[3.5] How good is the Spell Point variant?

[Gerbah]

I just ran across this variant in Unearthed Arcana, and was wondering (for those who have played a game that used this or have tried it), how is it? It seems like it could be pretty neat, and helps folks streamline the "spell per day" and "spells prepared" thing, but it seems like it makes Wizards and Sorcerers too similar.

I don't know, it looked interesting, and I tried to search through these forums to get some insight into it, but the search function was having none of that. So offer up your experiences or thoughts if you have any, please.

[Frosty]

It makes Wizards and Clerics even MORE overpowered. Don't do it.

[RandomFellow]

If you do it...my advice is to reduce the # of spell points you get.

Otherwise, everyone is a caster. :P

[Zincorium]

Yeah, the whole 'versatility for the win' thing just gets more absurd.

Spellcasters suddenly get the option of just spamming their most effective spells til the cows come home. If you like point based spellcasting, reflavor the psionics rules, they're much better.

[SurlySeraph]

The thing is, spell points sound like exactly the fluff I want, especially if you use the variant that makes casters fatigued and then exhausted as they cast more. Would just reducing the number of spell points they get by a third or so balance it?

[Xuincherguixe]

I don't think the problem is with the number of points, but the fact that certain spells are a lot stronger than others (even of the same level). And also spells are generally better than powers.

[RandomFellow]

The thing is, spell points sound like exactly the fluff I want, especially if you use the variant that makes casters fatigued and then exhausted as they cast more. Would just reducing the number of spell points they get by a third or so balance it?

More or less, yes.

Still has the inherited balance issues with magic but it is good 'nough. :P

[newbDM]

Yeah, the whole 'versatility for the win' thing just gets more absurd.

Spellcasters suddenly get the option of just spamming their most effective spells til the cows come home. If you like point based spellcasting, reflavor the psionics rules, they're much better.

But remember that this is usually a bad idea, and in my opinion is both a misconception about psionics, and a mistake made by new psionic players. Sure you can waste all your points to use your bigger powers a few more times (the equivalent of dumping all your low to mid spells to get a few more uses of your big ones), but that means you burn through your power points really quickly. And if you know what you are doing, or are a bit more creative, you can do a lot more with smarter use of your powers/power points than simply using a lot of pumped up damage powers.


And yes, that spell variant is basically the psionics rules being stripped of their last mechanical difference.

[Gorbash]

The thing is, spell points sound like exactly the fluff I want, especially if you use the variant that makes casters fatigued and then exhausted as they cast more.

That wouldn't really inconvenience Wizards that much.

[Kylarra]

But remember that this is usually a bad idea, and in my opinion is both a misconception about psionics, and a mistake made by new psionic players. Sure you can waste all your points to use your bigger powers a few more times (the equivalent of dumping all your low to mid spells to get a few more uses of your big ones), but that means you burn through your power points really quickly. And if you know what you are doing, or are a bit more creative, you can do a lot more with smarter use of your powers/power points than simply using a lot of pumped up damage powers.


And yes, that spell variant is basically the psionics rules being stripped of their last mechanical difference.Of course spellpoints do considerably nerf the aspiring blaster wizard, but who plays those right? :smallcool: So if you want the best use of your spellpoints, you have to go with "proper" use of non-damaging spells.

[Gorbash]

but who plays those right?

Like 90% of the people. :smallfrown:

[Morty]

Of course spellpoints do considerably nerf the aspiring blaster wizard, but who plays those right? :smallcool:

A whole bunch of people who either never had the dubious honor of reading TLN's guide or simply don't care?

[RandomFellow]

A whole bunch of people who either never had the dubious honor of reading TLN's guide or simply don't care?

I never played a Blaster Wizard. I also have no clue what TLN's guide is. :P

It is just battlefield control & save or dies are clearly superior to damage...

[Morty]

I never played a Blaster Wizard. I also have no clue what TLN's guide is. :P

It is just battlefield control & save or dies are clearly superior to damage...

