The Campaign Builder's Guild

I'm about to go to bed and had an inspiration about an workable, easy, non-abusable magic system for DnD. Ok, here's my idea.

Each spellcaster gets a "power" score equal to his caster level plus his key ability modifier per encounter. He can use this power to cast spells readied. Each spell casts an amount of power equal to its spell level. A caster has as many spells readied at any time as he normally has base spell slots of that level. Readying spells takes one hour initially after rest, and after that swapping a single spell takes one hour of concentration. Spells that last past the encounter reduce the available amount of power available in the next encounter by their cost.

Spells would work as normal, scale with casterlevel and all that stuff. However, even a very powerful caster would not have enough power to keep his buffs running and contribute more than one or two highlevel spells to the encounter.

[ic=Example]Bob is a level 1 wizard with an Int of 16. He has a power score of 1(casterlevel) + 3(int mod) = 4(total), and can have three spells of level 0 and one spell of level 1 readied at a time.

Now, Bob is a level 10 wizard with an Int of 22. He has a power score of 10(casterlevel) + 6(int mod) = 16, and can have four spells of level 0 to 2 each, three spells of level 3 and 4 each, and two spells of level 5 readied.

Finally, Bob is a level 20 wizard with an Int of 30. He has a power score of 20(casterlevel) + 10(int mod) = 30, and can have four spells of level 0 to 9 each readied.[/ic]

So, what do you think of this idea?

Conceptually, I like 'changing the paying field'.

However, my players cast as many spells outside of combat as in combat.  So using encounters as a limiting metric may not work well for some campaigns.

I agreee that using encounters for spells isn't a good universal application. It's great for kick-down-the door style games, as well as war games, or even plot driven but combat intensive games. However, for intrigue games and games just that have less focus on combat, this mechanic doesn't seem effective.

Actually, reading your post, how /do/ non-combat spells work?

I did something like this for a homebrew, once. I fixed some of the other issues the previous mention (i.e. non-combat spells) by dividing all spells into combat-only spells and non-combat spells, then using different mechanics for each group. Combat-only spells used a "per encounter" metric and non-combat spells used a "per day" metric.

(It sounds suspiciously like Fourth Edition is going to use something like that, by the way. You might want to hold off on your "per encounter" system for a few months so you don't end up reinventing the wheel that WotC is hiding in its basement.)

Well, one could always go a step further and make it "per scene" instead of "per encounter". Scenes would be similar to the WoD's definition. A scene could encompass a battle, a dangerous (monsterless) dungeon, a chase across the town, a royal court meeting, and so on.

Anyways, non-combat spells could be measured with a "reserve" equal to one half the character's power, usable per hour. While it sounds powerful, even a level 20 wizard with Int 30 would "only" have at most a reserve of 15, which equals to one greater teleport, one legend lore, and one shatter - if he has no other buffs running.

Actually, piling the typical long-term buff spells (mage armor, false life, protection from arrows, mindblank, shapechange, etc) will greatly reduce a caster's flexibility and raw power, as each of this spells would reduce the caster's power by its full spell level, and his reserve by one-half its spell level.

Thus, a level 20 wizard with Int 30 running around with mage armor, mindblank, and moment of prescience would only have a power of 13 instead of 30, and a reserve of 7 instead of 15.

Now, how about this?

It sounds like progress on this theory. I was going to say that even once/scene doesn't really account for how useful certain spells might be every scene (but no more than once per scene), but maybe the reserve helps.

Certainly, forcing casters to be more conservative on buffs will change the nature of play (but it's a positive in my book).

This is rather similar to a concept I've been tossing around in my head. You really have a spell point concept here, where the point cost is equal to spell level and the points regenerate at some unspecified rate such that you don't have to track them from scene to scene. (In my scheme, I'd probably have a specified rate, like one point per five minutes or something.) Full casters and half casters would gain power at different rates.

Some of the problems people are talking about come from trying to use the D&D spells unmodified in a new system. There are obvious reasons to do that. But many of the spells are really designed to be used in a system where the number of spells are limited - persistent buffs, or powerful non-combat spells, or even some spells that scale with caster level can create some minor issues.

To make something like this work best you'd really need to plow through the spell list and rethink the spells. In this system, do you really need Invisibility with duration of 1 min/level? Or just flat duration 5 rds, which would burn more power if you need to keep it going longer?

That's probably too much work for a house rule, but if you could do it you might avoid having to have different rules for non-combat vs. combat, etc.

I like systems like these in concept, but they break down for me when I apply the 'logic filter' that people (especially here) are so keen on.

I don't understand why two wizards, essentially the same, can potnetially cast wildly different numbers of spells in the same period of time. Lets say one wizard's scene is five hours, and the other one is five minutes. Both can only cast nine spells in that time. To me, that makes no sense.

You say it isn't abusable, but it really is simply by modifiying the duration of an encounter (or scene or whatever). That's why the standard is days, which are non-negotiable length of time and puts eveyone on the same footing.

Yeah, it seems like you're trying to do a simple spell point system and changing the "replenishing" time from when a wizard sleeps and prepares to before any encounter.  

As mentioned above, the problem is that encounters have varying lengths and you may have many more encounters in one day than in the next.

Also, another problem not mentioned yet is that this unbalances the classes.  One of the ways that the caster classes are balanced in D&D is that they are very powerful, but their resources are more easily exhaustible than other classes.  If you make them regenerate all spell points at each new encounter, they'll never use up their resources while other classes will.

To make this non-abusable, at minimum, you'd have to rebalance the spells and/or spell list, and change the rules on the other classes. Specifically, any ability with a per day timer would need to be per encounter.

Another problem you'll encounter is that the party will completely reload at the end of every encounter.  If I'm in that group, our cleric will simply heal everyone that got injured, and we'll be back at 100% immediately as if the encounter never happened.

