Preparing spells with different sizes

[PhoenixPhyre]

Important: See the summary in bold at the bottom. Interesting, but needs a lot of work to make it doable. Probably best to find other solutions, but documenting things tried and discarded is as important as documenting successes.

It's never made much sense to me that the number of spells you can prepare is limited only by number. That is, that all spells cost one preparation slot. Tiny little first-level spell? 1 slot. Wish? 1 slot. It's not even really vancian either--there, the limit was on both total number and power--bigger spells "took up more space" than smaller ones.

What if, instead, prepared casters prepared based on total spell level (ie SUM(spell levels) <= cap)? The caps would have to be adjusted, but prepping that big 9th level would "cost more" than several smaller spells.

This would play two of the three scaling factors that prepared casters (and casters in general) have off each other--there'd be a tradeoff between versatility and power. Spells-known casters would have fewer maximum preps (thus lower versatility, especially since they can't easily swap out spells) but be able to have more higher-level spells and would generally have higher average power.


Imagine if the criterion was now "total spell level <= class level + MOD + proficiency".

Some exploration says that if you want to prioritize having at least one of each lower level spell prepped, you're delayed roughly 1 full spell level in preps--you start prepping Xth level spells when you get access to X+1th level slots. And that gets worse as you go up--to pick up 7+th level spells "on time" (or even a level late), you're having to give up having certain lower level spells prepped at all. So you might say that you have 1-2 per lower tier.

On average, you keep about 8 spells prepped if you go for the balanced approach. That's probably too few; it makes things like "bonus spells" way more significant and gives drastic incentives to find feats and stuff like Magic Initiate, Fey Touched, etc to "fill in" those low level spells.

Going with 2xlevel + MOD would mean that if you prioritize on-level access to higher level spells, you waver between 9-11 spells. Level 15, 17, 18, and 19 are notable in that you have to give up either (or both, for level 17) 2nd or 4th level spells to fit in that 9th level slot. At level 20, you'd have exactly 1 of each spell level prepped. Is that the right amount? Probably not. But better. Do that, and then give wizards some form of "bonus spells" from their subclasses like clerics have from the domains and you'd be pretty darn close. I think. Maybe.


Would this be a nerf? Massively so. Now you actually have to make hard choices about spell preps with substantial opportunity costs, instead of just increasingly adding spells to your prepped list. Power still goes up as well as frequency (still have your full set of spell slots), so you're still scaling more than linearly. You're just not scaling in versatility (unless you want to limit your power scaling). Call it...n log(n) scaling, not the current n^2 (or really n^3) scaling.

Which is still better than martials, who generally scale only with one of frequency, power, or versatility even in combat, where they have their best scaling. Fighters' attacks scale in frequency, but not really power. And they're still just attacks, so no versatility scaling (beyond the basic "proficiency bonus goes up" scaling everyone gets for ability checks). Rogues' attacks scale in power (via sneak attack) but not frequency; their versatility goes up a bit (more expertise options + reliable talent). Barbarians have limited scaling in both power (rage damage) and frequency (extra attack 1), but the two end up basically a linear increase together. Etc.

One major downside is that it dramatically increases the complexity of prepared spell casters, raising the barrier to entry for them a lot. But complexity is a good thing, right?

Overall...it's an interesting idea but I don't think it's the best solution.

[Kane0]

Sounds like 'spell inventory space'

Agreed it has merit as a concept, but probably not the best solution

[Snowbluff]

I think an issue might arise in that the bigger, higher level spells aren't prepared/known as smaller spells to begin with. There's already a hard limit in how they can be employed. I usually don't pack a lot of spells that I know are only competing for the same, singular slot. If Wish too a lot of space, would that really matter to me because I wouldn't even want to prep a second 9th to begin with?

Though I do agree your initial proposed budget does sound low, however. Like at level 20, you'd have 31 slot levels. Even using your 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th slot would eat all of your budget. That would just feel sucky to play. Like "we're out to make 3.5 wilder seem reasonable" levels of sucky. I think somewhere around the ballpark of 2 1-5th spells each, then 1 of each level past that would at least be flexible in variety, otherwise you're in 4e territory where there's little to no fight-to-fight variety in how you use your powers.

