Spell point spellcasting system [Archive] - Wizards Community

Spell point spellcasting system [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
donm61873
02-24-05, 11:55 PM Our gaming group was "know it, throw it" back in 1e/2e days, so there are a number of players (including my wife) who chafe at the preparation stuff in 3e/3.5. So, here's a variant for your critique:

ASSUMPTIONS
1. Preparation: All spells are always considered prepared, even by traditionally spontaneous classes. Known spells for classes remain as per the rules, with Bards, Rangers, Paladins, and Sorcerers being limited by the tables in the book, Wizards by their spellbooks (and if they have them), and Clerics by the whim of their gods. If a spell has multiple versions, the character chooses which version to use when the character casts it. The character doesn't have to prepare (or learn, in the case of a bard) a specific version of the spell.

2. Material Components and Foci: All spellcasting classes are assumed to have the Eschew Materials feat, but expensive components and foci still are required.

3. Metamagic: Metamagic feats require no additional time for casting for any class.

SPELLCASTING
To cast a spell, the character must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any). Additionally, the character must concentrate to cast a spell. (See below for details.) Finally, the character must have enough spell points remaining to cast the spell: Every spell costs a number of spell points equal to twice its level, with 0-level spells costs 1 point. Apart from the limit on spell level to cast, a spellcaster may cast any spell known as long as they have spell points remaining to cast that spell.

SPELL POOLS
Spell points gained from any class must be tracked separately and spells from them cast separately. Each spellcasting class has spellcasting capability tied to a specific Ability, as described by that class. If a character's score in that ability is 9 or lower, the character can't cast spells tied to that ability.

Your spell points are based on your class and level, and your ability modifier for spellcasting in that class. The type of Spell Die used by characters of the class determines the number of spell points gained per level.

SD Type Class (Ability)
d4 Bards (Cha), Paladins (Wis), Rangers (Wis),
also Domain and Specialty Pools
d6 Clerics (Wis) and Druids (Wis)
d8 Wizards (Int)
d10 Sorcerers (Cha)

A character rolls one Spell Die each time he or she gains a new level in the appropriate class; the character then applies the ability modifier appropriate to spellcasting in that class (Int, Wis, or Cha), and adds the result to his or her previous spell point total. Paladins and Rangers only gain a Spell Die every even class level, and receive that first roll at 2nd level, but gain their ability modifier in spell points at every class level. The first Spell Die a character rolls in a spellcasting class is the maximum rather than rolling. At each level after first, PCs gain at least half their spell die minimum: d4=3, d6=4, d8=5, d10=6, d12=7.

KNOWN SPELLS
There are no changes to the rules for known spells for any classes. Clerics have all cleric spells in the PHB available to them, and others as allowed by their gods, Wizards are limited to their spell books or the Spell Mastery feat, and all other classes go by their table limits, and any feats which change those limits.

CLERICAL DOMAINS AND WIZARD SPECIALIZATION
In addition, the spell points that Clerics gains for their domains, or Wizards for their specialization, consist separate pools only usable for casting such spells. Characters who gain domain or specialty pools (Clerics or Wizards) roll a separate d4 (minimum 3) at each level they possess the pool for its points. There are no bonus points for ability modifiers for domain or specialty pools.

SPELL POINT RECOVERY
Spellcasters recover spell points at an hourly rate of 1 SP if active, or a number of SP equal to the cost of the highest level spell they can cast for an hour of uninterrupted rest.
Full spell point recovery (once per day) requires that divine spellcasters spend an hour in prayer and meditation (usually dawn or morning prayer), and arcane spellcasters spend an hour in study and meditation (again, usually in the morning, and requires spellbooks for appropriate classes), most effectively after a good night's rest (for all spellcasters). The DM will reduce recovery for lack of rest for all spellcasters.
HailSpork
02-25-05, 05:47 AM Honestly, I think you're overcharging for level 0 spells.

