Spell Point Balance [Archive] - Wizards Community

Spell Point Balance [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
EaterOfTheDead
01-11-08, 02:54 AM I am thinking of including the spell point rule in my next game but I have read some complaints that the system is broken and doesn't work very well. I wanted to go with this variant because I will also have psionics in the game and I wanted to have systems that were fundamentally similar. However, I don't want to introduce a system that is flawed or unbalancing and have to retrofit the original system later. My players are pretty forgiving as they just like the social aspect of gaming and don't care if we have to spend some time with a retrofit but I'd rather avoid it if at all possible. I also have new player that i don't want to confuse with switching systems on him.

I am reminded of the uberwizards that the spell point system from Spells & Magic made and I am very leery of introducing such a thing into an otherwise balanced 3.5 game. I disliked most of the Player's Option stuff from 2nd Ed because it was poorly designed and overly complicated.

So, input from anyone that has played using the Unearthed Arcana spell points and can compare it to the Player's Handbook magic system would be greatly appreciated.
Silvercrys
01-11-08, 08:03 AM It's nearly exactly the same, balance-wise, as the Vancian casting from the Player's Handbook.

The only thing I can think of that may be "unbalanced" is the fact that casters only need to prepare a spell once to be able to cast it multiple times. It basically makes all casters more like Sorcerers, but Sorcerers get more Spell Points per day than anyone else so it still balances out. In my opinion. Other than that... The only other difference is that a caster may cast more lower-level spells in the place of higher level ones. It basically just moves decisions from the beginning of the day to each of the encounters.
nonsi
01-11-08, 09:32 AM Click my sig and see how you like my concept of magic.
Tell me if you foud it useful, or if it brought up some interesting ideas.
EaterOfTheDead
01-11-08, 01:10 PM It's nearly exactly the same, balance-wise, as the Vancian casting from the Player's Handbook.

Excellent, that was what I needed to know, thank you. It looked balanced but sometimes it's hard to tell.

Click my sig and see how you like my concept of magic.
Tell me if you foud it useful, or if it brought up some interesting ideas.

I actually have something similar in the works. I'm putting together the rules and the code for a web based campaign setting called World of Brandes and I am defining magic in very similar ways. I'm putting atmosphere descriptions to what makes the three kinds of magic different. Arcane magic is eldrich knowledge and ritual weaving of ancient energies. Divine magic is personally channeling the power of the gods through thought and ritual. Psionics are the sheer force of will projected from within the individual to effect the world around them. Those are basic descriptions but the general idea.

It's always interesting to see someone else's take on things. Thank you for sharing. :D
runestar
01-11-08, 07:48 PM One problem I can think of (I haven't actually tried in in actual gameplay, but said flaw seems kinda obvious) is that the powerful spells aren't really that dependent on caster lv anyways.

It sounds balanced enough on the surface to have to pay extra to deal more damage with direct damage spells, until you realize that no one really uses them anyways. Rather, you will get more mileage out of battlefield control/save-or-die spells, especially those which do not offer saves (and if possible, ignore sr), which pretty much negates the need to augment them.

Notice that psionics is conspicuously lacking such spells, since the power list was custom generated to cater to such a system, but not the spell point system.

Some examples of such spells include forcecage, maze, disjunction, any save-or-die spells, solid fog, cloudkill etc. The spellpoint system allows you to spam them with impunity. That you cannot augment them is generally moot, since there is virtually no benefit to doing so anyways.
EaterOfTheDead
01-12-08, 01:05 PM It sounds balanced enough on the surface to have to pay extra to deal more damage with direct damage spells, until you realize that no one really uses them anyways. Rather, you will get more mileage out of battlefield control/save-or-die spells, especially those which do not offer saves (and if possible, ignore sr), which pretty much negates the need to augment them.

That's not too bad of a balancing issue, I don't think. High level spell are supposed to be bad a*s. My players are not regular spell caster players so they aren't up on how to maximize the potential of spells. I'd be a little more leery if they were regular players of magic users.

My group consists of one regular player of stealthy types, one regular player of warrior types and one total newbie. Last night was his first ever gaming session and he chose a Ranger.

Besides, if it turns out the higher level play is too powerful I just won't use spell points again. I just wanted to make sure the system wasn't way over powering in fatally flawed.

Thanks for all the input guys.
Zog_Jakome
01-15-08, 11:53 AM I agree the spell point system is fine however consider adding in the vitalization rules this is when it gets a little broken, but your enemies can do it as well, but your group doesn't have spell casters so i leave it to you.

there is a 2nd level cleric spell called healing lorecall it basically makes all curing spells remove fatigue or exhaustion for those who have a high enough ranks in the heal skill. this also increases your spell points.
EaterOfTheDead
01-15-08, 12:24 PM there is a 2nd level cleric spell called healing lorecall it basically makes all curing spells remove fatigue or exhaustion for those who have a high enough ranks in the heal skill. this also increases your spell points.

