Opinion poll: Spell Points [Archive] - Wizards Community

Opinion poll: Spell Points [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Bubba333
04-28-05, 06:24 AM So, who's for or against them and why? Also, who's for or against the "1=-10 and 20=+30" variant for d20 rolls?
Steelpunk
04-29-05, 11:02 AM I'm all for spell points. They extend the usefulness and survivability of casters, and make certain tactics like counterspelling much more viable. Our campaigns tend to involve a lot of exhaustive running battles and prolonged survival in hostile areas, so spell points have been a boon to us.

Plus, I always found the original D&D method of casting to be just plain silly and wholly illogical, especially since other game systems long ago moved into the more user-friendly "points" systems.
Wilds
04-29-05, 12:30 PM i think spell points are good for spontanious casters, not a wizard,druid or cleric. It makes more sense for spontanious casters to have spell points
Templar_Prime
05-02-05, 11:56 AM Well, the groups I've played in since ADD2nd have all agreed that memorizing/perparing spells are really, really stupid. Right now we're tweaking the spellpoint system and a couple of other mods to make all spellcasters spontaneous. (the balance issue is one reason we're not done yet)
Meshakhad
05-02-05, 05:52 PM I vote no. Not that spell points are a bad idea, but I use psionics, and I want psionics to keep its distinctive flavor (including the power point system and its flexibility).
Xeviat-DM
05-02-05, 06:01 PM I prefer spell-points, but I also believe that one has to convert spells to a more XPH psionics-like system for it to be balanced. I am currently working on converting all of the spells to an augmentation mechanic, and I'll have it posted soon.
Bubba333
05-02-05, 06:26 PM So the Unearthed Arcana SP system sucks when compared to the XPH? At first glance it seemed ok to me, but I haven't had a chance to use it yet.

As a tanget the one thing I ALWAYS use is the Class Defense Bonus. I find the concept of raising your ability to attack, but not defend, silly.
Worguron
05-02-05, 09:56 PM My DM uses the Spell Point system listed in Unearthed Arcana with one modification. Instead of Sorcerors barely having any more spell points than wizards or clerics at level 20, he takes the Wizard spellpoints and multiplies them by 1.5.
weasel fierce
05-02-05, 10:00 PM If I want spell points, I'll play Runequest or GURPS.

When I play D&D, I want Vancian magic.
Krelios
05-03-05, 01:51 PM Having used Spell Points for a long while now, I can say with certainty that it GREATLY benefits some classes and SCREWS others. Since healing/buffing/etc. spells cost 1/3/5/7/9/etc to cast and that never changes, but any damage dealing spells have to pay extra to be at the appropriate level of damage (i.e. you pay 1 point per die of damage to a fireball beyond the 5 [or 6] you get automatically at the minimum needed to cast the spell), spell points makes many spell strictly inferior to others. If I ever use spell points again, it will be a homebrew system and not the crap system in UA.
caeruleus
05-03-05, 02:57 PM I don't like spell points, mainly because I use psionics, which has a much better point system. The one found in UA is ad hoc, and doesn't go far enough in giving it a spell point feel.

Besides, I really like Vancian magic. You can make perfect sense of it, if you expand your view of magic beyond how it works in a few games.
James Wildspell
05-04-05, 02:20 AM So, who's for or against them and why? Also, who's for or against the "1=-10 and 20=+30" variant for d20 rolls?

Against. Aghast. Appalled. Amazed. Antipathetic.
:pbbbtt: :nonono: :thumbsdow :turkey:
samoosa691
05-06-05, 11:02 PM I like it, but the only thing I don't like is always having to use a minimum for a fireball, it totally screws over the player character if she/he is an arcane caster. So I modified it, I just use normal rules for damage dealing spells, it doesn't make sense for you to pay extra points to add damage dice to your spells, they should progress as you do, as far as everything else I like it..., especially spell point vitalization.
Otaku Ashram
05-07-05, 05:24 AM I utterly despise Vancian magic, so spellpoints are like the holy grail to me...or were. Now that the Warlock exists, I'd prefer to simply have more incantations and not have to worry about keeping track of uses at all. :schemes:
baalzamon999
05-11-05, 08:28 PM As a tanget the one thing I ALWAYS use is the Class Defense Bonus. I find the concept of raising your ability to attack, but not defend, silly.

