Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xeviat-DM 06-08-06, 07:10 PM	After many years of work, the MP system I have been developing is finally complete. You can find it here: Mana System (http://www.thecbg.org/settings/29/Mana_System.html) If you are not a member of the Campaign Builder's Guild, just post your thoughts, opinions, criticisms, comments, praise, or what ever here. Thanks.
FeceMan 06-08-06, 11:40 PM	http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm From a quick skim, it seems pretty much the same. And it's already published and presumably playtested.
Tempest Stormwind 06-09-06, 12:47 AM	Except Xeviat's system is built with logic, reason, and the XPH in mind, while the UA system is about as playtested as the Thought Bottle. Take a look at the spells, for instance.
Xeviat-DM 06-09-06, 01:10 AM	http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm From a quick skim, it seems pretty much the same. And it's already published and presumably playtested. Yeah, Fece, part of the reason I made mine is because the UA system is bogus. In the UA system, there is absolutely no mechanical reason to play a Sorcerer (you end up with 20 more sp at 20th level, but wizards can prepare more spells than you can know, and wizards still have effectively unlimited knowledge). I've incorperated augmentation mechanics (idea taken from the XPH) so first level spells are still useful throughout the game. Many spells were condenced, which gives casters a little more versatility. The UA system was based upon preliminary ideas for the XPH, but it wasn't taken to completion. I have. I'm not saying that mine is perfect, I'd still like all the responces I can get. I will be running a massive playtest as well, starting in the next month.
Thelon Fairblade 06-09-06, 02:56 PM	#1: I would like an example to understand the Bonus Mana from High Stat table. Show an example, say of an 8th level caster with a 20 INT. #2: "Spellcasters who prepare spells, including Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, and Wizards, require the most change. These classes have a number of spell slots at each level as shown on their class table above," There is no such table. Perhaps you should mention instead "as shown on the Class Changes page". #3: a bard begins play knowing one FIRST LEVEL bard spell of their choice. #4: Maybe I missed it... but where is the cost of Orisons/cantrips? In Psionics (XPH), there aren't any, so the table doesn't include them. In PsiHB, you got 4 for free, then they were 1 each. This Mana System doesn't include the cost. #5: You gave spellcasting to Paladins and Rangers at 4th level, something normally only possible for them if them had a WIS score of 12 or higher... #6: Again, the sorcerer begins knowing three FIRST LEVEL spells of their choice. #7: Allowing specialists to cast spells from their school for 1 less MP is a powerup, but not too bad. (good job on not leaving the 0 MP loophole for 1st level spells) I would rather see "specialists get 1 free MP of augmentation on all spells of their school"... they can't cast more per day, necessarily, but they get a little more oomph from them. Of course, more per day is exactly what they get now, so I understand the difference. (In fact, now that I think about it, this is a power-down... a bonus 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spell is better than a 1MP discount on all their school spells.) Hmm. I guess nvm my enter comment #7!
Xeviat-DM 06-09-06, 03:05 PM	#1: I would like an example to understand the Bonus Mana from High Stat table. Show an example, say of an 8th level caster with a 20 INT. The formula is simple: caster level multiplied by ability modifier multiplied by 1/2. So an 8th level caster with a 20 Int (+5 modifier) will have 20 bonus MP. #2: "Spellcasters who prepare spells, including Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, and Wizards, require the most change. These classes have a number of spell slots at each level as shown on their class table above," There is no such table. Perhaps you should mention instead "as shown on the Class Changes page". Copy-Paste error; I'll fix that right away. #3: a bard begins play knowing one FIRST LEVEL bard spell of their choice. Actually, they know one bard spell of their choice, and their maximum spell level is 1st. As they gain levels, they learn bard spells, and they can choose them from any spell level they have access to. #4: Maybe I missed it... but where is the cost of Orisons/cantrips? In Psionics (XPH), there aren't any, so the table doesn't include them. In PsiHB, you got 4 for free, then they were 1 each. This Mana System doesn't include the cost. I'll add it to the spell table. If you look at the spell lists, there are 0 level spells for the Bard, Cleric, Druid, and Sorcerer/Wizard, and if you reference them in the spell descriptions, they all cost 1 mp. I'll add a section in the overview that explains them. #5: You gave spellcasting to Paladins and Rangers at 4th level, something normally only possible for them if them had a WIS score of 12 or higher... I'm aware. The progression of 1st level a 4th, 2nd at 8th ... was just too semetrical to pass up. #6: Again, the sorcerer begins knowing three FIRST LEVEL spells of their choice. Again, that's not the way the spells known work exactly. I could say First level spells though, if it's that confusing. The XPH doesn't say first level powers. #7: Allowing specialists to cast spells from their school for 1 less MP is a powerup, but not too bad. (good job on not leaving the 0 MP loophole for 1st level spells) I would rather see "specialists get 1 free MP of augmentation on all spells of their school"... they can't cast more per day, necessarily, but they get a little more oomph from them. Of course, more per day is exactly what they get now, so I understand the difference. (In fact, now that I think about it, this is a power-down... a bonus 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spell is better than a 1MP discount on all their school spells.) Hmm. I guess nvm my enter comment #7! Heh; Originally I was going to give them more MP (specialists), but there would be no way that could be limited to their specialization without getting very complicated. so the way I did it will allow them to cast a bit more of their specialization (and will actually encourage them to use their specialization more than any other type), but it doesn't seem to add up to too much power. They are getting additional spells prepared per day too, so I think it will balance out. Thanks for the editing work; got any general opinions yet?
Jerks 06-09-06, 03:54 PM	I've been playing around with spellcasting myself, but I must say that your work is far better than what I've drummed up so far. It seems fairly well balanced, but that kind of stuff is always hard for me to figure out without a little playtesting. I did see one typo in your discussion of specializations The wizard must choose whether to specialize and, if they do, choose their specialty at 1st level. At this time, they must also give up two other schools of magic (unless they choose to specialize in divination; see below), which become their prohibited schools. I assume that specializing in divination works just like in the SRD (only giving up one school of magic). I've got a couple of cancellations tonight from the group, so I might just go ahead and run a houserules mini-campaign to see how this plays. Again, nice work.
Xeviat-DM 06-09-06, 04:15 PM	I corrected those errors (except for adding the words "first level" when discussing sorcerer and bard starting spells, I was just going off of the psionics SRD). Again, I'll change these if it is really that confusing. Thanks for the replies everyone.
m00 06-09-06, 05:28 PM	My group had planned designing a similar system (rationalizing PHB magic with the point system presented in the XPH), but here the work is already done for us. Sweet. For what it's worth, I think the way the UA system handles wizards is really lame. What my group generally does with wizards and spell points is make them choose how they will be spending their spell points for the day in the morning when they prepare their spells, so it works out to have the same "flavor" as a standard wizard who has to anticipate what spells he might need in a day, and how many copies he might end up needing. Having wizards basically choose what spells they can spontaneously cast in a day has never seemed appropriate to me or the people in my group, especially considering they can prepare almost as many spells of a given level as a sorcerer knows. Of course, YMMV. A few comments on spells from the quick glance I managed: *I really like what you did with magic missile. I always had a problem with how much it sucked with the UA spell point system. This way it maintains some use at higher caster levels. *There's a typo in magic armor's augment (a copy-paste error from magic weapon, presumably). Good call on making it first level, though. *I like how you collapsed the figmentary image and summon monster spells (though the summon monster table has some format issues). I think that the invisiblity spells could perhaps be similarly collapsed (with the exception maybe of greater invisibility, because the duration makes it problematic as an augment). I don't think invisibility, invisibility sphere and mass invisibility would be too powerful as one spell. Something to think about. (I also have a similar qualm with cloud mind and mass cloud mind being separate spells, but that's a different issue). Otherwise, great job.
Phoenix Knight 06-09-06, 06:11 PM	I do really like the idea of merging the various spells that do the same thing: for example, you merge light and daylight. I did something similar when creating my system. I kind of abandonded the project, however, as players seemed not to want to learn new rules ;) Great work. Will you be adding spells from other books, as well?
