Ok to start with spells should not cost their level in points. look at the psionic system in 3.5, this is how much they should cost by level. 1st costs 1 point, 2nd costs 3 points, 3rd costs 5 point, ect.
Wrong, the cost should stay the same for each level, if the spells are balanced for their level (and for the most part they are, on a 9 level system) then a 1st level spell is a first level spell.... 1 point.Spell Point System
Problem # 1
Caster level and spell points?
Magic missile is a great example (any spell where effects increase with level)
For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile - two at 3rd level, three at 5th, four at 7th, and the maximum of five missiles at 9th level or higher. If you shoot multiple missiles, you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures. A single missile can strike only one creature. You must designate targets before you check for spell resistance or roll damage.
Everyone can agree on a cost of 1 spell point for magic missle….
However the cost should be 1 spell point per missile!
no, it should cost 5 points flat
Same with a fireball
3rd level spell costs 3 spell points, +1 spell point per additional d6 of damage…
So a 10th level caster can do a maximum of 10d6 damage and this would cost 7 spell points, however the same caster could cast the spell as a 3d6 for 3 spell points.
Problem # 2
What spells can the caster select from?
Sorcerer
From spells known.
Wizard
From spells prepared.
this can be done easy, the sorcerer still picks from spells known, only he's not limited to x number of 1st level spells, or x number of 2nd level spells, ect. instead he spends his points as he wishes, if he wants, he may only cast one spell that day cuz he blows his magic wad all at once.
the wizard prepares his spells in the morning, spending his points then. limited to what's in his spell book.personally i like leaving the wizard as standard out of the book and making the sorcerer the spell point caster.
take the number of spells you could normally cast in a day at a level, multiply that by the cost to cast that level and blamo, you've got your spell points for the day.. it's a good idea to figure this out early on and write it down some where.Problem #3
How many spell points do I have?.. (more stuff)
Problem #4
What about bonus spells?
look at the answer to number 3, and the expanded psionics has this already written out.
Problem #5
Metamagic feats and spell points.
The application of any meta-magic feat typically raises the level of the spell by a set amount. Such...
it costs the adjusted level in points to cast.
Problem #6
CLW is cheap with spell point system and PCs never learn any of the higher level spells.
which is only useful out side of combat, if in combat being able to heal 2d8 is way more important than 1d8. at least if your doing it right.
free as much as they want.. just like beforeProblem # 7 Orisons
PCs can cast orisons for "free" ability modifier times per day. Beyond that limit each orison costs 1 spell point.
Problem #8
My 1st level Paladin/Ranger has spell points (from ability modifier). Can I use them?
No, you don’t know any spells.
why would you have spell points until you could cast spells, if the ranger/paladin has spell points for ability modifier, so would the fighter and the monk and the barbarian and every other class out there. you don't get spell points, even from ability modifiers, until you can cast spells without the ability modifier....
Can I use spell points for arcane strike?no, why would you.
My mystic thurge combine all spell points?i'm sure at some point, i'd have to reread the class, but you would treat it exactly as you would normal...
I have more than one spellcasting class, now what?
you have two different spell point pools.
bottom line, you are over thinking this, take a deep breath and relax, spell points make things more complicated, if you don't wish for the complication, DON'T USE THEM.
I am not sure how anyone got the impression that I was posting anything related to the psionic system in 3.5!
I am looking for feed-back on the workability of the posted system, not how it compairs or contrasts with a system from any other source.
Well, from my point of view it seems like you're trying to reinvent the wheel; there are already two spell point systems that are very similar to yours -- the 3.5 psionic power point rules, and the Unearthed Arcana spell point rules (which are fairly similar to each other as well). So it's kind of hard to forget everything I've read about those two similar systems in order to make comments on yours.
|
I think your a bit off in your examples too but I also dislike the spell point systems if for no other reason that they always seem to get crammed down my throat in a way that calls the traditional D&D Vancian system horrible despite my enjoyment of it. People who want to use spell points need to get a lot nicer about it.
Kind of reminds me of the Magic the Gathering game. I don't mind the game, but the players have this odd tendency to be just cheap terrible people who don't support their game shops.
