to DM must convince at least a few other people to play with them. But the market is still extremely small. As in, 5e right now has sold roughly as well as a moderately-successful niche video game. That's not an insult; for 5e to have done even that well is impressive by tabletop gaming standards. Part of having done that well, however, is the level of effort put into making it approachable. Now, sometimes, problems with how approachable a game is _can_ be fixed by improving its presentation--that was one of the lessons learned from 4e, for example. But the thing you are asking for isn't that, _by your own admission_. This is not "take a complex thing and explain it better." It is "make a thing more complex because more complexity is inherently better than less complexity." And that's simply not true.

Don't get me wrong. I _like_ crunchy systems. 4e is my favorite version of D&D. But complexity _for its own sake_ is gluttonous game design. It is filling up the game with more things to learn solely so that there _are_ more things to learn. That, right there, turns people off of a game. The initial exposure period, which sometimes may be _only an hour_ but is certainly less than a single evening, is absolutely critical for getting players interested and invested into a game. D&D is, and has long been, _really really REALLY_ awful at actually making this intro period effective. It tends to focus on conveying the _whole_ of the rules, rather than the _necessary_ rules. It tends to focus on _many_ systems, rather than _elegant_ systems. And, perhaps worst of all, many editions--including 5e, which actually backslid on this issue--put an enormous weight on the DM's shoulders and do not take basic efforts to lessen that weight.

Keeping class mechanics interestingly varied is an important element of any class-based game design. You are not wrong to want such variety. This is just a system unlikely to support one of the key goals of 5th edition: reaching more fans, growing the base. This is something that will only appeal to the hardcore/veteran players, and which offers little to no actual design benefits _other than_ being a new shiny thing for hardcore/veteran players to play with. The push toward shared standards is not simply a matter of ease of design; it exists specifically to help make the new player experience more welcoming so people will _want_ to keep playing.



Steampunkette said:


> They're not gonna do it, obviously, as it would mean more writing, more pages, more balancing between spells... and that's not something they want to do for their steamlined game... But it'd be so nice if they did...



As I said above: consider whether this is "so nice" because it would give _you personally_ something fresh and new to work with, or "so nice" because it would make a better gaming experience for everyone involved, _including the brand-new people that have to learn it_.

Because if the answer is the former, then it may just be the case that you are asking for mechanical _supplementation_ of the rules--things innately geared for people "already invested"--and not _fundamental_ rules changes that absolutely everyone has to abide by.


----------



## Steampunkette

@UngeheuerLich, @Baron Opal II
When you say "Fireball" is 3rd level and when you say "Fireball" is 2nd mystery it's still "Fireball". The column of numbers and also a chunk of what I read is meant to explain what they're losing out on is specific spell levels, but not -all- spell levels, and their spells when they increase level (from 2nd to 3rd at level 7 for example) are as strong as other casters at that level. 3rd level Mysteries -are- 4th level spells, and both Warlock and Wizard get them at 7th.



Alzrius said:


> I was in agreement until that last sentence. If a particular class is going to receive fewer spell levels, it strikes me as counterintuitive that it should also be expected to allow for the same degree of power (which I'm assuming is a shorthand to cover both actual damage potential as well as versatility of effects) as spellcasters who receive more spell levels.
> 
> Back when I played AD&D 2nd Edition, I used to think that a cleric's 7th level spells were meant to equal a wizard's 9th level spells, which always struck me as odd since they very clearly weren't. It took a while for me to figure out that they weren't supposed to be; that wizards having 9th level spells was their class benefit, whereas the cleric got better Hit Dice, attack progression, the ability to turn undead, etc.
> 
> That strikes me as the better way to go about it, if you're going to stagger spell progression between classes. Give the classes with less spells other stuff to make up the difference.



You're right that in 2e 7th circle Cleric spells weren't the same as 9th level Wizard spells in power. I feel like that was one of many (MANY) mistakes from early D&D.

But it's easier to maintain the spell-power parity but reduce spell-comprehensiveness. By cutting out a specific spell level you can put something in the class "As Strong" as that spell level, if that makes sense. But keeping the low levels and cutting the high levels means you have to replace the high end. Either following my example of pacing to give abilities at 5 and 13 which are meant to replace power gained at 15 and 17 (Unbalancing by being either too strong or not strong enough) or by backloading the class by giving them "Normal" spell progression early on, you need to grant them abilities at 15 and 17 (which a lot of characters will never see) in order to maintain parity.



EzekielRaiden said:


> I am reminded of a concept I heard recently from the MMO critic Josh "Strife" Hayes: the idea of MMO designer gluttony as the overproduction of systems for their own sake.



It's an issue, and one that people should be wary of. This, however, is not that. The intention is three-fold: 
1) Make Wizards/Sorcerers the most comprehensive caster classes.
2) Create greater class fantasy in the other caster classes by taking away specific spell level gains to add in thematic abilities.
3) Help to foster a greater sense of difference between the spellcasting classes.


EzekielRaiden said:


> While it is true that people come to understand things only if they are taught, that does not actually respond to the first criticism: "that's too complex." You may believe "that's too complex" and "that doesn't make sense" are synonymous, but you would be incorrect. Things not making sense is a fault of the explanation process, which can be fixed as you suggested, by giving better explanations. Things being unnecessarily complex cannot be fixed by better explanations; they can only be fixed by making them less complicated.



I like that you presume to know what I believe, here. That is really great for making sure that two people having a discussion are on equal footing and not at all off-putting.

Whether something is "Too Complex" is always going to be an arbitrary distinction applied to a system by an external observer. And it almost always comes from a lack of understanding of why something is complex to the degree that it is. In the rare event that it isn't based on lack of understanding the external observer can offer a simpler solution to attain the same goal.

For example, MMO designers who can critique each other's systems and craft a solution that is less complex.


EzekielRaiden said:


> One of the big problems with D&D is that it can be difficult to get into. It has extremely effective word of mouth marketing, because anyone who wants to DM must convince at least a few other people to play with them. But the market is still extremely small. As in, 5e right now has sold roughly as well as a moderately-successful niche video game. That's not an insult; for 5e to have done even that well is impressive by tabletop gaming standards. Part of having done that well, however, is the level of effort put into making it approachable. Now, sometimes, problems with how approachable a game is _can_ be fixed by improving its presentation--that was one of the lessons learned from 4e, for example. But the thing you are asking for isn't that, _by your own admission_. This is not "take a complex thing and explain it better." It is "make a thing more complex because more complexity is inherently better than less complexity." And that's simply not true.



If you think "These two classes have a similar progression in power that isn't exactly the same but they get a cool ability and we changed the name of how one of them does magic to show that difference exists" is too complex for the average new D&D player who also has to absorb that Warlocks and Wizards both get to cast spells but do so in wildly different progressions and recovery mechanics to the spellcaster that can also turn into a bear for no reason...

I think your expectations of new players might be a touch low.


EzekielRaiden said:


> Don't get me wrong. I _like_ crunchy systems. 4e is my favorite version of D&D. But complexity _for its own sake_ is gluttonous game design. It is filling up the game with more things to learn solely so that there _are_ more things to learn. That, right there, turns people off of a game. The initial exposure period, which sometimes may be _only an hour_ but is certainly less than a single evening, is absolutely critical for getting players interested and invested into a game. D&D is, and has long been, _really really REALLY_ awful at actually making this intro period effective. It tends to focus on conveying the _whole_ of the rules, rather than the _necessary_ rules. It tends to focus on _many_ systems, rather than _elegant_ systems. And, perhaps worst of all, many editions--including 5e, which actually backslid on this issue--put an enormous weight on the DM's shoulders and do not take basic efforts to lessen that weight.



This isn't crunchy, really. Way -less- Crunchy than Eldritch Invocations, at the very least.

It trades out a spell level in the class design for a class power equivalent to that spell level. The apparent complexity is, of course, a matter of understanding. 


EzekielRaiden said:


> Keeping class mechanics interestingly varied is an important element of any class-based game design. You are not wrong to want such variety. This is just a system unlikely to support one of the key goals of 5th edition: reaching more fans, growing the base. This is something that will only appeal to the hardcore/veteran players, and which offers little to no actual design benefits _other than_ being a new shiny thing for hardcore/veteran players to play with. The push toward shared standards is not simply a matter of ease of design; it exists specifically to help make the new player experience more welcoming so people will _want_ to keep playing.



I'm glad I'm not wrong to want something.

Systems largely don't reach more fans or grow the base. Know what does? Advertising. Word of mouth. CelebriD&D.

You think the rules changes from 3.0 to 3.5 really made a huge difference in how the game was received between 2000 and 2003? You think Pathfinder in 2009 was such a super popular hit as to literally change the face of TTRPGs for the first time in literal decades by taking more than 3% of the pie for itself was because they had better systemization that made it -easier- for new players to join the hobby?

No. It had cool splashy art, an interesting world, it was advertised effectively, and it retained the core ideals of D&D 3.5 when 4e came out and shook things up.

Meanwhile 4e, which was basically a whole other game system, sold half again as many units in 2008 than 3e did back in 2000. Does that mean it's a better game and better received and it's systems design was better? 

No. It got marketed to hell and back compared to 3e. They even did cutesy little animations like this:

And they spread those videos on Twitter and Facebook and any other platform they could get onto to increase word of mouth and engagement.

D&D is getting bigger for two reasons, and two reasons only.
1) Cultural Momentum.
2) Advertising.

Changing or adding systems does nothing to alter those two things unless you change the systems so -drastically- as to somehow undermine the cultural momentum.


EzekielRaiden said:


> As I said above: consider whether this is "so nice" because it would give _you personally_ something fresh and new to work with, or "so nice" because it would make a better gaming experience for everyone involved, _including the brand-new people that have to learn it_.



Some of column A, some of column B. 

Bear in mind, 5.5e is going to be something new that everyone, _including the brand new people who have to learn it_, has to learn. Whether that's a dozen small changes or a handful of large ones.


EzekielRaiden said:


> Because if the answer is the former, then it may just be the case that you are asking for mechanical _supplementation_ of the rules--things innately geared for people "already invested"--and not _fundamental_ rules changes that absolutely everyone has to abide by.



I like the accent you put on supplementation of the rules. Presents it as a house-rule type situation when it would, if followed through on the proposal, be a fundamental change that exists in the 5.5e rulebook.

Honestly, Ezekiel, if you're worried about change for change's sake or complexity for complexity's sake or whatever you need to go to WotC and complain to them for putting out a new edition or a revised edition. I'm just suggesting a cool thing they could put into that revised addition that would be nifty to have.

Here's hoping they don't streamline it so hard we get 4.5e.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Steampunkette said:


> Honestly, Ezekiel, if you're worried about change for change's sake or complexity for complexity's sake or whatever you need to go to WotC and complain to them for putting out a new edition or a revised edition. I'm just suggesting a cool thing they could put into that revised addition that would be nifty to have.



Okay.

Who benefits from this change? What are those benefits?

Sell me on it. Don't just say it would be cool or nifty. What is _gained_ from making things work this way? And what is _paid_ for it?


----------



## Crimson Longinus

No, this is frankly a terrible idea. Making one class' 9th level spell to be equal to another's 7th level spell and third's 5th level spell is massively unintuitive and annoying. It is just making things more confusing for no sensible reason.


----------



## Faolyn

No. _But_ I think each class should far more unique spell lists, with very little crossover. Although I'm not sure what to do with the wizard/sorcerer thing, since as written, sorcerers are basically blasty wizards. Maybe make up multiple spell lists, or say they can pick spells from any list but only from a select number of schools.


----------



## Steampunkette

EzekielRaiden said:


> Okay.
> 
> Who benefits from this change? What are those benefits?
> 
> Sell me on it. Don't just say it would be cool or nifty. What is _gained_ from making things work this way? And what is _paid_ for it?



I can't sell what you don't want to buy. You walked into this conversation showing, clearly, that your mind was made up on this being complexity for complexity's sake from your very first line. In my response I broke down how it wasn't for complexity's sake, the benefits it would create in the first -line- of my response, and why your argument toward growing the brand was fallacious.

If you had wanted to understand the benefits, you'd already know what I think they are.

I've neither the time nor the energy to try and unwedge that boulder.


Crimson Longinus said:


> No, this is frankly a terrible idea. Making one class' 9th level spell to be equal to another's 7th level spell and third's 5th level spell is massively unintuitive and annoying. It is just making things more confusing for no sensible reason.



We exist in a world where England uses pounds, kilograms, and stones to measure weights but -this- is massively unintuitive? 

I expressed my reasons. If you find them nonsensical I can't help ya.


Faolyn said:


> No. _But_ I think each class should far more unique spell lists, with very little crossover. Although I'm not sure what to do with the wizard/sorcerer thing, since as written, sorcerers are basically blasty wizards. Maybe make up multiple spell lists, or say they can pick spells from any list but only from a select number of schools.



It'd certainly help, for sure!


----------



## Burnside

I'd rather it be left up to players & DMs whether a given character's magic is divine or arcane or occult or otherwise in origin, rather than codified in the rulebook.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Steampunkette said:


> We exist in a world where England uses pounds, kilograms, and stones to measure weights but -this- is massively unintuitive?