Xeviat-DM 06-09-06, 06:27 PM	m00, I chose to do the preparation in a manner similar to the UA's method because I felt it would be the easiest to integrate. One idea I came up with recently would be to allow the wizard to cast any spell from their spell book with a massive increase in casting time, or they can prepare (or precast) their spells ahead of time so they only have a standard action casting time. I'm still exploring ideas, but the version that exists now will go into playtesting. I didn't merge invisibility with invisibility sphere because I felt invisibility sphere was a different spell entirely. I don't recall my reason of not merging mass invisibility, but I believe I didn't merge mass spells across the board. You are right about why I didn't merge greater invisibility; there are duration issues (same reason I didn't merge displacement and blur). I'll see about correcting the summon monster table format issues, don't know what happened there. Phoenix; I will add the "Psionic Spells" (the ones from the XPH) and the "Divine Spells" (the ones from D&DG), but I won't add any others from wizards products; they are not covered by the OGL. Perhaps I could come to some arangement with Wizards, but I don't think that would happen any time soon. I will, though, make a little article to aid the conversion of spells from slots to an MP system. For the most part, they'll be guidelines on what progressions to use for augmentations, and guidelines on which spells to merge. Again, thanks for the praise people. I hope it works out for you. I'll keep you posted on the Playtest once it gets under way.
Skadrian 06-10-06, 07:59 AM	a little typo in the sorceror changes section: Upon reaching 6th level, and at every even-numbered sorcerer level after that (4th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer can choose to learn a new spell in place of one they already know. and wouldnt it be nice to smooth out the sorceror lvls. It now gains a lot of power on even lvls and very little on odd lvls. I understand that that is the way it is now too, but this system is a nice opportunity to change that. :edit: Found something more, in the first augment of black tentacles, wouldnt the grapple check get +2 (one from the extra bab and 1 from the extra str) instead of +1?
Xeviat-DM 06-10-06, 11:39 AM	As the note at the beginning of the MP system says, I was out to apply the mana point rules without drastically changing the balance of the game. So I didn't change when the sorcerer gains their spell levels. Now, when I do get around to it, I will release my "project rebalance", but this system was intended to be just like the PHB. And I'll fix that typo.
Seerow 06-14-06, 06:47 PM	Okay, reading this and your replies, I have to say that handling prepared magic the same way UA did is meh. I mean, it powers up the druid and cleric more than they already were, and powers up the Wizard enough to make the Sorcerer totally useless. Sure, at early levels the Sorc has an edge in spells known compared to spells prepared, but eventually the Wizard equals him in that, but can change his selections day to day. I don't think that's something extra spellpoints alone can balance. Really, I'd probably just condense Wizard and Sorcerer into a single generic spellcaster, but maybe that's too much. Either way, you say you don't want to drastically alter game balance, a Wizard casting anything he has memorized spontaneously may just do that =D Edit: Also, having Cantrips costing a mana point seriously makes them useless as a whole. It also severely powers down lower level casters, making sure they're only useful for a round or two a day.
Mufflon 06-14-06, 07:49 PM	Congratulations on completing your Mana system, haven't read it all through properly but it looks pretty neat. There is one thing though: By using the Body Fuel feat (Taking, for example 10 Ability Damaga to each ability and restoring 20 MP) and then casting Restoration (Targeting himself, of course) which costs 7 MP the Cleric or Paladin could replenish his MP without resting. I am aware that Restoration has a costy material component (100 gp) but at higher levels this sum is somewhat insignificant.
Xeviat-DM 06-14-06, 08:15 PM	Congratulations on completing your Mana system, haven't read it all through properly but it looks pretty neat. There is one thing though: By using the Body Fuel feat (Taking, for example 10 Ability Damaga to each ability and restoring 20 MP) and then casting Restoration (Targeting himself, of course) which costs 7 MP the Cleric or Paladin could replenish his MP without resting. I am aware that Restoration has a costy material component (100 gp) but at higher levels this sum is somewhat insignificant. Body Fuel causes Ability Burn; I just realized that I hadn't given the definition for Ability Burn. This ability damage only restores itself through rest; spells will not cure it. Okay, reading this and your replies, I have to say that handling prepared magic the same way UA did is meh. I mean, it powers up the druid and cleric more than they already were, and powers up the Wizard enough to make the Sorcerer totally useless. Sure, at early levels the Sorc has an edge in spells known compared to spells prepared, but eventually the Wizard equals him in that, but can change his selections day to day. I don't think that's something extra spellpoints alone can balance. Really, I'd probably just condense Wizard and Sorcerer into a single generic spellcaster, but maybe that's too much. Either way, you say you don't want to drastically alter game balance, a Wizard casting anything he has memorized spontaneously may just do that =D Edit: Also, having Cantrips costing a mana point seriously makes them useless as a whole. It also severely powers down lower level casters, making sure they're only useful for a round or two a day. We'll see in playtesting. My mind's eye says that having 50% more MP is worth having a locked in spell selection. Additionally, sorcerers have the added ability of being able to access their metamagic feats without preparation; wizards, clerics, and druids have to prepare the spell with the metamagic feat ahead of time. If you can offer another method that is both simple and resembles the core mechanic, let me know.
Mufflon 06-14-06, 08:19 PM	Body Fuel causes Ability Burn; I just realized that I hadn't given the definition for Ability Burn. This ability damage only restores itself through rest; spells will not cure it. Oh, alright, false alarm then.
Seerow 06-14-06, 08:19 PM	Well that depends, did you take off the extra time for a Sorc to cast a metamagiced spell? Give them bonus feats to actually have metamagic? If either or both of those are true I might accept it.
Teh Lurv 06-14-06, 10:49 PM	I admit have not playtested the variant system, but reading through it a few times it seems more complicated than the default system with no significant benefit.
Xeviat-DM 06-14-06, 11:57 PM	Well that depends, did you take off the extra time for a Sorc to cast a metamagiced spell? Give them bonus feats to actually have metamagic? If either or both of those are true I might accept it. I didn't do either; again, the project assumes that the core system is balanced (which I don't necessarily agree with) to allow for minimal changes. Teh Lurv, what aspects do you find complicated? Such feedback would be helpful.
Vaelan 06-15-06, 01:47 AM	To be quite frank, you butchered the Sorcerer. Every advantage it held was either reduced or removed. Also, your Spells Known progression shifts a large number of the Sorcerer's spells to first and ninth level which I find quite undesirable. Lastly, you maintained their delayed spell progression despite the fact that their two primary advantages have been severely weakened. From the page you linked... The goal of this project is to maintain current balance schemes, so that the system can be applied to any campaign with minimal effort. I don't think that your write-up of the Sorcerer maintains the current balance schemes. They lose their primary advantage of spontaneity and they go from having 50% more base spell slots than a Wizard to having 25% more base mana. Please feel free to point out anything I may be missing that happens to make up for gutting the class entirely.
Xeviat-DM 06-15-06, 01:52 AM	To be quite frank, you butchered the Sorcerer. Every advantage it held was either reduced or removed. Also, your Spells Known progression shifts a large number of the Sorcerer's spells to first and ninth level which I find quite undesirable. Lastly, you maintained their delayed spell progression despite the fact that their two primary advantages have been severely weakened. ... I don't think that your write-up of the Sorcerer maintains the current balance schemes. They lose their primary advantage of spontaneity and they go from having 50% more base spell slots than a Wizard to having 25% more base mana. Please feel free to point out anything I may be missing that happens to make up for gutting the class entirely. Originally I had the wizard with 240 mp and the sorcerer with 360; 50% more. I changed that because many people who've played with the XPH rules said that 240 mp would be far too few for the wizard. One "fix" that you've made me consider would be to half the wizard/cleric/druid's spells prepared. Another variation would be to utilize the "Erudite" principal, except I don't like it. Please, offer a suggestion to fix it; I see the point to your complaints though, and I'll take them into consideration.