Let's compare the psionics system to the scale you have:
Level 1: you 2, psp 1
Level 2: you 3, psp 3
Level 2: you 4, psp 5
Level 2: you 5, psp 7
Level 2: you 5, psp 9
Level 2: you 6, psp 11
Level 2: you 7, psp 13
Level 2: you 9, psp 15
Level 2: you 10, psp 17

Assuming the psionics system is relatively balanced with psp costs and spell level allocation, your system clearly makes it more beneficial to cast higher level spells.

I suggest dropping the cost to just Level, and providing a number of free level 0 spells. 3+(linked attribute bonus) perhaps? In case of casters like favored soul with dual attributes, go by the one that provides bonus spells per spell level.

You say that all casters have eschew, but you need a hand free to manipulate material components. Does this only apply to spells with expensive material components (or a focus) or do you only mean that no caster needs to keep track of how many feathers or live spiders he's carrying around?

I think that clerics and druids should have the same capacity as wizards, particularly if you seperate out the domains and specializations. I suggest bumping clerics and druids up to d8.

Why do you have 3 attributes listed for bards? Are you allowing variant bards?
srkingdavy
02-25-05, 10:12 AM Is there any reason you're nerfing sorcerers, clerics, and druids? they can all cast 9th level spells by level 20, thus making them (in theory) equally capable spellcasters.

Also, you're double-screwing rangers and paladins by giving them a small die AND making them skip out on rolls. I'd go with roll every level, and die size based on max spell level. I'd give 9th-capable classes a d12, 6th-capable classes a d8, and 4th-capable classes a d6.

Your point-cost formula seems skewed. I'd go with the one in UA (cost = [[[level of spell-1]x2]+1). I've been working on a spellpoint system that actually favors the casting of low-level spells (steep point curve), right now I'm using

1,2,3,5,7,10,14,21,32

(for the mathematically curious, number n in this sequence is (fibbonacci[n+3]+n)/2, rounded up to the nearest integer value. (of course I give out more spell points at higher levels than the UA rules))

also, your method of recovery looks good, remember that clerics and druids don't need to sleep to recover, but just recover at a set time (usually either sunrise or noon for good characters). 1 spell point per hour seems meaningless for high-level characters; how about a number of spell points recovered per hour based on the highest level spell they can cast? (this works particularly well because it won't need to be balanced seperately across classes.)
donm61873
02-25-05, 11:10 AM Wow - multiple responses!

1. Overcharging for 0-level spells: We changed to this system because we didn't like 0-level spells being limited to some arbitrary #+modifier value, while the rest of the spells were in a pool. It's simple to do record keeping, and yet all spellcasters get plenty of 0-level spells.

2. Psionics: What's psionics? ;)
Seriously, we don't use them, and I don't even own the book. But our numbers are much lower than the spell point systems presented in UA, and our experience with those systems was that no high-level spellcaster ever ran out of spell points. That's why we went to the die roll mechanism...

3. More casting of high level spells: We had this at first, and then the Wizard discovered she was out of spells too fast. We actually like having to choose - it forces flexibility and creative spell use...

4. Dual attributes: We haven't introduced favored souls yet - and now that I think of it, no one's even asked. But yes, I would agree that we would use the attribute that provides bonus spells.

5. Components and Foci: We require expensive material components, but unless roleplaying circumstances dictate otherwise (imprisonment, etc), we pretty much ignore normal components.

6. "Nerfing clerics and druids": This was a deliberate decision, as while Sorcerers and Wizards are one-trick ponies, Druids and Clerics have other things they can do besides spellcasting. In play, it hasn't caused any problems for those two classes. Wizards and Sorcerers only do spellcasting, so we gave them larger dice.

7. Variant Bards: Yes, we have a couple of variant bards. Sorry about that, I thought I edited out the odd stuff.

8. Nerfing Sorcerers: We didn't nerf sorcerers - they have the largest die out there. And just because two classes can cast 9th level spells doesn't mean they are equal, unless you allow wizards to cast spells without problems while wearing plate armor.

