3.5 Rebuild Poll Part 53: Spells

[bhu]

If you were rebuilding 3.5 would you allow spells to scale with level, or do they give a fixed effect?

[Runestar]

Why shouldn't they scale with lv?

[veekie]

Having them scale fully with level is much more appropriate than with the half assed scaling they have now. We have Effect(durations, damage, statuses) which scales, and accuracy(DC) which doesn't always.

Let them scale properly to level, or to effort put in(this implies augmentation), rather than forcing obsolescence on low level spells.

[RobbyPants]

Yes, but with one very important caveat.  I want them to scale with character level, not caster level.  As I mentioned in the multiclassing poll, I think this is about the only way to get multiclassing to work in all cases.  Otherwise, the system rewards specialization too much and multiclassing fails.

So, if you have three guys: Wizard 10, Fighter 5/Wizard 5, and Fighter 9/Wizard 1, and they all have Fireball (assume they took their wizard level late enough to do so), then all three of them would deal 10d6 damage with their Fireball.  There is no reason why Fighter 9/Wizard 1 should only deal 1d6 (or even be unable to cast it), or why he should have to spend a feat to get it up to a measly 5d6 damage.  Not being level-appropriate means your abilities aren't level appropriate.  Period.  No sane player would waste an action on that unless the DM through 50 kobolds at the group at 10th level.

[Bloody Initiate]

If something exists then it should scale

BUT

If it DOESN'T scale then level-appropriate upgrades need to be available for trade at the appropriate levels (Various things already do this, the "light of" spells in SpC and various Nightmare blade maneuvers)

and all middle ground should be eliminated.

[Runestar]

I don't think DC should scale fully. At least, I don't see why a 1st lv spell should have the same DC as a 9th lv spell (which would be the case if DC was based off caster lv or something, rather than spell lv).

[RobbyPants]

I don't think DC should scale fully. At least, I don't see why a 1st lv spell should have the same DC as a 9th lv spell (which would be the case if DC was based off caster lv or something, rather than spell lv).

Personally, I think they should scale.  Every other mechanic in the game follows the 10 + 1/2 HD + ability mod formula (with the exception of 10 and 5 level PrCs, which either use class level or class level x2).

Otherwise, those lower level slots become more and more useless.  You basically fill them with buffs and offensive spells that don't rely on saves.  It's part of why Grease is so effective at higher levels; you don't care if they fail their Reflex save.

[veekie]

^^
Exactly, the reason you scale DCs and numeric effects is because theres no way to prevent nonnumeric things from 'scaling' or in other words, remaining perfectly relevant at higher levels.

[Bloody Initiate]

I think borrowing from later material (i.e. non-core) offers a lot of ways to fix core (and in fact, some things were introduce as fixes by a different name). Psionics is a good example.

For a lot of powers, if you invest additional power points, the save DC increases.

For energy damage powers, you pick your energy type rather than stay confined to something predetermined.

Later things popped up that made more sense than all that "per day" bullshit that retarded the game to begin with, and never sought repair. I LOVE ToB, although I think they went overboard with its mechanics in 4e (Specifically with "at will" abilities that even the melee guys used. They made it so you always need more than a roll of the dice, which stings when you're teaching someone how to play)

Little simple bits of common sense like this would've gone a long way when they were writing the core books but they chose to keep iconic traditions like fireball and spellbooks. To some extent that's cool (fireball yes, spellbooks no, but that's just my opinion), but it's not very practical and eventually it costs you something in execution.

[Eepop]

Alternately to scaling by character level, the "Base Magic Bonus" used in Trailblazer works well to offset the penalties of multiclassing. 

Its just like Base Attack bonus, in that each class has a progression, then you add them all up for he character.  In TB, martial classes get 1/3, hybrids and monks get 1/2, bards get 3/4, and casters get full.  Some classes like bards also have class features that boost their caster level for certain types of spells.

[DaveoftheRave]

I think spells should scale better by character level and the spells themselves shouldn't increase in power by spell level as much as they do.

Spells shouldn't double in power every spell level, that's another topic but ties in with this one.

[Runestar]

I think that the idea is that the lower lv spells not have that much of an impact in combat, if at all.

I feel the intention was to ensure that at any 1 time, only your 3 highest lvs of spells would be useful. So for say, a lv20 sorc, only your 7th to 9th lv spells should have any real impact. But since certain lower lv spells have effects independent of caster lv (such as save-or-die/suck spells), their otherwise crappy DCs are really what is balancing them out.

Take psionics for instance. You need to spend more PP to augment a power and increase its DC, which in wizard terms, is tantamount to expending a higher lv slot. So I don't see why a lower lv slot should be able to scale for free and remain as useful as higher lv spells.