Skadrian 06-15-06, 08:32 AM	couldnt you just make a wizard prepare spells up to a total of his allowed mp? This would make a wizard almost the same as they are now, with a little more flexibility between spell lvls
Phoenix Knight 06-15-06, 09:02 AM	couldnt you just make a wizard prepare spells up to a total of his allowed mp? This would make a wizard almost the same as they are now, with a little more flexibility between spell lvls At high levels I think that would give me a headache. Really, I'd probably just condense Wizard and Sorcerer into a single generic spellcaster, but maybe that's too much. I kind of have to agree. Just scrap entirely the idea of prepared casters. Everyone casts spontaneously. Sorcerer is now just another name for a wizard. If you really feel the need to have the study versus natural talent divide, you could let each character choose which ability score to use. Or create an actually different class (along the idea of the Warlock, with a few unlimited use abilities), since the Sorcerer is basically just a wizard as currently written. Or tie the new sorcerer to dragons more by making their powers refresh like a breath weapon: every 1d4 rounds. Heck, that even ties in to your other thread, Xeviat.
Xeviat-DM 06-15-06, 01:04 PM	Again, the wizard vs. sorcerer debate goes a bit further than this project was intended to do. I am currently setting up a playtest with a bard, paladin, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard, so we'll see how things work out.
Schitzophrenia_Manifest 06-15-06, 02:59 PM	First of all, this system is great. It really is. It's obvious how you put enormous amounts of time into working on a decent MP system. And I think you did a great job going over and revising each spell so that it would fit into the system. However, (here's the bad), I can't help but agree with what very many are saying: it kind of makes sorcerers obselete. That's also why I agree that, if I were to use this system in a campaign, I would merge the wizard and sorcerer into a single class. But for now, I must away.
Watchdog_of_Hades 06-15-06, 04:12 PM	I didn't look extremely closely, but where are base mana points listed? There's a reference to Unearthed Arcana. Is it there?
Xeviat-DM 06-15-06, 05:46 PM	I didn't look extremely closely, but where are base mana points listed? There's a reference to Unearthed Arcana. Is it there? Base mana points are listed with each class's entry; just backtrack to the "Mana System" main page, then click on "class changes" under the header. Or for simplicity, they're here: Class Changes (http://www.thecbg.org/settings/29/bard_changes.html) As far as sorcerers being obsolete, I'm not sure that's the case. Not only does the sorcerer have more MP than the wizard, but the wizard has to put their resources into learning more spells than the sorcerer. What do I mean? Well, the sorcerer learns aproximately 2 spells each level (some are different), which is the same as the wizard (though the wizard begins with a few more known). If the wizard doesn't spend any resources padding out their spell book, they'd be the same. Additionally, the wizard has to manage and protect their spell book; if this is lost they've lost all of the resources they put into the book, and all of those free spells they gained. I too am worried that the sorcerer and wizard are too similar in this, but I need a more simple solution to alter either the wizard or the sorcerer, one that is in line with the PHB and is not an attempt to rebalance them.
Phoenix Knight 06-15-06, 08:35 PM	I too am worried that the sorcerer and wizard are too similar in this, but I need a more simple solution to alter either the wizard or the sorcerer, one that is in line with the PHB and is not an attempt to rebalance them. I don't think you'll find a simple solution. I don't see your settup as being a real problem, anyway. Some have complained that the sorcerer is made weaker because the wizard is made stronger. Its unfortunate the class system provokes such thinking, but I suppose if they are stacked against each other this is true. I think the only way to address it is to change the class features of the sorcerer. You cannot really solve the issue by giving them more mp, unless it is a lot more. I mentioned one way previously. Another might be to look at the difference between the psion and the wilder. This is basically a rehashed wizard/sorcerer distinction in my mind. But the differences are not in pp, they are in class features and BAB. The wilder gets fewer powers, and gets them slower, but gets more special abilities and better BAB. Actually, the difference between cleric and favored soul are similar, too. I hope that helps.
Seerow 06-15-06, 08:46 PM	The Wilder's Special Powers are arguably the most useless in the game at higher levels, but Phoenix Knight has the right idea in his comparison.
Thelon Fairblade 06-16-06, 02:24 PM	Wiz vs. Sorc issue I didn't notice this ahead of time. I was thinking that the wizard had to pre-spend all his MP for the day. But the whole point of Augmentation kinda makes that rediculous -- would you pre-prepare, say, Summon Monster with 5 augmentation? So then you've instead given the wizard a "Daily Spell List" with spontaneous casting against that list, compared to the sorcerer having a fixed (smaller) spell list with the exact same spontaneous casting. Yeah, that's bad. One thought I had, something I originally thought about with regards to psionics: take MP away from the Sorcerer. When he casts one of his fixed spells, he can cast it with maximum augmentation (i.e. caster level), allocated as he chooses. For example, Magic Missile would simply be cast at full power every time. Domination, on the other hand, might have +8MP assigned to affect dragons, or might leave it at humanoids and put those 8 MP into boosting the save (by making it a "higher level spell" via a Heighten mechanic). Another thought is, as I originally thought (and someone else said), have the preparation casters not only preplan their spells, but also preplan their augmentations. These casters gain the flexibility to have 5 full power magic missiles instead of 3 weak missiles, 2 weak webs, and 1 weak fireball (for example), but they get what they've planned, and that's it. they continue to not be spontaneous casters at all. A third thought is to disallow the preparation casters (or just the wizard) to augment, or restrict their ability, and leave the sorcerer able to exploit full power. Similarly, you could grant the sorcerer an Overchannel type ability for free to go along with the extra mana. I'm trying to stay within the spirit of the existing rules, but the MP system by its very nature is a spontaneous magic system. I'd almost flip things entirely. Let the wizard have his ever-changing Daily Spell List, as you have written into the rules. Give the sorcerer a +50% larger-but-fixed Daily Spell List, and more mana. Example: the Wizard 6 would have a daily spell list of 4/3/2 (base). The Sorc would have 6/4/3 base, but it could not be changed. Thus he has more daily flexibility and more power than the wizard, but he cannot change, he cannot specialize against undead today and traps tomorrow, and mystery/divination next Thursday... Cantrips: you should get something like "spellcasting stat" bonus for free each day. So WIS 18 Cleric gets 4 orisons per day at no cost. As an alternate, do "stat bonus or level/2, whichever is higher".
Derrick 06-16-06, 03:24 PM	You don't seem to keep the existing balance of Cure spells. Under the RAW, a 1st-level Cleric can expect to heal 1d8+1 for a 1st-level spell, which you've cut to 1d6. Things only get different at higher levels: A 3rd-level Cleric gets 1d6, instead of 1d8+3 for a 1st-level spell; Her 2nd-level spells cure 3d6 (av. 10.5) instead of 2d8+3 (av. 12) A 5th-level cleric is only getting 3d6, instead of 2d8+5 for the equivalent of a 2nd-level spell slot, and 5d6 (av. 17.5) instead of 3d8+5 (av. 18.5) for 3rd. 7th-level clerics don't do too badly with what amounts to their 4th-level spell slots, at 7d6 (av. 24.5) against 4d8+7 (av. 25) At 9th-level, mass cure is strictly superior: 5d6 (av. 17.5) against 1d8+5 (av. 9.5) - it's comparable to the RAW's 6th-level equivalent of 2d8+10 (av. 19) Could you explain the motivation behind this change?
Xeviat-DM 06-16-06, 06:59 PM	You don't seem to keep the existing balance of Cure spells. Under the RAW, a 1st-level Cleric can expect to heal 1d8+1 for a 1st-level spell, which you've cut to 1d6. Things only get different at higher levels: A 3rd-level Cleric gets 1d6, instead of 1d8+3 for a 1st-level spell; Her 2nd-level spells cure 3d6 (av. 10.5) instead of 2d8+3 (av. 12) A 5th-level cleric is only getting 3d6, instead of 2d8+5 for the equivalent of a 2nd-level spell slot, and 5d6 (av. 17.5) instead of 3d8+5 (av. 18.5) for 3rd. 7th-level clerics don't do too badly with what amounts to their 4th-level spell slots, at 7d6 (av. 24.5) against 4d8+7 (av. 25) At 9th-level, mass cure is strictly superior: 5d6 (av. 17.5) against 1d8+5 (av. 9.5) - it's comparable to the RAW's 6th-level equivalent of 2d8+10 (av. 19) Could you explain the motivation behind this change? Check the even levels: Cure Light Wounds, caster level 2: 1d8+2 (average 6.5) Cure augmented to 2 mp: 2d6 (average 7) If I had left the spells as they are now, which means Cure would be 1d8+caster level with a 2 augment to boost the healing by 1d8, it would be more benefical for a caster to cast it with 1 mp over and over again, and thus out of combat healing would be increased. It's also more combarable to spell damage output. Thelon, thanks. Would you say that reducing the wizard/cleric progression to 2 spells prepared per spell level, instead of the 4 it is now, be fair? They'd have less daily variety than a current wizard could (who could prepare 6 different spells after bonus spells), but this wizard can cast each one as many times they want. Would that be better (it's a change I can easily justify).
