Rolling Spell Points [Archive] - Wizards Community

Rolling Spell Points [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Ricardo Martinez Garza
03-12-04, 07:32 PM It is curious that no one has suggested this, but why not instead of having a fixed amount of spell points, better to roll them at each level:

Sorcerers 4d6
Clerics/Druids/Wizard 3d6+1
Bards 2d6+1
Paladin/Ranger/Hexblade 1d6

With this system by 20th level they would have on average the same amount of spell points in table 5-3, even though at low levels they would have more spell points at their disposal. Obviously the amount can be modified by high Charisma, Wisdom or Intelligence. Also, they start to roll for spell points at the level they have at least 1 spell point.
Wil_Hyral
03-12-04, 10:33 PM The gain for spell points isn't a linear one, is probably why that idea wasn't suggested in the book. Thus, the number of dice would have to change to reflect the scale. I imagine that's a less-than-engaging system to keep track of.

I dunno though. I like the idea when Rifts used it. But they had fixed "Spell points" (they were ISP or the other kind whose acronym evades me at the moment), with a variable couple dice as the extra. Thus it was like 30 + 2d6 ISP.
Ricardo Martinez Garza
03-13-04, 02:24 PM Originally posted by Wil_Hyral
The gain for spell points isn't a linear one, is probably why that idea wasn't suggested in the book. Thus, the number of dice would have to change to reflect the scale. I imagine that's a less-than-engaging system to keep track of.

But the point is that once you have a spell point system, there is no reason to have a non-linear power increase. Besides it is kind of lame to be a 1st level wizard (that supposedly has spent decades learning the ways of arcane magic) and cast only one 1st level spell. At least in 3rd edition the tendency is to be able to cast more than one spell at 1st level (thanks to 0 level spells and bonus spells due to high mental scores). Why would it be wrong for a wizard to cast ten 1st level spells, it would make them useful at low levels (instead of the usual "I'm frail and worthless" character they tend to be). As a side note I would give magic misile a saving throw (it is a broken spell, but no one wants to fix it because it is about the only good thing about being a 1st level mage).
Bifford
03-13-04, 03:16 PM I don't like it. SPs are too important to casters, much more than their own hitpoints. A wizard can cope with low hitpoints with one or two spells, and perhaps a magical item. But low spells will damage his effectiveness too much.

Would you have fighters roll their BAB increases?
Ricardo Martinez Garza
03-13-04, 03:46 PM Originally posted by Bifford
I don't like it. SPs are too important to casters, much more than their own hitpoints. A wizard can cope with low hitpoints with one or two spells, and perhaps a magical item. But low spells will damage his effectiveness too much.

I think you are being greedy, since at 1st level even if you roll 1 on all dices (quite unlikely) you would still have more spell points than table 5-3 gives. On the long run it is quite dificult to have fewer spell points than average since lots of d6 will be rolled; remember that 3d6 makes a probability curve where most results are 10 o 11, quite diferent from rolling 1d20 where chances for any result are equal.

Would you have fighters roll their BAB increases?

Nope, but hit points (the very life of any combat class) are rolled.
Masterful_Norg
03-14-04, 11:35 AM I was able to find a pattern in the spell point tables for the sorceror and wizard, thank god, so that we don't find ourselves going, "blargh" at epic. I have got to see if I can do the same for the other classes.

I used to think that rolling spell points would be the way, but that majorly stomps on the ballance of power between seperate spellcasters, besides, I only use the average hitdice numbers for characters and monsters anyway.
Wil_Hyral
03-14-04, 06:39 PM Stop. This is annoying as hell; don't argue with people about their opinions. In their (and my) opinion, this system isn't worth paying attention.

A 1st level wizard going to 2nd level doesn't gain as many spell points as a 19th going to 20th. The dice would have to differ to reflect that relationship. It's not like hit points, where it's always 1d4. Thus, the grievance. Make sense yet? We don't need to discuss the point of jack, since all I'm saying is the dice would have to change to reflect the existing system.

If you don't want to reflect the existing system, then don't even bother at all bringing it up in the UA. We can all just make our own zany rules without the aide of a book if none of us care about existing examples of balance.

PS: a first-level wizard casting 3d6+1 spells per day could make me laugh if I were only slightly more inebriated.

Whoever brought up the fighter BAB progression being linear -thank you. That's even better than my argument about the nonlinear progression in spell pointage.
Ricardo Martinez Garza
03-14-04, 07:22 PM Originally posted by Wil_Hyral
Stop. This is annoying as hell; don't argue with people about their opinions. In their (and my) opinion, this system isn't worth paying attention.

You will have to excuse me but a message board is a place to confront ideas, if you don't like it is none of my fault.