And again, a whole bunch of people don't care. Or prefer to defeat enemies with fire rather than clouds. Then again, they probably don't count.
As for the spell points variant, I've never considered using it, but that's because I like the Vancian casting and don't like point-based magic systems.

[Jack_Simth]

Well, a Wizard-10 with an Int of 22 (reasonable at that point, no?) gets 101 spell points. That's.... oh, one spell of each level he can cast for various long-term buffs and utility spells along the way (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th - 25 points), leaving 75 loose points - which works out to eight castings of his highest-level spell, with enough left over for a Gliterdust. If the Wizard fires off two of his highest-level effects each combat, he's got four combats before he runs dry. It gets worse at higher levels. If he's using the lower-level save-or-lose effects (Glitterdust, Web, Stinking Cloud, and such), he can spam a LOT of them (with Web and Glitterdust being 2nd level spells, he can give out some 25 of them if he skips the highest-level spells; with Stinking Cloud being 3rd, he can get fifteen of those off, instead).

Oh yeah, and the Sorcerer only gets one single additional casting of his highest level spell compared to the Wizard. Even if the Wizard never scribes a non-free spell into his spellbook, the Wizard is doing a LOT better than the Sorcerer with this variant.

It makes the Sorcerer redundant, and makes the Wizard much more powerful as long as he stays away from damaging effects, and the DM isn't overly fond of endurance runs.

[Radar]

The thing is, spell points sound like exactly the fluff I want, especially if you use the variant that makes casters fatigued and then exhausted as they cast more. Would just reducing the number of spell points they get by a third or so balance it?
The only problem with fatigue variant is, that it can be cured with a single spell (like restoration) - hello infinite mana! It's RAW and explicitly stated on SRD. I can't imagine, what were they thinking. :smallannoyed:

[Mike_G]

It does cut down on the narcolepsy a bit, since it's never, "Ok, I know it's only 9 AM, but I already cast Dispell Magic today, so we'll just camp here for eight hours..."

I've never seen a Vancian Wizard not need to "stop for the night" halfway through a game day to prepare the one perfect spell. At least the spell point wizard only has to stop when he's low on overall magic points.

I've always like point based magic systems, and hated Vancian casting.

Fighter: Wow! That was great! Do it again.

Wizard: Sorry. Only prepared it once.

Fighter: You only cast one spell today, and I've seen you do much more powerful stuff. You can't be exhausted.

Wizard. It's not that. I just can't cast that spell again. I could cast a different spell, one that is of no use right now. To cast it again I must prepare it.

Fighter: What do you mean "prepare." You say two words, and sprinkle that dust stuff. You outta dust?

Wizard. No, I'm not "out of dust," I need to refocus my mystical energies by studying my tome of magic.

Fighter: You forget the words? 'Cause I think they sounded like "Aste-Hay"

Wizard: I did not forget. I just need to prepare myself to cast again. You'll just have to wave you pointy metal stick with the benefit of magic this time.

Fighter: ...You are so lucky I only prepared "dope slap" once and already used it on Fumblefingers Traptripper over here.

[Morty]

I've never seen a Vancian Wizard not need to "stop for the night" halfway through a game day to prepare the one perfect spell. At least the spell point wizard only has to stop when he's low on overall magic points.


Of course, with spell-point based system, a wizard feels little incentive to cast anything but one perfect spell. Aside from the game looking like a copy of Diablo, of course. And that wizard can somehow only knows how to cast a dozen of spells.

[Jack_Simth]

It does cut down on the narcolepsy a bit, since it's never, "Ok, I know it's only 9 AM, but I already cast Dispell Magic today, so we'll just camp here for eight hours..."

I've never seen a Vancian Wizard not need to "stop for the night" halfway through a game day to prepare the one perfect spell. At least the spell point wizard only has to stop when he's low on overall magic points.

What, you've never seen a wizard take advantage of the "leave a spell slot unprepared" bit they can do? Curious.

[Kantur]

It does cut down on the narcolepsy a bit, since it's never, "Ok, I know it's only 9 AM, but I already cast Dispell Magic today, so we'll just camp here for eight hours..."