Wrong, the cost should stay the same for each level, if the spells are balanced for their level (and for the most part they are, on a 9 level system) then a 1st level spell is a first level spell.... 1 point.Spell Point System
Problem # 1
Caster level and spell points?
Magic missile is a great example (any spell where effects increase with level)
For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile - two at 3rd level, three at 5th, four at 7th, and the maximum of five missiles at 9th level or higher. If you shoot multiple missiles, you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures. A single missile can strike only one creature. You must designate targets before you check for spell resistance or roll damage.
Everyone can agree on a cost of 1 spell point for magic missle….
However the cost should be 1 spell point per missile!
no, it should cost 5 points flat
Same with a fireball
3rd level spell costs 3 spell points, +1 spell point per additional d6 of damage…
So a 10th level caster can do a maximum of 10d6 damage and this would cost 7 spell points, however the same caster could cast the spell as a 3d6 for 3 spell points.
I'd chime in here that KenderKin is very much correct in his analysis that the point cost of a spell should go up as it does more damage/fires more missiles/etc. Without increasing the cost but increasing the effect you would be creating a system ripe for abuse.
With the traditional slots of D&D, it's OK to have the spells increase in power for the same slot because the slots are a limited resource in the first place. There's no significant abuse. But if there's no limitation of slots, just points, you'll see that the 5 missile magic missile is clearly too good for a single point being able to be cast hundreds of times a day.
The same analysis holds for fireball.
I am not sure how anyone got the impression that I was posting anything related to the psionic system in 3.5!
I am looking for feed-back on the workability of the posted system, not how it compairs or contrasts with a system from any other source.
Responses like
right
wrong
that is not how it worksare pointless......
My perspective on a Spell point system
is to increase caster flexibility, without making casters Uber-powerful.
ok, i brought up the psionic system as a good example of a spell point system that mostly works. you did not post a system, you complained about a system that you did not explain. if you are wrong i'm going to tell you you are wrong, in those cases you where wrong. i do believe helping you is pointless, good point, i apologize. the psionic system in 3.5 isn't uber-powerful.
Just want to point out that D&D's spell system is a point system where each spell costs 1 point. :)
Well, each spell level is a point system I suppose, but you can't swap a 1st level spell slot for a 9th level spell...
|
Just want to point out that D&D's spell system is a point system where each spell costs 1 point. :)Well, each spell level is a point system I suppose, but you can't swap a 1st level spell slot for a 9th level spell...
Of course not, because a 9th level spell costs 9 points, and a 1st level spell costs 1. :)
1) Eric is wrong (you were almost right):
Spells should ALWAYS cost the desired CASTER LEVEL not the spell level, but must cost at least the minimum caster level for its spell level. So you were close. A magic missile costs 1 point, but that would translate into a caster level 1 magic missile. You want 3 missiles as one spell? Pay 5 points instead (caster level 5).
The same goes for spells like fireball: Minium caster level (for wizard) is 5 so "the smallest" fireball you can cast costs 5 points, uses caster level 5 and therefore inflicts 5d6 damage.
Bonus spell points are a bit messy, since you have to check maximum spell level and "bonus spell slots" and multiply the avaialable slots by either their minimum caster level cost (spell level x2 - 1).
Prepared casters should be able to prepare a "list of spells" (instead of single instances of spells) and cast the spells on the list spontaneously as a sorcerer would under the normal rules.
General problem with spell points: The great benefit of spont. casters gets washed away, so you either have to merge i.e. the sorcerer into the wizard, or give the sorcerer another benefit, such as a lot more spell points compared to the wizard (I actually prefer the merging).
I propose you get your hands on "3.5 Unearthed Arcana". There is a spell point system presented.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the problem? For when you can cast 5 missiles warriors are doing tons of damage. Magic missile (CL 9th) only makes an average of 16 points of damage.
Damage spells do little damage compared to weapon combat. It makes no sense to penalize them increasing its cost.
I use the Unearthed Arcana spell point rules without caster level increase cost and it works perfect. Also, from level 10-11 this system gives fewer spell points than the conversion of spell slots should give.
There are no Sorcerer or Oracle in my games. Build one of these characters is a matter of background and choose feats that favors this concept. In my opinion there are too many classes with the same role.