To me that's the biggest problem.  One critical component of how adventures work is that you have to decide how and when to use your resource to achieve a goal.  With this system, all that goes out the window.

Quote from: snakefingThis is rather similar to a concept I've been tossing around in my head. You really have a spell point concept here, where the point cost is equal to spell level and the points regenerate at some unspecified rate such that you don't have to track them from scene to scene.

Well, the most "spell point" systems break by increasing the caster's available spell points so much, that he is able to repeatedly cast his most powerful spells in a row (eg spamming an encounter with half a dozen horrid wiltings, or something similar). On the other hand, in those systems points or preparation slots are so scarce and/or restricted that employing utility or "fluffy" spells is a highly subpar tactic.

Quote from: snakefing(In my scheme, I'd probably have a specified rate, like one point per five minutes or something.)

I can imagine that being a bookkeeping nightmare. It either matters all the time, or never at all. Imagine the party travelling through a desert after a draining battle. Either, nothing else happens and all casters can be regarded as "refilled", or you have to painstalkingly track the minutes as an invisible enemy or something else could spring on them.

Quote from: snakefingFull casters and half casters would gain power at different rates.

Well, they already do. In my system a half-caster would have at level 20 a power of 10 + key ability modifier, allowing him to cast 2 of his most powerful spells per encounter plus some added less powerful spells. Additionally, he'd have an amount of one-half his power to use for utility/healing/"fluffy" spells in between combats which refreshes at a "per hour" rate. This is probably more than what a paladin or ranger could do normally with their spells.

Quote from: snakefingSome of the problems people are talking about come from trying to use the D&D spells unmodified in a new system. There are obvious reasons to do that.

But a good system should compensate for that. Normal spell point systems break (see above) by allowing too many castings of highlevel spells while crippling utility spells.

Quote from: snakefingBut many of the spells are really designed to be used in a system where the number of spells are limited - persistent buffs, or powerful non-combat spells, or even some spells that scale with caster level can create some minor issues.

Again, I think my system accounts for that reasonably. Normal spell points allow eg a caster to blow like 50 points in the morning on spells like mindblank, shapechange, mage armor, moment of prescience, etc while still allowing him to "cake-walk" encounters with his other high-level spells. In my system, a caster loading up on buffs will barely be able to get a single high level spell off in a battle, yet alone several of them.

Quote from: snakefingTo make something like this work best you'd really need to plow through the spell list and rethink the spells. In this system, do you really need Invisibility with duration of 1 min/level? Or just flat duration 5 rds, which would burn more power if you need to keep it going longer?

Do you really need invisibility with a duration of 1min/level in normal DnD? Anyways, if you already have to rebalance and modify all spells for your house rule, you can just as well build a completely different incompatible system. The complexity would most likely stay in the same order of magnitude.

Quote from: snakefingThat's probably too much work for a house rule, but if you could do it you might avoid having to have different rules for non-combat vs. combat, etc.

Well, there will probably be different rules for "in combat" and "out of combat" in 4e (per day, per encounter, and at will abilities :P ), so I don't see that as a problem.

Quote from: Stargate525I like systems like these in concept, but they break down for me when I apply the 'logic filter' that people (especially here) are so keen on.

Then you apply the logic filter somehow wrong. ;)

Quote from: Stargate525I don't understand why two wizards, essentially the same, can potnetially cast wildly different numbers of spells in the same period of time. Lets say one wizard's scene is five hours, and the other one is five minutes. Both can only cast nine spells in that time. To me, that makes no sense.

You never played WoD, did you? ;) I was referring to their "short-term" definition of "scene". 5 hours is definitively more than a single scene in most cases.

Quote from: Stargate525You say it isn't abusable, but it really is simply by modifiying the duration of an encounter (or scene or whatever). That's why the standard is days, which are non-negotiable length of time and puts eveyone on the same footing.

If you allow players to decide that, everything's abusable. The DM decides when a scene is over and spells refresh.

Finally, this was just a suggestion, and I'm more inclined to go with "per hour". And you "per day" standard is also breakable and abusable, see planar travel to planes with a different time trait. ;)

Quote from: IvarYeah, it seems like you're trying to do a simple spell point system and changing the "replenishing" time from when a wizard sleeps and prepares to before any encounter.

No. If you reread my idea, you'll see that a wizard can only prepare his spells fully in the morning. Later, it takes 1 full hour to swap a single spell. This is even longer than the normal system's 15 minutes to fill an empty slot.

Quote from: IvarAs mentioned above, the problem is that encounters have varying lengths and you may have many more encounters in one day than in the next.

Which is the very basic breaking point of standard DnD. Abilities based on "per day" mechanics are either much too weak on days with many encounters (like rage or turn undead), or are incredibly powerful and lead to - sorry to say so - stupid nova tactics that allow a caster to steamroll every encounter (like basically any full arcane or divine caster). If you don't want to manually modify and adjust every single one of the several hundred spells already, you can only modify the rate of access and availability, which means going away from "per day" balancing.

Quote from: IvarAlso, another problem not mentioned yet is that this unbalances the classes.  One of the ways that the caster classes are balanced in D&D is that they are very powerful, but their resources are more easily exhaustible than other classes.  If you make them regenerate all spell points at each new encounter, they'll never use up their resources while other classes will.

Is that important? Will a warlock ever use up his resources? An incarnum base class? A martial adept base class? Heck, even a wizard with the right reserve feats could gain unlimited direct damage, short range teleportation, elemental summoning, and minor shapeshifting abilities every single day. However, in my system a wizard just doesn't have the stamina to buff himself through the stratosphere and still drop a time stop + 4 delayed blast fireballs on an encounter. In my system a caster can either buff himself really well (but reduce his ability to direct intervene in combat), or keep his power available for spellcasting (and thus leaving him "weak" in the very important buff department).

Quote from: IvarTo make this non-abusable, at minimum, you'd have to rebalance the spells and/or spell list, and change the rules on the other classes. Specifically, any ability with a per day timer would need to be per encounter.

