PDA

View Full Version : Lower Level Spells In Higher Level Slots



Dispel
06-25-2011, 11:23 AM
Level 6 arcane spells are awesome. Level 7 arcane spells are terribad.

I wish I could put some level 6 spells in my level 7 spell slots.

danielost
06-25-2011, 01:47 PM
there is already a thread on this

Dispel
06-25-2011, 01:50 PM
Where at? I don't want to necro.. I think I got a warning on that once.

camels
06-25-2011, 01:51 PM
there is already a thread on this

the funny thing is that thread you are talking about?

yep, dispel was the OP of that one too.

Dispel
06-25-2011, 01:54 PM
the funny thing is that thread you are talking about?

yep, dispel was the OP of that one too.

Yeah that would have been a definite necro then because that was on my previous account.

Aashrym
06-25-2011, 01:56 PM
I think the spell pass might have complicated it a bit with the change to costs. Adding +5 sp for each higher level it's slotted into doesn't sound too bad tho.

Dispel
06-25-2011, 02:02 PM
I think the spell pass might have complicated it a bit with the change to costs. Adding +5 sp for each higher level it's slotted into doesn't sound too bad tho.

That would be fine. I wouldn't mind if they added +100 SP to it I sit in PvP all day anyway.

Aashrym
06-25-2011, 02:16 PM
That would be fine. I wouldn't mind if they added +100 SP to it I sit in PvP all day anyway.

If that's all you did then there wouldn't be much point because you'd be at first level spell slots still. I'll still make comments based on the assumption there is more than PvP involved. ;)

I'm a fan of being able to swap slots for higher slots. I think the costs might have complicated it, and I'm not sure how well the 3 day swap or blood of dragons affects inter-level swaps.

It would be nice to help manage spell selection for some players.

Asmodeus451
06-25-2011, 02:23 PM
this actually doesnt sound like that bad of an idea.

To balance it, make it so that putting a lower level spell in a higher level slot, it ups the SP cost of that spell to the standard cost for the higher level slot.

k1ngp1n
06-25-2011, 02:45 PM
I dislike this. With the power of casters atm, I want a significant tradeoff in spell selection. The correct response to level 6 spells being better than level 7s is to introduce new, good level 7 spells, and preserve the current level 6 choices that need to be made.

Jaid314
06-25-2011, 03:16 PM
I dislike this. With the power of casters atm, I want a significant tradeoff in spell selection. The correct response to level 6 spells being better than level 7s is to introduce new, good level 7 spells, and preserve the current level 6 choices that need to be made.

agreed, but we still should be able to use higher level slots for lower level spells.

i can't for the life of me imagine why people think it needs to have an added cost though. should melees be punished for taking feats with prerequisites that can be met at lower levels if they qualify for feats with prereqs that can be met at higher levels?

"Oh, i'm sorry, you could have qualified for quick draw at level 1. as an arbitrary and nonsensical punishment for not choosing quick draw in your level 1 feat slot, we're going to make your attack speed 5% slower every time you use the feat, for 10 seconds".

Aashrym
06-25-2011, 03:27 PM
agreed, but we still should be able to use higher level slots for lower level spells.

i can't for the life of me imagine why people think it needs to have an added cost though. should melees be punished for taking feats with prerequisites that can be met at lower levels if they qualify for feats with prereqs that can be met at higher levels?

"Oh, i'm sorry, you could have qualified for quick draw at level 1. as an arbitrary and nonsensical punishment for not choosing quick draw in your level 1 feat slot, we're going to make your attack speed 5% slower every time you use the feat, for 10 seconds".

My concern is the DC change on the spell improving it's effectiveness, but even if the DC didn't change I would prefer to have a cost in there for moving those spells as an offset to improving the effectiveness of the caster when a limitation on spell slots becomes less limiting.

steelblueskies
06-25-2011, 03:32 PM
Then require the feat that should have been used to enable this if we had apropriate spell slots per level/class: maximize, or empower.
Oh wait, we likely will have that already on an arcane...

azrael4h
06-25-2011, 03:48 PM
My concern is the DC change on the spell improving it's effectiveness, but even if the DC didn't change I would prefer to have a cost in there for moving those spells as an offset to improving the effectiveness of the caster when a limitation on spell slots becomes less limiting.

