Dare to dream the impossible dream.
Some players would like to see sidebar in the magic chapter of Pathfinder RPG detailing a non-Vancian alternative system that is backwards compatible, and balanced. This is not possible, but that won't stop us from trying.
For this discussion, the "Vancian" system is where spellcasters prepare magic at the beginning of the day, and that magic is held in mind until the casting of the spell, when it is "forgotten" until prepared again the next day. The name comes from the writings of fantasy author Jack Vance. Frequent issues with this system that beg the inclusion of an alternative are:
- Casters must try to predict the entire day of casting, else keep certain spell slots open for later preparation.
- Casters can burn through all their highest or lowest level spells, but since there is no relationship between spell levels it can lead to some difficult to rationalize in-character effects (such as only being able to cast your toughest spells, despite being "tired" from casting).
- Preparing spells daily can become a huge amount of paperwork.
- Some folks just plain don't like it. "Go play 4e" is not an appropriate answer to these folks, because they have been not-liking it for several editions now, and they might not like 4e either.
Two popular conceptual systems could replace the Vancian system: skill-driven spells, and point-driven spells. A hybrid is also possible.
In a skill-driven system, the balance of spells-per day is replaced with a chance of the spell failing on a low skill roll. Without recourse to spells per day or mana points, this can mean that casters can just keep casting indefinitely if they have the right skills. Despite it's many proponents, the skill-driven model is unlikely to work well in the sidebar system. Spells already have enough chances for failure, and this would require a lengthy conversion or invasive surgery throughout the entire Pathfinder book to implement.
A spell-point system is easier to balance, since casters can run out of spells and so must choose wisely when and what spells to cast. Spell points are also a common design in computer games, and so are much easier to teach to new players (a big plus). The biggest issue with spell points is that there is an "exchange rate" between spells of different levels, which either allows for far too many low level spells, or far too few high level spells.
Both alternatives have one crucial obstacle to overcome: if you eliminate the need to prepare spells daily, you destroy the dichotomy between Prepared and Spontaneous spell-casting that makes Sorcerers and Bards appealing. Any useable sidebar must account for the Prepared/Spontaneous dichotomy.
In this thread, we discuss how to make a non-vancian alternative possible. This is a volatile topic, so there are some ground rules for discussion:
- Do not post if you do not wish to see an alternative sidebar.
- There will be no debate here about the merits or drawbacks of the Vancian system, this is a discussion for people who have made up their minds already.
- All home-brew systems are welcome to enhance the discussion. Please do not expect to see your words in the final release.
- Posters who insult other forum members should be ignored. PLEASE RESIST THE URGE TO RESPOND TO HOSTILE POSTERS.
My opinion of the ideal Sidebar Spell System (S^3):
- requires the least conversion to use
- overcomes as many (perceived) Vancian drawbacks as possible.
- can be played alongside vancian casters fairly in the same party.
To begin, I suggest we discuss the most popular non-Vancian alternative spell system: Spell Points, from Unearthed Arcana. The advantage of using this system as the basis for a sidebar is that it is open content, and it's very popular. Disadvantages (purely opinion here) are that the tables are not very parsimonious, leading to a lot of chart-checking; the system doesn't eliminate daily spell list preparation at all; and it fails in many respects concerning balance against the vancian system.
I have begun to feel that the only way for a point-driven system to meet the third Sidebar Spell System requirement (above) is to track spell points by spell level (or Order, for new terminology players out there). This directly contradicts the goal of simplifying the concept— but could be justified if Spell Levels/Orders were accepted as an in-game phenomenon with some sort of philosophy justifying the 9 strata of spells.
Alright, lads. Sidebar Spell System. KEEP IT CIVIL.
OK: A Variant of Spellpoints
Spontaneous Casters would work pretty much as Spellpoints is written.
Prepared Casters would gain the 'allocation' flexibility of Spellpoints , but would still choose specific spells, and Metamagics, when they prepare spells. As per the 'standard' Vancian system, Spell Points could be reserved to be prepared 'into Spells' later during the day, but doing so requires time, and they are unavailable for casting purposes until prepared.
As I mentioned, Metamagic is 'easier', because in effect it can be powered by giving up LOW LEVEL spells instead of your HIGHEST level spells. Metamagics raise the effective level of the spells they effect, still limiting their application to lower level spells, but one change I suggest is that the higher effective level of a metamagic'ed spell is used for determining it's Saving Throw, since it's using as much "magical energy" as equivalent higher level spells. In this vein, Heighten Spell Metamagic shouldn't require a Feat , since it's only effect is to raise the Save DC.