9. Rangers and Paladins: This was actually a change proposed by a player - rather than getting a regular die starting at a higher level, Rangers and Paladins get a regular die every two levels, but get their ability modifier value at every level, and can cast spells starting at 1st level. So, while they get *slightly* fewer points, they get them longer, and cast spells right off the bat.

10. You used the "F" word: Any time I produce a formula that has anything similar to "fibbonacci" or "modula", I get protests. And our fighter player will point out that your system for favoring low-level spells produces the magic missile hell scenario: all the rest of the party does is stall, delay or block while your machine gunning spellcaster slowly kills everything. Our system favors high-level spells on purpose - to keep the combat moving while not having the spellcasters be the only relevant player on the field. That's also the rationale for having WAY less points available than in the systems presented in UA.

11. Recovery: We wanted a deliberate trickle recovery; enough that a resting wizard after a long fight might have a sleep ready for the insects and bugs the DM will throw at them if they stay nearby, and that the clerics might pick up a cure or two - but not anything close to full recovery. And the rest of the section is actually garbled. I'll go edit it...
srkingdavy
02-25-05, 11:18 AM um, no offense, but you pretty much shot down every suggestion and comment we made. what was the point of posting your system here? if you think your sytem is fine as is, don't bother posting it here and ask for comments. If you're posting it here just to share it, good times, but asking for comments, getting them, and refuting every one seems pointless, sorry.
donm61873
02-25-05, 11:27 AM So far, the comments have all been items that we've thought through. I don't know that I've shot down everything - I've responded to everything. I'm looking for input, and I'm thrilled that I've had like 10 things that I've had to defend, explain or define. But so far, no comment has struck me as something that required a change.

Yet. :bigeyes:

And I'm waiting to hear the outrage about forcing Clerics to get daily rest. Everyone knows clerics can cast as many spells as they want and go without rest as long as they want! :hoppingma

I wasn't trying to offend anyone with my responses, but at the same time, I reserve the right to say, "your idea is very good, but not quite what I'm looking for".
srkingdavy
02-25-05, 11:52 AM well then, if you disagree with the comments thus far, I don't have anything else to say. As I've said for years, if you and your players are having fun, you're doing it right.
donm61873
02-25-05, 11:57 AM Sorry about that. I'll admit, you scared me when you used the "F" word. Hard math makes my players cringe. I do appreciate your comments, and I'm sorry I upset you. I'm looking for game breaking things I haven't thought of...

Which I'm still betting are quite a lot. I'm no genius with 3.5...
srkingdavy
02-25-05, 12:01 PM I also like incorporating house rules, and my players understand that. I explain that some house rules might change; I try not to, but sometimes a house rule has some game-breaking implication I hadn't thought of. I can rarely come up with a good explaination (it's easier to if the houserule is magical), it's just "suddenly the world works differently." My players understand this, and will more often than not cooperate work with me to try to fix the rule. (this isn't to say there aren't sometimes some rather heated discussions on game balance!)
HailSpork
02-25-05, 04:32 PM If you want to use 0 level spells, I highly reccomend you use a larger scale. At the very least, make it so spells cost (level x 2) and 0 level spells cost 1 (and increase the number of spell points).

I don't use psionics either, but it's a good reference when trying to create a spell point system. In fact, our house rules in psionics is "If you're a psionicist, you get eaten by a dragon."

One problem is, most casters get a huge acceleration in their casting repotiore as they increase in level, but you're only giving them a linear progression.

A d10 is not that much better than a d8. They're supposed to have a decent advantage in spells per day; a d10 averages to an extra point per level, and that falls far short of granting them an advantage there.

A paladin gets first level spells around level 4, and should have at least 8 spell points by then. That should be plenty for them.

Anyway, the reemphasize my main point, you're hugely favoring high-level spells, to a point where lower level spells just won't get cast. Why deal 5d6 with a shocking grasp for 2 points when you can deal 8d6 with scorching ray for 3 points?
A level 20 caster with a score of 19 using d8's (average between sorceror and divine casters) has an average of about 6+4 spell points per level. 202 spell points (rolls an 8 on level 1). That means 20 level 9 spells and a level 1. You can swap a level 9 spell out for 5 level 1's.
If you can cast Rary's mneumonic enhancer, you're spending 5 spell points and 15 minutes to get up to 6 spell points out of it.
I suppose that doesn't look too bad, but it still favors higher level spells.

