|
I've been considering adding a spell point system to my game. However while I think the flavor suits sorcerers well, it does not fit as well for wizards IMHO. Therefore I was looking at the feasibility of introducing a spell point (mana) system for sorcerers, but keeping wizards with the vancian system.
What I would like are other opinions on this.
Does it make the sorcerer too powerful?
Is the wizard already superior, so this works?
I'm not worried about martial vs. magical arguments, so that's not a basis for me to ignore this plan. Also I am not interested in spell point wizards for my game, I just don't think it fits thematically. Anyway, I would really appreciate some pros and cons here. Thanks in advance!
|
The only real change this makes is it allows sorcerers to cast nothing but their highest level spells until they are out of points. If you're okay with that, go for it.
However, the current spell slot system is just a spell point system with less math. I see no reason to add complexity just so sorcerers can cast more high level spells.
|
|
The only real change this makes is it allows sorcerers to cast nothing but their highest level spells until they are out of points.
One complaint I hear from a lot of my players is about how much better wizards are, especially at mid-to-high levels. Sorcerers can't keep up, so they say. Therefore this is an attempt to give the sorcerer what he's supposed to have: spell slot mastery. The advantage of playing a sorcerer is having more spell slots and being able to use whatever spells you want on the fly. Spell points are a further extension of that, being able to choose the spells of any level you can cast. That is the reason behind the argument, but I am trying to see if it tips the scale too far towards the sorcerer now.
Also in a role-playing sense it seems to fit. Sorcerers are supposed to be magical fonts, so being able to direct that energy into whatever spells they know makes sense.
Now when someone comes along who argues in favor of this, I'll dusty off my opposing arguments. ;)
|
|
Well, keeping wizards on the spell slot system prevents them from being better than sorcerers at their own shtick at least. The biggest failing of the UA spell point system was letting wizards cast any prepared spell with their spell points. Basically making them spontaneous casters that could change their spell list daily. Since sorcerers only got maybe a spells worth of points over the wizard, it was pretty sad.
|
|
I did a spell point system as follows:
Spell point total = (caster level + casting stat + 2)^2
Casting cost = caster level * spell level (you can willingly lower caster level)
This meant that mr. sorc with 30 cha had 1024 spell points, but a CL20 level 9 spell was 180. Meanwhile, a min-CL 5th level spell (say, a buff) was only 55 points.
I also allowed a feat to boost your CL for the purposes of spell point total by 2. This would push that level 20, 30 cha sorc to 1156 (a 132 point gain). This amounts to slightly less than a highest-level spell slot.
(I had metamagic NOT increase spell level for the purposes of spell slot, but instead increase it for cost and count double against stat requirement. So casting a quickened 9th level spell would cost 260 points and require a stat of 27. This meant you could quicken at level 1, but it would still hurt for cost and the boost came at a time when casters were on the low end of the totem pole anyway.)
EDIT: I did playtest this system for one game. The players loved it and it wasn't overpowering. It seemed to amount to evening out the effectiveness of casters as they leveled (at least from lvl 1 to 7), which caused them to be stronger at level 1 but about the same by level 7.
Yeah way to math heavy for my like.
|
|
Oi, that's too much math for me.
Most of the time minimum CL was enough, so we just had this chart:
Level 1: 1
Level 2: 6
Level 3: 15
Level 4: 28
Level 5: 45
Level 6: 66
Level 7: 91
Level 8: 120
Level 9: 153
Then you just had to pull out the calculator once per level, usually to calculate your total pool size and the amount of cost at max CL (in a 7 level game no-one ever did a number between min and max, always one or the other). The pool size can also be made into a chart ahead of time, with (at most) 40 entries. You could also make the max CL chart if you wanted, but that would be 20x9 (level by spell level) with a lot of '-' entries.
In fact, here is a link to the spreadsheet that took me < 10m to make.
PS: Any spell point system that at all works is likely going to have a tiny bit of math. If you can add, you should be able to use this system.
Considering that we've had spell point spontaneous casters ever since the psionics handbook came out for 3.5, I think there is some precedent how they work. Belgerod, have you checked the psion and wilder on the Pathfinder SRD page? The former particularly seems to fit what you want, even though it's intelligence-based - then again, so is the sage option for wildblood sorcerers.
Honeslty you might even take the sorcerer out and just use an Psion for the sorcerer, if you want spell points for em. Might be interesting to use psion and still grant bloodlines though.
Honeslty you might even take the sorcerer out and just use an Psion for the sorcerer, if you want spell points for em. Might be interesting to use psion and still grant bloodlines though.