Well, you do pose an interesting question, but the reason that WOTC did that in the first place was because armor adds to AC, but weapons don't add to attack rolls. This was a way of balancing it all out.
Ulorian
05-11-05, 09:40 PM Well, you do pose an interesting question, but the reason that WOTC did that in the first place was because armor adds to AC, but weapons don't add to attack rolls. This was a way of balancing it all out.Bad analogy. Weapons don't add to attack rolls, but BAB does. The higher the level, the bigger the discrepancy between attack roll and AC, because attack roll (BAB) increases with level and AC doesn't.
Johnny Cache
05-11-05, 09:51 PM One of the groups I play in switched to the spell point system, and everyone there seems to be very happy with it. I'm playing a Paladin, so I didn't see that much difference. So count my group as one vote :) and two votes :D.

As for the "1=-10 and 20=+30" variant - sorry, haven't tried it. Offhand, it sounds like it wouldn't make a difference except in very unbalanced encounters, so why bother?
Dartak
05-11-05, 09:59 PM I love spell points. im using a variant right now, where every spell casting class gets a seprate magic hit dice that their main score adds to. (so sorcerers would get 1d12+cha mod)

also, they get some thing almost like a spell BAB, called focus. sorcerers get to cast more spells per round the higher there focus is. for other classes, this is just a limit to how much mana they can use on one spell. so a wizard at 20th could use 20 mana on one spell but a sorcerer at 20th can cast spells that cost 20/15/10/5. this over powers sorcerers a little, but they run out of spells much faster if they use all these. im thinking about having sorcerers make a concentration check every spell after the first two.
Max the Immortal
05-13-05, 07:02 AM I dislike the UA spell point sytem for two reasons:

1) Point cost of spells is based only on spell level.
2) The only way to regain spell points is by resting.

I used to be into Palladium's games. I consider D20 vastly superior, but I think that Palladium has a great spell point system (in theory; the clunky rules gum things up a bit in practice). In Palladium, many spells cost so many PPE points (I'll just use the term mana from this point on) to cast that a human mage would have to either spend most of his mana to cast one of them, or would have to get ahold of extra mana through complicated means (being at a magical nexus point during a full moon, solstice, or solar eclipse; several mages pooling their mana, dozens or even hundreds of lay people [read: parishoners] participating in a ceremony, ritual sacrifice, etc.). I think this could be a good way of balancing some D&D spells instead of or in addition to costly or XP components; for example, a 9th-level cleric could still cast Raise Dead, but he would likely need to enlist the help of other clerics of his deity, or cast it on consecrated ground during a holy day; a 13th-level cleric could cast the same spell single-handed, but wouldn't be able to cast many other spells that day; a 20th-level cleric could cast the spell in the middle of an adventure between battles. I also liked how if you managed to kill a creature with a lot of mana (in this system all living beings have at least some mana, even if they can't use it, and supernatural creature tend to have a lot of it), you could absorb the energy to recharge your reserves. The numbers behind the system ought to be totally re-worked, but it's a good system.
baalzamon999
05-13-05, 01:54 PM Bad analogy. Weapons don't add to attack rolls, but BAB does. The higher the level, the bigger the discrepancy between attack roll and AC, because attack roll (BAB) increases with level and AC doesn't.

I'm just saying that this is what Wizards did. In order to properly balance everything, you would need either class defense to balance BAB and armor provides damage reduction (to balance against weapon damage) or weapons that provide a bonus to attack to balance armor bonuses, and class defense to balance vs. BAB.

If this doesn't all make sense, let me say that I'm sorry for my lack of cohesive vision.
7hePatrician
05-13-05, 11:44 PM I vote no. Not that spell points are a bad idea, but I use psionics, and I want psionics to keep its distinctive flavor (including the power point system and its flexibility).

agreed. im playing a psion in my current campaign, and the spell point sytem takes most of the uniqueness out of my class
Arterion
05-14-05, 01:17 AM I prefer both, though I dislike having to "augment" your powers with more spell points to increase variable effects. I'd toss that rule. As far as critcal rolls go, I've always despised have a 5% chance to either fail or succeed. I'd say use either the -10 +30 rules or use the Bell Curve rolling rules, which are more realistic. Go 3d6. (Steve Jackson owns.)
Dr_Draco
05-14-05, 02:51 PM In general, I don't see a problem with spell points. However, not all classes should have them.

Actually, the only class I have applied spell points to is the Bard. A spell-point system makes much more sense for them than the Vancian.

