Ever since I first played D&D (way back in the dark ages of the 70s) I found the mechanics of spell slots to be a bit ham handed in forcing balance. Especially since many spells (regardless of level) list their effects as being variable according to caster level.
This of course made no sense to me... Why does a fire ball have a d6/cl and 400 + 40 ft/cl setting when the earliest I can obtain and use it is 5th level? That means that the minimum amount of damage I will be able to do with the spell is 5d6 And has a minimum range of 600 ft. If the spell is scaled for lower levels why is my mage limited to casting it at only certain minimum levels?
Spell points were first introduced to me by a GM back in the late 70s. He started with just a maximum number of spells per day. This of course created more issues as play progressed; a 3rd level mage casting WISH and only burning a single spell slot was a bit over the top. (an extreme case but still...) so a spell point system was developed where each spell cost a certain amount of points to cost (based mostly upon spell level and not much else). This too had issues but cleaved closer to the concepts of resource management that spell slots encouraged.
Which brings me to my question.
Has anyone toyed around with the concept of spell points for the system?
I have a quick and dirty version that seems to work but still has its issues.
It does not take cantrips into account.
Nor does it (currently) take into account variations in power of spells at each level (Summon Monster V vs Teleport vs Wall of Stone for example.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've tinkered around with spell point systems over the years.
The one presented http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm
Is probably as close to being good that I've found.
The problems with it are basically that it makes Casters even more powerful and flexible than they are under core. This obviously bothers some people but doesn't bother other people.
The other problem is while lack of autoscaling on direct damage spells is a good solution for evocation, many of the best spells aren't direct damage. Being able to spam your highest level SoL spells even more per day can make balance frustrating.
I'd continue using the cantrips/orisons as unlimited as per PF core.
I have a very simple and completely untested idea that I always wanted to try. I'll try to explain as clearly as possible.
Using the pathfinder or 3.5 system as a base.
It should work with any class, I suspect it would be more beneficial for spontaneous casters. In this case I'm using the wizard as an example.
One spell level = one point. Ex. If you can cast two first level spells and one second level you have 4 spell points to "spend" when you memorize spells. You can memorize 4 fist level spells, two second level spells, or two first level and one second level, or any other mathmatically acceptable combination.
Max spell level avaiable is determined by the progression chart. So a third level wizard could not combine all his spell points to cast a 4th level spell.
So a high level caster could have a crap ton of low level spells or he could use all of that spell energy to memorize more higher level spells.
Other than those few changes everything else works basically the same way. Metamagic feats would require a certain number of spell points instead of higher level spell slot, but the math would basically make it all work out the same.
This system could open up feat options to alter spells similar to metamagic feats, but that just gets complicated.
Like I said this is a totally untested idea. I think the only real thing it does is give a caster more flexability in his spell selection.
In the case of spontaneous casters they have the same spells known as the current chart. Basically all of their Spells per day woould be converted to a spell point pool and they spend points to cast the spells they know.
Cantrips work the same way as they currently do and are not calculated.
I've tinkered around with spell point systems over the years.
The one presented http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm
Is probably as close to being good that I've found.
The problems with it are basically that it makes Casters even more powerful and flexible than they are under core. This obviously bothers some people but doesn't bother other people.
The other problem is while lack of autoscaling on direct damage spells is a good solution for evocation, many of the best spells aren't direct damage. Being able to spam your highest level SoL spells even more per day can make balance frustrating.
I'd continue using the cantrips/orisons as unlimited as per PF core.
That is similar to my current house rule (though a bit more complex than needed IMO). I had figured on leaving cantrips as free to cast but I am at a loss as to how to limit the number of cantrips one has access to at any one time with out resorting to spell slots (which is what I am trying to eliminate). My method even allows for caster to learn spells that by traditional mechanics they cannot (a 1st level wizard knowing a 5th level spell). Which at first glance does seem over powered until one realizes that should that mage choose to cast that 5th level spell he could conceivably burn out his spell points rather quickly.
My quick and dirty rules.
Spell level equals point cost of the spell.
Spell points per level are determined by class. (still working on a variant I like).
Additional spell points are gained from high ability scores. (equal to the modifier).
Casters start with the class limits on spells known.