I think casters tend to have a higher barrier to entry to begin with. We sure could use some classes like Beguiler that are less powerful, have tighter lists (easier for new players), but are good in their own right in other ways.

[Amechra]

There's actually a way simpler way of handling this — instead of using spell level to determine your spell size, use the tier at which a full caster would get that spell.



Spell Levels
Spell Size



1st, 2nd
1


3rd, 4th, 5th
2


6th, 7th, 8th
3


9th
4



There's a much smaller penalty to loading up on higher-level spells, but it's still going to be noticeable.

[Kane0]

There's actually a way simpler way of handling this — instead of using spell level to determine your spell size, use the tier at which a full caster would get that spell.



Spell Levels
Spell Size



1st, 2nd
1


3rd, 4th, 5th
2


6th, 7th, 8th
3


9th
4



There's a much smaller penalty to loading up on higher-level spells, but it's still going to be noticeable.

I like it, has interesting interactions with halfcasters and EK/AT too.

[Bobthewizard]

The new UA seems to be going a little in this direction, but simpler and with less flexibility. For bards at least, they are letting them prepare spells at each level for the spell slots they have. So a high level bard can prepare 4 first, 3 second, 3 third, etc.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There's actually a way simpler way of handling this — instead of using spell level to determine your spell size, use the tier at which a full caster would get that spell.



Spell Levels
Spell Size



1st, 2nd
1


3rd, 4th, 5th
2


6th, 7th, 8th
3


9th
4



There's a much smaller penalty to loading up on higher-level spells, but it's still going to be noticeable.

That's probably a much better way.


Assumptions: +3 starting mod, increasing at 4 and 8. Prioritizing on-level spell access.

Level. Total prepped [1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th]

1. 6 [6]
2. 7 [7]
3. 8 [4, 4]
4. 10 [5, 5]
5. 11 [5, 5, 1]
6. 11 [4, 5, 2] or 12 [6, 5, 1]
7. 12 [5, 5, 1, 1] or 11 [4, 4, 2, 1] or 11 [4, 4, 1, 2]
8. 13 [5, 5, 2, 1] or 12 [5, 4, 2, 2]
9. 14 [5, 5, 2, 1, 1] or 13 [4, 4, 2, 2, 1]
10. 13 [4, 3, 2, 2, 2]
11. 13 [4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1]
12. 14 [4, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1]
13. 14 [4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1]
14. 15 [4, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1]
15. 14 [3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1]
16. 15 [4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1]
17. 14 [3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
18. 15 [3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
19. 16 [4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
20. 17 [4, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]

Or many other patterns.

[Rukelnikov]

The idea of changing preparations methods definitely has merits to it


That's probably a much better way.


Assumptions: +3 starting mod, increasing at 4 and 8. Prioritizing on-level spell access.

Level. Total prepped [1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th]

1. 6 [6]
2. 7 [7]
3. 8 [4, 4]
4. 10 [5, 5]
5. 11 [5, 5, 1]
6. 11 [4, 5, 2] or 12 [6, 5, 1]
7. 12 [5, 5, 1, 1] or 11 [4, 4, 2, 1] or 11 [4, 4, 1, 2]
8. 13 [5, 5, 2, 1] or 12 [5, 4, 2, 2]
9. 14 [5, 5, 2, 1, 1] or 13 [4, 4, 2, 2, 1]
10. 13 [4, 3, 2, 2, 2]
11. 13 [4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1]
12. 14 [4, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1]
13. 14 [4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1]
14. 15 [4, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1]
15. 14 [3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1]
16. 15 [4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1]
17. 14 [3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
18. 15 [3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
19. 16 [4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
20. 17 [4, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]

Or many other patterns.


This however, seems extremely similar to what we currently have, there is a minimal difference in prepared spells, so it sounds like added complexity for little change. Its also a buff until level 6.