That is massively unintuitive nonsense too, and you're basically trying to convince people who are used to metric to swap to such an incoherent system.



Steampunkette said:


> I expressed my reasons. If you find them nonsensical I can't help ya.



You really didn't express any reason beyond wanting it them to be different to be different. I want classes to be more differentiated too, but switching some boring numbers around so that they become more confusing is not a good differentiation.


----------



## Faolyn

Steampunkette said:


> We exist in a world where England uses pounds, kilograms, and stones to measure weights but -this- is massively unintuitive?



To be fair, most people don't use these all at the same time. Few people say "this weighs 8 kilograms, 3 ounces." At least not seriously (I did know a woman who would use "meteryards" when talking about measurements in-game).


----------



## cbwjm

I think one of the things I'd hate about this system is going back to the old "Same spell, different level" that classes had. One of the things that I think was an improvement in 5e was the decision to make spells like animate dead a 3rd level spell instead of 3rd level for a priest, 4th level for a wizard. I far prefer that spells have a set level and that level is the same for each class, no matter when they gain access to those spell slots.


----------



## Bacon Bits

Steampunkette said:


> Wizards and Sorcerers should have 9 levels of Arcane Spells.
> Clerics and Druids should have 7 circles of Divine Spells.
> Bards and Warlocks should have 5 mysteries of Occult Spells.




I think 9  spell levels is still too many. Plus the fact that all the existing spells at level 7 and higher, with the lone exception of Wish because it's a sacred cow, do not add anything truly beneficial to the game. I think it's all bad design at those level.

My frustration is with half casters and third casters. I think it's fine to get a spell level 2-3 levels behind a full caster. I think it's honking absurd to get a spell level _6-9 levels_ behind a full caster. Simply put, there is no way for those new spells to still be the same spells that the other class got and not have them end up completely underpowered. It's ridiculously depressing as a player.

So, what I would do is this:


LevelHeavyweight CasterMiddleweight CasterLightweight Caster11--211-3211422153216322743284329543105431165412654

And then I would limit the number of spells per level per day. Heavyweights get up to 4 spells per level per day. Middleweights get 2-3 spells per level per day. Lightweights get 1-2 spells per level per day.

I don't particularly care what happens above level 12, and 5e's design tells me that WotC doesn't really, either.



Rabulias said:


> Yeah this would be a nightmare to sort out with multiclassing.




Multiclassing rules are a tail wagging the dog. The game should, first and foremost, work with single class rules. If rules can't be envisioned that make sense, then _ditch multiclassing_.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

UngeheuerLich said:


> I honestly don't think it is a good Idea.
> Part of that balancing was having the same spell at different levels for different classes.



yeah the idea of keeping 3rd level spells balanced with 3rd level spells only works if you remove fireball... but I think it is worth a try.

I'm not on board for bringing back 'differences' just for difference sake.


----------



## Alzrius

Steampunkette said:


> D&D is getting bigger for two reasons, and two reasons only.
> 1) Cultural Momentum.
> 2) Advertising.
> 
> Changing or adding systems does nothing to alter those two things unless you change the systems so -drastically- as to somehow undermine the cultural momentum.



Normally I would have just tagged this with a like, but that was a long post and I wanted to highlight that this was the specific part that I found to be praiseworthy.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

I wouldn't mind if clerics got warlock casting (but domain spells didn't count against spells known or prepared) and got more specific "divine interventions" instead of 6-9 level spells.

I would cut the wizard list but move magical secrets to them (at lower levels, they could only learn spells from their school).


----------



## Jacob Lewis

I don't know that many people who might care so much about what level of spells a character class gets at 18th level if most campaigns rarely get past 10th.


----------



## Minigiant

I mean it could work.
The issue is you have to 


Use a lot of class exclusive spells
Determine what each progression does for the PC.
For example Rangers work as 1/2 casters because its spell are just buffs of attacks, defense, and stealth and divination and communication magic. The later is fine at spell level 1-5. 

If you do 3/4 caster, you must determine *what is the difference between a 7th level spell and a 9th level spell.*


----------



## Minigiant

Bacon Bits said:


> My frustration is with half casters and third casters. I think it's fine to get a spell level 2-3 levels behind a full caster. I think it's honking absurd to get a spell level _6-9 levels_ behind a full caster. Simply put, there is no way for those new spells to still be the same spells that the other class got and not have them end up completely underpowered. It's ridiculously depressing as a player.



That's the point.

The "core" spells of a full caster, half caster, and third casters are different sets of spells. A ranger isn't throwing fireballs. That's straight up 1990s game design that we learned didn't work 30 years ago. A ranger is casting _swift quiver_ and_ water walk _to shoot a ton of arrows from the middle of a pond.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Steampunkette said:


> We exist in a world where England uses pounds, kilograms, and stones to measure weights but -this- is massively unintuitive?



Only Imperialists use Imperial units.

Sensible people us SI units, even in England.


----------



## bedir than

I'm surprised this is unstated (I think), but the biggest reason 5.5/2024 shouldn't do this is because this set of changes would make 5e incompatible with the new edition.


----------



## Shades of Eternity

Honestly, spells are already an issue in dungeons and dragons by being rule breakers.

The last thing we need is spellcaster's apartheid.

If your going to introduce new magic, make it so distinct that it doesn't use spell levels, but also creates an agony of choice, otherwise nobody will pick the new class.


----------



## nevin

Steampunkette said:


> Wizards and Sorcerers should have 9 levels of Arcane Spells.
> Clerics and Druids should have 7 circles of Divine Spells.
> Bards and Warlocks should have 5 mysteries of Occult Spells.
> 
> And they should all map to be equal at max-level for the power of a given spell. And also be largely, but not completely, separate from each other.
> 
> Sound insane? It is a bit. But c'mon, at least it would make the caster classes leveling more interesting and varied, and make room for stronger class and subclass abilities in the gap-levels between spell level increases for Bards, Clerics, Druids, and Warlocks.
> 
> Wizards and Sorcerers get access to a new level of spell every odd numbered level per usual. Clerics and Druids get a "Gap" level for 5th where they get cool Cleric and Druid themed stuff equivalent to extra attack or third level spellcasting. Same thing happens again at level 15 instead of getting 7th level spells. And, of course, Commensurately fewer spell slots.
> 
> Warlocks and bards, on the other hand, don't get 2nd level spells at 3rd, but at 5th their 2nd mystery spell slots are equal to 3rd level spells and they get something cool at level 3, instead. Same thing happens at level 9 and 11, then again at at 17.
> 
> All four of those classes get commensurately fewer spell slots compared to the wizard/sorcerer, with bard/warlock getting the least number of slots out of any 'full caster'.
> 
> And then the -actual- half-casters, Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knights, Paladins, Rangers, etc, follow the same sort of format. Tricksters and Knights get 4 levels of spellcasting, Paladins and Rangers only get 3 circles, but cooler tricks that better encapsulate Paladin/Ranger concepts when their circles skip.
> 
> L--S C M
> 1--1 1 1
> 3--2 2 1
> 5--3 2 2
> 7--4 3 3
> 9--5 4 3
> 11-6 5 3
> 13-7 6 4
> 15-8 6 4
> 17-9 7 5
> 
> I know what you're thinking. "That's too complex! It doesn't make sense!" to which I say "Okay. Cool. Do it anyway. Only way people come to understand is through either laborious discussion or simple demonstration."
> 
> They're not gonna do it, obviously, as it would mean more writing, more pages, more balancing between spells... and that's not something they want to do for their steamlined game... But it'd be so nice if they did...



pathfinder tried that and it's a freaking mess.


----------



## the Jester

I see a lot of added complexity combined with a total lack of backwards compatibility here in exchange for.... nothing. Sorry, but I don't see any upside at all.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Paul Farquhar said:


> Only Imperialists use Imperial units.
> 
> Sensible people us SI units, even in England.



Good thing the United States doesn't use Imperial units then, isn't it?

(I have Opinions about this one. Despite being a scientist and preferring metric units for scientific measures!)


----------



## Blue

Let me throw out a variation on this whole idea.

There are three spell progressions, and the first time you get spellcasting (excluding Warlock), you pick one.  It stays with the character, regardless of multiclassing, just like the one chart does now.

One goes 1-9th level, but has the least spell slots.  Heck, you even lose lower level slots at you are getting higher level ones, so a 20th level pure caster might have one 1st through 2rd level, two 2nd through 6th, and one each 7th through 9th.

The second goes 1st thru 7th, advancing a pure caster to a new spell level every three class levels instead of every two with 6th and 7th a little rushed to get in by 20.  But you have more spells in each slot.

The final one is closer to the warlock.  A pure caster would get new spell levels every 4 or 5 class levels topping at 5th level spells around 17th, but they the most slots and their slots are distributed mostly in the highest level slots.  So a 20th level caster might have two each 1st & 2nd level slots, three 3rd level slots, four 4th level slots and three 5th level slots.

So no matter how you multiclass or if you are full, half, or 1/3 caster, it's just swapping to the chart you pick.  I can see one player with a paladin wanting the more-slots chart for more divine smites, and another wanting the higher-level chart for access to spells like Greater Find Steed.

Note: all of my examples are less powerful then the current chart to help adjust for my less-encounters-per-day style of running.  Calibrate where you are comfortable with for the 1st to 9th, and then adjust from there that the others get more total slots.


----------



## Vael

I'll say that I think having more classes/subclasses like the Warlock that aren't locked into the unified spellcaster progression (1/3, 1/2, full) would be a good idea. But I don't care for a lot of the suggestions here as they seem overly complicated, and I still have to explain how 5e spellcasting works. I think locking down that a 4th level spell is a 4th level spell, and not allowing the 3.5 of it's a 4th for a Druid but a 3rd for a Cleric was a necessary codification. I think most of the core classes working off of the unified spellcaster progression is also good.

The main example I'd use is the Artificer, which is one of my favourite classes. I've soured a little on its 5e implementation, as it feels like it gets its core competencies too late in the game. If it were an "Infusion caster" and wasn't a locked in a 1/2 caster progression, it'd have more freedom in how it progresses and how it was designed.


----------



## Umbran

Steampunkette said:


> But it'd be so nice if they did...




Why?

I mean that as an honest question.  You say this "should" be done.  Why?  What is gained from this?  

In many places, folks state their preferred solution, without every being clear about what problem the solution is intended to fix.  And that closes discussion of alternatives or adjustments to the scheme.


----------



## Mythos Enthusiast

I think they just prefer this for aesthetic reasons - which is fine. I like aesthetic differences too.


----------



## Steampunkette

Umbran said:


> Why?
> 
> I mean that as an honest question.  You say this "should" be done.  Why?  What is gained from this?
> 
> In many places, folks state their preferred solution, without every being clear about what problem the solution is intended to fix.  And that closes discussion of alternatives or adjustments to the scheme.



I gave reasons in a post where I was challenged about them.
1) Make Wizards/Sorcerers the most comprehensive caster classes.
2) Create greater class fantasy in the other caster classes by taking away specific spell level gains to add in thematic abilities.
3) Help to foster a greater sense of difference between the spellcasting classes.

By adding granularity to spellcasting you create a feeling of more significant difference between different kinds of spellcaster, different kinds of magic. And different leveling schemes while retaining the same overall leveling scheme.

Arcane magic becomes the steady progression of mastery over magic. While Clerics and Druids have their focus split with religious rites and whatever but still hold their own in overall power to arcanists. And then Warlocks and Bards, as occultists, take giant steps in power but plateau for a while between as they seek out -other- ways to flex their power before they attain a new level of power. Big mystical breakthroughs rather than continued study, sort of.

And then you have the design space it creates. What ability could you give to someone that is as powerful as 2nd level spellcasting? What class identity can you put in at that level that winds up dropped off to the wayside because they get new spells and thus need no class ability in standard 5e?









						Cleric
					

Cleric Class Details Arms and eyes upraised toward the sun and a prayer on his lips, an elf begins to glow with an inner light that spill...




					www.dndbeyond.com
				











						Druid
					

Druid Class Details Holding high a gnarled staff wreathed with holly, an elf summons the fury of the storm and calls down explosive bolts...




					www.dndbeyond.com
				




Look at those class tables. They get almost nothing class specific after level 3. It's just improvement of their early level class-defining trait(s) and then Divine Intervention. Other than higher level spells there's just so little to look forward to. And, honestly... that's the same as Wizard.









						Wizard
					

Wizard Class Details Clad in the silver robes that denote her station, an elf closes her eyes to shut out the distractions of the battlef...




					www.dndbeyond.com
				




Warlocks, at least, with their invocations get a variety of interesting options they can manipulate at different levels. And bards are a bit better off than most casters. But compare them to Barbarians and Rangers, Paladins and Rogues, Monks too. Fighters, not so much because they're designed to be as basic and generic as possible... The Wizards of Martial combat.

Practically every level sees new and interesting abilities that are thematic to the class. Gives them something unique an engaging. But spellcasters? "You get a new level of spells. Enjoy."

Sure, to some degree that means you get 'more customization' over your class... but it's kind of an illusion since you'll almost always take the "Good" spells and ignore the "Bad" ones, every time. I'm not even talking about optimization, here, either. Not talking about the people with spreadsheets figuring out which spells are the "Best".