Nightwhisper 06-17-06, 04:08 AM	Well, on the cure front, you could make it: "This spell heals 1d8+1 points of damage. Augment: For every additional magic point spent, this spell heals an additional point of damage. For every two mp spent this way, the spell heals an additional 1d8 points of damage and its saving throw DC increases by 1." Also, your write-up of the Magic Missile spell is missing the mention that a single missile can only strike a single creature, so as currently written it allows a 1st-level caster to hit up to five creatures for 1d4+1 damage. My suggestion is to reduce the Target-entry to a single target to prevent this.
Xeviat-DM 06-17-06, 04:14 AM	Well, on the cure front, you could make it: "This spell heals 1d8+1 points of damage. Augment: For every additional magic point spent, this spell heals an additional point of damage. For every two mp spent this way, the spell heals an additional 1d8 points of damage and its saving throw DC increases by 1." Also, your write-up of the Magic Missile spell is missing the mention that a single missile can only strike a single creature, so as currently written it allows a 1st-level caster to hit up to five creatures for 1d4+1 damage. My suggestion is to reduce the Target-entry to a single target to prevent this. Even still, 1 mp cure for 1d8+1 is 5.5 damage per mp. 3 mp cure for 2d8+3 (12 av) is 4 damage per mp; it's more cost efficient to use the cheap one. That's fine for magic items, but not for the base caster. Um, I guess I can fix that; it didn't seem confusing to me (the magic missile thing).
Derrick 06-17-06, 02:10 PM	Check the even levels: Cure Light Wounds, caster level 2: 1d8+2 (average 6.5) Cure augmented to 2 mp: 2d6 (average 7) Yes, that did enter my consideration of the system. The reason I didn't mention the even level uses is that they're not strictly comparable. Due to the difference in cost, Cure augmented to 2mp is the equivalent of two Cure Light Wounds (so that's an average of 7 against an average of 13). As such, I think the even-leveled Cleric is worse off. The ability to burn through her MPs faster doesn't compensate for lost healing power - it just cuts down the amount of time she spends casting spells. If I had left the spells as they are now, which means Cure would be 1d8+caster level with a 2 augment to boost the healing by 1d8, it would be more benefical for a caster to cast it with 1 mp over and over again, and thus out of combat healing would be increased. I'm not insisting that they be left as they are now. You're proposing a change to rules and claiming that it doesn't affect balance; I'm telling you that it does - and it's quite a serious change at low levels. The de facto elimination of Orisons compounds this change: under your system, a 1st-level cleric can heal twice per day for 1d6 each time (or once for 2d6 with the Healing domain). Her RAW counterpart can heal 5 times per day (6 with the Healing Domain), twice (or thrice) for 1d8+1 (+2) and thrice for 1. Those Orisons are pretty significant for stopping characters from bleeding out. It's also more combarable to spell damage output. Again, I thought you weren't trying to change anything in terms of game balance. :confused: As a positive proposal: Front-load the Cleric's healing ability. Give her the ability to heal a number of hit points equal to her Wisdom modifier each day, either as an enhancement of spellcasting or as a stand-alone effect. This still won't let her match her RAW counterpart, but at least it will keep her friends from knocking too hard at Death's Door.
Xeviat-DM 06-17-06, 10:28 PM	Again, I thought you weren't trying to change anything in terms of game balance. :confused: As a positive proposal: Front-load the Cleric's healing ability. Give her the ability to heal a number of hit points equal to her Wisdom modifier each day, either as an enhancement of spellcasting or as a stand-alone effect. This still won't let her match her RAW counterpart, but at least it will keep her friends from knocking too hard at Death's Door. If cure were a second level spell for 1d8+caster level with an augment of 2 mp for +1d8 healing, it would be fine. Again, what I think will break it is if 1 mp cures are more cost efficient than augmented cures; yes, this is how it is in the current game, but you can't convert a ninth level slot into 17 first level slots in the standard game. If you look at how they did "cure" in Complete Psionic, they did it as 2 healing per mp. And that was a divine class. If there's an option that won't encourage a cleric to just shovel out cheep cures for 1 mp after every fight, let me know. But I am looking into options for level zero spells. Just one word about them though; would you all have been okay with me just removing them, as they did in the XPH?
Vaelan 06-18-06, 05:10 AM	One of the Sorcerer's main advantages has been taken away entirely, so if you want to maintain the class instead of essentially making something new, its other advantage needs to be emphasized. Its other advantage, the increased number of mana points per day, needs to be extremely important so that the Sorcerer is a viable and attractive option. Giving the Sorcerer more mana points per day is the only option, but it isn't a very good one. There are only a certain number of points that a character will be able to meaningfully expend, especially when they cannot Quicken spells. As such, the only way an increased number of mana points would actually be an appreciable advantage is when the additional points mean the difference between helping to solve every problem through magic or having to hold back. There are two steps that would need to be taken to make the Sorcerer viable. First of all, don't delay their acqusition of new spell levels. There is no reason for it at this point. Second, give them a meaningfully higher amount of mana than any other spellcaster at any given level. As I said above, the amount of mana the Sorcerer gains over the Wizard must be great enough to cause a substantial shift in how one plays the class. The way I see it, a Wizard should be able to cast a fully-augmented spell roughly every other opportunity that presents itself so that they will not run out of points early in the day. Sorcerers, on the other hand, should be able to cast a fully-augmented spell to address about 60-75% of the opportunities presented in a day. I gave the Sorcerer's percentage as a range for one reason: the exact magnitude of the Wizard's advantage in flexibility factors into how much of an advantage the additional mana points gained by a Sorcerer should grant. Ideally, it would be based upon how valuable the ability to choose your spells each day is, but that varies from game to game and even from day to day. As such, I would recommend giving Wizards a normalizing ability (the ability to replace a prepared spell or two as though they had left the slot blank) that will make their flexibility a more consistent advantage and setting the Sorcerer's advantage in mana points accordingly. Or you could just remove the Sorcerer entirely.
Derrick 06-18-06, 05:53 PM	If cure were a second level spell for 1d8+caster level with an augment of 2 mp for +1d8 healing, it would be fine. Again, what I think will break it is if 1 mp cures are more cost efficient than augmented cures; yes, this is how it is in the current game, but you can't convert a ninth level slot into 17 first level slots in the standard game. Heal is going to make that a bit academic, isn't it? (Anyone who's lost more than 110hps will be better off just getting the big hit - for 17th-level characters, that's not an uncommon state of affairs post-battle.) It might be the case that mid-level healing does better out of a change to a magic point system, but don't treat with that by killing low-level parties. If you look at how they did "cure" in Complete Psionic, they did it as 2 healing per mp. And that was a divine class. And this is me not caring. Clerics and Druids are the guys who hold low-level parties together with healing magic. Hacking away at their ability to do that is a big change to game balance. If there's an option that won't encourage a cleric to just shovel out cheep cures for 1 mp after every fight, let me know. I suspect that the mid-level 1mp=1d8+5hp problem won't be as bad for game balance as the low-level mortality problem would be. If massed low-impact cures does look like it's a real problem, then the solution should be targetted. Here's one (off the cuff) suggestion: add a low but static (ie. unchanged by augmentation) hit point cost to using Cure. I'm not sure that will deal with the problem you're worried about, but it would get at it without hitting low-level parties the way the d6 change does. It also has some thematic appeal. But I am looking into options for level zero spells. Just one word about them though; would you all have been okay with me just removing them, as they did in the XPH? Well, I think your changes are de facto elimination, so I'm all for a decent burial. :)
True Cavalier 06-18-06, 06:55 PM	Or just let spellcasters cast an unlimited amount of 0level spells. I've seen it elsewhere, hardly gamebreaking, especially since you have removed Cure Minor Wounds already.
