PDA

View Full Version : Spell Point Variant - How workable is it?



mistformsquirrl
2009-07-29, 10:02 PM
The more I think on it; fluff-wise the Vancian system just does not make one lick of sense for my world >.<

The casting is based more on the use of ley lines, personal willpower, and for those few who know how; drawing on the power of the deepest parts of the world. Spells themselves are pretty much an exercise in will and control; not memorization and practice (though obviously practice does help!)

So I'm thinking the Spell Point system from Unearthed Arcana might just work; but I've never used it before. The only place I've ever been exposed to it was in DDO; and it's altered heavily there so it can work in an online environment, so that's really not an accurate representation at all >.>

Traditional T1 casters are banned outright anyway - so Wizards, Clerics and Druids are a non-issue (lesser classes, like the Dread Necromancer, Healer, War Mage and the like, plus a couple I'll be homebrewing will be taking center stage as the primary spellcasters. I may let Sorcerers and Favored Souls remain as well; with some spell-school restriction).

Beyond that though; I'm not entirely sure if it's the best solution or if it really works out all that well >.<

Any advice/ideas? (Alternate casting variants are also welcome; though I want to stick to 3.5e D&D for a lot of reasons.)

Mulletmanalive
2009-07-29, 10:08 PM
As the thing is an update of an optional tested system from one of the Skills and Powers series, i'm sure it'll work just fine.

From the sound of it, you'll be wanting to use the Channelling subvariant too.

Another possibility is to use the psionics system but draw PP from the surroundings through some mechanism.

Starscream
2009-07-29, 11:02 PM
Well, Spell Points make casters even more powerful than they already are. Seeing as they already own the game, and there is no equivalent boost for non-casters, it can be pretty broken.

Removing some of the more powerful classes might help balance things, somewhat. I'd say a Dread Necromancer using Spell Points is about on par with a Wizard who isn't. That's just a guess, though.

The saving grace of Spell Points is that they are easy to regulate; just increase or decrease the number they get until you find something balanced. Your players will complain if they lose power, so I recommend starting lower than the recommended values and gradually increasing to closer to those values whenever they level. Eventually you'll find the sweet spot for your campaign.

AstralFire
2009-07-30, 02:12 AM
Er... why not just use Psionics? If you've banned Wizards and Clerics, anyway. There's a healing power in CPsi that's actually fairly efficient. And it means less work redoing all of the spells either in preparation or one at a time as you use the spell. (Does anyone even want to play the Healer class?)

The only issue with spell points is the exact same issue as psionics - they let you go nova if you're not going to have a lot of encounters a day.

SurlySeraph
2009-07-30, 02:43 AM
The saving grace of Spell Points is that they are easy to regulate; just increase or decrease the number they get until you find something balanced. Your players will complain if they lose power, so I recommend starting lower than the recommended values and gradually increasing to closer to those values whenever they level. Eventually you'll find the sweet spot for your campaign.

Like, half the number the book gives.

Cicciograna
2009-07-30, 04:57 AM
I'm going to use them too. I'm sure I recently read an article on Gleemax boards in which the author says that casters, with SP variant, cast less spells than in Vancian system, so he suggested to increase the SP for every class...
Personally, I think that this system is really nice: keep in mind that the use of ToB is mandatory, else melee characters would be utterly useless.

Random832
2009-07-30, 05:40 AM
One problem is that with 184 spell points, you can cast ten ninth-level spells (if you cast no other spells)

An alternative I thought of would be to keep the spells-per-day progressions but allow higher-level slots to be used to cast multiple lower-level spells e.g. an eight-level slot for four second-level or two fourth-level spells, a third and a fifth, etc. (incidentally, doing this and valuing spells by spell points rather than spell levels as I have in this simplified explanation, wizards end up with 324 "spell points" by CL 20, so Cicciograna is right that under SP you get fewer spells overall. The increased flexibility for higher-level spells is what makes it seem ridiculous.)

But really, spells per day vs spell points has nothing to do with "the Vancian system"

Irreverent Fool
2009-07-30, 05:41 AM
Play Iron Heroes. I think you'll like it.

obnoxious
sig

lesser_minion
2009-07-30, 06:11 AM
The spell points variant deliberately cuts about 25% off of what a caster would effectively have if you converted their spell slots directly in to spell points.

That's meant to balance the ability to sacrifice a whole pile of low-level spells in exchange for higher-level ones.

I honestly don't think it goes far enough, however.