I personally don't mind if you "shoot down" my ideas, I'm just trying to help.
donm61873
02-25-05, 05:01 PM Hmm... Let me get out of my linear mode for a moment :ahem:

If we change the cost to 2*level and 0-levs cost 1 pt, then we've got a 17th level wiz who has 17d8+68=153 sp. I could cast 15-9th level spells before; now I can cast 8-9ths. Hmm... not bad.

Sorcerers: I've got to keep in mind that my Sorcerers have bloodline abilities, but what kind of distortion do I get if I give Socs a d12?

Got to go to 18th lvl Soc to cast 9ths, so 18d12+72=198 (could be 288!); an 18th lvl wiz will have 18d8+72=162 sp (could be 216).

Clerics/Druids: Let me go back to their d6. 18d6+72=144; probably not going to see a lot of high level spells from them, but that might not be a bad thing...

The distortion between the d8 of the wiz and the d12 Sorcerer worries me, but I think moving wiz's to d10s and cleric/druids to d8s would be worse..

I could live with changing the spell cost to 2*level and keep the impact I'm wanting...
donm61873
02-25-05, 05:17 PM Ok, I've incorporated a few changes. :surrender

Additional thought on the recovery, I do like the idea of one hour giving you back the ability to cast one high level spell...

I'm sold on leaving :eek: the linear cost.