Speaking of which, what about using the psionic points and costs and just matching them up for sorcerers and their spells?
The biggest failing of the UA spell point system was letting wizards cast any prepared spell with their spell points. Basically making them spontaneous casters that could change their spell list daily. Since sorcerers only got maybe a spells worth of points over the wizard, it was pretty sad.
Exactly. UA Spell Point Wizards just weren´t Wizards anymore as we know them, and the differentiation between Sorcerors (in terms of down-sides, rather than more spells known) was practically non-existent.
IMHO, much better would have been to let them use the ´mechanics´ of spell points, but they still have to memorize as normal... i.e. they have more flexibility in what spells of what levels, but it still must be pre-memorized in order to cast (barring PRPG abilities that bypass that... which I also don´t like so much)...Of course, that just means alot of up-front (daily) math for just tweaking the number of spells of a given level.
I think it´s reasonable for Sorcerors though. The scaling cost for scaling damage dice spells should go though.
I've been considering adding a spell point system to my game. However while I think the flavor suits sorcerers well, it does not fit as well for wizards IMHO. Therefore I was looking at the feasibility of introducing a spell point (mana) system for sorcerers, but keeping wizards with the vancian system.
What I would like are other opinions on this.
Does it make the sorcerer too powerful?
Is the wizard already superior, so this works?I'm not worried about martial vs. magical arguments, so that's not a basis for me to ignore this plan. Also I am not interested in spell point wizards for my game, I just don't think it fits thematically. Anyway, I would really appreciate some pros and cons here. Thanks in advance!
I have had similiar thoughts, I put sorcerers on a spell point system about a year ago and so far it works well.
I also gave the sorcerer the ability to augment their spells by spending more points on it, sometimes influenced by thier bloodline.
You can find my thread on the house rules for it here.
|
|
I have had similiar thoughts, I put sorcerers on a spell point system about a year ago and so far it works well.
I also gave the sorcerer the ability to augment their spells by spending more points on it, sometimes influenced by thier bloodline.
You can find my thread on the house rules for it here.
This is nice, I'm really impressed. I will try this out in my game sometime, it looks fun. Obviously it took some work, so good job. Thanks for the info.
At first glance the ability to change the variables of the spells looked too powerful, but on closer inspection it seems to work. It also makes sense in game as well: wizards cast pre-packaged spells, sorcerers make them on the fly.
Right now I'm running an e6 game for Pathfinder that might be a good place to test it.
I use a spell-point system, but with Wizards. I eliminated the Sorcerer class. It is a superfluous class, and always has been. A party need the flexibility to someone with more spells known than a Sorcerer; the sorcerer is good for a dungeon, not for a campaign.
Pathfinder has too many core classes.
Try HypertextD20, middle column, at the bottom: Variant rules.
Those rules have dealt with things I never imagined.
|
|
I use a spell-point system, but with Wizards. I eliminated the Sorcerer class. It is a superfluous class, and always has been. A party need the flexibility to someone with more spells known than a Sorcerer; the sorcerer is good for a dungeon, not for a campaign.
Pathfinder has too many core classes.
I find that more options are a good thing so long as there is not too much power creep. Also with the addition of the Oracle, which fills a similar role to a Sorcerer, it's no longer simply a Wizard/Sorcerer issue. If I adopt a Spell Point system it will probably be for all my spontaneous spell casters, Bard included.
In terms of role-playing I personally much prefer the Sorcerer to the Wizard. I would rather be magic than learn magic. Just saying.
|
Didn't Dungeons and Dragons Online use a spell-point system for every class that casts? In practice, you never actually ran out, or at least I never did. D+D just doesn't translate well to a real-time video game format.
As for the Wizards vs. Sorcerors debate, I agree that they're similar enough that the game only needs one, but here's my real issue with it: Wizards prepare their spells from spellbooks, and they must have their books with them to prepare spells. Most Wizards never leave home without their spellbook. So, why can't you cast any spell in the book if the book's right there with you?
If it were my decision to make, I'd do away with sorcerors and with wizards preparing their spells. My version of wizards would basically cast spontaneously, except they have to spend a move action to look the spell up in the book. Once the book is open to that spell, they can cast that spell and only that spell-- casting any other spell requires another move action. Maybe as the wizard advances level, he gets to choose certain spells he's used a lot as "memorized"-- he no longer needs to look at the book to cast those spells.
