I've been playing around with my own magic system, using an OSR spell list that's closely based on the SRD (specifically LotFP).  When I take a close look, it seems like what level a spell is assigned to is only roughly related to how useful/powerful it is.  Of course, it can be hard to compare the "usefulness" of spell effects, since they can be very useful under the right circumstances; for instance, Feather Fall could be infinitely more useful than Prismatic Spray in certain situations.

I'm still new to picking apart the details of this stuff, so I'm wondering what other people think: how "balanced" are D&D spell levels, at least with respect to one another.  In other words, do you think that the "power levels" of these spells are distinct from one another, or are there, for example, certain third-level M-U spells that are blatantly more powerful than certain fifth-level spells?  Or is it just impossible to say, due to questions of context?

And if power levels are not very distinct, or it is impossible to say whether or not they are, then what should be the logic behind spell level assignment?

In a lot of cases, it depends on what other rules you use.

The most notorious example, Cone of Cold (a 5th level spell) isn't that great a damage spell compared to Fireball or Lightning (3rd level), but it's very useful if you actually apply the rules about a fireball affecting a given volume (33 10x10 squares) or lightning traveling its full length, bouncing back off of walls if it has to, which in both cases can probably kill the caster (since they do 1d6 damage per level and a MU has 1d4 hp per level). And it's further much more useful if you use the item damage tables (p80 of the 1e DMG). Frost is far less likely to damage an item while lightning is almost guaranteed to obliterate it (and fireball is very destructive as well).

And the other things is 6th level Magic-User spells can be overpowered. Because originally 6th level was the highest level there was, the most powerful spells were 6th level. But when it was raised to 9th, many didn't get bumped up.

I don't think the OSR D&D rules are really codified enough for there to be a logical system behind spell levels. But I imagine you could come up with a complex system like Monstermark from White Dwarf, which was a way to determine the true power level of a monster. IIRC, that assumed the monster was fighting an average party and you'd figure out how long it would last against it and how much damage it would do.

Overall the output of spells tends to climb. Either in damage, scope or duration, or even in actual ease of casting.

Some of the early low level spells like fireball and Lightning bolt have some sort of drawback too. Like uncontrollable range or bounceback potential that can endanger the party. Or saves for half damage.

But overall whats being balanced is the average total damage output such that a mage at X level doesnt outstrip a fighter at the same level by too much. Of course the caster tends to have more non-com utility tricks or area attacks.

As was noted before, originally 1974 D&D only had six spell levels and so level six spells were deemed to be the most powerful in the game. When Greyhawk (Supplement I) came out and new spells were added, many were put into the levels 7-9 range but spells in the first six levels stayed unchanged. That does mess things up somewhat.

5E did a pretty complete overhaul and balanced spells pretty well at any given level. You might look for the Basic PDF on the WotC website and use those spells instead of the OSR SRD (which was possibly based on 3E rules).

My view is that the magic system for an RPG is completely made up. The only problem that results is when the implications of your magic system doesn't match your vision of your setting. Or if you are designing an RPG, what the RPG is about.

Yes in the beginning the spell levels of D&D are suppose to reflect the relative power levels of the spells themselves. But it was never clear cut as the example of Sleep shows. Now that we are over 40 years my view the original set of spells from classic D&D is what it is. My experience whatever power imbalance there is overshadowed by the limited spell slots and vancian style magic. If you take away Vancian magic then the imbalance is a problem. Otherwise it just a quirk of the system.

Fin is right in that if you want a more balanced list of spells go with 5e. It will work with classic rules as well as 5e rules. Otherwise it is a non issue.

D&D spell levels have typically had winners and losers, although which spells were which probably depended on edition.  Min-maxing for wizards shook out differently in 3e than in 1e for instance, but that's a topic that's been beaten to death elsewhere.

I get the idea that actually sticking to the rules in AD&D for % chance to learn spells, and limits on known spells by level, could lead to a very different than I'm used to.  You might want Fireball, but if all you get is Monster Summoning I, then by golly you're just going to have to buckle down and summon some monsters.

Another retro-clone, ACKS, reverse engineered the legacy spell list to get a spell construction system.  One of the lessons of that was that Sleep, Fireball and Lightning Bolt don't fit in with the rest - they price out as higher level spells (though ACKS leaves them where they are).

Perfect game balance is probably impossible, since it would depend on campaign as well as system.  And since I don't particularly desire or expect perfect game balance, none of this bothers me.  I do think it makes a good entry point to do some world building, if that's a concern for you.  Say you "fix" Fireball and Lightning Bolt, while lowering the levels for Polymorph Self, Polymorph Other and Bestow Curse (but leave Remove Curse where it is), and you've just said something concrete about your setting, in a way that just writing backstory for your players can't touch.

The fallacy here is that balance between spell levels is required and/or desirable. When it comes to magic it is just one option to have spell availability arranged in ascending degree of power. Any arrangement can work if a referee is finds it effect on the campaign what he wants to be.

From working working with classic D&D my opinion is that in general spell are arrange in order of power EXCEPT for a few exceptions that were put there so a magic-user is useful at lower levels. Sleep and the first level magic-user is the canonical example of this idea. Sleep is powerful but you only get one a day and that it and the spell not universally applicable to all opposition. And unlike fireball, sleep doesn't scale as the magic-user levels.

If I remember right there was a system in Dragon Magazine.  Possibly between 100 and 200.  The only spell that didn't fit was Stone Skin.  But I don't know what the system was.

Another factor was that some of the spells were player created. Thats the level they were introduced at or where someone thought theyd fit.