Very rough (ball-park, but untested) figures for the amount of spell points you should be handing out are:

Ability Scores: Lesser of 5 + relevant ability modifier and 1/2 class level Wizard: 4 per class level Sorcerer: 6 per class level Cleric or Druid: 5 per class level Half-caster, including bard: 3/caster level


If I understand correctly, only the most powerful handful of spells available should be relevant to an encounter in the normal rules. This means that giving out more points to cover the value of the weaker spell slots is only going to make the caster more powerful (note that these figures are probably underestimates - I wanted to finish up with a smiple formula rather than a long table)

Items which work by absorbing spell levels can probably be changed to absorb the same number of spell points (even though this weakens them)

Note that this variant also assumes that cantrips are completely free - with the change that Cure Minor Wounds now merely grants the benefits of medical attention rather than actually granting hitpoints.

Person_Man
2009-07-30, 07:56 AM
I second using Psionics or Iron Heroes. Each rocks in its own way.

I would also suggest Incarnum. You have a long list powers (soulmelds), most of which are buffs (with some utility and direct attacks mixed in). Each morning you choose from anything on that list. The power of any soulmeld can be improved by essentia (willpower/life energy) which never runs out, it just gets shifted around.

I've also seen a homebrewed spell variant Swordsage work well. You get a spellbook (manuevers knows). You can prepare X spells (manuevers readied - a relatively small number). If you can switch out or replenish the spells the same way you can switch out or replenish manuevers. You can have any 1 multi-round duration defensive/utility spell continuously on all day, but if you cast any other other such spell the old one is lost (stances). The trick to balancing such a class is your spell selection. The character has to be limited to spells which are thematically consistent (like the Warmage, Healer, or Beguiler), and can't have access to things like Polymorph, Divine Power, Celerity, etc. Since spells are still drawn from a book, it's easy for the DM to balance all of the players in the party throughout the campaign by just making magic rare and feeding the PC spells as treasure/rewards.

mistformsquirrl
2009-07-30, 08:31 AM
Er... why not just use Psionics? If you've banned Wizards and Clerics, anyway. There's a healing power in CPsi that's actually fairly efficient. And it means less work redoing all of the spells either in preparation or one at a time as you use the spell. (Does anyone even want to play the Healer class?)

The only issue with spell points is the exact same issue as psionics - they let you go nova if you're not going to have a lot of encounters a day.

This is a perfectly logical question that I should have addressed at the get-go <,< cause I knew it would come up. There's two problems with it - one fluff based, and one that's a mix of fluff and crunch. The former won't make sense unless I bore you all with 2+ pages of half-finished fluff <,< so to spare you that; I'll just explain the other reason.

The main thing here is 'feel'. Psionics are a lot of fun; and they definitely fit the world - but they're only one of many ways to perform magic. (In this world there is no difference between Divine and Arcane magic, and Psionic powers. All 3 are functionally identical, as the power source is the same. No living gods at all to grant powers.)

Instead, I wanted to focus on casters with distinctive themes that actually impact how they play. So you'll see casters focused entirely on blowing you up; casters focused on the undead, casters who can toss their senses to the cosmos, etc... but none can do it all. Some of this is balance concern, but there's also a lot of flavor concern as well.

Normal "Specialist" wizards are still to general for what I'm after; which is why I'm aiming to build a couple classes based on schools not covered already; and modifying a few spell lists (not to mention the schools themselves) a bit.

Short version of what could be an enormously long and dull post <@_@>

Psionics are good; but they're only a small part of the overall magic system I'm aiming for. It can't replicate (the way I want) some spells and effects - like necromancy.

As for Healer - I'm going to be going over their spell list and adding some things; since Cleric is defunct. I may make additional modifications as well - it's one of those classes that I always felt *could* shine, but needed some attention to be worth actually playing >.> attention most DMs don't care to give since Cleric makes good sense for their setting.

That said, it's a perfectly logical question to ask >_< it's something I anticipated but didn't really think to address in the initial post.

Good point about the "going nova" thing... that leads me to this:

---

How does the Vitalizing variant strike people as a balancing factor? So casters gradually Exhaust themselves?

I'm thinking of including it, and a ramped-up version of the 2nd part of the Vitalizing variant - where if you're out of spell points you can take damage to keep casting. If I do that though it'll be a higher HP cost than is listed - it should be a dangerous gamble to over-exert that far; mostly used for situations where heroism and bravery have to trump caution.

@Mulletmanalive -


That's actually a very interesting idea... I'm going to keep that in mind. (In regard to drawing power points from the surroundings - though I'd probably allow it for both Psionic and SP users in this case).