I've never seen a Vancian Wizard not need to "stop for the night" halfway through a game day to prepare the one perfect spell. At least the spell point wizard only has to stop when he's low on overall magic points.

I've always like point based magic systems, and hated Vancian casting.

Fighter: Wow! That was great! Do it again.

Wizard: Sorry. Only prepared it once.

Fighter: You only cast one spell today, and I've seen you do much more powerful stuff. You can't be exhausted.

Wizard. It's not that. I just can't cast that spell again. I could cast a different spell, one that is of no use right now. To cast it again I must prepare it.

Fighter: What do you mean "prepare." You say two words, and sprinkle that dust stuff. You outta dust?

Wizard. No, I'm not "out of dust," I need to refocus my mystical energies by studying my tome of magic.

Fighter: You forget the words? 'Cause I think they sounded like "Aste-Hay"

Wizard: I did not forget. I just need to prepare myself to cast again. You'll just have to wave you pointy metal stick with the benefit of magic this time.

Fighter: ...You are so lucky I only prepared "dope slap" once and already used it on Fumblefingers Traptripper over here.

I believe, but could be wrong, that in Vance's novels, wizards actually pre-cast most of each spell and retain it mostly cast until they use it, at which point they finish casting the spell with the appropriate components.
I think it's also why by the RAW in AD&D it took something like ten minutes per spell level of each spell to prepare it until it was cast...

[Morty]

I believe, but could be wrong, that in Vance's novels, wizards actually pre-cast most of each spell and retain it mostly cast until they use it, at which point they finish casting the spell with the appropriate components.


This is also the case in 3rd edition D&D. It's just that most people ignore it while bashing the system.


Prepared Spell Retention

Once a wizard prepares a spell, it remains in her mind as a nearly cast spell until she uses the prescribed components to complete and trigger it or until she abandons it. Certain other events, such as the effects of magic items or special attacks from monsters, can wipe a prepared spell from a character’s mind.

[Kantur]

I was fairly sure it was still the case, just without the x minutes per spell per spell level, but it's been a good few months since I played 3.5, let alone read the descriptions of spell preparation.
But thanks, quotes are always good :smallwink:
Even if I really should be working instead of here...

[Draz74]

The Spell Point Variant is a sloppy attempt to slap the benefits of the Psionics system onto the magic system without doing any real work to make it work right.

Just use real psionics mechanics and re-flavor things (and create new psionic powers that mimic "missing" spells) to make them "magic" instead of "psionics." This is a lot of work, but less work than making the Spell Point Variant for magic actually work right.

[RandomFellow]

And again, a whole bunch of people don't care. Or prefer to defeat enemies with fire rather than clouds. Then again, they probably don't count.
As for the spell points variant, I've never considered using it, but that's because I like the Vancian casting and don't like point-based magic systems.


Then they are really bad roleplayers if they are picking a Wizard...

The guy with 18 Int is really going to pick the suboptimal spells?

Really?

[Mike_G]

What, you've never seen a wizard take advantage of the "leave a spell slot unprepared" bit they can do? Curious.


Actually, I haven't.

Now, I don't play Wizards, because choosing the daily spell list is as much fun for me as Algebra homework, with the added bonus of being able to choose completely wrong (so, more like picking stocks, I suppose) so I usually play the guys exasperated that we need to stop for eight hours outside every other door in the dungeon. Since we're all AD&D grognards, maybe nobody's used to that option.

Even an empty slot is no use on the fly, though, so I can see why a player would want a spell "loaded and ready."

I kinda hate the Vancian fluff. That is more like playing Magic Cards than any newer edition of D&D. I like the spell point fluff, or the Sorcerer method. You know some spells, you have a finite amount of power, stronger spells cost more power, cast the spells you want until you run dry.

[Morty]

Then they are really bad roleplayers if they are picking a Wizard...

The guy with 18 Int is really going to pick the suboptimal spells?

Really?

Okay, let's get this straight. Are you seriously suggesting that picking the spells you like to use instead of the most optimized ones is bad roleplaying? Seeing how I'm currently playing a wizard with unoptimized spell selection, I find it somewhat insulting.