Lucan_Desmond 06-19-06, 12:17 AM	Cool idea, always hard to work out. I've done it myself. I feel it only works with spontaneous casters though. Anything that has to prepare spells should just stick to the Vancian system. It's simply easier. No need to complicate a system that has works for 30 years. I only skimmed it, but what I saw of the system and this discussion seems pretty good. Balance seems to be pretty good. I don't like the fact that you changed spells though. Many people have learned these spells just the way they are and to change what they do could create more confusion than it's worth. Just my opinion however. You seem to have put quite a bit of thought into this though, so I will put more time into reading and reviewing it when I'm better rested. In the mean time, I have a humble request to make: Since you have put so much thought into a similar system, please check out my homebrew class which uses a similar Mana based system. It's called the Arcane Shaper, and the link to the thread is in my sig. Thanks! Later, Des
Xeviat-DM 06-19-06, 04:06 AM	Or just let spellcasters cast an unlimited amount of 0level spells. I've seen it elsewhere, hardly gamebreaking, especially since you have removed Cure Minor Wounds already. I'm considering that as well. If cure minor wounds is removed, and the rest are tooled, it will probably be fine. I'll come back to this soon. Thanks Lucan_Desmond; let me know which spell changes you find odd or unpleasant. The spell changes, for the most part, were done to accomidate augmentation scaling (though I did tweek a few, such as Polar Ray as someone mentioned). Let me know and I can explain my changes (and possibly retract them if discussion warrents it).
Phoenix Knight 06-19-06, 10:57 AM	No one should be able to create water at will.
Lucan_Desmond 06-19-06, 12:14 PM	Ok, I've read it more thoroughly now. I like it. But... Here's what I would change. First: Augmentation. What you're trying to accomplish here is simple, but you've presented it in the most difficult way. To augment a spell, you have to look at each spells individual description. Instead, I would use the simple method of +1 CL for each mana spent above the spells original cost. Thats straight out of the UA spell point system, which I know you don't like, but it isn't that bad. And this is much simpler. Simple is good at the gaming table. I like having lots of books, LOTS of books, but I don't like having to actually bring them all to the gaming table when I'm a player, and constantly be referencing them in the middle of a game. Keep things that don't need to be complicated simple, for game flow. Ok thats pretty much the only complaint I have with the core rules of this system. More will follow about spells as I read all of them. Later, Des
Xeviat-DM 06-19-06, 01:26 PM	Ok, I've read it more thoroughly now. I like it. But... Here's what I would change. First: Augmentation. What you're trying to accomplish here is simple, but you've presented it in the most difficult way. To augment a spell, you have to look at each spells individual description. Instead, I would use the simple method of +1 CL for each mana spent above the spells original cost. Thats straight out of the UA spell point system, which I know you don't like, but it isn't that bad. And this is much simpler. Simple is good at the gaming table. I like having lots of books, LOTS of books, but I don't like having to actually bring them all to the gaming table when I'm a player, and constantly be referencing them in the middle of a game. Keep things that don't need to be complicated simple, for game flow. Ok thats pretty much the only complaint I have with the core rules of this system. More will follow about spells as I read all of them. Later, Des I'm assuming you're not familiar with the Expanded Psionics Handbook. Also, most players I have keep cards on the spells they have access to, and they reference them quickly. Once the playtest is complete, I will be printing out bound versions of this; though I do have to go through and fix those derned tables. One of the strengths of the new system is that many spells were condenced. This is a big reason that I'm okay with clerics/wizards having such less variety each day in their spell selection; a cleric only needs to prepare cure and heal to be a great healer. I am still listening to suggestions on fixing heal. I do have an idea. What if a first level cure spell was made that didn't scale, while a second level version did have an augment and does scale? Currently, look at the averages in the standard system: Cleric 3rd Cure Light Wounds 1d8+3 (7.5) = 7.5 per mp. Cure Moderate Wounds 2d8+3 (12) = 4 per mp. Cleric 5th Cure Light Wounds 1d8+5 (9.5) = 9.5 per mp. Cure Moderate Wounds 2d8+5 (14) = 4.66~ per mp. Cure Serious Wounds 3d8+5 (18.5) = 3.7 per mp. Cleric 7th Cure Light Wounds 1d8+5 (9.5) = 9.5 per mp. Cure Moderate Wounds 2d8+7 (16) = 5.33~ per mp. Cure Serious Wounds 3d8+7 (20.5) = 4.1 per mp. Cure Critical Wounds 4d8+7 (25) = 3.57~ per mp. Aside from needing a very powerful heal in the middle of combat, I don't see this being fair and balanced; thus, a different approach is required. I don't want to kill a low level cleric's ability to heal on the spot; what if cure was changed to 4 hp per mp? It's a little less than normal at first level, but it's better than the highest level ones later.
True Cavalier 06-19-06, 06:55 PM	Do that and reduce Cure Light Wounds to 1d4+level, up to +5. But to be honest, I think it is fair. Clerics will use Augmented healing when in a hurry (in a fight) and slower healing when resting/between fights. I think it works. OR. Just do this 1mp: Cure Light Wounds, heals 4 hps 3mp: Cure Moderate Wounds, heals 12 hps 5mp: Cure Serious Wounds, heals 20 hps and so on...
Prince Indirian 06-19-06, 09:07 PM	I have a suggestion for the sorcerer, although one has utilise another rule or expansion. The UA introduces fatigue when casting spells. I like that cause keeps the spellcasters a bit humble. What about giving all the spellcasting classes besides the Sorceror the fatigue feature. thus the Sorceror can cast spells all day long without any issues .Although the fatigue feature might need some small revisions. Was a long time ago that checked it out.