How would you rebalance spells for this system? And why? Healing is a non-issue (see below), and even travel is not really an issue. A level 20 wizard with Int 30 could - at most assuming he has no buffs running - cast teleport three times per hour, or greater teleport two times per hour (further assuming he has prepared the spell right now). A typically buffed wizard, however, will not be able to keep up that rate usually (as most casters I know would definitively keep at least mindblank running all time).

Quote from: IvarAnother problem you'll encounter is that the party will completely reload at the end of every encounter.  If I'm in that group, our cleric will simply heal everyone that got injured, and we'll be back at 100% immediately as if the encounter never happened.

Not really. This is still possible in normal DnD. Like with a dragon shaman's vigor aura, or the Touch of Healing reserve feat, combined with some wands of lesser vigor. Also, a cleric could - at level 20 with Wis 30 and having no buffs running - cast heal twice per hour. How many clerics do you know that obstain from casting any buff from their impressive list on themselves? At higher levels the 750gp for 50 x 11 HP of healing are peanuts, and even a bard/ranger/paladin could do quite well with wands of cure light wounds (which is a little less effective as out of combat healing). Also, magic items may still have limited charges that are expended in an encounter (staffs, scrolls, potions, etc).

Quote from: IvarTo me that's the biggest problem.  One critical component of how adventures work is that you have to decide how and when to use your resource to achieve a goal.  With this system, all that goes out the window.

Only if you allow limitless access. For example, you seem to be missing the point that you still have to prepare the spells you want to cast. And if you want to cast a buff that lasts all day, you are not only reducing your overall stamina for as long as this buff is active, you also have to spend a slot on it to get it available. Of course, you could spend an hour later to swap out the spell, but that would delay the party by a total of 2 hours already, and would come back to haunt you should your buff be dispelled later on as you'd have to waste yet another hour swapping it back again.

For sure this changes the balancing of spell casters.

For example, the standard D20 wizard (George) at level 20 has four slots at each spell level, for a total of 180 equivalent spell points. Bob, our maxed out variant wizard, has 30 spell points. He'd have to have six maximum encounters a day to spend the equivalent of George's points. And he'll max out on an encounter pretty easily, whereas George can potentially a lot of power and still have something in reserve. But Bob can keep on going for as many encounters as he can pack in.

The other change is that Bob is going to be a lot more flexible. There's a lot less value (or maybe none at all, I'm not entirely clear) for Bob to ready the same spell more than once - even if he readies just one Cone of Cold he can still cast it at least once in each encounter. So he'll be able to ready a more impressive variety of spells.

In this system, you can defend against even high level mages like Bob by forcing them to use their power quickly, leaving them defenseless. But then you have to hit them right away before they can recover. It takes a more sustained attack to exhaust George - but then you can keep him from recovering if you just prevent him from getting good rest and preparing his spells.

So yes, you'll greatly change the way the game plays. Not so much strategic resource management, a lot more tactical.

Stargate's comment points out a weakness. That's why I'd prefer a system that had some kind of real time-based standards for recovery. The goal would be recovery that is slow enough that you don't usually have to worry about it during an encounter, yet fast enough that you don't usually have to worry about it between encounters. But if you do have a very long encounter, or a several encounters in a row, you at least have something to fall back on logically. Could cut back on arguments about whether some sequence of events forms one scene or two.

My suggestion would be something like: Recover one power point every minute, as long as you don't cast any spells or activate any magic items during that time. Most typical encounters won't last much longer than a minute - or if they do you'll be busy doing things - so no recovery during the encounter. Time between major encounters is usually measured in hours, or at least many minutes - so normally you can assume full recovery.

Quote from: Ra-Tiel

Quote from: snakefing(In my scheme, I'd probably have a specified rate, like one point per five minutes or something.)

I can imagine that being a bookkeeping nightmare. It either matters all the time, or never at all. Imagine the party travelling through a desert after a draining battle. Either, nothing else happens and all casters can be regarded as "refilled", or you have to painstalkingly track the minutes as an invisible enemy or something else could spring on them.

I don't see it being that bad, unless you are just hitting them with encounters every 15 minutes or something. Every time you have an encounter or scene, just figure how long it has been since the end of the last one, and recover the appropriate number of spell points. You don't need to track them on a minute by minute basis - if an invisible enemy does spring on them, that's when you worry about it. No one tracks movement through the desert that painstakingly anyway.

The goal is to minimize the bookkeeping by minimizing the number of situations in which you worry about it. I decided to shorten the time frame from 5 minutes to one minute for just this reason.

Quote from: Stargate525You say it isn't abusable, but it really is simply by modifiying the duration of an encounter (or scene or whatever). That's why the standard is days, which are non-negotiable length of time and puts eveyone on the same footing.

If you allow players to decide that, everything's abusable. The DM decides when a scene is over and spells refresh.
[/quote]Also, another problem not mentioned yet is that this unbalances the classes.  One of the ways that the caster classes are balanced in D&D is that they are very powerful, but their resources are more easily exhaustible than other classes.  If you make them regenerate all spell points at each new encounter, they'll never use up their resources while other classes will.[/quote]
Is that important? Will a warlock ever use up his resources? An incarnum base class? A martial adept base class? Heck, even a wizard with the right reserve feats could gain unlimited direct damage, short range teleportation, elemental summoning, and minor shapeshifting abilities every single day. However, in my system a wizard just doesn't have the stamina to buff himself through the stratosphere and still drop a time stop + 4 delayed blast fireballs on an encounter. In my system a caster can either buff himself really well (but reduce his ability to direct intervene in combat), or keep his power available for spellcasting (and thus leaving him "weak" in the very important buff department).
[/quote]To make this non-abusable, at minimum, you'd have to rebalance the spells and/or spell list, and change the rules on the other classes. Specifically, any ability with a per day timer would need to be per encounter.[/quote]