There shouldn't BE a DC change; this is just using a higher level slot to memorize a lower level spell. Memming Magic Missile instead of Polar Ray in that last level 8 slot, for example (I'd laugh my *** off if someone actually did that!). This isn't asking for a free heighten.

That said, I'm not sure it would be good for the game, or necessary. It's not like there's a huge amount of choice in effectiveness in slots, save in a few levels here and there (level 4 arcane, level 6 divine, etc).

And K1ngp1n has the correct solution: more spells so you have goodies to slot at all points, rather than having **** at some levels and wanting to use those slots for something better at a lower level. I'm all for adding new toys to tinker with, rather than tweaking stuff so we can use more of what we don't use anyway.

doubledge
06-25-2011, 03:53 PM
paladins have 4 level 2 spel slots at level 20.

of those level 2 spells, the only ones even worth considering at cap are resist energy, and maybe remove paralysis.

i would like to use those for 1st level spells badly.

Aashrym
06-25-2011, 04:03 PM
There shouldn't BE a DC change; this is just using a higher level slot to memorize a lower level spell. Memming Magic Missile instead of Polar Ray in that last level 8 slot, for example (I'd laugh my *** off if someone actually did that!). This isn't asking for a free heighten.

That said, I'm not sure it would be good for the game, or necessary. It's not like there's a huge amount of choice in effectiveness in slots, save in a few levels here and there (level 4 arcane, level 6 divine, etc).

And K1ngp1n has the correct solution: more spells so you have goodies to slot at all points, rather than having **** at some levels and wanting to use those slots for something better at a lower level. I'm all for adding new toys to tinker with, rather than tweaking stuff so we can use more of what we don't use anyway.

There shouldn't be a DC change, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be one. I would expect at least some push back from some players if there wasn't. Heighten makes that a bit moot but I could see someone trying to use it as a replacement for heighten on a bard and just load a few good CC spells in a lvl 6 slot.

The only point is to move crowded slots to less crowded slots. If that was implemented I think there should be a cost to offset the added flexibility. Not an unreasonable request, IMO.

Jaid314
06-25-2011, 04:23 PM
There shouldn't be a DC change, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be one. I would expect at least some push back from some players if there wasn't. Heighten makes that a bit moot but I could see someone trying to use it as a replacement for heighten on a bard and just load a few good CC spells in a lvl 6 slot.

The only point is to move crowded slots to less crowded slots. If that was implemented I think there should be a cost to offset the added flexibility. Not an unreasonable request, IMO.

it should have been in the base version, though. it's a standard D20 rule to be able to do that. and in any case, if there are actually good spells at all levels, it would mean that it is giving up flexibility for flexibility, and is thus equal.

azrael4h
06-25-2011, 04:49 PM
it should have been in the base version, though. it's a standard D20 rule to be able to do that. and in any case, if there are actually good spells at all levels, it would mean that it is giving up flexibility for flexibility, and is thus equal.

Of course, standard D20 rules don't use spell points, instead you memorize how ever many 'copies' of a spell you think you'll need per day.

And again, if there were more spells to counteract, making those level x slots worth using over a lower level spell, then this would be moot; it would have a clear tradeoff. So regardless, more spells!

Aashrym
06-25-2011, 05:03 PM
it should have been in the base version, though. it's a standard D20 rule to be able to do that. and in any case, if there are actually good spells at all levels, it would mean that it is giving up flexibility for flexibility, and is thus equal.

If we had more spells for each level then adding the swap is still an increase in flexibility. If there were 30 spells at each level a 7th level slot has 210 options instead of 30 if we add the ability to slot lower level spells. That's a lot of options. Most of them might not be worth it, but it does still adds more flexibility in the options with the more spells we have available.