I'm talking about things like _Rope Trick_ versus_ Invisibility_. If you're a wizard it might be good to have Rope Trick in your spellbook for specific situations, but a Sorcerer whose spells are limited? _Invisibility_ is going to be significantly more useful in a wider variety of situations.

To me? It just seems like this creates way more space to make the classes more interesting than a spell list.


----------



## Vael

The main reason I choose to play casters more often than not is I'll take access to a higher level of spells over ... Brutal Critical? Another Sneak attack die? 

Spellcasting is already one of the most complicated mechanics in DnD, and while I could see making some classes use different casting mechanics, I look more at the half-casters: Rangers and Artificers (Paladins are fine) that might benefit. Making Clerics only get 7th level spells, but they're still 9th level spells in power is not what I would call an improvement to spellcasting.


----------



## Umbran

Steampunkette said:


> I gave reasons in a post where I was challenged about them.




Fair.  



Steampunkette said:


> 1) Make Wizards/Sorcerers the most comprehensive caster classes.
> 2) Create greater class fantasy in the other caster classes by taking away specific spell level gains to add in thematic abilities.
> 3) Help to foster a greater sense of difference between the spellcasting classes.




So, it seems to me that you bury the lede by putting (3) at the end, because it looks to me that (1) and (2) are specific desired solutions for (3).  




Steampunkette said:


> And different leveling schemes while retaining the same overall leveling scheme.




This sounds self-contradictory to me.



Steampunkette said:


> And then you have the design space it creates.




There's a problem with increasing design space - larger design space means _more rules_. The larger the design space, the more your rules bloat to fill that space. Given how common a criticism bloat was for 3.x, I am not sure ensconcing that in the core rules is really a great plan, given that 5e isn't really a lightweight game as it is.

For a 3rd party publisher to work up variations would be fine. But having a goodly amount of regularity or simplicity in the core rules of the base product does have advantages, and you'd have to weigh the improvements against those losses, as well as the issues of balance already mentioned. 

Part of why I asked what actual problem needed solving is that there may already be solutions that could be applied without increasing the complexity much.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Minigiant said:


> That's the point.
> 
> The "core" spells of a full caster, half caster, and third casters are different sets of spells. A ranger isn't throwing fireballs. That's straight up 1990s game design that we learned didn't work 30 years ago. A ranger is casting _swift quiver_ and_ water walk _to shoot a ton of arrows from the middle of a pond.



The big problem of course is that the Lore Bard stole Swift Quiver about seven levels before the ranger grabbed it.


----------



## Minigiant

Neonchameleon said:


> The big problem of course is that the Lore Bard stole Swift Quiver about seven levels before the ranger grabbed it.



A Lore Bard who grabbed Swift Quiver wasted a Secret.


----------



## Minigiant

Since Resurrection is 7th level. If you want diverse casters.

Noncaster don't rely on spells: Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Barbarian, They might get some magic from subclasses to be third casters. *Their offense comes from their strong base weapon attacks.*

Half casters are Magic Warriors: Ranger, Paladin, _Gish_. They have spells up to the 5th level and get the most mileage out of attack buffs. *Their offense comes from magically buffed weapon attacks.*

3/4 casters are Support Healers: Bard, Artificer, _Shaman, Archivist_. They have access to spells up to level 7 and have a lot of slots to heal and buff. *Their offense comes from cantrips.*

Full casters are Primary Casters: Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid. They have access to spells of the 9th level. *Their offense is based on using their top 4 levels of spell slots.*

The question is where to put Warlock.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Minigiant said:


> The question is where to put Warlock.



On the bus home.


----------



## Steampunkette

Umbran said:


> So, it seems to me that you bury the lede by putting (3) at the end, because it looks to me that (1) and (2) are specific desired solutions for (3).



Fair.


Umbran said:


> This sounds self-contradictory to me.



Everyone still gets the same 1-20, everyone gets the same overall power level, not everyone takes the same route to get there (9 discrete levels of spellcasting)

Maintain the overall leveling scheme (Not changing the rate of XP gain or significant power differences between the classes) while changing the leveling scheme (loss of specific spell levels in favor of class-mechanics and benefits that are more thematic).

It was a weird way to phrase it.


Umbran said:


> There's a problem with increasing design space - larger design space means _more rules_. The larger the design space, the more your rules bloat to fill that space. Given how common a criticism bloat was for 3.x, I am not sure ensconcing that in the core rules is really a great plan, given that 5e isn't really a lightweight game as it is.
> 
> For a 3rd party publisher to work up variations would be fine. But having a goodly amount of regularity or simplicity in the core rules of the base product does have advantages, and you'd have to weigh the improvements against those losses, as well as the issues of balance already mentioned.



Design space in classes means more -abilities-. Whether that creates more rules or more exceptions to rules is up to the designers. But every spell you create is no less "More Rules" than any class ability that you create. Same thing with every Subclass and every Race. WotC is clearly not afraid of complicating their game further and is releasing 5.5e as a way to codify the changes they've made over the past decade.

Unless their intention is to strip out complexity that already exists in 5e, we're going to have a more rules-heavy game after it comes out. 

It's only going to be a question of which rules are added, or removed, and whether people think those changes are 'too complicated'. Which, as previously established, is going to be a very subjective and personal threshold that is, ultimately, arbitrary.


Umbran said:


> Part of why I asked what actual problem needed solving is that there may already be solutions that could be applied without increasing the complexity much.



I really and -truly- hate this phrasing. "Actual Problem" do you know why?

Because like "Too Complicated" it's subjective. Any person's problems with the game is going to be subjective. Phrasing it as "Actual Problem" places a bar where I have to convince you, personally, that the overwhelming sameness between the caster classes is a problem. Unless it's a clear error, like a Typo, it'll be subjective. (More or less, people still die on the color/colour hill to this day...)

But you've already established that you -like- the regularity and simplicity. You think it's got it's advantages and anything needs to be weighed against the loss of simplicity.

It makes you the arbiter of whether the problems I have with the game's design are "Actual" problems or "Personal" problems, with the latter being either irrelevant or at the least less worthy of consideration.

Very frustrating.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer

cbwjm said:


> I think one of the things I'd hate about this system is going back to the old "Same spell, different level" that classes had. One of the things that I think was an improvement in 5e was the decision to make spells like animate dead a 3rd level spell instead of 3rd level for a priest, 4th level for a wizard. I far prefer that spells have a set level and that level is the same for each class, no matter when they gain access to those spell slots.



The question is why should Animate Dead be on more than one spell list?  

having unique spell lists would go a long way to making different casters feel more unique.


----------



## steeldragons

I am 100% behind making classes feel different.

I am 150% behind making casting classes feel different from each other.

I am 173% that there is too much/many casters doing too much casting in 5e.

AND, I am 187% -maybe 200- having different casting classes, not just feel, but play differently. Not in narrow-to-meaningless ways, or necessarily mechanics (though those certainly matter/contribute), but have different expertises/areas they excel.

Different casting level caps by classes could, in fact, be a good part of that third "difference" making.

I think the way you are differentiating the classes works pretty well...and is similiar in some respects to my own homebrew breakdown. I think weeding out Bards and Warlocks as their own, most limited casting, but with more (or most?) explicit supernatural powers/"spell-like" abilities, AND the addition of a tertiary (would be quadrilateral, in my system/world) "Occult" power source is a very exciting innovation.

For me, first off, there are Mystic classes -whose primary feature/difference from other classes is their capacity to "Channel [Source/Energy]," whether that is Divine energies, Nature [Primal] energies, or some other source -which could easily be defined as Arcane (or "Occult"). Both Bards and -were I to include/have one- Warlocks would fall into the Mystic class. This also lets them have abilities that are not "magic" based/dependent, like some combat ability, some armors more weapons than wizardly mages would be allowed.

And, there are Wizard classes -whose primary feature/difference from other classes is their capacity for "[Arcane] Magic Use," as in spells, ritual, magic item use, and creation/expansion of all of those.

In my game, spell progression for Mystics are a "secondary" feature, not kicking in until 3rd level. So progression is, and remains, behind Wizard classes of the same level. The Mystics' primary magics are from/through their channeling. They are imbued with the power that permits them to do supernatural things/effects. Upon advancing levels, learning to use that power to "fuel" spells is a skill/byproduct of that power with which they are imbued.

I see a very clear (and easy) narrative/flavor difference that you could separate out the Bard and Warlock (and probably other similar archetypes) in that, whereas a Cleric a Druid is a "conduit" for their power source: e.g. the power comes into the caster and flows out through the channel or spell effect; they in the true sense "invoke" their power, and the power does what the cleric wants.

For an "Occult" class, the Bard/Warlock is more of a "battery." They "channel" in a way, but that is more that the power comes in to them, and kinda just bubbles/boils there for a time, until the Bard or Warlock "spends/expels" it for some effect they can do, whether that is a magical bardic song-channel, a warlock's impromptu "patron power/feature," or casting spells. These classes do "invoke" their power (either from the "Cosmos/Divine Music/Song of Creation," however you want to flavor the Bard's source, or a Warlock's [arcane] Patron -assuming that base flavor structure for the class remains), but they also, then, specifically "Evoke" that power which they have/store. As they advance level, they -like all casters- have more power to use for different things...and some of those things can be spells and higher levels of spells, but it needn't be the only supernatural way outpour their energy.

The Wizards then (Mages, Illusionists, Psychics, Witches, et al, for my system/setting) are specifically, and accurately (rather than a narrow "specialist school"), "evokers." They use incantation, ritual, or device to pull the energies (magic), directly, from the universe/cosmos in specific ways to elicit specific (reliably repeatable) effects. (Whether you want to fluff that cosmic energy as stemming from a "Weave" or some cosmic "radiation" inherent to the world's material universe or born of unicorn sneezes and pixie farts, what have you, etc...).

"Wizardly" casters figure out (through learning or innate ability, and really, in almost all cases a combination of the two - making the wizard/sorcerer split less than unnecessary, imo) how to shape the raw energy to do things they want.

The "Mystical" invoker-casters are granted that energy "pre-shaped" as it were.

The "invoker/evoker" combo "Occult" casters are granted [or siphon off?] the raw energy (whereas the full evoking "wizards" have to grab/grapple/harness/direct the energy themselves, Bards/Warlocks are "given/granted/gifted/imbued" with it), store it/build it up, and then figure out how they can/want to shape it.

They are the magical "cheats," as it were. The guys copying their neighbors' work. Finding the "shortcuts" to power instead of the intense training/study/effort of the wizards or devotion/enlightenment/spiritual fortitude of the mystics.  

And, yes, I don't see why -if they are being "balanced" from their lack of higher level spells with additional supernatural abilities, channelled effects, and/or innate powers- then where's the harm in limiting their casting caps? I might even go further than the initial proposal...as spell power levels on a scale of "1-9" are really divvied up in triads: 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9. Adding in "cantrips/0 level" you could argue there's 10 spell levels.

So, if you're going to break the casting classes up, they should be broken on those lines, I'd say.
Mages (arcane), Specialists (specific arcane), Psychics (mental), witches (combo): Cantrips - 9.
Clerics (divine), Druids (nature), shamans (spirit world/combo): 1 - 6, begin spell accumulation at 3rd level.
Bards (nature), Warlocks (arcane), artificers(?): Cantrips - 5, cantrips at 1st level, begin spell accumulation at 3rd (or 5th?) level.

I don't necessarily use them or -in the Ranger's or Monk's cases allow them spells at all, but if you are using spells or granting supernatural effects, the flavor/power equality should be, roughly:
Paladins, Rangers, Monks (argument could be made for eldritch knight and arcane trickster types here, too): 1-3, begin spell accumulation at 5th (or even 7th?) level.

I'm really liking this direction.


----------



## Vaalingrade

I'd rather have 20 distinct levels of spellcasting.

No more weird corner cases where one spell of a level is just way better for that level, but not as good at the next level. No more clunky attempt to scale non-damage spells up.

Oh, and everyone gets a separate spell list. No copies.