The comparison is valid, because increasing the cost of damage spells only makes useless and nobody uses it. Damage spells are the weakest, need not be weakened further. So no matter that a spellcaster do 15-16 points of damage on average for the cost of 1 spell point when the warriors are doing much more damage. That damage can not compete with the damage that warriors are doing. Warriors are not affected because a wizard is doing 15 points of damage when they are making many more. It would be different if they were doing the same damage, but is not the case.
If damage spells have more cost all you accomplish is that casters only use other spells ... the strongest.
Casters also need many magic objects (and wizards access to new spells) All classes are dependent on magic items. It is a failure of 3.X/PFRPG. I have not considered, because it is a condition that is never going to give in a game. If the GM wants to can make it impossible for the wizard study his spells interrupting his sleep every night. GM can steal the spellbook and the wizard will be useless. These considerations are silly. These events are rare, not the rule of the day.
Basing cost on caster level has issues as well, unless you price every spell differently. Lets say a 10th level caster might have, say, 100 spell points.
If you make a price that is just based on caster level, ze'll never cast anything from spell levels 1-3 because they've got the stronger stuff.
If you make a price that is based on both, say, caster level + spell level, you benefit spells that have little difference between low and high caster level or that has a cap on when needed. For example, most combats lasts no longer than 5 turns (though they occacionally do, it's more exception and norm in how the game is designed). Thus, a spell with a 5 turn duration will in most cases be at full strength. So that caster can choose between a full-strength Stinking Cloud for 8 points, or a full-strength (10d6) fireball for 13 points. If it just has 8 points left, they can cast a full-strength Stinking Cloud or a _really_ ineffective fireball.
Since the spells that don't need a high caster level are often the strongest ones already, those that do (mainly blasts and a few control spells) will be completely out in the cold.
Basically, what I'm saying is that you can't just slap on points costs based on caster level for the core spells, you'd have to remake the whole system.
But I disagree with Iridal when it comes to magic item dependancy, though I think there's three different situations:
1. No gear at all. Here shines druids, monks, sorcerers, to some extent clerics, and a few other specialized builds.
2. Little gear (like 1/2 or 1/4 WBL): Here shines all primary casters. Period. Martials, especially MAD ones like the monk and rogue, suffer the worst.
3. Full wealth. Here we're better balanced (though there still is the M/C D, but let's not get further into that).
Casters can usually, even with very little money, make a meaningful contribution in nearly all situations. A fighter that can't fly reliably cannot.
But I disagree with Iridal when it comes to magic item dependancy, though I think there's three different situations:
1. No gear at all. Here shines druids, monks, sorcerers, to some extent clerics, and a few other specialized builds.
2. Little gear (like 1/2 or 1/4 WBL): Here shines all primary casters. Period. Martials, especially MAD ones like the monk and rogue, suffer the worst.
3. Full wealth. Here we're better balanced (though there still is the M/C D, but let's not get further into that).Casters can usually, even with very little money, make a meaningful contribution in nearly all situations. A fighter that can't fly reliably cannot.
Very particular conditions always favor some classes more than others. But that's not normal. If you play a campaign under special conditions, do house rules to compensate the affected classes. There are particular scenes in all campaigns. For example, last week my wizard and his fellow fighter were ambushed when my wizard hadn’t spell components. The fighter was no armor but he had a weapon, so he was able to face the enemy while my wizard was useless. That particular scene does not make the wizard class useless. It's just a special circumstance. But if you play a whole campaign with few magic items and do not put some rules to balance the campaign shame on you as GM. The magic item dependence is a system failure, not a caster classes fairule. And this has nothing to do with the issue of thread.
Moreover, it isn’t right to put all caster classes in the same bag. Divine casters are more self-sufficient than the wizard, for example. Remove the wizard’s spellbook, and the wizard becomes a useless peasant. Do not let the wizard learn new spells, and the wizard will be a character terribly limited. Let the wizard a spellbook with many spells but do not give him a headband of vast intelligence- his spell DC will be bad and not efficient against many enemies. There are not many buff spells in the wizard/sorcerer list and most benefit more the warriors (o cleric) than the wizard himself (for example, haste)
but I insist- this has nothing to do with the issue of thread.
