The thread title says it all, really. I'm looking to introduce a spell point system into my game, but I know such a step is fraught with peril. I'd like the advice of the esteemed members of this board (Fatespinner, Fake Healer, Heathanson, Sebastian, Lilith, GGG, Aubrey, and company) regarding the pros and cons of a spell point system.
I'm currently examining the system from Unearthed Arcana, but I see it as actually being a little underpowered relative to standard casting. Am I right? Wrong? Made of stale tortilla? Thanks in advance for the help!
|
I've never seen a spell point system I've cared for. The fundamental flaw, in my opinion, is that the spells of D&D were not designed with spell points in mind. It is impossible to really foresee all the possible abuses in a system. Some high level spells were not meant to be cast repeatedly in the fashion that spell points make possible.
3.5 psionics, on the other hand, is designed to be balanced using a point system, and rules like power augmentation help make it work. Those checks and balances aren't present if you apply the point mechanic to the existing list of spells.
|
I thought Palladium's Rifts and Beyond the Supernatural were kick butt w.r.t. spell points. You have like around 100 p.p.e. at first level, and dinky spells are 15 p.p.e. to 50. Then Higher spells could cost you 500 p.p.e. but you can cast spells at stonehenge, as it's a p.p.e. energy battery during a full moon because it's a ley line junction, and you can get your buddies to do a ritual with you and borrow their p.p.e.
So a first level spellcaster could hypothetically learn a real high level spell; he could also jack it up also and mess stuff up, but he really needs the spell points to pull it off from a ley line or place of power.
The main problem with spell points is the potential for abuse. You need some limit as to how many high-level spells the spellcasters can cast, or you will have serious game balance issues. A 5th level wizard with 16 Int would have 16+9=25 spell points, which could be 8 Fireballs (and one magic missile). Eight fireballs of 5d6 damage should suffice to reduce a whole village to ashes - I feel this is slightly imbalanced.
I use the following system to give the spell casters more flexibility: They can either prepare the spells as in the rules, or they can leave the spell slots open and roll a "magic check": d20 + relevant attribute bonus (Int for wizards, Wis for clerics) against 10 + spell level in question. If the check fails, they cannot cast the spell right now, and can try again next round. If they roll a "1", the spell slot is wasted. Clerics can still spontaneously cast healing spells, without failure. As they still use the standard spell slots, there is only a minor game balance issue. As metamagic feats increase the effective spell level, they increase the difficulty of the "magic check".
It lessens the overall power of the sorcerer, of course, as his main strength is his flexibility, but I can live with that. I was tired of the typical answer of the question towards wizards and clerics: "Can you do this?" "Ask me tomorrow again."
Stefan
One of the things that; as pointed out above; makes spellpoints not work with the spells as written is that generally casters will only use their top few spells. Why use magic missiles when you can just fling Fireballs all the way?
The power scale is also off; a single Meteor Swarm has way more impact then 9 castings of Magic Missile; especially since the latter takes 9 turns against the formers 1.
If you're going to use spellpoints; my advice would be to at least change the cost of them. Scale it in a somewhat exponential manner to reduce the high-level spell slinging a bit.
Spell points make classes which are already too powerful (wizards, druids and to a lesser extent clerics) and make them even MORE powerful. In my campaign we are using the UA spell points rules because the players pretty much demanded it and I do want them to enjoy playing their classes.
But I weep for the simple, humble fighter, my favorite class ever. I feel like I should give fighters an extra feat or something to balance spell points out.
My first character ever was a simple battleaxe wielding human fighter named "Ironwolf"*.
*borrowed from Morgan Ironwolf in the rulebook
|
We are using a home-brewed version of the Unearthed Arcana spell points system for the first time in my STAP campaign. Spellcasters are definitely more flexible so far, making the magic being thrown around the table more 'diverse'. The players have really liked it so far, and so have I.
I got really tired of having to constantly track what had already been cast, what each player prepared, etc. I also got tired of being suspicious that my players were changing spells mid-adventure. When we went to spell points, we started using mana stones to track points, with different colors for different denominations of mana. There is now NO question of fudging at the table.
I'd be happy to post the section of our player's guide that has the mana rules in it if anyone thinks it would be useful.
Stebhil, as I understand, the UA system would allow your example wizard exactly five fireballs before being completely empty. While I admit that is very strong, its not 8. A regular mage could cast 2 fireballs, 3 scorching rays, and 4 burning hands. Personally, I would be more worried about the second, as he can defend himself if the peasant's mob him with pitchforks. The other guy would have to change his tactics or blast himself with the fireball to hit the peasants.
Luke, I'd love a copy of that system of yours. You can post it here, and I'd really appreciate a copy sent to shinryouga at hotmail dot com.
