I think we all know the arguments for and against vancian casting and how it does or doesn't make sense.
Well while reading up on Dreamscarred Press's Ultimate Psionics I kind of felt like adapting a similar model to power points to spellcasting. I'm aware that I am probably not the first person to try this, but I gave it some thought and I tried to work out a mechanic by which spellcasters don't actually get more powerful but still get away from the rigid number of spells per day per spell-level.
So here is what I made (I hope the links work, I don't really have any experience with google docs and I am not sure if i published it properly):
Some thoughts I had throughout the making:
- By giving spell casters a pool that they can freely spend on spells rather than having a maximum number for each spell level, i fundamentally increased spell flexibility, so I decided altogether the higher level spells shouldn't be as many per day altogether, so I gave them exponential cost, meaning if you cast only your maximum level spells you will cast much fewer spells each day altogether.
- I introduced the nova mechanic in order to prevent caster from, well going nova (that is to expend their entire power in one encounter and blow through it without encountering any considerable amount of resistance, or challenge)
- I decided mixing spell point pools for different caster classess of the same magic type (arcane or divine) would make multiclassing spellcasters a little less unviable
Thoughts on how this would impact game balance and if you think this model would be fun to play with would be welcome.
Rogue Genius Games "House Rule Handbook: Spellpoints" is the way to go.
Thanks.
I would still like to get feedback.
While I don't have time right now, I'll read it this evening. On a quick glance, I'm wondering why you selected the formula of (spell level *3)-2
Unless there is a really compelling reason, in my opinion, if you have to multiply to get the cost, you should just reduce the power points instead. Personally, I'd go with the old cost formula from 3.5, cost = spell level + 1 and go from there. It'll take out excess math and keep the total points involved much lower.
Really, the only thing I wouldn't add in are the spend X spell points to augment this and that aspect of a spell.
We found it to be problematic in psionics.
Really, the only thing I wouldn't add in are the spend X spell points to augment this and that aspect of a spell.
We found it to be problematic in psionics.
But do you still need to spend more points to generate the per level effect of the spell?
Example being a fireball vs a cone of cold that only costs 5 spell points vs. a cone of cold that costs 11, yet at comparable levels would do the same amount of damage.
Okay, next time I try to come up with a homebrew I make sure to ask how many people have done something similar, before I pour 6 hours of my life into it only to get "I have done this", "3PP X has done that", "here's how it was in 3.5" etc.
Yeah, thats really a bad attitude from the other posters. Constructive criticism is good, just saying "there are other rules for that" is kinda rude.
Im on my phone right now, so i cant really do math or write a proper analysis, but from a quick glance this is my impression:
- the cost is not exponential really, it just increases a bit faster.
- i agree with da'ath in that making the cost arbitrarily multiplied and the spell points per day arbitrarily high is a bad move, just more math.
-The nova mechanic seems clunky.
But id prefer if we got a little more of an explanation from you, because while ive heard dozensof reasons to not want the vanciansystem, i dont know what reasons you care about. Aesthetics? Balance? Smooth play? Power level? Those (and others) are valid reasons od course, but without knowing your disagreement with the vancian system its really hard to understand the goal of the house rule and thn its hard to determine whether it fills that goal.
Im currently working on something similar to a pointbased magic system myself, so i have an interest in seeing how this goes, but my approach is probably very, very different from yours.
Thanks for the feedback.
I think "Aesthetics" would be closest to my reason for disagreeing with vancian casting. For one thing it doesn't make sense to me fluff-wise that a character memorizes spells in the morning and then immediately forgets them when he casts them. The other is having a certain number of spells per day for each spell level which also extends to spontaneous casters, that the caster runs out ofthe ability to cast spells of a certain level for this day but somehow still has the ability to cast plenty more of other levels. It separates them in a way that it feels like a different spell level is almost a completely different ability that is not the same magic that he uses for the other spell level.
I could lower the total spell points and cost, but at least for the design of this it was easier mathematically to just take the route I did. I could also just put in a table for spell point cost like i did for the pool total, that would be
level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
cost 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25
(yeah its not exponential in fact the increase is quite linear what i meant to say is that a higher level spell costs more than just its own level in level 1 spells)
The spell point pool is based on numbers actually in the game and ony the cost had somewhat arbitrary elements to it, i multiplied the level so you cand just cast 20+ level 9 spells per day as a wizard at 20th level and i added the -2 so you can still cast level 1 spells as a level 1 wizard. Yes it opens up the ability to throw around literally hundreds of low level spells at high level, but I don't think that is broken because a lot of level 1-3 spells become nearly irrelevant at levels 15 and up.
Also, what is your reason for writing your own system, rather than using the 3.5 one? The 3.5 system was vet flawed no doubt and i fully understand not wanting to use it, but most of the flaws with the system i dislied in 3.5 seems to be apparent in your system too. So what is it with your systen that youfeel is better than the 3.5 sysyem, other than the nova mechanic?
Also, what is your reason for writing your own system, rather than using the 3.5 one? The 3.5 system was vet flawed no doubt and i fully understand not wanting to use it, but most of the flaws with the system i dislied in 3.5 seems to be apparent in your system too. So what is it with your systen that youfeel is better than the 3.5 sysyem, other than the nova mechanic?
For one thing it allows for less high level magic shenanigans than the 3.5 spell points. The nova mechanic prevents (or at least harshly discourages) the caster from spending all their points at once and altogether in my version you can cast only little more than half as many maximum level spells.
I wanted to counter-balance the added flexibility with a smaller pool of max-level spells, and a smaller number of spells per day altogether if you predominantly spend it on higher level spells
But your preparation system is pretty much identical to vancian casting, only how to determine what you can prepare is changed? Also, there hasnt been memorization for like 15 years of D&D; theres no forgetting being done, just unpreparing. Kinda like loading your crossbow in the morning, then shooting it; you dont forget how to shoot it, butyou still need to load it again.
I get the other part though, spell levels feeling too distinct.
But basing the numbers just on total spell levels you could normally cast is what enables the extreme novaing, and supercharges casters. Casters are already incredibly strong, this just reinforces that through adding a lot of versatility while taking very little away, especially with the increased usefulness of pearls.
If anything, Id base the number of spell points on one spell each from the three top levels the caster can cast or someghig like that.
Part of the thing is, theres vasically two parts to the nova: the fact that high-levelspells are incredibly powerful offensively and that low level spells are extremely cost effective defensively. While the nova mechanic somewhat stunts the offensive high level magic part, the system itself encourages and makes the low-level defensive spells even more worthwhile.
And you can still nova nearly as well as a pf core caster. A 20th level wizard can easily cast three 9th levelspells in a row, and only has to pass a neglible DC24 will save to cast another one, unless they use metamagic in which case the DC is even lower.
I didnt want to take preparation out of the picture just the fact that a spell you memorized inexplicably disappears when you cast it (in this aspect I really like the arcanist over all other prepared casters)
I see your point about the number of spell points though I will have to think about how to calculate them to more balanced numbers
For a more dynamic anti-nova design, have you considered droppig the spell points per day drastically but make them easier to regain through rest?
For example, in the system im working on (which is a pretty big rewrite of the magic system so nothing to take in a vacuum) a 20th level caster will have 18+Wis stamina points max, and 1 SP = 1 spell level. But you can take a quick rest to regain points , up to an amount perday equal to your stamina pool, so per day you basically have double that amount. No caster can keep pumping out high level spells unless they have a really good wisdom, which means they wont have as good cha, and since all saves are cha-based...
Not saying exactly that approach fits your system, but it could be worth considering movig somewhat in that direction.
I think that could work.
Not sure I understand you there in the second paragraph though, sounds like you have a lot of house rules in place I don't know, especially stamina and "all saves are cha-based".
I for one would pay for a product that converts Pathfinder's spellcasting system into one which uses power points (as Dreamscarred Press has done with Psionics). The exact same system that they used with each and every "Core" spell accounted for; ah, how sweet it'd be?
Suffice to say--I'm with you Threeshades, I think this is a very worthwhile task. Unfortunately, it's also very, very laborsome (else I'd have done it myself).
Yeah the second paragraph was a short explanation of how the lower spell points willwork in my system. Basically, al spell saves are Cha-based, all Stamina/Spell poits are wis-based, and spell knowledge is int based. But the point was more, spell points per day is really low - a 10th level cleric with 20 wis, 14 cha say can be expected to have 15 spell points, if theyve focused on wis, but then their 5th level spell saves will be kinda low. If they opt for 20cha14 wis ibstead their saves will be far better, but theyll only have 12 spell points and so cant cast more than tops two 5th level spells before needing a shorter rest, and no more than 4 during the whole day.
You should look at the 2nd edition D&D Spells and Magic for a spell point system that incorporates vancian memorization. Basically, you memorize your spells and if you have the spell memorized, it costs less than if you didn't, but you can still cast any spell known (or in your spellbooks).
The actual numbers are in the book.
But do you still need to spend more points to generate the per level effect of the spell?
Example being a fireball vs a cone of cold that only costs 5 spell points vs. a cone of cold that costs 11, yet at comparable levels would do the same amount of damage.
Yes, you would spend need to spend more points to generate the effect. I'll explain why:
- Assume the caster is a wizard/sorcerer.
- Fireball: Level 3 spell. DC = 13 + Casting modifier. Maximum damage is 10d6. Spell Point Cost: 5.
- Cone of Cold: Level 5 spell. DC = 15 + Casting modifier. Maximum damage is 15d6. Spell Point Cost: 9.
- It's a higher level spell; as such, it has both a higher DC, as well as higher maximum damage. The difference in price is due to these factors.
Spell Point/Power Point systems do one thing well: they make casters more powerful through allowing them to cast more higher level spells than they normally would have available in the standard Vanacian system. Additionally, those who were unable to before, can now apply metamagic effects on the fly as the situation demands.
Adding a spend x to increase y DC or spend x to add y damage only further exacerbates the disparity between casters and non-casters. Really, neither casters nor noncasters need buffed; narrowing the scope and cheese of casters is how you bridge the gap.
Edit:
Okay, next time I try to come up with a homebrew I make sure to ask how many people have done something similar, before I pour 6 hours of my life into it only to get "I have done this", "3PP X has done that", "here's how it was in 3.5" etc.
Sorry, wasn't trying to pee in your Cheerios. The numbers just seemed inflated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really, the only thing I wouldn't add in are the spend X spell points to augment this and that aspect of a spell.
We found it to be problematic in psionics.
... why? I found it to be awesome.
You seem to counter your own argument here. Or I've misreading one of you.
It happens. I'm sure I misrepresented myself.
I'll clarify my statement:
Regardless of what caster level the spell is cast at, a 3rd level spell costs 5 spell points.
Regardless of what caster level the spell is cast at, a 5th level spell costs 9 spell points.
If a 10th level wizard casts a fireball for 10d6 it costs him 5 points. If the same wizard casts cone of cold, it costs him 9 points, despite the fact the damage is the same. The added cost is in the DC, etc.
I'm suggesting none of the Augment entries be added to spells.
... why? I found it to be awesome.
I can give more details, but the crux of it is in my most recent post, requoted:
Spell Point/Power Point systems do one thing well: they make casters more powerful through allowing them to cast more higher level spells than they normally would have available in the standard Vanacian system. Additionally, those who were unable to before, can now apply metamagic effects on the fly as the situation demands.
Adding a spend x to increase y DC or spend x to add y damage only further exacerbates the disparity between casters and non-casters. Really, neither casters nor noncasters need buffed; narrowing the scope and cheese of casters is how you bridge the gap.
Ccasters IMO have a few major issues with them. First, at low levels they have essentially 0 stamina for combat, and are essentially a commoner carrying a crossbow who follows the rest of the party around.
That might have been true in 3.X but hardly in pathfinder.