Also, I don't want to impede make magic too much like psionics. Sure, I use the transparency rules, but I prefer to have my divine, arcane, and psionics to have at least some differences outside flavor ;).
Neff
05-14-05, 04:58 PM I've converted all spellcasting in my world to spell points, except that full casters get more points at higher level (e.g. the sorcerer gets 486 base points at level 20). The Vancian system strikes me as being too limiting for prepatory casters.
Kenneth.T.Cole
05-14-05, 07:57 PM Spell Points are more logical, but if you are going to use them you must be careful. They can get out of hand quick, with your 10th level wizard throwing off as many fireballs as possible. D&D's magic system is based strictly around a system of spell casters gaining a certain number of spells per level, because if they got more of the higher level spells they would be nearly unstoppable. Spell points can throw off game balance and severely limit non-casters.

I suggest you consider making the system more difficult. Mechanically you should make spell points for casting higher level spells much more. You might, in this way, restrict a 5th level character to casting 1 3rd level spell (which would be normal), but in exchange he would lose so many spell points he wouldn't be able to cast as many 2nd level spells as he might normally. What he gains instead is the option of not casting a 3rd level spell at all and instead casting many more 1st and 2nd level spells than he would normally.

I have never tried to work out the method, but it is there.

Alternatively you could give the spell casters a set number of "Spells" from each "Circle" of spells.

1st Circle 0 level Spells
2nd Circle 1st and 2nd level spells
3rd Circle 3rd and 4th level spells
4th Circle 5th and 6th level spells
5th Circle 7th and 8th level spells
6th Circle 9th level spells

The character could then exchange 1 spell from a circle for two of the circle beneath it, or three for a circle two beneath it, and then four, etc..
Hence:
1 1st Circle Spell = 1 1st
1 2nd Circle Spell = 1 2nd, 2 1stt
1 3rd Circle Spell = 1 3rd, 2 2nd, 3 1st
1 4th Circle Spell = 1 4th, 2 3rd, 3 2nd, 4 1st
1 5th Circle Spell = 1 5th, 2 4th, 3 3rd, 4 2nd, 5 1st
1 6th Circle Spell = 1 6th, 2 5th, 3 4th, 4 3rd, 5 2nd, 6 1st

This is a very crude way to look at it though. The character should still only have access to spells based on the normal chart (5th level for 3rd level spells). You would just use the above charts to convert one spell to another. In other words, a 5th level Spell (4th Circle), could be exchanged for 2 4th level spells, or 2 3rd level spells, or 1 3rd and 1 4th (both 3rd Circle). However, a 6th level spell can be exchanged for 1 5th, 2 4th, 2 3nd, or 1 3rd and 1 4th.

This is just an idea though, off the top of my head. I'm not sure how well it would work. It would need experimenting.

In the end, I wouldn't mess with Spell Points until you are very comfortable with the magic system and understand the balance of the game well enough to manage the spell points.

Ken Cole

Ken Cole
Lawrence
05-14-05, 10:37 PM I'm against the spell points, but only because Psionics already use them, so I consider it meshing ideas (and I think the points given are somewhat nerfed too, or too much. one of those).

What I did like, however, was the recarging magic via time (that 1d6+1 rounds till you can use again, etc). It had a mix of flavors I enjoyed, and combined with a few extra variants to avoid major exploitation, I considered it a good alternative.

Now to find something to beef up the fighters and I'm set.
baalzamon999
05-16-05, 07:06 PM I understand when some people are complaining about how strict the Vancian system is, but, no offense, you can't really talk about logic when you're discussing a completely imaginary game concept.
Arterion
05-17-05, 03:18 AM I understand when some people are complaining about how strict the Vancian system is, but, no offense, you can't really talk about logic when you're discussing a completely imaginary game concept.

Just because the system of magic in D&D is imaginary doesn't mean it doesn't follow a logical system.
weasel fierce
05-17-05, 03:34 AM Vancian magic is as logical as spell points are.

And Jack Vance is a better writer than well, anyone in recent history ;) So he should get preference
mrshupizdumaterinu
05-17-05, 05:52 AM Years ago, back in the days of 2nd edition, I wanted to implement spell point system. I disliked memorizing spells.

Now, with many good games behind me, I figured I love Vancian magic. The process of preparing spells is so unique and creates an image of the mage that really fits my liking. Just imagine - if spell points were an option, wizards would memorize a bunch of spells from all areas and would run into the adventure ahead. With preparing spells, wizards are careful, intelligent bunch, more prone to investigate and gather resources then flat out go and meet the problem face to face.