You know some spells, you have a finite amount of power, stronger spells cost more power, cast the spells you want until you run dry.

And this way, you end up with a magic system completely identical to dozens of games, both tabletop and computer ones.

[Kylarra]

Then they are really bad roleplayers if they are picking a Wizard...

The guy with 18 Int is really going to pick the suboptimal spells?

Really?I'd uh argue the other way. Min/maxing is a better example of bad roleplaying than choosing spells you like.

[streakster]

Okay, let's get this straight, okay? Are you seriously suggesting that picking the spells you like to use instead of the most optimized ones is bad roleplaying? Seeing how I'm currently playing a wizard with unoptimized spell selection, I find it somewhat insulting.

Well, yeah. Because you're saying "The most logical course of action would be for him to cast X, but he'll cast Y instead, because I like Y."

Smacks of metagaming to me!:smallbiggrin:

[Mike_G]

Then they are really bad roleplayers if they are picking a Wizard...

The guy with 18 Int is really going to pick the suboptimal spells?

Really?

No, they are bad optimizers.

It's a fantasy game. There no prize for winning. In fact, there is no "winning" as such.

If I want to play a swashbuckling swordsman, that means I don't take the Spiked Chain. If I fantasize about blasting my enemies with fire, I don't take Solid Fog.

When WotC starts paying me for experience point earned, or lingerie models start dating the guy with the most optimal build, instead of rock stars and athletes, I'll worry about optimizing. Until then, I'll worry about paying the character I want.

[mostlyharmful]

I'd uh argue the other way. Min/maxing is a better example of bad roleplaying than choosing spells you like.

Yeah but Min/Maxing your build from an in character perspective involves levels of dedication to a psychotic lifestyle that make it kind of unbelievable but once you're a wizard in an adventurering band then you know, you know you're jumping into life and death situations on a regular basis. In that sort of environment it makes sense to be as powerful in your selection as is possible, ie you pick the best combos of spells because that's what will minimize your chance of dying horribly. In the face of that it makes sense that you spend a little time contemplating with your genius level int what is the best way to stay alive which is optimized spell choice to some extent at least. If you have a genius fighting for their life with magic missle and flaming sphere it breaks versimilitude quite a lot for me.

[RandomFellow]

{Scrubbed}

[Morty]

{Scrubbed}

I'll give you the benefit of doubt, assume you're joking and not report this post. But I don't think continuing this discussion has any merit.

[Kylarra]

If you have 18 Int and are supposed to be smarter than 99+% of the people and are risking your life on a daily basis...would you pick obviously bad choices?

Picking spells the player likes is metagaming.

This is just going to go downhill fast...so perhaps we should stop here?I never said the player. What if your character likes those spells?

I'll just point out the classic "using int and wis interchangeably" issue and drop the subject though.

[mostlyharmful]

I never said the player. What if your character likes those spells?

I'll just point out the classic "using int and wis interchangeably" issue and drop the subject though.

And I quite like a witty exchange of views followed by the loser buying a round of drinks but I'm not likely to try that as a strategy in a life and death situation. In such a situation I'm far more likely to run away as fast as I can like a little scared dog or do my best to put the oposition down if such is a viable option.

If I'm a wizard and I choose to use dumb spells then I am knowingly increasing the chance of suffering a horrible horrible death with possible soul trapping and further torture for both themselves and their best mates that they take into such situations. Does that sound sane to you?

The high int low wis argument always struck me as an enormous mistake, having a low wis doesn't mean you must be a fool, it can stand for a lot of things amoung them myopea, impatience, habitual addictions and a poor sense of other peoples motives. If you want actually insane or deluded you'll need to go very very very low indeed.