Thelon Fairblade 06-20-06, 09:06 AM	Wiz vs. Sorc The flexibility of the condensed spells is certainly a benefit to both, but while "Summon" only takes 1 slot now, you still can only Summon things with it - it doesn't detect secret doors, for example, something a Wizard might prepare but a Sorcerer never select. so just reducing the number of spells available on the Wizard's Daily List isn't quite the answer. I liked the introduction of spell fatigue (mp based), while not restricting the Sorcerer. The goes along the lines of my suggestions about how to distinguish the "preparation" from the "spontaneous". Another concept: preparation casters can't augment on the fly, but spontaneous casters can. If the cleric wants 3d6 Cure, he needs to prepare the "2nd level" version. He CANNOT prepare a 2mp version of cure - only the standard spell level breakpoints. (This is similar to something I already suggested.) So the Wizard, for example, may only spend 100gp to put Summon in his book, but he still must PREPARE it at the desired level for that day's activities. If he prepares the 5pt Summon, he can later cast the 5pt Summon as often as he has mana for it, but it always is a 5pt Summon. A final standalone option, something that is a big diversion from the current RAW: give the spontaneous casters *FOR FREE* a select group of Metamagic feats. I was thinking mainly the straightforward ones that didn't get too fancy. Still, Silent, Extend, Enlarge, Empower, Heighten (this one should be built into every augment already). The preparation casters can augment at will, but the spontaneous casters know some tricks on how to get the most from their mana. The Preps can learn these tricks for the cost of feats; the Sponts can learn how to do these tricks at no mana cost (i.e. Sudden X), for the cost of feats. Cantrips Standard PREP casters get 4 per day. Standard SPONT casters get 6 per day. So grant the PREP casters "(Spellstat Bonus) per day free; 1mp each afterwards", and SPONT casters "(Spellstat Bonus+2 or Caster Level/2) per day free; 1 mp afterwards". So most PREPs will get 3 or 4 per day at low levels, and upwards of 7 at high levels; most SPONTs will get 5 or 6 at low to mid levels, and upwards of 10 at high levels. Healing / Cure Here's a similar thought, from the old Bard's Tale games. QuickFix was a 1st level spell. It took 2 mp, it gave 8hp curing, every time. At all higher levels, dice were rolled (Flesh Restore, 6mp, 4d6 healing; Flesh Anew, 14 mp, 4d4 healing to every party member). If stated goal is "1st level healing retained, for low level party health, and all yet high level healing is fair and works with augmenting", I woudl applaud a simple 1st level spell like Quickfix, and have the dice at higher levels. Of course, it could work nicely the other way too --- dice and a random chance of high result at 1st level, straight "X mp = Y hp" at all other levels. Some options: "Quickfix" QuickCure, 1 mp: heals 4pts + caster level (max +5). Cure, 3mp: heals 12pts; +3 healing per augment mp. ---> QuickCure is more efficient, and used for out of combat. Cure gives the in-combat "oomph" you need when being knocked aorund for 14 each hit. ---> Or, Cure remains 1d6 per mp, base cost 3mp. Another thought, from a previous 2e campaign of mine. I retained the combat cure spells as-is, but I added a ritual-healing spell chain as well. The Ritual Healing spells healed far more, but healed over *minutes* of time, making them out-of-combat-only spells. it could work nicely in this system, though.... QuickCure: 1d6 per mp, with +1 bonus per 2 mp. SlowCure: 6pts per mp, but heals only 1 pt per round (or minute?) per mp spent. QiuckCure, Caster 1: 1d6, 1 mp, 3.5 healing in 1 rd SlowCure, Caster 1: 6pts, 1 mp, takes 6 rounds (1pt/rd) CLW, Caster 1: 1d8+1, 1mp, 5.5 healing in 1 rd. QuickCure, Caster 3: 3d6+1, 3mp, 11.5 healing in 1 rd SlowCure, Caster 3: 18pts, 3mp, takes 6 rounds (3pts/rd) CLW, caster 3: 1d8+3, 1 mp, 7.5 healing in 1 rd CMW, caster 3: 2d8+3, 3mp, 12 healing in 1 rd QuickCure, Caster 5: 5d6+2, 5mp, 19.5 healing in 1 rd SlowCure, Caster 5: 30pts, 5mp, takes 6 rounds (5pts/rd) CLW, caster 5: 1d8+5, 1 mp, 9.5 healing in 1 rd CMW, caster 5: 2d8+5, 3mp, 14 healing in 1 rd CSW, caster 5: 3d8+5, 5mp, 18.5 healing in rd Thus QuickCure remains combat useful, but reduced, but the low-level party (and the high-level party!) benefits from the SlowCure spell after combat, healing the same (at low level) or far more for the same mana.
Nightwhisper 06-21-06, 09:24 AM	I am still listening to suggestions on fixing heal. I do have an idea. What if a first level cure spell was made that didn't scale, while a second level version did have an augment and does scale? Currently, look at the averages in the standard system: Cleric 3rd Cure Light Wounds 1d8+3 (7.5) = 7.5 per mp. Cure Moderate Wounds 2d8+3 (12) = 4 per mp. Cleric 5th Cure Light Wounds 1d8+5 (9.5) = 9.5 per mp. Cure Moderate Wounds 2d8+5 (14) = 4.66~ per mp. Cure Serious Wounds 3d8+5 (18.5) = 3.7 per mp. Cleric 7th Cure Light Wounds 1d8+5 (9.5) = 9.5 per mp. Cure Moderate Wounds 2d8+7 (16) = 5.33~ per mp. Cure Serious Wounds 3d8+7 (20.5) = 4.1 per mp. Cure Critical Wounds 4d8+7 (25) = 3.57~ per mp.If you changed the +1/level to +1/mp like I suggested earlier, the differences would become much smaller. The progression would then be Light 5.5, Moderate 4, Serious 3.7 and Critical 3.57 (a difference of little under two points of healing per mp between Light and Critical, but you take five times as long healing). The return keeps dwindling progressively lower if you go higher (3.5, 3.45~, etc.), of course. That is pretty much unavoidable short of adding more than +1d8 every two mp spent on augmentation, which then gives higher-level parties again more healing available than they would have under the standard system. Of course, at this point one gains access to Mass Cure which, the way it's currently written in your system, heals anywhere between 5d6 to 45d6 (effectively) for 9mp, so between 1.944~ and 17.5~ per mp (in a standard party of four, it's 20d6 total or 7.77~ per mp, a bit over double the efficiency of using a standard Cure as currently written). With +1/mp, the numbers go between 1.5 and 13.5 with 6 for the standard party of four, just a bit better than the 1d8+1 that the basic Cure would give. At 11MP with a party of four, the two would give a return of 8.90~ and 7.27~, respectively (and Heal would give 10/mp if prepared by the caster), and at 13MP they become 9.692~ and 8.153~. Mass Cure has almost reached Heal in efficiency, and keeps on getting better If Mass Cure was reduced to 4d6 base, the party of four would heal 6.22~, 7.63~ and 8.615~ per mp at 9, 11 and 13mp, while the same numbers with 3d6 base would be 4.66~, 6.36~ and 7.538~. Even at 2d6 base, the numbers are 3.11~, 5.09~ and 6.461~. With 3d6 base and +1d6 per 2mp, the numbers are 4.66~, 5.09~ and 5.384~ Mass Heal, just for the sake of comparison, starts with and keeps the efficiency (with a party of four) of 40/mp and can reach the humongous total of 200 hp healed for every mp spent at caster level 20 and with 20 targets to use it on.
Marrethiel 07-20-06, 11:07 AM	I like the system, it's still dnd but with more flexibilty. Could you provide a link to a printer ready file? It'd make it a lot easier to play test. I've been considering a variant for melee combat for a while, I may try and merge the two variations. I think both would become a little more deadly. Do you think Int casters would do more damage per complete spell load than the base caster? Cure Spells I've always thought that the higher the level spell should be inherantly more effictiant than lower level ones. So a Cleric would always be better of with the higher level spell unless only minor healing was needed. Maybe dropping Augments on the Cure line and allow healers to spontaniously drop one of their prepared spells and replace with a cure. Wiz vs Sorc I think there needs to be a style change between the two and this is a great place to put it in. Allow a Wizard to use any spell in his spell book but limit the number of spells he can have in it. When ever he levels up or takes a week or so he can change spells around. This gives them what they were always supposed to be, flexible. Then give Sorcerers a limited amount of spells, say two a level, and allow them access to Augmenting all their spells, up to say one Augement per CHA bonus (still with the limit of not casting a spell with a higher casting cost than there class level). So for example a Wizard might have Lightening Bolt and Fire Ball in his book and can cast either when ever he wants, augemented or not as he choses upon casting. The Sorc would have to chose between one or the other but will always cast it Augmented for no extra cost. I'd then give both casters the same amount of Mana. The Sorc gets more bang per point of mana but they can both cast the same amount of spells a day. Maybe give Sorcs more HP's and let them use those to suppliment Augmenting... something, I don't know what, as long as it is quite different. Just an idea. :)
Xeviat-DM 07-20-06, 05:24 PM	I use Wound/Vitality in my games, and I just began a campaign which utilizes this alternate system. In this system, there are 2 "cure" spells at low levels: Vitalize is a first level spell which heals 1d8 vitality points for every mp you spend on it. Cure is a second level spell which heals 1d8 vitality points and 3 wound points, with an augment of +2 mp for +1d8 vitality and +2 wounds. Both of these have smooth progressions, without one level where they are more valuable than each other. I'm worried that Vitalize might heal too much, but I think it's close enough to Vigor (5 temp hp per MP spent), and suitably weaker than heal (which is currently 10 hp per MP, plus additional curative effects) for it to be fine. In fact, the Psionic heals from Complete Psionic show that my idea is reasonable. Their first level cure is 2 hp per pp, and their 6th level heal is 5 hp per pp; double those and you get 4 for cure and 10 for heal, which is about where I set things. So, in a standard HP system, if I change cure from 1d6 per mp to 1d8 per mp, will you stop complaining? I mean ... will it be fair? =). (The reason I boosted it to 1d6 is the fact that potions felt worthless; 50 gp for 3.5 hp, where it used to be 50 gp for 5.5 hp). PS: I'll see about putting up a printer friendly version of my MP spells on my webspace so that it can be used easier in game. I'll let you know when it is up.
