I know this is a hackneyed, almost annual thing for me by this time; I come up with / find / borrow / mangle a magic system, and post it here.
Well, time for the 2009 version.
Every spellcaster gets a certain number of spell points based on his level, in a manner similar to hit point gain. Each casting class has a different spell-die which they roll every time they gain a level. Bonuses for high (or low) ability scores are added to this roll, just like constitution for hit points.
Wizards: use d12, Their bonus ability is Intelligence
Clerics: use d10, Their bonus ability is Wisdom
Druids: use d10, Their bonus ability is Wisdom
Bards: use d8, Their bonus ability is Charisma
Rangers: use d6, Their bonus ability is Wisdom (beginning at 4th level)
Paladins: use d6, Their bonus ability is Wisdom (beginning at 4th level)
Spells are organized into ten levels, each costing a specific number of spell points to cast.
0th = 1
1st = 2
2nd = 3
3rd = 4
4th = 5
5th = 6
6th = 7
7th = 8
8th = 9
9th = 10
Spell points are regained via a full night's rest at a rate of (Level + Ability Modifier). Should your rest be less than eight hours, interrupted, or otherwise disturbed, you regain only half of this amount.
Nice and simple.
This is similar to my original magic system for quick play rpg.
Looks pretty slick, however. Potentially (with bad rolls) a high end caster could end up with very few spell points, making then effectively handicapped. This could be pretty brutal in some cases.
Also, I see no sorcerers, I gather they would be d12+charisma?
Er, yes, although I see them as relatively superfluous under this system. I've also rolled them into a single thing on my campaign setting, so that might also account for the discrepancy.
The other thing, are the costs exact? Are 9th level spells only double the strength of a 4th level spell? Or is it more/less?
Is a 9th spell woth the extra 25% cost from a 7th level spell? Potentially I can see casters using a lot of lower level spells as opposed to high level spells unless it scales accordingly. (I.E, not D&D 2.0-3.5)
Ideally, I'd like to pirate most of the spells from the D&D 3.5 setup. I'm not certain what you're trying to say.
I'm saying that in 3.5 (mind you, this is from experience with Icewind Dale 2, that a in most cases I'd rather cast 5 level 7 spells over 4 level 9 spells, or 2 level 4 compared to 1 9th level, etc.
The problem you run into is the question as to whether one level eight spell is the same as four level two spells. Which kind of sounds like what Llum was getting at?
Because of the way the D&D magic system is designed, slapping a 1-for-1 MP system onto can be problematic. Hell, slapping any mana system onto it can be problematic.
An organically designed system is more work, but usually a better fit.
Agreed that it can be problematic. I'm now seriously considering figuring the average damage output of spells, convert that into damage per spell point, and simply make that a single spell at each level, similar-looking to healing spells.
Not that i know where to find it, but I'm quite sure i have seen one of those average damage lists somewhere so you might not have to do it yourself.
Actually, I've just looked over one, and I'm getting something on the order of 1d6 per spell point expended. Does this sound correct?
I've also noted that I've made spell points roughly twice as potent as the standard 3.5 variant, but have given them significantly less, and they restore much slower. I'm starting to worry that I've nerfed them down below that of melee fighters and such. Is that possible, am I correct in my assessment, and is this a problem?
I don't know. Since it was often stated 3.X spell casters were significantly more powerful than martial characters, whether nerfing them is a problem depends on the mood/players you want.
But I think one thing to bear in mind, especially if you're basing off 3.X D&D, is that the most potent spells are often not damage-dealing ones.
1d6 per point is exactly the base from which the 3.5 psionics rules operate, which is generally regarded as a very well balanced system.
I must also say that a 1-to-1 cost is far too cheap. Considering the havoc level 7+ spells can wreck with a campaign (*cough*Genesis*cough*), I'd personally put it more in the region of 2*n - 1, so that a level 1 spell costs 1 point and a level 9 spell costs 17 points (or even 3*n + 1). The reduced casting power is the price to pay for a greatly increased flexibility.
Further, I also was toying around with some "mana die" system similar to the hit point mechanic, but dropped it for primarily one reason: rolling low sucks. Playing a wizard and rolling a "1" on your mana die for three levels in a row blows just like being a barbarian and rolling a "1" for hitpoints three levels in a row. I don't really like the base power of characters being dependent on some die rolls. After all, you don't roll like 5d100 to get the generation points for your GURPS characters, do you?
