Post/Author/DateTime	Post
nonsi 11-03-07, 07:52 AM	I had the chance to play with the numbers and found out that the classic Fibonacci value-progression solves the problem of spell points and high level spells beautifully. I starter by taking the first two values that are different (1 and 2) and set them as cost for ZERO and 1st level spells (respectively). This has led to the following costs-table: Spell Level cost 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 5 4 8 5 13 6 21 7 34 8 55 9 89 I came up with this table as a reasonable power buildup progression: Class Max SplPts Total Level SplLv Added SplPts 1 1 5 5 2 1 5 10 3 2 5 15 4 2 5 20 5 3 10 30 6 3 10 40 7 4 10 50 8 4 10 60 9 5 15 75 10 5 15 90 11 6 15 105 12 6 15 120 13 7 20 140 14 7 20 160 15 8 20 180 16 8 20 200 17 9 25 225 18 9 25 250 19 9 25 275 20 9 25 300 Now a new problem arises. While the access to higher level spells is now taken care of, low level spell have become too available. For this I came up with this simple solution: For each caster-level you wish to assign a cast spell's potency, you add +1 to the spell's cost. Your caster level cannot be lower than the minimum caster-level allowing you access to the spell and no more than your current caster-level. So at level 20 you could cast 300 ZERO-level spells as a 1st-level caster or 2 9th-level spells as 17th-20th level caster with some extra reserve (or any other combination you care to choose). Note: I concluded that the spell-points table I compiled could fit nicely to fully spell-oriented characters with poor BAB. Notice it uses a 5-spell-points multiplier (5 points at levels 1 – 4, 10 points at levels 5 – 8 etc). For mid-BAB full casters (e.g. Cleric), it would be reasonable to use 4-spell-points multiplier. Casters that go as far as 6th level could use 3-spell-points multiplier. Caster with spell-caster level that falls behind their class level could use 2-spell-points multiplier and have the added amount increase with each 5 levels instead of 4. Spontaneous casters could have their spell-points multiplier increased by +1 (evaluated individually). This approach gives the player a lot of flexibility in utilizing his spellcasting reserve and still keeps access the power level reasonably under control. Another advantage is that this approach is systematic, so no progressin tables are necessary (except for spell-known, which could also be systematic) and any modification could be applied with a negligible effort after play-testing.
runestar 11-03-07, 08:30 AM	I see one potential problem. At any 1 time, the caster's highest lv spells (and perhaps up to 2 lvs below it) are really the only spells which matter in combat. For example, you don't use fireball at lv20 (the enemy will make the dc all too often, and the damage sucks). You would be expected to use 7th, 9th and the occasional 9th lv spells to be a match for your foes. Your formula assumes that say, a 1st lv spell is still useful at higher lvs. I doubt that is necessarily the case. If you had infinite rounds to spam infinite amounts of magic missiles at your foe, then it might be worth it. Now, with the average battle lasting 4-5 rounds, the reliance of lower-lv spells (to avoid depleting your SP pool too quickly) looks problematic, because you cannot keep up your damage output. Anything problematic with my analysis?
nonsi 11-03-07, 09:47 AM	I see one potential problem. At any 1 time, the caster's highest lv spells (and perhaps up to 2 lvs below it) are really the only spells which matter in combat. For example, you don't use fireball at lv20 (the enemy will make the dc all too often, and the damage sucks). You would be expected to use 7th, 9th and the occasional 9th lv spells to be a match for your foes. Your formula assumes that say, a 1st lv spell is still useful at higher lvs. I doubt that is necessarily the case. If you had infinite rounds to spam infinite amounts of magic missiles at your foe, then it might be worth it. Now, with the average battle lasting 4-5 rounds, the reliance of lower-lv spells (to avoid depleting your SP pool too quickly) looks problematic, because you cannot keep up your damage output. Anything problematic with my analysis? As far as my calculations go, my approach only tones down the ability to go nova at levels 18+. Disintegrate and Antimagic Field are still quite useful at the highest levels and so are Telekinesis, teleport and Break Enchantment. Also remember that you only need a single 9th level spell (Gate, Implosion, Mage’s Disjunction, Mass Heal, Meteor Shower, Shapechange, Prismatic Sphere...) to make a significant difference during and outside of combat. To my personal taste, too many D&D players have the notion that taking on a CR appropriate to your level is supposed to be a walk in the park. Asside from the spellcaster's level, s/he also has allies, gear and strategy at their disposal. Regarding low-level spells, I think that under this approach it would be quite reasonable to cancel the damage cap imposed on some of them (e.g Magic Missile and Shocking Grasp).
runestar 11-03-07, 10:34 AM	As far as my calculations go, my approach only tones down the ability to go nova at levels 18+. You can't really go nova anyways under 3.5 rules, since no spellcaster has the resources to support timestop+5 delayed blast fireballs per combat, nor is it the most efficient use of spells anyways. Conventional wisdom posits that it is typically better to rely on save-or-die/suck spells instead (and these do not work in timestop), since these effects are independent of the foe's hp, which tends to scale faster than your damage die caps anyways. I can see a use for lower lv buff spells (meaning your wizard is better off doing his fair share of party-buffing), since these are independent on caster lv/dcs, and so are less affected by low dcs. There is also the ugly, potentially game-breaking aspect of spell-point I neglected to mention, that many of the overpowered spells are those which are not dependent on caster lv at all, such as limited wish, forcecage and maze. That they are 7-8th lv helps balance this somewhat based off your chart apparently. Based on your system, it would appear to be most efficient to rely on save-or-die spells of 6th lv or lower, perhaps with the occasional 7th lv spell thrown in, while using dc-boosters like spell-enhancer to improve their dcs, rather than spend extra points augmenting their effective spell lv. Assuming 4 encounters/day, this gives me 75 points to play around with per combat at lv20, which works out to ~5-6 5th lv spells or 3 6th lv spells, or 1 7th, 1 6th and 1 5th lv spell. There is no reason for me to use 8th lv 9th lv spells whatsoever, the opportunity cost is simply too high. Was that your intention all along?;) To my personal taste, too many D&D players have the notion that taking on a CR appropriate to your level is supposed to be a walk in the park. That is supposed to be the definition of cr, IMO.:P