If you are saying the cost is the lost opportunity for the higher level spell that might be a loss, but I would like a small cost.

In PnP a sorc could use a daily use of a higher level daily slot to cast a lower level spell if he was out of the lower level slots. IE if he had used up all of his 4th level daily spells he could waste a 6th level daily slot instead to spend more and still cast a lower level spell. Those are spells per day, not spells known, which is different and pointless on a spell point system.

Do you have a reference I might be missing for spells known?

EDIT: It's been a while. I might be unclear, but a higher level spell still costs a higher level slot in PnP

Aashrym
06-25-2011, 05:04 PM
Of course, standard D20 rules don't use spell points, instead you memorize how ever many 'copies' of a spell you think you'll need per day.

And again, if there were more spells to counteract, making those level x slots worth using over a lower level spell, then this would be moot; it would have a clear tradeoff. So regardless, more spells!

/signed on more spells.

steelblueskies
06-25-2011, 05:04 PM
More correctly the spell point variants do not use a single sp pool for all spell levels, instead assigning a pool per spell level.
Ie you may slot and use magic missiles as a ninth level spell but doing so utiliZes 9th level spell sp.
Once ninth level spell sp is depleted, other level spell sp is totally unaffected but no more ninth level spell slotted spells may be cast.
An implementation tracking such a division however wouldnrequire nine distinct sp bars, and would be a moderate user interface and user friendliness nightmare in realtime situations.

Then again I'm still personally in support of feats taking appropriately higher slots, more spell slots, and changing each spell level to a uses per day system not unlike turn undead or other action boosts.
At least for arcanes, as I can see how such a system might seriously destabilize divine healing which has become popularly dependent on large volume mass heal.

azrael4h
06-25-2011, 05:24 PM
More correctly the spell point variants do not use a single sp pool for all spell levels, instead assigning a pool per spell level.
Ie you may slot and use magic missiles as a ninth level spell but doing so utiliZes 9th level spell sp.
Once ninth level spell sp is depleted, other level spell sp is totally unaffected but no more ninth level spell slotted spells may be cast.
An implementation tracking such a division however wouldnrequire nine distinct sp bars, and would be a moderate user interface and user friendliness nightmare in realtime situations.

Then again I'm still personally in support of feats taking appropriately higher slots, more spell slots, and changing each spell level to a uses per day system not unlike turn undead or other action boosts.
At least for arcanes, as I can see how such a system might seriously destabilize divine healing which has become popularly dependent on large volume mass heal.

Given the current design, it would likely kill arcanes and Bards as well. DDO simply isn't designed around limiting the spells to a few uses per day. It would need a major redesign, or see a major collapse of the game population's blue bar-users. As it is, most arcanes would burn their slots just casting haste, and well before any shrine came about even in the inflated number of shrines we have in game. DDO simply isn't built around encounters per day, but long strings of battles which drain resources in a battle of attrition. That design has it's own problems, with things like readily available rest shrines, mana pots, and so forth making resource management trivial, but that's another bad design decision, and worthy of another thread.

What works for sp games don't always work out for mmos. And quite frankly the uses-per-day system hasn't really worked out well in single player RPGs either. And I have played a **** load of them, starting with Alkalabeth and the Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord, and on up to the Witcher and even Dragon Age. PnP is another story, but that's not here or there.

The feats roughly correspond with the increase in costs vs spell level now, or at least pre-spell pass. Heighten adds the 5sp/level, Quicken 10 (or two levels up), etc... Maximize is a bit expensive relative to PnP, but it's not quite the same here anyways. Mind you I'm not for or against increased cost in this; I simply don't care. I don't think it will matter much, as it neither adds nor detracts from the game. I just like arguing.

danielost
06-25-2011, 05:30 PM
i dont see why throwing a lower lvl spell at a higher slot would require a change in dc.

i can see it costing the same sps as the higher spell would cost.