A 1st level wizard going to 2nd level doesn't gain as many spell points as a 19th going to 20th. The dice would have to differ to reflect that relationship. It's not like hit points, where it's always 1d4. Thus, the grievance. Make sense yet? We don't need to discuss the point of jack, since all I'm saying is the dice would have to change to reflect the existing system.

As I already said, I disagree and your post doesn't add anything interesting at all nor acknowledges what I replied to your post.
Elrond's Dad
03-17-04, 06:39 PM Can you share that pattern, Masterful Norg?
Wil_Hyral
03-18-04, 02:48 AM What do you mean you disagree? It's in black and white. A wizard going from level 1 to 2 gains less spell points than one going from 19 to 20. There's nothing to disagree with, it's in the books.

Your idea doesn't fly with some people. If you're not going to listen, then quit arguing at least. It doesn't make any sense to just stir up conflict with no goal.
Masterful_Norg
03-18-04, 04:45 AM To Elrond's Dad:

I would love to share this pattern, but as of the moment I am slightly enebriated and do not have my Unearthed Arcana with me as it is currently in the possesion of a friend.

Will get back to you when I can.
Ricardo Martinez Garza
03-18-04, 01:14 PM Originally posted by Wil_Hyral
What do you mean you disagree? It's in black and white. A wizard going from level 1 to 2 gains less spell points than one going from 19 to 20. There's nothing to disagree with, it's in the books.

Your idea doesn't fly with some people. If you're not going to listen, then quit arguing at least. It doesn't make any sense to just stir up conflict with no goal.

You are the one that aren't listening, I clearly answered:

But the point is that once you have a spell point system, there is no reason to have a non-linear power increase.

But you just ignored what I said. Some people might disagree with this idea as well as they might disagree with some options in the Unearthed Arcana itself, but ignoring what somebody says is rude.
I insist that the old system could only grant a non-linear progression, but I think it is more natural to have a linear progression.
I would like to hear reasons why this would be a no go, not just:

... could make me laugh if I were only slightly more inebriated.

Which is a an uncalled and rude comment anyway you look at it.
hiryuu
03-18-04, 01:33 PM There is a reason for the non-linear increase - spells sccale drastically in power and cost as you get them - the power curve is high. Going form 2nd level to third level spells is a big deal, and they cost more spell points. A character with only 1st-level spells who has just as many spell poitns as someone with access to 9th-level spells will take much longer to burn through his powers, and on the whole deal out more damage over a prolonged period of time - higher level casters need a much higher amount of spell points to do the things they need to do and still remain viable. A straight linear progression is great at lower levels, but at higher levels can become a crippling factor.

Problem indicated. Suggested fix has been put forth: scaling dice.

Yet you continue to ignore and instead of going "I don't see where you're coming from. Please explain in greater detail," you say "No, you're wrong, I'm right." Then people are rude back. You claim they're being rude, not you. The reverse happens. This leads to flame wars. This leads to closing of topics, banning, and such and so forth.

Then of course, we'll get the "both of you shut up, it's only a game" people in here, and everything breaks down from there.
jagggar
03-18-04, 03:33 PM Umm, okay, just wanna point this out.

SP/day by the book

Sorcerer lvl 1 3
Sorcerer lvl 10 81
Sorcerer lvl 20 249

SP/day 4d6 per level using 3.5 average rolls

Sorcerer lvl 1 14
Sorcerer lvl 10 140
Sorcerer lvl 20 280

Not really arguing for either side right now. 1st level casters will be more powerful compared to the book.

Felt like playing with a calculator. If you actually added up the number of SP the standard sorcerer would get if directly converted to SP based on spells cat per day, then the 20th level sorcerer should get nearly double the amount of spell points (486 if my calculator didn't screw me).
Aramas
03-18-04, 09:20 PM Originally posted by Wil_Hyral
I dunno though. I like the idea when Rifts used it. But they had fixed "Spell points" (they were ISP or the other kind whose acronym evades me at the moment), with a variable couple dice as the extra. Thus it was like 30 + 2d6 ISP.

In Rifts the spell points were called PPE (Potential Psychic Energy), and psionic power points were called ISP (Inner Strength Points). Before 3.0 came out we played Rifts, Palladium has the only magic points system I have seen that is workable and balanced, but it is entirely different than anything WotC has tried with D&D. Mainly due to the fact that each spell has it's own individual point cost instead of each spell level costing the same number of points.
moth
03-29-04, 11:42 AM I just take the Primary ability of the class and their con. Add the modifiers together and voila theirs their Spell points. If they want to cast more spells than they have spell points they can use their HPs.

Though I do magic more like a mix of psionics and Ars Magica and my HP are Base HPs (the actual life blood of the character) and Skill HPs (how well a character avoids damage), this taken from a AD&D 2e optional rule from a net book. Keeps powerful spells from being cast without alot of spell casters working together.