Marrethiel 07-24-06, 04:20 AM	...will you stop complaining? I mean ... will it be fair? =). I certainly wasn't complaining. In fact I like what you've done quite a lot and am considering play testing it myself. I've also been considering a change for melee and this might be the perfect companion to that. Cheers!
Xeviat-DM 07-24-06, 05:02 AM	I certainly wasn't complaining. In fact I like what you've done quite a lot and am considering play testing it myself. I've also been considering a change for melee and this might be the perfect companion to that. Cheers! I was teasing. That's what the smile was about. And what sort of change to melee?
Marrethiel 07-26-06, 12:26 AM	...what sort of change to melee? I'm thinking of introducing a variant where the better you hit the more damage you do. A melee attack will hit against a touch attack and armour will absorb some of the damage. Armour blocks every other point of damage up to its Armour Points (eg 8 for full plate). This would kind of work like Star Trek leaky shields, some damage nearly always gets through until the "shields" are down, or in this case, the armour has blocked its full value. Things I'm considering There needs to be a damage cap of some kind, I'm looking at a combination of base attack or weapon damage. Instead of rolling d8 for a long sword, it does up to 8 points of damage depending on how well you hit. Criticals would ignore armour, not do extra damage. Sneak Attacks need to do a full hit, ie exceed armour or some other mechanic. Maybe every point of damage armour blocks is one less dice of sneak attack. I'm not sure how to do this to preserve overall balance. It might end up being a re write of the mechanic. I'd like to still be able to use the monster manuals, I suspect that doubling hit points from hit dice would suffice, which would also be for players. In effect hit dice always give maximum value.
Prince Indirian 07-26-06, 08:57 AM	If you want to keep armor useful ar higher lvls, introduce a percentage reduction. For example Full plate might have a 40% damage reduction against slashing damage and maybe 30% against blunt. Magic might do 100% damage against full plate, which means you don't reduce any of the damage done. Do get my point ? It's just an idea I had... You friendly neighborhood Prince :D
Marrethiel 07-28-06, 03:40 AM	If you want to keep armor useful ar higher lvls, introduce a percentage reduction. For example Full plate might have a 40% damage reduction against slashing damage and maybe 30% against blunt. Magic might do 100% damage against full plate, which means you don't reduce any of the damage done. Do get my point ? It's just an idea I had... You friendly neighborhood Prince :D I was contemplating having rigid armour different than soft armour, not sure how though.
Soulmage 08-01-06, 10:39 PM	A lot of hard work went into this magic system and I think its a great effort. I would agree with others though. In the spellpoint system the sorcerer class is superfluous. Don't ruin your system by preserving a "sacred cow" from the standard D&D system. There's no need to have to two different flavors of arcane primary casters. Just merge the two into a single class. Also, don't have any kind of "spell preparation." That's another sacred cow you need to axe. The spells known are the spells the caster can cast. Period.
Xeviat-DM 08-02-06, 12:15 AM	A lot of hard work went into this magic system and I think its a great effort. I would agree with others though. In the spellpoint system the sorcerer class is superfluous. Don't ruin your system by preserving a "sacred cow" from the standard D&D system. There's no need to have to two different flavors of arcane primary casters. Just merge the two into a single class. Also, don't have any kind of "spell preparation." That's another sacred cow you need to axe. The spells known are the spells the caster can cast. Period. If I were to axe preperation for anyone, it would be the wizard: I wouldn't mind seeing the wizard being able to cast anything in their spellbook (I'd just make the spellbook more expensive to add to). But I do think preparation fits for divine casters; they're praying for what they want that day. Do you have any ideas on how to do divine casters instead of preparation?
Phoenix Knight 08-02-06, 10:36 AM	You'd have to give them spells like a wizard. Giving them the whole list would be way too powerful.
Xeviat-DM 08-02-06, 03:21 PM	You'd have to give them spells like a wizard. Giving them the whole list would be way too powerful. Hmmm ... so how about a prayer book? Like the wizard, they will learn 2 spells per level, and they can purchase new prayers to scribe, and take feats to learn prayers so they don't need their book all the time. Druids could be changed to being spontaneous.
Phoenix Knight 08-02-06, 03:24 PM	I like both ideas. Honestly I'd set druids to sorcerer progression, since you don't want them to have every spell either.
Xeviat-DM 08-02-06, 03:39 PM	I like both ideas. Honestly I'd set druids to sorcerer progression, since you don't want them to have every spell either. Of course; I meant a sorcerer style spontaneous caster, not spontaneous access to all Druid spells (that would be bad). I do like there being a Sorcerer and a Wizard, and again I wanted my system to be as easy to impliment as possible. In my own games I'm more open to changing things, where I may vastly change clerics, druids, and sorcerers (I also have psions and wizards), but that's not really a discussion for this thread. Has anyone tried it out yet?
MageDance 08-03-06, 11:07 AM	Amazing Xeviat, I had developed a SP system myself, also based on the Unearthed Arcana and the Expanded Psionics, and after taking a look at yours, I was startled to see how close both systems were to each other, some SP for Wiz and Sorcs came extremely close and some even matched just the same, the diferece being mostly that I rounded the numbers though, I find too annoying to give someone 99 SP.. hehehe... The way I see it, it means the systems are good, they were both designed based on carefull planning and balance and preveously released material that had to do with the idea. Well, thanks for posting that, for me it menat being more secure about my system's efficiency.
Xeviat-DM 08-03-06, 07:11 PM	Dancing Mage: I assumed that my idea to convert the PHB rules to XPH rules wasn't too original, someone just needed to take the time to do the work. I too am glad to see that you did the same (I'll share a secret; I came up with the MP totals by this equasion: wizard, cleric, and druid have mp equal to caster level times max spell level times 1.5; sorcerer's is times 2. This works for the others as well, though the ranger/paladin use x1, and the bard used x1.5 I believe; I forget).
MageDance 08-04-06, 09:04 AM	Oh crap, so there is a quick way to do the calculations, what I did was take the UA and XP systems as a base and ajusted by level, taking a look at how many spells they had at a given level, how much theyŽd gain at the next, and went on doing this one by one... In the highest levels (19-20) our systems show the greatest difference in the sorc, i tried to limit it a little the amount of SP the sorcerer would gain, otherwise would be a Time Stop, Limited Wish, Meteor Storm, Wish, abuse.. I mean, basically heŽd sure cast Time Stops lots and lots of time. Well, i never played with the system though, my players are too traditionalists to change anything, if youŽve done so, how is it? Works good?
Xeviat-DM 08-04-06, 06:13 PM	It's worked well so far. I do think that certain spells, like Timestop, should be switched to their XPH versions, but I didn't want to make those changes here. I'm currently trying to get my setting working properly.
Marrethiel 08-29-06, 02:24 AM	It's worked well so far. I do think that certain spells, like Timestop, should be switched to their XPH versions, but I didn't want to make those changes here. I'm currently trying to get my setting working properly. Any chance of a printer friendly version?
Xeviat-DM 08-29-06, 12:49 PM	I'm unsure how to set up a printer-friendly version. Should I just put the file all on one page for "printer friendly", or is there an easy way I can make a link to let you download a word file? I'm not that savy with HTML yet.
Marrethiel 08-29-06, 08:37 PM	I'm unsure how to set up a printer-friendly version. Should I just put the file all on one page for "printer friendly", or is there an easy way I can make a link to let you download a word file? I'm not that savy with HTML yet. I'm not sure either really. I can PM you my email addy if you can email me a word file and I will ask a tech type friend if he can help me with it. Then I'll post a link here. Maybe I (or you) can make a MySpace account... not sure. I can make pdf's here at work too, i think [make's sure the boss isn't watching].