Bonus spells gained from ability scores are now bonus spells known to/learned by the character. (meaning a mage may know spells that the Vancian System says are beyond him.)
Meta-magic Feats - if a feat increases the spell slot it now increases the cost of the spell by that amount.
New Meta-magic feat:
Desperate Measures: allows caster to convert HP into SP.
1 sp is equal to 2 hp. (It is possible this feat could kill the caster)
Yes this method does at first blush make casters stronger at first level.
But I believe that the power is more than off set by the high spell cost to point pool ratio.
Ideally each individual spell would have its own independent cost (with in a certain range determined by level) but that takes more time than I a humble (and busy) GM/player wishes to devote to it.
Minor nitpick. The spell slot system IS a spell point system.
You get a number of points per spell level based on your class level. And you can spend higher level points to cast lower level spells.
never really looked at that way...
and even trying to look at it that way I am still having a disconnect on how it is similar. Could you expand on this?
|
Certainly!
Multiply your spell slots by spell level.
Say you have 4 1st level slots, 3 2nd level, and 2 3rd level.
4 + 6 + 6 = 16 points.
Spells have a cost of 1 point per spell level.
Since a 2nd level slot only gives you 2 points, you can't cast a 3rd level spell with it.
But you can use a 3rd level slot to cast a a 2nd level spell, because a 3rd level slot is worth 3 points and a 2nd level spell only costs 2 points. The downside in the current system is, you lose a point when you do that.
If we remove the restrictions, you can cast 16 1st level spells, or 5 3rd level spells and 1 1st level spell, or any combination inbetween.
Right now, you're only missing two things.
Being able to use your lower level points to cast higher level spells instead of lower level spells. (IE giving up 3 1st level spells to cast 1 3rd level spell.)
Being able to use your higher points to cast more lower level spells. (Right now you can only get 1 more 1st level spell by not casting a 3rd level spell. If you had a spell point pool like above, you could get 3 1st level spells out of that 3rd level slot instead of 1.)
This is very stream of conciousness and not cleaned up well, but that's the explaination I have for 'spell slots are spell points with different rules'.
Going to a system where the points are not hard coded into the different spell slots only allows you to cast more of your best spells at the cost of your lower spells or vice versa. If that's what you want, by all means, but it actually encourages going nova with your best spells more because you have no restrictions on what spells to spend your points on. The current spell slot system says 'you can spend your higher points on lower spells, but not your lower points for higher spells'.
|
Minor nitpick. The spell slot system IS a spell point system.
You get a number of points per spell level based on your class level. And you can spend higher level points to cast lower level spells.
never really looked at that way...
and even trying to look at it that way I am still having a disconnect on how it is similar. Could you expand on this?
The reason it's hard to 'accept' by myself, and probably yourself as well is the notion of "memorizing" a spell and then "forgetting" it upon casting.
In core mechanics, TOZ is correct - it's essentially a form of a spell point. The flavor of vancian memorization and forgetting is what's always been a hard pill to swallow and spell energy / spell points / mana is a different flavor of essentially getting the same end result.
If you simply memorize a number of spells each day based on the wizards memorization chart, and allow for those spells to be cast in any allocation the caster needs throughout the day - burning one pool of mana (similar to how DDO does it), then it accomplishes the goal of the OP and isn't too overpowered.
We do this in our home campaigns.
Something else to think about: since you're essentially making a wizard a "spontaneous caster" one of the restrictions we placed in the game is that use of a meta-magic feat spontaneously onto a spell requires a swift action.
Memorizing a spell in a higher slot w/ an assigned metamagic feat to it, does not require the swift action (possibly allowing for a second swift action metamagic feat to be applied) [a silent, still dimension door]
Cantrips are unlimited still - but only a number of them can be memorized based on the chart one again.
Allowing a spell point pool with the caster being able draw from any spell in their book/repertoire at any time is too unbalancing. Limiting them to a number of different ones they can know at any time, but allowing them to be cast in any combination they wish allows a much greater diversity than vancian without grossly over doing it.
Essentially if a wizard can cast 4 first, 3 second, 2 third, and 1 fourth level spell, he assigns what spells he knows in that amount each day and has 20 points in his pool to spend (a sum of all the spells).
one more restriction we placed eventually was that you couldn't cast more than two times the amount of spells of a given spell level than you would normally be allowed on the chart. Thus the wizard above would not be able to cast more than 8 first level spells that day.
