Spell Points variant and Sorcerers

[Larkas]

I'm curious. From what I can gather, the system is somewhat based on XPH's Power Points, but it doesn't scale so well: a Psion has 343 PP at level 20, while a Sorcerer would have only 249 SP at the same level (vs. 232 of the Wizard).

To put things in perspective, to be able to cast all the daily spells normally granted to it on the regular system, it would have to get 486 SP by level 20!

Now, I can see the reason of going lower than that, since with 486 SP you could spam, say, Finger of Death some 37 times, but I don't see any reason for it to have so much less SP than Psions and Wilders have PP, and much less for it to have so little more SP than the Wizard (who would have to get 324 SP to cast all its daily spells in the regular system).

Is there any fix for this system that addresses this?

[Ernir]

Spells scale differently than psionic powers do. Notably, spells (except for some blasting spells) don't scale via spell point expenditure - they still usually scale via caster level, while a Psion would more often have to spend additional PP on augmenting their powers. So some difference might be excused.

That being said, the Unearthed Arcana spell point system is substantially less thought out than psionics. Psionics are a highly functional subsystem, UA spell points are a hack applied to the vancian casting system.

[Larkas]

Hmmm, I guess you're right. Still, I would like to give this variant a spin, though it is severely unbalanced (unfavorably) as it is in relation to the Sorcerer, the class that would most benefit from this system flavor-wise. Considering that 486/324 = 1.5, do you think that it would be reasonable for the Sorcerer to have 50% more SP than the Wizard (hence, 348) at level 20?

EDIT: Funny fact: bards, rangers and paladins receive the exact amount of SP to cast all the spells they would get from the regular system.

[TuggyNE]

I can't help but recommend Ernir's own Vancian to Psionic system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194002), which in my opinion is very well thought out.

[Larkas]

Hey, thanks!

[eggs]

Whoa.

I think I'm going to run off with Ernir's system, see some basic tinkering won't break it, then run a one-shot this weekend just to try it out.

I'm already itching to play one of those Rangers.

[Larkas]

Indeed, from what I've seen, it's a very robust and well made translation!

Not to mention it's HUGE!

[Ernir]

I can't help but recommend Ernir's own Vancian to Psionic system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194002), which in my opinion is very well thought out.
Thanks.

Somehow, I don't think it'd have sounded very convincing if I'd have given that reply myself. :smalltongue:

Whoa.

I think I'm going to run off with Ernir's system, see some basic tinkering won't break it, then run a one-shot this weekend just to try it out.

I'm already itching to play one of those Rangers.
If you manage to break something, please tell me.

(And if you like it, tell someone else. :smalltongue:)

Hmmm, I guess you're right. Still, I would like to give this variant a spin, though it is severely unbalanced (unfavorably) as it is in relation to the Sorcerer, the class that would most benefit from this system flavor-wise. Considering that 486/324 = 1.5, do you think that it would be reasonable for the Sorcerer to have 50% more SP than the Wizard (hence, 348) at level 20?
I went with giving the Sorcerer 4/3rds of the Wizard's spell points. Whether that is a good number... it's hard to tell, really. Number uses/day against number of options/round is a core balancing problem in 3.5.

[Larkas]

I went with giving the Sorcerer 4/3rds of the Wizard's spell points. Whether that is a good number... it's hard to tell, really. Number uses/day against number of options/round is a core balancing problem in 3.5.

I actually came around with other values. More specifically, 234 for the Wizard, 259 for the Cleric and the Druid and 351 for the Sorcerer (and, if you use them, Favored Souls). The Bard's, the Paladin's and the Ranger's totals are the same as the one given in the original reasoning. The calculation went like this: given level's spells per day x the cost of that level's spells in spell point = SP needed to cast given level's spells. Then I summed up the SP needed, but spell levels 7-9 entered the calculation halved*. The value is fairly consistent: Wizards are only 2 points ahead from their original sum, Clerics and Druids, who normally can cast a few more spells than the Wizard anyways, have a bit more SP, and the Sorcerer has 50% more SP than the Wizards, as it should be, and just a bit more SP than the Psion has PP, which balances out the fact that the former know 2 spells less than the latter knows powers.

Now, this was just an exercise, but I think that having a formula to calculate this is great! That way, you could adapt any spellcasting class to the system with very little effort, and you can be consistent across the board. Want to play a Mystic Ranger? No problem! Just recalculate your total spell points and you're set!

*7-9 is where most of the brokenness is, and is the full-casters turf. Besides, because of the increased cost in SP, they give way too much of it if you don't scale it down (the Sorcerer, for example, would have 486 SP if 7-9 gave full returns), and that only contributes to the "nova" factor. By halving it down, the Sorcerer fell close enough to the Psion for it to make a lot of sense, while the Wizard gained only 2 points of SP over the original system, which also makes a lot of sense.