The more I look at this the more I think this would work better in an SP based Vancian style. You get a certain ammount of SP (like in the variant method), which you spend to prepare spells, and once they are cast, they are gone.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The idea of changing preparations methods definitely has merits to it



This however, seems extremely similar to what we currently have, there is a minimal difference in prepared spells, so it sounds like added complexity for little change. Its also a buff until level 6.

The more I look at this the more I think this would work better in an SP based Vancian style. You get a certain ammount of SP (like in the variant method), which you spend to prepare spells, and once they are cast, they are gone.

I'd say going from 25 spells, of which any can be any level down to an average of 14 or so, add mostly only having 1-2 spells of any level is a big difference.

[Rukelnikov]

I'd say going from 25 spells, of which any can be any level down to an average of 14 or so, add mostly only having 1-2 spells of any level is a big difference.

I was going by the chart I quoted, which I understand was done with Amechra's suggestion (which is very elegant). Comparing that chart with the UA's preparation method, seems very similar.

1. 6 [6]
2. 7 [7]
3. 8 [4, 4]
4. 10 [5, 5]
5. 11 [5, 5, 1]
6. 11 [4, 5, 2] or 12 [6, 5, 1]
7. 12 [5, 5, 1, 1] or 11 [4, 4, 2, 1] or 11 [4, 4, 1, 2]
8. 13 [5, 5, 2, 1] or 12 [5, 4, 2, 2]
9. 14 [5, 5, 2, 1, 1] or 13 [4, 4, 2, 2, 1]
10. 13 [4, 3, 2, 2, 2]
11. 13 [4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1]
12. 14 [4, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1]
13. 14 [4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1]
14. 15 [4, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1]
15. 14 [3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1]
16. 15 [4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1]
17. 14 [3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
18. 15 [3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
19. 16 [4, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
20. 17 [4, 4, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]

CL - Spell distribution | Total preparation cost - preparation budget (assuming CL+Mod+Prof starting with +3 )
1- 2 | 2 - 6
2- 3 | 3 - 7
3- 4, 2 | 6 - 8
4- 4, 3 | 7 - 10
5- 4, 3, 2 | 11 - 12
6- 4, 3, 3 | 13 - 13
7- 4, 3, 3, 1 | 15 - 14
8- 4, 3, 3, 2 | 17 - 16
9- 4, 3, 3, 3, 1 | 21 - 18
10- 4, 3, 3, 3, 2 | 23 - 19
11- 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1 | 26 - 20
12- 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1 | 26 - 21
13- 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1 | 29 - 23
14- 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1 | 29 - 24
15- 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1 | 32 - 25
16- 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1 | 32 - 26
17- 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1 | 36 - 28
18- 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1 | 38 - 29
19- 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1 | 41 - 30
20- 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1 | 44 - 31

Maybe it is enough, by lvl 20, you could have 1 less spell from level 2-7, yeah, it is significant. IDK, I'd start by deciding what preparation I'd want them to have, and then trying to design the math that would lead there.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I was going by the chart I quoted, which I understand was done with Amechra's suggestion (which is very elegant). Comparing that chart with the UA's preparation method, seems very similar.

...

Maybe it is enough, by lvl 20, you could have 1 less spell from level 2-7, yeah, it is significant. IDK, I'd start by deciding what preparation I'd want them to have, and then trying to design the math that would lead there.

I haven't looked at the UA. I was comparing to the current one. But the last paragraph is also where I'm at as well (which is why I have the header up front, with "this is probably a bad idea, but it's good to document failed ideas").

Currently, full casters scale linearly or better on each of three axes:
- Frequency--they get new spell slots (or effective spell slots, including things like Arcane Recovery, etc) basically evenly throughout the levels.
- Versatility--they get more spell prepared linearly or better (level + mod is slightly faster than linear).
- Power--this one scales substantially better than linear, as the distance between a 9th and an 8th is bigger than between a 2nd and a 1st.
Put it together and you get something like (level)^(3.x) scaling. That's...horrible for the game because the game itself only really handles a much smaller range. So even small issues with the constants and multipliers means you overshoot badly. Martials scale (overall) something like linear at best, generally scaling either power or frequency, with versatility held constant.