We ran into the problem w/ high level clerics casting 60 cure light wound spells for instance.
Robert
|
|
Spells cost a number of Spell Points to cast equal to their spell level (Cantrips are free, Fireball costs 3[regardless of caster level], Cone of Cold costs 5 [and always WAS a rip-off. Empowered fireballs always do more damage than CoC]).
Excuse the brief threadjack but the fact that CoC still does less than empowered Fireball, mechanically they do the same (15d6 vs 10d6 + 50% = 15d6)
The fact that Fireball has a more utility in range and area of effect which makes it superior is actually okay.
Fire resistance is more pominent than cold and creatures taking double damage from cold are more prominent than those who take them from fire
I think this does much for the balance of things.
(campaigns based in tundra regions notwithstanding).
Robert
The reason it's hard to 'accept' by myself, and probably yourself as well is the notion of "memorizing" a spell and then "forgetting" it upon casting.Minor nitpick. The spell slot system IS a spell point system.
You get a number of points per spell level based on your class level. And you can spend higher level points to cast lower level spells.
never really looked at that way...
and even trying to look at it that way I am still having a disconnect on how it is similar. Could you expand on this?
It's not because the Vancian system was developed in the 70s that you have to use the 70s terminology!
"Prepared" and "cast" is what the cool kids say now apparently ;)
'findel
|
|
Going to a system where the points are not hard coded into the different spell slots only allows you to cast more of your best spells at the cost of your lower spells or vice versa. If that's what you want, by all means, but it actually encourages going nova with your best spells more because you have no restrictions on what spells to spend your points on. The current spell slot system says 'you can spend your higher points on lower spells, but not your lower points for higher spells'.
Another reason we put the restriction that one cannot cast "more than 2 times the normally allowed amount of a specific spell level"
My wizard example w/ 20 points would be allowed to cast 5 fourth level spells w/o that restriction - which quickly novas things and overbalances a APL game for 9th level characters - when normally he would be allowed one - or two with my proposed system w/ restriction in place.
Robert
|
|
It's not because the Vancian system was developed in the 70s that you have to use the 70s terminology!
"Prepared" and "cast" is what the cool kids say now apparently ;)
'findel
Good point. Then again - I am probably not cool, and certainly no kid. :-)
Oh and while we're on the subject:
Pluto is a planet, and the big dinosaurs are called Brontosaurus!
Robert
Certainly!
Multiply your spell slots by spell level.
Say you have 4 1st level slots, 3 2nd level, and 2 3rd level.
4 + 6 + 6 = 16 points.Spells have a cost of 1 point per spell level.
Since a 2nd level slot only gives you 2 points, you can't cast a 3rd level spell with it.
But you can use a 3rd level slot to cast a a 2nd level spell, because a 3rd level slot is worth 3 points and a 2nd level spell only costs 2 points. The downside in the current system is, you lose a point when you do that.If we remove the restrictions, you can cast 16 1st level spells, or 5 3rd level spells and 1 1st level spell, or any combination inbetween.
Right now, you're only missing two things.
Being able to use your lower level points to cast higher level spells instead of lower level spells. (IE giving up 3 1st level spells to cast 1 3rd level spell.)
Being able to use your higher points to cast more lower level spells. (Right now you can only get 1 more 1st level spell by not casting a 3rd level spell. If you had a spell point pool like above, you could get 3 1st level spells out of that 3rd level slot instead of 1.)This is very stream of conciousness and not cleaned up well, but that's the explaination I have for 'spell slots are spell points with different rules'.
Going to a system where the points are not hard coded into the different spell slots only allows you to cast more of your best spells at the cost of your lower spells or vice versa. If that's what you want, by all means, but it actually encourages going nova with your best spells more because you have no restrictions on what spells to spend your points on. The current spell slot system says 'you can spend your higher points on lower spells, but not your lower points for higher spells'.
It appears as if you and I are saying the same thing.
Ever since I first played D&D (way back in the dark ages of the 70s) I found the mechanics of spell slots to be a bit ham handed in forcing balance. Especially since many spells (regardless of level) list their effects as being variable according to caster level.
