Spell Point System: Critical Analysis [Archive] - Wizards Community

Spell Point System: Critical Analysis [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
HolyGrenadeFrenzy
03-19-07, 07:29 PM Well I feel the Spell Point System is broken.....If you count each spell and add up the points for a Sorcerer and compare it to the point cost area you will realize that even at a 1 for one point system the Sorcerer is still robbed of points......It should be at least 270 in a point per lvl system and at the increase point per level it is far lacking when given only 249. This is mathmatically a major rip off for everyone but especially the sorcerer whom gets precious little for it except a chance to cast a humongous amount of low level spells and hardly any higher levels.........robbed...And don't claim it is for balance because that dead horse aurgument is overused....What is the Math and how is it advantagous to each class and what is the cost? There are ways to fix it but not with this progression.....The 2nd edition wasn't much better though. Options shouldn't cost numbers of spells able to be cast especially not over Half the number of spells per day.
kilpatds
03-19-07, 11:00 PM It's advantageous to be able to cast your highest level spells more than normal, so you'll get fewer points to compensate.

At least, that's the theory I would have used. If you think casters should get more points, use the PP tables from ExPH instead.
Ace_of_time
03-19-07, 11:16 PM That not true. You also get bonus points for high Abilities. If you put all your points for leveling up on cha with an 18 all ready on it you should get + 40 points put your total points at 289. that is 19 more than 270 and that doesn't include if you use items and spells to buff cha score. so you are really getting more points than you should. Your right this most be stopped ha ha.
Noodles2375
03-19-07, 11:54 PM It's advantageous to be able to cast your highest level spells more than normal, so you'll get fewer points to compensate.

At least, that's the theory I would have used. If you think casters should get more points, use the PP tables from ExPH instead.

I would strongly caution you against using the PP tables in XPH for arcane casters. One of the biggest balances on Psionics is that they don't tend to scale automatically. A 10th lvl wizard throws a 10d6 fireball each time he expends a 3rd lvl spell slot (or 5 spell pts), a 10th level psion must pay 5pp to get the 5d6 energy ball, plus an additional 5pp to buff that to 10d6 energy ball. If the two used the same sized pool of points, (in a spell point, power point world) then the psion would be at a significant disadvantage since they have to pay additional PP's to scale their powers with level. It all evens itself out if Psions have a larger pool of points and arcane/divine casters have fewer points but spells that scale automatically with level.

(In fact, personally I think the psion and psywar could each due with about +40pp but that is a completely different discussion altogether!)
kilpatds
03-20-07, 12:07 AM I would strongly caution you against using the PP tables in XPH for arcane casters. One of the biggest balances on Psionics is that they don't tend to scale automatically.

This isn't just a psionics issue, the Spell Points varient also causes spells to stop scaling for free.

Spellcasters use their full normal caster level for determining the effects of their spells in this system, with one significant exception. Spells that deal a number of dice of damage based on caster level (such as magic missile, searing light, or lightning bolt) deal damage as if cast by a character of the minimum level of the class capable of casting the spell.

(In fact, personally I think the psion and psywar could each due with about +40pp but that is a completely different discussion altogether!)

I'm comfortable with the psion, but have houseruled that the PsiWar gets 1.5x the normal power points. (base, no change to the bonus PP from high ability scores)
HolyGrenadeFrenzy
03-20-07, 05:31 PM That not true. You also get bonus points for high Abilities. If you put all your points for leveling up on cha with an 18 all ready on it you should get + 40 points put your total points at 289. that is 19 more than 270 and that doesn't include if you use items and spells to buff cha score. so you are really getting more points than you should. Your right this most be stopped ha ha.

I was speaking in a point per level per diem which isn't even what the system uses.......It is way below the point for point as 17 points for a 9th....Calculate it yourself a Sorcerer of 20th lvl vs the 20th lvl with the scale point difference you are no where near the amount needed even with said bonus.......Try and figure the cost of what a Sorcerer normally recieves just in case a Sorcerer at 20th level was in need of say all 6spells of each level exactamondo one day..it is impossible because you are missing nearly half the points needed to cast these 54spells.

