The Campaign Builder's Guild

After a comment on the boards here (I won't mention LordVreeg by name... oops. ;) ) mentioning how my muse has been suffocating because I haven't built my own magic system, and because my Arcanists, to be truthful, really, really need one, I decided to do so.

As an aside, it seems that everything I start here begins with an apology for why I'm starting it... Anyway. Comments, suggestions, etc.



What I want to accomplish, in no particular order:
1. Have a clear mathematical scale of power, which doesn't leave non-casters in the dust.
2. Integrate a form of ritual magic ala 4e.
3. Simplify and streamline the creation of one-use items and magic items.
4. Utilize an MP system.
5. Make the underlying mechanics straightforward, allowing additional classes to be bolted on post creation with little fuss. Additionally, allow this system to bolt into other RPGs with simple changes performed to numeric values alone.  
6. Allow for a variety of thematics without punishing or rewarding the player for a specific choice.

I'll cover my initial thoughts in order.


Considering WOTC, by my knowledge, hasn't been able to do this yet, I'm biting off a lot (or a litte, depending on your view of Wizards). Since my base is 3.5, that's what I'll be using.
   
the first thing I'm doing is taking a look at damage scale relative to average hitpoint scales. Keeping the concept of level-based spells, this should be an easy way to figure out what the current system has. I'll be considering maximum damage, so the scale will be from minimum damage at the first level available to maximum damage at level 20, for one round to one creature. Sorc/Wiz lists only, so as not to complicate matters further.
[th]level[/th][th]Damage Range[/th]

0	1-3 (Acid Splash/Ray of Frost)
1	1-30 (Burning Hands)
2	4-72 (Scorching Ray)
3	5-60 (Fireball)
4	5-30 (Shout)*
5	9-90 (Cone of Cold)
6	22-240 (Disintegrate)
7	13-120 (Delayed Blast Fireball)
8	15-120 (Polar Ray)
9	24-192 (Meteor Swarm)

Now this, despite what it may seem, doesn't actually tell you much that's concrete. With the exception of the anomalies at levels 2 (higher than scale), 4 (lower than scale), and 6 (higher than scale), damage does get progressively better as you increase in levels. Unfortunately, this table doesn't break down for you the percent of the potential target's hp you would be removing at each specific level, nor does it average the amount of damage a non-caster is dealing, as that can very wildly depending on build and type of critter being attacked). Ideally, I think the damage should be based on a percentage of the average hitpoints a character of equivalent level could be expected to have. Off of the top of my head, the highest level castable should be ~50%, and taper off in five percent increments until the lowest becomes ~5% from a 0th level spell at level 20. This would create a concrete, concise, and most importantly scalable damage range which each level should abide by. Now, the hit point totals I'll be using to figure this out will be ((level-1)*5)+10, the average one would get by averaging all the class ranges together (roughly) and adding one to represent constitution, two at first level for rounding purposes. Using the principle established above, we get... something very strange.

the damage spread a particular spell requires is a parabolic line. going across we have the damage every three levels from 1 to 17. going down is the spell level from zero to nine. If someone can figure out what the hell these equations are, I'd be grateful.

05-08-10-12-13-12-11-08-05
05-09-12-14-15-15-14-12-09
xx-10-14-16-18-18-18-16-14
xx-xx-15-18-20-21-21-20-18
xx-xx-xx-20-23-24-25-24-23
xx-xx-xx-xx-25-27-28-28-27
xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-30-32-32-32
xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-35-36-36
xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-40-41
xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-45

I've suddenly discovered why direct damage scales with caster level; it preserves the front half of the parabola. WOTC numbers are skewed higher, no doubt, to counteract creatures and other non-humans with obscene amounts of hitpoints from a high constitution or an outrageous amount of hit dice.

In any case, this makes magic, as you can see, far less powerful in terms of raw damage. Under this, a rogue's sneak attack can and (at higher levels) most likely will outstrip anything a spellcaster can dish out.

Quote from: Stargate52505-08-10-12-13-12-11-08-05
05-09-12-14-15-15-14-12-09
xx-10-14-16-18-18-18-16-14
xx-xx-15-18-20-21-21-20-18
xx-xx-xx-20-23-24-25-24-23
xx-xx-xx-xx-25-27-28-28-27
xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-30-32-32-32
xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-35-36-36
xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-40-41
xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-45

I'd be glad to help you with the mathematical equation part if you can clearly explain what these numbers represent.

le table, we meet again...

[th]Avg. Dmg
@ level[/th][th]Avg. HP
@ lvl[/th][th colspan='10']Spell level[/th]

-	-	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
01	10	5	5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
03	20	8	9	10	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
05	30	10	12	14	15	-	-	-	-	-	-
07	40	12	14	16	18	20	-	-	-	-	-
09	50	13	15	18	20	23	25	-	-	-	-
11	60	12	51	18	21	24	27	30	-	-	-
13	70	11	14	18	21	25	28	32	35	-	-
15	80	8	12	16	20	24	28	32	36	40	-
17	90	5	9	14	18	23	27	32	36	41	45

Notice how the damage outputs in each column form a curve? If you've got questions on deciphering that, feel free to ask me.

Anyway, on to...


the wrench in this nice, neat picture is that the majority of combat-related spells don't actually do hitpoint damage, they perform some other effect, usually (but not always) allowing some sort of avoidance in the form of a save and sometimes (but not often) are equatable to a hitpoint total (finger of death, for one.).

The first type are penalty spells. These effects are numerous and varied, and to maintain game balance, the best bet would most likely be to rip these spells straight out, modify them to account for damage totals (if they do hitpoint damage as a secondary) and leave them untouched. Specific examples of unbalancing items, please stand up.

The second are buff spells. I personally don't use them, so we'll leave them be.

This area, in particular, is the one I will need the most help on, assigning some sort of value to each kind of effect, and creating a table to determine what level a certain grouping of effect (a spell) should be at.


[/b]

The rituals are one of two things that I liked in 4e (the other having nothing to do with magic). For those of us who don't know yet, I'll debrief a bit. Rituals are what's left of all spells that take time (expressed in something other than a combat action) to perform. They are cast from books made especially for rituals, or from one-time use scrolls. All of them cost money in materials, and it incorporates non-caster participation (in the form of materials, energy, or sacrifice).

Prepping this system is relatively easy. All we do is rip out the spells that have a casting time of a minute or more, as well as all spells with costly material components or foci, and make them rituals. This gives us, in essence, two spell lists; one for combat and quick utility, one for long utility or epically large damaging spells.

Balancing this system, however, will be slightly less easy.  

I've looked over your arcanist, but I recommend you answer several more questions before you start designing a magic system:

1. Does your system utilize a spells-per-day system or something similar? Magic Points per day would be the same as this. There are two alternatives I've found: an unlimited caster (I use this system) or the regenerating magic point system, where a caster might gain x number of magic points per turn or another set amount of time.

2. Do you use spell levels, do your spells become more powerful as your characters level, or both? D&D does both, and it can become a little convoluted.  

I think as you get further and further into design you'll be surprised at how little unmodified damage means. Compare the second level Scorching Ray to the third level Fireball. Those two spells don't resemble each other at all and therefore shouldn't be compared. A fireball can deal up to 60 damage to 44 squares (and, therefore, 44 characters).  On the other hand, the top scorching ray shoots 3 rays that each deal 24 damage, which is up to 24 damage to 3 characters or 72 damage to one.  Damage comparison? The fireball wins at 2,640 damage to the scorching rays' 72.

(I won't even talk about meteor swarm.)

With that, I'm just saying that you really cannot compare area of effect to ray spells as a general rule.

My recommendation is that you find the average damage you want to do per level.  You should find the average hit points per level (In D&D, that would be around an 6 to 7 average hit points per level) and decide how much of that you want to take away from with each spell.  If a single spell took an average of 20% of the health of an equal-leveled character, it would probably be a fair spell, but that depends on how you want to game.

While you design your system, I would recommend that you first look at how much damage you want a single target spell to do.  After that, the damage dealt by an area of effect spell should be anywhere between three-quarters and a quarter of that, depending on its radius.  