A curious aspect of the Spellpoint system is that damage from "dice/level" spells , but not "fixed dice+level" damage spells, is calculated at the minimum caster level for that spell, but can be increased up to the caster's actual level for 1 additional point per level. This aspect is based on wanting to limit massively scaling damage spells, in comparison to ones whose damage doesn't scale as much, or that don't apply direct damage.
If this issue is addressed in other ways (like altering damage dice/level spells) or is deemed to not be an issue, then Spellpoints become simpler: no extra points for damage dice spells, and the number of spellpoints per caster level can map directly to the standard Vancian system...
Currently, you get slightly more Spellpoints than:
to account for fireball-type spells needing more points])
The main benefit of this system, beyond it's flexibility in allocating high & low level spells, is the facilitation of Metamagic. Along with Heighten Spell not requiring a Feat, it's much easier/viable to cast Heightened/Metamagic'ed low-level spells that have level-appropriate DCs, and not necessarily have to be giving up your highest level spell slots .
If the level-scaling damage issue was resolved , then the points can be scaled back to match the standard system, and no longer give extra benefit to non-Evokers . As is, Spellpoints is letting you cast MANY more high level spells, as long as they aren't damage dice/level types like fireball, which messes with balance alot.
If that's accomplished, it should be more "balanced" with Vancian magic, although still clearly preferable. I would like to see further suggestions so that Vancian is just as 'optimal' a choice. If the level-scaling damage is resolved so that the number of Spellpoints could be reduced, I think it would be warranted to reduce the number of points even further, just to balance the optimal flexibility you're gaining .
IF it's acceptable to just remove the whole concept that level-scaling damage spells cost more, I think something like this could work. OTHERWISE, it would seem to require the re-working of all those spells (like fireball), effecting Vancian casters as well, and just doesn't seem like a big enough priority for Pathfinder at this point. Like I said, Spellpoints as written are majorly favoring non-Evokers, and non-Evokers seem to be the CharOp'ers choice even using Vancian Casting... So that seems like the linch-pin here.
Another option is to just update the Metamagic rules, without altering the main structure of the Vancian system. This would allow MM effects to be fueled by low-level spells, but not allow more actual higher-level spells to be cast. MM as-written is pretty under-used, IMHO.
|
A Skill-Driven System with a cost of some sort, such as nonlethal / subdual damage equal to spell level, or a chance of being Winded / Fatigued / Exhausted, is a possibility I've seen floated about. The nonlethal damage is a fixed number and works mechanically, but the skill roll / Fort save to avoid fatigue would give any spellcaster a chance to suddenly crap out in the middle of a combat, without being nearly as predictable.
Spells that cure fatigue or nonlethal damage become overpowered in such a system, as they allow a spellcaster to overcome this cost too easily.
Quandary, you hit upon another problem with UA's Spellpoints. They charge by caster level to try and "balance" the damage spells. The trouble with this is, they're pretty well balanced by lower DCs anyway, even without recourse to charging Spell Points per caster level.
This is the first thing I would want to see go. Give us a flat cost for Spell Level. Dismissable spells might continue to cost as long as they are held active. Maybe not though.
All I can say is: Vancian or Spellpoint, Heighten Spell should never need a Feat to use.
I've put together a spellpoint system (very similar to the UA variant) for my own game, but it goes a long way from the Vancian system, and I fear that conversion from PF/OGL d20 system is awkward at best.
Basically, I based every spellcaster class on the sorcerer model. thing get much easier to calculate when your higher spell level = 1/2 your caster level.
Every class has known spells. Some classes have bonus known spells (from domains, specialization school etc.) All class except for the bard and sorcerer can cast "unknown spells" in certain conditions. For example, wizards can "read-along" a spell from a spellbook, which takes more time and concentration than a known spell.
As I say, direct conversion from a typical d20 spellcaster would need more tweaking and information than what a sidebar should contain. I will follow this thread very closely however...
myself a spell point or skill based system is the way to go but balancing one to be backward comparable is damned hard.
Quandary: I gave that all a closer read.
- Fix Metamagic feats, which in some cases aren't worth it in the RAW anyhow. I think Spontaneous metamagics might be the way to go, but something has to be done to make this work.
- A lot of people already House Rule Heighten Spell. Otherwise, it's a rip off.
- Do not scale the price for caster level or damage dice effects. I agree completely. The rationale in UA is that lower-level spells could outshine higher-level spells in price and damage. This is a fallacy, lower level spells always have lower saves.
- I don't see a need to allocate spell points at preparation. Picking spells is fine, although it disappoints me slightly that we aren't cutting down on paperwork. I can envision casters having to "load" their spells, and being limited in the number of spells they can load. They can just leave some slots empty, and prepare them during the day as they can currently.
