No Point to Points


Round 2: Words of Power Discussion


I like point based magic systems. I prefer them to the existing Vancian system. Why then am I saying there is "No point to points"?

The answer is that points add bookkeeping overhead. Points work well when their benefits (flexibility added) outweighs the bookkeeping they add. Otherwise, the general rule is more bookkeeping is bad. With Words of Power, the points (much like the goggles) do nothing. They are bookkeeping that adds only bookkeeping. The reason for this is that each individual spell is its own point pool. All the points do is bookkeeping to tell you if the spell needs to take up a higher level slot. This could be easily accomplished by replacing the point cost with a level cost/adjustment.

Here is an overview of how this same system could work without points:

Target words add +n levels to the spell level (some will add +0). Effect words add their minimum level to the spell level if the primary effect, or add +n levels if boosted or are used as secondary effects. This greatly simplifies the bookkeeping.

The only hiccup in this is the Word Burning feat. This is the only bit of WoP where the points add flexibility and it is extremely limited. It would actually be better to go to level adjustment cost and drop this feat entirely from a game play perspective.

In addition to limiting the bookkeeping, this change also removes another problem with the WoP points. If the point total of a spell comes up to less than the maximum number of points for its level, then the player may well feel cheated, that they aren't getting everything they should out of the spell. Going to a level adjustment removes this since it becomes a binary question of "does this spell equal this spell level?". This also eliminates the time wasted as the player sifts through their words looking for a couple more points to fill out that spell level.

If closing if you are going to keep a new magic system as similar to the existing Vancian casting system as you have, do so by keeping it strengths such as simplicity rather than its peculiarities which are what many looking for alternate casting systems are trying to get away from.


I love your idea. I think it might be difficult to implement for very low level spells. For example, how would one create something like Burning Hands, a first level spell with an area of effect?


Blueluck wrote:
I love your idea. I think it might be difficult to implement for very low level spells. For example, how would one create something like Burning Hands, a first level spell with an area of effect?

Flame Jet is minimum level 0 +1 level for Small Cone.

Trying to recreate all of the existing spells exactly is a waste of time. They were all built arbitrarily where as a 'build your own spell' system would need to codify what the variables and their effects on spell level. You can get close, but not exact because when the existing spells were written there were no hard rules and it was all done by guess and cool factor.


Freesword wrote:
I like point based magic systems. I prefer them to the existing Vancian system. Why then am I saying there is "No point to points"?...

GREAT SUGGESTION!!!!

I really like this suggestion best of everything I have seen posted so far. Like many, I have read the beta and found it to be a promissing addition to the game that just seems "off mark" and too unwieldy. I really hope this idea is pursued further.

Greg


Blueluck wrote:
I love your idea. I think it might be difficult to implement for very low level spells. For example, how would one create something like Burning Hands, a first level spell with an area of effect?

I also like the OPs idea and basically have something like this in mind. But, as you said this is difficult to implement in low levels and also, it is not flexible enough.

The solution is even simpler:
1st step: double the amount of spell levels.
What this means is that you go over the list of spells in each level an assign a new level that is either double the original or double -1.
For example, lets say Raise Dead is a powerful 5th level spell, so its new level is 10. A slightly less powerful 5th level spell might be Hallow so make it a 9th level spell.
Now full casters have a range of power levels from 0 to 18 (and you can even make stronger spells and assign levels 19 and 20 to them). Each level is maxed at 2 spells per level (I am looking at the wizard progression table for now), so there are exactly the same number of spells per level as they are now.

2nd step: Make up more "metamagic feats" or you can call them "words of power" and assign a level penalty (or bonus!) to each feat. Remember that there are more levels now so the existing Maximize Spell becomes a 6th level enhancement. A new enhancement can be "Additional Target" which costs 1 level for every additional target or an "Icy Spell" that might cost 2 extra levels and change the type of damage to cold.
Reverse metamagic may be applied with caution- maybe if a spell is cast as a full round action instead of a standard action.
I would suggest limiting the negative metamagics/power words to work only as a buffer to metamagics that enhance power cost because otherwise it will be very easy to exploit this system.

Example:
I want to cast a maximized icy fireball ("great sphere of ice" or whatever): Fireball=6th level, Maximized=6th levels, Icy=2 levels
That's a 14th level spell which can be cast by a 14th level wizard (nice symmetry huh?). If you are a 13th level wizard and have all the feats you may cast this one as a full round action (-1 metamagic), reducing the cost to 13.

How's that?

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

Freesword wrote:
In addition to limiting the bookkeeping, this change also removes another problem with the WoP points. If the point total of a spell comes up to less than the maximum number of points for its level, then the player may well feel cheated, that they aren't getting everything they should out of the spell. Going to a level adjustment removes this since it becomes a binary question of "does this spell equal this spell level?". This also eliminates the time wasted as the player sifts through their words looking for a couple more points to fill out that spell level.

This is my great fear as well. I see terrible table-grind with spontaneous casters for this reason.


morphail wrote:

1st step: double the amount of spell levels.

What this means is that you go over the list of spells in each level an assign a new level that is either double the original or double -1.
For example, lets say Raise Dead is a powerful 5th level spell, so its new level is 10. A slightly less powerful 5th level spell might be Hallow so make it a 9th level spell.
Now full casters have a range of power levels from 0 to 18 (and you can even make stronger spells and assign levels 19 and 20 to them). Each level is maxed at 2 spells per level (I am looking at the wizard progression table for now), so there are exactly the same number of spells per level as they are now.

That's remarkably similar to Elements of Magic, a d20 flexible magic system I've played around with.

Elements of Magic

I think it was pretty good, but I didn't run it up to high levels, so I don't know how it would hold up. It has some effects that can't be done in current 3.x/PF (like Global area of effect in epic) but also couldn't duplicate all of what could be done with standard spells. I think it would generally end up a bit weaker than standard spells, which is fine in my book.

Honestly, the best system I've seen for flexible magic is Infinite Domains.

Infinite Domains

Don't think it would translate well to PF though. Maybe PF 2.0.


That's remarkably similar to Elements of Magic, a d20 flexible magic system I've played around with.

Elements of Magic

I think it was pretty good, but I didn't run it up to high levels, so I don't know how it would hold up. It has some effects that can't be done in current 3.x/PF (like Global area of effect in epic) but also couldn't duplicate all of what could be done with standard spells. I think it would generally end up a bit weaker than standard spells, which is fine in my book.

Honestly, the best system I've seen for flexible magic is Infinite Domains.

Infinite Domains

Don't think it would translate well to PF though. Maybe PF 2.0.

The first link doesn't work. Can you resend?

I kind of figured this was a simple idea and someone must have done it before.
Thanks for the references


Upon further though I need to revise my comments on the Word Burning feat. It could still work after removing the points by expending a spell slot and using it's level to buy off the level adjustment added by secondary effect words.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Ultimate Magic Playtest / Round 2: Words of Power Discussion / No Point to Points All Messageboards
Recent threads in Round 2: Words of Power Discussion