If you replaced it with a mechanic similar to 4e's hitpoints, it would be much better imho. Like:
* Wizard: 16 + Int score. +6 per level.
* Cleric: 14 + Wis score. +6 per level.
* Druid: 14 + Wis score. +5 per level.
* Bard: 12 + Cha score. +5 per level.
* Paladin: 10 + Wis score (starting at 4th level). +2 per level.
* Ranger: 10 + Wis score (starting at 4th level). +2 per level.
hmm, those are good points.
Remember though, that the damage done is going to be rather small for high level spells under this system. An average 14th level caster (able to cast the seventh level spells) would have approx. 14d12+84, or about 175 points. Under this system, he could spam about ten seventh-level spells a particular day, but would take just over eight days to get completely back. In truth, if your caster is burning anything more than twenty or so spell points a day, he's losing power in the long run, as they all don't come back.
I agree with the rolling bit, though, but like the randomness of it to an extent. What if we bell-curved those, turning the 1d12 into 2d6, the d8 into 2d4, etcetera?
First, the strength of highlevel spells does not lie in the damage they deal. There are so many ways to use and abuse save or dies in 3.5 it's barely funny.
Limited wish + Finger of Death can take out pretty much any living target of the caster's level in two rounds top. The save DC would be at least 10 + 7 + 3 = 20, but assuming an Int of 22 or 24 for a level 14 caster is more appropriate, so the DC would likely be 10 + 7 + 7 = 24. Factor in the -7 penalty to the target's save from the Limited wish and suddenly the target has to beat DC 31 to stay alive. And I didn't even touch the "issue" of negative levels (just throw in the spontaneous quicken feat or a metamagic rod of quicken and Enervation to add insult to injury)...
If you take a look at the old optimization boards you'll see that playing an arcane caster for damage was generally regarded a bad move. Leave damage dealing to psions, they can do that much better due to the flexibility of the various energy powers (although a wizard can still outdamage any psion if he wants to).
If you want to still have some randomness, why not a mechanic like this:
* Wizard: 16 + Int score. Per level 1d4+3+Int mod.
* Cleric: 14 + Wis score. Per level 1d4+3+Wis mod.
* Druid: 14 + Wis score. Per level 1d4+2+Wis mod.
* Bard: 12 + Cha score. Per level 1d4+2+Cha mod.
* Paladin: 10 + Wis score (starting at 4th level). Per level 1d4+1+Wis mod.
* Ranger: 10 + Wis score (starting at 4th level). Per level 1d4+1+Wis mod.
With a mechanic like this a level 14 wizard (assuming starting ability 17, +3 level up, +4 item = 24/+7 total) would have a mana pool of 16 (base) + 24 (Int score) + 13*(1d4+3) + 13*7 = ~202 mana points on average, and would regain 21 mana points per uninterrupted rest.
Also, I might want to offer an additional suggestion: increase the rate of regaining mana points partially. Wizards (and spellcasters in general) already suffer heavily from the "nova problem". Sure, they can fire off most (or even all) their spells in a single encounter and devestate their enemies, but by doing so they become a crossbow wielding liability and burden for the party for the rest of the day. This problem is exactly what lead to the "5 minute adventuring day" - the wizard going nova and then the party hides in a rope trick until the casters regain their spells.
This is why I really like 4e's approach, giving every character something useful he can do in every encounter. I'd suggest something like 2 conditions of mana that work similar to the "bloodied" condition in 4e: exhausted and drained. A caster is exhausted whenever he has 50% of his maximum mana or less remaining. A caster is drained whenever he has 10% of his maximum mana or less remaining. The main point about these conditions is regaining a bit mana faster. After 1 hour of rest a caster automatically has enough mana to put him at 10% of his maximum. After 8 hours of rest a caster automatically has enough mana to put him at 50% of his maximum.
This would still discourage nova tactics (because it wouldn't stack; after resting for 8 hours a caster would have 50%, and then would regain level + ability mod mana points for each additional hour of rest), but would prevent casters from becoming completely useless after a single day of adventuring. After all, the game is balanced around the assumption that the party's caster can use all their slots per day. For the sake of fairness, I'd also suggest using the same rule for hit points.
Quote from: Ra-TielLimited wish + Finger of Death...
So we're looking at level 18. Saves of 14-25.
