Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23
  1. #1
    Community Member Dispel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sarlona
    Posts
    726

    Arrow Lower Level Spells In Higher Level Slots

    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.

  2. #2
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    156

    Default

    there is already a thread on this

  3. #3
    Community Member Dispel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sarlona
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Where at? I don't want to necro.. I think I got a warning on that once.

  4. #4
    Community Member camels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    hey guys, I'm lost....
    Posts
    444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danielost View Post
    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.
    “A weird time in which we are alive. We can travel anywhere we want, even to other planets. And for what? To sit day after day, declining in morale and hope.”
    ― Philip K. phallus

  5. #5
    Community Member Dispel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sarlona
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by camels View Post
    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.

  6. #6

    Default

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbine
    a powerful ally able to play in any role that the group needs
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zonbLF-NMZg

  7. #7
    Community Member Dispel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sarlona
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aashrym View Post
    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.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dispel View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbine
    a powerful ally able to play in any role that the group needs
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zonbLF-NMZg

  9. #9
    Community Member Asmodeus451's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    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.
    The Funniest Thing I've Ever Read
    Toons: Twengor (pal), Margween (Bard/FTR/Rogue), Nestrana (wiz), Ammerlyn (Arti), Ostarin (Monk) on Cannith

  10. #10
    Community Member k1ngp1n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,236

    Default

    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.
    Sarlona: Riyana | Ilyrae | Elaeria | Arlayh | Aryis | Lyanis | Yaera | Kyilsi | Malitae | Niariel | Laeriya
    'Polluting Sarlona with gimpy elves since 2009.'
    Endgame

  11. #11
    Community Member Jaid314's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k1ngp1n View Post
    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".

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaid314 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbine
    a powerful ally able to play in any role that the group needs
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zonbLF-NMZg

  13. #13
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    411

    Default

    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...

  14. #14
    Community Member azrael4h's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Skara Brae
    Posts
    3,049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aashrym View Post
    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.
    Anyone who disagrees is a Terrorist...

    Cthulhu 2020 Never settle for the lesser evil...

  15. #15
    Community Member doubledge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    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.


  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by azrael4h View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbine
    a powerful ally able to play in any role that the group needs
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zonbLF-NMZg

  17. #17
    Community Member Jaid314's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aashrym View Post
    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.

  18. #18
    Community Member azrael4h's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Skara Brae
    Posts
    3,049

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaid314 View Post
    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!
    Anyone who disagrees is a Terrorist...

    Cthulhu 2020 Never settle for the lesser evil...

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaid314 View Post
    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
    Last edited by Aashrym; 06-25-2011 at 05:09 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbine
    a powerful ally able to play in any role that the group needs
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zonbLF-NMZg

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by azrael4h View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbine
    a powerful ally able to play in any role that the group needs
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zonbLF-NMZg

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload