the cosmic goose's page

herm. the more i think about it, the more complicated monkeying around with this system seems to be.

my main concern was that by providing casters with additional versatility, they would dramatically overpower the non caster classes. but from what i've read here. that doesn't seem to be the case. they do get a slight jump in power, but this isnt enough to grossly unbalance the game. if it really winds up being a problem i might toss a few more HP or an extra feat to any non magic users. sound reasonable?

if this is right, il probably just stick with the variant as seen on the hypertextD20 sdr. including vitalization. as for simplifying the casting costs. il just tell them that the base cost is equal to the level where to first gain access to the spell. little bit of note taking wont kill them.

one more thing, whats the formula for figuring out how many spell points a class should get? i got one or two players interested in playing a summoner and a magus, so il need to figure that out.

ack! damn comcast. lets try this again...

so if i understand you correctly, the boost provided by the spellpoint system isn't actually all that great. and not enough to impact the game if you include something like vitalizing along with it.

in my initial proposal, i had thought that the reduced effectiveness of the spells mentioned above was countered by being able to cast them multiple times without any great effort. your clerics remove poison might not work the first time, but he can cast it 2 or 3 more times until it sticks much easier then he could before. your fireball is more likely to fizzle against a monster with spell resistance, but you can try again next round easily enough. and so forth...was i wrong in this assumption?

as a slight tweak to the vitalizing option, i thought about having a caster make a fatigue save each time they threw a spell. but would this be to harsh? how high should the DC be? ideally, this system would let a spellcaster chuck around one or two spells without much impact, but really laying on the magic would ware them out.

and finally, as a simpler way of figuring the cost of casting a spell, im thinking about simply having 1 spellpoint = one caster level, period. no minimum caster levels regardless of the spell. if you want to cast a 9th level spell with only a single caster level, you can do that. the thought here is making casting costs easier to remember. but does it break the system?

thanks for your opinions!

first, i apologize if this topic has been hammered into the ground. im new here so haven't seen anything already discussed.

im in the brainstorming phase of a pathfinder game, and im seriously considering using a spell point system instead of ye 'ol fire-and-forget. i've never liked that system and my group would probably take better to spellpoints anyway.

my concern is one of balance. il probably use the spellpoint rules as presented in unearthed arcana as a starting point. but as printed those rules are kinda broken. without the restriction of having to prepare single-use spells beforehand, many of the caster classes become overpowered. also, spontaneous casters like the bard and sorcerer lose a lot of the mojo that makes them appealing under this system. but with pathfinder that's no longer realty an issue. most spont casters now have other gimmicks to give them spice.

my initial thoughts on injecting some balance into the spellpoint system is to reduce the total caster levels spellchuckers have. greater versatility and the ability to cast the same spell multiple times is exchanged for an overall de-powering. caster level is already built into many spells as a variable, so it seems an easy way to tweak they're potency without rewriting them whole cloth. but by how much? and should former spont casters like the sorcerer have less of this depowering? they dont gain much of a bost under this system, so commensurately should have less of a penalty to balance.

additionally, should save DC's also be lowered across the board? if so, by how much?

i appreciate any advice anyone has on this topic.
toodles!

There a huge emphasis on magic items in DnD, though slightly less so with pathfinder. thats all well and good. lord knows there's satisfaction to be had in swinging that band new +3 sword of stabbity-dieing.

but what if i as the DM want to run a game with more emphasis placed on the characters and they're abilities then on they're stuff? are there any guidelines out there to tweak the rules in favor of an items-lite approach?

IMHO, this is why wizards get scribe scroll at level 1. You can scribe any of your less-commonly used utility spells (rather inexpensively) and have them ready at a moment's notice. Additionally, the new bonded item (should you chose it over the familiar) also allows you to pull any ....

snip

so if i understand you, its best to create a reserve of scrolls to draw on when you dont have a needed spell memorized?

if you had to give an estimate, how much of my resources should i expect to invest in scribing?

how can i tell which spells are better candidates for scrolls then for memorization?

above you mentioned preparing the "staple" spells. what should i look in a staple spell?

is it a practical investment to prepare/scribe multiples of the same spell? or am i better of spreading my slots out over a variety of spells?

how often does the games system of "elemental rock-paper-scissors" come into play, and how often should i expect said system to negate my selection of spells?

sorry for the torrent of questions.

Hola peeps. im gearing up to play in a pathfinder game, and the GM has recommended that i play the parties wizard. i normally like the caster types, so this isnt a problem. but one thing has always bugged me about the wizard and i have never gotten a satisfying explanation of it.

with the wizard's (or druid or cleric for that matter) need to prepare spells before hand, how do they know what spells they'l need that day?

i get that with alot of the utility spells, you can just keep a spellslot open and take 15 minutes to prepare them as you need them. not like most of them are gotta-have-it-now-or-we-all-die kinda things. but what about combat spells? it seems that it would be really easy to get caught with your pants down and no useful spells in a bad situation.

i realize that the sorcerer is the simpler class, but i've played that one to death and am interested in mastering this element of strategy for the wizard. so any advice is appreciated