The pare down the number of spells in the book, we remove the wizard.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer

steeldragons said:


> I am 100% behind making classes feel different.
> 
> I am 150% behind making casting classes feel different from each other.
> 
> I am 173% that there is too much/many casters doing too much casting in 5e.
> 
> AND, I am 187% -maybe 200- having different casting classes, not just feel, but play differently. Not in narrow-to-meaningless ways, or necessarily mechanics (though those certainly matter/contribute), but have different expertises/areas they excel.
> 
> Different casting level caps by classes could, in fact, be a good part of that third "difference" making.
> 
> I think the way you are differentiating the classes works pretty well...and is similiar in some respects to my own homebrew breakdown. I think weeding out Bards and Warlocks as their own, most limited casting, but with more (or most?) explicit supernatural powers/"spell-like" abilities, AND the addition of a tertiary (would be quadrilateral, in my system/world) "Occult" power source is a very exciting innovation.
> 
> For me, first off, there are Mystic classes -whose primary feature/difference from other classes is their capacity to "Channel [Source/Energy]," whether that is Divine energies, Nature [Primal] energies, or some other source -which could easily be defined as Arcane (or "Occult"). Both Bards and -were I to include/have one- Warlocks would fall into the Mystic class. This also lets them have abilities that are not "magic" based/dependent, like some combat ability, some armors more weapons than wizardly mages would be allowed.
> 
> And, there are Wizard classes -whose primary feature/difference from other classes is their capacity for "[Arcane] Magic Use," as in spells, ritual, magic item use, and creation/expansion of all of those.
> 
> In my game, spell progression for Mystics are a "secondary" feature, not kicking in until 3rd level. So progression is, and remains, behind Wizard classes of the same level. The Mystics' primary magics are from/through their channeling. They are imbued with the power that permits them to do supernatural things/effects. Upon advancing levels, learning to use that power to "fuel" spells is a skill/byproduct of that power with which they are imbued.
> 
> I see a very clear (and easy) narrative/flavor difference that you could separate out the Bard and Warlock (and probably other similar archetypes) in that, whereas a Cleric a Druid is a "conduit" for their power source: e.g. the power comes into the caster and flows out through the channel or spell effect; they in the true sense "invoke" their power, and the power does what the cleric wants.
> 
> For an "Occult" class, the Bard/Warlock is more of a "battery." They "channel" in a way, but that is more that the power comes in to them, and kinda just bubbles/boils there for a time, until the Bard or Warlock "spends/expels" it for some effect they can do, whether that is a magical bardic song-channel, a warlock's impromptu "patron power/feature," or casting spells. These classes do "invoke" their power (either from the "Cosmos/Divine Music/Song of Creation," however you want to flavor the Bard's source, or a Warlock's [arcane] Patron -assuming that base flavor structure for the class remains), but they also, then, specifically "Evoke" that power which they have/store. As they advance level, they -like all casters- have more power to use for different things...and some of those things can be spells and higher levels of spells, but it needn't be the only supernatural way outpour their energy.
> 
> The Wizards then (Mages, Illusionists, Psychics, Witches, et al, for my system/setting) are specifically, and accurately (rather than a narrow "specialist school"), "evokers." They use incantation, ritual, or device to pull the energies (magic), directly, from the universe/cosmos in specific ways to elicit specific (reliably repeatable) effects. (Whether you want to fluff that cosmic energy as stemming from a "Weave" or some cosmic "radiation" inherent to the world's material universe or born of unicorn sneezes and pixie farts, what have you, etc...).
> 
> "Wizardly" casters figure out (through learning or innate ability, and really, in almost all cases a combination of the two - making the wizard/sorcerer split less than unnecessary, imo) how to shape the raw energy to do things they want.
> 
> The "Mystical" invoker-casters are granted that energy "pre-shaped" as it were.
> 
> The "invoker/evoker" combo "Occult" casters are granted [or siphon off?] the raw energy (whereas the full evoking "wizards" have to grab/grapple/harness/direct the energy themselves, Bards/Warlocks are "given/granted/gifted/imbued" with it), store it/build it up, and then figure out how they can/want to shape it.
> 
> They are the magical "cheats," as it were. The guys copying their neighbors' work. Finding the "shortcuts" to power instead of the intense training/study/effort of the wizards or devotion/enlightenment/spiritual fortitude of the mystics.
> 
> And, yes, I don't see why -if they are being "balanced" from their lack of higher level spells with additional supernatural abilities, channelled effects, and/or innate powers- then where's the harm in limiting their casting caps? I might even go further than the initial proposal...as spell power levels on a scale of "1-9" are really divvied up in triads: 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9. Adding in "cantrips/0 level" you could argue there's 10 spell levels.
> 
> So, if you're going to break the casting classes up, they should be broken on those lines, I'd say.
> Mages (arcane), Specialists (specific arcane), Psychics (mental), witches (combo): Cantrips - 9.
> Clerics (divine), Druids (nature), shamans (spirit world/combo): 1 - 6, begin spell accumulation at 3rd level.
> Bards (nature), Warlocks (arcane), artificers(?): Cantrips - 5, cantrips at 1st level, begin spell accumulation at 3rd (or 5th?) level.
> 
> I don't necessarily use them or -in the Ranger's or Monk's cases allow them spells at all, but if you are using spells or granting supernatural effects, the flavor/power equality should be, roughly:
> Paladins, Rangers, Monks (argument could be made for eldritch knight and arcane trickster types here, too): 1-3, begin spell accumulation at 5th (or even 7th?) level.
> 
> I'm really liking this direction.



Wouldn’t it be nice if bards actually used the skill performance to cast their spells?  Instead of it being secondary to the class as a whole.


----------



## Faolyn

Steampunkette said:


> I really and -truly- hate this phrasing. "Actual Problem" do you know why?
> 
> Because like "Too Complicated" it's subjective. Any person's problems with the game is going to be subjective. Phrasing it as "Actual Problem" places a bar where I have to convince you, personally, that the overwhelming sameness between the caster classes is a problem. Unless it's a clear error, like a Typo, it'll be subjective. (More or less, people still die on the color/colour hill to this day...)
> 
> But you've already established that you -like- the regularity and simplicity. You think it's got it's advantages and anything needs to be weighed against the loss of simplicity.
> 
> It makes you the arbiter of whether the problems I have with the game's design are "Actual" problems or "Personal" problems, with the latter being either irrelevant or at the least less worthy of consideration.
> 
> Very frustrating.



I think what Umbran is asking is, what problem do _you _have with the way it is now?

And also, he's pointing out that there's a difference between "I have a problem" and "I have a problem, and from what I've seen, at least some other people have the same problem as well."


----------



## Mythos Enthusiast

Vaalingrade said:


> I'd rather have 20 distinct levels of spellcasting.
> 
> No more weird corner cases where one spell of a level is just way better for that level, but not as good at the next level. No more clunky attempt to scale non-damage spells up.
> 
> *Oh, and everyone gets a separate spell list. No copies.*
> 
> The pare down the number of spells in the book, we remove the wizard.



I agree with 25% of this post.


----------



## le Redoutable

just to add material :
in Ad&d 1st end 2nd Ed, after the name level, Clerics were climbing every 225.000 xp , while Magic-users would require 375.000 xp;

also good Clerics should have beneficial Necromantic spells, while Wizards had Energy Drain or the like ( ?? )


----------



## TaranTheWanderer

I’ve had an idea bouncing in my head for a while.  Dangerous Journeys had a really rich magic system and it would be nice to have something similar:

with the official books out, there are around 506 spells.  If you broke them up(or made new spells - you’d have to to make the lists even) you could have 16 distinct spellcasting lists if you put 30 spells per list. (I suggest less)

(this is just brain storming)

illusion
White (healing and buffing)
Dark (necromancy and death)
General
Divination
Abjuration
Etc…

Each list has 3 or 4 spells per level: one utility, attack, defence maybe crowd control.  Some lists will lean more to specific types: divination might have more utility while elemental might have more attack.  All lists go to 9th level.  Or 8th or whatever.

a wizard starts with General magic which has a good mix of offence and defense and utility but can only access 4th or 5th level spells at most.

at 3rd, as a class feature, they take a specialty (a major)which allows them to pick from one of the other lists and a spell level cap of 9th in that school and grants them access to some powers as they level.   They take a minor which allows them access to a 3rd list but can only access, at most, 3rd level spells from their minor school.   So a 20th level wizard might have up to 5th level General spells, 9th level dark magic spells and 3rd level elemental spells.  And  access to NO other spells.

another mage might have White and illusion.  So, as they level up, wizards really look different.

a generalist, on top of whatever powers you give to them can access minor spells from any list and gets access to 9th level general spells, including Wish.

Spellsinging (for bards)

clerics have own spell list with small lists based on the portfolios of their gods. Or portfolios gave access to some of the spell lists above.   It would be cool if they had long religious ceremonies that did cool stuff.

warlocks just take spells from whatever list is thematically appropriate for their patron.

way less overlap.


----------



## the Jester

Vaalingrade said:


> I'd rather have 20 distinct levels of spellcasting.
> 
> No more weird corner cases where one spell of a level is just way better for that level, but not as good at the next level. No more clunky attempt to scale non-damage spells up.
> 
> Oh, and everyone gets a separate spell list. No copies.
> 
> The pare down the number of spells in the book, we remove the wizard.



Sounds like you'd enjoy the powers from 4e. They were basically what you describe.


----------



## cbwjm

I think if I was going to redo spell lists, I'd follow pathfinder and create 3 or 4 types of magic with each class having access to a single list. There would be crossover in this system with many spells appearing on more than one list.

Possibly I'd base it on the colours of magic the gathering but each class would be able to add additional colours to their repertoire.

Or I'd throw all of the spells into a single list, create a single magic-user class and your subclass would alter your access, perhaps outright limiting some spells, otherwise improving your skill with certain spells.

I don't think any of these methods will actually happen, though maybe wotc will simplify things like pathfinder in the future. I do feel like the way dnd magic is now is so ingrained though that they'll keep individual spell lists for each class.


----------



## Vaalingrade

the Jester said:


> Sounds like you'd enjoy the powers from 4e. They were basically what you describe.



Yes. Yes I did.

Except the Daily part.

And the removing wizards.


----------



## steeldragons

I don't know if a breakdown of 16 magic topics is necessarily the way to go. ..30ish spells per grouping, divided across (let's say) 9 spell levels.

It is certainly doable, of course. You need to use more than 3 or 4 spells per level, though...simply to provide the "greatest hits" of different spells D&D folks expect. In my homebrew, I have 10-15 basically, for lower levels, with the standardized lists of "known spells" diminishing in number into the 5th, 6th, and 7+ levels. So, I get it, and its possible.

But I don't think it would really work for a D&D flavor of magic.

First, there is a certain amount of overlapping stuff that is, not only expected, but makes sense. Clerics would (and should) have a good deal of Abjuration magics...so do Abjuring mages, "White" witches, druids protecting their sacred sites... Conjurers sure need to know how to defend themselves from specific kinds of creatures. Trying to work a system without overlap, again possible, but I don't think preferred by the majority of players.

That said, I am fully on board that a reimagining of the "specialist school" structure we've had since 2e is definitely possible, warranted, and -I would think- could improve the flavor and archetypes of casters significantly more than what we are used to. I completely think different classes should have access to different spell lists...but that doesn't mean every spell has to be different. 

In the second, it just seems like a bit more complicated than our "simplified/back to basics" D&D sensibilities have been for this past edition.  

The third issue, I see, is basically related to #2 in that you begin to venture down the rabbit hole of "divine spheres" -which started in 2e with, what, like a dozen? And then 3.x comes along and we get umpteen more. Why have a dedicated spell list of "Nature spells," that includes your elemental and weather and animal and plant spells... when you can have a spell list of "Plant" and "Animal" and "Elemental?" NO WAIT, no "Elemental" (that includes weather), but "Fire" and "Air" and "Water" and "Earth" and, then, a separate "Weather," and ya know, some people count "Spirit/Soul/Aether" as a fifth element, do them too! Some use "Stone" and "Metal" and "Wood" as individual "Earth" spheres/flavors....and...and...and... You see how this goes?  

I think it would be more palatable for a new iteration to have a more defined and distinct breakdown of Magical "sources" and types/ways of making magic, beyond Divine/Arcane with VSM components. 

I've seen the breakdowns used by some homebrewers as : Arcane, Divine, Nature ("Primal"), Psychic, and Occult. I think that really covers/provides umbrellas for pretty much any flavor of magic-user we would traditionally need.

Then, you need to decide on the right distinctions of flavor and [flavorful] mechanics for the kinds of casters. 

Then, the rest of the ballgame are the actual lists of spells [and/or supernatural powers] for specific casters.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer

cbwjm said:


> I think if I was going to redo spell lists, I'd follow pathfinder and create 3 or 4 types of magic with each class having access to a single list. There would be crossover in this system with many spells appearing on more than one list.



