|
Sebastian, how're them s'mores?
I thought it was feeling a little warm over here. Sebastian -- pass the marshmallows...
Let's see... It's a mechanic for maintaining some semblance of control and balance in a rather complicated game system. Are there other options that are better or worse? Quite possibly. But I think that any system has other issues with it that are difficult to wrap around.
Why is this spell worth only 5 mana points?
Why do I only get 25 mana points at this level?
Why can't I know spells than this?
Isn't mana that bready substance in Exodus?
I actually like having 80 spells to choose from with the limitation that you have to memorize what you might need for the day. If you would prefer having 3 spells that you can cast 80 times, more power to you.
I think my marshmallow is done... where are the grahams?
*gives Moff graham crackers and a slab of Cadbury's*
Cough, cough,
hero system,
cough, cough!
power pools.
*a slab of Cadbury's*
S'mores have got to be Hershey's. Yes, it's cheap american chocolate. But it's not a s'more without it (Hershey's Special Dark works too.)
.
.
.
Cadbury's is kind of gritty anyways. Brits don't know chocolate either.
well we use a simple spell point system. for ech level of spell u would have at a given level u have 1 sp per spell level. level 0=1/2pt lvel 1 =1pt/lvel 2 =2pts/7=7pts and so on and each spell costs its level in points.so at lst u would have so at 1st u would have 2.5 spp
at 2nd 4 spp at 5th 13 spp at 10th 57 spp and so on. works well gives it a slight diff feel while still keeping that dnd magic feel to it we find. oh and pase the smores ...i brought pointy sticks
2) Spellcasters can't be 'just better' than warriors. (All day, everyIn most games I have played in, all systems fail terribly at this.
Well, considerable portion of fiction fails in this too (though very few even try to be "fair").
And some games, like Ars Magica and Mage, happily ignore the issue by stating from the beginning that yes, spellcasters are just better than warriors.But that is my generic problem with D&D, it's a game which doesn't handle very well power differences.
Isn't mana that bready substance in Exodus?
Manna! Possibly was made from bug excretions.
Or perhaps part of a Summoning spell is a 'subroutine', a spell-within the spell, that seeks out the creature on its own.Now I want to design a modern spell system where magic is like code.
It could already. I don't know how magic works. I'm not a wizard.
I have recently started using Monte Cook's system from Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved. Spellcasters can prepare a set number of spells per day and have a seperate number of time spells of that level may be cast.
For example, a 1st level spellcaster might be able to prepare five 0-level spells and three 1st level spells, but only cast three 0-level spells and two 1st level spells a day. They have a wider selection and can cast any prepared spell as long as they have a slot open. Bonus spells from high ability scores modify both spells prepared and spells cast per day.
This system does nerf the Sorcerer, but I have always felt the sorcerer fell behind the wizard anyway.
Sketch for an idealized Zelazny-style (since I don't know Vance as well/at all) magic system. Note this is for mages, not divine casters.
- Spell points per day
- Real-time counterspelling (not this readied action junk)
- 'Vancian' preparation (X points become a prepared spell of a given level)
- Things to do with 'unused' spell points[list]
- Sacrifice of points for energy blast, less effective than prepared spell
- Sacrifice of points for counterspell, less efficient than prepared spell
- Existing 'later in day' preparation mechanic
[/list]These changes would allow most of the bookkeeping simplicity of Vancian magic, but keeps caster's options open by making it likely that they only prepare spells one fight or so in advance. If they run out, they can resort to blasting with raw power. And just like the current system, out of combat, a spell could effectively be cast out of the spellbook over the course of a few minutes.
I've finished my write-up of this system. It is here.
*a slab of Cadbury's*S'mores have got to be Hershey's. Yes, it's cheap american chocolate. But it's not a s'more without it (Hershey's Special Dark works too.)
.
.
.
Cadbury's is kind of gritty anyways. Brits don't know chocolate either.