Quote from: Ra-Tielcan take out pretty much any living target of the caster's level in two rounds top. The save DC would be at least 10 + 7 + 3 = 20, but assuming an Int of 22 or 24 for a level 14 caster is more appropriate, so the DC would likely be 10 + 7 + 7 = 24. Factor in the -7 penalty to the target's save from the Limited wish and suddenly the target has to beat DC 31 to stay alive. And I didn't even touch the "issue" of negative levels (just throw in the spontaneous quicken feat or a metamagic rod of quicken and Enervation to add insult to injury)...
Yeah, so he's just burned at least 18 spell points, about 10-15% of his resources, for a kill. That doesn't seem terribly annoying, truth told. Assuming he spams it, he racks ten kills before going to the crossbow. Whoopee.
Quote from: Ra-TielIf you take a look at the old optimization boards you'll see that playing an arcane caster for damage was generally regarded a bad move. Leave damage dealing to psions, they can do that much better due to the flexibility of the various energy powers (although a wizard can still outdamage any psion if he wants to).
If you have no psionics then wizards are relegated to damage-dealing. I've never seen a caster go for anything but primary damage-dealers. It may not be optimized, but I would venture it's far more common.
Quote from: Ra-TielIf you want to still have some randomness, why not a mechanic like this:
* Wizard: 16 + Int score. Per level 1d4+3+Int mod.
* Cleric: 14 + Wis score. Per level 1d4+3+Wis mod.
* Druid: 14 + Wis score. Per level 1d4+2+Wis mod.
* Bard: 12 + Cha score. Per level 1d4+2+Cha mod.
* Paladin: 10 + Wis score (starting at 4th level). Per level 1d4+1+Wis mod.
* Ranger: 10 + Wis score (starting at 4th level). Per level 1d4+1+Wis mod.
With a mechanic like this a level 14 wizard (assuming starting ability 17, +3 level up, +4 item = 24/+7 total) would have a mana pool of 16 (base) + 24 (Int score) + 13*(1d4+3) + 13*7 = ~202 mana points on average, and would regain 21 mana points per uninterrupted rest.
That brings them all far closer into line with each other, points-wise. I'm not certain I'm comfortable with that. Secondly, you're regaining them all in a LONGER time than my system, but giving them more power to burn.
Quote from: Ra-TielAlso, I might want to offer an additional suggestion: increase the rate of regaining mana points partially. Wizards (and spellcasters in general) already suffer heavily from the "nova problem". Sure, they can fire off most (or even all) their spells in a single encounter and devestate their enemies, but by doing so they become a crossbow wielding liability and burden for the party for the rest of the day. This problem is exactly what lead to the "5 minute adventuring day" - the wizard going nova and then the party hides in a rope trick until the casters regain their spells.
I have never seen a problem with a nova every now and then. The only way I can see this as a 'problem' is when there is no penalty for this in regards to the gameworld. Adventurers should not be able to do this in a standard dungeon of 10-20 encounters without the other creatures getting wise to something, not to mention spending the greater portion of a month in a random cave.
Quote from: Ra-TielThis is why I really like 4e's approach, giving every character something useful he can do in every encounter. I'd suggest something like 2 conditions of mana that work similar to the "bloodied" condition in 4e: exhausted and drained. A caster is exhausted whenever he has 50% of his maximum mana or less remaining. A caster is drained whenever he has 10% of his maximum mana or less remaining. The main point about these conditions is regaining a bit mana faster. After 1 hour of rest a caster automatically has enough mana to put him at 10% of his maximum. After 8 hours of rest a caster automatically has enough mana to put him at 50% of his maximum.
There's no reason for this. Why cushion a character if they lack the desire to properly manage their resources?
Quote from: Ra-TielAfter all, the game is balanced around the assumption that the party's caster can use all their slots per day.
How can you say that after demonstrating that using all of their slots makes them game-enders?
Quote from: PhoenixThe problem you run into is the question as to whether one level eight spell is the same as four level two spells. Which kind of sounds like what Llum was getting at?
Because of the way the D&D magic system is designed, slapping a 1-for-1 MP system onto can be problematic. Hell, slapping any mana system onto it can be problematic.
An organically designed system is more work, but usually a better fit.
Word.
Quote from: Stargate525So we're looking at level 18. Saves of 14-25.
Uhm, no. Assuming school specialization or a bonus slot you can pull that trick as early as level 13. Both spells mentioned are level 7. And it's not annoying when used on a trashmob, but when the BBEG you planned out for a long and awesome fight goes down in the 2nd round.