Isn’t that how it already is? Several lists with crossover in each list?  I suppose it’s currently a curated list for each class (with piles of crossover) rather than a set of lists that classes have access to.

but, yeah, that’s kind of what I’m suggesting: several spell lists that each have unique spells.   Class FEATURES give characters access to specific lists.  So there may be some overlap there.

interestingly, dangerous journeys used a colour system for magic:
Black (evil stuff like hexing)
White(curing and beneficial)
Grey(illusion)
Red(elemental?)
Green(nature magic)

it also had: witchcraft, necromancy, sorcery, mysticism,  and lists of ‘divine’ spells.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer

steeldragons said:


> I don't know if a breakdown of 16 magic topics is necessarily the way to go. ..30ish spells per grouping, divided across (let's say) 9 spell levels.
> 
> It is certainly doable, of course. You need to use more than 3 or 4 spells per level, though...simply to provide the "greatest hits" of different spells D&D folks expect. In my homebrew, I have 10-15 basically, for lower levels, with the standardized lists of "known spells" diminishing in number into the 5th, 6th, and 7+ levels. So, I get it, and its possible.
> 
> But I don't think it would really work for a D&D flavor of magic.
> 
> First, there is a certain amount of overlapping stuff that is, not only expected, but makes sense. Clerics would (and should) have a good deal of Abjuration magics...so do Abjuring mages, "White" witches, druids protecting their sacred sites... Conjurers sure need to know how to defend themselves from specific kinds of creatures. Trying to work a system without overlap, again possible, but I don't think preferred by the majority of players.
> 
> That said, I am fully on board that a reimagining of the "specialist school" structure we've had since 2e is definitely possible, warranted, and -I would think- could improve the flavor and archetypes of casters significantly more than what we are used to. I completely think different classes should have access to different spell lists...but that doesn't mean every spell has to be different.
> 
> In the second, it just seems like a bit more complicated than our "simplified/back to basics" D&D sensibilities have been for this past edition.
> 
> The third issue, I see, is basically related to #2 in that you begin to venture down the rabbit hole of "divine spheres" -which started in 2e with, what, like a dozen? And then 3.x comes along and we get umpteen more. Why have a dedicated spell list of "Nature spells," that includes your elemental and weather and animal and plant spells... when you can have a spell list of "Plant" and "Animal" and "Elemental?" NO WAIT, no "Elemental" (that includes weather), but "Fire" and "Air" and "Water" and "Earth" and, then, a separate "Weather," and ya know, some people count "Spirit/Soul/Aether" as a fifth element, do …



The magic system, as is, is a huge list of spells for each class.  As I stated, 506 spells.   So dividing them into different categories isn’t any more confusing than having a list for each class.

as far as having too few spells/ level, I just imagined class features giving you access to more than one list.  So, having two lists gives you 6 to 8 spells/level.

in any case, it’s all theory.  I’d just like to see casters look different.   Maybe I’m hijacking the thread.  If so, I apologize to @Steampunkette


----------



## cbwjm

TaranTheWanderer said:


> Isn’t that how it already is? Several lists with crossover in each list? I suppose it’s currently a curated list for each class (with piles of crossover) rather than a set of lists that classes have access to.



It kind of is, but in pathfinder 2e it is split into 4 lists: Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Occult (or eldritch or something, I always forget the name of the 4th one. I looked it up, it was Occult). Then the different classes gain access to a specific list.

Arcane: wizard
Divine: cleric, paladin
Primal: druid, ranger
Occult: bard, witch
Sorcerer: check your bloodline. Might be the same with the witch, I'd have to reread core rules again (actually, it looks like the witch isn't out in Pathfinder 2e, or at least not in the books I have for it.).

I've been reading the old d20 WoW RPG and I quite liked how they worked. You have the main arcanist or healer list that everyone had access to, and then your path (subclass) gave you access to additional spells. Warlocks got conjuration, necromancers got necromancy, makes got various arcane spells. Same with the healer class and the priest, druid, and shaman paths. I'm somewhat tempted to ask my friends if they want to play that system next.


----------



## Steampunkette

You're good, @TaranTheWanderer!

I just want greater variation and interest in the casters.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer

cbwjm said:


> It kind of is, but in pathfinder 2e it is split into 4 lists: Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Occult (or eldritch or something, I always forget the name of the 4th one). Then the different classes gain access to a specific list.
> 
> Arcane: wizard
> Divine: cleric, paladin
> Primal: druid, ranger
> Occult: bard, witch
> Sorcerer: check your bloodline. Might be the same with the witch, I'd have to reread core rules again.
> 
> I've been reading the old d20 WoW RPG and I quite liked how they worked. You have the main arcanist or healer list that everyone had access to, and then your path (subclass) gave you access to additional spells. Warlocks got conjuration, necromancers got necromancy, makes got various arcane spells. Same with the healer class and the priest, druid, and shaman paths. I'm somewhat tempted to ask my friends if they want to play that system next.



Yeah, that sounds cool.  I really don’t like the direction they went with conjurers being all about teleporting instead of summoning.  Maybe there should be a summoner.


----------



## cbwjm

TaranTheWanderer said:


> Yeah, that sounds cool.  I really don’t like the direction they went with conjurers being all about teleporting instead of summoning.  Maybe there should be a summoner.



I'm definitely someone where the term conjurer summons up images of dark robed ritualists summoning up demons and elementals for power thanks primarily to all of the old Conan the Barbarian and other sword and sorcery books I've read over the years. I think it would be good to split the current conjurer subclass into two, one focused on summoning, the other teleportation.


----------



## nevin

it wasn't a bad idea in the earlier editions.  However in editions where classes get feats that may give them access to abilities from other classes it turns into a problem.  I don't know the feats in 5e but a perfect example in PF is  wizard's can take a discovery feat that lets them use alchemists recipes and convert them to spells.  But Alchemists  get certain spells at different levels because they are a hybrid class and if a DM doesn't pay attention you'll have a wizard casting some spells before the clerics and other classes get them.  things like Greater Restoration.  

I think it's just easier and less detail to remember if spell levels are standardized.  I used to like all the crunchy complicated stuff but it just gets in the way of the fun, or at least slows the game way down for those who do enjoy it.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Mechanical complexity is a small price to pay to make things less samey!


----------



## jmartkdr2

cbwjm said:


> It kind of is, but in pathfinder 2e it is split into 4 lists: Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Occult (or eldritch or something, I always forget the name of the 4th one. I looked it up, it was Occult). Then the different classes gain access to a specific list.
> 
> Arcane: wizard
> Divine: cleric, paladin
> Primal: druid, ranger
> Occult: bard, witch
> Sorcerer: check your bloodline. Might be the same with the witch, I'd have to reread core rules again (actually, it looks like the witch isn't out in Pathfinder 2e, or at least not in the books I have for it.).
> 
> I've been reading the old d20 WoW RPG and I quite liked how they worked. You have the main arcanist or healer list that everyone had access to, and then your path (subclass) gave you access to additional spells. Warlocks got conjuration, necromancers got necromancy, makes got various arcane spells. Same with the healer class and the priest, druid, and shaman paths. I'm somewhat tempted to ask my friends if they want to play that system next.



FYI: witch is by patron, Magus is arcane only, Summoner varies by tradition, and Oracles are divine. There's also some optional rules for going beyond that, including an alternative elemental spell list. 

I like the general idea but don't like the actual breakdown of the lists.


----------



## cbwjm

jmartkdr2 said:


> FYI: witch is by patron, Magus is arcane only, Summoner varies by tradition, and Oracles are divine. There's also some optional rules for going beyond that, including an alternative elemental spell list.
> 
> I like the general idea but don't like the actual breakdown of the lists.



Which book is the witch in? I thought I'd seen it but that may have been the playtest documents. I assume the oracle is also in the same book. I spotted the summoner when I went looking for the witch, also found the magus which is also arcane.

I tend to buy pathfinder books more out of interest than anything, not sure I'd be able to get my friends to try it out, though maybe I could run a one-shot.


----------



## steeldragons

cbwjm said:


> I'm definitely someone where the term conjurer summons up images of dark robed ritualists summoning up demons and elementals for power thanks primarily to all of the old Conan the Barbarian and other sword and sorcery books I've read over the years. I think it would be good to split the current conjurer subclass into two, one focused on summoning, the other teleportation.



I think this is a great thing to look at and think about...

As I said above, the "specialist school" structure as/for "Wizards 31 flavors," it might be very cool for the next edition (and other systems) to take the various flavors of specialists and make them different casters...not just different "wizards." 

To pull in the mechanical differentiations suggested by the OP, and elaborated/added to by myself, we'd have a game wherein you have something like:

"Evokers": The "Full caster," spell levels (cantrip) 1-9, from 1st level

Arcane: The Mage (nee wizard): Spells, spells, and more spells. All the spells. Magic Use is their thing. They use magic, primarily through spells. Slot progression. Combination spell prep and spontaneous selection mechanic added at higher levels.
Psychic: The Psychic (nee "psion"): Mental Powers: telepaths (communications, direct mind attacks/defenses, illusions), empaths (healers & emotion control/support), telekinetics ("force" mages, specific element kineticists), clairvoyants (seers, psi-rogues). Point progression. Accumulate different powers, tricks/stunts that can be done with those powers, use as much as you want as long as you have the points to do so.
The Illusionist: straddles the magics betwixt arcane and psychic with enchantments, phantasms, mind influencing/warping.
The Witch: spell list straddles arcane and nature spells, plus innate supernatural powers ("Witch's Crafts"), access to alternate types of spells (arcane and divine), psychic abilities, and occult powers through features, potions.
The Conjurer: spell list straddles arcane and divine spells, plus ritual and diagramatic use of non-divine magics, "ceremonial magics," binding circles/diagrams, et al, conjurations (of spirits, demons, undead, etc...)
"Invokers": The "3/4 caster," Channeling powers from 1st level, spell levels 1-6, from 3rd level: 

Divine: The Cleric: Channeling Divine powers (turn undead, sense divine, domain power) at 1st level. Additional channeling powers (by class or domain) 2nd level and every 4 levels after. Spell use: 1st level spells at 3rd level, caps 6th level spells at 13th level.
Nature: The Druid: Channeling Nature powers (pass without trace, sense nature, shapeshift, etc...) at 1st level. Additional channeling powers (by class or domain) 2nd level and every 4 levels after. Spell use: 1st level spells at 3rd level, caps 6th level spells at 13th level. 
Psychic: The Oracle/Diviner: Channeling Mental powers (auger, sense mind, devotion power) at 1st level. Additional channeling powers (by class or devotion) 2nd level and every 4 levels after. Spell use: 1st level spells at 3rd level, caps 6th level spells at 13th level.
Arcane: The Theurgist: Channeling Arcane powers (summon servant, sense magic, circle power) at 1st level. Additional channeling powers (by class or circle) 2nd level and every 4 levels after. Spell use: 1st level spells at 3rd level, caps 6th level spells at 13th level.
"Occultists": The "Half caster," Channeling powers and cantrips from 1st level, spell levels 1-5, from 3rd level: 

Arcane: The Warlock: Channeling Arcane Energies (eldritch blast, sense magic, patron power) at 1st level. Additional channeling powers (by class or patron) 2nd level and every 3 levels after. Spell use: Cantrips at 1st level, 1st level spells at 3rd level, caps 5th level spells at 15th level, additional/different spells by channeling/patron powers. 
Divine: The Shaman: Channeling Spirit [World] powers (entreat aid, sense spirit, etc... ) at 1st level. Additional channeling powers (by class or patron) 2nd level and every 3 levels after. Spell use: Cantrips at 1st level, 1st level spells at 3rd level, caps 5th level spells at 15th level, additional/different spells by channeling/spirit powers. 
Nature: The Bard: Channeling Nature powers (inspire courage, sense trouble, college power) at 1st level. Additional channeling powers (by class or college) 2nd level and every 3 levels after. Spell use: Cantrips at 1st level, 1st level spells at 3rd level, caps 5th level spells at 15th level, additional/different spells by channeling/college powers. 
Psychic: The Ascetic/Shukenja: Channeling Chi/Ki powers (stunning fist, sense danger, devotion power) at 1st level. Additional channeling powers (by class or devotion) 2nd level and every 3 levels after. Spell use: Cantrips at 1st level, 1st level spells at 3rd level, caps 5th level spells at 15th level, additional/different spells by channeling/patron powers.
"Dabblers" (working title): The "Third [Quarter?] caster," if such things are necessary to differentiate, Non-spell supernatural powers from 1st level, spell levels 1-3, from 5th level:

Arcane: The "Eldritch Knight"/spellblade/what have you arcane fighter-mage dude: enchant(ed) weapon, sorcerous strike (arcane smite), sorcerous shield, minimal arcane spell use
Divine: The Paladin: same ole typical paladin divine powers, channelled smites, minimal divine spell use
Nature: The Warden: magical ranger, nature channelled powers (including shapeshifting), "primal strike" (nature magic smite), minimal nature spell use (the standard Ranger class should be spell-less!)
Psychic: Either the Psi-warrior "Jedi" dude or the standard chi-manifesting Monk.
*Random Aside*******
Honestly, I lean more and more every year toward "Necromancer" being a prestige-style class. Define  "Necromancy" as magic-working with the energies/powers of the negative energy plane, real "Dark Wizard" stuff. This makes it a sort of "forbidden" thing that just about anyone who can use magic (mages, clerics, warlocks, theurgists, even druids...) can "fall into" or become ensnared by (or purposely enamored with)...and eventually corrupted and turned evil, even if that isn't their original intent.

For the "what about a 'good necromancer'?" crowd...that has only and always been an oxymoron to me. And I've played with my share...or, at least, neutral/"non-evil" aligned ones. BUT we can make a mirror image "Positive energy" focused magic-user. Same kind of prestige-class style set up that can be "added" to any other caster archetype. The flip-side to a "necromancer" that I like to call a "Vivoker." They study/find/are attuned to/practice "vivocation," the "positive energy, healing, radiant damage, life magic" stuff.
*****************


----------



## steeldragons

cbwjm said:


> Which book is the witch in? I thought I'd seen it but that may have been the playtest documents. I assume the oracle is also in the same book. I spotted the summoner when I went looking for the witch, also found the magus which is also arcane.
> 
> I tend to buy pathfinder books more out of interest than anything, not sure I'd be able to get my friends to try it out, though maybe I could run a one-shot.



The Witch (and Summoner and Oracle) are in the "Advanced Players Guide." 