The main problem now is the "exchange rate," where casters are getting too many high level spells, or too few low level spells.
Basically, I based every spellcaster class on the sorcerer model. thing get much easier to calculate when your higher spell level = 1/2 your caster level.
Every class has known spells. Some classes have bonus known spells (from domains, specialization school etc.) All class except for the bard and sorcerer can cast "unknown spells" in certain conditions. For example, wizards can "read-along" a spell from a spellbook, which takes more time and concentration than a known spell.
If everyone is a spontaneous caster, then you need to do something to preserve the Prepared-Spontaneous Dichotomy. I would have all classes continue to use the same spells-per-day table, but give them some kind of limitation on accessing their complete spell list.
Each prepared caster class could have a table of "mastered" spells that was smaller than the Sorcerer's spells known, by at least one spell per level.
The "Spell Anchor" (Cleric's holy symbol, a Druid's grove, a Paladin's tithe, and a Ranger's runestones, the Wizard's spellbook) allows the player access to additional spells, but requires one or more balancing factors. Possibilities include:
...I have no idea what limitation would actually make this system fair. In your estimation, what would be a fair price for a spontaneous caster to pay in order to have a wizard-sized spell list?
Pros and Cons:
The biggest advantage is, all your tables and balance already exist for the Sorcerer. All you need to do is balance spell anchors for all the Prepared casters, then let them loose as Spontaneous Casters reliant on items.
This system totally dodges the "exchange rate" conundrum which means you can't sacrifice many low level spells for a higher level one. For this to be cool with me, Spell levels need some sort of in-world explanation. With this in place, though, Spell Anchors could work side-by-side with the Vancian system believably.
A lot of the Spell Anchor limitation suggestions above still lend themselves to abuse. Whatever the actual limitation, it needs to be something that rewards the Sorcerer for being self-sufficient where all prepared classes are hobbled by a limitation as crappy as needing to prepare spells, but allowing them to cast spontaneously.
I'm pretty sure this would fit in a single sidebar.
Just as an aside, I don't think a sidebar would be enough to even rough out a complete replacement for the Vancian magic system in D&D / Pathfinder. I'm still puttering around with my own and it takes off in various directions as things come up. Too many ramifications in any significant change that cascade through the game. So... how about a supplement to the game describing one, or more, variant magic systems in detail, including how it effects magic items, monsters etc.. That would be nice, even if you had to wait for it :)
Do not scale the price for caster level or damage dice effects. I agree completely. The rationale in UA is that lower-level spells could outshine higher-level spells in price and damage. This is a fallacy, lower level spells always have lower saves.
I'd have to read the UA version again, but as I understood it, a 9d6 fireball is considered a 5th level spell, and thus have a DC of 15+INT rather than 13+INT.
Personally, I am in favor of the price scaling with effective spell level. In the early versions of my system, I ran into issues with relatively cheap empowered magic missiles cast by a 9th level wizard. Its a safe 25 points of damage per spell, so unless you need the area of a fireball or counting on the enemy's low Reflex save, it was deemed more advantageous than a 9d6 fireball for the same price. I'd expect similar issues with scorching ray...
'findel
Personally, I am in favor of the price scaling with effective spell level.
That being said, not scaling the price is a hell of a lot simpler...
Just as an aside, I don't think a sidebar would be enough to even rough out a complete replacement for the Vancian magic system in D&D / Pathfinder. I'm still puttering around with my own and it takes off in various directions as things come up. Too many ramifications in any significant change that cascade through the game. So... how about a supplement to the game describing one, or more, variant magic systems in detail, including how it effects magic items, monsters etc.. That would be nice, even if you had to wait for it :)
Well now, R_C, if I recall correctly you were also trying to incorporate Per Day abilities and the like. That's way beyond the scope of what I'm thinking.
I've pretty much given up on Point-driven spells as a reverse compatible option. Until someone comes up with a magic bullet for the exchange rate, I have no faith in point-driven's ability to run alongside the conventional system.
My guiding light is that if it can run happily alongside the Vancian system, it can fit in a sidebar, and it should be fair. Probably also impossible.
If everyone is a spontaneous caster, then you need to do something to preserve the Prepared-Spontaneous Dichotomy.
Why, if I may ask? Most people I know that didn't like the Vancian spellcasting also didn't feel the whole spell preparation concept, especially in the case of druids and clerics.
EDIT: just read your last post which wasn't there when I started this one. "running happily alongside the Vancian system" is a fair answer...
If everyone is a spontaneous caster, then you need to do something to preserve the Prepared-Spontaneous Dichotomy.Why, if I may ask? Most people I know that didn't like the Vancian spellcasting also didn't feel the whole spell preparation concept, especially in the case of druids and clerics.