[Radar]

Yeah but Min/Maxing your build from an in character perspective involves levels of dedication to a psychotic lifestyle that make it kind of unbelievable but once you're a wizard in an adventurering band then you know, you know you're jumping into life and death situations on a regular basis. In that sort of environment it makes sense to be as powerful in your selection as is possible, ie you pick the best combos of spells because that's what will minimize your chance of dying horribly. In the face of that it makes sense that you spend a little time contemplating with your genius level int what is the best way to stay alive which is optimized spell choice to some extent at least. If you have a genius fighting for their life with magic missle and flaming sphere it breaks versimilitude quite a lot for me.
High inteligence doesn't equal common sense or even being in touch with reality - that would be wisdom. So a genius wizard can for example be arogant and bent on crushing his enemies with raw arcane power (Blast, blast, blast the puny foes) or biased against some forms of magic or particular spells. It can add some nice flavor to a caster.

Even real-world chessmasters have their own style and favorite openings.

[mostlyharmful]

High inteligence doesn't equal common sense or even being in touch with reality - that would be wisdom. So a genius wizard can for example be arogant and bent on crushing his enemies with raw arcane power (Blast, blast, blast the puny foes) or biased against some forms of magic or particular spells. It can add some nice flavor to a caster.

Even real-world chessmasters have their own style and favorite openings.

Yes, see above. However those self same real world chessmasters have their preferred openings and styles from within the bounds of what works. Works on a grandmaster level. Take a look at the charOp boards for a similar level of diversity within competence.

Picking dumb spells isn't having a preferred style, it's signing up to die horribly.

Say you've got and Int 24 Wis 8 Wizard, not inconceivable due to the rules, the argument that said wizard doesn't know what works and what doesn't is laughable. He may feel comfortable on occasion to the extent that he can add in some pyromaniac stuff as well with his umpteen slots and do FX stuff that would make hollywood drool but inside he knows this is showboating and that he'll get his ass handed to him if he isn't also packing the buffs, escape options, BC and SorX to win if he suddenly meets resistance.

[Kantur]

If you have 18 Int and are supposed to be smarter than 99+% of the people and are risking your life on a daily basis...would you pick obviously bad choices?

Picking spells the player likes is metagaming.

This is just going to go downhill fast...so perhaps we should stop here?


What if two people of the same intelligence decide that different things are better? One wizard might decide that Hold Person's the perfect spell for most things, but another might decide that weakening an entire group of enemies with Fireball is better since the Fighter can then use his skills to take out two or more survivors with his actions.

One wizard might feel the way to display his power is to make people fall unconscious near him and hold a dagger to their throat before they wake up to show them what he could have done to that person and his friends, another might feel the best way to demonstrate his power is to blast large holes in buildings, or set a village with thatched roofing on fire...

Let's look at the fantastic glitterdust...Yes, it's great when it works, blinding a bunch of creatures, but what's the wizard going to do then? Wait for the fighter to chop them up? Hit them himself? Use direct damage? Go for save or dies now that he has the luxury of some time to try and take them all out? Wait for them to recover so he can unleash another save or suck? Use his remaining actions while the combat continues to start basketweaving?

What if one wizard decides that the way to become powerful and influential is to buff others and debuff enemies so that when things are tough, people turn to him to turn the tide of battle in their favour? Is it a perfect way to power? No. But then, I suppose demanding a tower of luxury, free access to every spell in a kingdom and whatever you want available whenever unless the King wants his enemies to hear the spellcaster that's been making the King's armies unbeatable has stopped providing help isn't "Optimal" or "Intelligence 18+ appropriate"...

[RandomFellow]

What if two people of the same intelligence decide that different things are better? One wizard might decide that Hold Person's the perfect spell for most things, but another might decide that weakening an entire group of enemies with Fireball is better since the Fighter can then use his skills to take out two or more survivors with his actions.

Except that is not normally the case. Sending anything weak enough that a Fireball would kill it if it fails its save...shouldn't be hard to handle w/o expending anything other than a single casting of a 2nd level spell.

Things with ~35 hp aren't that impressive.



One wizard might feel the way to display his power is to make people fall unconscious near him and hold a dagger to their throat before they wake up to show them what he could have done to that person and his friends, another might feel the best way to demonstrate his power is to blast large holes in buildings, or set a village with thatched roofing on fire...

But blowing things up (without a very specialized build) isn't that effective. A high int wizard isn't likely to go 'Oh, I'll do something that may get me killed one day 'cause it is COOL!'.