For PF1. I don't know if/where they are for PF2.


----------



## cbwjm

steeldragons said:


> The Witch (and Summoner and Oracle) are in the "Advanced Players Guide."
> 
> For PF1. I don't know if/where they are for PF2.



Thanks, I google advanced player's guide and the 2e edition of it came up. Witch, Oracle, Investigator, and Swashbuckler are the classes represented in the book. Kind of curious to see what the investigator is like.

I realise now that I probably could have done the same earlier, just googled pathfinder 2e and witch and it likely would have got me to the same place.

Damn, the Paizo website won't let me sign in, I'll have to get back to it later to try and buy the pdf.


----------



## steeldragons

cbwjm said:


> Thanks, I google advanced player's guide and the 2e edition of it came up. Witch, Oracle, Investigator, and Swashbuckler are the classes represented in the book. Kind of curious to see what the investigator is like.
> 
> I realise now that I probably could have done the same earlier, just googled pathfinder 2e and witch and it likely would have got me to the same place.
> 
> Damn, the Paizo website won't let me sign in, I'll have to get back to it later to try and buy the pdf.



Interesting. The PF1 Advanced guide was Alchemist, Cavalier, Inquisitor, Oracle, Summoner, and Witch. 

Looks like they went for a straight "big 4/core class archetypes" and that's all. Investigator, in PF, is generally used as a Fighter sub-archetype. Witch is the "arcane caster/wizard" sub-archetype. Oracle the "divine caster/cleric" sub-type. Swashbuckler, clearly, the Rogue-related sub-type.


----------



## cbwjm

steeldragons said:


> Interesting. The PF1 Advanced guide was Alchemist, Cavalier, Inquisitor, Oracle, Summoner, and Witch.
> 
> Looks like they went for a straight "big 4/core class archetypes" and that's all. Investigator, in PF, is generally used as a Fighter sub-archetype. Witch is the "arcane caster/wizard" sub-archetype. Oracle the "divine caster/cleric" sub-type. Swashbuckler, clearly, the Rogue-related sub-type.



I think Alchemist has become such a popular class in PF that they put it in the core book. The summoner was in Secrets of Magic which is where I thought I saw the witch but it was only the magus and the summoner. I'm wondering if they'll add the cavalier or if that's going to (or already has, might find out when I can access the Paizo website and buy the advanced player's guide) become an archetype that can be added onto any class.


----------



## Li Shenron

I really liked the subtle differences in spellcasting mechanics that different core classes had for a short time during 5e playtest, but I am not so sure about different max spells level... I don't see a particular value in that kind of variety. 

I mean, it _could_ be different (and I would not care much if multiclassing becomes more complicated) but it wouldn't feel important to me.


----------



## steeldragons

Li Shenron said:


> I really liked the subtle differences in spellcasting mechanics that different core classes had for a short time during 5e playtest, but I am not so sure about different max spells level... I don't see a particular value in that kind of variety.
> 
> I mean, it _could_ be different (and I would not care much if multiclassing becomes more complicated) but it wouldn't feel important to me.



I believe in the core idea -and it's not mine, so I (maybe) shouldn't be trying to explain it- but for those concerned with the "lack of equal power" of casters that have 7-9 spell levels vs. those having only 5 or 6. I think the proposition is that Warlocks and Bards (in particular) would cap out at 5th level spells they can _cast/have spell slots_ for. 

But they would have their own class features, like a Mystic Arcanum or "Uncovered Secrets" or something like that that would/could allow access to a limited number of higher level spells. Maybe the Warlock masters "incanting" and/or a Bard channels a "song of revelation" that produces one 6th level effect at, say, 16th, a 7th level at 18th, and one 8th level mystery at 19th or 20th. Once you know it/choose one, that's the mystery you have discovered/mastered/figured out/learned or been granted and it can't be changed. So, you can "pull something out of your bag of tricks" in a pinch. But you aren't stewing in 7th, 8th, 9th level magic juices all of the time. It's an effort. It's a special ability of your class that most other classes (who aren't "full/sole wizard" types) will _never_ have access.

These second and third tier casters should be magical, but that doesn't necessarily have to mean they must equal the "full caster" classes or the classes whose entire shtick is supposed to be spells and casting. One of 5e's least appealing features is "too many full casters" (another is "too many casters of a certain spellcasting ability").

I think it helps the class, the archetype, the flavor, the game as a whole for Warlocks/Bards/Shamans/et al have magical abilities -and non-magical abilities a wizard wouldn't (and I'd argue_ isn't supposed to_) have- but there is no reason they should be able to use magic to a degree and expertise to match a full generalized mage whose only archetype thing is spellcasting...even if they can (and should be able to) hold their own.


----------



## Steampunkette

Close, @steeldragons 

A Bard/Warlock 5th mystery under this idea would be the same power as a Sorcerer/Wizard level 9 spell. And equal to a Cleric/Druid 7th circle spell.

Bard spells would be:
1st Mystery equal to level 1 Wizard.
2nd Mystery equal to level 3 Wizard.
3rd Mystery equal to level 5 Wizard.
4th Mystery equal to level 7 Wizard.
5th Mystery equal to level 9 Wizard.

Fewer spells, bigger gaps in power, but in place of 2, 4, 6, and 8th level spells they get other Bard Abilities that are interesting, thematic, and strong without being additional spellcasting. But when that Bard does get a new spell it's significantly stronger than their previous spells (It skipped a level of power, basically). Gaining magic in big steps, rather than consistent study.

Just seems like an interesting way to do it, to me.


----------



## nevin

Bacon Bits said:


> I think 9  spell levels is still too many. Plus the fact that all the existing spells at level 7 and higher, with the lone exception of Wish because it's a sacred cow, do not add anything truly beneficial to the game. I think it's all bad design at those level.
> 
> My frustration is with half casters and third casters. I think it's fine to get a spell level 2-3 levels behind a full caster. I think it's honking absurd to get a spell level _6-9 levels_ behind a full caster. Simply put, there is no way for those new spells to still be the same spells that the other class got and not have them end up completely underpowered. It's ridiculously depressing as a player.
> 
> So, what I would do is this:
> 
> 
> LevelHeavyweight CasterMiddleweight CasterLightweight Caster11--211-3211422153216322743284329543105431165412654
> 
> And then I would limit the number of spells per level per day. Heavyweights get up to 4 spells per level per day. Middleweights get 2-3 spells per level per day. Lightweights get 1-2 spells per level per day.
> 
> I don't particularly care what happens above level 12, and 5e's design tells me that WotC doesn't really, either.
> 
> 
> 
> Multiclassing rules are a tail wagging the dog. The game should, first and foremost, work with single class rules. If rules can't be envisioned that make sense, then _ditch multiclassing_.



So you either need different spell lists so that the 1/3 and 1/2 casters have special spells that match their class or if you do this then you have to bump up wizard martial ability for exactly the same reason you are bumping the hybrid casters.  Then we have to bump up full martials so they don't get left behind and now we are back at 3rd edition


----------



## Neonchameleon

MichaelSomething said:


> Mechanical complexity is a small price to pay to make things less samey!



Just having different numbers of spell levels for different types doesn't meaningfully make things less samey.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Steampunkette said:


> Close, @steeldragons
> 
> A Bard/Warlock 5th mystery under this idea would be the same power as a Sorcerer/Wizard level 9 spell. And equal to a Cleric/Druid 7th circle spell.
> 
> Bard spells would be:
> 1st Mystery equal to level 1 Wizard.
> 2nd Mystery equal to level 3 Wizard.
> 3rd Mystery equal to level 5 Wizard.
> 4th Mystery equal to level 7 Wizard.
> 5th Mystery equal to level 9 Wizard.
> 
> Fewer spells, bigger gaps in power, but in place of 2, 4, 6, and 8th level spells they get other Bard Abilities that are interesting, thematic, and strong without being additional spellcasting. But when that Bard does get a new spell it's significantly stronger than their previous spells (It skipped a level of power, basically). Gaining magic in big steps, rather than consistent study.
> 
> Just seems like an interesting way to do it, to me.



The problem, as I see it, is that while the bard might be balanced against the wizard at levels x, y, and z (assuming they get balanced features to make up for the gap in spell level progression), as soon as they get to level (z+1) and gain a new level of spells they're arguably imbalanced, because they have spells just as good as the wizard AND those features as well. It creates a jagged progression (whereas I'm of the opinion that, while perfection is unattainable, good design should aim for as smooth a progression as is attainable).

Additionally, this creates an issue with the spell levels themselves. There are already issues with the existing 1-9 spell level system, where some spells are too good and others aren't good enough for their spell level. A system with only 5 spell levels (meant to account for 20 character levels of progression) will undoubtedly have significantly greater issues with respect to such. I'd much rather see a spell level progression that paralleled character level progression.

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to greater caster differentiation per se. However, I think this approach adds undue complexity without opening up much (if any) actual design space.

If you want to differentiate the casters, then as I see it, there are two routes one could take.

The first would be to create entirely different casting systems for the different caster types. While this would undoubtedly add significant complexity, the resulting extra design space might be worth it (assuming it was done well).

The second would be to (for example) modify the casting classes to use the existing system in unique ways. For example, clerics might only be half casters, but could gain Thaumaturgy features that grant them the ability to perform miracles that the existing spells cannot accomplish (perhaps in this paradigm, healing spells are no longer spells, but rather a Thaumaturgy feature). This would also open up design space, while encapsulating added complexity within individual classes, but at the cost of less reuse of (high level) spells. Admittedly, if your goal is differentiation of casters, that's arguably a pro. However, in terms of effective use of page count, the less high level spells are shared, the less worthwhile it is having a lot of them in the rule book.


----------



## James Gasik

This raises something that I was always curious about.  Why, exactly, are there 9 levels of Wizard spells anyways?  Is this a reference to something?  Because it seems to me, especially with a 20-level system, that a logical progression would be to have the Wizard gain a new level of spells every 2 levels, with level 10 spells coming in at 19th level.  I know some settings (2e Dark Sun, ancient Netheril) have 10th level spells, but why that was never adopted as a standard is curious.


----------



## steeldragons

James Gasik said:


> This raises something that I was always curious about.  Why, exactly, are there 9 levels of Wizard spells anyways?  Is this a reference to something?  Because it seems to me, especially with a 20-level system, that a logical progression would be to have the Wizard gain a new level of spells every 2 levels, with level 10 spells coming in at 19th level.  I know some settings (2e Dark Sun, ancient Netheril) have 10th level spells, but why that was never adopted as a standard is curious.



Cantrips = "0 level" spells...so, 0-9...10 spell levels.

[Edit] I know we had 9 spell levels before we had cantrips. But it does make for 10 levels of magic. Just pointing that out.

Also, looking at it now...I am not opposed to changing the progression to the above suggestion. If we're giving 3 at will cantrips at 1st level, 4 cantrips at 2nd level, and your 1st "circle/tier/level" spells not kicking in at 3rd. I think I could get behind that. [/edit]


----------



## James Gasik

Sure but then the progression is weirder.  You start with 2 levels of spells, and gain a new one every 2 levels except at 19th when you don't.

And um, I can't be the only person who thinks starting numbering at "0" is a very strange decision.


----------



## Fifth Element

cbwjm said:


> Arcane: wizard
> Divine: cleric, paladin
> Primal: druid, ranger
> Occult: bard, witch
> Sorcerer: check your bloodline. Might be the same with the witch, I'd have to reread core rules again (actually, it looks like the witch isn't out in Pathfinder 2e, or at least not in the books I have for it.).



The witch can get access to any spell list, depending on the mystery chosen. It's in the _Advanced Players Guide_, BTW.

And unfortunately the degree of crossover between arcane and occult lists is huge. It would be better if the nature of occult vs. arcane were better-defined, because there is so much overlap they play almost identically.


----------



## Fifth Element

James Gasik said:


> This raises something that I was always curious about.  Why, exactly, are there 9 levels of Wizard spells anyways?  Is this a reference to something?



It's a reference to the fact that Gary Gygax thought that 9 levels of spells was a good number for wizards to have. It's purely a legacy thing.


----------



## Steampunkette

Fanaelialae said:


> The problem, as I see it, is that while the bard might be balanced against the wizard at levels x, y, and z (assuming they get balanced features to make up for the gap in spell level progression), as soon as they get to level (z+1) and gain a new level of spells they're arguably imbalanced, because they have spells just as good as the wizard AND those features as well. It creates a jagged progression (whereas I'm of the opinion that, while perfection is unattainable, good design should aim for as smooth a progression as is attainable).



So the Bard loses out on 2nd level wizard spell equivalents, right? Gets a cool thing equal to having 2nd level wizard spell equivalents. Then gets their next level of spellcasting and gets the same level equivalent as 3rd level wizard spells, maintaining the parity of their spell levels, but retaining the thing that they got in place of 2nd level wizard spells! What's the Wizard get?

2nd level spells.

The Bard misses out on total spell slots available, and relies on the ability they got instead of 2nd level casting to be equal to, not greater than, the wizard.


