Replace spell level with proficiency

[sadie]

Here's an out-there idea, related to the call to rename spell levels to something else. Since we have this proficiency system, which applies to spellcasting, why not use that in place of level as the gate for spell learning?

Spells in this system would be divided into four groups / levels / tiers: trained, expert, master and legendary. Instead of "Spell 5", it would be marked "Expert spell", meaning that you need to be at least expert in spellcasting to learn it.

Spell lists (arcane / divine / occult / primal) would be unaffected by this.

[Freagarthach]

sadie wrote:

Here's an out-there idea, related to the call to rename spell levels to something else. Since we have this proficiency system, which applies to spellcasting, why not use that in place of level as the gate for spell learning?

Spells in this system would be divided into four groups / levels / tiers: trained, expert, master and legendary. Instead of "Spell 5", it would be marked "Expert spell", meaning that you need to be at least expert in spellcasting to learn it.

Spell lists (arcane / divine / occult / primal) would be unaffected by this.

While this seems like a massive rework of the Vancian foundations, I definitely like this concept. How would you group the spells as they currently exist in 1st through 10th level form?

My initial thought would be Trained 1-2, Expert 3-5, Master 6-7, Legendary 8-10. It feels like you could adjust most things that exist in those regions into a 4 tier system...it would just take a massive amount of work, testing, revision, and more testing.

Not sure if the granularity that currently exists or the simplicity of the proficiency system as you propose would be the better system for most players.

[thelostgod]

Currently using a similar system in the mechanics I'm attempting to create.
My solution (which would never work with current PF2 rules) was to add Proficiencies associated with varying aspects of spells (duration, AoE, range, etc) and then baseline spells with simple numbers that adjust based on what a character focuses in. The end result is that someone can turn Lightning Bolt into Chain Lightning via proficiency investment. Makes sorting spells a lot easier (we're actually using a 3-tier system for ours).

[WizardsBlade]

I haven't run the numbers on spells but typically spells get more efficient dps as they get higher levels. Ie a level 1 spell heightened to level 10 is not as good as a level 10 spell. I'm not saying it can't be do e, but they would have to rework the math to go from 10 levels to 4 levels. Also the tiers would need to follow the level progression of skills so player level 1 for trained, 3 for expert, 7 for master and 15 for legendary. That will translate to spell groupings of 1 trained, 2-4 expert, 5-7 master, and 8-10 legendary. This gives characters access to 10th level spells at character level 15. While I really like the idea I believe it would require a lot of background changes to employment correctly.

[sadie]

The main issue I'd see is with the playtest's heightened spell mechanic, which is directly related to level. However, many spells already heighten in units of 2 spell levels, so remaking that as an increase in proficiency isn't that much.

---

PASS WITHOUT TRACE - Trained Spell

Casting Somatic Casting, Verbal Casting
Duration 1 hour

You reduce the tracks you leave behind, adding a +4 conditional
bonus to the DC needed to track you, or setting the DC of
tracking you equal to the spell’s DC, whichever is higher. You can
gain only one of these two benefits; casting pass without trace
multiple times doesn’t improve the DC further.

Heightened (expert) The duration increases to 8 hours.
Heightened (master) The duration increases to 8 hours. The spell
has a 20-foot range and a 20-foot aura area, affecting up to 10
creatures of your choice within that area.

[Midnightoker]

While I love this concept, I think there needs to be a math component to adjust the "dead levels" you would feel as a spellcaster in between proficiency boosts amended to every spell.

Heightening as you've described it is good, but I don't think it is enough, and Spell DC alone going up leaves a lot of spells less off.

Especially damage based spells, which will suffer immensely from this breakdown.

If they went this way, you could likely mix back in a lot of the level*X components that were present in PF1 (range, damage, duration, etc.) which seemed to be something they relegated to heightening only.