So the thing I'd like to see (and not sure how) is something to make casters trade off between power and versatility. Or maybe power and frequency. Something like spell points but with drastically inflated costs for higher level spells (while not giving more points) might work--you can cast a 9th, but it burns you out for the day except maybe a couple 1sts. That'd trade off power and frequency, leading to an overall slower scaling This idea was basically intended to keep versatility constant (past low levels)--if you want higher power, you have to massively trade off on spells prepared. But it's not calibrated right.

That, or just slow down the scaling of spells in general.

Personally (and this is unpopular), but the best overall vertical scaling for TTRPGs is something closer to sqrt(level) or log(level). Fast up front, then slows down. Always positive slope, but maximizes the time you spend in the game's sweet spot. Characters can grow horizontally without threatening that curve, so the big difference between a level 5 (say) and 20 (say) character is mostly that the level 20 can participate in a much wider array of activities. Sure, they're better than the level 5, but still recognizably similar. Small quantitative differences, not massive paradigm shifts. Because games don't handle paradigm shifts well at all (as it's a form of bait and switch).

[Rukelnikov]

I haven't looked at the UA. I was comparing to the current one. But the last paragraph is also where I'm at as well (which is why I have the header up front, with "this is probably a bad idea, but it's good to document failed ideas").

Currently, full casters scale linearly or better on each of three axes:
- Frequency--they get new spell slots (or effective spell slots, including things like Arcane Recovery, etc) basically evenly throughout the levels.
- Versatility--they get more spell prepared linearly or better (level + mod is slightly faster than linear).
- Power--this one scales substantially better than linear, as the distance between a 9th and an 8th is bigger than between a 2nd and a 1st.
Put it together and you get something like (level)^(3.x) scaling. That's...horrible for the game because the game itself only really handles a much smaller range. So even small issues with the constants and multipliers means you overshoot badly. Martials scale (overall) something like linear at best, generally scaling either power or frequency, with versatility held constant.

So the thing I'd like to see (and not sure how) is something to make casters trade off between power and versatility. Or maybe power and frequency. Something like spell points but with drastically inflated costs for higher level spells (while not giving more points) might work--you can cast a 9th, but it burns you out for the day except maybe a couple 1sts. That'd trade off power and frequency, leading to an overall slower scaling This idea was basically intended to keep versatility constant (past low levels)--if you want higher power, you have to massively trade off on spells prepared. But it's not calibrated right.

That, or just slow down the scaling of spells in general.

IMO the solution is pretty simple, casters don't recover every spell in a single long rest, my group does that, and it works for u, its not perfect, but blowing every spell you have in an encounter means you won't be full power for about a week.


Personally (and this is unpopular), but the best overall vertical scaling for TTRPGs is something closer to sqrt(level) or log(level). Fast up front, then slows down. Always positive slope, but maximizes the time you spend in the game's sweet spot. Characters can grow horizontally without threatening that curve, so the big difference between a level 5 (say) and 20 (say) character is mostly that the level 20 can participate in a much wider array of activities. Sure, they're better than the level 5, but still recognizably similar. Small quantitative differences, not massive paradigm shifts. Because games don't handle paradigm shifts well at all (as it's a form of bait and switch).

Idk if its unpopular or not, all the many changes I do to the leveling system are mainly for that exact reason. WoD(Chronicles of Darkness and previous, not the one that came after that) or SWd6(REUP) have leveling patterns which are incredibly better than DnD for the kind of stories I like to tell, and meet most of what you are asking for here. Getting the 5th dot in something is usually almost as expensive as going from 0 to 3, eventually diversifying becomes so much cheaper than keep piling on your main schtick that you are heavily incentivised to do so, but not forced to.