=O Infidel!
|
well we use a simple spell point system. for ech level of spell u would have at a given level u have 1 sp per spell level. level 0=1/2pt lvel 1 =1pt/lvel 2 =2pts/7=7pts and so on and each spell costs its level in points.so at lst u would have so at 1st u would have 2.5 spp
at 2nd 4 spp at 5th 13 spp at 10th 57 spp and so on. works well gives it a slight diff feel while still keeping that dnd magic feel to it we find. oh and pase the smores ...i brought pointy sticks
Any chance you could give us more information about how this plays out during the game? What I mean is, does it feel more powerful then the standard system during play, or about the same? Do Wizards still memorize spells, just have more freedon to chose which ones, or do they opperate more like Sorcerers? I've thought quite a bit about using This style of system, but never had an oppertunity to test it out so I'd love to bear feedback from someone who's used it.
(Edited for spelling and such.)
*gives Moff graham crackers and a slab of Cadbury's*
Actually this brought something to mind. When I was at Gattwick airport near London catching a flight back home to Toronto last year, I saw in one of the airport gift shops (and I am completely serious) a 4 KG (!) Cadbury bar (For the Americans here that is 9 pounds of chocolate). That would require a BIG marshmellow and 2 slab size graham crackers but it would be a giant size (or perhaps Giant (creature type) size) s'more.
|
|
Just to add my little bit in about Vancian magic, as well as Wizards & Sorcerers.
To me, its seemed like all the time spent in the morning preparing spells was casting, not part of the spell, but fully casting them, and then storing that magic within themselves. That's why they can only do so many per day, because they're mentally holding that magic within themselves. So they basicly cast a small spell later on to release that magic they're holding within.
As has been mentioned, Wizards are like scientists, in a way. They deal with magic as calculations and complex formulae.
Sorcerers on the other hand, due to their innate proficiency for magic, have got magic constantly stored within them, and they typicly learn of their abilities when the magic begins to spill out. So they learn to simply channel and release this. Spellcasting for them is less of a science and more of an art. Which explains the greater number of spells per day, and why they're behind in spell levels.
catching a flight back home to Toronto
Ohh! I'm from Hogtown as well.
There are several different alternate systems for D&D magic: You can use Recharge Magic, Spell Points, Spontaneous Divine Casters, and/or come up with your own variant system. For example, maybe wizards prepare spells as normal (including any Metamagic adjustments) but require a Spellcraft check, with a DC of 10 + (2 x spell level) + # of times already cast that day, to successfully cast the spell (possibly including a backlash of some sort if failed: fatigue, non-lethal damage, ability drain, etc.).
Also, you can use different variants for arcane and divine spellcasting (perhaps arcane spellcasters use Spell Points while divine spellcasters use Recharge Magic). You could even go further and define separate variants for bards (no change), clerics and paladins (Spontaneous Divine Casters), druids and rangers (Recharge Magic), sorcerers (Vitalizing Spell Points), and wizards (Spellcraft checks above). You don't have to use Vancian casting with the D&D magic system.
I've read Vance, and his "by dint of great effort, he forced a spell of 'X' syllables into his brain." Vance's later works refined the fluff by introducing Sandestins, and are modelled almost exactly using the mechanics of the Sha'ir class from the Dragon Compendium.
I've also read Zelazny, and seen that it mirrors the D&D mechanics pertty well, while having totally different fluff.
More importantly, I've also read John Bellairs' The Face in the Frost, cited by Gygax as a big influence on the game, in which wizards are said to "memorize" spells, and have personal spellbooks out of which to memorize them. All three systems are more or less interchangeable, when you get down to brass tacks, and that's what D&D modeled.
In Howard's writings, on the other hand, most "magic" more or less consists of conjuring alien entities and asking them to do stuff for you. That, to me, makes for a somewhat "blah" basis for game magic. People point at Tolkien, as being dissimilar as well, but really, if you want to play a Tolkien wizard, be an Artificer, not a Wizard-- because it's all about forging rings and Silmarils and stuff.
People who hate the Vancian system still have plenty of "spell point" options in 3.5e, both in the SRD and in the psionics system. Those who see Vancian magic as a very nice game extention of the literary antecedents of the game are quite happy with it, and I for one will be sad to see it go in 4e. That's not to say that those who hate it so much are wrong; just that they fail to appreciate the direct link it provides with the stuff that inspired Gygax to make the game in the first place.