EDIT: just read your last post which wasn't there when I started this one. "running happily alongside the Vancian system" is a fair answer...
Dropping the Sorcerer is out of the question, obviously. This variant should (ideally) only reach as far as "how characters perpare and cast spells." Removing a class from the game is over-reaching.
So, just to make this even more difficult, we are saddled with the task of making the Sorcerer/Bard still feel like a Sorcerer/Bard, even though he's no longer the only guy with spontaneous magic.
Dropping the Sorcerer is out of the question, obviously. This variant should (ideally) only reach as far as "how characters perpare and cast spells." Removing a class from the game is over-reaching.
So, just to make this even more difficult, we are saddled with the task of making the Sorcerer/Bard still feel like a Sorcerer/Bard, even though he's no longer the only guy with spontaneous magic.
While the Sorcerer would loose some of its uniqueness, it should still be able to cast more spells/day (i.e. have more spell points or whatever) than the Wizard. The difference in the key ability would still be an important one. Also, Pathfinder brings the concept of bloodline alongside the already existing concept of schools of specialization. Even if Sorcerers and Wizards become closer than before, I don't see why the Sorcerer should be booted-out.
But please, I do not mean to appear argumentative. You seek a variant system reaching as far as "how characters prepare and cast spells" that can "run alongside the Vancian system". These are reasons enough. Beside, I don't think it would fit in a sidebar otherwise...
If I may add however, the fire-and-forget concept is intimately linked to the Vancian system. I would envision that an alternative to the present system would go farther than the removal of the spell-slots concept, unless we want to keep the "D&D feel" of preparing spells. Only, as this already breaks the traditional D&D feel, I'd dare go another step further and also remove the spell preparation concept form the game. That however, is a variant MAGIC SYSTEM, not a mere sidebar.
I have had an interesting thought. How about instead of having a skill based system, do something that is similar but more balanced. At each even level, a caster is given 4 magic skill points. Each sill point can go into any school of magic which it will then benefit (read on to find out how). No caster may have more skill points in a school than the caster has in 1/3 the levels of that particular class. Then, casters pick there spells as they do now but with half as many spells known (or memorized for the wizard). Then, whenever a caster casts a spell he/she must make a magic skill check of the school he/she is casting from and if he/she succeeds, it works as normal. Otherwise, the spells goes off as normal but may never be used again for the rest of the day. Unless you fail the check you can theoretically cast all day, but you only can have a bonus up to 1/3 your level with no bonuses from stats or items so it will be easily to figure out the scaling to make it fair. I would make it so the DC for the magic skill check is equal to 10+spell level.
PS: The wizard would be different because he/she can memorize different spells but maybe the sorcerer can shine because he/she automatically gets a +2 to all spell skill checks.
So what are everybody's thoughts?
Its not completely thought out yet. I made this up right before I was planning to go to bed.
|
I have a thought along the lines of maintaining the sorcerer's sense of self in a magic point-driven world. Forgive me it's a little rough; I just struck upon it (though it helped me to think about Palladium's magic system a bit).
The sorcerer's magic is driven by charisma. His magic points are too.
Charisma is primal, powerful, yet....limited intellectually. Sorcery taps id. The magic points tap animal magnetism; say for saying's sake you get 2 magic points for every point of charisma per level, and since you can't study magic, just intuitively tap it through the power of your personality, you only get 3-4 spells per level.
The wizard's magic, however, is driven by intelligence, as are his magic points. Wizardry taps the superego. Intelligence is somewhat less powerful than raw primal charisma; you get 1 magic point per point of intelligence per level, for saying's sake...not sure how much a 1:2 parity is at the moment. However, you can formally study magic formulae and theory and words and gestures....you can learn a massive volume of spells.
AND, you can multiclass, but you can't use cha to fuel wizardry or vice versa.
Bards, through studying musical theory, (haven't got the crunch but this fluff sounds good) are trying to meld the two; trying to give some logical pattern to the primal fire that is charisma magic just like music gives some logical pattern to the potential cacophony that is the range of all possible sound.
They haven't quite gotten it 100% yet...
I think that helps to maintain the individual flavor of the sorcerer in a world where everybody can be a spontaneous caster.
|
|
I think my post is a little along the lines of laurefindel's above; posting at the same time/whatnot...
You know, if you flesh out your idea a bit, i'd be interested in playing it out, possibly testing it in my group when it's my time to DM (we alternate DMing between the players after each campaign)..
|
|
I'm not altogether sure what to do with the bard...then of course, the cleric and druid need some love too.