I only use spells out of the PHB so this shouldn't be an issue. I'll also probably not bother with the vitalization rules because it adds a level of complexity I don't need.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
EaterOfTheDead 01-11-08, 02:54 AM	I am thinking of including the spell point rule in my next game but I have read some complaints that the system is broken and doesn't work very well. I wanted to go with this variant because I will also have psionics in the game and I wanted to have systems that were fundamentally similar. However, I don't want to introduce a system that is flawed or unbalancing and have to retrofit the original system later. My players are pretty forgiving as they just like the social aspect of gaming and don't care if we have to spend some time with a retrofit but I'd rather avoid it if at all possible. I also have new player that i don't want to confuse with switching systems on him. I am reminded of the uberwizards that the spell point system from Spells & Magic made and I am very leery of introducing such a thing into an otherwise balanced 3.5 game. I disliked most of the Player's Option stuff from 2nd Ed because it was poorly designed and overly complicated. So, input from anyone that has played using the Unearthed Arcana spell points and can compare it to the Player's Handbook magic system would be greatly appreciated.
Silvercrys 01-11-08, 08:03 AM	It's nearly exactly the same, balance-wise, as the Vancian casting from the Player's Handbook. The only thing I can think of that may be "unbalanced" is the fact that casters only need to prepare a spell once to be able to cast it multiple times. It basically makes all casters more like Sorcerers, but Sorcerers get more Spell Points per day than anyone else so it still balances out. In my opinion. Other than that... The only other difference is that a caster may cast more lower-level spells in the place of higher level ones. It basically just moves decisions from the beginning of the day to each of the encounters.
nonsi 01-11-08, 09:32 AM	Click my sig and see how you like my concept of magic. Tell me if you foud it useful, or if it brought up some interesting ideas.
EaterOfTheDead 01-11-08, 01:10 PM	It's nearly exactly the same, balance-wise, as the Vancian casting from the Player's Handbook. Excellent, that was what I needed to know, thank you. It looked balanced but sometimes it's hard to tell. Click my sig and see how you like my concept of magic. Tell me if you foud it useful, or if it brought up some interesting ideas. I actually have something similar in the works. I'm putting together the rules and the code for a web based campaign setting called World of Brandes and I am defining magic in very similar ways. I'm putting atmosphere descriptions to what makes the three kinds of magic different. Arcane magic is eldrich knowledge and ritual weaving of ancient energies. Divine magic is personally channeling the power of the gods through thought and ritual. Psionics are the sheer force of will projected from within the individual to effect the world around them. Those are basic descriptions but the general idea. It's always interesting to see someone else's take on things. Thank you for sharing. :D
runestar 01-11-08, 07:48 PM	One problem I can think of (I haven't actually tried in in actual gameplay, but said flaw seems kinda obvious) is that the powerful spells aren't really that dependent on caster lv anyways. It sounds balanced enough on the surface to have to pay extra to deal more damage with direct damage spells, until you realize that no one really uses them anyways. Rather, you will get more mileage out of battlefield control/save-or-die spells, especially those which do not offer saves (and if possible, ignore sr), which pretty much negates the need to augment them. Notice that psionics is conspicuously lacking such spells, since the power list was custom generated to cater to such a system, but not the spell point system. Some examples of such spells include forcecage, maze, disjunction, any save-or-die spells, solid fog, cloudkill etc. The spellpoint system allows you to spam them with impunity. That you cannot augment them is generally moot, since there is virtually no benefit to doing so anyways.
EaterOfTheDead 01-12-08, 01:05 PM	It sounds balanced enough on the surface to have to pay extra to deal more damage with direct damage spells, until you realize that no one really uses them anyways. Rather, you will get more mileage out of battlefield control/save-or-die spells, especially those which do not offer saves (and if possible, ignore sr), which pretty much negates the need to augment them. That's not too bad of a balancing issue, I don't think. High level spell are supposed to be bad a*s. My players are not regular spell caster players so they aren't up on how to maximize the potential of spells. I'd be a little more leery if they were regular players of magic users. My group consists of one regular player of stealthy types, one regular player of warrior types and one total newbie. Last night was his first ever gaming session and he chose a Ranger. Besides, if it turns out the higher level play is too powerful I just won't use spell points again. I just wanted to make sure the system wasn't way over powering in fatally flawed. Thanks for all the input guys.
Zog_Jakome 01-15-08, 11:53 AM	I agree the spell point system is fine however consider adding in the vitalization rules this is when it gets a little broken, but your enemies can do it as well, but your group doesn't have spell casters so i leave it to you. there is a 2nd level cleric spell called healing lorecall it basically makes all curing spells remove fatigue or exhaustion for those who have a high enough ranks in the heal skill. this also increases your spell points.
EaterOfTheDead 01-15-08, 12:24 PM	there is a 2nd level cleric spell called healing lorecall it basically makes all curing spells remove fatigue or exhaustion for those who have a high enough ranks in the heal skill. this also increases your spell points. I only use spells out of the PHB so this shouldn't be an issue. I'll also probably not bother with the vitalization rules because it adds a level of complexity I don't need.