One way to check a new system is to attempt a reverse engineering with an older method to copare it and this one fails because the same method dissallows the same spell performance in favor of appenrent more spells of whatever level in cost of "more" apperant spells at any said level which is really a false set of numbers because the same would happen if the reverse engineered method was used but everyone would be happier. The current point system is a cheap way to cut power out of characters period regardless of level. If made to run the numbers I won't be the one looking stupid.
Ace_of_time
03-20-07, 07:40 PM I was speaking in a point per level per diem which isn't even what the system uses.......It is way below the point for point as 17 points for a 9th....Calculate it yourself a Sorcerer of 20th lvl vs the 20th lvl with the scale point difference you are no where near the amount needed even with said bonus.......Try and figure the cost of what a Sorcerer normally recieves just in case a Sorcerer at 20th level was in need of say all 6spells of each level exactamondo one day..it is impossible because you are missing nearly half the points needed to cast these 54spells.

One way to check a new system is to attempt a reverse engineering with an older method to copare it and this one fails because the same method dissallows the same spell performance in favor of appenrent more spells of whatever level in cost of "more" apperant spells at any said level which is really a false set of numbers because the same would happen if the reverse engineered method was used but everyone would be happier. The current point system is a cheap way to cut power out of characters period regardless of level. If made to run the numbers I won't be the one looking stupid.

I looked into it for you and UA says that if you think the cost is to much than you can reduce for you needs. If you reduce the cost to one sp per spell level. That make the total cost of casting 6 spells per level to 270. What about that?
HolyGrenadeFrenzy
03-21-07, 01:13 AM I looked into it for you and UA says that if you think the cost is to much than you can reduce for you needs. If you reduce the cost to one sp per spell level. That make the total cost of casting 6 spells per level to 270. What about that?

That is perfect! But then an increase could still work if you adjusted accordingly and believe me that would be nasty for low and mid level opposition. Though at that level it would still seem more appropriate than the current 20th level IMHO. I like the system but they really should have laid out a few different Point Per Level Tables depending on Campaign Magic Ratings or something. I appricaite good work but as a life long gamer I reserve the right to apply some critisizm once in awhile, else I have players and DMs alike overlooking things and saying "all is fair and regular" while injustice rules.

Simply put the Wizard, even with the spell points being normalized makes out like a bandit. Without normalizing the points effectively the Sorcerer takes too big a hit by comparison, especially when you compare point totals. Use the point per level with both to see what I mean if you choose.

Not really complaining just pointing out some of what I noticed about it.
Merryadocc
03-21-07, 02:24 AM I use the spell point system, and I after I started could not return to the Vacian slot system. However since starting to use it, the rules presented went under a few revisions to get it to where I felt they would work better. So my spell point sytem differs to what is is in UA, and I don't of anyone that uses the spell point system presented in Unearthed Arcana as is, it always seems to recieve some tweaking.
kilpatds
03-21-07, 09:06 AM So my spell point sytem differs to what is is in UA, and I don't of anyone that uses the spell point system presented in Unearthed Arcana as is, it always seems to recieve some tweaking.

What is your system like?
Ace_of_time
03-21-07, 06:11 PM I have Threads on what a DM to do and player to do sides to get there points of view on it. Maybe you can check it out. It might help. I think the points for spell points works better with casters like sorcs and bards. I used a feat to let the other casters to use the system, but someone pointed out a (sorc like) Divine caster from dragonlance called mystic. I'm going to start using it and stop using the feat. The other classes work better like they are, to me.
Mystic Theurge
03-22-07, 10:02 PM How I work it is that characters who prepare spells don't get to use their bonus spell slots, they can only prepare a number of spells equal to their base. This gives them fewer spells to choose from. Sorcerers are not affected by this, so not only do they get more spell points, they get a few more spells they can cast than those who prepare. I think this slightly favors the sorcerer and somewhat compensates for any discrepency between base spell point totals.
HolyGrenadeFrenzy
03-23-07, 02:09 AM I use the spell point system, and I after I started could not return to the Vacian slot system. However since starting to use it, the rules presented went under a few revisions to get it to where I felt they would work better. So my spell point sytem differs to what is is in UA, and I don't of anyone that uses the spell point system presented in Unearthed Arcana as is, it always seems to recieve some tweaking.
I would think that if the standard and the one presented in UA were adjusted to match a possible cast day things would be awesome and even more like I feel it should be considering the way the leveling is done but it also needs something for Epic Spell Casting too. Having learned much by playing many other systems I thind this can be saved but don't forget the finishing touches.