Again, you are only looking at Damage Per Round which can be invalid in an overall quest, unless _all_ you do is hack/n/slash. Most often the builds I have seen that favor the Fighter is based on being able to access super-optimal magic items. If the magic classes and the melee classes only have access to random items, the magic classes can do far better. If nothing else, they can make their own items. Combat classes don't have that option, they just don't have the requirements to make enchanted items.
Your arguments are invalid. Nobody do a spell point houserule and cut the warriors access to magical items. I repeat, if you limit access to magic items is your fault as GM (hey, one thing is to give all random magic items and failing to ensure that there are useful items for all characters and other thing is allow choose all for optimized builds. Warriors do not need to select all the magic objects --- only a few objects that are appropriate to their needs). You are comparing apples and oranges. It is absurd to suppose that you're going to penalize the fighters because you're creating a spell point system. My group has been playing with it many years (We also have other rules that favor warriors) and all players are very happy. If you are concerned by magic item dependence, then you should create houserules related with it (We also have done it) or do not limit access to magic items. But do not mix a issue with other.
On the other hand, objects that warriors need are the most common in the treasury of most campaigns. Weapons, armors, cloaks of resistance, protection rings, objects that enhance abilities ... are the objects that NPCs need most. It is rare that the warriors do not get this kind of object.
I guess you are not understanding the spell point balance issue I was trying to indicate. That even though the caster has the option to blow all their points on their strongest spell, maybe as a one shot wonder. They have the option to using lower level spells to stay in the game longer.
I understand perfectly the balance of magic. Is good that casters not limit the adventurous day and last longer, especially when this is achieved by expending low-level spells (their contribution will not be spectacular) Look at the fifth edition or reserve feats of 3.5--- they give at will low-level spells (or spell-like) for that reason. As for being a nova with higher level spells, yes, it's a risk. But in mature groups is a minimal risk. If someone is a nova is useless for the rest of the day. In my group does not allow the adventure of fifteen minutes a day, so it's a system that works for us. If your players are not mature, do not use this houserule. Presumably, if the OP has created this thread is because his players are mature.
If your players are not mature and you want a more flexible system than the classic vancian, read the Arcana Evolved system (limited to daily uses, of course) That approaches the magic to sorcerer instead of psion. And if you do not want to change the official system, what you do in a thread of house rules? Clearly the OP does want an alternative system.
The issue also includes that they will be fully recovered by the time the next encounter occurs. That isn't an easy balance act. How boring would it be if the caster has access to their strongest spells over and over again? How boring is it if after a couple encounters you had to go home to rest, because your casters no longer had any power left to make a difference?
Spell points are spent. You can not use your strongest spells forever, or you run out of spell points. Nobody has said that spell points regenerate each encounter. I repeat, I have several years of playing with this system. And nobody in my group believes that the warriors are outclassed. Not a single player.
Casters do not really _need_ access to 'magic' objects. They might need access to materials. Most of the time These materials are relativamente mundane, When needed at all. They need to access Any magic items is due to low number of spells Their They can cast THROUGHOUT the day, Because Their Often duplicate spells magic Any access to objects, or should I say, magic spells magic the duplicate objects Already have casters. They just allow the casters more endurance adventurers as Effective Because It Does not Rely On Their internal magic.
Again mixing apples and oranges. The construction of magic items is a different issue. Second, warriors can also craft magical weapons and armor and magical items +x (Master craftsman). Third, this is a team game and if casters can build magical items also will built items for his fellow warriors. Warriors are not going to run out of magic items if there are characters with craft feats.
Spellbooks are not magic items. They are mundane, as casters can replace them, or create and have multiple backups of books.
Get new spells isn’t easier than getting new magic items. Both come from the same source: other creators of magic. Both require that GM allow access. Why do you suppose it is more difficult for the warrior to get a sword than for a wizard get new spells? It is absurd to suppose that the warriors are always penalized for a mysterious reason. You insist on comparing unfavorable conditions for the warriors and that's not fair. Why there is no magic items for sale and yet the wizards sell the secrets of his power? That makes no sense. No, not so easy to get new spells ... at least not more easy than to buy magic items.
Please do not mix apples and oranges. They are not the same. In addition, the OP is asking about a particular rule that favors casters. You do not know if he has other rules that favor the warriors. Quiet, I'm sure that he does not allow fighters are useless.