How would you rebalance spells for this system? And why? Healing is a non-issue (see below), and even travel is not really an issue. A level 20 wizard with Int 30 could - at most assuming he has no buffs running - cast teleport three times per hour, or greater teleport two times per hour (further assuming he has prepared the spell right now). A typically buffed wizard, however, will not be able to keep up that rate usually (as most casters I know would definitively keep at least mindblank running all time).
[/quote]Another problem you'll encounter is that the party will completely reload at the end of every encounter.  If I'm in that group, our cleric will simply heal everyone that got injured, and we'll be back at 100% immediately as if the encounter never happened.[/quote]
Not really. This is still possible in normal DnD. Like with a dragon shaman's vigor aura, or the Touch of Healing reserve feat, combined with some wands of lesser vigor. Also, a cleric could - at level 20 with Wis 30 and having no buffs running - cast heal twice per hour. How many clerics do you know that obstain from casting any buff from their impressive list on themselves? At higher levels the 750gp for 50 x 11 HP of healing are peanuts, and even a bard/ranger/paladin could do quite well with wands of cure light wounds (which is a little less effective as out of combat healing). Also, magic items may still have limited charges that are expended in an encounter (staffs, scrolls, potions, etc).
[/quote]every[/i] encounter, so there will be no loss of resources at all and the characters can use whatever spells, HPs, and resources they want EVERY encounter.  This removes some of the challenge it would seem for an adventure.

You'd still have to plan which spell goes in which slot, so at least you still have that tactical decision, but once an encounter starts you could let it all fly without consequence.

I like the idea of mixing the spell point system and the standard system, which it appears is partly what this mechanic relies on, but the replenishment period of per encounter is a sticking point that may just be a case of the "disagrees".

Edit: Ivar snuck a response in while I was typing which covers some of the same points I make here.

I'm inclined to agree with Ra-Tiel that any kind of minute-based bookkeeping would be more trouble than it's worth. I'd say go with at least an hourly rate, and lower numbers if possible.

As far as scenes go, the only scene I could imagine lasting hours is one where it is a Gather Information check. And if a scene lasts 5 minutes, it's usually because the scene has physically and temporally jumped ahead, meaning hours probably really have passed between scenes, otherwise, the DM wouldn't call it a new scene, just a continuation of the current one. The very mechanic of the "scene" presupposes a story-first attitude (something often more difficult in D&D than WoD), and something that will appeal to some players and not others that prefer a more precise tactical measurement. While it's possible to come up with examples of why scene-based measurements won't work, most examples forget the simple point that the players/GM are supposed to exercise common sense and good judgment.

Quote from: Ra-Tiel

Quote from: snakefingSome of the problems people are talking about come from trying to use the D&D spells unmodified in a new system. There are obvious reasons to do that.

It's debatable whether the current D&D magic system is a "good system" to begin with. I have no love for it's spells, basic premises, or, especially, Vancian mechanics.

QuoteHowever, in my system a wizard just doesn't have the stamina to buff himself through the stratosphere and still drop a time stop + 4 delayed blast fireballs on an encounter. In my system a caster can either buff himself really well (but reduce his ability to direct intervene in combat), or keep his power available for spellcasting (and thus leaving him "weak" in the very important buff department).

A worthy goal. I hope it works that way, especially without unforeseen nasty side effects.

Quote from: PhoenixI don't recall any scene-based game system I've played in where someone argued with the Storyteller about whether a scene had ended. The mechanic works, but it doesn't work for all kinds of players (the same can be said of most mechanics).

I absolutely agree. The scene-based mechanic will certainly work quite well for many players. But D&D seems to attract a different type of player than Storyteller. :)

I've seen heated arguments over much less than that.

But anyway, my interest in systems like this is more oriented toward the lower end of the power scale. I'd like to see low level spell casters that can actually, you know, cast spells; rather than being one shot wonders. A system that leaves them with weak spells that they can use more freely seems more interesting to me.

Note, for example, that Ra-Tiel's first level wizard has 4 power points - so he can actually case 4 first level spells per encounter, as opposed to just one per day. That is a HUGE change. Maybe too much, given D&D's spells as written.

Quote from: snakefingFor sure this changes the balancing of spell casters.

For example, the standard D20 wizard (George) at level 20 has four slots at each spell level, for a total of 180 equivalent spell points. Bob, our maxed out variant wizard, has 30 spell points.

You have an error in your math right there. Either you would need to drop Bob's power score down to 20, or you consider Georg's bonus spell slots. ;)

Quote from: snakefingHe'd have to have six maximum encounters a day to spend the equivalent of George's points. And he'll max out on an encounter pretty easily, whereas George can potentially a lot of power and still have something in reserve. But Bob can keep on going for as many encounters as he can pack in.

On the other hand, Bob can not r*a*p*e each encounter by throwing a bunch of high level spells at it.

Quote from: snakefingThe other change is that Bob is going to be a lot more flexible. There's a lot less value (or maybe none at all, I'm not entirely clear) for Bob to ready the same spell more than once - even if he readies just one Cone of Cold he can still cast it at least once in each encounter. So he'll be able to ready a more impressive variety of spells.

I think you overestimate this flexibility. Once selected, pretty much 95% of the wizard's repertoire is set in stone, and the rest takes an hour a spell to change. Also, having to make even with 4 readied spells per level sounds much easier than it actually is. Only consider that most casters prefer a mix of direct-damage, battlefield control, debuff, and utility spells, and you'll hit the limit pretty quickly. Especially at low to mid levels.

Quote from: snakefingIn this system, you can defend against even high level mages like Bob by forcing them to use their power quickly, leaving them defenseless. But then you have to hit them right away before they can recover. It takes a more sustained attack to exhaust George - but then you can keep him from recovering if you just prevent him from getting good rest and preparing his spells.

