Has anyone done a spell "rarity" system?

[harpy]

This is one of those ideas that keep percolating in the back of my head, but I know it would be a fairly deep project, so maybe someone else has already foraged a path.

What I'm thinking about is to create a rarity system for spells, based on a mixture of potency and utility.

Thus, rather than having a wide open list of spells that are available anytime, instead everything would be rated with a rarity (common, uncommon, rare... and maybe very rare and unique).

Two benefits of categorizing spells in this manner:

1. There would be a cost adjustment in gold pieces on this rarity. Perhaps it might be that common spells would be cheaper than the RAW rate, uncommon would be the RAW rate, and rare and above would be more costlier, though still cheaper than the next spell level up.

2. The rarity categories could provide a more rich system for how spells are distributed within the world the GM is devising. So when players go to a town and want to see what the local sage has available, it wouldn't just be totally random for that spell level, but instead be adjusted for the rarity also.

That way searching for spells within the world is a bit more organic, and it provides a better framework for the GM to use in how to shape the "magic marketplace."

It also represents what I would think would reflect an older ancient and medieval mindset, where information is something that is guarded and secretive. The open ended nature of how spells are presented in the current system is a modern "information age" mindset in which the more open the content is the more lucrative and dynamic the marketplace can be. That's fine and all if you want that modern tone, but a traditional draw for the whole D&D genre is to get back to the quasi-medieval tone.

I can only imagine these kinds of discussions were happening in houserules and at cons back in the 70's, so people have to have fussed with this approach before. I'm just wondering if someone has tackled this in the 3.x age?

[ArcanistSupreme]

Wouldn't this system result in the best spells being cheaper and more available than the worst ones? Spellcasters would see another spellcaster cast a cool spell, identify it with a spellcraft check, and duplicate it. Then they'd teach it to their apprentices, and there are more opportunities for spellcasters to see the better spells, and more chances to duplicate it. Nobody would bother figuring out the bad spells on the other hand, and they would actually be harder to find than the better versions.

Unless you are building a low-magic world where there are relatively few spellcasters that rarely interact with one another or spy on the others (and spying is pretty easy with magic), or setting the world in a period of emerging magic (which could be really cool), this system doesn't really make sense except from a metagame perspective. There's nothing wrong with the rule from that perspective, as it could probably help pushing things in a more fair and balanced direction, but I don't see an in-game way to justify it outside of those two settings.

[Jerthanis]

This is an interesting idea, but it requires a ton of work and wouldn't be able to give consistent results across all areas of a campaign world. For instance, in an extreme climate, Resist Elements might be an incredibly common spell, while in a temperate area it might be of average commonality or even slightly rare. In an area where wizards are an accepted part of the ruling class, spells like Scrying and Charm Person might be common, but in a place where wizards are seen as dangerous and are consulted only when the benefits are seen to outweigh the risks, those spells (which might be grounds for imprisonment of execution under the local law) might be extremely rare.

In addition, in a more general sense, spells would gain rarity or commonality based on their power and utility, so in fact this would tend towards granting price breaks for the best spells while increasing the cost of more niche and less powerful spells. Obviously there would be a few exceptions, and this system could provide a useful guideline to apply to spells at the judgment of the DM to account for these little hiccups.

[kestrel404]

There are a number of mechanics in the game that would break such a system instantly.

An Artificer can scribe a scroll for any spell without needing access to the spell in advance. A Chameleon can take a different feat every day to learn whatever spell they desire, and then scribe a scroll of that spell. When advancing in levels, a Wizard gets a number of spells for free from their class list, and sorcerors don't even need to find a source for the spells that they cast.

Clerics, druids and most other divine casters get to choose their spells as well. All of the tier-3 casters (Beguiler, Dread Necro, etc) know their entire spell list. None of the spontaneous casters need to search out a scroll or anything like that.

I think the only effect such a system would have (unless you go about re-writing most of the base classes) is to make the wizard a slightly lower tier-1 class.

[Qwertystop]

Clerics, druids and most other divine casters get to choose their spells as well. All of the tier-3 casters (Beguiler, Dread Necro, etc) know their entire spell list. None of the spontaneous casters need to search out a scroll or anything like that.

Actually, Clerics, druids, and most other divine casters know their entire spell list. All cleric spells are known to all clerics, all druid spells are known to all druids, repeat for paladins and rangers.

[kestrel404]

Actually, Clerics, druids, and most other divine casters know their entire spell list. All cleric spells are known to all clerics, all druid spells are known to all druids, repeat for paladins and rangers.

That's what I meant.

[Godskook]

Actually, Clerics, druids, and most other divine casters know their entire spell list. All cleric spells are known to all clerics, all druid spells are known to all druids, repeat for paladins and rangers.

I think the separation is due to the fact that most divine casters actually have to prepare their spells in advance, while the tier 3/4 casters just pick them as they cast them from the entire list(which is what makes them entering Rainbow Servant so broken when it isn't quite so bad for other casters).

[Analytica]

Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved does this explicitly.

Also, note that many WotC sourcebooks that include new spells (notably the Spell Compendium) suggest that the new spells will _not_ be available by default through the normal channels, i.e. not necessarily accessible to cleric-type casters or available for purchase to wizard-type casters, but rather limited at the outset to particular faiths, cultures or traditions, or necessary to unlock. Similarly it is suggested in several places that sorcerer-type casters may have to find someone to teach them these spells even to take them on level-up. There are no actual rules for this, but it seems that at least some of the writers assumed that actual play would involve an effective rarity system of this type in many cases.