I've used a spell point system VERY similar to your proposition in a campaign that lasted several years. Here are the observations I made about that.
1) Significant rise in power.
Being able to cast a high level spell twice while you should only be able to cast it once has a higher impact on the battlefield than the lost of lower level spells sacrificed. That is more obvious as the caster gains levels. In a game of rocket-launcher tag, 2 nukes worth more than 1 nuke + x pistols.
2) Casters are either out of spells much quicker, or have a seemingly infinite amount of spells.
When battles are foreseen, expect the fight to be short and bloody (see point 1). When the situation calls for utility spells, expect the caster to have a solution to every problem. Many posts that make casters "supreme beings" assume that wizards always have the right amount of the right spell prepared. Well, splitting spell slots into point accentuates this.
This point is less problematic in a campaign where the DM is generous about money and/or wands.
3)While this relates to your disdain or balance, it makes encounters a bit more difficult to plan out. I guess that can vary on how the group depends on its caster(s) or not.
Point 1 and 2 are particularly true with sorcerers and spontaneous casters. Point 3 is particularly true with prepared casters, Clerics in particular.
And finally, this is a matter of opinion purely:
4) Makes the system rather soulless.
The spell slot system has a charm of its own, albeit not one that seems to be appreciated by many. I like the parallel to quantum mechanics, the "pyramid" of energy states (spell slots) that need to be conserved to perform magic safely etc. I like the fact that it is a bugger for wizards and that they haven't figure out why it can't work otherwise...
'findel
Just converting the spells with easy rules is doomed from the start.
"Spell Points" or Mana Points can be used quite more precise. Why does everyone thinks that a high level spell should need a high amount of MP? It´s more complex, so it´s much harder to master, but that is covered by the requirement of a higher level, I see no reason why it automatically has to draw more energy. If we´d talk just about blasts ok, but we are not.
My basic idea: Build a system of "spell themes". Lets name them "Disciplines" as in V:tM. Let the caster classes get "discipline points" (DP) as they level which they can invest in raising the Disciplines up to a maximum that is tied to the level. Also they get Mana Points (MP)
For example (I didn´t thought that much about the stats, may be quite unbalanced):
Discipline Wizard's DP, Discipline Maxima and MP progression table
Level__DP_____MP______maximum Discipline value
1______3______8_______1
2______4______12______1
3______6______16______2
4______8______20______2
5______11_____24______3
Donald the Discipline Wizard, Level 1:
Discipline Fire Magic 1
Discipline Protection 1
Discipline Transmutation 1
MP 8
Donald the Discipline Wizard, Level 4:
Discipline Fire Magic 2
Discipline Protection 2
Discipline Transmutation 2
Discipline Divination 1
Discipline Summoning 1
MP 20
Now what do the Disciplines do? Well, I always liked the idea of versatile magic. Every Discipline has a description what can be done with it with actual mechanical descriptions but the players should feel free to think of other uses (like using fire magic to cauterize wounds)
For example:
Discipline Fire
You can create and controll Flames. For no MP costs, you can create sparks from your finger tips, let flames dance and hurl a bolt of fire (ranged touch attack) that deals 1d6 + 1/Discipline Level fire damage
For 1 MP, you can create a ray of fire that deals 1d6 + 1d6/Discipline Level fire damage
For 2 MP, you can create a strong orb of fire that takes 2 rounds to cast and deals... in a burst with radius 1
At Discipline level 2:
For 1 MP, you can conjure up an Armor of Flames which...
For 2 MP, you can summon an Fire Elemental (Level 2: small, Level 3: medium...)
Of course, such an system would completely change the whole system up to the point where it ceases to be Pathfinder and it would take quite some work. Just wanted to present the basic idea.
(if anyone answers to this post in respect to the balance of the example, he completely missed the point)
I've used a spell point system VERY similar to your proposition in a campaign that lasted several years. Here are the observations I made about that.
1) Significant rise in power.
Being able to cast a high level spell twice while you should only be able to cast it once has a higher impact on the battlefield than the lost of lower level spells sacrificed. That is more obvious as the caster gains levels. In a game of rocket-launcher tag, 2 nukes worth more than 1 nuke + x pistols.
In a "one encounter day" I could see that being an issue (but that leads to a discussion of ROLL-play vs ROLE-play.)