In normal DnD you would have to
a) get an equally powerful and prepared spellcaster
b) a dragon
or
c) a whole friggin army
to take down a wizard. Long-term buffs like moment of prescience and foresight, combined with shapechange and contingeny make it practically impossible to catch a wizard with his pants down. If all you can muster is a "sustained attack" George will be looting your smoking remains by round 4.

Quote from: snakefingSo yes, you'll greatly change the way the game plays. Not so much strategic resource management, a lot more tactical.

Which would be imho a good thing and make the game more enjoyable. Currently it's not "hit or miss" with spellcasters, it's rather "pwn or suck".

Quote from: snakefingStargate's comment points out a weakness. That's why I'd prefer a system that had some kind of real time-based standards for recovery. The goal would be recovery that is slow enough that you don't usually have to worry about it during an encounter, yet fast enough that you don't usually have to worry about it between encounters. But if you do have a very long encounter, or a several encounters in a row, you at least have something to fall back on logically. Could cut back on arguments about whether some sequence of events forms one scene or two.

Well, you could always say that the normal amount of power a spellcaster can control and bring to bear is actually his reserve, and that the "power score" merely represents the limits he can ready in a life-or-death situation. Similar to how in real life people can suddenly develope enormous strength for a short time if they are put into a lifethreatening situation.

Quote from: snakefingMy suggestion would be something like: Recover one power point every minute, as long as you don't cast any spells or activate any magic items during that time. Most typical encounters won't last much longer than a minute - or if they do you'll be busy doing things - so no recovery during the encounter. Time between major encounters is usually measured in hours, or at least many minutes - so normally you can assume full recovery.

But this again asks for the question: why bother with "per minute" recovery at all if in almost all cases you'll be full anyways?

Quote from: IvarAnd this is where the subjectivity comes in that makes this idea so hard to implement.  What if I, as a player, decide to retreat from a battle?  Do my spells replenish?  How long do I stay away to get them to replenish before I can charge in a fling my full arsenal all over again?

I think we are getting sidetracked a little here. I was mentioning "per scene" merely as a possible alternative recovery mechanic, not as the primary intended thing.

Quote from: IvarI don't use warlocks, incarnums, martial adepts, reserve feats...so I can't comment on those.  The standard D&D classes(barbarians, bards, etc.) will use up resources while the spellcasters will not.

I see. I personally find those classes to be much more enjoyable to play than the normal classes, most likely because you have a little thing to do every time. Compared to normal classes, which are based on a flawed assumption of 4 encounters per day and only offer the options of the character pwning everyone else, or sucking big time for the rest of the day.

Quote from: IvarTo rebalance spells, you'd first have to look at the durations of spells.  Spells where the duration>replenishing time would make them overpowerful it would seem.  This could be mitigated by having a combat vs. noncombat system in place, but that would take some balancing to get the lists straight in terms of which goes where.  

This is were the reduced capacity enters the scene. I know very well that eg recharge magic or spell point systems suffer severly from this flaw, allowing a caster to put up his longterm buffs without taking a real hit to his resources.

Quote from: IvarYou say healing and travel are non-factors, but you use examples of level 20 wizards and ubercharacters.  Maybe that's the campaign you run, so maybe this would work in that setting, but for normal campaigns, that is not the case.

Those were the worst case, trying to show that even with pimped out high-level characters it's not as bad as it seems.

Quote from: IvarAgain, to disprove that healing is a factor you use dragons, 20th level characters, etc.

Again, worst case. Also, dragon shaman != dragon. ;) One is a badass monster from the MMs, the other is a generally considered weak class from (IIRC) Complete Arcane with Marshal-like auras.

Quote from: IvarHow will this system work for a group of, say, 5th level characters?  The 5th level cleric will be able to heal his entire group after every encounter, so there will be no loss of resources at all and the characters can use whatever spells, HPs, and resources they want EVERY encounter.  This removes some of the challenge it would seem for an adventure.

Ok, let's take a look at this from the point of a 5th level cleric with Wis 19 (base 16, +1 level increase, +2 periapt of wisdom). The cleric can ready five 0 level spells, three 1st level spells, two 2nd level spells, and one 3rd level spells in addition to his one domain spell per level. Further, the cleric has a power score of 9 and a reserve of 4. Now, a typical melee-oriented cleric will most likely have at least a magic vestment active, as money is quite limited for 5th level characters and this character already has a magic item for 2k gp (thus most likely being unable to purchase a suit of magic armor IN addition to his other items already). This drops our cleric to an effective power score of 6 (as lasting buffs reduce their costs from the maximum power score) and a reserve of 3.

So, after all is said and done, your cleric can heal 3d8+15 points (28.5 avg) per hour. Considering that at 5th level the fighter alone has (assuming Con 16) 47 HP. I somehow doubt that the cleric will be able to constantly heal the whole party. ;) Even more if he somewhen would be needed to cast something else, like lesser restoration or zone of truth (which also have the "preparation problem").

Quote from: IvarYou'd still have to plan which spell goes in which slot, so at least you still have that tactical decision, but once an encounter starts you could let it all fly without consequence.

Until you hit your (likely reduced) limit, which in most cases would be after around 2 of your highest level spells. So a wizard would most likely not get any benefit from starting every encounter with a time stop, just because he will lack the power to cast his other powerful spells afterwards. So, a caster has to basically decide between the following options:
* "Do I want to be able to cast many spells when the need arises?"
* "Do I want to keep many buffs running to be prepared for 'emergencies'?"
And after that, he must decide between:
* "Do I want to pull out the big guns once or max twice per combat?"
* "Do I want to keep a steady, yet somewhat moderate, magical output throughout the whole combat?"

Quote from: IvarI like the idea of mixing the spell point system and the standard system, which it appears is partly what this mechanic relies on, but the replenishment period of per encounter is a sticking point that may just be a case of the "disagrees".