People, people, people...got to HypertextD20 and try it. The only changes I have made are (1) spell casting formula is 2(level)+1 and (2) Cantrips cost 1 spell point, rather than having a limit per day.
The advantage of a spell point system is in the versatility. The Wizard that takes a lightning bolt and a fireball can use which one is appropriate and not be crimped. It is better for the players, but the demands upon the GM increase.
The overall problem with spell point systems that I've seen is the bloat in points as you go up in levels. It becomes easier and easier to sacrifice lower level "spells" for higher level ones, skewing a 15 minute work-day into a 30, or even 60 minute, work day. By this I mean a spell point caster can pump out the high level effort 2-4 times as much as a normal system caster can.
The solution to this, is to maintain a more static spell point pool, but have the cost of spells change over time.
If a character starts with a 20 point pool, first level spells cost 10 points. At 3rd level, the pool has expanded to 22 points, but first level spells have gone down in cost, say to 6 points, but 2nd level spells cost 10 now. Spell levels keep getting cheaper as you progress in levels, while you're newest one is always fairly expensive. Eventually low level spells can even be free, at 15th level, 1st level spells are pretty minor and you probably aren't going to have many ruined encounters if the wizard can keep flinging them as long as he wants.
It's much easier to measure and maintain control over the top tier spells that are being used with this method.
Irontruth
'It becomes easier and easier to sacrifice lower level "spells"...' With a spell point system, you do not 'sacrifice' lower level spell, you merely do not cast them, using your mana, spell points, whatever to power the spells of your choice.
'high level effort 2-4 times' A valid gripe or complaint which cuts both ways, as npc villains, etc get the same boost. If this really bugs you, consider lowering the number of spell points allowed, etc. I did, It works like a charm.
Your spell point pool works too. I've played with something similar, the pool being 100 spell points with spell costs being keyed to the casting Stat (this was seriously pre-D20).
The key advantage of a spell point system is the versatility it offers to players. An extreme example would be loading Icy Hail (old campaign spell) and Fireball so that you're not stuck with the wrong spell.
You're partially right, but I am also right as well.
If you convert every spell slot a wizard has into the spell points needed to cast them, the wizard can use the points from the lower level spells to power higher level ones. This is what I'm talking about, and it is a power shift in the game.
Smaller pools are going to be easier to manipulate from a design perspective.
3.5 Psionics had this problem. I played a high level psionicist and I mostly stopped using low level powers, because high level powers were more powerful. Around 17th level, I could basically funnel my entire pool through the 8th and 9th level powers and wreck havoc on encounters.
For most people who aren't uber at math, smaller numbers are going to be easier to wrap their head around, making the design of the system easier to grasp and manipulate to their desired goal.
Very particular conditions always favor some classes more than others.
Of course. It was directed at the statement "All classes are dependent on magic items" which I interpreted as "all classes are roughly equally dependant on magic items", or at least in the same league. But they're not. A 15th level sorcerer with no magic items will operate at maybe 70% efficiency - a 15th level fighter will operate at maybe 20% of it's efficiency.
A decently optimized 15th level sorcerer that's lost everything it owns, or has just half, or hasn't had any options to chose magic item that fits, will still manage standard CR encounters. A decently optimized 15th level fighter will not (unless MAYBE if optimized for the very situation of being broke).
And while this may not be the standard situation, it's something to consider. Just like how a character with an awful reflex save should consider Grease - while encountering that specific spell is no standard situation, it's still something that should weight in on how you play.
I may be reading this wrong...are you ultimately complaining that low-level spells aren't being used at the higher levels? If so, you're right! We logged our Wizard's use of spells a few years back and found that she cast every level 5-6 spell she had, every chance she got. The only misses were when she didn't have the right spell loaded. Her level 4 spells were nearly always used AFTER her top tier were spent. Except for utility, her lower leveled spells went unused. Granted, she hates the concept of Metamagic.
She once said that I couldn't find a reason for her to consider preparing a spell with a meta-feat, and because of the adventure that night, she was right.
'For most people who aren't uber at math...' Uh, yeah, about that, I playtested Champions for Hero Games and Wargamed starting at 14. My current extended play group includes 13 people with 16 college degrees amongst them (okay, 3 of them hold 9 of those degrees). I admit to intolerance of simpletons that can't handle piddling arithmetic.