I have Threads on what a DM to do and player to do sides to get there points of view on it. Maybe you can check it out. It might help. I think the points for spell points works better with casters like sorcs and bards. I used a feat to let the other casters to use the system, but someone pointed out a (sorc like) Divine caster from dragonlance called mystic. I'm going to start using it and stop using the feat. The other classes work better like they are, to me.
I think it could work better for all of them if adjusted to not cheat any conditions previous to the change on the player end and this would leave the balance in the use of spellcasters on the DM end, to the players dismay.

How I work it is that characters who prepare spells don't get to use their bonus spell slots, they can only prepare a number of spells equal to their base. This gives them fewer spells to choose from. Sorcerers are not affected by this, so not only do they get more spell points, they get a few more spells they can cast than those who prepare. I think this slightly favors the sorcerer and somewhat compensates for any discrepency between base spell point totals.
But adjusting the points by recalcultion and allowing the spell list idea for the wizards does the very same thing but with a little more magic to spread around by the casters.

Spell counting has always seemed low since I started playing in 1979 and this allows for just enough leeway to have spellcasters seem more like spellcasters and less like poker players.

Don't get me wrong I think Magic the Gathering is a fine game but then again it makes the card game more like a cross between Battleship and Battle Tech meets in the Arcane World of The Magic Goes Away too which has different merits.
Ace_of_time
03-23-07, 05:02 PM I would change all of them but I have some players who just player wizards and sors. They like to use spellpoints with sorcs but not wizards, so I let them decide which way they like to cast.
HolyGrenadeFrenzy
03-23-07, 10:46 PM I would change all of them but I have some players who just player wizards and sors. They like to use spellpoints with sorcs but not wizards, so I let them decide which way they like to cast.

Yet with what I am suggesting the Wizards would still be better off than the Sorcerers.....OK. To each their own.:)
Ace_of_time
03-24-07, 11:07 PM Yet with what I am suggesting the Wizards would still be better off than the Sorcerers.....OK. To each their own.:)

Sometimes talking to players is like talking to brick walls.
HolyGrenadeFrenzy
03-24-07, 11:22 PM Sometimes talking to players is like talking to brick walls.

So let them box themselves in without a door or window and when they get angry about it say", The DM's advice around here is considered poor for some strange reason and if you have no door or window it is because you refused to install one."
Ace_of_time
03-24-07, 11:31 PM I asked him today why he doesn't want to cast by sp wizards and he said some nonsense about liking the challenge of not have so many spell to cast. But he also has blue hair ( in game) so he might just be nuts.
HolyGrenadeFrenzy
03-25-07, 04:23 PM I asked him today why he doesn't want to cast by sp wizards and he said some nonsense about liking the challenge of not have so many spell to cast. But he also has blue hair ( in game) so he might just be nuts.

His reasons are beyond me, I just like to have it seem like a magical force that grows in a character and eventually reaches a plateform of power but I think this system would be easy to covert to Epic Spells with the point revision, and then the Spell Craft Check target becomes the point cost too giving room for an additional point charge for some things to even it all out.
Ace_of_time
03-26-07, 09:21 PM Does anyone know if they still have to use spell comp... in the spells? The only thing it says in UA is that SPs are the power behide the spells so I have to think that you would not need them.
HolyGrenadeFrenzy
03-26-07, 11:11 PM Does anyone know if they still have to use spell comp... in the spells? The only thing it says in UA is that SPs are the power behide the spells so I have to think that you would not need them.

If the spell description and requirements call for it then yes they are still needed unless the feat Eschew Materials is used by a player or some other way around the need for material components they are needed unless you get around it with something. Older rules supercede unless stated otherwise which is one of the reasons I believe the spell point system must be reverse engineered.