Those are my recommendations.

Quote from: JharvissI've looked over your arcanist, but I recommend you answer several more questions before you start designing a magic system:

Fair enough.

Quote from: Jharviss1. Does your system utilize a spells-per-day system or something similar? Magic Points per day would be the same as this. There are two alternatives I've found: an unlimited caster (I use this system) or the regenerating magic point system, where a caster might gain x number of magic points per turn or another set amount of time.

When I get down to item number four, this would have been fleshed out, but since you asked...

I'm planning on making it the first one. However, you wouldn't gain your entire arc(my name for mp) total back in a single night. It would work more like hitpoints in that regard, making 'going supernova' a much costlier option. As far as an unlimited caster system, I would like to see it, hast thou a link?

Quote from: Jharviss2. Do you use spell levels, do your spells become more powerful as your characters level, or both? D&D does both, and it can become a little convoluted.  

Indeed it can. As I said above, I think one of the reasons they used both was to preserve that front half of the parabola I discovered in the calculations. It's a thought. I probably won't do that, to better keep with item number five of things I want to accomplish. So straight damage it will most likely be, with spell levels.

Quote from: JharvissI think as you get further and further into design you'll be surprised at how little unmodified damage means. Compare the second level Scorching Ray to the third level Fireball. Those two spells don't resemble each other at all and therefore shouldn't be compared. A fireball can deal up to 60 damage to 44 squares (and, therefore, 44 characters).  On the other hand, the top scorching ray shoots 3 rays that each deal 24 damage, which is up to 24 damage to 3 characters or 72 damage to one.  Damage comparison? The fireball wins at 2,640 damage to the scorching rays' 72.

well yes, if you're looking at raw potential damage. Damage seems to work somewhat like energy in that you do need to look at the context. While the fireball contains an energy potential of 2,640, you can only bring 60 of that to bear against any one particular subject, in no way control how much the target gets beyond a simple all or none, and a great deal of that energy is wasted on empty space (large targets taking damage once, lack of densely-packed targets, etc.). With scorching ray, the potential is less, but the entirety of it hits a target, and you can control the degree to which a target gets the energy. A fireball is far more powerful, but scorching ray is more efficient.
 

Quote from: JharvissWith that, I'm just saying that you really cannot compare area of effect to ray spells as a general rule.

It accounts for the error in the line, I know. However, I was looking at a particular type of energy, namely how much you could bring to bear against a single target. Multiple targets and area effects will come later, although it might be interesting to look at it from a total energy standpoint...

Quote from: JharvissMy recommendation is that you find the average damage you want to do per level.  You should find the average hit points per level (In D&D, that would be around an 6 to 7 average hit points per level) and decide how much of that you want to take away from with each spell.  If a single spell took an average of 20% of the health of an equal-leveled character, it would probably be a fair spell, but that depends on how you want to game.

Did you READ past the first table? That's what I was trying to sketch out in the remainder of the post.

Quote from: JharvissWhile you design your system, I would recommend that you first look at how much damage you want a single target spell to do.  After that, the damage dealt by an area of effect spell should be anywhere between three-quarters and a quarter of that, depending on its radius.

Good guideline. Something I'd like to do is actually attach a ratio to it so that you have little to no guesswork, when designing your own spell, on what level it is.

Quote from: JharvissThose are my recommendations.

Duly noted.

Yeah, I read past the first table. ^_^

Eventually my post just got onto a tangent about what I recommend for everyone when designing a system.

The main reason I point out fireball's potential (which my co-designer calls the F-Word) comes from a setting design standpoint.  Indeed, from a player's perspective, the damage potential will never be in the thousands. Most fireballs will hit 4, 5, maybe more targets. My biggest issue is the fact that, in a war or a crowded area, like a marketplace, a  church, or even more, the casualty rate could be enormous. Most people don't sit or stand 5 feet apart in a crowded area.  If you fireballed a crowd, you could take out well more than 44 people - it would be at least a 100.

But fireball's also the system anomalies.  It makes no sense when compared with the rest of the D&D 3.5 rules. I'm just recommending against it. ^_^

I see. That makes much more sense. :P

As for the F-bomb (much closer analogy, methinks), I've had it happen to me as a DM. On numerous occasions. In fact, I took my players out to a football field so I could show them exactly how big this thing was in its footprint alone.

It's now banned in one of their games.

And you're not even counting its 3 dimensional footprint.

Like you said though, it's an anomaly, not the norm. I've got a feeling that most radius effect spells are similarly bloated. I mean heck, look at the potential damage output from chain lightning.

Jharviss
[blockquote=SG525][blockquote=Jharviss]1. Does your system utilize a spells-per-day system or something similar? Magic Points per day would be the same as this. There are two alternatives I've found: an unlimited caster (I use this system) or the regenerating magic point system, where a caster might gain x number of magic points per turn or another set amount of time.[/blockquote]


When I get down to item number four, this would have been fleshed out, but since you asked...

I'm planning on making it the first one. However, you wouldn't gain your entire arc(my name for mp) total back in a single night. It would work more like hitpoints in that regard, making 'going supernova' a much costlier option. As far as an unlimited caster system, I would like to see it, hast thou a link?[/blockquote]

I use a variation on the system you are talking about. I'm going to describe it all at once, though it sounds more complicated than it is.
In Guildschool/Celtricia, there are 11 types of spell points/mana.  In general, (unless a player has the very rare subskill of Spell Point reclamation), a character gets back 1/20th of their spell points per hour.  
However, a character can only get back spell points in 1-2 spell point types in any given hour.

The more powerful a spell is, the more points and the more types of spell points needed to cast it, in general.  (Also, by laying in more points, a caster increases the spell success.)  This obviously translates to the desired effect of those who cast lower level spells getting their points back somewhat quickly, but those who cast more difficult spells may take longer to regain the spell points.

Do you want an equation for each spell level, or an over-arching thing?

LV:
I've glanced at that one, and it does look interesting. However, I'm not entirely certain that I want to get that complex.

Higgs:
Each level should be a different equation. Whichever you want, really, as knowing the equation is not crucial to what I'm trying to do.

These two items have always seemed to be exactly the same thing disguised as different objects. They are, quite simply, spells that don't need to be cast.

I don't like XP costs. Period. There's no reason that brewing a potion or scribing a scroll should make you less experienced at what you're doing. XP costs are gone. To maintain balance, replace the x with a g, multiply by five, and add that into the cost for materials.

Similarly, I never liked the idea of restricting scrolls to casters only. I was introduced to scrolls via Elder Scrolls, where they were not a method by which to pad a caster's powers (which it hardly needs in D&D), but a way to give magic to characters who otherwise wouldn't have it. I'd like to see my scrolls serve the same function.

The one problem with this is that it's now possible to arm an entire army with fireballs, lightning, and other powerful artillery spells. This is bad for obvious reasons. Since anyone can cast them, there needs to be some sort of restriction or balancing agent for doing this. Currently, casting from a scroll is a standard action, regardless of the casting time of the spell that's on it. I propose making it a full round action. The time differential will be offset twice in that most longer-casting spells will be rituals, and that many spells will now take longer to cast in scroll form. Trading off speed for versatility, and that's good. However, that still won't stop battles devolving into artillery skirmishes between thousands of peons with scrolls of fireball.

Casting a scroll will also drain your arcs or your hitpoints, as if you had cast the spell. Since arcanists are already able to cast spontaneously, the only benefit they now gain from scrolls are ones that contain non-arcanist spells, and they pay for them normally. Versatility at a cost, just like it should be. For non-casters, the scroll will drain your lifeforce at a rate equal to the arc cost, so one for one. This will make scrolls for non-casters an emergency use, and is another sacrifice for the extra versatility. Is this going too far?

Other than scrolls, nothing else really changes.

I'm going to have to abandon this mathematical project for now due to more interesting, cooler mathematical projects. I will get back to it.

Quote from: Stargate525

3. Simplify and streamline the creation of one-use items and magic items.
Part one: potions and scrolls

These two items have always seemed to be exactly the same thing disguised as different objects. They are, quite simply, spells that don't need to be cast.