Besides, it gives an image of magic as a force that must be tapped and shaped into an effect, not something that mage draws from himself. Which matches with the idea of magic in my campagin setting. And other D&D settings by TSR and WotC.
baalzamon999
05-17-05, 02:03 PM Just because the system of magic in D&D is imaginary doesn't mean it doesn't follow a logical system.

I agree, but like weasel said, it's just as logical. The system was created for this game, thus, it's more logical to use Vancian magic for this game than spell points, because that's the way the imaginary world works.

mrshupizdumaterinu, I agree. This system promotes a less hack-and-slash style to spellcasting. If you want a lot of battles and magic, maybe spell points are for you. But the thought that must be put into preparing spells, this promotes skill use and information gathering. If you want to be a mobile artillery platform, that's what they made the sorceror for! :)
Arterion
05-18-05, 04:38 AM The rules in the UA for spell points still require you to prepare your spells (in the case of a wizard). It just gives you more versatility with how you cast those spells. As far as the story for the world goes, a lot of changes have been made, and this one doesn't really alter any storylines. As I can best recall, this modification would not conflit with any of the storyline.

The argument, "That way it is makes most sense because it's already that way," is without any substance.
weasel fierce
05-18-05, 04:46 AM The argument, "That way it is makes most sense because it's already that way," is without any substance.

As is the same argument for the other side.
Arterion
05-18-05, 05:29 AM As is the same argument for the other side.

That makes no sense. The people making arguments for spellpoints can't make the "it's already that way" argument because, quite simply, it isn't. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant something else, but I have no idea what. ;p
weasel fierce
05-18-05, 01:48 PM The usual claim is that its somehow more "logical", which, of course, it is not.
mrshupizdumaterinu
05-18-05, 03:31 PM preparing spells is cool.
Arterion
05-18-05, 10:46 PM It's also not less logical.
weasel fierce
05-19-05, 01:38 AM It's also not less logical.

No, because neither system has any logic to them at all, except they are taken from two different places.
One is from Jack Vance's Dying Earth series, the other is from Runequest (which I believe is the first RPG to use spell points)