[veekie]

I feel the intention was to ensure that at any 1 time, only your 3 highest lvs of spells would be useful. So for say, a lv20 sorc, only your 7th to 9th lv spells should have any real impact. But since certain lower lv spells have effects independent of caster lv (such as save-or-die/suck spells), their otherwise crappy DCs are really what is balancing them out.

Misconception, that is exactly the reason that DCs should scale, since there are lower leveled spells with effects independent of caster level AND DC, and that is essentially what basic caster optimisation does. Find the resources that people don't think you have and use them.

And since you can't get rid of all those without dramatically changing matters, making them scale and then adjusting resource availability is the far cleaner way of dealing with things.

[RobbyPants]

I supposed one option could be to give everyone (or every caster at least) the equivalent of Heighten Spell.  Then, if you cast something like Glitterdust, you can either cast it cheap, or pay extra (spell slots, spell points, whatever is used) to raise the DC.  Then you're getting a level-appropriate effect (sort of) for a level-appropriate cost.

This also allows you to cast Identify, Invisibility, and Fly at a lower cost because you don't care about DCs on those spells.  So low level utility can stay cheap.

[TC X0 Lt 0X]

Spells should scale in such a way that low level spells don't become obsolete after 4 levels. A better system for Calculating DC for spells would be nice. 10 + Spell Level is kinda + Etc makes low level spells unable to touch enemies at higher levels. I also am not a fan that some spells have a cap to which there effects could no longer advance, and don't like static spells in general. I would think a Level 30 Wizard could gain more missiles from a Magic Missile spell or affect more HitDice of creatures with a Hypnotism spell then a Level 15 Wizard.

As an added note, I'm not really a fan of the Spells Per Day System that most Spellcasters use. It just seems unnatural to me. =/

[Runestar]

There comes the issue of a spellcaster having too many spells, which I doubt is what the designers had in mind. Even in articles like dungeon delve, they assume that slots below 7th lv are "arcane fire fodder" - they don't bother listing them out.

If we look at 4e, the spellcasters have only so many powers to use per encounter/day.

For the case of martial adepts, while they too have 9 lvs of maneuvers, they can ready only so many maneuvers at any one time, so you are encouraged/expected to trade up your existing maneuvers whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Is there any way a spellcaster's list of spells prepared can be streamlined, rather than cluttering up his character sheet? Versatile spellcaster is one, any more?

[JaronK]

My big worry is that if lower level spells scale better, that just means more power for already overpowered options.  And honestly, I still use my low level spells anyway... Nerveskitter and Magecraft still see usage all the way to level 20, while Alter Self, Glitterdust, Ghoul Glyph, Spectral Hand and Black Sand still get usage as well.  I don't think Shivering Touch, Shrink Item, or Explosive Runes will go out of style much either.

JaronK

[DaveoftheRave]

My big worry is that if lower level spells scale better, that just means more power for already overpowered options.

Well it would have to be in conjunction with making higher level spells less powerful. No more doubling the power every spell level. Bring the lower level spells up as you level and scale back the higher level spells.

And honestly, I still use my low level spells anyway... Nerveskitter and Magecraft still see usage all the way to level 20, while Alter Self, Glitterdust, Ghoul Glyph, Spectral Hand and Black Sand still get usage as well.  I don't think Shivering Touch, Shrink Item, or Explosive Runes will go out of style much either.

Would it tip the balance to making burning hands better?



If you're worried that the wizard will have too many spells then you can just take away the extra spell per spell level that the specialist gets.  It's already a big insult to the Sorcerer who is supposed to at least get more spells per day than the Wizard.

[veekie]

My big worry is that if lower level spells scale better, that just means more power for already overpowered options.  And honestly, I still use my low level spells anyway... Nerveskitter and Magecraft still see usage all the way to level 20, while Alter Self, Glitterdust, Ghoul Glyph, Spectral Hand and Black Sand still get usage as well.  I don't think Shivering Touch, Shrink Item, or Explosive Runes will go out of style much either.

JaronK

Way I see it, we can't keep the lower level spells that stay popular forever from doing that without completely losing the feel. Certain spell effects are by nature uncontested or contest a non-improving area, and hence their power don't matter(most of those you mentioned). By bringing the spells that DO grow obsolete up to par, casters are no longer locked into a standardised low level spell list if they want to make use of those slots.

At the same time, we dial down the worst offenders of the magic system(which, you may note, are rarely the spells that grow obsolete, Sleep and the low level Fear chains aside), dial up the non magic users to fit their level(not with more pluses, they got a crapton of those, they don't have real options). That more or less brings us even all round the table.

[Bloody Initiate]

As an added note, I'm not really a fan of the Spells Per Day System that most Spellcasters use. It just seems unnatural to me. =/

+1