I'm not seeing a Channeling variant in the book though; is it from a different source? Or is it the Vitalizing system? (I'm definitely up to take a look at practically anything)

@Starscream - Yeah, I'm going to be keeping a close eye on this. It'll probably be most important if we have a caster-heavy group. if we have just one caster, their spell selection should be narrow enough that we'll be OK even if they can cast all day (provided I've excised problem spells correctly anyway)

The only problem with starting low is that you'll be starting low... when resources are at their worst; so that's going to be a thing I've really got to watch.

@Irreverant Fool - I don't actually know what that is >.> I'm kind of a heavy duty homebrew person anyway though; so I don't mind the extra work of aligning and altering the system to what I need hehe <@_@>

(I do enjoy alternate rules of course; but even those are subject to change). I'd prefer to avoid an entirely new system though; for a lot of reasons >.>

@Personman - Incarnum is... I've never really quite known what to make of it to tell ya the truth.

I've looked it over a couple times; but the whole idea of melding; at least as I'm understanding it... is kinda weird to me. (I think it's the whole presentation as essentially 'summoning a magic item'; at least that's how I'm reading it. I'll admit, I've not spent a huge amount of time with the book for this exact reason >.<)

I'll probably work up some basic fluff for how it works in my world; but I probably won't do too much with it unless a player really wants to muck with it >.> it's just not something that's grabbed me is all.


---

Hrmm... so the overall vibe I'm getting is that this will require a lot of caution and forethought... and melee is going to need something of a comparable power boost...

I think I can do this >.<b This is going to be a very long project; but I think it's going to be worth it; as I'm finally laying out a world I've been *trying* to write for ~4 years. Finally got the inspiration to really go for it recently. (Started as a project for a novel; and may someday migrate back that way - for now though I think it's best to do it purely in hobby form - keeps the fun factor up >.>)

Thanks everyone <^_^> being able to bounce ideas off people is a biiig help; as the only person I know in RL still into D&D other than me is my brother; and he's... eh... not particularly good when it comes to houserules and the like. (He's a good player; but hates DMing and doesn't even want to know what's going on behind the screen if he can help it <'x'>)

So yes - thank you >_< And of course I'm still listening too, more ideas/thoughts/counter-thoughts, whatnot - still very welcome <^-^>

I'm ridiculously self conscious <x,x> which leaves me always wondering how stupid I sound and what I've left out >.< so, apologies for that.

evildmguy
2009-07-31, 11:07 AM
I DMed a campaign with the spell point system and I liked it pretty well.

I did use the rule, if it's not in there already, that the base cost only gets them the base effect of the spell and more damage must be paid for with more spell points. So, a wizard casting a fireball only gets 5d6 damage unless they spend more points to increase the damage.

Second, I added the rules that a caster can't spend more than their level in spell points on a spell. That means that as soon as they get damage spells, they can't max the damage. Again, not sure if it was in the rules or not but we did go epic so this was very relevant.

It was a lot of fun for the player and myself!

edg

Yora
2009-07-31, 11:39 AM
I think the idea behind the psionic classes in 3.5e are pretty stupid and I don't see why there should be psionic powers in my game setting.

But the bare rules really seem to be quite good. So I striped the psion of everything but his number of powers, power points, and the way points are spend on powers. And then set BAB, saves, HD and the like and added class features to make a druid (elements and animals), a priest (spirits and magical energies), and a witch class (mind spells and transmutation). Same for the bard, but with spellcasting like the psychic warrior.

Works really fine for me. But you have to make new spell lists and decide for some spells how augmentation is supposed to work. So it's not work light.

Also, I think Midnight had spellcasters which draw their rather weak magical power directly from the environment, but I don't know how that really works.

AstralFire
2009-07-31, 11:42 AM
I think the idea behind the psionic classes in 3.5e are pretty stupid and I don't see why there should be psionic powers in my game setting.

I am a being of great inner power; I use my strong will to contain and project this power, primarily to cause the elements to bow down before me and do my will. I ignite the battlefield, I strike foes down with lightning, and I cause the very earth to shake before me. And as a bonus, I can make people be my friends with a wave of the hand.

Did I just describe a psion, a wilder, or a sorcerer?

NEO|Phyte
2009-07-31, 11:43 AM
I am a being of great inner power; I use my strong will to contain and project this power, primarily to cause the elements to bow down before me and do my will. I ignite the battlefield, I strike foes down with lightning, and I cause the very earth to shake before me. And as a bonus, I can make people be my friends with a wave of the hand.

Did I just describe a psion, a wilder, or a sorcerer?

Sorcerer, because you need to wave your hand to make people your friend :smallamused:

AstralFire
2009-07-31, 11:48 AM
Correct; but I think my point is made.