2) Casters are either out of spells much quicker, or have a seemingly infinite amount of spells.
When battles are foreseen, expect the fight to be short and bloody (see point 1). When the situation calls for utility spells, expect the caster to have a solution to every problem. Many posts that make casters "supreme beings" assume that wizards always have the right amount of the right spell prepared. Well, splitting spell slots into point accentuates this.This point is less problematic in a campaign where the DM is generous about money and/or wands.
I do not view this as a bad thing. The mage is still all about resource management. But with a point based system it eliminates the "whoops I did not prepare the right spells" situation that often plagues wizards.
3)While this relates to your disdain or balance, it makes encounters a bit more difficult to plan out. I guess that can vary on how the group depends on its caster(s) or not.
Its not a disdain of balance. It is a belief that balance can be found in a more elegant manner.
Point 1 and 2 are particularly true with sorcerers and spontaneous casters. Point 3 is particularly true with prepared casters, Clerics in particular.
good points all around
And finally, this is a matter of opinion purely:
4) Makes the system rather soulless.
The spell slot system has a charm of its own, albeit not one that seems to be appreciated by many. I like the parallel to quantum mechanics, the "pyramid" of energy states (spell slots) that need to be conserved to perform magic safely etc. I like the fact that it is a bugger for wizards and that they haven't figure out why it can't work otherwise...'findel
While it has a certain quaintness. I feel it has always been a bit of a disconnect between how the rules functioned and how wizards are portrayed in the genre.
still very good points even if we do disagree.
you have given me much to consider even if ultimately I do not change mind (a difficult task considering we gamers are a stubborn lot).
Wizards get 9 spell points per day. The highest level spell they can cast costs 6 points. The second highest level costs 3. The third highest costs 2. The next lowest, just 1 point. Lower level spells are free, so long as the wizard retained a single point.This is a neat idea, but sounds Really limiting. A 2nd level caster could only cast 1 1st level and 1 0th level (or 3 0 level). Plus there appears to be no bonus for attribute mods?It is limiting. I tend to enjoy having fewer encounters per day, so if the wizard gets to do awesome in one or two and then take a back seat for everything else, that's fine by me.
I think the RAW system is the best, and there was another GREAT thread on here about the fluff around vancian casting, but if you really want PF spell points, I think it is really important that the character using the spell points not be able to cast any more high level spells than they could under the normal system.
now this thought intrigues me. care to expound upon why you feel that way?
To what purpose would restricting the number of high level spells one could cast serve? Why must it be that way? (that sort of thing.)I ask these things not to be adversarial but to open discourse as this is the only way we can learn from one another.
still very good points even if we do disagree.
you have given me much to consider even if ultimately I do not change mind (a difficult task considering we gamers are a stubborn lot).
Good point about 1-encounter per day vs multiple encounters per day, but I keep believing that the power balanced is further tipped in favour of the casters regardless. I've got many opinions on the matter that do not have their place in this thread
But I realized that I focused on the "con" camp only. So one further observation...
5) It happened that with this particular group of players in this particular campaign, the positive aspects of the players having more control over their spells were much greater than any balance issue that could come out of it.
That's why we kept the rules throughout the whole campaign that lasted 3-4 years (I was DM) and we had a blast.
'findel
The one presented http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm
Is probably as close to being good that I've found.
+1
This is the basis of my system, though I've never had problems with scaling power. Spell point cost is Y(level)+1, allowing me to do away with all manner of cantrip rules. Anyone wishing to try it should get their players' input and give it a whirl. Although casters have less 'ammo', most LOVE the versitility. Beware, it makes certain cheesy GM tricks fail, allowing casters to actually be more useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
System Point system that i like.
1st level spell points = Prime ability modifier +1 (example: Wis 16 is +3 modifier for a total of 4 points at 1st level).
+1 point every level there after.
Each class has its own separate pool (for multi-classing).
Recovery of spell points
Sleep per hour = +1 points.
Meditation/No action allowed per hour = +2 points.
..................................
1st level spell costs = 1 point.
2nd level spell costs = 2 points.
3rd level spell costs = 3 points.
....
8th level spell costs = 8 points.
9th level spell costs = 9 points.
..................................
Difference between game play (( which i tend to like )).