Recovery based on a fixed time (per day, per minute, etc) allows you to nova, as you can pull all resources into one big *KABOOM* and be ready at full the next minute (or hour, or - as it is now - day). Therefore, I don't think that this is a valid option either.

Quote from: snakefing[...] Note, for example, that Ra-Tiel's first level wizard has 4 power points - so he can actually case 4 first level spells per encounter, as opposed to just one per day. That is a HUGE change. Maybe too much, given D&D's spells as written.

Yes, he can indeed cast 4 spells per encounter at first level. Out of the list of one spell readied for the day. :P Unless he takes an hour of concentration to swap out the slot. At the start of the game, a sorcerer would have a huge boost due to the fact that he knows more spells than the wizard could ready. Their capacity would (assuming equal Int and Cha scores) be equal, but the sorcerer would have much more flexbility in his selection right now.

Quote from: Ra-TielBut this again asks for the question: why bother with "per minute" recovery at all if in almost all cases you'll be full anyways?

Out of the list of one spell readied for the day.[/quote]per encounter[/i] would do for the survivability of a first level group. Even multiple Charm or Sleep gives you more chances to overcome saving throws.

Not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but it is different. A lot different.

Ok, I think I finally understand most of what you are trying to do.  But now I have a concern totally opposite of what has been expressed here.

Now I think that you might be making spellcasters underpowered.  Basically, you're making spellcasters something akin to an extreme form of a sorcerer in that they would have a very limited amount of spells "readied".  But they also have a reduced amount of spells to cast per encounter.

For example, I'll examine a standard wizard and sorcerer vs. variant spellcaster at various levels.

1st level
Standard wizard: 2 first levels prepared
Standard Sorcerer:4 first level spells, choice of 2
Variant Spellcaster:4 first level spells, choice of 1

5th level
Standard wizard: 4 first levels prepared, 3 second, 2 third
Standard Sorcerer:7 first level spells, 5 second levels, choice of 4/2 respectively
Variant Spellcaster:power level = 8, choice of 3 first, 2 second, 1 third.

10th level
Standard wizard: 5/5/4/3/2
Standard Sorcerer:7/7/7/5/3 choice of 5/4/3/2/1 respectively
Variant Spellcaster:power level = 14, choice of 4/4/3/3/2.

Etc.  So basically you're decreasing the power of spellcasters at any instance.  For a normal spellcaster, they are most deadly on their first encounter and can unleash all spells.  The variant spellcasters has the same mediocre spell power no matter how many encounters you throw at them.

So now I'm wondering...is the variant spellcaster underpowered?

Also, as an aside to make sure I understand, how does this apply to sorcerers?  Do they get replaced entirely by this variant?

Quote from: IvarOk, I think I finally understand most of what you are trying to do.  But now I have a concern totally opposite of what has been expressed here.

Ok, sorry for having not been more clearly earlier.

Quote from: IvarNow I think that you might be making spellcasters underpowered.  Basically, you're making spellcasters something akin to an extreme form of a sorcerer in that they would have a very limited amount of spells "readied".  But they also have a reduced amount of spells to cast per encounter.

Exactly. This is something that's been discussed on the WotC boards for some time when Complete Arcane came out as the "Warlock principle". The warlock gets invocations, at will spell-like abilities resembling some spells. He gets only 11 in his whole 20 levels, but some of those invocations include shatter, black tentacles, and baleful polymorph. Many cried foul of the class and labeled it overpowered, but it turned out to not be overpowered. The point is, the class gets basically unlimited stamina at the cost of raw power. Something similar I try to achieve with this variant. While the caster can basically keep going all day, he is very restricted in both his selection and his staying power. Of course it needs some more balancing and tuning, but this is what forums are there for, aren't they? ;)

Quote from: IvarFor example, I'll examine a standard wizard and sorcerer vs. variant spellcaster at various levels. [...]

That's exactly the system how I tried to describe it to work. Sorry for the confusion. I hope it doesn't seem too strange now?

Quote from: IvarEtc.  So basically you're decreasing the power of spellcasters at any instance.  For a normal spellcaster, they are most deadly on their first encounter and can unleash all spells.  The variant spellcasters has the same mediocre spell power no matter how many encounters you throw at them.

This is a consequence of unlimited stamina. If I kept the full casters' general raw spell output in addition to staying power for the whole day, it would clearly overpower the system and break the mechanics. But I think - and hope ;) - that the restrictions somewhat balance out the benefits.

Quote from: IvarSo now I'm wondering...is the variant spellcaster underpowered?

You think so? :huh: To be honest, I was already concerned that it was too strong, considering the capability to (probably) cast two of their highest level spells per encounter.

Quote from: IvarAlso, as an aside to make sure I understand, how does this apply to sorcerers?  Do they get replaced entirely by this variant?

Well, I was thinking of giving sorcerers another benefit. Like a class-based +2 bonus to his power score every 4 levels (+10 total at level 20). This would allow a sorcerer to cast more spells per encounter, and also keep more buffs spells running than a wizard of the same level with the same key ability score. Combined with a sorcerer's large number of spells known I thought that it could out nicely. But I'm not too sure about it...

If it were me, I'd replace sorcerers with this variant. I don't think that there's really a need for two different styles of spell casters in this system.

This system does decrease the power of spell casters at all but the lowest levels. (I'd say that a first or second level variant caster is stronger, but by the time you get to level 3-4 things will have turned around.

Are they underpowered? It is hard to say. Probably only extensive playtesting could really answer that. Most people feel that high level wizards are too powerful now, so it is hard to guess whether this goes too far in the opposite direction.

Quote from: snakefingIf it were me, I'd replace sorcerers with this variant. I don't think that there's really a need for two different styles of spell casters in this system.

I see. Maybe you're right. Or you could swap positions of sorcerer and warlock.

Quote from: snakefingThis system does decrease the power of spell casters at all but the lowest levels. (I'd say that a first or second level variant caster is stronger, but by the time you get to level 3-4 things will have turned around.