I don't think such a pattern can be married with a leveling system, unless the ammount of levels goes FAR higher than 20.

[Amechra]

casters don't recover every spell in a single long rest

I'm curious — how do you determine how many spells spellcasters get to recover?

[Rukelnikov]

I'm curious — how do you determine how many spells spellcasters get to recover?

We tried many different approachs, last time we were doing proficiency spell levels per long rest.

[Kane0]

We tried many different approachs, last time we were doing proficiency spell levels per long rest.

That was my first guess, but how do you get back a spell slot thats higher than your prof bonus? You just bank them up?

[Rukelnikov]

That was my first guess, but how do you get back a spell slot thats higher than your prof bonus? You just bank them up?

Yeah /10chars

[Witty Username]

I would actually argue that power doesn't scale that well with casters, depending on what is being looked at.

Take damage for example, there is a significant jump from 2nd level spells to 3rd level, and another from around 8th to 9th, but the jump from 2nd to 3rd is about the same as 3rd to around 7th-8th level spells.

Factor in that the at will damage scaling for casters is basically non-existant in comparison to non-casters (with the exception of warlock). And damage scaling of casters is pretty bad for most purposes.

[Kane0]

Damage absolutely, but what are the others?

[Chronos]

As it is, most people already spread out their preparations more or less evenly over their spell levels, because that's the most efficient way to make use of your spell slots. They could use all of their preparation slots on high-level spells, but they don't.

If we looked at the number typically prepared for each spell level, and codified it, and said that you must have this number of each level, then we'd have a system that'd make more sense to you, but it wouldn't actually change anything for most casters, and it'd add extra bookkeeping.

So just assume that that's the sort of system we already have, and this is just the low-bookkeeping method of implementing it.

[Witty Username]

Damage absolutely, but what are the others?

Well there is also healing, which generally doesn't scale at all, until something like 7th(6th?) level where heal comes online. With an honorable mention of aura of vitality and healing spirit which have niches in out of combat healing.

And for things that scale weirdly there is also disables(no scaling past 3rd level spells, then jumps off the graph with forcecage), and utility (another more or less stops after 3rd level spells apart from weird stragglers).

[KorvinStarmast]

Important: See the summary in bold at the bottom. Interesting, but needs a lot of work to make it doable. Probably best to find other solutions, but documenting things tried and discarded is as important as documenting successes. The spell points variant takes care of most of this.
Add a semi Vancian "and you have to have them all ready to go using the spell points allocated" you've solved your problem. A slight tweak to how many points you get at a given level may be necessary, but from the two times I've played spell points games what is in the DMG is almost "just right".

Let me offer an example of an Arcana Cleric at level 7.
S 13 D 12 C 14 I 10 W 18 Ch 10
Language: Aquan; Common
Prof: Simple Weapons; Light + Med Armor; Shields
Sav Prof: Con, Wis, Cha
Skil Prof: Arcana, History, Insight, Peception, Persuasion, Survival
Spell Load Out