In a way, though, I've half tested it by playing a lot of Palladium/Rifts/Beyond the Supernatural. The whole flavor of magic changes, and when you add in "tapping ley lines for psychic energy" you can conceivably have lower-level wizards breaking off high level spells.
So, then, for that it's nice to be able to throw in a "skill check."
So, for saying,....you have a 4th level wizard that wants to cast planar binding. He can, but.....he has to afford the spell, and he has to go to Stonehenge during a full moon with a group of "friends" who wear "black hooded robes" so he can tap them for spellpoints too, then he has to not jack up the spell's skill check, or the "place your gnarly outsider here" he summons will do awful things to him.
|
|
in this kind of system Wizards and Sorcers only difference would be what atrribue they use to cast, AND that wizards chose a school and the sorcerer hisheritage... other than that they could be pretty much the same
also if you want to make something more distintive
give some more points toc ast to the sorcerer... (this could become abusive if the system is free as you use mana points without caring of the spell level) but in my case to control the number of spells wizards get 2 spells per elvel, while sorceres get 1... and to get new spells they need to research them but learning them will cost XP (sorceres pay a bit more for this), it cost xp o learn them, but they can use them without memorizing and as much times as they want until their spells points are over...
i have some ideas of how to use points... but it requieres a lot of changes for the original wizard and sorcerer, pathfinder gives the schools and the heritage, that means more options...
in points i would say that metamagic instead of being applied as the cost of a higher spell it could cost the "spell cost in points" x "times the spell level the metamagic feat requieres"
for example an spell costing lets say 5 points, would cost with Quicken spell 20 points (5 x 4)
i have another ideas... but definitively the rest of my concept require to many changes, but i will try to giver me time to write them, right now in the middle of a game)
for areally really different system chec Monte Cook's World of Darkness... that will make a pretty powerful and flexible magic but a bit more cpmplciated
|
|
If you don't mind, perhaps i could play around with that idea a bit, when i get home (i'm at work ATM)..
That's cool; I do more brainstorming than completing anyway.
I'm flightily prone, and I have lots of real life stuff to crush any and all design work ideas I come up with, so it's bread on the water.Plus my idea draws heavily from Palladium I think, so it's not exactly original enough for me to claim as 100% my own.
You know, if you flesh out your idea a bit, i'd be interested in playing it out, possibly testing it in my group when it's my time to DM (we alternate DMing between the players after each campaign)..
Actually, I went A LOT farther than that. My home system is inspired from the health / vitality points variant as well (except they are spirit points, not vitality points).
Spellcasting draws in the spellcaster's spirit pool. Effectively, the caster looses "hit points" whenever its cast a spell, except it doesn't result in any injury proper. I found this was a fair exchange for not having to prepare your spells ahead of time.
This whole concept is inspired from the Lord of the Ring, when Gandalf is literally drained after wrestling a shutting spell with what ended-up being the Balrog in the Moria. Confronting the Balrog may not have been a suicidal mission if he had not been exhausted by the might of the counter-spell back in the chamber-of-records (for those who haven't red the book, this is not portrayed in the movie).
For those who thrive for the typical D&D feel about hit points and magic, my system goes a lot too far. For those who like the incertitude of a fight above 3rd level, I find that it works superbly.
EDIT: Sorry Jason. Don't know why I understood that your post was aimed at my comment. My apologies...
I'm off to go get a tattoo right now, but I'd like to jot down my magic system idea that i've been tossing around for a few years and post it here a little later. Basically, I tried to convert the Mage: the Ascension game into D&D terms using the Psionics system. It's interesting, but I'm not a good enough game designer to really flesh it out myself. It doesn't really include the spontaneous/learned dichotomy, but rather puts the two into one class. This might preclude it from being relevant to this particular discussion.
Hit point drain?
I like it, because it seems to me anyway, that spellcasting should be this potentially perilous venture, not a cut-and-dry recipe-following for a said effect.
...but then you can't have you wizard rolling d4s. As I said, it takes more than a few tweaks...
The spells-per-day mechanic is too deeply ingrained in the system to be removed without serious surgery. I feel it's a necessary evil that any sidebar system needs to use spells per day in order to properly replace the balance of the conventional system. A skill-driven or point-driven rule is destined to quadruple the paperwork.
I'm willing to swallow spell level per-day slots to dodge the "exchange rate" bullet, mainly because I tried to address that problem in my last alternative magic system. That attempt was "full of fail" as the kids say nowadays. There may be work-arounds for the more "Vancian" aspects of spells-per-day, and below I will detail how two separate variants could be combined to do this.