I don't like XP costs. Period. There's no reason that brewing a potion or scribing a scroll should make you less experienced at what you're doing. XP costs are gone. To maintain balance, replace the x with a g, multiply by five, and add that into the cost for materials.

Similarly, I never liked the idea of restricting scrolls to casters only. I was introduced to scrolls via Elder Scrolls, where they were not a method by which to pad a caster's powers (which it hardly needs in D&D), but a way to give magic to characters who otherwise wouldn't have it. I'd like to see my scrolls serve the same function.

The one problem with this is that it's now possible to arm an entire army with fireballs, lightning, and other powerful artillery spells. This is bad for obvious reasons. Since anyone can cast them, there needs to be some sort of restriction or balancing agent for doing this. Currently, casting from a scroll is a standard action, regardless of the casting time of the spell that's on it. I propose making it a full round action. The time differential will be offset twice in that most longer-casting spells will be rituals, and that many spells will now take longer to cast in scroll form. Trading off speed for versatility, and that's good. However, that still won't stop battles devolving into artillery skirmishes between thousands of peons with scrolls of fireball.

Casting a scroll will also drain your arcs or your hitpoints, as if you had cast the spell. Since arcanists are already able to cast spontaneously, the only benefit they now gain from scrolls are ones that contain non-arcanist spells, and they pay for them normally. Versatility at a cost, just like it should be. For non-casters, the scroll will drain your lifeforce at a rate equal to the arc cost, so one for one. This will make scrolls for non-casters an emergency use, and is another sacrifice for the extra versatility. Is this going too far?

Other than scrolls, nothing else really changes.

Let me add my hopefully helpful 2 cents, as I went through these mental gyrations once already.

I treat potions as spell effects, but that anyone can use, spell ability or none.  So they are harder to make and more expensive than scrolls.  

Scrolls in guildschool infer more understanding of the spell.  So only casters can use scrolls, and casters can only cast scrolls that use less than twice that character's spell point ability.  Moreover, casting off a scoll (and that is how we look at it...you drink a potion, you cast a spell off a scroll)  still costs 1/10 the amounts.  These rules stop character's from just becoming scroll factories.

Pretty straightforward, really. Since most mp systems feel like a rather obtuse exercise in  pulling random numbers out of the designer's bum, I've decided to try and style mine more like a hitpoint system. Roll a die, add an attribute modifier, and carry on your jolly way.

Since we've got this nice pretty arc per level table laid out in the SRD, I've decided to ignore it on general principle. Instead, we'll make things easy and assign the number of arcs to be equal to the spell level, and the zero level spells you get as freebies. Easy, no?

The Arcanist gains spell levels at a rate of one spell level every two levels, so we had better figure out that the average of whatever roll we get at that level is roughly equal to two or three of the next level's spells to be cast. Already I'm foreseeing a bloody quadratic formula on the horizon. Drat.

Going from the Wizards spell point system, the sorceror tops out at about 250 points. Since the cost of the points in this system is about half of Wizards, we'll assume a top out at 150 points to account for attribute bonuses. divide that by twenty, and we get 7.5 per level. Double that and we get a 15. Which is close to 12. huzzah, a d12 per level for arcs.

But wait, that's not going to work! Since I want the arcs to slowly regenerate, we'll need more of them. 4d4 sounds nice. The bell curve is much better, but slightly lower.  To compensate, we attach the primary casting stat to it like constitution to hitpoints. Would it work?    

Quote from: LordVreegI treat potions as spell effects, but that anyone can use, spell ability or none.  So they are harder to make and more expensive than scrolls.

How is this a change from normal potions? As it is, anyone can use them.

Quote from: LordVreegScrolls in guildschool infer more understanding of the spell.  So only casters can use scrolls, and casters can only cast scrolls that use less than twice that character's spell point ability.  Moreover, casting off a scoll (and that is how we look at it...you drink a potion, you cast a spell off a scroll)  still costs 1/10 the amounts.  These rules stop character's from just becoming scroll factories.

you've completely lost me.


Some more thoughts on hit point damage.

Alright, now that we've got this interesting table...
[th]Avg. Dmg
@ level[/th][th]Avg. HP
@ lvl[/th][th colspan='10']Spell level[/th]

-	-	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
01	10	5	5	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
03	20	8	9	10	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
05	30	10	12	14	15	-	-	-	-	-	-
07	40	12	14	16	18	20	-	-	-	-	-
09	50	13	15	18	20	23	25	-	-	-	-
11	60	12	15	18	21	24	27	30	-	-	-
13	70	11	14	18	21	25	28	32	35	-	-
15	80	8	12	16	20	24	28	32	36	40	-
17	90	5	9	14	18	23	27	32	36	41	45

...of about how much damage I want to do do one person at each particular spell level for each particular character level, it's time to start breaking these down into numbers that I can actually USE.

Now I said up above that I don't want scaling damage. This is mostly to avoid my parabolas becoming freaky odd sine waves or utilizing the number i or in some other way destroying the planet and my mind. So what i'm going to do is take the median that lovely damage curve, then take 50% of that number in either direction to make my new desired damage range, then make that a die expression hopefully utilizing some amount of d6s. Since zero level spells under this system are free, I'm going to hit their number appropriately with a stupid stick. Following? Good.

I come up with the following.
[th]level[/th][th]Damage Range[/th]

0	1d6
1	3d6
2	4d6
3	5d6
4	6d6
5	7d6
6	9d6
7	10d6
8	12d6
9	13d6

I know, I know, that has nothing to do with the actual method described above, but since that method would involve a lot of extraneous tacking-on of static numbers and far fewer dice being thrown (and since I play a magic-user specifically to throw about d6s like they were beads at Marti Gras) I used this method instead. Using a complex and highly sophisticated mathematical process[downloading a probability program from the internet] I got the above d6 values by getting as close as I could to the average found by the same method in the above paragraph from table 1. This leads to the potential to do significantly more damage, as well as quite a bit less. If we add a mental attribute as a bonus to this, ala warmage, then we get something that's spot on or a tiny bit above for each level.

Here we come to;

the problem.

See if you notice it, and I'll be back.

Quote from: Stargate525[...] Would it work?

With the parameters you set forth, unlikely.

Assuming your "mana die" follows the same rules as the normal hit die, your numbers are odd by a bit out of whack. ;)

At first level, you'd get MAX(4d4) plus the casting ability mod (assuming a 16). That'd give 19 mana points (MPs) right at level 1.

At 20th level, you'd be looking at (assuming appropriate and very conservative increases to the casting ability) 16 + 19*4d4 + 20*5 = 16 + 76d4 + 100 = 16 + 190 + 100 = 306 MPs.

More than double of what you wanted.

Quote from: Stargate525[...] the problem [...]

Is actually twofold, imho.

First, it suffers from the same problem 3.0 psionics did. Fixed damage. Your fireball (for example) stays at 5d6, while the monsters get tougher and tougher. You're effectively forcing your casters into an arms race, as their spells quickly loose so much punch, that they basically have to rely only on their top-tier spells in combat.

But second, your fixed damage scales not linearily. That means, that it's far more cost efficient to use battlefield control spells to lock down the enemy, and then ping him to death with low level spell spam. Because so far you didn't mention anything about the costs (at least as far as I can tell), let's assume it follows the same guideline as the system from WotC: a spell of level X costs a number of MPs equal to 2*X-1.

If you then analyze the costs per d6, you'll very quickly find out that the higher level spells are extremely inefficient. At spell level 1, 1d6 damage costs 0.33 MPs. At spell level 9, 1d6 damage costs 0.76 MPs.

Therefore, you create a very hard dilemma for casters. Either they are effective, or efficient. But both at the same time is impossible. Well, perhaps there is a sweet spot somewhere in the middle where the cost/damage ratio has an optimal value, but currently I'm too tired (and can't be arsed :P ) to calculate all the numbers.

The Problem:

The problem with this model above is that, while it does perform rather well at higher levels, in fact making casting classes rather weaker in raw damage output, at first and second levels the damage potential there is gigantic. 3d6 damage at first level is unheard of, and this is only compounded by the fact that they'll be able to pull this off multiple times. Of course, we could merely chalk that up to going nova, as they won't be able to replenish said spells quickly or at all.