Fanaelialae said:


> Additionally, this creates an issue with the spell levels themselves. There are already issues with the existing 1-9 spell level system, where some spells are too good and others aren't good enough for their spell level. A system with only 5 spell levels (meant to account for 20 character levels of progression) will undoubtedly have significantly greater issues with respect to such. I'd much rather see a spell level progression that paralleled character level progression.



That is a really good point. That spells aren't really that well balanced against each other, or even at their own level.

You'd need to spend time working out some kind of formula to make their costs similar. Which WotC either hasn't done or did poorly. But that's less an issue with this idea and more an issue of WotC's balancing metrics.


Fanaelialae said:


> That said, I wouldn't be opposed to greater caster differentiation per se. However, I think this approach adds undue complexity without opening up much (if any) actual design space.



Disagree, but I'm interested in your ways of doing it!


Fanaelialae said:


> If you want to differentiate the casters, then as I see it, there are two routes one could take.
> 
> The first would be to create entirely different casting systems for the different caster types. While this would undoubtedly add significant complexity, the resulting extra design space might be worth it (assuming it was done well).



Definitely interested. Honestly I think Warlock is the only caster who is remotely interesting in 5e because of their reduced spell slots recovered on a long rest and most of their exploration and social pillar casting shunted off into Invocations which creates this great dynamic of "Combat Magic" and "Noncombat Magic".

Honestly, if WotC embraced that they would certainly have an easier time of balancing spells in a given level...


Fanaelialae said:


> The second would be to (for example) modify the casting classes to use the existing system in unique ways. For example, clerics might only be half casters, but could gain Thaumaturgy features that grant them the ability to perform miracles that the existing spells cannot accomplish (perhaps in this paradigm, healing spells are no longer spells, but rather a Thaumaturgy feature). This would also open up design space, while encapsulating added complexity within individual classes, but at the cost of less reuse of (high level) spells. Admittedly, if your goal is differentiation of casters, that's arguably a pro. However, in terms of effective use of page count, the less high level spells are shared, the less worthwhile it is having a lot of them in the rule book.



Making them Half-Casters just makes them Paladins, though. And Druids into Rangers.

Okay, you could argue that they'd have different class abilities separate from their martially-oriented counterparts, but take a look at your expansion of the Thaumaturgy cantrip to also function as Lay on Hands (In addition to healing it eventually gets status-effect removal and stuff, like higher level cleric magics)



Fifth Element said:


> It's a reference to the fact that Gary Gygax thought that 9 levels of spells was a good number for wizards to have. It's purely a legacy thing.



Huh! I did not know that. It's a good, solid, number, for certain! Evocative. Three and Three and Three for double layered mysticism.


----------



## James Gasik

Well it probably made more sense when Wizards could hit 36th level (a number divisible by 9).


----------



## steeldragons

James Gasik said:


> Sure but then the progression is weirder.  You start with 2 levels of spells, and gain a new one every 2 levels except at 19th when you don't.
> 
> And um, I can't be the only person who thinks starting numbering at "0" is a very strange decision.



How do you think people would respond if the list of cantrips (or spells of vaguely "cantrip-level" descriptions were made "Level 1 Spells?" Then level 1 become 2nd level spells, 2nd become 3rd, etc...If you didn't get Fly or Fireball til 7th level...I think there would be riots in the streets.

At the same time...we could just drop off the top level. Folks do seem to have questions with there being 9 levels of spells. Now there'd just be 8!


----------



## steeldragons

Personally, I'd be totally fine with just nixing level 9 spells. Altogether. Make them magics that the mortal species simply can not deal with/work with/comprehend. They're "god magic." Or something.

Need a Wish? Find/trap a djinn or efreet. 

Seek out/steal the god of time's hourglass to Time Stop.

Find the demi-plane vault of the ancient three headed "gold diamond" dragon that holds/guards the only grimoire that contains the Meteor Swarm spell that no mortal has ever cast or seen or (mostly) knows exist since legends of the fiery cataclysm that ended the last age. 

Make the truly powerful and rare magic, truly powerful and rare (if not entirely unattainable).


----------



## James Gasik

This is exactly how Fantasy Craft works, btw.  You start with 0-level spells and don't get your first level spell until 3rd level.  Though they persisted in calling them 0-level spells for, uh, reasons.

A change that could be made is, instead of having at-will spells that do very little, make them stronger and while you can cast them many times, they need to recharge.  Either after a set number of rounds, or use a "recharges on a roll of X" on a die.


----------



## Steampunkette

steeldragons said:


> Personally, I'd be totally fine with just nixing level 9 spells. Altogether. Make them magics that the mortal species simply can not deal with/work with/comprehend. They're "god magic." Or something.
> 
> Need a Wish? Find/trap a djinn or efreet.
> 
> Seek out/steal the god of time's hourglass to Time Stop.
> 
> Find the demi-plane vault of the ancient three headed "gold diamond" dragon that holds/guards the only grimoire that contains the Meteor Swarm spell that no mortal has ever cast or seen or (mostly) knows exist since legends of the fiery cataclysm that ended the last age.
> 
> Make the truly powerful and rare magic, truly powerful and rare (if not entirely unattainable).



... oh that is so amazing as a concept!

A game in which where monsters and otherworldly beings are the ones with the crazy powerful spells but not a whole lot else going for them as a basis for people to specifically seek them out for various purposes?

Epic.


----------



## Fifth Element

James Gasik said:


> Well it probably made more sense when Wizards could hit 36th level (a number divisible by 9).



IIRC the 9-levels standard for wizards first appeared in AD&D 1st edition (when they were called magic-users). In that edition there were no level limits for (human) wizards.

The 36th-level maximum was introduced in the "BECMI" version version of D&D by Frank Mentzer.


----------



## James Gasik

Really, many high level spells should be rituals that aren't learned or memorized, but are found in ancient, forbidden tomes, and are a massive undertaking.  Do you think Sauron just popped the One Ring into existence with a Wish spell?  It had to be done at the right time, the right place, and no doubt required incredible amounts of preparation.

There should, however, be a sliding scale for this.  Some games like high magic.  So there should be three campaign options presented: low magic (nothing above 3th level is castable, everything else is powerful rituals), medium magic (nothing above 6th level), and high magic (9th level is castable).

Then have a 10th tier that is NEVER castable, only rituals.  Some of which can take days, weeks, months, even a year and a day to perform!


----------



## James Gasik

Fifth Element said:


> IIRC the 9-levels standard for wizards first appeared in AD&D 1st edition (when they were called magic-users). In that edition there were no level limits for (human) wizards.
> 
> The 36th-level maximum was introduced in the "BECMI" version version of D&D by Frank Mentzer.




I wasn't sure about the exact timing there- when I started playing D&D both AD&D and Mentzer were published products, I'm pretty sure.  As for AD&D not having level limits, it didn't, that's true, but the rulebooks only supported 20th level.  Higher level rules were found elsewhere (reaching the logical...ludicrous conclusion with The Throne of Bloodstone).  Even Dragon Kings, the high level rules for Dark Sun, only went up to 30th level (kinda.  The way to become a Dragon or Avangion was...strange and required dual classing).


----------



## Dausuul

Li Shenron said:


> I really liked the subtle differences in spellcasting mechanics that different core classes had for a short time during 5e playtest, but I am not so sure about different max spells level... I don't see a particular value in that kind of variety.
> 
> I mean, it _could_ be different (and I would not care much if multiclassing becomes more complicated) but it wouldn't feel important to me.



I agree, I would not want to renumber spell levels. It's already bad enough that we have "character levels" and "class levels" and "spell levels," without having spell level mean different things to different classes.

However, you don't actually need to renumber the spell levels for the OP's proposal to work. It's just a matter of pruning spell lists and removing spell slots. For example, you could strike all spells of levels 2, 4, 6, and 8 from the bard list, and remove all slots of those levels from the bard progression. The result would be equivalent to what the OP proposes; bards have five levels of spells instead of nine, opening up headroom for more nonspell class features. It's just that the bard spell levels are numbered 1,3,5,7,9 instead of 1,2,3,4,5*.

*It is true that either solution would completely break spellcaster multiclassing. To which I say: Meh. Multiclassing already doesn't work well in 5E, it didn't work well in 3E, and it didn't work well in AD&D either. Broken thing stays broken. I have thoughts on how 5.5E should handle multiclassing, but this is not the thread for that.


----------



## James Gasik

I'll say the quiet part out loud.  Bring back Dual-Classing!  It's hard to qualify for, and makes your character function as a member of their new class, only allowing them to mix and match abilities at higher level.

(Am I serious or joking?  I'll never tell).


----------



## steeldragons

Hmmm, the wheels are spinning... spitballin' on a Wed. afternoon... for a possible framework for lessening spell dependency of certain casters and differentiating caster types...

Mages, and other magic-users who access Arcane Magic spell lists learn/study/practice their spells. The standard spell progression we know. Casting mech's are basically the same. Spell levels 0 (cantrips)-thru-8. Cantrips are still at will. Intelligence is still the casting ability. Except for cantrips, which have no limit, you may only ever learn/know/have as many spells, per spell level, as your Int. modifier + Prof bonus. Specialist concepts: Illusionists, Conjurers, etc... operate by this method as well, with slightly different class features and individual spell lists. They have the same cantrips and unlimited access to their spell lists, but can only ever know Int. mod. spells that are not on their particular specialist magic list. Illusionists, for example, will have all of the same illusions, enchantments, some conjurations, that the general mage can know, but also have other illusions, enchantments, etc... that a general mage would never get access to. But things like Magic Missile or Fireball would be outside their spell list and so, require taking one of those limited spots.  

Clerics and other magic-users who access Divine Magic spell lists channel holy/positive (or unholy/negative) energies. Their spell use does not kick in before 3rd level. They receive a more limited spell progression - their lists only go to/through 6 circles. You have access to all spells of the 1st and 2nd circle. Cast them as needed with your available channels. Beyond 2nd level spells, you know only those you select, cast with your channels, "Spells known" casting, in the 5e vernacular, specifically granted magic. Channeling different powers and bonus/domain spells form an added "final" circle of magic, giving them the divine number of 7 tiers of magic, all together. You number of channels per day is bolstered by your Wisdom modifier.

Druids and other magic-users who access Nature Magic spell lists attune and intuit to the primeval energies and mystic ways of the natural and physical world. They have a spell progression that begins with cantrips, but then only progresses to 6 spell levels. You know all spells on your list but are limited by your slots, as most casters of arcane magics. Additionally, they know how to invoke (channel) the spirits and powers of the elements and natural forces to channel magical effects upon themselves: moving unseen, tranforming to beasts, opening pathways to the land of faerie, etc... Your Charisma modifier is added to your spell slots per day.

Psychics and others who may access Mental Powers lists draw power from within their own expanded or enlightened minds, bizarre bloodlines, and/or awakened souls. They use a power point system that fuels the manifestation of their powers that range from "0" point cantrip-style abilities to powers equivalent in power to 8th level arcane spells. Your Int. modifier adds to your daily points.

Warlocks and others who may access Mystic Powers lists draw power from an external, non-divine, source: a powerful magical being (fae , demon, dragon, etc...), cosmic force, universal ideal (alignment), or some combination thereof. You use a power point system to fuel the manifestation of the powers you are granted by your source (or siphon from the cosmos or absorb through some mystical connection). So you have a list of specific powers(features) that you channel and set spell slots, with specific/chosen "spells known." You receive cantrips (usable at will) at level 1. Other spell progression doesn't kick in until 3rd level and doesn't extend beyond 5th level spells. Your additional magical powers are granted by your source to give powers/access at higher levels to chosen singular effects equivalent to 6-8 level spells. This model would produce those who are "magical" primarily with/due to supernatural powers, and spell use is a secondary or tertiary consideration for the class. Warlocks (the arcane) can still spam eldritch blast and receive patron flavor powers; Bards (the nature) still inspire/bolster allies and enchant foes; Paladins (the divine) still smite and have invoke combat bonuses and defensive auras; and Shamans (the psychic) can entreat spirit allies and invoke various powers through the different entities they befriend (or enslave!); all are part of this group. Your Charisma modifier adds to your magical powers -either allowing additional channeling or bonus points.

I dunno. I think that's a solid system. The last group, just by virtue of having the combination of mechanical options, is a "more complex" class...but then, those classes are supposed to be more unique and rare individuals. Doesn't seem/sound "too" complex...to me. Doesn't seem like a "3e" style of confusion or option paralysis.


----------



## Fifth Element

James Gasik said:


> As for AD&D not having level limits, it didn't, that's true, but the rulebooks only supported 20th level.



Magic-user spells per level table goes up to 29th in the 1E PHB. Cleric might too, but I'd have to check to be sure.


----------



## James Gasik

Actually, I just had my 1e PHB open due to another discussion, and the xp table for Magic Users only went up to 18th level!

EDIT: Oops, I missed it "375,000 xp per level beyond 18th".  Well then, as I was!

The 2e PHB, which I'm more familiar with, only went up to 20th.


----------



## ehren37

This strikes me as a solution in search of a problem.

I do think half caster spells should be balanced to be relevant when they are gained. Junk like ranger damage spells need to be worth their action economy. You do see this with Paladin spells somewhat. No surprise, since the devs bent over backwards to shower them with goodies.