'Inner power' corresponds very closely to psionics and I think you'll find most 'blasters' in comics had a psychic or technical origin until the 70s and 80s when D&D showed up to popularize the artillery mage. Spellcasting is more classically about words, long cast times to make subtle changes, and things like the Reserve Feats, Spellfire, Spontaneous Conversion and Arcane Strike blur the distinction even further.

Yora
2009-07-31, 12:16 PM
I am a being of great inner power; I use my strong will to contain and project this power, primarily to cause the elements to bow down before me and do my will. I ignite the battlefield, I strike foes down with lightning, and I cause the very earth to shake before me. And as a bonus, I can make people be my friends with a wave of the hand.

Did I just describe a psion, a wilder, or a sorcerer?

Thank you for emphasizing my point. :smallbiggrin:

You don't need three classes, if you allready have one. I think spell points with augmentation is more fun than spell slots, but either way, you don't need both.

AstralFire
2009-07-31, 12:32 PM
I agree with one class. From a flavor standpoint, I'd remove the Sorcerer entirely and if I wasn't lazy I'd make a Wizard-with-extra-Vancian-variant. However, I frequently have one person going "PSIONICS ARE NOT MAGIC AND BREAK THE FEEL OF THE GAME", so I can't actually bar Sorcerers.

I just don't see how psionics don't fit modern fantasy.

ericgrau
2009-07-31, 01:29 PM
My main gripe with a spell point system is that (optimally) it encourages blowing all your points on high level spells while you ignore low level spells. Or the only counter to that is to make low level spells so cheap that you either don't have enough total points for high level spells or you have a billion low level spells and can pull cheesy tricks by spamming them out of combat. Spell points would work better in a system without spell levels IMO. I think psionics counters this to some degree under the assumption that augmented low level spells are still useful at high levels. I dunno how true that is, though.

AstralFire
2009-07-31, 01:32 PM
They're not super useful, but they can be. Crystal Shard isn't winning any award for damage from a surging Wilder at level 20, but it's 26d6 no-SR, no-DR method of decent damage, and the examples improve when you're not augmenting a level 1 to 20 points to do damage.

RS14
2009-07-31, 01:46 PM
My main gripe with a spell point system is that (optimally) it encourages blowing all your points on high level spells while you ignore low level spells. Or the only counter to that is to make low level spells so cheap that you either don't have enough total points for high level spells or you have a billion low level spells and can pull cheesy tricks by spamming them out of combat. Spell points would work better in a system without spell levels IMO. I think psionics counters this to some degree under the assumption that augmented low level spells are still useful at high levels. I dunno how true that is, though.

What about increasing the cost of a Nth level spell every time you cast an Nth level spell? I don't have the published system, but I take it the cost is 2*n, where in is the level? How about Floor(2n*((1.1+0.01*n)^k)), where k is the number of times the player has cast spells of that level? Sure it looks bad, but you can quickly generate tables; for example level 5 spells proceed as:

10 11 13 15 17 20 23 26 30 35

mistformsquirrl
2009-08-01, 03:15 AM
Hrmm.. not a bad idea... I'd like to try avoiding raising costs if possible though (though it's definitely an option and one I'll use if needed).

What about the Refresh Magic option added in? So that spells have a minimum downtime and thus can't be spammed round after round?

(Just brainstorming though >.<)

Myrmex
2009-08-01, 04:11 AM
They're not super useful, but they can be. Crystal Shard isn't winning any award for damage from a surging Wilder at level 20, but it's 26d6 no-SR, no-DR method of decent damage, and the examples improve when you're not augmenting a level 1 to 20 points to do damage.

Crystal Shard is a great power, since if you can pretty much use it against anything.

Starscream
2009-08-01, 07:04 AM
What about the Refresh Magic option added in? So that spells have a minimum downtime and thus can't be spammed round after round?

Keeps people from spamming spells, yes, but WoTC has always overestimated the power of direct damaging, instantaneous spells like Fireball. Clever spellcasters make other things their focus.

So while recharge will stop the wizard from using chain lightning 3 times in a single combat, it won't stop him from using every battlefield control spell he has in every fight, and the cleric will make sure that every single PC is fully healed and has multiple buffs.

Or are you talking about combing this with spell points? Not sure how that would work, actually. Might help a little.

mistformsquirrl
2009-08-01, 07:49 AM
I was thinking of combining the two.

Recharge gets progressively longer the higher up the spell list you go. Combined with Vitalizing and Spell Points, you end up with an effect like this: (at least, in my head >.>) -

Casting a high level spell will have a very good impact on the battle, since obviously high level spells are powerful; but doing so puts it on recharge and eats up more of your spell points faster. When you get to half, you're Fatigued, and at 1/3, Exhausted.