So what does it mean to be Non-Vancian with a Spells per Day table? In essence, you eliminate spell prep. The new concept of magic becomes that each caster has a repertoire of spells they can cast at any time, but each spell level draws on from of nine different reservoirs of power. Now, that really irritates me, but I can't think of a cleaner way to do this.
We could add to this system an "exchange rate" for spell levels (which is very, very different from an exchange rate in a point driven system). This would allow two or three sacrificed spell slots to equal one spell slot of a higher level (I've heard Monte Cook devised such a system). If this option was already available in the conventional system, then we would have a Non-vancian system without recourse to in-world spell levels. Without an exchange rate in the conventional system, this would give sidebar casters an unreasonable advantage.
We could achieve this with two separate variant rules: one eliminates the need to prepare spells, and the second creates an exchange rate for spell levels. Those players who really want to escape Vancian magic (but still want all their magic item, feats, and such to work without conversion), need only implement both variants, but either is useful on its own.
Lads, allow me to contribute to this great topic with my experience of "WRHATGT", or, what really happens at the game table". Besides, WRHATTGT!! can pass as some pretty ugly warcry, orc curse or moan...
At my campaign I tried to make the sorcerer a little different from the rest of the world, so I gave him Arcane Points. However, I took a closer look at the tables at UA and thought "Ma que merda? Isso tá pouco", or roughly translated "WTF? This is too little!". I simply opened my almost never used Expanded Psionics Handbook and looked at the psion and his far greater range of points. Then I looked at the ...Wilder, is it? He has many less.
The I simply used the Psion power point and powers know progression for the sorcerer, complete with "Arcane Focus" and "Arcane Feats" and called it a day. Also, I got the wilder power points and powers know progression, put a cleric BBA (wich he already has), removed all abilities, gave Arcane or Combat feat at 1st, 5th, 10th and beyond levels, let him cast with light armor and tada, I got a nice "Battle Sorcerer" (from UA, or whatever was the name of that variant), since this concept is SO much sought for newcomers.
Well, I can say to you gentlemen tha the system is working very well as written up until now. It's nice to ajudicate for the npcs (they start small, since they think they will survive, and use the bigger and flashier and nastier spells only when they see that they will die if they don't. Very nice battles.), and the sorcereses...sorceressesss, sor...ah! the Female Sorcerer's player is very happy with the system.
I gave it some study after some levels, and I really can't find it overpowered. Yes, it seems to have an infinite ammount of Mage Armor, Shield and Jump on my games now, but well, it isn't so bad at all.
Well, this is it: I don't use anything different from what appears on the Expanded Psionics Handbook, and the game runs smooth. The player of the Female Sorcerer likes, the other players like, but the other character classes still use the normal and vulgar system.
Quandary: I gave that all a closer read.
The main problem now is the "exchange rate," where casters are getting too many high level spells, or too few low level spells.
- Fix Metamagic feats, which in some cases aren't worth it in the RAW anyhow. I think Spontaneous metamagics might be the way to go, but something has to be done to make this work.
- A lot of people already House Rule Heighten Spell. Otherwise, it's a rip off.
- Do not scale the price for caster level or damage dice effects. I agree completely. The rationale in UA is that lower-level spells could outshine higher-level spells in price and damage. This is a fallacy, lower level spells always have lower saves.
Right.
So if damage dice-scaling is taken away, the "total # of points" should be reduced, since Fireball costs the same as Haste...Then, looking at the ratio: UA gives 1st:1,2nd:3,3rd:5...9th:17 .
Going by UA's system a 20th level caster with 26 INT could cast 18 9th level spells/day, and still have a bit left over. Converting the standard Vancian Spell Slots via UA's ratios, one could actually cast 23 9th level spells (I had expected the reverse result, thinking accounting for Fireball scaling would have inflated the points...!!!) SO, there's alot of room for the UA ratios to be adjusted).
- I don't see a need to allocate spell points at preparation. Picking spells is fine, although it disappoints me slightly that we aren't cutting down on paperwork. I can envision casters having to "load" their spells, and being limited in the number of spells they can load. They can just leave some slots empty, and prepare them during the day as they can currently.
OK, I'm not 100% sure what you meant there.
But I think it's important to keep the allocation with preparation, otherwise it's blurring how Prepared/ Spontaneous Casters work (as UA's Spellpoints does.) My suggestion means Prepared Casters DO have to choose what spells they will cast, and how many of each As I mentioned, if you don't prepare all your spell slots(Spellpoints) at once, just like the current Vancian system, you give yourself flexiblity to choose them later in the day, but you can't make use of those (reserved) Spellpoints until they are prepared. . . . I think we're agreed on this...? :-)As Freesword pointed out, otherwise you're just making everyone Sorcerors (if Spell Points are fixed within Spell Level), or just making everyone UA Sorcerors with fewer Spellpoints and more Spells Known (if Points aren't fixed by Spell Level).