Quote from: Stargate525Yeah, so he's just burned at least 18 spell points, about 10-15% of his resources, for a kill. That doesn't seem terribly annoying, truth told. Assuming he spams it, he racks ten kills before going to the crossbow. Whoopee.
As said, it takes the punch out of any really interesting fight (as do all "save-or-suck" spells). But that's another topic.
Quote from: Stargate525If you have no psionics then wizards are relegated to damage-dealing. I've never seen a caster go for anything but primary damage-dealers. It may not be optimized, but I would venture it's far more common.
Just compare the damage-dealing spells against their crowdcontrolling counterparts. Even at first level,
Sleep is far superior to e.g.
Magic Missile or
Burning Hands. Every living creature that failed its save against
Sleep is a coup de grace victim, while the damaging spells hardly deal enough damage to kill even a single orc.
Quote from: Stargate525That brings them all far closer into line with each other, points-wise. I'm not certain I'm comfortable with that. Secondly, you're regaining them all in a LONGER time than my system, but giving them more power to burn.
The numbers are only an example. But look at the averages. 1d4+3 = 5.5 = d10. 1d4+1 = 3.5 = d6. And so on. It just takes out the extreme ends of the spectrum, a certain deviation would still occur but not as strong as when using only the "big" dice.
Quote from: Stargate525I have never seen a problem with a nova every now and then. The only way I can see this as a 'problem' is when there is no penalty for this in regards to the gameworld. Adventurers should not be able to do this in a standard dungeon of 10-20 encounters without the other creatures getting wise to something, not to mention spending the greater portion of a month in a random cave.
And what are ordinary monsters going to do about a
Rope trick or
Magnificent mansion? Only casters can try to pull the PCs out of there, the other opponents are basically sitting ducks.
Quote from: Stargate525There's no reason for this. Why cushion a character if they lack the desire to properly manage their resources?
Let's say you throw two beholders against your level 13 party. The game is balanced around the assumption that the PCs can and do pull their full spell repertoire. In such a situation the wizard or cleric just can't "hold back", because then the monsters would likely overwhelm the party. With your system you punish the players for the "drawbacks" of the game system. You'd have to severly weaken all high-level monsters to account for the reduced stamina and spell output of your casters.
You're basically saying "well, sucks to be you but you failed to manage your resources properly because I threw a monster at the party where you had to use many of your spells or it would have been a TPK".
Quote from: Stargate525How can you say that after demonstrating that using all of their slots makes them game-enders?
Wizards and sorcerers, yes. But what about the other casters? Bards (at least without some heavy PrC'ing) don't have those means. Rangers and paladins also don't have those means.
Quote from: Ra-TielUhm, no. Assuming school specialization or a bonus slot you can pull that trick as early as level 13. Both spells mentioned are level 7. And it's not annoying when used on a trashmob, but when the BBEG you planned out for a long and awesome fight goes down in the 2nd round.
Eh? Wish is a ninth level spell. And if you're depending on a long and awesome fight, and know these tactics are within their ability, then shame on you as a DM for letting this thing happen.
Quote from: Ra-TielAs said, it takes the punch out of any really interesting fight (as do all "save-or-suck" spells). But that's another topic
Define Interesting.
Quote from: Ra-TielJust compare the damage-dealing spells against their crowdcontrolling counterparts. Even at first level, Sleep is far superior to e.g. Magic Missile or Burning Hands. Every living creature that failed its save against Sleep is a coup de grace victim, while the damaging spells hardly deal enough damage to kill even a single orc
four hit dice of creatures. When that's still effective, saves have a good chance of working. I'm still failing to see the problem, I suppose.
Quote from: Ra-TielThe numbers are only an example. But look at the averages. 1d4+3 = 5.5 = d10. 1d4+1 = 3.5 = d6. And so on. It just takes out the extreme ends of the spectrum, a certain deviation would still occur but not as strong as when using only the "big" dice.
Makes sense. Since I also agree with you on the number of spell points per level increase, and the cost increase, we could also simply double the die to 2d whatever, or even bring it down a step and make it 3dx. Leaves the high and low ends in there, but the bell curve assures a fairly average setup on the whole.
Quote from: Ra-TielAnd what are ordinary monsters going to do about a Rope trick or Magnificent mansion? Only casters can try to pull the PCs out of there, the other opponents are basically sitting ducks.