So the incentive for using low levels spells is that they won't exhaust you nearly as fast and are almost always available.

A possible modification to reinforce this idea (and make casters choose what to cast wisely - though this *might* be too much) - is that when something is on Recharge, it puts all the other spells of that level on Recharge for a smaller duration than itself.

So if a spell goes on recharge for 1d6+1 rounds (highest level known), then everything of that level goes on recharge for 1d3 rounds. If it's 1d4 or 1d3 rounds, the the rest of the spell level is on cooldown for 1 round. Lower than that and it doesn't lock out the rest of the level at all.

Theoretically it works; but the risk there is making it extremely difficult for low-level casters (especially 1st and 2nd level).

I also don't want to make casters too weak... a tough thing to do to be sure; but still... I want them to be a good, solid choice - same with everyone else. (I also want the universe as a whole to be a little less powerful than regular D&D. Get the whole thing set around T3-T4 gameplay. I have some specific buffs in mind for Fighters that should help them too, and after I get that set up I'll do Monk and some of the other T5 classes.)

Mike_G
2009-08-01, 07:57 AM
Spell points work just fine. They do give more flexibility to the casters, in particular it gives a Wizard the tactical flexibility of the Sorcerer while keeping the strategic advantages of his own class, and yes, we know they are already overpowered, but if the major casters are banned anyway, this shouldn't be much of an issue.

It does mean they can cast more of their highest level spells than under the old system, but this isn't that big a deal until high level.

I'd say just try it out, straight up, as written in UA. We've tried it, since, fluff wise, I hate the spell slot concept.

only1doug
2009-08-01, 03:07 PM
I DMed a campaign with the spell point system and I liked it pretty well.

I did use the rule, if it's not in there already, that the base cost only gets them the base effect of the spell and more damage must be paid for with more spell points. So, a wizard casting a fireball only gets 5d6 damage unless they spend more points to increase the damage.

Second, I added the rules that a caster can't spend more than their level in spell points on a spell. That means that as soon as they get damage spells, they can't max the damage. Again, not sure if it was in the rules or not but we did go epic so this was very relevant.

It was a lot of fun for the player and myself!

edg

Those options are standard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm#castingSpells) for the spell points variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm), They were the first part we argued the GM out of using because...


My main gripe with a spell point system is that (optimally) it encourages blowing all your points on high level spells while you ignore low level spells. Or the only counter to that is to make low level spells so cheap that you either don't have enough total points for high level spells or you have a billion low level spells and can pull cheesy tricks by spamming them out of combat. Spell points would work better in a system without spell levels IMO. I think psionics counters this to some degree under the assumption that augmented low level spells are still useful at high levels. I dunno how true that is, though.

Under the normal method there is never any reason to cast magic missile, for 1 spell point it does 1d4+1 damage, for 5 spell points it will do 3d4+3 damage, 5 spell points could also get you a 5d6 fireball... why would you ever use your low level damage spells?

Claudius Maximus
2009-08-01, 04:11 PM
Also, the augment system drastically reduces the effectiveness of damaging spells overall, and they're already suboptimal. Why spend 10 points on a 10d6 Fireball when you could spend 5 for a non-damaging 3rd level spell? A beguiler will have far, far more spells per day than a Warmage with equal spell points. I say keep the augmenting out, and make cost as much as any other spell of their level.

Draz74
2009-08-01, 07:06 PM
Also, the augment system drastically reduces the effectiveness of damaging spells overall, and they're already suboptimal. Why spend 10 points on a 10d6 Fireball when you could spend 5 for a non-damaging 3rd level spell?

And yet, blasting is actually a pretty popular strategy for Psions. Even if their players are optimization-savvy types who know about Batman battlefield-control-casters. Explanation?

Kylarra
2009-08-01, 07:23 PM
And yet, blasting is actually a pretty popular strategy for Psions. Even if their players are optimization-savvy types who know about Batman battlefield-control-casters. Explanation?Augmenting most blaster powers also increases their DC so an augmented energy bolt for 9D6 would cost you 9 PP but the save DC would also be raised by 2, whereas with spellpoints, "augmenting" your spells increases the damage, but the save DC is static. Plus all of the generic energy powers are customizable to the element you want, and choosing cold switches the save to fort from reflex.

mistformsquirrl
2009-08-02, 03:28 AM
Psions also get a LOT more power points than spellcasters do under the Spell Point variant <@_@>; something like about 1/3rd more; which makes sense since they have to pump their powers like that.

I think I'll leave augmenting out for standard casters and leave it for Psions, since they seem well equipped to handle it. >.>