The calculation will take me a little time but I will post it unless someone beats me to it.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
HolyGrenadeFrenzy 03-19-07, 07:29 PM	Well I feel the Spell Point System is broken.....If you count each spell and add up the points for a Sorcerer and compare it to the point cost area you will realize that even at a 1 for one point system the Sorcerer is still robbed of points......It should be at least 270 in a point per lvl system and at the increase point per level it is far lacking when given only 249. This is mathmatically a major rip off for everyone but especially the sorcerer whom gets precious little for it except a chance to cast a humongous amount of low level spells and hardly any higher levels.........robbed...And don't claim it is for balance because that dead horse aurgument is overused....What is the Math and how is it advantagous to each class and what is the cost? There are ways to fix it but not with this progression.....The 2nd edition wasn't much better though. Options shouldn't cost numbers of spells able to be cast especially not over Half the number of spells per day.
kilpatds 03-19-07, 11:00 PM	It's advantageous to be able to cast your highest level spells more than normal, so you'll get fewer points to compensate. At least, that's the theory I would have used. If you think casters should get more points, use the PP tables from ExPH instead.
Ace_of_time 03-19-07, 11:16 PM	That not true. You also get bonus points for high Abilities. If you put all your points for leveling up on cha with an 18 all ready on it you should get + 40 points put your total points at 289. that is 19 more than 270 and that doesn't include if you use items and spells to buff cha score. so you are really getting more points than you should. Your right this most be stopped ha ha.
Noodles2375 03-19-07, 11:54 PM	It's advantageous to be able to cast your highest level spells more than normal, so you'll get fewer points to compensate. At least, that's the theory I would have used. If you think casters should get more points, use the PP tables from ExPH instead. I would strongly caution you against using the PP tables in XPH for arcane casters. One of the biggest balances on Psionics is that they don't tend to scale automatically. A 10th lvl wizard throws a 10d6 fireball each time he expends a 3rd lvl spell slot (or 5 spell pts), a 10th level psion must pay 5pp to get the 5d6 energy ball, plus an additional 5pp to buff that to 10d6 energy ball. If the two used the same sized pool of points, (in a spell point, power point world) then the psion would be at a significant disadvantage since they have to pay additional PP's to scale their powers with level. It all evens itself out if Psions have a larger pool of points and arcane/divine casters have fewer points but spells that scale automatically with level. (In fact, personally I think the psion and psywar could each due with about +40pp but that is a completely different discussion altogether!)
kilpatds 03-20-07, 12:07 AM	I would strongly caution you against using the PP tables in XPH for arcane casters. One of the biggest balances on Psionics is that they don't tend to scale automatically. This isn't just a psionics issue, the Spell Points varient also causes spells to stop scaling for free. Spellcasters use their full normal caster level for determining the effects of their spells in this system, with one significant exception. Spells that deal a number of dice of damage based on caster level (such as magic missile, searing light, or lightning bolt) deal damage as if cast by a character of the minimum level of the class capable of casting the spell. (In fact, personally I think the psion and psywar could each due with about +40pp but that is a completely different discussion altogether!) I'm comfortable with the psion, but have houseruled that the PsiWar gets 1.5x the normal power points. (base, no change to the bonus PP from high ability scores)
HolyGrenadeFrenzy 03-20-07, 05:31 PM	That not true. You also get bonus points for high Abilities. If you put all your points for leveling up on cha with an 18 all ready on it you should get + 40 points put your total points at 289. that is 19 more than 270 and that doesn't include if you use items and spells to buff cha score. so you are really getting more points than you should. Your right this most be stopped ha ha. I was speaking in a point per level per diem which isn't even what the system uses.......It is way below the point for point as 17 points for a 9th....Calculate it yourself a Sorcerer of 20th lvl vs the 20th lvl with the scale point difference you are no where near the amount needed even with said bonus.......Try and figure the cost of what a Sorcerer normally recieves just in case a Sorcerer at 20th level was in need of say all 6spells of each level exactamondo one day..it is impossible because you are missing nearly half the points needed to cast these 54spells. One way to check a new system is to attempt a reverse engineering with an older method to copare it and this one fails because the same method dissallows the same spell performance in favor of appenrent more spells of whatever level in cost of "more" apperant spells at any said level which is really a false set of numbers because the same would happen if the reverse engineered method was used but everyone would be happier. The current point system is a cheap way to cut power out of characters period regardless of level. If made to run the numbers I won't be the one looking stupid.