Of the core classes, the class that is most like that is the wizard.A simple dirt standard Evoker at 1st level with 20 Int has the following:
3 1st level spells of any kind (say, Sleep, Color Spray and Mage Armor)
1 1st level evocation spell (say, Ear-Piercing Scream)
1 spell of any kind that's in their spellbook (arcane bond)
3 cantrips that can be cast the whole day; Daze is actually a great spell in many circumstances.
8 times per day she can make what's essentially a magic missile for 1d4+1 damage.
That's by far enough to last through most of the day, especially as Sleep and Color Spray can often be combat deciders, and if you're up against a single bigger enemy, so can Daze and Ear-Piercing Scream.
I dunno... a level 6 wizard with int 16 who casts a level 3 spell has spent 8 spell points. If he then casts two first-level spells or one second-level spell, he's already across the nova limit of 10. It... sounds a bit harsh. Compared to the standard method, it's a very serious slash of power.
I dunno... a level 6 wizard with int 16 who casts a level 3 spell has spent 8 spell points. If he then casts two first-level spells or one second-level spell, he's already across the nova limit of 10. It... sounds a bit harsh. Compared to the standard method, it's a very serious slash of power.
You're right actually. When looking at it, I mostly feared high-level novaing so was looking more at that. This DOES make it quite punishing in the level 5-10 range, especially since the nova save DC starts out high and scales badly. At 6th level we're likely looking at +6 vs DC 18, at 20th level we're looking at +20 vs DC 24 and with larger likelyhood of using metamagic to get lower DC's.
|
Dotting this. To the OP, thanks for writing this up. I have been contemplating using a spellpoint system for my homebrew for some time now. The main reason I back off from it is that the 3.5 tables from d20srd.org just don't work properly for pathfinder classes.
I could have tried to edited it to match, but it just seems too much trouble for whats it worth.
Thanks for breaking it down.
Just a two quick questions,
1)is the nova mechanic meant to ration out spell points over the course of a day?
2) And is is possible to use the charts with a simplified spell cost of as per the spell level? Or will this give spellcasters too much spellpoints to use per day?
Thanks again for this!
would it not be simpler to just increase the cost of higher level spells if one is looking to curtail nova casting?
I have considered going with a geometric scale of casting costs.
Level 1 costs 2 points
Level 2 costs 4
Level 3 costs 8
Level 4 costs 16
Level 5 costs 32
Level 6 costs 64
Level 7 costs 128
Level 8 costs 256
Level 9 costs 512
Then have the number of points available for casting scale in such a way that at level twenty you would be lucky to fire off more than one or two high level spells.
(of course you may want to remove level caps from spell effects to help off set the excessive nerfing this may cause).
Spell point systems are a plague on D&D since its very first days. I have never seen one that worked. In my humble opinion, it is the structure of the spells themselves that make it impossible to do well. Psionics gets a bit more decent... But they did rewrite the spells.
would it not be simpler to just increase the cost of higher level spells if one is looking to curtail nova casting?
I have considered going with a geometric scale of casting costs.
Level 1 costs 2 points
Level 2 costs 4
Level 3 costs 8
Level 4 costs 16
Level 5 costs 32
Level 6 costs 64
Level 7 costs 128
Level 8 costs 256
Level 9 costs 512Then have the number of points available for casting scale in such a way that at level twenty you would be lucky to fire off more than one or two high level spells.
(of course you may want to remove level caps from spell effects to help off set the excessive nerfing this may cause).
The issue with that is that low-level spells are still very potent, especially for defense and circumstantial use. It basically makes any spell two or three levels lower than your maximum level into an at-will power. It means all casters will have all accessible buffs up all the time.
From a quick glance it appears that you converted spell per day per spell level into spell points. Meaning that since a level 20 wizard has 4 level 9 spells that means they got 36 spell points since 4 multiplied by 9 is 36. A first level wizard only has one first level spell so they only get one spell point and so on.
First off I recommend that you ditch the spell cost equation and just add a table with the spell costs listed next to their spell level. Why? Because you want to make things easy for playing on the fly. Players and GMs already have a ton of numbers going through their heads and you'd be surprised how something as little as a math equation can cause them to stall out.