That's what's so great so many things are still backwards compatible with a very little modifying.
Wil_Hyral
03-29-04, 10:13 PM Thanks Hiryuu, that wraps it up.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ricardo Martinez Garza 03-12-04, 07:32 PM	It is curious that no one has suggested this, but why not instead of having a fixed amount of spell points, better to roll them at each level: Sorcerers 4d6 Clerics/Druids/Wizard 3d6+1 Bards 2d6+1 Paladin/Ranger/Hexblade 1d6 With this system by 20th level they would have on average the same amount of spell points in table 5-3, even though at low levels they would have more spell points at their disposal. Obviously the amount can be modified by high Charisma, Wisdom or Intelligence. Also, they start to roll for spell points at the level they have at least 1 spell point.
Wil_Hyral 03-12-04, 10:33 PM	The gain for spell points isn't a linear one, is probably why that idea wasn't suggested in the book. Thus, the number of dice would have to change to reflect the scale. I imagine that's a less-than-engaging system to keep track of. I dunno though. I like the idea when Rifts used it. But they had fixed "Spell points" (they were ISP or the other kind whose acronym evades me at the moment), with a variable couple dice as the extra. Thus it was like 30 + 2d6 ISP.
Ricardo Martinez Garza 03-13-04, 02:24 PM	Originally posted by Wil_Hyral The gain for spell points isn't a linear one, is probably why that idea wasn't suggested in the book. Thus, the number of dice would have to change to reflect the scale. I imagine that's a less-than-engaging system to keep track of. But the point is that once you have a spell point system, there is no reason to have a non-linear power increase. Besides it is kind of lame to be a 1st level wizard (that supposedly has spent decades learning the ways of arcane magic) and cast only one 1st level spell. At least in 3rd edition the tendency is to be able to cast more than one spell at 1st level (thanks to 0 level spells and bonus spells due to high mental scores). Why would it be wrong for a wizard to cast ten 1st level spells, it would make them useful at low levels (instead of the usual "I'm frail and worthless" character they tend to be). As a side note I would give magic misile a saving throw (it is a broken spell, but no one wants to fix it because it is about the only good thing about being a 1st level mage).
Bifford 03-13-04, 03:16 PM	I don't like it. SPs are too important to casters, much more than their own hitpoints. A wizard can cope with low hitpoints with one or two spells, and perhaps a magical item. But low spells will damage his effectiveness too much. Would you have fighters roll their BAB increases?
Ricardo Martinez Garza 03-13-04, 03:46 PM	Originally posted by Bifford I don't like it. SPs are too important to casters, much more than their own hitpoints. A wizard can cope with low hitpoints with one or two spells, and perhaps a magical item. But low spells will damage his effectiveness too much. I think you are being greedy, since at 1st level even if you roll 1 on all dices (quite unlikely) you would still have more spell points than table 5-3 gives. On the long run it is quite dificult to have fewer spell points than average since lots of d6 will be rolled; remember that 3d6 makes a probability curve where most results are 10 o 11, quite diferent from rolling 1d20 where chances for any result are equal. Would you have fighters roll their BAB increases? Nope, but hit points (the very life of any combat class) are rolled.
Masterful_Norg 03-14-04, 11:35 AM	I was able to find a pattern in the spell point tables for the sorceror and wizard, thank god, so that we don't find ourselves going, "blargh" at epic. I have got to see if I can do the same for the other classes. I used to think that rolling spell points would be the way, but that majorly stomps on the ballance of power between seperate spellcasters, besides, I only use the average hitdice numbers for characters and monsters anyway.
Wil_Hyral 03-14-04, 06:39 PM	Stop. This is annoying as hell; don't argue with people about their opinions. In their (and my) opinion, this system isn't worth paying attention. A 1st level wizard going to 2nd level doesn't gain as many spell points as a 19th going to 20th. The dice would have to differ to reflect that relationship. It's not like hit points, where it's always 1d4. Thus, the grievance. Make sense yet? We don't need to discuss the point of jack, since all I'm saying is the dice would have to change to reflect the existing system. If you don't want to reflect the existing system, then don't even bother at all bringing it up in the UA. We can all just make our own zany rules without the aide of a book if none of us care about existing examples of balance. PS: a first-level wizard casting 3d6+1 spells per day could make me laugh if I were only slightly more inebriated. Whoever brought up the fighter BAB progression being linear -thank you. That's even better than my argument about the nonlinear progression in spell pointage.
Ricardo Martinez Garza 03-14-04, 07:22 PM	Originally posted by Wil_Hyral Stop. This is annoying as hell; don't argue with people about their opinions. In their (and my) opinion, this system isn't worth paying attention. You will have to excuse me but a message board is a place to confront ideas, if you don't like it is none of my fault. A 1st level wizard going to 2nd level doesn't gain as many spell points as a 19th going to 20th. The dice would have to differ to reflect that relationship. It's not like hit points, where it's always 1d4. Thus, the grievance. Make sense yet? We don't need to discuss the point of jack, since all I'm saying is the dice would have to change to reflect the existing system. As I already said, I disagree and your post doesn't add anything interesting at all nor acknowledges what I replied to your post.