I'm more inclined to let it sit, but I wanted to know what you guys thought.

First off, curse you for posting while I am!

Quote from: Ra-TielWith the parameters you set forth, unlikely.

Assuming your "mana die" follows the same rules as the normal hit die, your numbers are odd by a bit out of whack. ;)

At first level, you'd get MAX(4d4) plus the casting ability mod (assuming a 16). That'd give 19 mana points (MPs) right at level 1.

At 20th level, you'd be looking at (assuming appropriate and very conservative increases to the casting ability) 16 + 19*4d4 + 20*5 = 16 + 76d4 + 100 = 16 + 190 + 100 = 306 MPs.

More than double of what you wanted.

bloody hell, you're right. In fact, I was about to go and fix that and put it back at a d12. The numbers should lower by quite a bit. I have no idea what that string of numbers means, otherwise I'd recalculate.

Quote from: Ra-TielFirst, it suffers from the same problem 3.0 psionics did. Fixed damage. Your fireball (for example) stays at 5d6, while the monsters get tougher and tougher. You're effectively forcing your casters into an arms race, as their spells quickly loose so much punch, that they basically have to rely only on their top-tier spells in combat.

You're forgetting metamagic, but I agree. Other than using non-fixed damage and the multitude of problems that brings to the table, how is this problem solved?

Quote from: Ra-TielBut second, your fixed damage scales not linearly. That means, that it's far more cost efficient to use battlefield control spells to lock down the enemy, and then ping him to death with low level spell spam. Because so far you didn't mention anything about the costs (at least as far as I can tell), let's assume it follows the same guideline as the system from WotC: a spell of level X costs a number of MPs equal to 2*X-1.

It doesn't. Or didn't. it was equal to the spell level, and 0-level spells were free. That would only exacerbate the problem.

Quote from: Ra-TielIf you then analyze the costs per d6, you'll very quickly find out that the higher level spells are extremely inefficient. At spell level 1, 1d6 damage costs 0.33 MPs. At spell level 9, 1d6 damage costs 0.76 MPs.

Yes, but that's also what happens to the WOTC spells, except it does it within level. A caster has to pay extra mp to get his spells to do more damage, on the order of 1mp per d6 (usually). your efficiency there is messed all to bits.

Quote from: Ra-TielTherefore, you create a very hard dilemma for casters. Either they are effective, or efficient. But both at the same time is impossible. Well, perhaps there is a sweet spot somewhere in the middle where the cost/damage ratio has an optimal value, but currently I'm too tired (and can't be arsed :P ) to calculate all the numbers.

I understand. But is that dilemma in and of itself a bad thing? A car is usually fast or efficient, not both. Food is either cheap or good tasting. And the old programmers maxim of 'fast, cheap, or good, choose any two.' Where does it say that casters have to have their cake and eat it too?

Quote from: Stargate525First off, curse you for posting while I am!

:P

Quote from: Stargate525bloody hell, you're right. In fact, I was about to go and fix that and put it back at a d12. The numbers should lower by quite a bit. I have no idea what that string of numbers means, otherwise I'd recalculate.

I think it originated when you doubled the "7.5" to "15" and decided that while "d12" was close enough, you wanted a "4d4" progression. ;) When you doubled the first number, you also doubled the final result.

And that "string of numbers" is the listing of averages for a level 20 caster with 4d4 MPs per level and Int 20. ;)

Quote from: Stargate525You're forgetting metamagic, but I agree. Other than using non-fixed damage and the multitude of problems that brings to the table, how is this problem solved?

Well, I don't know what other options you include for your casters. Perhaps feats that work based off "School Focus", and increase damage dealt by +1d6 with a basic feat and by +2d6 with an advanced feat? Or certain class abilities that let them "overcharge" spells (increase die step by one category if they take spelllevel d6 non-lethal damage, or by two steps if they take spelllevel d6 lethal damage) or something like that.

Quote from: Stargate525It doesn't. Or didn't. it was equal to the spell level, and 0-level spells were free. That would only exacerbate the problem.

Hmmm... let's see. A spell of level X costs X MPs.

This gives us at first level the same cost. 1d6 for 0.33 MPs. The higher level spells however change. A level 9 spell gives us 1d6 for 0.69 MPs. A bit better, but still more than twice as expensive.

Quote from: Stargate525Yes, but that's also what happens to the WOTC spells, except it does it within level. A caster has to pay extra mp to get his spells to do more damage, on the order of 1mp per d6 (usually). your efficiency there is messed all to bits.

True. However, when using such a system one-shot direct damage effects indeed are inefficient. Damage over time or summoning effects, however, really shine. I don't know if wall of fire, blade barrier or mage's sword exist in your setting. These would be the spells holding the crown of efficiency, so to speak.

Quote from: Stargate525I understand. But is that dilemma in and of itself a bad thing? A car is usually fast or efficient, not both. Food is either cheap or good tasting. And the old programmers maxim of 'fast, cheap, or good, choose any two.' Where does it say that casters have to have their cake and eat it too?

No, I was just pointing it out. This dilemma could have only become apparent in actual game and not before. I'm not saying it's inherently a bad thing. I'm basically for anything that brings casters based on 3.5 in line a bit. However, you'd have to take a careful look at the numbers to prevent casters being less effective than desired.

Quote:P

:-/

QuoteI think it originated when you doubled the "7.5" to "15" and decided that while "d12" was close enough, you wanted a "4d4" progression. ;) When you doubled the first number, you also doubled the final result.

well you can't exactly have a 1d16, now can you? :P The reason I doubled it is that that then makes the original number the average of a 1dX, where X is the doubled number.

QuoteAnd that "string of numbers" is the listing of averages for a level 20 caster with 4d4 MPs per level and Int 20. ;)

ah.  :weirdo:

So under 1d12, the number becomes the following;
12 + 19d12 + 20*5
12 + 66 + 100
178

That's more like it, but still too high.

1d10

10+19d10+20*5
10+55+100
165

Much closer.

1d8
8+19d8+20*5
8+44+100
152

That's as close as we'll get. This is kinda neat. Now, theoretically, one could simply assign a varying die type for magic to emulate how focused one is. Rangers and Bards get a d8, while the others get a d10 or d12.
 

QuoteWell, I don't know what other options you include for your casters. Perhaps feats that work based off "School Focus", and increase damage dealt by +1d6 with a basic feat and by +2d6 with an advanced feat? Or certain class abilities that let them "overcharge" spells (increase die step by one category if they take spelllevel d6 non-lethal damage, or by two steps if they take spelllevel d6 lethal damage) or something like that.

I'm building this system with d20 mechanics in mind, but basically from the ground up. I'm open to almost anything. The crystals come to mind here; since they provide bonuses to the casting as well, we might be able to get some damage increase from them, or as a class feature.  

QuoteTrue. However, when using such a system one-shot direct damage effects indeed are inefficient. Damage over time or summoning effects, however, really shine. I don't know if wall of fire, blade barrier or mage's sword exist in your setting. These would be the spells holding the crown of efficiency, so to speak.

Like I said above, ground up. the spells that will be in this are the spells that I'll be putting in this. That said, I'd like to work damage over time and area effects as a function of the damage output stated above, to better allow players and DMs other than me to see why and how I got those numbers.

QuoteNo, I was just pointing it out. This dilemma could have only become apparent in actual game and not before. I'm not saying it's inherently a bad thing. I'm basically for anything that brings casters based on 3.5 in line a bit. However, you'd have to take a careful look at the numbers to prevent casters being less effective than desired.

Which is why I'm bouncing these ideas off of you guys. What do you think so far? Is it doing too much to hamper spellcasters, are we on track, or are we not doing enough?

Quote from: Stargate525:-/

:D

Quote from: Stargate525well you can't exactly have a 1d16, now can you? :P The reason I doubled it is that that then makes the original number the average of a 1dX, where X is the doubled number.

True. But the average of 4d4 is not 7.0. It's 4*2.5 = 10. That's one reason why your numbers are higher than anticipated. The other reason is that you underestimated the impact of the casting ability modifier.