The cost to cast a spell is perhaps a little out of whack. A ninth level spell costs 25 points, correct? It feels a little on the high side. I suppose it helps balance out the higher end of things by forcing the casters to decide between a few castings of powerful magic or several castings of moderate magic and everything in between. Creating situations that require choice is a good thing, but I don't know how this would work out in actual play till I saw some play testing.
I suppose we could bring up Psionics and their point cost system (+2 per each level of power after first). If you system followed that it would add some extra casting to each day for everyone, but we have to look at it objectively. Psionics doesn't get free scaling. You have to spend extra points to gain increased power whether it be increased damage or bonus effects. However, psionic powers do start out with higher minimums on damage as their power level increases plus any power they pump gets free scaling on the DC. Psions, the psionic wizard equivalent, also has a much larger power pool (almost twice as much) than a wizard does.
Comparing it to psionics makes me think that perhaps you're low balling this a little bit. The pools are a bit small and the costs are a bit high. Something needs to give. Either up the spell points per day or bring down the spell costs. Though I checked and that would make it pretty much like the 3.5 spell point system. I guess all I've done here is re-invent the wheel.
You seem to be worried about high level casters just throwing out high level spells left and right and that's why you're limiting the spell pool. You have the nova mechanic in place to check that though so you're kind of double dipping on the limitation mechanics.
Also about the nova mechanic. I'd say change it from a will save to a fort save. Seems to me being a conduit for energy would be more of a strain on your health than your mind. The scaling on it could use a bit of work as well. 2d20 is too much at low levels and not exactly a huge threat (though noticeable) at high levels. I'd suggest making this scalable somehow. Perhaps 1 point per caster level plus twice the cost of the spell you were trying to cast? That would be 3 points for a first level caster, and 70 points for a 20th level wizard casting a 9th level spell. The DC for the nova check needs a little oomph to make it more meaningful as well. Maybe bumping it up to 20+spell level or 15 plus twice the level of the spell if not higher since you want this to be limiting mechanic. It should be high enough that it's a risk to try but rewarding if you do.
The d100 rounds thing just reads a bit silly to me, but that could just be me though. I know that's just somewhere between 6 seconds and 10 minutes, but I feel like it could be represented better. Maybe 1d10 minutes to round it off and make the math easy? Or just lessen it for 1d10 rounds. It would still practically take them out of the fight especially if you took my advice for the spell point loss.
How does metamagic work in this system? Just freely applying it as you want?
Whew. That was a lot. I might think of more to say later.
The cost to cast a spell is perhaps a little out of whack. A ninth level spell costs 25 points, correct? It feels a little on the high side.
Huh, I feel the opposite way. A 17th level prepared caster likely has 191 spell points before domain/school bonuses. That means they can buff up as efficiently as any vanilla caster through using loads and loads of 1-3 level spells instead of a few 1-3rd level spells and a few 4-7th level spells, and still have like 150 spell points left so they can unleash 6 9th level spells before needing to rest.
The nova mechanic limits this somewhat, by making the caster take a neglible will save and lose some extra spell points if they cast more than two in a row, but honestly, it's quite rare to need more than two 9th level spells (or 3 8th level spells) in a single fight.
Comparing it to psionics makes me think that perhaps you're low balling this a little bit. The pools are a bit small and the costs are a bit high. Something needs to give. Either up the spell points per day...
Psionicists have to pay to have the spells scale. This system doesn't. That's a huge difference.
Also about the nova mechanic. I'd say change it from a will save to a fort save. Seems to me being a conduit for energy would be more of a strain on your health than your mind. The scaling on it could use a bit of work as well. 2d20 is too much at low levels and not exactly a huge threat (though noticeable) at high levels. I'd suggest making this scalable somehow. Perhaps 1 point per caster level plus twice the cost of the spell you were trying to cast? That would be 3 points for a first level caster, and 70 points for a 20th level wizard casting a 9th level spell. The DC for the nova check needs a little oomph to make it more meaningful as well. Maybe bumping it up to 20+spell level or 15 plus twice the level of the spell if not higher since you want this to be limiting mechanic. It should be high enough that it's a risk to try but rewarding if you do.