MageDance 08-30-06, 02:26 AM	Well, here are my numbers, the mechanics I guess its pretty simple, what complicates is to find a good number for the SP per level, I believe this is good enough, I've designed this carefully and I believe so did Xeviath's, and both system are very close to each other, so, must be worth taking a look.. yeah, Clerics and Druids use Wizard's amount (in my campaign Paladins and Rangers dont use spells.. never liked that idea.. never seen king Arthur or Lancelot or Aragorn making Abracadabra-Hocus-Pocus stuff... so I never bothered calculating SP for them), and bards.. well... who the heck plays a bard.. (heheh... starting a fight here I guess... waiting for the curses to start...) Level Wiz Sorc ----- ----- ----- 1 2 3 2 4 5 3 7 9 4 12 17 5 18 23 6 28 37 7 38 50 8 52 63 9 70 80 10 87 110 11 100 120 12 115 150 13 132 160 14 150 200 15 170 215 16 185 255 17 210 272 18 230 320 19 255 340 20 270 355
MageDance 08-30-06, 02:32 AM	cant set the table in a nice format.... sorry... (edited) Thanks, edited, looks good now
Xeviat-DM 08-30-06, 10:39 PM	cant set the table in a nice format.... sorry... Write the table using Notepad (if you're on windows) and use TAB to format it. Then put <code> at the beginning and </code> at the end, but exchange <>'s for []'s. As for your numbes, how did you come about them. I like my numbers because there is a formula attached (and thus it is easy to determine new progressions). We've been testing it, and my players have, so far, loved it. I will be writing up my vitalizing varient soon (mp will be halved, and if mp is reduced to half you are fatigued, at 1/4th you are exhausted, but it will replenish quickly). The goal is to let casters act with roughly the same power every fight, just like warriors. To balance the sorcerer, they may get a psudomagical attack that works at all times, like the Warlock, but their MP will be reduced to match the Wizard's (or the Wizard's will be increased to match the Sorcerer's, which ever is more balanced).
MageDance 08-30-06, 11:12 PM	How I got my numbers? Like I said, I started from 1st level, than with the UA and XP as a guide, and also de PhB to see the spells progression I went level by level seeing how much a class would gain and how much would have access to when at the level, then, with the idea of balancing the levels, and not overpowering high level, I came up with a number that seemed reasonable... and like I said, it is amazing how close both our numbers are with both ways of determining it so differently. Oh yeah, many numbers I'd come up with I had to round them, sometimes I would come with a 98 or 99... but then rounded to a 100, or maybe a 48 or 49 and round it to 50.. really.. don't understand how you could give someone 99 SP... its just... too... UGH!!! (99!!! come on...) This idea of making the spellcasters behave more the same throughout the game at first seemed interesting to me, but then I thout about it, I like the concept of mages running out of spells, they are all buffed and strong at first but then try to spend weaker spells first, or save the strong ones for special ocasions. The other way seems better for a videogame-style, more encounters, more fighting. I like the idea of having a big spell.. then you save for just THAT ocasion (though just by using SP this kinda doenst work.. but well.. I just like SP for its simplicity, to track what you got) Though i make all these changes to the spell systems... I doubt i'll ever use them... I barely play now, (my group lives in another town, i've moved), and even when we play, they hate these rules changes, too traditionalist I haven't tried your formula for the SP yet, 'm gonna take a look at it see how it goes.
MageDance 08-30-06, 11:15 PM	Wait, what was it you said 'bout Sorcs? Match their SP with the Wiz?... I think I might've missed something... what would be the point then? I mean, a magical attack to just deal a d4-d6 damage, the Wiz could just use a crossbow or something (yeah, I know that the concept is interesting, much cooler shooting little magical things than firing from a crossbow, but mechanically would be just the same, and the Sorc would be at disadvantage with the Wiz if they get the same SP)
Xeviat-DM 08-30-06, 11:19 PM	Wait, what was it you said 'bout Sorcs? Match their SP with the Wiz?... I think I might've missed something... what would be the point then? 'Cause I said I'd give sorcerers some type of at-will Eldritch Blast-esque ability to compensate. If I gave them something like that, I'd probably have to take away some of their power.
MageDance 08-30-06, 11:21 PM	sorry.. well.. I edited my post, just take a look at it...
Xeviat-DM 08-30-06, 11:23 PM	sorry.. well.. I edited my post, just take a look at it... Not a d4 or a d6 ... try a handful of d4s or d6s. Like 1/2 level-d6, just like the warlock. Agian, I'm still letting stuff swirl around. I'm still testing the basics.
MageDance 08-30-06, 11:33 PM	hmm... 1/2 level d4's... sorcs gonne be big blasters... hmm.. yeah... nice, gonna mess a lot with the class thoug, but sounds nice. What about some way of changing the kind of damage? Maybe some firebolts or icebolts instead of always energy-bolts... like I said though, gonna mess a lot with the class, but could be interesting hey, you got MSN or something, isnt there a chat thing in here in Wiz site? we're almost chatting onlin here
Xeviat-DM 08-31-06, 02:35 AM	xevjag@hotmail.com is my MSN.
Marrethiel 09-01-06, 12:36 AM	'Cause I said I'd give sorcerers some type of at-will Eldritch Blast-esque ability to compensate. If I gave them something like that, I'd probably have to take away some of their power. I think it might be best to give them free use of a meta magic feat. Maybe something like Heighten Spell or (I don't have the boooks here at work) some other feat that improves the power of their spells. Maybe soemthing new that slowly gets better. This way they are still arcane spell users and can't cast more spells per day than a wiz but there spells are better on a per casting basis. In short, Wizards get more variaty, Sorcs get more power. It could go something like. First Level. All Sorceror spells have the Heighten Spell Feat automatically applied. 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th levels: gets free use of meta magic feats. Maybe chosen at one of these levels. By free I mean that the spell level isn't raised when the metamagic feat is applied and doesn't take a full round. The limit would be that he can't cast a spell with more meta magic power then he could otherwise. For example: A 4th level sorc that can cast second level spells can freely add a feat that increases his first level spells by one level and still cast them as first level spells. But cannot add a feat that adds two levels. This or something similar would add more power to the wiz but is still complying to the overall feel of being an arcane user.
Vapthorne 09-01-06, 08:01 PM	Xeviat-DM, My hat goes off to you for creating this spell point system. I'm very impressed, and I hope to get the chance to try in a game it very soon. I really don't know what else to says beside praise. I'm unsure how to set up a printer-friendly version. Should I just put the file all on one page for "printer friendly", or is there an easy way I can make a link to let you download a word file? I'm not that savy with HTML yet. To link to a document all you need to do is upload the document file to the directory that has your webpages, and make a link tag in the code: like this <a href="mana_system.doc">Print Friendly version</a>.
Xeviat-DM 09-01-06, 09:09 PM	Xeviat-DM, My hat goes off to you for creating this spell point system. I'm very impressed, and I hope to get the chance to try in a game it very soon. I really don't know what else to says beside praise. To link to a document all you need to do is upload the document file to the directory that has your webpages, and make a link tag in the code: like this <a href="mana_system.doc">Print Friendly version</a>. Awesome; thanks for the praise and the HTML lesson. I'll see about putting up a printer friendly version (a wordpad file so more people can read it) as soon as I do the next revision.
Elrabin 09-01-06, 11:31 PM	I know you weren't going for a rebalance with your original project, but here's the numbers I came up with based on my idea of what class balance should be. Wizards, Clerics, Druids - Gain 12 + Mod SP per level Sorcerers - Gain 18 + Mod SP per level Bards - Gain 8 + Mod SP per level Rangers, Pallies - Gain 4 + Mod SP per level @ level 4 Blackguard - 4 + Mod Assassin - 6 + Mod This frontloads the classes a lot, but that IMO is a good thing since I feel that casters are severely weak in the early game, and this is a rebalancing attempt. The amount of extra spellpoints over what you currently grant the classes at level 20 is not a huge amount higher, say 1 level 9 spell worth. You could probably cut it back by 15% or so, making it: Wiz, Clr, Dru - 10 + mod Sorc - 15 + mod Bard - 6 + mod Rng, Pal - 3 + mod Blk - 3 + mod Asa - 4 + mod and that would give the spellcasters a little less power overall if you feel that spellcasters are too powerful.