Quick-and-Dirty Spell Creation Rules

[Epic Meepo]

If someone held a gun to my head and said I had to allow wordcasters in my game, I would insist on replacing the playtest spell creation rules with some version of the following quick-and-dirty spell creation rules:

(The following mechanics are as true to the mathematics of the existing system as I could get on short notice using only spell slots and no point costs. Spells created using these rules should closely approximate, if not exactly equal, spells created using the playtest rules.)

Each time you create a spell using words of power, you can either:

1) Choose any one word; use that word's level as the spell's level (and the spell slot required to cast it).
2) Add a second word whose level is less than or equal to one-half the spell's level, rounded up (see Table 1).
3) If neither word chosen above was a target word, add a 0-level target word*.

Table 1:

Spell Level** - Maximum Level of Second Word Added
0 - 0
1st - 1st
2nd - 1st
3rd - 2nd
4th - 2nd
5th - 3rd
6th - 3rd
7th - 4th
8th - 4th
9th - 5th

**Spell level equals the level of the first word chosen.

OR

1) Choose any two words; use their total level (minimum 1st) as the spell's level (and the spell slot required to cast it).
2) Add a third word whose level is less than (but not equal to) one-half the spell's level, rounded up (see Table 2).
3) If none of the words chosen above was a target word, add a 0-level target word*.

Table 2:

Spell Level** - Maximum Level of Third Word Added
0 - n/a
1st - 0
2nd - 0
3rd - 1st
4th - 1st
5th - 2nd
6th - 2nd
7th - 3rd
8th - 3rd
9th - 4th

**Spell level equals the total level of the first two words chosen (minimum 1st).

*Add adjacent to the list of 0-level target words. A spell with this word affects an area of one 5-foot space adjacent to the caster. The adjacent target word can be used with any effect word that can target a burst, cone, or line.

That's it. No points. No split costs. No Word Burning. Just three steps and you're done.

(Note that the above rules don't allow spells that use more than four words. That was an intentional limit added to reduce the potential for complexity with diminishing returns at higher levels.)

[morphail]

Epic Meepo wrote:

If someone held a gun to my head and said I had to allow wordcasters in my game, I would insist on replacing the playtest spell creation rules with some version of the following quick-and-dirty spell creation rules:

(The following mechanics are as true to the mathematics of the existing system as I could get on short notice using only spell slots and no point costs. Spells created using these rules should closely approximate, if not exactly equal, spells created using the playtest rules.)

Each time you create a spell using words of power, you can either:

1) Choose any one word; use that word's level as the spell's level (and the spell slot required to cast it).
2) Add a second word whose level is less than or equal to one-half the spell's level, rounded up (see Table 1).
3) If neither word chosen above was a target word, add a 0-level target word*.

** spoiler omitted **

OR

1) Choose any two words; use their total level (minimum 1st) as the spell's level (and the spell slot required to cast it).
2) Add a third word whose level is less than (but not equal to) one-half the spell's level, rounded up (see Table 2).
3) If none of the words chosen above was a target word, add a 0-level target word*.

** spoiler omitted **

*Add adjacent to the list of 0-level target words. A spell with this word affects an area of one 5-foot space adjacent to the caster. The adjacent target word can be used with any effect word that can target a burst, cone, or line.

That's it. No points. No split costs. No Word Burning....

This makes a lot of sense.

Or as the kids say these days: " +1"

[Erik Freund]

I like it.

[Evil Lincoln]

I am probably going to try this in my playtest attempts. I do not like the table/point system at all.

Thanks Eric!

[Blueluck]

I've been doing some testing myself, and have some to a similar conclusion. What you wrote is a great house-rule version of what I referred to as "Emphasizing Simplicity". I would love to see a rewrite of Words of Power along the lines of your system.

My previous post:

I understand that the playtest material is only a small sample of the whole. But the system is clunky, being at once complex and inflexible. On the one hand, it introduces a complete point system that requires a significant amount of bookkeeping. On the other hand, there are many effect combinations that are impossible because effects have been clumped together into single phrases that are too specific. I have a handful of ideas on how to make a better system, but I'll keep my advice high-level.

Simplicity or flexibility - choose one.

If you're going to maximize simplicity, consider making a "point" equal a spell level. Make some templates that spells can be built on, to give structure to the spell creation process and to take care of details that are too minor to be addressed by a mechanic with a range of only .5-9 points. Accept that a number of iconic spells will not be possible, and allow for casters to have great freedom across what is covered, in exchange for leaving out half of the current spell effects. Emphasizing simplicity would create a type of spellcaster easily playable by anyone who can handle the existing core rules, without slowing game play or increasing bookkeeping.

If you're going to maximize for flexibility, separate every characteristic into its own word: range, area, shape, damage, condition (e.g. stunned), casting time, duration, energy type, etc. putting very fine-grained control into the hands of the player. A few existing spells still won't be possible, and a number of existing spells would come in at higher level than the core version, but the large degree of customization would make up for that. Emphasizing flexibility would create a type of spellcaster that appeals to players who are willing to do significantly more bookkeeping to make up their own, highly detailed and tweaked, spell effects.

[Drack530]

Blueluck wrote:

I've been doing some testing myself, and have some to a similar conclusion. What you wrote is a great house-rule version of what I referred to as "Emphasizing Simplicity". I would love to see a rewrite of Words of Power along the lines of your system.

** spoiler omitted **...

I think flexibility should be what is focused on since normal spellcasting is the simplicity route.