The d100 rounds thing just reads a bit silly to me, but that could just be me though. I know that's just somewhere between 6 seconds and 10 minutes, but I feel like it could be represented better. Maybe 1d10 minutes to round it off and make the math easy? Or just lessen it for 1d10 rounds. It would still practically take them out of the fight especially if you took my advice for the spell point loss.
This I fully agree with, the scaling is awful.
If I were doing it, I'd make the DC something like 10 + 3 * Spell Level after metamagic adjustment. It gives around a 50/50. The extra spell point drain should probably be around twice the cost of the spell used. I'd drop unconsciousness completely, replacing it with Dazed or something. Perhaps staggered and unable to cast spells until they've rested for the 5 mins necessary to reset the nova? As is right now, it's far too random IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Psionicists have to pay to have the spells scale. This system doesn't. That's a huge difference.
I just have to make the comment that I literally said this in the previous paragraph. I also point out that psionicists do get free initial scaling on higher level powers (i.e. the base damage for a 9th level power is 17d6). Or least that's how it was in 3.5.
If I were doing it, I'd make the DC something like 10 + 3 * Spell Level after metamagic adjustment. It gives around a 50/50. The extra spell point drain should probably be around twice the cost of the spell used. I'd drop unconsciousness completely, replacing it with Dazed or something. Perhaps staggered and unable to cast spells until they've rested for the 5 mins necessary to reset the nova? As is right now, it's far too random IMO.
That would make the DC for a 9th level spell 37, correct? That seems a bit high to me, but I'm not hugely familiar with saves at those levels. As far as the unconsciousness goes I don't have a huge problem with it. It's like karmic justice for all those sleep spells ruining my carefully planned encounters.
That would make the DC for a 9th level spell 37, correct? That seems a bit high to me, but I'm not hugely familiar with saves at those levels. As far as the unconsciousness goes I don't have a huge problem with it. It's like karmic justice for all those sleep spells ruining my carefully planned encounters.
You're right, that might be a little high. 10 + 2*Spell Level might work, but the issue then is that will saves increase at 1 per 2 levels for full casters (and all half-casters I can think of), but you also add items, so that ends up making it easier and easier. At 17th level for say a wizard, it's likely to be 10 (base) + 5 (cloak) + 3 (wis) + 2 succubus' boon + 2 heroism + 2 misc (ioun stone, feat, trait, spell etc) = +24, so setting the DC to 10+1/2 level means they succeed on a 4+. On the other hand, a 13+ might be a little harsh. I guess it also depends on how much optimization the players do; on one hand, balancing for the optimizers can severely punish the casual players, while balancing for the casual players means optimizers can basically ignore the issue (see concentration checks).
Spell point systems are a plague on D&D since its very first days. I have never seen one that worked. In my humble opinion, it is the structure of the spells themselves that make it impossible to do well. Psionics gets a bit more decent... But they did rewrite the spells.
I have seen several that do work. The trouble with them is that they require huge amounts of work. The only effective spell point systems that work require that each individual spell have its own cost (not a blanket per level cost).
Before attempting to convert Pathfinder/3.x to a spell point system I would suggest looking at Palladium Books magic system (it is one of the few spell point systems that actually functions well) and mining it for ideas.
Okay ive read a lot of very valid criticism here now. The whole system is still incredibly flawed.
I suppose if I could recalculate the points in a way that a caster would not have enough spell points to use more of their highest level spells than they would have with slots but in return (for the fact that using all their highest level spells now would basically drain all their non-cantrip magic) could cast more lower level spells that might work a little more favorably and would remove the necessity for the nova mechanic, which I admit is anything but elegant.
I suppose i will look into the books suggested by Damian Magecraft and DungeonmasterCal as well to see what they did.
|
There is spell point rules in a 3.5 book (Unearthed Arcana, maybe?) that uses one point per spell level. You have to use more points to use higher caster levels for spells. For example, Magic Missile would need to use three points for two missiles (caster level 3)
For me, I would keep with the point pools rather then use outright Mana. I would like to see Psionics use a pool to augment and impower as well instead of using it for Mana.