As you go higher in level. You have to make a choose between casting lots of low spells every day, or only casting 1-2 high level spells per day. Noticed player tend to try to cast more low level spells in battle, which they could then recover from with meditation between battles. They tended to hold off on there higher level unless needed.
Example (Int 16 +3 mod)
1st level wizard = 4 point pool
5th level wizard = 8 point pool
10th level wizard = 13 point pool
15th level wizard = 18 point pool
20th level wizard = 23 point pool
15th level wizard = could cast 18 1st level spells, or 3 5th level spells and a 3rd level spell, or two 8th level spells and a 2nd level spells, or three 6th level spell for the day, or 6 3rd level spells.
..................................
With this system, the caster could cast a spell that he new (kind of like a sorcerer).
1st level = Modifier +1 (again 16 Cha = +3 +1 for level = 4 spells known)
2nd level and every level there after = +1 new spells
2nd level and every level there after = allowed to swap out any spell for a new spell that one could cast.
5th level = 8 spells known
10th level = 13 spells known
15th level = 18 spells known
20th level = 23 spells known.
OR/AND
Spell Book (rare) = caster provide the spell points = Book can be re-used. = Casting time is as spell + 5 rounds.
The book option was added, because some people like having spell books in game, although 3/4 of player did not use this option. Although i did have a Cleric use a prayer book, because the player like having the diversity of lots of non-combat spells at his fingertips... shurgs.
..............................
The main reason i like the system, was it work between game worlds easy... ( Was hopping between D&D, Rifts, Torg, and Vampire game settings at the time ).
|
We've toyed with spell points in all of our groups. One group still uses them, by majority vote. We use the spell point system provided in the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana. We have also adopted an overchannel mechanic, where once all the spell points are used up, if there arises an emergency need for spells, they can power them by using their own health, but not in terms of hit points, per se. Rather, the spellcasters get two pools of spell points - the normal pool based on level, class, INT/WIS/CHA score and highest spell level available, then an overchannel pool based on highest spell level available and CON score. Each time they are forced to dip into the overchannel pool, they take non-lethal damage equal to the level of the spell cast, then they have to make a concentration check as if injured while casting. Failure means the caster is left fatigued, and a subsequent failure leaves the caster unconscious.
The other two groups have reverted back to the spell slot system, but with a modification based on the spell point system - they don't have to memorize a spell multiple times in order to cast it multiple times. If a caster has five 4th-level spell slots, he/she can memorize five different 4th level spells but cast the same memorized spell five times, ignoring the others, as long as there are spell slots remaining.
I never have liked the mechanic of having to memorize the same spell multiple times in order to cast it multiple times. It's just always seemed silly to me. I'm amazed that mechanic has actually survived so many incarnations of D&D.
|
|
So what does the sorcerer get in return? Since the wizard stole his shtick with the 'cast any spell prepared' thing.
At lower levels, sorcerors get more spells to choose from in the moment than wizards. Wizards can gain more spells in their spellbook than sorcerors can have spells known, but they still have to prepare them at the beginning of the day, so they're still limited to only those spells they chose for that day. We also relax the stipulation that only one spell may be swapped at levels where that becomes available to sorcerors.
I never have liked the mechanic of having to memorize the same spell multiple times in order to cast it multiple times. It's just always seemed silly to me. I'm amazed that mechanic has actually survived so many incarnations of D&D.
Probably because you still see it as memorized and then forgotten, which has not survive past the incarnation of 2E AD&D.
For a wizard, a spell is a very complex and tedious affair. It needs a calm environment and a significant amount of time to be cast. Now, that's not very convenient in battle, thus the advantage of preparing the spell.
Forgetting a spell until you learn it again sounds silly, but that's not what's literally happening. Upon preparation, the wizard cast 95% of the spell, except for the last triggering formula (the remaining 5%). The spell is there, like a bolt on a crossbow (or a bullet in a gun) ready to be completed (as a standard action for most spells). In that light, it doesn't make sense to cast the same prepared spell over and over again.
The Vancian system suffers more from misunderstanding than silliness IMO. I think Paizo would gain more by describing the fluff around spellcasting than confusing its audience.
Your houserule in itself is sound (reminds me of the Spirit Shaman) but is just as silly without the right fluff. Define the fluff and it suddenly makes a lot of sense. Just like Vancian.