Which was intended. But consider: they are still full casters, with access to level 9 spells. They can still do miracle, shapechange, disjunction, mass heal, gate, and so on. They can even do it more or less all day now. But they are restricted to probably one or at most two at a time, taking them down quite a bit. Now a caster must face much more tactical decisions than "meh, I just throw a time stop and three gates at that dragon", and cannot steamroll an encounter with all his highlevel spells.

Quote from: snakefingAre they underpowered? It is hard to say. Probably only extensive playtesting could really answer that. Most people feel that high level wizards are too powerful now, so it is hard to guess whether this goes too far in the opposite direction.

I agree. Alas, it seems that the FR campaign for which I wanted to suggest trying this variant doesn't happen. :(

Quote from: Ra-TielOk, sorry for having not been more clearly earlier.

I think I (and a few others) just got sidetracked on the "per encounter" part of the system, which isn't really what the system is about at all.   So I'm going to ignore that part (since it depends wildly on how you play your game) and instead focus on the other mechanics.

Quote from: IvarSo now I'm wondering...is the variant spellcaster underpowered?

It really depends on how often you let them recharge, but yeah, I think it's awfully close to being a bit underpowered.  I know that if I were a player, I'd prefer a classic wizard.  If you're running the Temple of Elemental Evil or a similarly long and unending dungeon crawl variety adventure, then the variant spellcaster is more powerul than the wizard by far.  But if you're running the more common 2-4 encounters/day variety adventure, then the variant spellcaster is quite underpowered compared to the wizard.

A variant wizard definitely has a lessened chance to defeat a CR greater than himself.  For example, a classic wizard can help his group defeat a much higher CR encounter if he has not exhausted any resources.  The variant wizard can always help out some, but will not be able to really propel the group to defeat a higher CR encounter in the same way a wizard could.

Using my 10th level example:
Standard wizard: can cast 5/5/4/3/2
Standard Sorcerer: can cast 7/7/7/5/3 choice of 5/4/3/2/1 respectively
Variant Spellcaster:power level = 14, choice of 4/4/3/3/2.  

As the variant, I'll cast 2 5th level spells and 1 4th level spell 95% of the time in a tough fight, and my power will be spent.  And that compares quite woefully to the standard classes in a single fight.

Quote from: Ra-TielWell, I was thinking of giving sorcerers another benefit. Like a class-based +2 bonus to his power score every 4 levels (+10 total at level 20). This would allow a sorcerer to cast more spells per encounter, and also keep more buffs spells running than a wizard of the same level with the same key ability score. Combined with a sorcerer's large number of spells known I thought that it could out nicely. But I'm not too sure about it...

I'd really get rid sorcerers and/or wizards if you go with the variant.  I don't think you need 3 variations for arcane casters...you'll wind up with one or two of the classes never being played.  I thought this system was to replace all casters though?  Druids, Clerics, etc.?  It's an entire magic system for all classes, right?  If so, it makes the sorcerer obselete I think.

The question as to whether the variant caster is underpowered depends more on how it compares to other classes, rather than how it compares to standard wizard. Is the caster so much weaker that you'd rather play an equivalent level non-caster?

As to your other points:

This changes the game a fair amount, so a lot of the standard adventure design won't work well. CR's might be off, especially at higher levels. The 2-4 encounters per day concept doesn't work the same. In any given encounter, clerics will have to hold back some of their power in case they need emergency healing. But between encounters, they can basically use their healing pretty freely.

Casters will generally be more willing and able to use their magic to solve non-combat encounters. There's really no downside to spending power in low intensity encounters, and much less of a loss if you use your spell slots to ready spells you might not use.

Character design can change too. How does the change affect the value of Metamagic or Item Creation feats? That will also change the way these casters actually work out in play.

QuoteThe question as to whether the variant caster is underpowered depends more on how it compares to other classes, rather than how it compares to standard wizard. Is the caster so much weaker that you'd rather play an equivalent level non-caster?

If it replaces the wizard and/or sorcerer, then absolutely.  But if it is another arcance caster option, then it must be compared directly to them.  I'm still unsure what we're using the "variant" for.

Quote from: Ivar[...] A variant wizard definitely has a lessened chance to defeat a CR greater than himself.  For example, a classic wizard can help his group defeat a much higher CR encounter if he has not exhausted any resources.  The variant wizard can always help out some, but will not be able to really propel the group to defeat a higher CR encounter in the same way a wizard could.

Well, this is in my opinion one of the major problems with the current casting system. A "prepared" caster can pretty much handle any encounter within 2 or 3 CR of himself all alone, with the rest of the party (if at all necessary) reduced to mere bystanders. This should not be, never ever.

Quote from: Ivar[...] As the variant, I'll cast 2 5th level spells and 1 4th level spell 95% of the time in a tough fight, and my power will be spent.  And that compares quite woefully to the standard classes in a single fight.

Perhaps it would require the player to use some more "group friendly" tactics? Like using a polymorph on his fighter buddy instead of disintegrating the enemy? Would that really be so bad, to negate a caster's ability to steamroll encounters by throwing most of his daily resources at it?

And to be honest, I'd rather have a class which mechanics allow me to contribute meaningfully to any encounter we face that day than to powerhouse one encounter and be a mighty crossbow wielder for the rest of the day.

Quote from: IvarI'd really get rid sorcerers and/or wizards if you go with the variant.  I don't think you need 3 variations for arcane casters...you'll wind up with one or two of the classes never being played.  I thought this system was to replace all casters though?  Druids, Clerics, etc.?  It's an entire magic system for all classes, right?  If so, it makes the sorcerer obselete I think.

See my last post. Perhaps the sorcerer indeed is unnecessary with such a system.

Quote from: snakefingThe question as to whether the variant caster is underpowered depends more on how it compares to other classes, rather than how it compares to standard wizard. Is the caster so much weaker that you'd rather play an equivalent level non-caster?