I've been toying around with a similar "mana die" idea several years ago (paladin/ranger: d4; bard: d6; druid: d8; cleric/wizard: d10; sorcerer: d12 - or something alone these lines). What I found out was that for a dedicated caster, the mana die only represents about 1/2 to 1/3 of the available mana points. The rest comes from the ability score associated with the character's casting.

And an Int of 20 @ ECL 20 is extremely conservative and completely ignores the existance of things like inherent bonuses (various books, wishes) and enhancement bonuses (headband of intellect, anyone?). If you include those, you'll get an ability score closer to 30, which would mean +200 MPs alone from the ability score @ ECL 20.

Quote from: Stargate525ah.  :weirdo:

So under 1d12, the number becomes the following;
12 + 19d12 + 20*5
12 + 66 + 100
178

That's more like it, but still too high.

1d10

10+19d10+20*5
10+55+100
165

Much closer.

1d8
8+19d8+20*5
8+44+100
152

That's as close as we'll get. This is kinda neat. Now, theoretically, one could simply assign a varying die type for magic to emulate how focused one is. Rangers and Bards get a d8, while the others get a d10 or d12.

Naaahhhh, not really. ;)

The average of d12 is 6.5, so your first example would have 12 + 19*6.5 + 20*5 = 235.5 MPs.
The average of d10 is 5.5, so your second example would have 10 + 19*5.5 + 20*5 = 214.5 MPs.
The average of d8 is 4.5, so your third example would have 8 + 19*4.5 + 20*5 = 193.5 MPs
 

Quote from: Stargate525I'm building this system with d20 mechanics in mind, but basically from the ground up. I'm open to almost anything. The crystals come to mind here; since they provide bonuses to the casting as well, we might be able to get some damage increase from them, or as a class feature.  

You could make something similar to the warlock's scepter from CArc. Crystals that are specific to each school of magic, come on three strengths, have limited charges/per day uses, and add a fixed value to damage of a spell from that school.

Least augmentation crystal: adds 1d6 damage.
Lesser augmentation crystal: adds 2d6 damage.
Greater augmentation crystal: adds 4d6 damage.

Each crystal has 50 charges/can be used 3 times per day/inflicts 2 points of Cha penalty per use on the user for 24 hours/whatyouwant.

A crystal attuned to evocation cannot be used to augment a necromancy spell, etc.

Quote from: Stargate525Like I said above, ground up. the spells that will be in this are the spells that I'll be putting in this. That said, I'd like to work damage over time and area effects as a function of the damage output stated above, to better allow players and DMs other than me to see why and how I got those numbers.

Well, you could always make DoT effects require a "sustain" or "upkeep" cost. Either the caster is forced to spend a full round action concentrating on the spell, or the spell drains its initial costs for as long as the caster does not dismiss it or its duration runs out.

The first option would prevent casters from spamming low-level DoTs on a target to get a high damage per round ratio, while not wasting their reserves.

The second option would allow casters to repeatedly cast DoTs on a target, but they will bleed their MPs like no tomorrow. Additionally, I would highly recommend adding a "(D)" tag to each damaging spell that has a duration other than "instantaneous" or "permanent", to allow casters to dismiss a spell they don't need any longer.

Quote from: Stargate525Which is why I'm bouncing these ideas off of you guys. What do you think so far? Is it doing too much to hamper spellcasters, are we on track, or are we not doing enough?

Well, to be honest, I'm anxiously waiting for 4E, so I'm not really putting any more effort into my own 3.5 stuff. I'm still offering suggestions to others, however, which I hope help them a bit.

Therefore I can't say I'm in a position to actually judge your system so far. Especially not without knowing what spells are in and which are out (yes Gate, Polymorph, Black Tentacles, I'm looking at you! :-/ ).

;)

Quote:D

:poke:

QuoteTrue. But the average of 4d4 is not 7.0. It's 4*2.5 = 10. That's one reason why your numbers are higher than anticipated. The other reason is that you underestimated the impact of the casting ability modifier.

right. I can't seem to get anything math related correct...

QuoteNaaahhhh, not really. ;)

The average of d12 is 6.5, so your first example would have 12 + 19*6.5 + 20*5 = 235.5 MPs.
The average of d10 is 5.5, so your second example would have 10 + 19*5.5 + 20*5 = 214.5 MPs.
The average of d8 is 4.5, so your third example would have 8 + 19*4.5 + 20*5 = 193.5 MPs

...And this is an example of it. they're still almost twice as high as I want them. The easy way out would simply be to double the amount of spell points it takes to cast a particular level.

QuoteYou could make something similar to the warlock's scepter from CArc. Crystals that are specific to each school of magic, come on three strengths, have limited charges/per day uses, and add a fixed value to damage of a spell from that school.

Least augmentation crystal: adds 1d6 damage.
Lesser augmentation crystal: adds 2d6 damage.
Greater augmentation crystal: adds 4d6 damage.

Each crystal has 50 charges/can be used 3 times per day/inflicts 2 points of Cha penalty per use on the user for 24 hours/whatyouwant.

A crystal attuned to evocation cannot be used to augment a necromancy spell, etc.

Interesting concept. Lemme think.

QuoteWell, you could always make DoT effects require a "sustain" or "upkeep" cost. Either the caster is forced to spend a full round action concentrating on the spell, or the spell drains its initial costs for as long as the caster does not dismiss it or its duration runs out.

The first option would prevent casters from spamming low-level DoTs on a target to get a high damage per round ratio, while not wasting their reserves.

The second option would allow casters to repeatedly cast DoTs on a target, but they will bleed their MPs like no tomorrow. Additionally, I would highly recommend adding a "(D)" tag to each damaging spell that has a duration other than "instantaneous" or "permanent", to allow casters to dismiss a spell they don't need any longer.

This I like. I like it alot.

QuoteWell, to be honest, I'm anxiously waiting for 4E, so I'm not really putting any more effort into my own 3.5 stuff. I'm still offering suggestions to others, however, which I hope help them a bit.

Don't hold your breath.

QuoteTherefore I can't say I'm in a position to actually judge your system so far. Especially not without knowing what spells are in and which are out (yes Gate, Polymorph, Black Tentacles, I'm looking at you! :-/ ).

first impressions?

This seems somewhat stupid. Why am I shoehorning myself into spell levels with a points system? What is the inherent bonus to it? Why can't every spell have its own unique cost based on what it does, rather than it being standardized and forcing some to become better or more efficient than the rest? Is there any inherent benefit to a spell level system?

Have I been going about this all wrong?

I dropped spell levels decades ago.

Spell levels were created so that Vancian systems could do 'X' amount of that level spell per day.  
In point systems, it is unneeded.

As I recently said in Snakefing's thread, the cost/scoring system is intrinsically tied to the differentiation system.  IN Vancians, that means, " I can cast this many levels of this type spell".

In mana systems, spell levels become less useful, unless you need them for 'scoring/cost' purposes.

Well, there are two things that a spell level can do for you:

1) How many spells of this type can you cast? This is handled directly by a spell point system, so it isn't relevant, unless you are using spell level as a proxy for spell point cost.

2) How good do you have to be in order to learn this spell? In the D&D system, this is controlled by the first level where you gain a spell slot for that spell level. In a system that doesn't have spell slots, you'd need some other mechanism to control this. For example, you could rate each spell with a minimum spellcaster level to use it as well as a mana point cost. Or have a spell failure chance that is higher for difficult spells but goes down with the spellcaster level.

The only one of those two that apply is the second, and I'm not certain that that's a bad thing in an of itself. Say we allow a caster to choose any spell he wants, even ones he can't yet cast. Since the number you get to pick originally is limited, choosing one that's too points-heavy or uncastable is a poor choice, as it will quickly drain your reserves. Sure the spell might be an encounter-breaker, but it's an encounter-breaker once, and completely negates the caster for the remainder of the day (several, if he dipped beyond what 1 day's worth of mp gain can get him).

True enough. The only downside is that relying on encounter frequency as a balancing mechanism may not work in certain types of campaigns. (That is, if you are running a campaign in which serious encounters only happen ever few days, the caster with one killer spell per day may not be hampered much.)