[Joey Cote]

What you propose would with the present system would either have 1st level characters with access to level 2+ spells, and at least some casters not having access to higher level spells until level 12. Or you would have to change when casters get access to expert caster proficiency. Or would have to create an entirely new granularity in spells.

Of the top of my head, that system would entirely break the heal spell. Since it would only do 1d8 until the caster gained access to expert rank. At point it advances to .... what? Which means you would also have to entirely rework how heightening works.

Its kind of an interesting idea, but would require a top down rework of the entire spell casting system, and I just don't think that is going to happen.

[oholoko]

I wouldn't say do it right now. But wow something like this is the best alterbpative rule.

[sadie]

I knew this was an out there idea, and unlikely to happen in this version. Still, I think it's useful to think about.

[Midnightoker]

sadie wrote:

I knew this was an out there idea, and unlikely to happen in this version. Still, I think it's useful to think about.

I don't disagree, and I think it gives Proficiency some presence to Spells that is really lacking at the moment.

So let me say this:

What if we abstracted your concept to Metamagic feats, where those require certain levels of proficiencies to apply them, and you can apply them freely with some specifications.

I.E.

Reach Spell
Requirements: Trained Spell Proficiency
Trigger: You start to cast a spell that has a range. The spell must have a maximum of 2 spellcasting actions.

You add a Somatic Casting action to the casting of the triggering spell to increase its range by 30 feet. If the spell normally has a range of touch, you instead extend its range to 30 feet, and if the touch spell normally requires an attack roll or a touch attack roll, it now requires a ranged attack roll or a ranged touch attack roll, as appropriate.

Expert Proficiency: You can apply this Metamagic Feat without an action increase to Spells 3rd level or lower
Master Proficiency: You can apply this Metamagic Feat without an action increase to Spells 6th level or lower
Legendary Proficiency: You can apply this Metamagic Feat without an action increase to Spells 9th level or lower

That might be a way to give spells a little more potency based on Proficiency (effectively creating whole tiers of spells) without having to rewire a great deal of the game for balancing purposes (in the grand scheme of things, the above is not that "overpowered" as it really only grants an extra action)

[Zamfield]

So the proficiency is gated to the following:

Level 1: Trained - Cantrips and 1st level spells
Level 2: Expert - 2nd and 3rd level spells
Level 7: Master - 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th level spells
Level 15: Legendary - 8th level spells and above.

Or like the archetype feats:
Level 1: Trained - Cantrips
Level 2: Expert - 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells
Level 7: Master - 4th, 5th, and 6th level spells
Level 15: Legendary - 7th level spells and above.

I also like the idea of proficiency granting meta magic feats instead of having feat taxes.

But then lots of spells that used to naturally increase in intensity, targets, range, and area as you leveled are now just fixed in everything but intensity and you are required to trade up to higher level slots for that increase. It wouldn't be a bad idea to apply some of those modifications based on proficiency for each spell. I could imagine a legendary spell caster can cast a burning hands that is a 25' cone by add an extra somatic action, while having the Widen spell feat could let you do it without the extra action, or with a 3 action spell.

[SuperSheep]

Flatter amount of HP with slower scaling could help solve that problem. Frankly scaling HP introduces a ton of problems, in general.

How many problems go away when you don't have to scale up HP and, therefore, damage with level.

It's probably a non-starter because people absolutely have to have their big numbers, but there are a lot of systems that don't have scaling HP and they avoid a whole host of issues as a result.

[sadie]

I'd be happy with a much flatter HP curve. People want to improve as they level, but the improvement doesn't need to be anywhere near as steep as it is now. A level 20 Barbarian typically has more than 300 hp. That's ludicrous.

[Hakon007]

in my opinion spell level has always been a theoretical exponential scoring system, like the Richter scale.

so it would take 10 level 1 light spells being cast simultaneous to defeat a level 10 darkness

or 10 casters casting level 7 prismatic spray to defeat a prismatic wall level 8

or an army of 10 billion low level casters casting level 1 light to defeat a level 10 casting of darkness