C - Lightning Lure (Dom); Shape Water (Dom); Light; Sacred Flame; Guidance; Resistance;
Spells prepared before 'total prep' model.
1 - Magic Missile (Dom); Detect Magic (Dom); Healing Word; Protection from Evil/Good; Bless; Bane
2 - Magic Weapon (Dom); Nystul's Magic Aura (Dom); Blindness/Deafness; Lesser Restoration; Spiritual Weapon;
3 - Magic Circle (Dom); Dispel Magic (Dom); Revivify; Bestow Curse; Spirit Guardians
4 - Arcane Eye (Dom); Leomund's Secret Chest (Dom); Banishment
Spells Prepared with "total prep" model.
Spell Points Reminder.
Level 6 = 32 | Level 7= 38 |Level 8= 44 | Level 9=57 | Level 10= 64 | Level 11=73 (And so on)
Points per spell/level: 1st 2 2nd 3 3rd 5 4th 6 5th 7 6th 9 7th 10 8th 11 9th 13 footnote
I have 38 points. I can prepare 19 lvl 1 spells, yes, but let's try for a balanced load out:
------------------------
2 x Bless; 1 x Protection from evil/good, 1x Healing Word {8}
1 x lesser restoration, 1 x Spiritual Weapon; 1x Blindness/Deafness {9}
1 x Revivify, 1 x Spirit Guardians, 1 x Dispel Magic {15}
1 x Banishment {6}
-------------------------
38 points and I can't change them until my next rest/prep session.
Channel Divinity:
Turn Undead: becomes Destroy Undead at 5, see table for CR line up
Abjure (celestial, elemental, fey, fiend) becomes banish at level 5, see table for line up.
Spell Breaker
Starting at 6th level, when you restore hit points to an ally with a spell of 1st level or higher, you can also end one spell of your choice on that creature. The level of the spell you end must be equal to or lower than the level of the spell slot you use to cast the healing spell.
Notice this SP limitation:
You can use spell points to create one slot of each level of 6th or higher. You can’t create another slot of the same level until you finish a Long Rest.
footnote
It might be better to slightly increase the cost of a given level's spell points.
The formula seems to be roughly
"1.5 spell points costs per spell level, round up"
so maybe spell point costs ought to be.
1st|2; 2nd|3; 3rd|5; 4th|6; 5th|8; 6th|9; 7th|11; 8th|12; 9th|14.

You could add an additional point for all spells 6th lvl and up so that we have 6th|10; 7th|12; 8th|13; 9th|15 to complement the guidance from spell points that you only get one each of 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th.

Not sure what that does to your model, but it's probably doable.

The snag is that this requires the players to actually think ahead, and plan ahead, for each session/adventure in terms of trying to put together a spell load out that fits the mission. Probably works better for a West Marches kind of campaign.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Monte Cook’s Invisible Sun RPG, has a spellcasting class, (The Vance), that does use ‘spell size’ to determine how many spells one can prepare.

[MrStabby]

Slightly different but I played a homebrew class a few months ago that had some things in common with this. It was a witch, where a theme was that the lower level more subtle spells were important but there were still some flashy things.

The class covered this by having a very, very tight set of spells known but also allowed you to prepare up to proficiency modifier +2 spell levels of spells each day. So it provided an incentive to use lower level spells as part of your plan more - you could have more on hand and swap them out.

Honestly, I took a while to get used to, but I liked it. The Low level spells seem to give more fun - you can feel fine about burning more in an encounter so it's less a or nothing and you areess likely to do something powerful enough to spoil an encounter for others.

I think as a tool it could be another level to pull to encourage themes or specialisms - give a discount on 'space' for spells of the right school for wizards (so an abjuration wizard can know more abjuratikn spells) or warlock patron spells or similar. It could tip some borderline spells into usefulness.

[Kane0]

While we are on the train of thought, perhaps some sort of spell linkage limitation? Something to enforce thematic cohesion and dissuade cherrypicking without removing spell selection entirely (such as by bundling spells into packages).

What I mean by that is spells you learn/prepare have to be connected in some way, some combination of spell level, spell school and [tags] or something. You cant just choose dominate monster in isolation because it is unrelated to other spells (or spell chains) you have taken like fireball and teleport, so you need to 'bridge the gap' with other spells that share (whatever method) like say charm monster and enemies abound.

[KorvinStarmast]

While we are on the train of thought, perhaps some sort of spell linkage limitation? Something to enforce thematic cohesion and dissuade cherrypicking without removing spell selection entirely (such as by bundling spells into packages).

What I mean by that is spells you learn/prepare have to be connected in some way, some combination of spell level, spell school and [tags] or something. You cant just choose dominate monster in isolation because it is unrelated to other spells (or spell chains) you have taken like fireball and teleport, so you need to 'bridge the gap' with other spells that share (whatever method) like say charm monster and enemies abound.
A clunky way to do this is that each additional spell school costs a point (a spent point with no credit to a spell slot) So in my above example, if I prepare from three different spell schools, I lose two points and can only prepare 36 points worth.