Or, consider how different your BBEG encounter will be depending on whether your caster still has her one killer spell per day, or not. If you scale your BBEG on the assumption she'll have her killer spell, but she doesn't, TPK. If you scale the BBEG on the assumption she doesn't have it, but she does, total anti-climax.

Not saying it can't work, but you might find out one of your players will try it, and the DM ends up constantly having to work around it.

Quote from: snakefing[...] 1) How many spells of this type can you cast? This is handled directly by a spell point system, so it isn't relevant, unless you are using spell level as a proxy for spell point cost.

To a certain degree that is true. However, in a point based system you face a different problem.

Let's take a look at the power curve of casters (manifesters) in a slot-based system (like vancian casting) and in a point-based system (like psionics).

First, the slot-based system:
(http://666kb.com/i/az9ufi67yn1feec8z.png)
Each and every spell the caster releases depletes his resources and drains him of some of his daily power. The process of losing power is gradually, and the caster is actually aware of it.

Second, the point-based system:
(http://666kb.com/i/az9uffes4lfwdq35v.png)
The caster remains at his full power potential until he finally runs out of enough points to cast his most powerful spell. The process of losing power is almost instant, and often surprising to the caster.

Additionally, the point-based system requires reworking of almost every spell in the d20 system. Spells like Wail of the Banshee, Time Stop, or Gate were just not designed with the possibility in mind to be cast 20 times per day - or even more often *shudder*. Just compare the high-end spells to the high-end psionic powers and how many spells are significantly stronger, cheaper, or lack any psionic counterpart at all.

Quote from: snakefing2) How good do you have to be in order to learn this spell? In the D&D system, this is controlled by the first level where you gain a spell slot for that spell level.

And therefore it was a direct function of class level in a spellcasting class.

Quote from: snakefingIn a system that doesn't have spell slots, you'd need some other mechanism to control this.

Just take the same progression - for example, wizard's spells per day vs psion's powers known. Both follow the same paradigm of "you gain access to spell/power level X at class level 2*X-1".

Quote from: snakefingFor example, you could rate each spell with a minimum spellcaster level to use it as well as a mana point cost.

Which would most likely default back to class level.

Quote from: snakefingOr have a spell failure chance that is higher for difficult spells but goes down with the spellcaster level.

No, please don't do that. You remember the BG2 add-on "Throne of Bhaal"? You remember the new mage specialist class introduced then, the chaos mage? You remember how horribly broken it was by allowing to cast level 9 spells at character level 6 but with the "annoyance" of a wild surge (chaos magic thingy) occuring and sometimes lightly screwing up? For all that is holy and just, please don't do such a thing with this system.

Quote from: Stargate525The only one of those two that apply is the second, and I'm not certain that that's a bad thing in an of itself. Say we allow a caster to choose any spell he wants, even ones he can't yet cast. Since the number you get to pick originally is limited, choosing one that's too points-heavy or uncastable is a poor choice, as it will quickly drain your reserves. Sure the spell might be an encounter-breaker, but it's an encounter-breaker once, and completely negates the caster for the remainder of the day (several, if he dipped beyond what 1 day's worth of mp gain can get him).

Which is why I personally would not follow the design pattern of "one huge point reserve for the whole day" but rather the pattern "one small point reserve for each encounter". This quite elegantly prevents the caster of blowing his whole daily reserve in a single encounter, aka "going nova".

If you make all casters have a reserve (per encounter) of 1 point per class level + 1 point per casting ability mod, this should work out quite nicely. Taking ability modifiers (including appropriate stat booster) within a reasonably range into account would give us the following ranges of points a caster could utilize per encounter:
- Level 01: 01 (Int 11) - 06 (Int 20)
- Level 05: 07 (Int 14) - 11 (Int 23)
- Level 10: 13 (Int 17) - 18 (Int 26)
- Level 15: 20 (Int 20) - 24 (Int 29)
- Level 20: 28 (Int 27) - 33 (Int 36)
(Yeah, I am to lazy to make a table out of that :P )

Or even make it only +1 point per 2 class levels if that numbers seem too high.

Quote from: Ra-Tiel...Which is why I personally would not follow the design pattern of "one huge point reserve for the whole day" but rather the pattern "one small point reserve for each encounter". This quite elegantly prevents the caster of blowing his whole daily reserve in a single encounter, aka "going nova".

But his daily reserve is in fact a slight fraction of the power he actually has available. I'm beginning to realize more and more that I want the option of going nova to still be there; it's a viable and unique option available under this system. However, if your spellpoints regain slowly, instead of the entire bank renewing every day, going nova will be amazingly devastating, but leave the caster crippled, potentially for weeks on end.

Quote from: Ra-TielIf you make all casters have a reserve (per encounter) of 1 point per class level + 1 point per casting ability mod, this should work out quite nicely. Taking ability modifiers (including appropriate stat booster) within a reasonably range into account would give us the following ranges of points a caster could utilize per encounter:
- Level 01: 01 (Int 11) - 06 (Int 20)
- Level 05: 07 (Int 14) - 11 (Int 23)
- Level 10: 13 (Int 17) - 18 (Int 26)
- Level 15: 20 (Int 20) - 24 (Int 29)
- Level 20: 28 (Int 27) - 33 (Int 36)
(Yeah, I am to lazy to make a table out of that :P )

Or even make it only +1 point per 2 class levels if that numbers seem too high.

And under this system, how does one account for non-encounter magic?

Quote from: Stargate525But his daily reserve is in fact a slight fraction of the power he actually has available.

Wha? If a caster's daily reserve is only a "slight fraction" of his total power, what in all Nine Hells is his full power?  :huh:  "Mana points per week", or something? :P

Quote from: Stargate525I'm beginning to realize more and more that I want the option of going nova to still be there; it's a viable and unique option available under this system.

Going nova is imho neither viable nor unique.

It's not viable because it heavily involves metagaming (How do the casters know they won't face a second, equally difficult encounter before rest?) or abuse of certain spells (most often spells like teleport to move to safety, or rope trick to create a save resting place on the fly), and disrupts the flow of the game. "Nova, rest, nova, rest, nova, ...".

It's not unique because it's been done to death with vancian casting and with psionics. Actually, psionic characters are just easier to design for going nova, while vancian casters (especially wizards) are still the undisputed masters of going nova (Time stop, Quicken Spell, greater metamagic rod of quicken, Sudden Quicken Spell, polymorph into a creature that gives you a second standard action per round, and so on and so forth).

Quote from: Stargate525However, if your spellpoints regain slowly, instead of the entire bank renewing every day, going nova will be amazingly devastating, but leave the caster crippled, potentially for weeks on end.

And you think that this is better in exactly what way? I don't know if you've played the older The Dark Eye computer games, but they used exactly this way. Once your casters were drained in battle, you had to rest several days (up to two weeks) to completely refresh their mana pool (*). Considering that at least the second game in the series had a limited ingame time (you had to finish the main quest within 2 ingame years or you automatically lost), you can imagine that this was not quite as interesting as it sounded.

(*) Or use up some of the rare potions and herbs that restored mana points, and which you usually tried to preserve for combats.

Under a slot-based system, I could imagine a system like this resembling a mechanic you want:
- You don't regain all your spell-slots after a full rest.
- Instead, you regain a spell slot after resting for a number of hours equal to the slot's level.
- You regain spell slots of different levels simultaneously (e.g. if you rest for 4 hours, you regain 4 level 1 slots, 2 level 2 slots, 1 level 3 slot, and 1 level 4 slot).
This requires some extended resting, without leaving the casters grounded for weeks at a time. Also, you can easily determine how many slots are regained by counting the full hours of uninterrupted rest.

However, you're not using spell-slots so this is out for you.

Quote from: Stargate525And under this system, how does one account for non-encounter magic?

You could follow a similar mechanic as they did with 4E and encounter powers. Encounter powers are (afaik) usable out of combat after taking a "short rest" (aka 5 minutes break).