Whichever system you prefer is fine.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bubba333 04-28-05, 06:24 AM	So, who's for or against them and why? Also, who's for or against the "1=-10 and 20=+30" variant for d20 rolls?
Steelpunk 04-29-05, 11:02 AM	I'm all for spell points. They extend the usefulness and survivability of casters, and make certain tactics like counterspelling much more viable. Our campaigns tend to involve a lot of exhaustive running battles and prolonged survival in hostile areas, so spell points have been a boon to us. Plus, I always found the original D&D method of casting to be just plain silly and wholly illogical, especially since other game systems long ago moved into the more user-friendly "points" systems.
Wilds 04-29-05, 12:30 PM	i think spell points are good for spontanious casters, not a wizard,druid or cleric. It makes more sense for spontanious casters to have spell points
Templar_Prime 05-02-05, 11:56 AM	Well, the groups I've played in since ADD2nd have all agreed that memorizing/perparing spells are really, really stupid. Right now we're tweaking the spellpoint system and a couple of other mods to make all spellcasters spontaneous. (the balance issue is one reason we're not done yet)
Meshakhad 05-02-05, 05:52 PM	I vote no. Not that spell points are a bad idea, but I use psionics, and I want psionics to keep its distinctive flavor (including the power point system and its flexibility).
Xeviat-DM 05-02-05, 06:01 PM	I prefer spell-points, but I also believe that one has to convert spells to a more XPH psionics-like system for it to be balanced. I am currently working on converting all of the spells to an augmentation mechanic, and I'll have it posted soon.
Bubba333 05-02-05, 06:26 PM	So the Unearthed Arcana SP system sucks when compared to the XPH? At first glance it seemed ok to me, but I haven't had a chance to use it yet. As a tanget the one thing I ALWAYS use is the Class Defense Bonus. I find the concept of raising your ability to attack, but not defend, silly.
Worguron 05-02-05, 09:56 PM	My DM uses the Spell Point system listed in Unearthed Arcana with one modification. Instead of Sorcerors barely having any more spell points than wizards or clerics at level 20, he takes the Wizard spellpoints and multiplies them by 1.5.
weasel fierce 05-02-05, 10:00 PM	If I want spell points, I'll play Runequest or GURPS. When I play D&D, I want Vancian magic.
Krelios 05-03-05, 01:51 PM	Having used Spell Points for a long while now, I can say with certainty that it GREATLY benefits some classes and SCREWS others. Since healing/buffing/etc. spells cost 1/3/5/7/9/etc to cast and that never changes, but any damage dealing spells have to pay extra to be at the appropriate level of damage (i.e. you pay 1 point per die of damage to a fireball beyond the 5 [or 6] you get automatically at the minimum needed to cast the spell), spell points makes many spell strictly inferior to others. If I ever use spell points again, it will be a homebrew system and not the crap system in UA.
caeruleus 05-03-05, 02:57 PM	I don't like spell points, mainly because I use psionics, which has a much better point system. The one found in UA is ad hoc, and doesn't go far enough in giving it a spell point feel. Besides, I really like Vancian magic. You can make perfect sense of it, if you expand your view of magic beyond how it works in a few games.
James Wildspell 05-04-05, 02:20 AM	So, who's for or against them and why? Also, who's for or against the "1=-10 and 20=+30" variant for d20 rolls? Against. Aghast. Appalled. Amazed. Antipathetic. :pbbbtt: :nonono: :thumbsdow :turkey:
samoosa691 05-06-05, 11:02 PM	I like it, but the only thing I don't like is always having to use a minimum for a fireball, it totally screws over the player character if she/he is an arcane caster. So I modified it, I just use normal rules for damage dealing spells, it doesn't make sense for you to pay extra points to add damage dice to your spells, they should progress as you do, as far as everything else I like it..., especially spell point vitalization.
Otaku Ashram 05-07-05, 05:24 AM	I utterly despise Vancian magic, so spellpoints are like the holy grail to me...or were. Now that the Warlock exists, I'd prefer to simply have more incantations and not have to worry about keeping track of uses at all. :schemes:
baalzamon999 05-11-05, 08:28 PM	As a tanget the one thing I ALWAYS use is the Class Defense Bonus. I find the concept of raising your ability to attack, but not defend, silly. Well, you do pose an interesting question, but the reason that WOTC did that in the first place was because armor adds to AC, but weapons don't add to attack rolls. This was a way of balancing it all out.
Ulorian 05-11-05, 09:40 PM	Well, you do pose an interesting question, but the reason that WOTC did that in the first place was because armor adds to AC, but weapons don't add to attack rolls. This was a way of balancing it all out.Bad analogy. Weapons don't add to attack rolls, but BAB does. The higher the level, the bigger the discrepancy between attack roll and AC, because attack roll (BAB) increases with level and AC doesn't.
Johnny Cache 05-11-05, 09:51 PM	One of the groups I play in switched to the spell point system, and everyone there seems to be very happy with it. I'm playing a Paladin, so I didn't see that much difference. So count my group as one vote :) and two votes :D. As for the "1=-10 and 20=+30" variant - sorry, haven't tried it. Offhand, it sounds like it wouldn't make a difference except in very unbalanced encounters, so why bother?