'findel
|
|
Might i ask, what was the major complaint with the spell point system for those groups? Was it the propensity to Nova too much?
I think it was mostly just a hassle to keep track of all the math, especially when you also have to keep track of varying point costs according to whether you're casting certain spells at max level versus lower levels. For instance, with the spell point system, a 9th level wizard has the option of casting a 5d6, 6d6, 7d6, 8d6 or 9d6 fireball, and each version costs more than the last. Plus, they have to recalculate their spell points each time they go up a level. And not everybody had a copy of the UE, so people were having to rely on other players to calculate their spell pools. It really opens up some new and interesting options, but it's also more math to keep track of.
Some people worried that the game might get unbalanced if the spellcasters toploaded their spell choices too much, but if they did that, they also had a tendency to run out of spells too quickly, especially on those days when they had multiple encounters. There's nothing worse than unloading your whole arsenal of fireballs on a band of orcs and hobgoblins, only to meet a group of trolls an hour later and have nothing to throw at them.
.
.
.
.
.
Damian's Spell point system Version 2.0
Spell points per level - as determined by class
- Wizard - 10
- Sorcerer - 15
- Ranger - 2
- Paladin - 2
- Druid - 10
- Cleric - 12
- Bard - 6
- Witch - 10
- Summoner - 6
- Oracle - 15
- Inquisitor - 6
- Alchemist - 6
Additional spell points - are gained every level from high ability scores. Equal to the modifier.
Replenishing SP - regardless of how few or how many have been burned/lost it requires 8 uninterrupted hours of rest to restore ones spell points.
Spell Cost - Equal to the spell level +1
Spells Known - as per class
Bonus spells - Those gained from ability scores are now bonus spells learned by the character every level.
Spell Casting - Casters may cast any spell known to them. Non Spontaneous Casters require a focus to channel their magical energy.
Meta-magic Feats - if a feat increases the spell slot it now increases the cost of the spell by that amount.
Casting times - meta-magic adjusted spells casting times are increased by one step for every meta-magic feat applied to the spell.
New Meta-magic feats:
Desperate Measures: allows caster to convert HP into SP.
Prerequisite: ability to cast spells
As a swift action a caster may convert her HP into SP for the purpose of casting a spell. 2 HP are equal to 1 SP. (It is possible this feat could kill the caster).
Steal SP: Allows caster to siphon off SP from another caster.
Prerequisite: ability to cast spells and one rank of Spellcraft.
As a standard action the caster may attempt to siphon off SP energy from another caster within a 5 foot radius. A Spellcraft check vs DC 10 + targets caster level is required. The amount siphoned is equal to the 1/2 of the "thief" casters level rounded down. Attempting to do this will provoke an attack of opportunity.
Team work feat
Share SP: Allows casters to share SP energy.
Prerequisite: ability to cast spells
As a swift action a caster may "give" another caster within a 10 foot radius a small portion of his SP to aid in the casting of a spell (assuming the other caster also has the share SP feat). The amount a caster may "gift" in this manner is any amount up to 1/2 her caster level rounded down.
Wow.... that makes for some quite potent spell casters ... your average 1st level wizard gets 5 spells per day? 13 2nd level spells per day at level 3??
At first blush it looks overpowered but resource management is still the capstone of casters.
Stealing SP is too easy. Skill check vs lvl gives an auto +3 to the skill check. It's similar to Bluff, but the defender should be able to sub 10+Spellcraft if that's better.
so DC should be 10 + target caster level or 10 + targets Spellcraft score which ever is higher? I could see that. Or do you think it should be an opposed roll check? spellcraft vs spellcraft?
Desperate measures is still too generous, again think about using it to cast CLW. Pay 4 hp, get (average) 5 even at first level. As levels get higher the payout is even better.
This abuse only applies to divine casters and it assumes that Desperate Measures would be used to cast CLW on ones self. There is a built in control for that... using the spell in that manner excessively would cause the divine casters deity to determine s/he is abusing their deity granted power. Set the HP to SP conversion too high and it becomes useless to arcane casters.
What would in your opinion be a fair conversion rate that does not render the feat (which is genre appropriate) useless?