Still not convinced on changing the spell die availability. I'm scared of the high level impact of d6 Bards (min 4), d8 Clerics/Druids (min 5), d10 Wizards (min 6), d12 Sorcerers (min 7). And I'm kind of tied to the spell die as a concept, so I want to preserve that.
HailSpork
02-26-05, 05:00 AM well, my proposed progression is still linear, just counting by 2 and an exception at level 0.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
donm61873 02-24-05, 11:55 PM	Our gaming group was "know it, throw it" back in 1e/2e days, so there are a number of players (including my wife) who chafe at the preparation stuff in 3e/3.5. So, here's a variant for your critique: ASSUMPTIONS 1. Preparation: All spells are always considered prepared, even by traditionally spontaneous classes. Known spells for classes remain as per the rules, with Bards, Rangers, Paladins, and Sorcerers being limited by the tables in the book, Wizards by their spellbooks (and if they have them), and Clerics by the whim of their gods. If a spell has multiple versions, the character chooses which version to use when the character casts it. The character doesn't have to prepare (or learn, in the case of a bard) a specific version of the spell. 2. Material Components and Foci: All spellcasting classes are assumed to have the Eschew Materials feat, but expensive components and foci still are required. 3. Metamagic: Metamagic feats require no additional time for casting for any class. SPELLCASTING To cast a spell, the character must be able to speak (if the spell has a verbal component), gesture (if it has a somatic component), and manipulate the material components or focus (if any). Additionally, the character must concentrate to cast a spell. (See below for details.) Finally, the character must have enough spell points remaining to cast the spell: Every spell costs a number of spell points equal to twice its level, with 0-level spells costs 1 point. Apart from the limit on spell level to cast, a spellcaster may cast any spell known as long as they have spell points remaining to cast that spell. SPELL POOLS Spell points gained from any class must be tracked separately and spells from them cast separately. Each spellcasting class has spellcasting capability tied to a specific Ability, as described by that class. If a character's score in that ability is 9 or lower, the character can't cast spells tied to that ability. Your spell points are based on your class and level, and your ability modifier for spellcasting in that class. The type of Spell Die used by characters of the class determines the number of spell points gained per level. SD Type Class (Ability) d4 Bards (Cha), Paladins (Wis), Rangers (Wis), also Domain and Specialty Pools d6 Clerics (Wis) and Druids (Wis) d8 Wizards (Int) d10 Sorcerers (Cha) A character rolls one Spell Die each time he or she gains a new level in the appropriate class; the character then applies the ability modifier appropriate to spellcasting in that class (Int, Wis, or Cha), and adds the result to his or her previous spell point total. Paladins and Rangers only gain a Spell Die every even class level, and receive that first roll at 2nd level, but gain their ability modifier in spell points at every class level. The first Spell Die a character rolls in a spellcasting class is the maximum rather than rolling. At each level after first, PCs gain at least half their spell die minimum: d4=3, d6=4, d8=5, d10=6, d12=7. KNOWN SPELLS There are no changes to the rules for known spells for any classes. Clerics have all cleric spells in the PHB available to them, and others as allowed by their gods, Wizards are limited to their spell books or the Spell Mastery feat, and all other classes go by their table limits, and any feats which change those limits. CLERICAL DOMAINS AND WIZARD SPECIALIZATION In addition, the spell points that Clerics gains for their domains, or Wizards for their specialization, consist separate pools only usable for casting such spells. Characters who gain domain or specialty pools (Clerics or Wizards) roll a separate d4 (minimum 3) at each level they possess the pool for its points. There are no bonus points for ability modifiers for domain or specialty pools. SPELL POINT RECOVERY Spellcasters recover spell points at an hourly rate of 1 SP if active, or a number of SP equal to the cost of the highest level spell they can cast for an hour of uninterrupted rest. Full spell point recovery (once per day) requires that divine spellcasters spend an hour in prayer and meditation (usually dawn or morning prayer), and arcane spellcasters spend an hour in study and meditation (again, usually in the morning, and requires spellbooks for appropriate classes), most effectively after a good night's rest (for all spellcasters). The DM will reduce recovery for lack of rest for all spellcasters.