In a system with a point reserve based on encounters, one could always assume that out of combat you regain 1 point per minute or something. For smaller stuff it's usually not worth the bookkeeping, but if you keep casting higher-level spells repeatedly, the costs can quickly sum up and leave you dry.

Quote from: Ra-TielWha? If a caster's daily reserve is only a "slight fraction" of his total power, what in all Nine Hells is his full power?  :huh:  "Mana points per week", or something? :P

well it's assuming a halfway intelligent caster; his daily reserve would be the total divided by the number of days it would take to gain back that total, perhaps a little more.

Quote from: Ra-TielIt's not viable because it heavily involves metagaming (How do the casters know they won't face a second, equally difficult encounter before rest?) or abuse of certain spells (most often spells like teleport to move to safety, or rope trick to create a save resting place on the fly), and disrupts the flow of the game. "Nova, rest, nova, rest, nova, ...".

Teleports can be traced, rope trick locks you in one place, ripe for an ambush. Even outside of game, there is no way to be certain that they won't be attacked later on unless the DM is being a complete idiot. Since I'm not an idiot DM, and I doubt you guys are, I don't see why I must tailor to the common denominator of imbecility that the rest of the world requires.  

Quote from: Ra-TielIt's not unique because it's been done to death with vancian casting and with psionics. Actually, psionic characters are just easier to design for going nova, while vancian casters (especially wizards) are still the undisputed masters of going nova (Time stop, Quicken Spell, greater metamagic rod of quicken, Sudden Quicken Spell, polymorph into a creature that gives you a second standard action per round, and so on and so forth).

Vancian casters don't exist in my setting, nor does psionics. I was referring to casters in general; fighters can't swing a sword twice as hard and be drained for the rest of the day, casters can.

Quote from: Ra-TielAnd you think that this is better in exactly what way? I don't know if you've played the older The Dark Eye computer games, but they used exactly this way.

I haven't played them, but it's better in that there's an extended penalty for unleashing this kind of stellar power, instead of them simply going to bed and solving the entire issue.

Quote from: Ra-TielOnce your casters were drained in battle, you had to rest several days (up to two weeks) to completely refresh their mana pool (*). Considering that at least the second game in the series had a limited ingame time (you had to finish the main quest within 2 ingame years or you automatically lost), you can imagine that this was not quite as interesting as it sounded.

Unless completely draining your casters was a regular thing, it sounds a lot like an incentive to actually think before you unleash your big guns on everything.

Quote from: Ra-TielUnder a slot-based system, I could imagine a system like this resembling a mechanic you want:
- You don't regain all your spell-slots after a full rest.
- Instead, you regain a spell slot after resting for a number of hours equal to the slot's level.
- You regain spell slots of different levels simultaneously (e.g. if you rest for 4 hours, you regain 4 level 1 slots, 2 level 2 slots, 1 level 3 slot, and 1 level 4 slot).
This requires some extended resting, without leaving the casters grounded for weeks at a time. Also, you can easily determine how many slots are regained by counting the full hours of uninterrupted rest.

However, you're not using spell-slots so this is out for you.

It's interesting for certain. Don't know how well it would work practically though.

Quote from: Ra-TielYou could follow a similar mechanic as they did with 4E and encounter powers. Encounter powers are (afaik) usable out of combat after taking a "short rest" (aka 5 minutes break).

:ill:
If I wanted that sorry excuse for magic I would have simply stripped 4e of its wizard. I don't want magic to turn into boring stuff, boring stuff, boring stuff, COMBAT!, boring stuff, etc.

Combat encounters, and really anything based on a per-encounter setup, seems to me like an arbitrary limitation, especially considering the wide divergence in exactly what an encounter is and how long it lasts. For example, you fight someone in room A, use up your encounter power, and immediately proceed into room B, where you use the power again fighting someone else. Elapsed time is measured in seconds. You're fighting a large Boss battle, and suddenly that power's not going to work again, even though the same amount of time elapsed, simple because you've arbitrarily encapsulated this bit as an 'encounter.'

Quote from: Stargate525well it's assuming a halfway intelligent caster; his daily reserve would be the total divided by the number of days it would take to gain back that total, perhaps a little more.

No, you misunderstood what I was asking. If the number of points available to a caster per day were only a part of his power, when can he bring to bear his full power against an enemy? After all, you're putting yourself into the "pro-nova" camp, so actually limiting a caster to only a fraction of his full power is an arbitrary restriction and contradicts your other statements.

Quote from: Stargate525Teleports can be traced, rope trick locks you in one place, ripe for an ambush. Even outside of game, there is no way to be certain that they won't be attacked later on unless the DM is being a complete idiot. Since I'm not an idiot DM, and I doubt you guys are, I don't see why I must tailor to the common denominator of imbecility that the rest of the world requires.  

Aka "the DM has to go out of his way and jump through a series of loops to get the game back on track". Suddenly he must give his NPCs new spells on the fly (perhaps in the middle of combat), or make an ambush appear out of thin air just when the party leaves the rope trick. That's not exactly what I call "good design".

Quote from: Stargate525Vancian casters don't exist in my setting, nor does psionics. I was referring to casters in general;

I was referring to casters in, well, d20 settings. :P

Quote from: Stargate525fighters can't swing a sword twice as hard and be drained for the rest of the day, casters can.

Oh, and what is a barbarian's rage, then?

Quote from: Stargate525I haven't played them, but it's better in that there's an extended penalty for unleashing this kind of stellar power, instead of them simply going to bed and solving the entire issue.

Stellar power? You really haven't played TDE! :D

Quote from: Stargate525Unless completely draining your casters was a regular thing, it sounds a lot like an incentive to actually think before you unleash your big guns on everything.

You had to do it. Repeatedly. Also, if you failed at casting a spell (TDE uses a skill based casting system; each spell is basically a separate skill and you must roll dice to increase a skill; if you failed at a casting check, you still lost like 1/2 the spell's cost).

Additionally, the ingame time limit only became obvious once you hit it. Which meant that you had to restart the whole game from the beginning if you wasted too much time with resting.

Quote from: Stargate525[...] Combat encounters, and really anything based on a per-encounter setup, seems to me like an arbitrary limitation, especially considering the wide divergence in exactly what an encounter is and how long it lasts.

And how is that different from "per day" abilities?

Quote from: Stargate525For example, you fight someone in room A, use up your encounter power, and immediately proceed into room B, where you use the power again fighting someone else. Elapsed time is measured in seconds. You're fighting a large Boss battle, and suddenly that power's not going to work again, even though the same amount of time elapsed, simple because you've arbitrarily encapsulated this bit as an 'encounter.'

For example, I have a class ability I can use 1/day. I regain that ability at midnight. I'm stuck in battle just before midnight, when I use my class ability. Then, 2 rounds later, midnight has passed and I can use my class ability again.

Despite being a "1/day" ability, I've used it twice in 3 rounds' time.

And your argument was what exactly?

QuoteNo, you misunderstood what I was asking. If the number of points available to a caster per day were only a part of his power, when can he bring to bear his full power against an enemy? After all, you're putting yourself into the "pro-nova" camp, so actually limiting a caster to only a fraction of his full power is an arbitrary restriction and contradicts your other statements.

I see. IN answer to the question you actually asked, he has access to all of them. If he actually USES that access, he won't recover from it for some time. He can bring his full power to bear whenever he wants (all his arcs), except that unless you're in special circumstances, that's going to be a Bad Idea(c).

QuoteAka "the DM has to go out of his way and jump through a series of loops to get the game back on track". Suddenly he must give his NPCs new spells on the fly (perhaps in the middle of combat), or make an ambush appear out of thin air just when the party leaves the rope trick. That's not exactly what I call "good design".

and the players spawned these abilities out of nowhere? The DM can and should have anticipated something like this if he had any inkling of the abilities of the players (which a good DM should have).

If players teleport out in the middle of a combat, good for them for actually thinking. The opponent, if it's smart, probably won't sit around waiting for them to come back. It'll resupply and reinforce.