Ever since I first played D&D (way back in the dark ages of the 70s) I found the mechanics of spell slots to be a bit ham handed in forcing balance. Especially since many spells (regardless of level) list their effects as being variable according to caster level.
This of course made no sense to me... Why does a fire ball have a d6/cl and 400 + 40 ft/cl setting when the earliest I can obtain and use it is 5th level?
Damage: It's easier to state it like this than saying "5d6 plus 1d6 for every caster level above 5th". "1d6 per caster level" is shorter and means the same.
Long being 400 + 40/lv makes sense because it's standardised. It's just long, meaning 400 +40/lv. Fireball is a 3rd-level spell (for wizards), but it's not the only spell with that range.
That means that the minimum amount of damage I will be able to do with the spell is 5d6 And has a minimum range of 600 ft. If the spell is scaled for lower levels why is my mage limited to casting it at only certain minimum levels?
Because you won't get that spell until you are experienced enough to cast it. At that time, your caster level is strong enough that you start with a nice wham!
The spell itself, being a 3rd-level spell, can only be cast with a 3rd-level slot.
Most of the time, the damage spells have more going for them than minimum damage to warrant making them higher-level spells requiring higher-level slots.
Fireball, for example, allows you to do fire damage to a sizeable area that's a long way away. Another damage type would probably warrant a higher level (since fire is the most common energy type to be immune or highly resistant to), as would other things.
Note that even with spell point systems (there are a few around), fireball would cost a minimum of 5 points and do no less than 5d6 points of damage. That's simply because blasting a large area from hundreds of feet away won't be had any cheaper.
In some cases, the slot system is actually "cheaper" than the point system: A 10d6 fireball is no more expensive in slots than a 5d6 one, but in the spellpoint system, the 10d6 fireball costs twice as much. For the same cost, you'll get some 5th-level damage spell.
That means in most cases, the lower-level blast spells will become useless (unless you want to deal less damage, which is not something I often see)
In some cases, the slot system is actually "cheaper" than the point system: A 10d6 fireball is no more expensive in slots than a 5d6 one, but in the spellpoint system, the 10d6 fireball costs twice as much. For the same cost, you'll get some 5th-level damage spell.
That means in most cases, the lower-level blast spells will become useless (unless you want to deal less damage, which is not something I often see)
Only in those systems that equate energy input into damage output. I view that concept as the same as swatting a fly with a bowling ball. High level of energy output for a low level result. many Point based systems utilize a static cost (Fire ball costs the same weather it does 1d6, 5d6, or 10d6). This IMO does well to represent experience having an effect on the mages spells. I once played in a system that used both a static cost and a "pumping" cost. A 1st level mage could produce a 10d6 fireball but it would cost him 10 times the energy it would cost a level 10 mage. The system I developed does not take that into account (too much number crunching for too little pay off IMO).
Yeah, if you're laying down the Deity Hammer you can stop abuses pretty thoroughly.
(off topic)Maybe it is just the lack of tone on a BBS but this statement reads like you do not agree with a GM utilizing this tactic?
And i think the 2 for 1 is pretty good for spells using level+1 [though that pricing scheme motivates folk to rely more heavily on higher level spells than lower level (CMW is more economical And faster than CLW)]. Personally i would take out the Feat, but if you wanted to keep it, might i suggest a temporary Con penalty? Noone will burn Con lightly... You can even make a special type of attribute damage where Restoration spells don't work but it all goes away after 8 hours rest.
HP was just my first thought (most games I have been in its not a stat that players take lightly but are not afraid to tap for extra power either). Con is a good choice as well but the pay off would need to be worth the effort... Maybe a sliding scale? Sp equal to your modifier for every point spent with a 1 ability point regained per 24 hrs? or something to that effect. This would require more thought.
Resource management is only an issue when you're likely to get close to running out of resources. This approximately doubles the number of spells from RAW. If that's what you're going for, more power to you (and your players). Personally, i think the added versatility should lead to less spells per day
I designed it with slight bump in power (mostly for ease of math). Also I used a formula that assumes a caster would be able to cast the same number of spells they would if using the Vancian system (well it works out like that by 20th level any way.) so yes casters do get a bump at lower levels but it plateaus eventually. Also your original numbers assumes all mage players will always nova. (My thoughts on Nova casters is not repeatable on a board frequented by children or the faint of heart.)