Elrond's Dad 03-17-04, 06:39 PM	Can you share that pattern, Masterful Norg?
Wil_Hyral 03-18-04, 02:48 AM	What do you mean you disagree? It's in black and white. A wizard going from level 1 to 2 gains less spell points than one going from 19 to 20. There's nothing to disagree with, it's in the books. Your idea doesn't fly with some people. If you're not going to listen, then quit arguing at least. It doesn't make any sense to just stir up conflict with no goal.
Masterful_Norg 03-18-04, 04:45 AM	To Elrond's Dad: I would love to share this pattern, but as of the moment I am slightly enebriated and do not have my Unearthed Arcana with me as it is currently in the possesion of a friend. Will get back to you when I can.
Ricardo Martinez Garza 03-18-04, 01:14 PM	Originally posted by Wil_Hyral What do you mean you disagree? It's in black and white. A wizard going from level 1 to 2 gains less spell points than one going from 19 to 20. There's nothing to disagree with, it's in the books. Your idea doesn't fly with some people. If you're not going to listen, then quit arguing at least. It doesn't make any sense to just stir up conflict with no goal. You are the one that aren't listening, I clearly answered: But the point is that once you have a spell point system, there is no reason to have a non-linear power increase. But you just ignored what I said. Some people might disagree with this idea as well as they might disagree with some options in the Unearthed Arcana itself, but ignoring what somebody says is rude. I insist that the old system could only grant a non-linear progression, but I think it is more natural to have a linear progression. I would like to hear reasons why this would be a no go, not just: ... could make me laugh if I were only slightly more inebriated. Which is a an uncalled and rude comment anyway you look at it.
hiryuu 03-18-04, 01:33 PM	There is a reason for the non-linear increase - spells sccale drastically in power and cost as you get them - the power curve is high. Going form 2nd level to third level spells is a big deal, and they cost more spell points. A character with only 1st-level spells who has just as many spell poitns as someone with access to 9th-level spells will take much longer to burn through his powers, and on the whole deal out more damage over a prolonged period of time - higher level casters need a much higher amount of spell points to do the things they need to do and still remain viable. A straight linear progression is great at lower levels, but at higher levels can become a crippling factor. Problem indicated. Suggested fix has been put forth: scaling dice. Yet you continue to ignore and instead of going "I don't see where you're coming from. Please explain in greater detail," you say "No, you're wrong, I'm right." Then people are rude back. You claim they're being rude, not you. The reverse happens. This leads to flame wars. This leads to closing of topics, banning, and such and so forth. Then of course, we'll get the "both of you shut up, it's only a game" people in here, and everything breaks down from there.
jagggar 03-18-04, 03:33 PM	Umm, okay, just wanna point this out. SP/day by the book Sorcerer lvl 1 3 Sorcerer lvl 10 81 Sorcerer lvl 20 249 SP/day 4d6 per level using 3.5 average rolls Sorcerer lvl 1 14 Sorcerer lvl 10 140 Sorcerer lvl 20 280 Not really arguing for either side right now. 1st level casters will be more powerful compared to the book. Felt like playing with a calculator. If you actually added up the number of SP the standard sorcerer would get if directly converted to SP based on spells cat per day, then the 20th level sorcerer should get nearly double the amount of spell points (486 if my calculator didn't screw me).
Aramas 03-18-04, 09:20 PM	Originally posted by Wil_Hyral I dunno though. I like the idea when Rifts used it. But they had fixed "Spell points" (they were ISP or the other kind whose acronym evades me at the moment), with a variable couple dice as the extra. Thus it was like 30 + 2d6 ISP. In Rifts the spell points were called PPE (Potential Psychic Energy), and psionic power points were called ISP (Inner Strength Points). Before 3.0 came out we played Rifts, Palladium has the only magic points system I have seen that is workable and balanced, but it is entirely different than anything WotC has tried with D&D. Mainly due to the fact that each spell has it's own individual point cost instead of each spell level costing the same number of points.
moth 03-29-04, 11:42 AM	I just take the Primary ability of the class and their con. Add the modifiers together and voila theirs their Spell points. If they want to cast more spells than they have spell points they can use their HPs. Though I do magic more like a mix of psionics and Ars Magica and my HP are Base HPs (the actual life blood of the character) and Skill HPs (how well a character avoids damage), this taken from a AD&D 2e optional rule from a net book. Keeps powerful spells from being cast without alot of spell casters working together. That's what's so great so many things are still backwards compatible with a very little modifying.
Wil_Hyral 03-29-04, 10:13 PM	Thanks Hiryuu, that wraps it up.