Alternative magic system for DnD

Ra-Tiel · October 01, 2007, 05:07:09 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what do you think of this idea?

LordVreeg · October 01, 2007, 06:01:07 PM

Conceptually, I like 'changing the paying field'.

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

Eclipse · October 01, 2007, 06:16:51 PM

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

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

Epic Meepo · October 01, 2007, 09:37:16 PM

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

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

Ra-Tiel · October 02, 2007, 01:05:17 AM

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

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

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

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

Now, how about this?

Matt Larkin (author) · October 02, 2007, 09:48:36 AM

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

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

snakefing · October 02, 2007, 10:30:25 AM

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

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

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

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

Stargate525 · October 02, 2007, 10:41:46 AM

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

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

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

Ivar · October 02, 2007, 10:53:12 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ra-Tiel · October 02, 2007, 12:47:48 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then you apply the logic filter somehow wrong. ;)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

snakefing · October 02, 2007, 12:57:25 PM

For sure this changes the balancing of spell casters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

snakefing · October 02, 2007, 01:20:40 PM

Quote from: Ra-Tiel
Quote from: snakefing(In my scheme, I'd probably have a specified rate, like one point per five minutes or something.)
I can imagine that being a bookkeeping nightmare. It either matters all the time, or never at all. Imagine the party travelling through a desert after a draining battle. Either, nothing else happens and all casters can be regarded as "refilled", or you have to painstalkingly track the minutes as an invisible enemy or something else could spring on them.

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

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

Ivar · October 02, 2007, 01:28:53 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Matt Larkin (author) · October 02, 2007, 01:32:21 PM

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

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

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

Quote from: Ra-Tiel
Quote from: snakefingSome of the problems people are talking about come from trying to use the D&D spells unmodified in a new system. There are obvious reasons to do that.
It's debatable whether the current D&D magic system is a "good system" to begin with. I have no love for it's spells, basic premises, or, especially, Vancian mechanics.

QuoteHowever, in my system a wizard just doesn't have the stamina to buff himself through the stratosphere and still drop a time stop + 4 delayed blast fireballs on an encounter. In my system a caster can either buff himself really well (but reduce his ability to direct intervene in combat), or keep his power available for spellcasting (and thus leaving him "weak" in the very important buff department).
A worthy goal. I hope it works that way, especially without unforeseen nasty side effects.

snakefing · October 02, 2007, 02:24:25 PM

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

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

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

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

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

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

Alternative magic system for DnD

Ra-Tiel

LordVreeg

Eclipse

Epic Meepo

Ra-Tiel

Matt Larkin (author)

snakefing

Stargate525

Ivar

Ra-Tiel

snakefing

snakefing

Ivar

Matt Larkin (author)

snakefing