Quote from: Omega;909758Another factor was that some of the spells were player created. Thats the level they were introduced at or where someone thought theyd fit.

No.  Gygax assigned spell levels himself.  And, for instance, Tenser did NOT develop "Tenser's Floating Disk."

Quote from: finarvyn;909748As was noted before, originally 1974 D&D only had six spell levels and so level six spells were deemed to be the most powerful in the game. When Greyhawk (Supplement I) came out and new spells were added, many were put into the levels 7-9 range but spells in the first six levels stayed unchanged. That does mess things up somewhat.

As a related question, I wonder if there are too many spell levels.  Nine levels, especially, seems to entail a level of granularity that isn't actually reflected in the breakdown.  Lots of games seem to do just fine with fewer levels - DCC does it with five, and BoL manages to get away with three (but their mages are mostly expected to be NPCs).  It seems like it would be a lot easier to have distinct power strata with fewer spell levels.  Why nine, anyway, and why only seven for clerics and their kin?  From what I'm hearing, these are mostly artifacts of the history of how this stuff came to be.

Quote from: Edgewise;909738[H]ow "balanced" are D&D spell levels, at least with respect to one another.  In other words, do you think that the "power levels" of these spells are distinct from one another, or are there, for example, certain third-level M-U spells that are blatantly more powerful than certain fifth-level spells?  Or is it just impossible to say, due to questions of context?

The original spells in OD&D are somewhat balanced when comparing one spell against another in the abstract. But given limited spells slots, memorization requirements, fire and forget, and optionally random spell selection along with the highly contextual nature of figuring ouot what spell is best in this specific circumstance I'd say that this is a case where Pareto's 80-20 rule of thumb applies and I doubt Gary Gygax lost a lot of sleep worrying about whether he'd incorrectly categorized a spell as 3rd level when it should have been 2nd level, or vice versa.

QuoteAnd if power levels are not very distinct, or it is impossible to say whether or not they are, then what should be the logic behind spell level assignment?

Creating a fun game that doesn't make the players cry too often.

Quote from: Bren;909764I doubt Gary Gygax lost a lot of sleep worrying about whether he'd incorrectly categorized a spell as 3rd level when it should have been 2nd level, or vice versa.

And to add to this, is the classic D&D arrangement of spell levels perfect. Not of course not. It is more than good enough absolutely. So before you sweat out the details in trying to configure spell levels whether it worth the effort. One good reason is that the current arrangement doesn't fit what you want magic to be in your campaign. On that basis it is absolutely worth it to rearrange things to reflect how you think magic should work in your setting.

Quote from: finarvyn;909748As was noted before, originally 1974 D&D only had six spell levels and so level six spells were deemed to be the most powerful in the game. When Greyhawk (Supplement I) came out and new spells were added, many were put into the levels 7-9 range but spells in the first six levels stayed unchanged. That does mess things up somewhat.

Yep. And there were a couple other similar changes. For example, originally all your ranged damaged spells were 3rd level or higher. Later ranged damaged spells, like Magic Missile, remove that limitation. As the years moved on, hundreds of similar decisions kind of randomized the spell list.

Quote from: estar;909752My view is that the magic system for an RPG is completely made up. The only problem that results is when the implications of your magic system doesn't match your vision of your setting. Or if you are designing an RPG, what the RPG is about.

Yes in the beginning the spell levels of D&D are suppose to reflect the relative power levels of the spells themselves. But it was never clear cut as the example of Sleep shows. Now that we are over 40 years my view the original set of spells from classic D&D is what it is. My experience whatever power imbalance there is overshadowed by the limited spell slots and vancian style magic. If you take away Vancian magic then the imbalance is a problem. Otherwise it just a quirk of the system.

Quote from: estar;909756The fallacy here is that balance between spell levels is required and/or desirable. When it comes to magic it is just one option to have spell availability arranged in ascending degree of power. Any arrangement can work if a referee is finds it effect on the campaign what he wants to be.

From working working with classic D&D my opinion is that in general spell are arrange in order of power EXCEPT for a few exceptions that were put there so a magic-user is useful at lower levels. Sleep and the first level magic-user is the canonical example of this idea. Sleep is powerful but you only get one a day and that it and the spell not universally applicable to all opposition. And unlike fireball, sleep doesn't scale as the magic-user levels.

Agreed. Spell levels weren't assigned to balance magic-users versus other classes (that's handled by vancian magic rules) or for any other kind of balance. They were assigned based on a rough idea of what magic ought to look like, and with an eye towards always giving M-Us something to look forward to. Sleep is 1st level partly to give low-level M-Us something effective to do in combat, but also because it's not really a "powerful" spell, in terms of the spell system's crude internal logic, even though it *is* "powerful" in terms of combat utility. Sleep is basically a temporary mental effect. Physical effects are generally higher level (see the ranged damage spells already mentioned.) Permanent physical effects or those affecting large areas are the highest spell levels.

New spells were assigned spell levels based on simply comparing them to existing spells. Spells that seemed about equal in effect were assigned the same level. Those that mostly resembled other spells, but with one or two extra benefits or features, are one or two levels higher. Sticking to those rules would maintain the rough logic of the original spell list... but not everyone who added new spells to D&D interpreted spell effects the same way, so some spells wound up undervalued or overvalued. And when later writers decided spell levels should be about combat balance, a lot of spells seemed way out of balance, and a strong urge to rearrange and rewrite spells spread throughout the D&D community.

What is this balance you speak of?:-)