Good question. If you compared the variant caster to a barbarian, or rogue, or ranger now, how does he do? I'd say quite well. He still has a crapload of power at his command, but has lost the ability to be able to dominate the game.

Quote from: snakefingThis changes the game a fair amount, so a lot of the standard adventure design won't work well. CR's might be off, especially at higher levels. The 2-4 encounters per day concept doesn't work the same. In any given encounter, clerics will have to hold back some of their power in case they need emergency healing. But between encounters, they can basically use their healing pretty freely.

You mean, like clerics not running around with persisted divine might and all that? Impossible! :o :P

Quote from: snakefingCasters will generally be more willing and able to use their magic to solve non-combat encounters. There's really no downside to spending power in low intensity encounters, and much less of a loss if you use your spell slots to ready spells you might not use.

Again, would that be so bad? Also, remember that XP or material components are still in effect. This is one of the temptations of a spell point system, that you forget about those. A caster throwing some of his utility spells too willingly will rather sooner than later finding the debt coming back to haunt him.

Quote from: snakefingCharacter design can change too. How does the change affect the value of Metamagic or Item Creation feats? That will also change the way these casters actually work out in play.

So far I haven't really thought about the impact of metamagic. But I'm working on it. :P Item creation feats should work pretty normal, wouldn't they? You'd still need to spend 8 hours a day for X days on working on the item and all. No change there.

Quote...would that be so bad?

Charm Person[/i] to persuade the innkeeper to give up some information is almost a no-brainer. Assuming you have it ready, why not? So does this mean that the caster is intruding on the roles of other players? Is it too much? How do you change the adventure design to take this into account? So many questions, so few answers.

The point is that there are lots of effects on the game besides just the change in power.

QuoteItem creation feats should work pretty normal, wouldn't they?

I don't think there's any reason for them to change, at first look. Metamagic isn't too hard in general - a metamagic altered spell takes a higher level slot to ready, and costs more points to cast.

What I'm kind of wondering about is whether this system changes the usefulness of these feats. For example, item creation might be extra useful because scrolls, wands, etc. add to your per-encounter power, which is now a significant limiting factor. Still, that XP cost can add up... I don't know.

Quote from: snakefingI'm not saying it is a bad or good thing that casters will use magic more freely. But standard wizards and sorcerers won't do that because those spell slots are so precious. The variant caster can use magic in low intensity scenes quite freely - it is just a matter of what spells you want to have ready. So Charm Person to persuade the innkeeper to give up some information is almost a no-brainer. Assuming you have it ready, why not? So does this mean that the caster is intruding on the roles of other players? Is it too much? How do you change the adventure design to take this into account? So many questions, so few answers.

A caster won't be able to keep that up for long. Charm Person has a duration of 1hour/level and is not dismissable. So, each person the caster charms reduces his power by 1 and his reserve by 2. I'd say that in the normal system you have less qualms to whip out the spell. At worst you're down 1 level 1 spell, and nothing else. In my system, however, the spell keeps tugging on your resources every second it's active.

Quote from: snakefingThe point is that there are lots of effects on the game besides just the change in power.

Agreed. But long lasting spells are quite difficult to judge in my system. A caster has always to decide if the benefits of the spell are worth the reduction in spellcasting power during the spell's duration. There are no "no-brainers" like in normal DnD with its "fire and forget" spellcasting.

Quote from: snakefingI don't think there's any reason for them to change, at first look. Metamagic isn't too hard in general - a metamagic altered spell takes a higher level slot to ready, and costs more points to cast.

That was also my first idea about metamagic. But I'm toying around with some other ideas as well. ;)

Quote from: snakefingWhat I'm kind of wondering about is whether this system changes the usefulness of these feats. For example, item creation might be extra useful because scrolls, wands, etc. add to your per-encounter power, which is now a significant limiting factor. Still, that XP cost can add up... I don't know.

As you see yourself, it already has an inbuilt drawback. Cheap one-shot items like potions and scrolls are already quite useful in normal DnD spellcasting, as it greatly increases a caster's flexibility. Also, especially preparation casters like clerics and wizards, gain a huge boost from them. Even more so from wands and especially staffs.

I forgot that Charm Person is not dismissable. Oddly, that has a bigger effect on higher level casters because the spell lasts so long for them.

Still, the point hold for any short term spell or dismissible spell. If it is worth using a slot to ready it, you can use it pretty freely - and that fact alone makes it more likely to be worth readying. Think Levitation, Fly, Spider Climb, Jump, Detect Thoughts, Suggestion (for things likely to be quickly completed anyway), Invisibility, ...

Not all these spells will be prepared all the time, but they are all things that are greatly enhanced in usefulness when you can cast them more or less at will. Fly in particular is already a standard for control of battle space - now it can be freely used in non-combat circumstances too.

Again, not necessarily a bad thing, but you'd have to take things like that into account when designing challenges.

Quoten my system, however, the spell keeps tugging on your resources every second it's active.

While I think that's a great innovation, and used something similar in my invented (now defunct) magic system myself, I think it is all the more reason a caster should be able to dismiss most of his spells at will. Standard D&D doesn't make it dismissable because it's not something that normally drains resources; a caster would have little reason to get rid of it, even if he no longer needed it.

Quote from: PhoenixWhile I think that's a great innovation, and used something similar in my invented (now defunct) magic system myself, I think it is all the more reason a caster should be able to dismiss most of his spells at will. Standard D&D doesn't make it dismissable because it's not something that normally drains resources; a caster would have little reason to get rid of it, even if he no longer needed it.

I definitively see your point and if building a system from the ground up I'd strongly agree with you. However, I'm not really keen of modifiying and double-check every spell's duration, and recheck to avoid abusing, I'm leaving it as is. Also, does a caster really have unlimited and absolute control over the forces he sets loose? I don't think so, at least in DnD.