HailSpork 02-25-05, 05:47 AM	Honestly, I think you're overcharging for level 0 spells. Let's compare the psionics system to the scale you have: Level 1: you 2, psp 1 Level 2: you 3, psp 3 Level 2: you 4, psp 5 Level 2: you 5, psp 7 Level 2: you 5, psp 9 Level 2: you 6, psp 11 Level 2: you 7, psp 13 Level 2: you 9, psp 15 Level 2: you 10, psp 17 Assuming the psionics system is relatively balanced with psp costs and spell level allocation, your system clearly makes it more beneficial to cast higher level spells. I suggest dropping the cost to just Level, and providing a number of free level 0 spells. 3+(linked attribute bonus) perhaps? In case of casters like favored soul with dual attributes, go by the one that provides bonus spells per spell level. You say that all casters have eschew, but you need a hand free to manipulate material components. Does this only apply to spells with expensive material components (or a focus) or do you only mean that no caster needs to keep track of how many feathers or live spiders he's carrying around? I think that clerics and druids should have the same capacity as wizards, particularly if you seperate out the domains and specializations. I suggest bumping clerics and druids up to d8. Why do you have 3 attributes listed for bards? Are you allowing variant bards?
srkingdavy 02-25-05, 10:12 AM	Is there any reason you're nerfing sorcerers, clerics, and druids? they can all cast 9th level spells by level 20, thus making them (in theory) equally capable spellcasters. Also, you're double-screwing rangers and paladins by giving them a small die AND making them skip out on rolls. I'd go with roll every level, and die size based on max spell level. I'd give 9th-capable classes a d12, 6th-capable classes a d8, and 4th-capable classes a d6. Your point-cost formula seems skewed. I'd go with the one in UA (cost = [[[level of spell-1]x2]+1). I've been working on a spellpoint system that actually favors the casting of low-level spells (steep point curve), right now I'm using 1,2,3,5,7,10,14,21,32 (for the mathematically curious, number n in this sequence is (fibbonacci[n+3]+n)/2, rounded up to the nearest integer value. (of course I give out more spell points at higher levels than the UA rules)) also, your method of recovery looks good, remember that clerics and druids don't need to sleep to recover, but just recover at a set time (usually either sunrise or noon for good characters). 1 spell point per hour seems meaningless for high-level characters; how about a number of spell points recovered per hour based on the highest level spell they can cast? (this works particularly well because it won't need to be balanced seperately across classes.)
donm61873 02-25-05, 11:10 AM	Wow - multiple responses! 1. Overcharging for 0-level spells: We changed to this system because we didn't like 0-level spells being limited to some arbitrary #+modifier value, while the rest of the spells were in a pool. It's simple to do record keeping, and yet all spellcasters get plenty of 0-level spells. 2. Psionics: What's psionics? ;) Seriously, we don't use them, and I don't even own the book. But our numbers are much lower than the spell point systems presented in UA, and our experience with those systems was that no high-level spellcaster ever ran out of spell points. That's why we went to the die roll mechanism... 3. More casting of high level spells: We had this at first, and then the Wizard discovered she was out of spells too fast. We actually like having to choose - it forces flexibility and creative spell use... 4. Dual attributes: We haven't introduced favored souls yet - and now that I think of it, no one's even asked. But yes, I would agree that we would use the attribute that provides bonus spells. 5. Components and Foci: We require expensive material components, but unless roleplaying circumstances dictate otherwise (imprisonment, etc), we pretty much ignore normal components. 6. "Nerfing clerics and druids": This was a deliberate decision, as while Sorcerers and Wizards are one-trick ponies, Druids and Clerics have other things they can do besides spellcasting. In play, it hasn't caused any problems for those two classes. Wizards and Sorcerers only do spellcasting, so we gave them larger dice. 7. Variant Bards: Yes, we have a couple of variant bards. Sorry about that, I thought I edited out the odd stuff. 8. Nerfing Sorcerers: We didn't nerf sorcerers - they have the largest die out there. And just because two classes can cast 9th level spells doesn't mean they are equal, unless you allow wizards to cast spells without problems while wearing plate armor. 9. Rangers and Paladins: This was actually a change proposed by a player - rather than getting a regular die starting at a higher level, Rangers and Paladins get a regular die every two levels, but get their ability modifier value at every level, and can cast spells starting at 1st level. So, while they get slightly fewer points, they get them longer, and cast spells right off the bat. 10. You used the "F" word: Any time I produce a formula that has anything similar to "fibbonacci" or "modula", I get protests. And our fighter player will point out that your system for favoring low-level spells produces the magic missile hell scenario: all the rest of the party does is stall, delay or block while your machine gunning spellcaster slowly kills everything. Our system favors high-level spells on purpose - to keep the combat moving while not having the spellcasters be the only relevant player on the field. That's also the rationale for having WAY less points available than in the systems presented in UA. 11. Recovery: We wanted a deliberate trickle recovery; enough that a resting wizard after a long fight might have a sleep ready for the insects and bugs the DM will throw at them if they stay nearby, and that the clerics might pick up a cure or two - but not anything close to full recovery. And the rest of the section is actually garbled. I'll go edit it...