Ace_of_time 03-20-07, 07:40 PM	I was speaking in a point per level per diem which isn't even what the system uses.......It is way below the point for point as 17 points for a 9th....Calculate it yourself a Sorcerer of 20th lvl vs the 20th lvl with the scale point difference you are no where near the amount needed even with said bonus.......Try and figure the cost of what a Sorcerer normally recieves just in case a Sorcerer at 20th level was in need of say all 6spells of each level exactamondo one day..it is impossible because you are missing nearly half the points needed to cast these 54spells. One way to check a new system is to attempt a reverse engineering with an older method to copare it and this one fails because the same method dissallows the same spell performance in favor of appenrent more spells of whatever level in cost of "more" apperant spells at any said level which is really a false set of numbers because the same would happen if the reverse engineered method was used but everyone would be happier. The current point system is a cheap way to cut power out of characters period regardless of level. If made to run the numbers I won't be the one looking stupid. I looked into it for you and UA says that if you think the cost is to much than you can reduce for you needs. If you reduce the cost to one sp per spell level. That make the total cost of casting 6 spells per level to 270. What about that?
HolyGrenadeFrenzy 03-21-07, 01:13 AM	I looked into it for you and UA says that if you think the cost is to much than you can reduce for you needs. If you reduce the cost to one sp per spell level. That make the total cost of casting 6 spells per level to 270. What about that? That is perfect! But then an increase could still work if you adjusted accordingly and believe me that would be nasty for low and mid level opposition. Though at that level it would still seem more appropriate than the current 20th level IMHO. I like the system but they really should have laid out a few different Point Per Level Tables depending on Campaign Magic Ratings or something. I appricaite good work but as a life long gamer I reserve the right to apply some critisizm once in awhile, else I have players and DMs alike overlooking things and saying "all is fair and regular" while injustice rules. Simply put the Wizard, even with the spell points being normalized makes out like a bandit. Without normalizing the points effectively the Sorcerer takes too big a hit by comparison, especially when you compare point totals. Use the point per level with both to see what I mean if you choose. Not really complaining just pointing out some of what I noticed about it.
Merryadocc 03-21-07, 02:24 AM	I use the spell point system, and I after I started could not return to the Vacian slot system. However since starting to use it, the rules presented went under a few revisions to get it to where I felt they would work better. So my spell point sytem differs to what is is in UA, and I don't of anyone that uses the spell point system presented in Unearthed Arcana as is, it always seems to recieve some tweaking.
kilpatds 03-21-07, 09:06 AM	So my spell point sytem differs to what is is in UA, and I don't of anyone that uses the spell point system presented in Unearthed Arcana as is, it always seems to recieve some tweaking. What is your system like?
Ace_of_time 03-21-07, 06:11 PM	I have Threads on what a DM to do and player to do sides to get there points of view on it. Maybe you can check it out. It might help. I think the points for spell points works better with casters like sorcs and bards. I used a feat to let the other casters to use the system, but someone pointed out a (sorc like) Divine caster from dragonlance called mystic. I'm going to start using it and stop using the feat. The other classes work better like they are, to me.
Mystic Theurge 03-22-07, 10:02 PM	How I work it is that characters who prepare spells don't get to use their bonus spell slots, they can only prepare a number of spells equal to their base. This gives them fewer spells to choose from. Sorcerers are not affected by this, so not only do they get more spell points, they get a few more spells they can cast than those who prepare. I think this slightly favors the sorcerer and somewhat compensates for any discrepency between base spell point totals.