OK. In the theme of "fitting in a sidebar", here's how I see this actual system working:
It's not even necessary to have a level advancement table that gives "Total Spellpoints":
That approach is more tedious (and also encourages Min-Maxers).
Since it's "swappable" with Vancian Casting, why not have the starting point assume you ARE using the Vancian table, until you need greater flexibility. In that case, you just need the Conversion Ratio/ Relative Cost per Spell Level in order to see how many spells of X level you need to give up in order to memorize an extra spell of Y level, right? So, dropping the level scaling damage thing, and dropping a distinct spell points/caster level table (and one for high ability scores), this becomes alot simpler and able to fit in a side-bar.
About the ratios: Would it be reasonable for a higher level spell to provide the SAME effect as lower level spell, but for X times longer? If X is reasonable, then that's a good ratio, as well. As Diego shared from his experience, high ratios are milkable for tons of low level spells. Is it OK for high level characters to be 'spamming' Mage Armor, Shield & Jump? At high level, getting wands of those is so cheap anyways, I don't see it as much of a problem. From my analysis of applying UA's ratios to Vancian's Spell Slots and to UA's own Spellpoint Chart, I think the ratios should probably be increased to allow no more high level spells than UA does itself (18 9th level spells for my example caster - And that is with the Fireball rule, so it should probably be a higher ratio (i.e., less than 18 9th lvl spells, maxing out with example caster).
...Do you want to try to massage the ratios and write this up into a consise side-bar? Maybe give some fluff to the Spell Level Ratios, and call them "Mana Points" or something.
Diego: I wasn't sure about your take on UA's Spellpoints (you said it was "too little") I didn't know if you meant the total number of points, or the variance in cost between powers.
A UA Wizard @ 20th level/26 INT has something like 312 Spellpoints, and spell costs range from 1 point @1st to 17 points @9th (And in UA, the Sorceror has ONLY 17 more Spellpoints than a Wizard @20th level... WTF!?!?)
Do Psions' powers have more than a 17:1 cost ratio, generally? Can they pull off more than 18 "9th level" effect powers per day?
I was really only familiar with Psions when I played 2nd Edition in middle school... The tactic of putting dimension doors under opponents to drop them from a few hundred feet was a little TOO effective & efficient...
(The "no Saves vs. Psionics" part was just a tad OverPowered, I guess...)
Quandary, my bad, really.
I am very sorry, but my mother language isn't english, and even if all my books are in english (except the players and the DMG), my english is not the best always.
Now allow me to explain: I took a look at the table of spell points of the sorcer of UA. No great problem if you think of it as a separate thing. Without counting the bonus points for attributes, the sorcerer has a total of:
Level 5: 19 points.
Level 10: 81 points.
Level 15: 165 points.
Level 20: 249 points.
We all can see in UA that this total is only a little more than wizards have on the same table. I'm not with the Psionics Handbook of the 3.0 here with me at the moment (I may verify latter however, if anyone is interested), but I believe these totals are less than the total of Power Points the Psion had (or the contrary...). And the Psion was created to be balanced with the arcane classes.
Now, on my never-used Expanded Psionics Handbook, the Psion was reworked, as explained on a sidebar. The sidebar says that the psion was weak, that it needed many more points and that some aspects of the system were weird. In the 3.5 rules, the psion has the following power points progression:
Level 5: 25 points.
Level 10: 88 points.
Level 15: 195 points.
Level 20: 343 points.
This should bring the Psion of the 3.5 on equal footing with the arcane classes. The powers have costs, and all.
Then, what I wanted to say was that: I just used the table of the Psion, no the one of UA. I also included the mechanic of the psionic focus (arcane focus now), to adress the issue of the metamagic feats, in the way that it was handled in the Expanded Psionics.
For those not familiar, it is like this: You enter psionic focus with a DC 20 concentration. You stay on psionic focus as long as you want.
When you have a metapsionic feat, you must spend your focus AND pay additional power points to cast a spell. This extra cost is balanced to the metamagic.
For example, Quicken Spell is a +3 level, right? You cast a 1st level quick spell as a 4th level spell.
In EPH, Quicken Power makes the power costs 6 more points. So, a 1st level quick power costs 7 points -the equivalent of a 4th level power-.
Besides that, you must burn your psionic focus. Then, you are not focused anymore, and must spend another full round action if you want to focus yourself again.
I hope that it is possible to understand this with my bad english
The rest I used as common sense: A 3rd level spell, fireball, costs 5 points, and deals 5d6. If you are a 7th level caster, and wants your fireball to deal 7d6, you pay 7 points. You can't use more points than your caster level in one turn, yada yada.
