Why not offer a system of 20 levels of spells rather than 9. Monte Cook has already shown us it can be done here.
Its a great solution to the 5 minute work day of spell casters, and it does it without making them overly powerful or week.
Actually, I am surprised someone else hasn't already started a thread on this. I've been checking by waiting to see it. Hmmm, maybe some one has and I missed it
I think that moving to a 20-level spell system would violate the backward compatibility goal of Pathfinder - there are too many things written that use the 9-level system.
There's other stuff we can steal from Monte. ;)
I think that moving to a 20-level spell system would violate the backward compatibility goal of Pathfinder - there are too many things written that use the 9-level system.
There's other stuff we can steal from Monte. ;)
Agreed. While a 20-level spell system is nifty from a design point of view, I think it adds a bit too much change. Monte's system is still out there for those who want to try it. Otherwise, I say we stick with the classic system.
I agree with the other comments. Although I do like the idea of spell level = caster level, the compatibility with 3.5E aim of the Pathfinder RPG would be compromised by implementing this. I would probably be willing to sacrifice some compatibility to achieve this, but I think most people would not be willing to do so.
Funny. I would go the other way round, and reduce the spell levels to 4 or 5.
|
20 levels of spells is interesting, but I agree that it would stray way to far from 3.5 to maintain backward compatibility. I think it might be one of those things that just has to go on the Sacred Cow list.
Besides, from what I understand, 4E is doing exactly that, so ...well, take that for whatever it's worth, I guess :)