I'm chewing through a variation of the spell point system myself. I'll let you know how it works.
my advice would be to at least change the cost of them
This is very good advice. I run homebrew and developed my own spell point system for it. I run AD&D 2nd ed. so what I use probably wouldn't work for you, but doing an exhaustive analysis of cost vs. effect is in order. Otherwise you could throw game balance so far out of whack the only way to fix it is axe the campaign and start over.
The various magic using classes will become much more "flexible" in their usage, but Frats is also correct in assessing the player tendancy to use brute force all the time. It can run away very easily.
If your players haven't used a spell system before, they're probably going to go wild for a while. This is where you'll find out whether or not game balance has been totally trashed. Once they settle down, though, I've found that spell points are something I personally prefer over the per/day stuff.
My best advice is, if you're going to do it, use a system specifically tested for that game, if one is available. Mixing a spell point system from one system into another can make that game balance problem even worse.
For what it's worth, here's my basic system (again, note 2nd ed.) Major attribute (Int for Mages, Wis for Clerics, etc.) + Con. Divide by 4 (round any fractions down), then multiply by character's current casting level (not character level -- Rangers for example will have a casting level less than their character level). This is the character's total points per day. Spells cost the square of the spell level in points. Thus a 1st level spell costs 1pt, a 4th level cost 16pts, a 9th level costs 81pts. Points are recovered at a rate of the character's Con per 8 hours of sleep, or 12 hours of "light rest."
With this a 1st level Mage with an 18 Int and 18 Con will have 9 points and could cast 9 1st level spells (seems like a lot but those level spells are pretty small stuff, so I don't have a problem handling it. At 5th level he'd have 45 points. His 3rd level spells cost 9 pts and so he could cast five of those and be totally exhausted. At 18th level he would have 162 points. 9th level spells cost 81, so he could cast 2 of those and has shot his wad. And, he only recovers his Con (18) per day.
The points sound like a lot, but with the very limited recovery, the mage must make some serious decisions on when to cast and what to cast. One 4th level and two 1st level spells (or equivelant points in other combinations) is all he can recover in one night.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I haven't played a spellpoints system, but I think most of the comments above miss the potential pitfall of such a system. The problem as I understand it is not that the system allows the casting of too many high level spells, it's that the system allows the casting of too many low level spells. That's the reason there is a cost associated with bringing a spell up to its maximum damage; otherwise magic missile, fireball, and other mid range spells are way too efficient.
As with all rules, I recommend playing it out of the box and seeing how it works and then tinkering with it. You need to understand how the system works before you can effectively change it. The only way to really get that understanding for something so complex is through playtesting.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I've experimented with spell point systems (even developed one from scratch on my own before UA ever came out) but I was never really happy with them. Finding a middle-ground in which the system is functional without being either drastically overpowered or virtually useless is nearly impossible. I can tell you that *I* certainly haven't had any good experiences with it to report. I will, however, tell you the system I came up with in a nutshell:
I used a mana system. Each spellcasting class had a "mana die" in addition to its hit die. Sorcerers had a d12 mana die. Wizards, druids, and clerics used a d10. Bards used a d8. Rangers and paladins used a d6. Each class would add its relevant casting skill modifier to the result, just like adding Con mod to a hit die. Spells cost 1 + (3 x spell level) mana to cast. Therefore, 1st level spells cost 4 while 9th level spells cost 28. 0-level spells cost 1. Obviously, this led to the same problem that Sebastian noted about lower level spells being much more efficient than high level spells and you got spellcasters opting to cast dozens of magic missiles and fireballs instead of a few well-placed meteor swarms or wail of the banshees.
In the end, I scrapped the idea because it didn't work and I've gone back to the good ol' RAW. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, imo.
I like the per day spells as presented, as it feels more like D&D than anything else, but I also like flexibility. I say look at the Expanded Psionics Handbook for true guidance, and one of the things you would have to get rid of in a point/mana-based system for divine or arcane magic would be the increase spell power by level.
For instance, take magic missile. Magic missile, as a 1st-level spell in the core rule books, is really good for a lot of reasons, one of which is that it gets better the higher you go up in levels. Introduce a point-based magic system and I think you would be better off dropping the increase in power over level, changing it to an increase in power based on point expenditure. If magic missile fires one missile at 1d4+1 points of damage, you can spend X more points to add more missiles, capping out an appropriate level. Same thing with all the level-variant spells - fireball, lightning bolt, scorching ray, etc. This seems like a lot of work, but it seems to be the only way I see a point-based system working for arcane/divine magic in D&D.
Good luck, whichever option you choose.
Lawgivers system is actually not a bad system. But it was designed for 2nd ed. Don't know how well it would translate for 3 and beyond. But you might consider taking a look at the spell system that was but into the Everquest stuff. It was designed on a d20 system, and I have found that lots of things made for a d20 end up being very plug and play.