They do end. There are such things as ambushes. Be creative; your players are.
Quote from: Ra-TielLet's say you throw two beholders against your level 13 party. The game is balanced around the assumption that the PCs can and do pull their full spell repertoire. In such a situation the wizard or cleric just can't "hold back", because then the monsters would likely overwhelm the party. With your system you punish the players for the "drawbacks" of the game system. You'd have to severly weaken all high-level monsters to account for the reduced stamina and spell output of your casters.
You're basically saying "well, sucks to be you but you failed to manage your resources properly because I threw a monster at the party where you had to use many of your spells or it would have been a TPK".
There is nothing wrong with difficult fights. There is nothing wrong with going Nova. The problem arises when the players feel as though they should CONTINUE GOING FORWARD. I'm not punishing them for anything except tactical stupidity.
Quote from: Ra-TielWizards and sorcerers, yes. But what about the other casters? Bards (at least without some heavy PrC'ing) don't have those means. Rangers and paladins also don't have those means.
Fair enough, I suppose, though bards, rangers, and paladins are not primary casters, nor is their main meat in their magic.
He meant that they could use them all over the course of a day, but not in the same encounter--one of the main problems (a problem in design theory) 4e was supposed to fix, whatever else people think of it. Bard is defined as a primary caster; even with spells they're behind the curve--without they'd lose a fair chunk of their ability. Rangers and paladins have a few tricks, but not enough to even warrant discussion here, really.
Ra-Tiel mentioned limited wish, not wish.
QuoteRa-Tiel
And what are ordinary monsters going to do about a Rope trick or Magnificent mansion? Only casters can try to pull the PCs out of there, the other opponents are basically sitting ducks.
They do end. There are such things as ambushes. Be creative; your players are.
I'm with SG on this one. In part b/c his system doesn't make this much more of a problem than it already is. The real problem is that the spells themselves already create an inherent imbalance in the system, as any non-damaging spell risks doing.
But I'm afraid I side with Ra-Tiel on most other points.
An alternative option might be to try an even smaller SP system, with SP that recharge on an hourly rate (say 1/level/hour). But you still have to deal with the balance issue of non-damaging spells: they have to cost more than non-augmented damaging spells.
Just a note, but hourly recharging seems awfully difficult to manage.
How's this?
Every spellcaster gets a certain number of spell points based on his level, in a manner similar to hit point gain. Each casting class has a different spell-die which they roll every time they gain a level. Bonuses for high (or low) ability scores are added to this roll, just like constitution for hit points. All primary casters (wizards, sorcerors, clerics, and bards) receive the maximum amount of spell points at first level.
Wizards: 4d6, Their bonus ability is Intelligence
Clerics: 2d10, Their bonus ability is Wisdom
Druids: 2d10, Their bonus ability is Wisdom
Bards: 3d6, Their bonus ability is Charisma
Rangers: 3d4, Their bonus ability is Wisdom (beginning at 4th level)
Paladins: 3d4, Their bonus ability is Wisdom (beginning at 4th level)
Sorceror: 3d8, Their bonus ability is Charisma
Spells are organized into ten levels, each costing a specific number of spell points to cast.
0th = 1
1st = 2
2nd = 4
3rd = 6
4th = 8
5th = 10
6th = 12
7th = 14
8th = 16
9th = 18
Spell points are regained via a full night's rest at a rate of (Level + Ability Modifier). Should your rest be less than eight hours, interrupted, or otherwise disturbed, you regain only half of this amount.
Combat spells are based on a setup of a single spell point into 1d6 damage. Spells do not scale by level, but are able to be increased in power by the application of more spell points.
now this maybe off topic and you may not use them, but have you thought about how are you going to handle meta-magic feats?
An increase in spell points expended.
I feel that I should clarify something in my methodology. I'm not setting out to fix the magic system. I'm setting out to make it different. If I solve problems, that's fine and dandy, what I really want feedback on is whether or not I'm making things worse.
If you just want to make magic "different", have you considered to use psionics instead of modding the magic system? The 3.5 psionics system is generally regarded as much more balanced than the magic system (within itself and regarding other classes) and is actually built to work with a point system.
You could easily tweak the flavor of psionics to be a sort of magic, and it already handles all the things you'd run into with your point system (metamagic being one thing, casterlevel dependent buffs that cost too little points for their benefits being another).