Let's look at the fantastic glitterdust...Yes, it's great when it works, blinding a bunch of creatures, but what's the wizard going to do then? Wait for the fighter to chop them up? Hit them himself? Use direct damage? Go for save or dies now that he has the luxury of some time to try and take them all out? Wait for them to recover so he can unleash another save or suck? Use his remaining actions while the combat continues to start basketweaving?

Yes he does wait for the muscle to carve them up. There is a reason D&D is a group game.

He's essentially reduced the opposition to the point his allies aren't in any real danger. That is all he is supposed to do.



What if one wizard decides that the way to become powerful and influential is to buff others and debuff enemies so that when things are tough, people turn to him to turn the tide of battle in their favour? Is it a perfect way to power? No. But then, I suppose demanding a tower of luxury, free access to every spell in a kingdom and whatever you want available whenever unless the King wants his enemies to hear the spellcaster that's been making the King's armies unbeatable has stopped providing help isn't "Optimal" or "Intelligence 18+ appropriate"...
You do realize buffing/debuffing is considered one of those 'optimal' strategies right?

o0

[Kantur]

Except that is not normally the case. Sending anything weak enough that a Fireball would kill it if it fails its save...shouldn't be hard to handle w/o expending anything other than a single casting of a 2nd level spell.

Things with ~35 hp aren't that impressive.

Yes he does wait for the muscle to carve them up. There is a reason D&D is a group game.


Most of the things I've seen about making wizards optimal imply that there's no point whatsoever to the fighter and the wizard can do it all better....



You do realize buffing/debuffing is considered one of those 'optimal' strategies right?

o0

From what I was aware of, it's about buffing the wizard himself to the point of being able to do it all and debuffing enemies to the point it's a 5% chance of surviving one more round, not buffing others so they do their job better...

Perhaps I'm wrong about optimised wizards and have had the wrong end of the stick completely for a long time, but I've read Logic Ninja's guide, and other things about how to make wizards better than blasters, and non of it seems fun or enjoyable to me, especially not the ones that go out of their way to make everyone pointless. But then, isn't that what a hyper-intelligent person with magic would do? So by what you've said, that's how they would do things...

[Eeezee]

Not good at all, the spell points system was poorly thought out and never play tested. It requires a lot of tinkering

[Eeezee]

From what I was aware of, it's about buffing the wizard himself to the point of being able to do it all and debuffing enemies to the point it's a 5% chance of surviving one more round, not buffing others so they do their job better...

Perhaps I'm wrong about optimised wizards and have had the wrong end of the stick completely for a long time, but I've read Logic Ninja's guide, and other things about how to make wizards better than blasters, and non of it seems fun or enjoyable to me, especially not the ones that go out of their way to make everyone pointless. But then, isn't that what a hyper-intelligent person with magic would do? So by what you've said, that's how they would do things...

Not at all, every Wizard guide on this board or anywhere else makes it clear that buffing your allies is preferable to doing damage. The famous example is, of course, Haste vs Fireball, Haste being the spell that actually deals more damage (through your party). Haste is clearly a buffing spell, and a particularly good spell that every caster should keep around.

Debuffing is good as well, but the goal of debuffing is weakening opponents so that the big dumb fighter can go wail on him. Think of it as Glitterdust vs Cure Moderate Wounds (in a strange place where wizards can cast CMW at all). Cure Moderate Wounds heals 2d8+1/lvl damage, completely neglecting status effects. Glitterdust blinds opponents, effectively removing them from the battle and possibly even dealing damage to their allies (poor listen check = bad guy hits his friends). And they take so many AC penalties that hitting them becomes very easy.

So far we've established that buff/debuff > damage/healing spells, because they end up dealing/preventing more damage anyway. The same arguments can be made for BC, these spells allow your party to divide and conquer more easily.

ie Wizards should almost never be doing damage because it is much more effective to buff/debuff/BC. In fact, there are few Wizard buffs that would increase his damage output anyway; for instance, Fireball is a flat d6/level, and applying Haste to yourself doesn't improve that or modify that at all.