The problem with that is that currently the spell schools are not balanced against each other at all.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A clunky way to do this is that each additional spell school costs a point (a spent point with no credit to a spell slot) So in my above example, if I prepare from three different spell schools, I lose two points and can only prepare 36 points worth.

The problem with that is that currently the spell schools are not balanced against each other at all.
I agree with that last sentence. Spell schools sink at anything around balance. Or even thematics, mostly. Too ill defined, with too many spells in the wrong spot and too many gaps in some schools.

[JonBeowulf]

I'm surprised no one has brought up what this does to upcasting. Spells can't use a higher level slot if there are no slots to use. Everyone just blasts away as Warlocks do?

[Witty Username]

I agree with that last sentence. Spell schools sink at anything around balance. Or even thematics, mostly. Too ill defined, with too many spells in the wrong spot and too many gaps in some schools.

That is straight facts, at least in 5e, I feel like 3.5 did a decent job of it, but that is mostly a reflection of how much I liked the Complete Mage supplement book and its two chapters on spell schools, their methodologies and philosophical outlooks, and different archetypes of mages/arcane spellcasters and how different spells, feats, skills and classes fit into those archetypes. And multi-school spells made alot of sense to me.

[Amechra]

I'm surprised no one has brought up what this does to upcasting. Spells can't use a higher level slot if there are no slots to use. Everyone just blasts away as Warlocks do?

Could you expand on this? Because I literally don't understand what you're talking about. What is this about spells not being able to use higher level slots?

[JonBeowulf]

Could you expand on this? Because I literally don't understand what you're talking about. What is this about spells not being able to use higher level slots?

If spells are prepared by this new spell-inventory-thing, then there is no reason for casters to have spell slots because who cares if they have X slots for level Y spells when they're just filling up their spell-inventory-thing with whatever they want to cram in there.

If they keep their slots then I don't see a reason for this exercise... unless we're trying to reduce the number of spells prepared. There are much easier ways to go about that.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm surprised no one has brought up what this does to upcasting. Spells can't use a higher level slot if there are no slots to use. Everyone just blasts away as Warlocks do?
Not actually a problem. We didn't upcast spells for the pre WoTC editions and somehow we managed to have fun.

Secondly: you can prepare a 3rd level Magic Missile for your third level slot. Where's the problem? The choice made is where the player has to think through what they are up against.

"Hmm, three of us in the party, we will probably need to fly, I'll prepare a level 5 fly spell so that all of us can fly" is one way this plays out.

[JonBeowulf]

Not actually a problem. We didn't upcast spells for the pre WoTC editions and somehow we managed to have fun.

Secondly: you can prepare a 3rd level Magic Missile for your third level slot. Where's the problem? The choice made is where the player has to think through what they are up against.

"Hmm, three of us in the party, we will probably need to fly, I'll prepare a level 5 fly spell so that all of us can fly" is one way this plays out.
[CENSORED] Korvin! That's the second time you've come back at me with a simple solution. :smallsmile:

So yep, shove the larger-than-normal Magic Missile in your spell-inventory-thing and blast away. We good.

We couldn't upcast spells pre-WotC, but some spells increased with level. In BECMI, Magic Missile only gave you one arrow but you got two more arrows for every 5 character levels. They also did 1d6+1 damage. I'm pretty sure it was the same in 1e and 2e.

[Kane0]

Chromatic Orb scaled pretty well too, adding conditions as well as damage

[PhoenixPhyre]

My actual intent was merely that you're preparing (budgeting) based on base level. So you could prepare a magic missile, taking up 1 point. But cast it out of a 9th level slot later (if you have one later). Because, for me, slot is about energy cost, while (base) spell level/"size" is about complexity. Those are correlated (higher complexity spells require more energy to cast at all), but not bidirectionally. You can spend more energy than needed on a spell (upcasting). But the "brain space" it takes up is still the same. In many cases, the extra power is just wasted.