Is it more clear now? I am very sorry if it is not. Also, if it isn't, I can rewrite everything until I can make some decent English...
|
|
Quandary: Assuming at 1st level, pathfinder point buy, and the highest stat is 16. Put that stat into the 'manifesting' ability score. At level 20, lets also assume that character put all 5 stat bumps in that same score (21). Applied a +5 inherent bonus from the appropriate book (26). Also wearing a +6 enhancement item (32). The psion would have a total of 453 points, and would be able to push out 27 9th level powers before being totally empty.
i hope i have the math right on that
Jason: Just for comparison, if you could figure a 26 ability score @ 20th, that would be clearest. I figured 20 @1st level, and 3/5 stat bumps to the ability... Arriving at 26. I was just aiming for simplicity, not necessarily most realistic. That said, using the UA ratios with the Vancian Spell Slot chart (with my example caster) yielded 23 9th level spells, so they're probably pretty close...
Diego/Jason: Do Psions have 9 "Levels" of Powers that correspond roughly to Spell's power level? Do they cost similarly to how UA Spellpoints charges for spells (1-17 points for 1st-9th level)? If they don't, then it's comparing apples & oranges, even though both are "points".
Diego: Sorry if my writing is difficult. I completely understand, as I'm trying to improve my own Spanish.
OwowowowowoWOWOWOWOW!!!
I forgot one thing! I think that the Psion gains more points than the UA Sorcerer because the psion is limited on the powers he can choose. It works more or less like specialization in a school of magic. He chooses one discipline. Then, there are six of them, and a "universal" group. He can only choose powers from his discipline and from the universal group, but no the other five ones. While this limits the psion, there are plenty of options (you can be a telepath, or a specialist of telekinesis, but not both).
Since the sorcerer does not have this problem (he can choose of every school), I think this is why he has less spell points than a psion of his level. To balance things.
But in my games, this really didn't pop out as a problem.
|
|
Jason: Just for comparison, if you could figure a 26 ability score @ 20th, that would be clearest. I figured 20 @1st level, and 3/5 stat bumps to the ability... Arriving at 26. I was just aiming for simplicity, not necessarily most realistic.
Diego/Jason: Do Psions have 9 "Levels" of Powers that correspond roughly to Spell's power level? Do they cost similarly to how UA Spellpoints charges for spells (1-17 points for 1st-9th level)? If they don't, then it's comparing apples & oranges, even though both are "points".
Diego: Sorry if my writing is difficult. I completely understand, as I'm trying to improve my own Spanish.
They do have 1st through 9th level powers. And with an ability score of 26, they'd be able to 'manifest' 25 9th level powers, then they'd be completely empty. At 20th level, a psion has 343 power points, not including bonus. With a 26 score, they'd have 80 bonus points. Totaling 423 points.
And in UA, the spell 'point cost' is exactly the same with psionics. 1 for 1st, 3 for 2nd, up to 17 for 9th level spells/powers.
I'm gonna level with you all. I'm too drunk to make sense of this right now. I'll give careful (if cranky) read-through to this tomorrow. :)
I can rest easy knowing that I have set my sights impossibly high, and you all are probably smart enough to figure this out anyway.
Quandary, thanks for the excuses, but don't you worry: I understand you perfectly.
Now, let me estate one thing that should have made the whole discussion easier to begin with: UA spell points is a copy of Psionics Power Points. Simple like this.
There are 9 "circles" of powers. 1st level powers cost 1 power point (more if you want more damage), 9th level powers cost 17 power points, more if you want more damage (!!!).
The system is the "original" point-based "spell" system of D&D 3.0. UA just reworked it to fit arcane spellcasters, so, yes, aside from the "Psionic Focus" that I mentioned, the system is pretty much exactly the same.
It's oranges with oranges.
...There are 9 "circles" of powers...
I like Circle but prefer "Order" for unambiguous spell terminology. Circle might be confused with the Circle Spells... other than that, it's great.
Howzabout "9 magnitudes of power"?
Howzabout "9 magnitudes of power"?
I favor Magnitude for referring to caster level, myself, since it refers to increasing quantities of the same effect (just as it is increasing quantities of positive or negative value irrespective of sign in mathematics). Therefore it would be 20 magnitudes, and 9 orders. Presuming that Arcane and Divine casters (or classes for that matter) use the same terminology. "Ordinations" might be good for divine spell levels, otherwise.
But then again, two posts ago I admitted I was REALLY DRUNK, so what the smurf does my opinion matter? BACK ON TOPIC!