The solution to casters feeling the same, is to gut casters (the solution for all balance and flavor issues). D&D casters do WAAAAY too much. Restore spheres. Limit Wizards to 4 schools. There, no casters feel unique and it helps martial balance.

Also, having magical abilities that are not spells will achieve this better than having a spell with a different level depending on the class. Book of 9 Swords "encounter based" classes. Psionics in the 2nd edition model. Incarnates. While we're at it, bring back the Binder.


----------



## James Gasik

It's better than 2e Paladin spellcasting, where it was barely worth doing.  Though I do miss 3e Paladin and Ranger spells, they had some really neat options.


----------



## le Redoutable

and what about a Paladin as a Warrior/Healer ?


----------



## Horwath

5th level spell should be at power level of 5th level spell, if some class gets 5th level spells later than other, well, sucks to be them in that department. We can only hope that other class features make up for the difference.

But, I agree that there could be more caster level progressions than full, 1/2 and 1/3. 1/3rd casters seems a bit slow, might convert it to 2/5th casters(as in new spell level every 5 levels instead of 6), they still only get 4th levels spells, but at a little more reasonable rate.


Class levelFull caster 1/12/3rd caster1/2 caster2/5th caster111--2111-321114 2211532216322274322843229533210543211643312643313754314754315854316864417965418965419107542010754

Yes, I belive 10th level spells should be a thing. Just a nice penultimate class feature at 19th level.


----------



## steeldragons

The other way, of course, if people don't like breaking down/differentiating casters by their "kinds" of magic, then it could be done by -properly- changing where classes sit in the "full-or-some percentage" caster across all kinds of magic. 

That is, what I mean is, give every "type" of magic its 9 levels. How much of those 9 levels you gain access to is purely a matter of class. I would further attach the spell casting abilities to help even those out.


Full Caster: Int.
(9 spell levels)3/4 Caster: Wis.
(access 7th level)Half Caster: Cha.
(access 5th level)1/4 Caster: any
(access 3rd level)Arcane MagicMage/WizardWitchSwordmage/Bladecaster (PF style "Magus")"Eldritch Knight,"
"Arcane Trickster"Divine Magic"Invoker/Incanter?"
(some all-caster priest/cleric)ClericPaladinMonkNature MagicDruidShamanBardRanger (if you insist on spell-ranger)Occult MagicPsychic/Psion"Dragon sorcerer," Psi-Warrior, et al.Warlock"Shadowalker,"
"Soulknife," et al.


----------



## nevin

I think the fact that they've tried to fix every complaint by standardizing things is the problem.  Every spell list should have it's own niche.  Why  do wizards get control weather?   Shouldn't that be limited to Druids and nature clerics?   I'd like to see the spells demarcated better so maybe Bards are better at charm spells and have a greater variety of them than anyone else. Druids should have nature spells with some crossover for nature clerics and Clerics should be the undisputed masters of healing and divine retribution whether that's curses, or holy fire that bypasses most defenses.  Maybe warlocks should just be better at summoning,(just spitballing never played the class),  The original spell lists (when the only hybrid was rangers) were like that.  Rangers didn't have their own spell list they just got a few magic user and druid spells at high level.   But people complained the Arcane list was so broad and they were so weak and then it drifted over to clerics were too powerful and just healbots and now we have the end result of 50 or so years of reactions to complaints and devs fixing thier pet peeves.  

complicated means far more impacts due to the law of unintended consequences than simple.  Thus the chaotic mess that is Dnd and pathfinder spells.

I've noticed if you get people face to face and talk in real detail the things they are usually complaining about are because of one encounter where one character caught the DM by surprise and destroyed his bad guy. Or a player got caught by surprise and another class one upped them in what they thought was their special spot.   

In my opinion if we want cool, differentiated casters then we have to split up the spell lists give each caster a strong niche and plenty of generally useful spells and give up the idea of standardizing everything to obtain that mythical balance.   Also there should be some things that some types of casters just can't do.  Such as creating permanant items with magic.  I don't think an arcane caster should be able to detect magic on divine magic and vice versa.


----------



## nevin

steeldragons said:


> The other way, of course, if people don't like breaking down/differentiating casters by their "kinds" of magic, then it could be done by -properly- changing where classes sit in the "full-or-some percentage" caster across all kinds of magic.
> 
> That is, what I mean is, give every "type" of magic its 9 levels. How much of those 9 levels you gain access to is purely a matter of class. I would further attach the spell casting abilities to help even those out.
> 
> 
> Full Caster: Int.
> (9 spell levels)3/4 Caster: Wis.
> (access 7th level)Half Caster: Cha.
> (access 5th level)1/4 Caster: any
> (access 3rd level)Arcane MagicMage/WizardWitchSwordmage/Bladecaster (PF style "Magus")"Eldritch Knight,"
> "Arcane Trickster"Divine Magic"Invoker/Incanter?"
> (some all-caster priest/cleric)ClericPaladinMonkNature MagicDruidShamanBardRanger (if you insist on spell-ranger)Occult MagicPsychic/Psion"Dragon sorcerer," Psi-Warrior, et al.Warlock"Shadowalker,"
> "Soulknife," et al.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Steampunkette said:


> So the Bard loses out on 2nd level wizard spell equivalents, right? Gets a cool thing equal to having 2nd level wizard spell equivalents. Then gets their next level of spellcasting and gets the same level equivalent as 3rd level wizard spells, maintaining the parity of their spell levels, but retaining the thing that they got in place of 2nd level wizard spells! What's the Wizard get?
> 
> 2nd level spells.
> 
> The Bard misses out on total spell slots available, and relies on the ability they got instead of 2nd level casting to be equal to, not greater than, the wizard.
> 
> That is a really good point. That spells aren't really that well balanced against each other, or even at their own level.
> 
> You'd need to spend time working out some kind of formula to make their costs similar. Which WotC either hasn't done or did poorly. But that's less an issue with this idea and more an issue of WotC's balancing metrics.
> 
> Disagree, but I'm interested in your ways of doing it!
> 
> Definitely interested. Honestly I think Warlock is the only caster who is remotely interesting in 5e because of their reduced spell slots recovered on a long rest and most of their exploration and social pillar casting shunted off into Invocations which creates this great dynamic of "Combat Magic" and "Noncombat Magic".
> 
> Honestly, if WotC embraced that they would certainly have an easier time of balancing spells in a given level...
> 
> Making them Half-Casters just makes them Paladins, though. And Druids into Rangers.
> 
> Okay, you could argue that they'd have different class abilities separate from their martially-oriented counterparts, but take a look at your expansion of the Thaumaturgy cantrip to also function as Lay on Hands (In addition to healing it eventually gets status-effect removal and stuff, like higher level cleric magics)
> 
> 
> Huh! I did not know that. It's a good, solid, number, for certain! Evocative. Three and Three and Three for double layered mysticism.




The bard doesn't necessarily lose out on 2nd level equivalents. They're simply crammed into either the spell level before or the spell level after (hopefully adjusted in power to match). 

What you're proposing with the 5 spell levels is essentially cherry picking the best spell levels (ie, Shield, Fireball, Wall of Force, Forcecage, Wish) AND getting extra features on top of that to make up for the "lost" spells.


There is no formula for creating balanced spells. Designing balanced spells is as much an art as it is a science.

It has nothing to do with WotC's balancing metrics and everything to do with your idea. If you have fewer spell levels with respect to character levels, you end up with a design area that is much bigger (than if your spell levels correspond to character level). The existing 9 level spell progression only needs to account for two levels of character progression (and yet we still see significant variance among the spells therein). If we do as you suggest and have a 5 level spell progression, then each spell level needs to account for 4 character levels of progression, meaning that significantly greater variance is all but inevitable (you are starting from a less finely calibrated metric for the power level you are aiming for).


Making clerics half casters doesn't make them paladins, unless we assume that paladins are unchanged within this new paradigm (which is just silly). Paladins might lose casting altogether and entirely rely on (martially leaning) Thaumaturgy. Or, since paladins aren't explicitly servants of the divine in 5e, you could give them their own mechanics that are based around the swearing of oaths. Oath magic.

No, I wasn't referring to the Thaumaturgy cantrip (which had actually slipped my mind). I was speaking of hypothetical class features which I was tentatively referring to as Thaumaturgies.


That's an interesting observation regarding 3x3x3. I think you may well be correct. I wonder if, similarly, the reason that priests had 7 spell levels was due to religious associations with the number 7 (seven divine virtues, seven deadly sins, etc)?


----------



## NotAYakk

> It's an issue, and one that people should be wary of. This, however, is not that. The intention is three-fold:
> 1) Make Wizards/Sorcerers the most comprehensive caster classes.



I don't see why this produces this effect or is required for this effect.

I don't know what you, specifically, mean by "comprehensive" (I could repeat the question back).



> 2) Create greater class fantasy in the other caster classes by taking away specific spell level gains to add in thematic abilities.



I don't see why this produces this effect or is required for this effect.

"spell level gains" when you go from "up to 6" "up to 7" or "up to 9" end up being no different, just paced slightly differently.  So there is no "power budget" gain here.



> 3) Help to foster a greater sense of difference between the spellcasting classes.



I don't see why this is required to produce this effect.  Your use of the word "help" means to you you also don't think so.



> By adding granularity to spellcasting you create a feeling of more significant difference between different kinds of spellcaster, different kinds of magic. And different leveling schemes while retaining the same overall leveling scheme.



This reads to me as "arbitrary differences between classes with minimal gameplay impact make the game better"?



> Arcane magic becomes the steady progression of mastery over magic. While Clerics and Druids have their focus split with religious rites and whatever but still hold their own in overall power to arcanists. And then Warlocks and Bards, as occultists, take giant steps in power but plateau for a while between as they seek out -other- ways to flex their power before they attain a new level of power. Big mystical breakthroughs rather than continued study, sort of.



Except every X levels they are tied in magical power.

So in those X levels, any stuff the Warlock/Bard gained has to also be gained by the Wizard/Sorcerer in similar scale, or one ends up better than the other.


> And then you have the design space it creates. What ability could you give to someone that is as powerful as 2nd level spellcasting? What class identity can you put in at that level that winds up dropped off to the wayside because they get new spells and thus need no class ability in standard 5e?



2nd level casting isn't a feature?  Having spells that are X good is a feature.

You just delayed the feature a few levels, you didn't replace it.


> Look at those class tables. They get almost nothing class specific after level 3. It's just improvement of their early level class-defining trait(s) and then Divine Intervention. Other than higher level spells there's just so little to look forward to. And, honestly... that's the same as Wizard.



Yes, because the power budget of both classes is consumed by "full caster".

If you change the pact you gain "full caster" that changes nothing about the power budget.  You are only changing the pace.



> Warlocks, at least, with their invocations get a variety of interesting options they can manipulate at different levels.



To most people, the Warlock short-rest casting isn't as strong as the full daily slots.  This weakness ends up providing for power budget for invocations.


> And bards are a bit better off than most casters.



Bard spell list is very passive/indirect, and they know very few spells.  Sorcerer's metamagic and the Bards bag-o-tricks help make up for that weakness.  I think the Bard is overtuned, honestly.

---

If you want more power budget for neat class features for full casters, don't tweak pacing.  Tweak power.

For example, strip back the spells/day classes get:

1
2
21
22
221
222

Or even worse, lose lower level slots to gain higher level slots.

Then you can add in class features for classes that get to cast more.  Like, a Sorcerer might get a 50% chance to keep a slot after they use it to cast, or when a Wizard uses a slot they can cast the spell again once at 2x casting time.  r whatever.

The point is that 5e designed it so that spellcasters got almost all of their class power from their spellcasting.  You can change this.

Another approach would be to just boost the non-full casters with more features, and thus give room for features on the full casters.

None of these require tweaking the progression of when you gain a new tier of spells.


----------



## Minigiant

I feel a lot of the discussion misses the purpose of spell levels and their usage in 5e. 

There's no point of a 3/4 caster until you define mechanical the limits of 7th level spells and how a character would use those levels of spells.


----------



## le Redoutable

Minigiant said:


> I feel a lot of the discussion misses the purpose of spell levels and their usage in 5e.
> 
> There's no point of a 3/4 caster until you define mechanical the limits of 7th level spells and how a character *would use* those levels of spells.


----------



## Dausuul

James Gasik said:


> I'll say the quiet part out loud.  Bring back Dual-Classing!  It's hard to qualify for, and makes your character function as a member of their new class, only allowing them to mix and match abilities at higher level.
> 
> (Am I serious or joking?  I'll never tell).



I can't speak for anyone else, but the quiet part in my post was the edition I _didn't _mention when I was listing failed multiclassing schemes.


----------



## James Gasik

But Dual Classing is great!  So simple- you are one class, now you are another class!  One day maybe you'll be both classes!  Huzzah!

Ok, ok, I admit it, I'm not serious.


----------



## Vael

Hate Dual-classing, but I've always liked Gestalt.

If I had a small group of 2 or 3 PCs, I'd let them play Gestalt, but that'll never happen.


----------



## James Gasik

Gestalt and Hybrid were nice.  5e's multiclassing supporting caster/caster combinations is nice, IMO, but apparently not great for people who want more variance in their caster classes.


----------