You can run Doom on a top-of-the-line gaming monstrosity of a PC. But it still takes up the same size on disk. Or you can run Doom on an Apple Watch. Still the same (roughly, accounting for packaging) size on disk. But very different power draw and performance. But you can't (at least last I checked) run Crysis on an Apple Watch. Nor can you fit CoD:latest on a floppy disk. Not enough storage space.

[KorvinStarmast]

[CENSORED] Korvin! That's the second time you've come back at me with a simple solution. :smallsmile: We live to serve. :smallsmile:

In BECMI, Magic Missile only gave you one arrow but you got two more arrows for every 5 character levels. They also did 1d6+1 damage. I'm pretty sure it was the same in 1e and 2e. I'd need to get the PHB out, but IIRC 1e was 1d4+1 with one more missile at every odd level. But don't take that to the bank, it might have been 1d6+1...not near those old books at the mo.

[Rukelnikov]

We live to serve. :smallsmile:
I'd need to get the PHB out, but IIRC 1e was 1d4+1 with one more missile at every odd level. But don't take that to the bank, it might have been 1d6+1...not near those old books at the mo.

That's how it worked in 2e and 3e, I always assumed it had been like that since forever.

[JonBeowulf]

My actual intent was merely that you're preparing (budgeting) based on base level. So you could prepare a magic missile, taking up 1 point. But cast it out of a 9th level slot later (if you have one later). Because, for me, slot is about energy cost, while (base) spell level/"size" is about complexity. Those are correlated (higher complexity spells require more energy to cast at all), but not bidirectionally. You can spend more energy than needed on a spell (upcasting). But the "brain space" it takes up is still the same. In many cases, the extra power is just wasted.
<snip>
Okay, I see what you're getting at and I don't know if it's any easier than the [spellcasting ability modifier] + [character level] that we have now. It doesn't seem difficult. It's different... dunno if it's easier or better.

[Witty Username]

So, essentially, the idea here is to make having 1 spell prepared per each spell level impossible?
At least if we keep the current number of spells prepared. But the whole idea is to reduce that, so increasing it to compensate feels wrong.

I don't like the idea, it reduces power, but adds complexity for classes that already have that as an issue. I feel like reducing the number of preparations would be a better solution for the targeted problem.
But, I may be the wrong person to ask. I personally think preparations are about right for most classes though, with a slight exception for the Sorcerer and Bard (after magical secrets and subclass features they start to do okay, but the base spells known is pretty tight).

[Kane0]

Good point, it might be better to decide on a number of spells available that is 'right' and then come up with a way to get to that number

[PhoenixPhyre]

I did note, repeatedly that this was an idea I'd tried to puzzle out and found wanting. A "well, that was an interesting idea, but didn't work out properly" report. Not something I'm planning on implementing in a game.

[Aquillion]

This is functionally how point-based casters (like Psions) work. Before considering implementing something like this I would look at that - in particular the "cost = base CL for that spell level" bit.

Generally speaking turning three first level spells into one third level spell would be too good of a deal (and while you could adjust the total number of spell slots to avoid giving people too many high-level spells, you'd just end up with nobody using lower-level spells.) Going 1/3/5/7/9/11/13/15/17 instead avoids this problem and discourages players from just automatically dumping everything into their high-level spells.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is functionally how point-based casters (like Psions) work. Before considering implementing something like this I would look at that - in particular the "cost = base CL for that spell level" bit.

Generally speaking turning three first level spells into one third level spell would be too good of a deal (and while you could adjust the total number of spell slots to avoid giving people too many high-level spells, you'd just end up with nobody using lower-level spells.) Going 1/3/5/7/9/11/13/15/17 instead avoids this problem and discourages players from just automatically dumping everything into their high-level spells. In a scheme like this, is spell / psion points equal to a 2 per level or 3 per level or something like that?

[Aquillion]

In a scheme like this, is spell / psion points equal to a 2 per level or 3 per level or something like that?Significantly more than that. Look at the mystic (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UAMystic3.pdf) for one possible reference.