If you're casting damage dealing spells, you're doing less damage than if you just buff your party and debuff your opponents (ie you deal the damage indirectly, through your party members)

[RandomFellow]

Lots of correct stuff

He got there before me.

[SurlySeraph]

That wouldn't really inconvenience Wizards that much.

It's actually more a matter of fluff than a matter of balance, but if I can make it hurt Wizards enough to balance them a bit more that's a nice side effect.

I think I'd definitely take away a lot more spell points from Wizards than from Sorcerers, so that the Sorc gets a lot more spells per day and the Wizard gets more powerful spells.


The only problem with fatigue variant is, that it can be cured with a single spell (like restoration) - hello infinite mana! It's RAW and explicitly stated on SRD. I can't imagine, what were they thinking. :smallannoyed:

You could houserule that it either a) doesn't work or b) only restores, say, half as many spell points as casting Restoration uses up.

I know that, right out of the box, spell points aren't balanced. So how do we make them balanced? Shift all Evocation spells down a level?

[Radar]

Yes, see above. However those self same real world chessmasters have their preferred openings and styles from within the bounds of what works. Works on a grandmaster level. Take a look at the charOp boards for a similar level of diversity within competence.

Giving CO boards as an example is a bit of a streach - we would have Chucks, Jumplomancers, Omniscifiers and Pun-Puns all over the place. Yes, there are diverse ways of obtaining "Ultimate Arcane Power", but it doesn't mean other builds wouldn't work in a given game setting (given game world is heavily DM dependant).


Picking dumb spells isn't having a preferred style, it's signing up to die horribly.

Say you've got and Int 24 Wis 8 Wizard, not inconceivable due to the rules, the argument that said wizard doesn't know what works and what doesn't is laughable. He may feel comfortable on occasion to the extent that he can add in some pyromaniac stuff as well with his umpteen slots and do FX stuff that would make hollywood drool but inside he knows this is showboating and that he'll get his ass handed to him if he isn't also packing the buffs, escape options, BC and SorX to win if he suddenly meets resistance.
First of, why do you assume, that for example an evocation specialist would pack only blasty spells? There is place for defence and utility spells as well. Does a conjurer pack only summoning spell? Yes, blasting is suboptimal in most cases, but it can be a reasonable option IMO. With proper build it can be even very nasty.
Second thing is more important: why should we assume, that any wizard has access to any spell in any book (or even core only)? If we are talking about being in-character, then how can we forget about that?

And if we talk about survivality of a wizard: why do any wizard takes up a life of an adventurer - it's dangerous in it's core! It would be much wiser to open up some magic shop or get hired be some nobel (a good diviner can be very usefull).

Other then that: we might take things a bit too seriously here - it's still just a game. Happy Easters everyone. :smallsmile:

[Eldariel]

Giving CO boards as an example is a bit of a streach - we would have Chucks, Jumplomancers, Omniscifiers and Pun-Puns all over the place. Yes, there are diverse ways of obtaining "Ultimate Arcane Power", but it doesn't mean other builds wouldn't work in a given game setting (given game world is heavily DM dependant).

Those are things from Theorethical Optimization. Char Ops works with characters intended for actual playing.


And if we talk about survivality of a wizard: why do any wizard takes up a life of an adventurer - it's dangerous in it's core! It would be much wiser to open up some magic shop or get hired be some nobel (a good diviner can be very usefull).

To increase his arcane powers (note how only dealing with challenges truly allows you to develop in game terms), to acquire wealth and resources or to cleanse the world of evil - the same reasons any other adventurer adventures. Wizards just have a higher-than-average chances of survival due to their talents, so logically a larger percentage of them adventures compared to the other classes.

[streakster]

Giving CO boards as an example is a bit of a streach - we would have Chucks, Jumplomancers, Omniscifiers and Pun-Puns all over the place. Yes, there are diverse ways of obtaining "Ultimate Arcane Power", but it doesn't mean other builds wouldn't work in a given game setting (given game world is heavily DM dependant).