Dartak 05-11-05, 09:59 PM	I love spell points. im using a variant right now, where every spell casting class gets a seprate magic hit dice that their main score adds to. (so sorcerers would get 1d12+cha mod) also, they get some thing almost like a spell BAB, called focus. sorcerers get to cast more spells per round the higher there focus is. for other classes, this is just a limit to how much mana they can use on one spell. so a wizard at 20th could use 20 mana on one spell but a sorcerer at 20th can cast spells that cost 20/15/10/5. this over powers sorcerers a little, but they run out of spells much faster if they use all these. im thinking about having sorcerers make a concentration check every spell after the first two.
Max the Immortal 05-13-05, 07:02 AM	I dislike the UA spell point sytem for two reasons: 1) Point cost of spells is based only on spell level. 2) The only way to regain spell points is by resting. I used to be into Palladium's games. I consider D20 vastly superior, but I think that Palladium has a great spell point system (in theory; the clunky rules gum things up a bit in practice). In Palladium, many spells cost so many PPE points (I'll just use the term mana from this point on) to cast that a human mage would have to either spend most of his mana to cast one of them, or would have to get ahold of extra mana through complicated means (being at a magical nexus point during a full moon, solstice, or solar eclipse; several mages pooling their mana, dozens or even hundreds of lay people [read: parishoners] participating in a ceremony, ritual sacrifice, etc.). I think this could be a good way of balancing some D&D spells instead of or in addition to costly or XP components; for example, a 9th-level cleric could still cast Raise Dead, but he would likely need to enlist the help of other clerics of his deity, or cast it on consecrated ground during a holy day; a 13th-level cleric could cast the same spell single-handed, but wouldn't be able to cast many other spells that day; a 20th-level cleric could cast the spell in the middle of an adventure between battles. I also liked how if you managed to kill a creature with a lot of mana (in this system all living beings have at least some mana, even if they can't use it, and supernatural creature tend to have a lot of it), you could absorb the energy to recharge your reserves. The numbers behind the system ought to be totally re-worked, but it's a good system.
baalzamon999 05-13-05, 01:54 PM	Bad analogy. Weapons don't add to attack rolls, but BAB does. The higher the level, the bigger the discrepancy between attack roll and AC, because attack roll (BAB) increases with level and AC doesn't. I'm just saying that this is what Wizards did. In order to properly balance everything, you would need either class defense to balance BAB and armor provides damage reduction (to balance against weapon damage) or weapons that provide a bonus to attack to balance armor bonuses, and class defense to balance vs. BAB. If this doesn't all make sense, let me say that I'm sorry for my lack of cohesive vision.
7hePatrician 05-13-05, 11:44 PM	I vote no. Not that spell points are a bad idea, but I use psionics, and I want psionics to keep its distinctive flavor (including the power point system and its flexibility). agreed. im playing a psion in my current campaign, and the spell point sytem takes most of the uniqueness out of my class
Arterion 05-14-05, 01:17 AM	I prefer both, though I dislike having to "augment" your powers with more spell points to increase variable effects. I'd toss that rule. As far as critcal rolls go, I've always despised have a 5% chance to either fail or succeed. I'd say use either the -10 +30 rules or use the Bell Curve rolling rules, which are more realistic. Go 3d6. (Steve Jackson owns.)
Dr_Draco 05-14-05, 02:51 PM	In general, I don't see a problem with spell points. However, not all classes should have them. Actually, the only class I have applied spell points to is the Bard. A spell-point system makes much more sense for them than the Vancian. Also, I don't want to impede make magic too much like psionics. Sure, I use the transparency rules, but I prefer to have my divine, arcane, and psionics to have at least some differences outside flavor ;).
Neff 05-14-05, 04:58 PM	I've converted all spellcasting in my world to spell points, except that full casters get more points at higher level (e.g. the sorcerer gets 486 base points at level 20). The Vancian system strikes me as being too limiting for prepatory casters.
Kenneth.T.Cole 05-14-05, 07:57 PM	Spell Points are more logical, but if you are going to use them you must be careful. They can get out of hand quick, with your 10th level wizard throwing off as many fireballs as possible. D&D's magic system is based strictly around a system of spell casters gaining a certain number of spells per level, because if they got more of the higher level spells they would be nearly unstoppable. Spell points can throw off game balance and severely limit non-casters. I suggest you consider making the system more difficult. Mechanically you should make spell points for casting higher level spells much more. You might, in this way, restrict a 5th level character to casting 1 3rd level spell (which would be normal), but in exchange he would lose so many spell points he wouldn't be able to cast as many 2nd level spells as he might normally. What he gains instead is the option of not casting a 3rd level spell at all and instead casting many more 1st and 2nd level spells than he would normally. I have never tried to work out the method, but it is there. Alternatively you could give the spell casters a set number of "Spells" from each "Circle" of spells. 