HolyGrenadeFrenzy 03-23-07, 02:09 AM	I use the spell point system, and I after I started could not return to the Vacian slot system. However since starting to use it, the rules presented went under a few revisions to get it to where I felt they would work better. So my spell point sytem differs to what is is in UA, and I don't of anyone that uses the spell point system presented in Unearthed Arcana as is, it always seems to recieve some tweaking. I would think that if the standard and the one presented in UA were adjusted to match a possible cast day things would be awesome and even more like I feel it should be considering the way the leveling is done but it also needs something for Epic Spell Casting too. Having learned much by playing many other systems I thind this can be saved but don't forget the finishing touches. I have Threads on what a DM to do and player to do sides to get there points of view on it. Maybe you can check it out. It might help. I think the points for spell points works better with casters like sorcs and bards. I used a feat to let the other casters to use the system, but someone pointed out a (sorc like) Divine caster from dragonlance called mystic. I'm going to start using it and stop using the feat. The other classes work better like they are, to me. I think it could work better for all of them if adjusted to not cheat any conditions previous to the change on the player end and this would leave the balance in the use of spellcasters on the DM end, to the players dismay. How I work it is that characters who prepare spells don't get to use their bonus spell slots, they can only prepare a number of spells equal to their base. This gives them fewer spells to choose from. Sorcerers are not affected by this, so not only do they get more spell points, they get a few more spells they can cast than those who prepare. I think this slightly favors the sorcerer and somewhat compensates for any discrepency between base spell point totals. But adjusting the points by recalcultion and allowing the spell list idea for the wizards does the very same thing but with a little more magic to spread around by the casters. Spell counting has always seemed low since I started playing in 1979 and this allows for just enough leeway to have spellcasters seem more like spellcasters and less like poker players. Don't get me wrong I think Magic the Gathering is a fine game but then again it makes the card game more like a cross between Battleship and Battle Tech meets in the Arcane World of The Magic Goes Away too which has different merits.
Ace_of_time 03-23-07, 05:02 PM	I would change all of them but I have some players who just player wizards and sors. They like to use spellpoints with sorcs but not wizards, so I let them decide which way they like to cast.
HolyGrenadeFrenzy 03-23-07, 10:46 PM	I would change all of them but I have some players who just player wizards and sors. They like to use spellpoints with sorcs but not wizards, so I let them decide which way they like to cast. Yet with what I am suggesting the Wizards would still be better off than the Sorcerers.....OK. To each their own.:)
Ace_of_time 03-24-07, 11:07 PM	Yet with what I am suggesting the Wizards would still be better off than the Sorcerers.....OK. To each their own.:) Sometimes talking to players is like talking to brick walls.
HolyGrenadeFrenzy 03-24-07, 11:22 PM	Sometimes talking to players is like talking to brick walls. So let them box themselves in without a door or window and when they get angry about it say", The DM's advice around here is considered poor for some strange reason and if you have no door or window it is because you refused to install one."
Ace_of_time 03-24-07, 11:31 PM	I asked him today why he doesn't want to cast by sp wizards and he said some nonsense about liking the challenge of not have so many spell to cast. But he also has blue hair ( in game) so he might just be nuts.
HolyGrenadeFrenzy 03-25-07, 04:23 PM	I asked him today why he doesn't want to cast by sp wizards and he said some nonsense about liking the challenge of not have so many spell to cast. But he also has blue hair ( in game) so he might just be nuts. His reasons are beyond me, I just like to have it seem like a magical force that grows in a character and eventually reaches a plateform of power but I think this system would be easy to covert to Epic Spells with the point revision, and then the Spell Craft Check target becomes the point cost too giving room for an additional point charge for some things to even it all out.
Ace_of_time 03-26-07, 09:21 PM	Does anyone know if they still have to use spell comp... in the spells? The only thing it says in UA is that SPs are the power behide the spells so I have to think that you would not need them.
HolyGrenadeFrenzy 03-26-07, 11:11 PM	Does anyone know if they still have to use spell comp... in the spells? The only thing it says in UA is that SPs are the power behide the spells so I have to think that you would not need them. If the spell description and requirements call for it then yes they are still needed unless the feat Eschew Materials is used by a player or some other way around the need for material components they are needed unless you get around it with something. Older rules supercede unless stated otherwise which is one of the reasons I believe the spell point system must be reverse engineered. The calculation will take me a little time but I will post it unless someone beats me to it.