Quote from: Stargate525Eh? Wish is a ninth level spell.
Limited Wish. ;)
Quote from: Stargate525And if you're depending on a long and awesome fight, and know these tactics are within their ability, then shame on you as a DM for letting this thing happen.
So you say you should metagame and make every BBEG and every somewhat important NPC completely immune to necromancy and conjuration? Sounds about right for a fair game...
Quote from: Stargate525Define Interesting.
"Lasting longer than 1 round and requiring the whole party instead of two spells from the wizard."
Quote from: Stargate525four hit dice of creatures. When that's still effective, saves have a good chance of working. I'm still failing to see the problem, I suppose.
Orcs habe CR 1/2 and 5HP. No level 1 core spell that deals damage from a distance has even then chance of killing an orc. Even with
Magic Missile you only have a 25% chance to drop an orc to 0HP which renders him "disabled" (but would still allow him to charge a character).
Sleep or
Color Spray however instantly take out every orc that fails his save, making them infinitely more powerful.
And similar is true for all spell levels. Why blast away at hundreds of hit points when you can cripple or outright kill the enemy with a save-or-suck/save-or-die spell? That's a major problem of 3.5's magic system and generally regarded as the single reason why casters are overpowering - because they can easily circumvent the normal monster defenses (e.g. hit points) with their spells.
Quote from: Stargate525Makes sense. Since I also agree with you on the number of spell points per level increase, and the cost increase, we could also simply double the die to 2d whatever, or even bring it down a step and make it 3dx. Leaves the high and low ends in there, but the bell curve assures a fairly average setup on the whole.
Hmmm... looks fugly. :P
Quote from: Stargate525They do end. There are such things as ambushes. Be creative; your players are.
Again, you suggest metagaming. Giants for example, or the more simple demons, just aren't that smart.
Quote from: Stargate525There is nothing wrong with difficult fights. There is nothing wrong with going Nova. The problem arises when the players feel as though they should CONTINUE GOING FORWARD. I'm not punishing them for anything except tactical stupidity.
So you build a system that actually encourages the 5 minute adventuring day. Think about it...
* the game system require casters to expend their spells during combats (buffs, debuffs, healing, cc, etc)
* very low recovery rate of caster resource
* no alternativ way of recovery or option of contribution of casters
Why not actually go the other way? Give each caster a mana pool equal to level + ability mod (paladin and rangers get 1/2 of the total) and make spells cost a number of points equal to spell level + 1. One hour of rest completely refreshes the mana pool. Buffs lasting 1 hour or longer reduce the maximum mana pool by a number of points equal to their cost for as long as the buff lasts (e.g. a level 2 wizard with 18 Int has 6 mana and casts
Mage Armor on himself; for as long as the spell is active, his maximum mana pool is 4).
Quote from: Ra-TielSo you say you should metagame and make every BBEG and every somewhat important NPC completely immune to necromancy and conjuration? Sounds about right for a fair game...
Again, you suggest metagaming. Giants for example, or the more simple demons, just aren't that smart.
The player, more than likely are pretty damn famous by the time these tricks appear. your BBEG should know their trademark tactics if they even have a little bit of intelligence.
The only giant I can see not utilizing this are hill giants; all the others have at least a ten. It does not take much thought to set up an ambush, or realize that the griphon next door suddenly is dead.
Quote from: Ra-TielSo you build a system that actually encourages the 5 minute adventuring day. Think about it...
* the game system require casters to expend their spells during combats (buffs, debuffs, healing, cc, etc)
* very low recovery rate of caster resource
* no alternativ way of recovery or option of contribution of casters
Why not actually go the other way? Give each caster a mana pool equal to level + ability mod (paladin and rangers get 1/2 of the total) and make spells cost a number of points equal to spell level + 1. One hour of rest completely refreshes the mana pool. Buffs lasting 1 hour or longer reduce the maximum mana pool by a number of points equal to their cost for as long as the buff lasts (e.g. a level 2 wizard with 18 Int has 6 mana and casts Mage Armor on himself; for as long as the spell is active, his maximum mana pool is 4).
Because that encourages going Nova. There seems to be a sliding scale between nova and five minute adventuring day, and we seem to feel that this is on the opposite side of where the other thinks it is.