srkingdavy 02-25-05, 11:18 AM	um, no offense, but you pretty much shot down every suggestion and comment we made. what was the point of posting your system here? if you think your sytem is fine as is, don't bother posting it here and ask for comments. If you're posting it here just to share it, good times, but asking for comments, getting them, and refuting every one seems pointless, sorry.
donm61873 02-25-05, 11:27 AM	So far, the comments have all been items that we've thought through. I don't know that I've shot down everything - I've responded to everything. I'm looking for input, and I'm thrilled that I've had like 10 things that I've had to defend, explain or define. But so far, no comment has struck me as something that required a change. Yet. :bigeyes: And I'm waiting to hear the outrage about forcing Clerics to get daily rest. Everyone knows clerics can cast as many spells as they want and go without rest as long as they want! :hoppingma I wasn't trying to offend anyone with my responses, but at the same time, I reserve the right to say, "your idea is very good, but not quite what I'm looking for".
srkingdavy 02-25-05, 11:52 AM	well then, if you disagree with the comments thus far, I don't have anything else to say. As I've said for years, if you and your players are having fun, you're doing it right.
donm61873 02-25-05, 11:57 AM	Sorry about that. I'll admit, you scared me when you used the "F" word. Hard math makes my players cringe. I do appreciate your comments, and I'm sorry I upset you. I'm looking for game breaking things I haven't thought of... Which I'm still betting are quite a lot. I'm no genius with 3.5...
srkingdavy 02-25-05, 12:01 PM	I also like incorporating house rules, and my players understand that. I explain that some house rules might change; I try not to, but sometimes a house rule has some game-breaking implication I hadn't thought of. I can rarely come up with a good explaination (it's easier to if the houserule is magical), it's just "suddenly the world works differently." My players understand this, and will more often than not cooperate work with me to try to fix the rule. (this isn't to say there aren't sometimes some rather heated discussions on game balance!)
HailSpork 02-25-05, 04:32 PM	If you want to use 0 level spells, I highly reccomend you use a larger scale. At the very least, make it so spells cost (level x 2) and 0 level spells cost 1 (and increase the number of spell points). I don't use psionics either, but it's a good reference when trying to create a spell point system. In fact, our house rules in psionics is "If you're a psionicist, you get eaten by a dragon." One problem is, most casters get a huge acceleration in their casting repotiore as they increase in level, but you're only giving them a linear progression. A d10 is not that much better than a d8. They're supposed to have a decent advantage in spells per day; a d10 averages to an extra point per level, and that falls far short of granting them an advantage there. A paladin gets first level spells around level 4, and should have at least 8 spell points by then. That should be plenty for them. Anyway, the reemphasize my main point, you're hugely favoring high-level spells, to a point where lower level spells just won't get cast. Why deal 5d6 with a shocking grasp for 2 points when you can deal 8d6 with scorching ray for 3 points? A level 20 caster with a score of 19 using d8's (average between sorceror and divine casters) has an average of about 6+4 spell points per level. 202 spell points (rolls an 8 on level 1). That means 20 level 9 spells and a level 1. You can swap a level 9 spell out for 5 level 1's. If you can cast Rary's mneumonic enhancer, you're spending 5 spell points and 15 minutes to get up to 6 spell points out of it. I suppose that doesn't look too bad, but it still favors higher level spells. I personally don't mind if you "shoot down" my ideas, I'm just trying to help.
donm61873 02-25-05, 05:01 PM	Hmm... Let me get out of my linear mode for a moment :ahem: If we change the cost to 2level and 0-levs cost 1 pt, then we've got a 17th level wiz who has 17d8+68=153 sp. I could cast 15-9th level spells before; now I can cast 8-9ths. Hmm... not bad. Sorcerers: I've got to keep in mind that my Sorcerers have bloodline abilities, but what kind of distortion do I get if I give Socs a d12? Got to go to 18th lvl Soc to cast 9ths, so 18d12+72=198 (could be 288!); an 18th lvl wiz will have 18d8+72=162 sp (could be 216). Clerics/Druids: Let me go back to their d6. 18d6+72=144; probably not going to see a lot of high level spells from them, but that might not be a bad thing... The distortion between the d8 of the wiz and the d12 Sorcerer worries me, but I think moving wiz's to d10s and cleric/druids to d8s would be worse.. I could live with changing the spell cost to 2level and keep the impact I'm wanting...
donm61873 02-25-05, 05:17 PM	Ok, I've incorporated a few changes. :surrender Additional thought on the recovery, I do like the idea of one hour giving you back the ability to cast one high level spell... I'm sold on leaving :eek: the linear cost. Still not convinced on changing the spell die availability. I'm scared of the high level impact of d6 Bards (min 4), d8 Clerics/Druids (min 5), d10 Wizards (min 6), d12 Sorcerers (min 7). And I'm kind of tied to the spell die as a concept, so I want to preserve that.
HailSpork 02-26-05, 05:00 AM	well, my proposed progression is still linear, just counting by 2 and an exception at level 0.