Post/Author/DateTime	Post
polt 04-13-07, 10:42 AM	I'm thinking of talking to my DM about switching to the Spell Point system from the UA. However, it's hard to do this when I haven't really tried to play it. So can anybody sum up what this system does for your game? And what are the arguments I should give my DM. I'm just so sick and tired of the spells pr. day crap system from D&D.
DrMorganes 04-13-07, 12:22 PM	Reference the power point system for psionics. It's essentially the same thing as I recall.
RobbyPants 04-13-07, 12:34 PM	Reference the power point system for psionics. It's essentially the same thing as I recall. Yeah, the two are very similar in most respects. As for changes in the game, expect prepared casters to get a big boost in utility. Effectively, their spell list increases in size, as they don't have to prepare multiple copies of the same spell. Spontaneous casters also get a boost, but not so much, as their spell list remains the same. All they get is the flexibility to cast whatever they want within their Max SP limit. I personally love the system. I've been using it this campaign, and in my next one, I'm considering using it with the vitalizing varient (the one that uses fatigue with casting). As for arguments for your DM: does he like psionics? If so, remind him that this system is very similar. If not, you might want to take a different approach. Tell him that the system is more fluid, giving casters more freedom. Tell him that this frees up precsious spell-slots for more utility spells. The problem is if he feels casters are overpowered already, then you'll probably have a hard time convicing him. Also, if he feels the system is too powerful, remind him that a caster needs to pay for extra SP costs of damaging spells (for example, a fireball does a base of 5d6 damage for 5 SP. It takes an additional SP to increase the damage by one die (to a max of 10d6, or course). So, lots of blasting gets expensive, fast!).
CowMasterTrojan 04-13-07, 12:39 PM	I happen to allow it in my game. One thing it does is give spellcasters the ability to cast more utility spells without crippling their offense. It also allows prepared casters to decide which spells to memorize much quicker. However if a character casts nothing but non-damaging spells they end up with more spells. On the reverse, a evoker or sorcerer suffers because they already had the versitility/or didnt need it and are now paying more for spells that go boom (while other spellcasters are getting more for their buck).
Jagyr Ebonwood 04-13-07, 01:01 PM	As I've said before, I love the spell point system. I have a nice spell point/spell tracking sheet that you are free to have a copy of. I'll email you a copy if you PM me. Tell your DM that the SP system has a more traditional fantasy feel, rather than the contrivance that is Jack Vance's system...
RobbyPants 04-13-07, 01:17 PM	Tell your DM that the SP system has a more traditional fantasy feel, rather than the contrivance that is Jack Vance's system... No kidding. One of the arguments I love (hate) to read against the SP system is that people accuse if of being a video-game like system. So that makes me think, what about the HP system??? Would they prefer a vancian wound system, where a 5th level fighter can sustain one 3rd level hit, two 2nd level hits, and three 1st level hits, with bonus hits from a high Con score? :P
delwinwoland 04-13-07, 07:06 PM	I for one don’t like the Spell point system. I think that it take away from the flavor of the spell casters. I have also found that my group prefers not using it. For years one of our friends used the SP system in all his campaigns. When I started my first campaign I let all my players know that I would be using the standard spell caster rules. This announcement led to more then just one complaint from my players, but I stuck to my guns. After only 3 or 4 sessions my players started to get used to use the standard rules again and informed me that, while it presented a challenge, the felt like their character had, well, more character. In the end, if all you are doing is rolling dice and fighting monster after monster, I’m sure the SP system may be good. But in a campaign that has more going on then just combat, then, the standard rules are much, much better.
polt 04-14-07, 06:16 AM	I’m sure the SP system may be good. But in a campaign that has more going on then just combat, then, the standard rules are much, much better. Why?