A question; is there any reason you're trying to conform this to the classic dnd system? It doesn't seem to be so much a magic system as a mana system for the normal system. This might be exactly what you want, what do i know, but there are other interesting magic variants for DnD out there. You could take a look at the fairly simple system in Iron Heroes for example (which system-wise is extremely close to DnD and could probably be modified easily to go with orthodox DnD).
Just a thought.
Quote from: Stargate525The player, more than likely are pretty damn famous by the time these tricks appear. your BBEG should know their trademark tactics if they even have a little bit of intelligence.
What about creatures from other planes? Aboleths, tanar'ri, baatezu, elementals, etc. etc. These are usually not nearly interested enough in the mortal plane to know your PCs' favorite combat tactics well enough to have prepared the perfect counter for it. Also, many of the more "mundane" opponents that aren't full casters by accident would likely lack the means to provide effective countermeasures.
Quote from: Stargate525The only giant I can see not utilizing this are hill giants; all the others have at least a ten. It does not take much thought to set up an ambush, or realize that the griphon next door suddenly is dead.
What about creatures that don't have access to
Detect Magic, or lack the Knowledge skills necessary to identify the entrance to a
Rope Trick or
Magnificent Mansion?
Quote from: Stargate525Because that encourages going Nova. [...]
"Spending what you're supposed to spend" !=
"going nova"If you give casters only a very small pool of mana (with my system a level 20 wizard with Int 30 would only have 30 mana points, while a level 9 spell costs 10 points) they just can't nova. "Going nova" means spending all (or most) of your
daily resources in a single encounter. Like opening with a sudden maximized
Time Stop and then unloading 4 level 8 spells, casting another
Time Stop with a greater metamagic rod of maximize, then unloading 4 level 7 spells, casting a third
Time Stop with the greater metamagic rod of maximize, and finally unloading 4 level 6 spells on the enemy.
That is going nova.
Casting like a single level 9 spell and two level 7 spells and then being empty is not really going nova. With my suggestion casters would simply lack the amount of resources required to go nova (even more when taking into account the amount of buffs caster usually place on themselves; a simple
Mind Blank would already eat up 9 mana points for its duration!).
Quote from: Ra-TielWhat about creatures from other planes? Aboleths, tanar'ri, baatezu, elementals, etc. etc. These are usually not nearly interested enough in the mortal plane to know your PCs' favorite combat tactics well enough to have prepared the perfect counter for it. Also, many of the more "mundane" opponents that aren't full casters by accident would likely lack the means to provide effective countermeasures.
Effective countermeasures against a massively buffed single spell. There are general defenses against magic, not to mention a marauding party of people hellbent on their destruction; one of which is 'run away.'
Quote from: Ra-TielWhat about creatures that don't have access to Detect Magic, or lack the Knowledge skills necessary to identify the entrance to a Rope Trick or Magnificent Mansion?
General intelligence would allow one to set up a barricade, a defensive trap, or similar for whoever or whatever killed Bob in the next chamber over. Just because they are gone does not mean that they are not coming back.
I'm designing this system with the assumption that the world moves on around the PCs, and they can't afford to take a month to clear a location of intelligent creatures.
Quote from: Ra-Tiel"Spending what you're supposed to spend" != "going nova"
If you give casters only a very small pool of mana (with my system a level 20 wizard with Int 30 would only have 30 mana points, while a level 9 spell costs 10 points) they just can't nova. "Going nova" means spending all (or most) of your daily resources in a single encounter.
Understood, but the problem lies in that your system does not allow for the possibility of Nova by limiting their access to their daily resources as a single pool. You're fixing the problem by removing the option, whereas I would like the option to be just as appealing as any other option you have. I don't want to hold the players hands or tie them behind their back in how they decide to spend their abilities.
Quote from: Stargate525one of which is 'run away.'
This does not make for fun gaming IMO.
Now, following my personal taste I would just custom make every spell for the new system, drawing ideas from D&D spells but modifying values and adjusting the level.
Another way is to simply make damage spells cost 1 point per 1d6 damage and then graft on an additional cost to non-damaging offensive spells (save-or-suck/save-or-die).
Quote from: LlumThis does not make for fun gaming IMO.
But realistic. Nothing like getting your butt handed to and coming back to finish it off.
But I was referring to the opponents in that case, not the players.
Quote from: Stargate525But I was referring to the opponents in that case, not the players.
I know, its like, oh look the enemies are fleeing for their lives again, after my 1-2 rounds of casting.. this is fun! :P