1st Circle 0 level Spells 2nd Circle 1st and 2nd level spells 3rd Circle 3rd and 4th level spells 4th Circle 5th and 6th level spells 5th Circle 7th and 8th level spells 6th Circle 9th level spells The character could then exchange 1 spell from a circle for two of the circle beneath it, or three for a circle two beneath it, and then four, etc.. Hence: 1 1st Circle Spell = 1 1st 1 2nd Circle Spell = 1 2nd, 2 1stt 1 3rd Circle Spell = 1 3rd, 2 2nd, 3 1st 1 4th Circle Spell = 1 4th, 2 3rd, 3 2nd, 4 1st 1 5th Circle Spell = 1 5th, 2 4th, 3 3rd, 4 2nd, 5 1st 1 6th Circle Spell = 1 6th, 2 5th, 3 4th, 4 3rd, 5 2nd, 6 1st This is a very crude way to look at it though. The character should still only have access to spells based on the normal chart (5th level for 3rd level spells). You would just use the above charts to convert one spell to another. In other words, a 5th level Spell (4th Circle), could be exchanged for 2 4th level spells, or 2 3rd level spells, or 1 3rd and 1 4th (both 3rd Circle). However, a 6th level spell can be exchanged for 1 5th, 2 4th, 2 3nd, or 1 3rd and 1 4th. This is just an idea though, off the top of my head. I'm not sure how well it would work. It would need experimenting. In the end, I wouldn't mess with Spell Points until you are very comfortable with the magic system and understand the balance of the game well enough to manage the spell points. Ken Cole Ken Cole
Lawrence 05-14-05, 10:37 PM	I'm against the spell points, but only because Psionics already use them, so I consider it meshing ideas (and I think the points given are somewhat nerfed too, or too much. one of those). What I did like, however, was the recarging magic via time (that 1d6+1 rounds till you can use again, etc). It had a mix of flavors I enjoyed, and combined with a few extra variants to avoid major exploitation, I considered it a good alternative. Now to find something to beef up the fighters and I'm set.
baalzamon999 05-16-05, 07:06 PM	I understand when some people are complaining about how strict the Vancian system is, but, no offense, you can't really talk about logic when you're discussing a completely imaginary game concept.
Arterion 05-17-05, 03:18 AM	I understand when some people are complaining about how strict the Vancian system is, but, no offense, you can't really talk about logic when you're discussing a completely imaginary game concept. Just because the system of magic in D&D is imaginary doesn't mean it doesn't follow a logical system.
weasel fierce 05-17-05, 03:34 AM	Vancian magic is as logical as spell points are. And Jack Vance is a better writer than well, anyone in recent history ;) So he should get preference
mrshupizdumaterinu 05-17-05, 05:52 AM	Years ago, back in the days of 2nd edition, I wanted to implement spell point system. I disliked memorizing spells. Now, with many good games behind me, I figured I love Vancian magic. The process of preparing spells is so unique and creates an image of the mage that really fits my liking. Just imagine - if spell points were an option, wizards would memorize a bunch of spells from all areas and would run into the adventure ahead. With preparing spells, wizards are careful, intelligent bunch, more prone to investigate and gather resources then flat out go and meet the problem face to face. Besides, it gives an image of magic as a force that must be tapped and shaped into an effect, not something that mage draws from himself. Which matches with the idea of magic in my campagin setting. And other D&D settings by TSR and WotC.
baalzamon999 05-17-05, 02:03 PM	Just because the system of magic in D&D is imaginary doesn't mean it doesn't follow a logical system. I agree, but like weasel said, it's just as logical. The system was created for this game, thus, it's more logical to use Vancian magic for this game than spell points, because that's the way the imaginary world works. mrshupizdumaterinu, I agree. This system promotes a less hack-and-slash style to spellcasting. If you want a lot of battles and magic, maybe spell points are for you. But the thought that must be put into preparing spells, this promotes skill use and information gathering. If you want to be a mobile artillery platform, that's what they made the sorceror for! :)
Arterion 05-18-05, 04:38 AM	The rules in the UA for spell points still require you to prepare your spells (in the case of a wizard). It just gives you more versatility with how you cast those spells. As far as the story for the world goes, a lot of changes have been made, and this one doesn't really alter any storylines. As I can best recall, this modification would not conflit with any of the storyline. The argument, "That way it is makes most sense because it's already that way," is without any substance.
weasel fierce 05-18-05, 04:46 AM	The argument, "That way it is makes most sense because it's already that way," is without any substance. As is the same argument for the other side.
Arterion 05-18-05, 05:29 AM	As is the same argument for the other side. That makes no sense. The people making arguments for spellpoints can't make the "it's already that way" argument because, quite simply, it isn't. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant something else, but I have no idea what. ;p
weasel fierce 05-18-05, 01:48 PM	The usual claim is that its somehow more "logical", which, of course, it is not.
mrshupizdumaterinu 05-18-05, 03:31 PM	preparing spells is cool.
Arterion 05-18-05, 10:46 PM	It's also not less logical.
weasel fierce 05-19-05, 01:38 AM	It's also not less logical. No, because neither system has any logic to them at all, except they are taken from two different places. One is from Jack Vance's Dying Earth series, the other is from Runequest (which I believe is the first RPG to use spell points) Whichever system you prefer is fine.