Same thing for a rope trick. If the enemy sees them doing it, why in God's name wouldn't they lay ambush for them? Identifying a spell isn't terribly difficult. Even if they didn't, and did it in a cleared room, why haven't the remainder of the enemies reoccupied that room? Also, what's the point? the casters won't come back at full strength unless they were close to it already, the fighters gain a few hitpoints, and the cleric might be able to buff them up in safety.

You're right, bad design, but not on the part of the builder. Each spell you mentioned has a clear counter and Achilles heel, the fact that the Dm doesn't employ those weaknesses is his fault alone.  

QuoteOh, and what is a barbarian's rage, then?

Is a barbarian a fighter? :P

it's similar, but not quite the same. You can't destroy nearly as much with a barbarian's rage as you can with a well-executed nova.

QuoteYou had to do it. Repeatedly. Also, if you failed at casting a spell you still lost like 1/2 the spell's cost.

yeah, I'm not going to design it with that in mind. going nova would be an option viable only for 'oh shit' situations, Ideally.

QuoteAnd how is that different from "per day" abilities?

*blah blah blah*

And your argument was what exactly?

My argument was that per day abilities are at least measurable by some in-game effect, namely, they regenerate at a specific in-game time relative to (unless you've got really weird day cycles) the sun. With per-encounter abilities, your regeneration is wholly dependent upon an arbitrary, completely metagame boundary enforced for the sake of convenience.

Quote from: Stargate525I see. IN answer to the question you actually asked, he has access to all of them. If he actually USES that access, he won't recover from it for some time. He can bring his full power to bear whenever he wants (all his arcs), except that unless you're in special circumstances, that's going to be a Bad Idea(c).

So, the amount of points available daily is actually a caster's full power. Now what? Are they his full power or are they available daily? I hope you see the *cough*minor flaw*cough* gaping hole in your logic. ;)

Quote from: Stargate525and the players spawned these abilities out of nowhere? The DM can and should have anticipated something like this if he had any inkling of the abilities of the players (which a good DM should have).

You babysit each and every levelup your players have? Or do you tell them: "guys, you know which rulebooks you have access to, have fun levelling"?

Quote from: Stargate525If players teleport out in the middle of a combat, good for them for actually thinking. The opponent, if it's smart, probably won't sit around waiting for them to come back. It'll resupply and reinforce.

WHICH ENEMY? "Casters nova, then teleport to safety for resting."

Quote from: Stargate525Same thing for a rope trick. If the enemy sees them doing it, why in God's name wouldn't they lay ambush for them? Identifying a spell isn't terribly difficult. Even if they didn't, and did it in a cleared room, why haven't the remainder of the enemies reoccupied that room?

WHICH ENEMY? "Casters nova, then climb into a rope trick or magnificent mansion for resting."

Also, what about supposedly "dumb" monsters? Giants, undead, and the occasional white dragon are usually not considered the top entries on the food chain regarding Int or tactics.

Quote from: Stargate525Also, what's the point? the casters won't come back at full strength unless they were close to it already, the fighters gain a few hitpoints, and the cleric might be able to buff them up in safety.

You do know that there are already plenty of ways for a party to always start an encounter at full hitpoint strength? A wand of cure light wounds is only 750gp for on average 275 points of healing. A wand of lesser vigor is 750gp for 550 points of healing.

Quote from: Stargate525You're right, bad design, but not on the part of the builder. Each spell you mentioned has a clear counter and Achilles heel, the fact that the Dm doesn't employ those weaknesses is his fault alone.  

Too bad that using these spells basically forces the DM into metagaming the hell out of the situation.

Quote from: Stargate525Is a barbarian a fighter? :P

Irrelevant. Give the fighter 1/day feats and it's the same.

Quote from: Stargate525it's similar, but not quite the same. You can't destroy nearly as much with a barbarian's rage as you can with a well-executed nova.

Irrelevant. Nova is nova, no matter if executed by a caster or non-caster.

Quote from: Stargate525yeah, I'm not going to design it with that in mind. going nova would be an option viable only for 'oh shit' situations, Ideally.

And what exactly prevents regular TPKs from NPC casters? Because a party of adventurers bumping into a group of necromancers performing a ritual is basically an "oh shit" situation for the necros. Why shouldn't they all go nova and waste the PCs?

This is why going nova is bad design. It's only acceptable if PCs do it, because if NPCs do it the result is a TPK.

Quote from: Stargate525My argument was that per day abilities are at least measurable by some in-game effect, namely, they regenerate at a specific in-game time relative to (unless you've got really weird day cycles) the sun. With per-encounter abilities, your regeneration is wholly dependent upon an arbitrary, completely metagame boundary enforced for the sake of convenience.

Now? Well, the cleric of the moon god does that trick at midnight. The druid at dawn. The barbarian when he wakes up. The paladin at noon. All magic items of the party when the party has rested this day. What's specific about that?

QuoteSo, the amount of points available daily is actually a caster's full power. Now what? Are they his full power or are they available daily? I hope you see the *cough*minor flaw*cough* gaping hole in your logic. ;)

I'm saying that they could tap into their full power, but on a day-to-day usage ACTUALLY DOING SO would be stupid. It's exactly like hitpoints. You've got X number available to use, but you're not going to charge in and waste them all without a safe means of getting them back. Since the only way to get arcs back is resting...

QuoteYou babysit each and every levelup your players have? Or do you tell them: "guys, you know which rulebooks you have access to, have fun levelling"?

Somewhere between the two. I audit to make sure I don't get any surprises, and I'd hardly call a fifteen second glance through a character sheet babysitting.

QuoteWHICH ENEMY? "Casters nova, then teleport to safety for resting."

WHICH ENEMY? "Casters nova, then climb into a rope trick or magnificent mansion for resting."

Yes, so casters only nova at the very end of the dungeon? After the big boss fight? In which case they'd retreat and rest up anyway. If not, you're forgetting that after a nova the caster is not out for eight hours, he's out for days or weeks at a time.

So unless your rope trick or magnificent mansion can last a whole hell of a lot longer than a day, the caster is still screwed, and the rest of the party now lacks any arcane support whatsoever.

QuoteAlso, what about supposedly "dumb" monsters? Giants, undead, and the occasional white dragon are usually not considered the top entries on the food chain regarding Int or tactics.

With the exception of one, all giants have an INT of ten or higher, and in most cases, undead have a controller of significant intelligence to think 'oh God, someone's laying waste to the defenses of my lair, I SHOULD DO SOMETHING.' And the white dragon, by the time 'going nova' and retreating is actually a viable tactic, has a regular or higher than regular intelligence. Enough to think 'someone tried to kill me and escape; perhaps they'll try it again.'

The Hill giant is a bit dim. So let them nova on them, whatever. Like I said, it should be an option, as long as they're willing to forgo using spells for a week or two.

QuoteYou do know that there are already plenty of ways for a party to always start an encounter at full hitpoint strength? A wand of cure light wounds is only 750gp for on average 275 points of healing. A wand of lesser vigor is 750gp for 550 points of healing.

Oh joy. you're still got the caster issue.

QuoteToo bad that using these spells basically forces the DM into metagaming the hell out of the situation.

No, it forces him to do more than have monsters waiting in their lair for the PCs after taking four or five days to wade through their defenses. Lookit, monsters actually have brains; the ones in the next room aren't going to sit around while their buddies get hacked to bits.

QuoteIrrelevant. Give the fighter 1/day feats and it's the same.

Irrelevant. Nova is nova, no matter if executed by a caster or non-caster.

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

QuoteAnd what exactly prevents regular TPKs from NPC casters? Because a party of adventurers bumping into a group of necromancers performing a ritual is basically an "oh shit" situation for the necros. Why shouldn't they all go nova and waste the PCs?

This is why going nova is bad design. It's only acceptable if PCs do it, because if NPCs do it the result is a TPK.

I...

Good point.

QuoteNow? Well, the cleric of the moon god does that trick at midnight. The druid at dawn. The barbarian when he wakes up. The paladin at noon. All magic items of the party when the party has rested this day. What's specific about that?

It's at midnight every time. It's at dawn EVERY TIME. It doesn't arbitrarily reset whenever the 'encounter' is over. Players, acting completely in-game, can know exactly when they'll get that ability back. Not so for encounter abilities.