Pathfinder's sorceror bloodlines and improvements to wizard specialization have made the two classes different enough-- and interesting enough-- that I don't feel the need to houserule this, but in 3.5 D+D this was a real sticking point for me.
If I adopt a Spell Point system it will probably be for all my spontaneous spell casters, Bard included.
Not a bad approach.
If using the UA spell-point system, you need to account for the better PF bard spell progression. The Bard/Inquisitor/Summoner point table would be, for PF
1st — 1
2nd — 2
3rd — 3
4th — 6
5th — 10
6th — 13
7th — 18
8th — 26
9th — 32
10th — 39
11th — 51
12th — 61
13th — 70
14th — 86
15th — 100
16th — 111
17th — 131
18th — 149
19th — 169
20th — 180
Super genius games put out a pdf called Sorcerer Options and in that they give a spell point sorcerer. You should check it out. No need recreating something if you can find something you like that's already written up.
|
I've run spell-point magic systems ever since AD&D1, as did many GMs in the area where I was living in those days (eastern New England).
I prefer it to the fire-and-forget system of traditional D&D, but (as with most rule variants) it's not a big deal - with a good GM and sensible players role playing is more important than game mechanics.
The only reason I haven't (yet) tried it in a Pathfinder game is that I moved across the country a few years before 3.0 came along, and have only just got back into RPGs. I'm still learning Pathfinder ...
An earlier pointer made reference to what I consider the best additional choice available with mana systems - the ability to vary the amount of power put into a spell (i.e. casting at an effective level lower than your maximum). This can give a bonus to the chance of spell success, which means that always casting your highest-level spell isn't going to be the best strategy.
|
|
I was going through an old box (looking for something else), and I came across this post I made back in 1991 (probably to rec.games.frp):
> In earlier articles, various posters complained that spell-point based
> magic systems made mages too powerful. Some major objections were to:
>
> a) Systems which allow mages free choice over all spells, and
>
> b) Systems where magic missile cost the same as detect magic.
>
>
> (b) is not a problem caused by spell-point systems - it is a problem
> caused by the AD&D system. The 'cost' in by-the-book AD&D is the same,
> after all: one first-level spell slot. In fact it was to address this
> problem (and the problem that a mages power increases roughly as the
> square of his/her level, rather than linearly), that first caused me to
> create a spell-point based magic system. Basic rule high points:
>
> 1) A first-level mage starts off with (INT) spell points.
> At each level the mage gains (INT + d10)/2 spell points.
>
> 2) A basic n'th level spell costs 3n spell points -- n to
> initiate, and 2n to power. An unsuccessful casting attempt
> costs n. (Critical failure costs 3n, and can lead to
> worse things such as catastrophic spell-point runaway ...)
>
> 3) A first level magic missile always does 1d4+1 points of damage.
> Similarly, a third level fireball always does 3d6 points.
> To get extra damage dice costs either 1 or 2 per damage die
> (1 for magic missile, 2 for fireball). Getting the extra
> damage dice makes it harder to cast the spell.
>
> 4) *For each casting*, spell point recovery takes time proportional
> to the spell point drain. Thus a single massive expenditure of
> spell points will leave the mage weakened for several days.
> Burning the same number of spell points in first and second
> level spells will be recovered overnight.
>
> 5) The mage gets to choose from any spell known. The drawback is
> that I only allow mages to know a limited number of spells. I
> use the "spells castable per level" table as "spells knowable
> per level", with rules that free up a lower-level slot if the
> mage knows an appropriate higher-level spell.
> [This is how I get around objection (a)]
>
> Disclaimer: Most of these rules are more or less my own. (5), however,
> is taken almost verbatim from a campaign in which I was a player.
Effectively, every popular mmorpg uses a 'spell point system'. This was an actual conversation on ventrilo while on raid recently. The 'mana', 'energy', 'focus' or whatever is functionally no different than spell points.
I use a spell-point system, but with Wizards. I eliminated the Sorcerer class. It is a superfluous class, and always has been. A party need the flexibility to someone with more spells known than a Sorcerer; the sorcerer is good for a dungeon, not for a campaign.
Pathfinder has too many core classes.
I find that more options are a good thing so long as there is not too much power creep. Also with the addition of the Oracle, which fills a similar role to a Sorcerer, it's no longer simply a Wizard/Sorcerer issue. If I adopt a Spell Point system it will probably be for all my spontaneous spell casters, Bard included.
In terms of role-playing I personally much prefer the Sorcerer to the Wizard. I would rather be magic than learn magic. Just saying.
Oracle is another redundant class.
Pathfinder has too many core classes.