|
Ok. I know you dont get the higher level bonus spell slots for having high stats.
But, how unbalancing is it to let the caster have the spell slots early?
So that a 1st level caster, instead of having only 2 first level spell slots would have 5. (with some open to being meta-magicked)
Ive wondered, but havent tried this in practice before. Is it really that disruptive?
So what your asking is if you let him have the say 3rd lvl bonus slot when he's 1st to just use for meta-magic feats to affect his 1st lvl spells?
I wouldn't do it, personnally. I do think it would unbalance things greatly! Just do the math yourself and see what his damage range could be? Then compare that to typical monster encounters (i.e. a Goblin).
Ok. I know you dont get the higher level bonus spell slots for having high stats.
But, how unbalancing is it to let the caster have the spell slots early?
So that a 1st level caster, instead of having only 2 first level spell slots would have 5. (with some open to being meta-magicked)
Ive wondered, but havent tried this in practice before. Is it really that disruptive?
Getting spell slots early can break the game from the player's or DM's side of the screen. It gives them the ability to cast more spells than they are supposed to have. Having a low level caster with extra spells as an enemy boss can kill a party. At least if I can only cast sleep twice as an example the party is limited to two saves. If the necromancer in Age of Worms would have had 2 or 3 more spells the party would have been sent packing, both time that I ran it. It also allows for a nova condition to enter the game, but since you have these extra spell slot there really is no downside to it, which is not a good thing.
even if its only 3 more spells?
I havent tried it yet, So Im not sure, and by the time I get to the levels that I see a lot of mages as the BBEG, they are usually high enough you dont use your bonus slots on 1st level spells.
More spells is always an advantage, and it's not "even if it's three more spells", because someone else can come along with a 20 and have double the number of spells they should have per day.
even if its only 3 more spells?
I havent tried it yet, So Im not sure, and by the time I get to the levels that I see a lot of mages as the BBEG, they are usually high enough you dont use your bonus slots on 1st level spells.
It is not just 3 spells. It is 3 of your highest level spells. Those are the ones that are the game changers, which is why it is an issue.
Imagine you are a 3rd level party going against my 7th level wizard boss, and he has 3 more enervations. That is at least -3 levels which kills a party member. If I roll the at least a 2 which is slightly below average I can take out 2 party members.I could also throw up stoneskin, and black tentacles and this leave me with my regular spells plus that 1 extra spell from the higher spell slot that I should not have anyway.
If I go with a druid I use Spike Stones to make you take the long way around, and flame strike you twice for a combined 14d6 before I get to my normal spells. Then you still have to get past the animal companion and the druid can melee pretty decently also.
It is not just 3 spells. It is 3 of your highest level spells. Those are the ones that are the game changers, which is why it is an issue.
Imagine you are a 3rd level party going against my 7th level wizard boss, and he has 3 more enervations. That is at least -3 levels which kills a party member. If I roll the at least a 2 which is slightly below average I can take out 2 party members.I could also throw up stoneskin, and black tentacles and this leave me with my regular spells plus that 1 extra spell from the higher spell slot that I should not have anyway.
If I go with a druid I use Spike Stones to make you take the long way around, and flame strike you twice for a combined 14d6 before I get to my normal spells. Then you still have to get past the animal companion and the druid can melee pretty decently also.
Not sure Im following here.
As you go higher levels, those bonus levels "disappear" since you have spells of that level to fill them with.
At first level, you have 3 extra. at 3rd/4th, you'd only have 1 "extra" since you can now cast 1st and 2nd level.
And its still limited to the top level you can cast at that level.I can see Kierato's point about a stat 20 having tons of extra spells at first level (6 to be exact; which would kinda make sense for a genius level) But it seems to me that for significant stat bumps, your already climbing high enough that the drop in number as spell level increases (minus 3 when 2nd level spells are available, minus 1 more each level after) and the magic items that offset and all the other tricks to get around seem to make this negligible to higher level mages.
With a rule like this in place the extra spells will go down as you level, and I was just using an example, but if I were a player I would do everything I could to get that extra free spell.
I basically don't see what it adds to the game. Now if your players are burning through spells then they need to manage resources more carefully or they can just rest more. Being a caster does not mean you drop a spell every round. I don't think it is that bad in the long run, but at low level those extra spells matter.
It would matter more to me if cantrips were not unlimited use, but as it is they are so you always have something to fall back on.
The biggest argument I see 'for' allowing this is that everyone else gets full use of their stats at level 1 while spell casters don't -- after all a fighter doesn't have a cap on the bonus damage he can do at first level from his strength modifier.
At the same time that argument does have some holes in it too, and at the end of the day with unlimited cantrips I don't feel this change would be needed.
I wouldn't fight against it either though -- basically it would allow more encounters per day for the party at lower levels, and I don't see that as a bad thing.