There is a difference between TO and CO. CO is an attempt to create a well-built character, TO is a engaging mental exercise in rules, logic, and mathematics.

EDIT: And the ninja does it better...:smallsmile:

[lsfreak]

Just from what I've seen on the system, as written it's basically unplayable. I'd suggest something along the following lines in order to make it workable:
- Drastically lower the spell points everyone gets. Make sure sorcerers still get noticeably more spell points than wizards.
- Make wizards/clerics/druids prepare their spell points like normal. None of this "prepare whatever you want to spontaneously cast."
- Clerics and druids can lose prepared spell points for cure/summon.
- If you want prepared casters to be able to spontaneously cast, they can also spontaneously lose a spell for another one that they have prepared at double the point cost (the wizard has one glitterdust left prepared and thinks he'll need it at least once more again; instead of spending that one, he pays twice the spell point cost, losing other prepared spells as needed, in order to cast it at double the price).
- The fatigue and exhaustion being removed does not allow you to get spell points back.
- And, perhaps the hardest part, is finding a balance for the listed way of boosting a damage spell's power, and making sure that batman spells aren't even more powerful than they already are. When I have time I've been trying to come up with a way of doing it, but it's a bit messy right now.

[mostlyharmful]

First of, why do you assume, that for example an evocation specialist would pack only blasty spells?

Oh that's easy, I don't. Blasting has it's uses, it's often quite powerful if you do it right and it can yank your bacon out of the fire. But here's the rub, it's less efficient in terms of spell slots aaaaand.... you'll be treading on the toes of the Big Stupid Fighter and the Glass Cannon who can both do hp damage and that's about all they can do, the key to the wizard is in multiplying the force of their companions and not in overshadowing them.



Second thing is more important: why should we assume, that any wizard has access to any spell in any book (or even core only)? If we are talking about being in-character, then how can we forget about that?

I don't. Have a look at the number of spells that routinely get brought up on these sorts of discussions. Then go and work out how many a wizard automatically gets as part of their class functions. it's damn close to square. If a wizard want's more there are ways of getting hold of them but it's not necessary.


And if we talk about survivality of a wizard: why do any wizard takes up a life of an adventurer - it's dangerous in it's core! It would be much wiser to open up some magic shop or get hired be some nobel (a good diviner can be very usefull).

There's always a reason for wanting to beat the hell out of some ugly mofo.:smallsmile:


Other then that: we might take things a bit too seriously here - it's still just a game. Happy Easters everyone. :smallsmile:

Indeed, happy holiday.

[Mike_G]

The high int low wis argument always struck me as an enormous mistake, having a low wis doesn't mean you must be a fool, it can stand for a lot of things amoung them myopea, impatience, habitual addictions and a poor sense of other peoples motives. If you want actually insane or deluded you'll need to go very very very low indeed.

I think you are assuming too much goes into Int.

There are multiple types of intelligence IRL. Nicola Tesla and Albert Einstein were definitely high Int, but both made very suboptimal life and career choices at various times.

D&D Int --mechanically-- can be viewed as ability to learn, thus more skill points, able to learn harder spells, bonus to knowledge skills, able to figure out devices, etc.

Making good decisions is not related to the ability to learn and memorize complex things. If it were, Physicists and mathematicians would rule the world. Some very intelligent people do very badly at life.

So, I could have a high Int, be really good at learning complex stuff, but not good at tactics, or resource allocation. Thus, I may well be a Wizard, capable of learning high level spells, but think that incinerating my enemies is
preferrable to a spell that may take them out, but may do nothing, or buffing my allies, if I am bloodthirsty or arrogant enough to want to hand out the whupass personally.

As far as skill/feat/weapon optimization, preferring a rapier to a spiked chain isn't intelligent, since IRL, a Spiked Chain is a good way to beat the snot out of yourself. Only in a metagame sense dose a PC know the "stats" of a weapon or spell.

If you want to play Inigo Montoya, and want the Insightful Strike bonus, buff Int, but use a rapier.

If you want to crunch numbers, become a stockbroker. I hear there're plenty of openings.