Alternative magic system for DnD

[Ra-Tiel]

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, to disprove that healing is a factor you use dragons, 20th level characters, etc.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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".

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

[Ra-Tiel]

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

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

[snakefing]

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

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

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

[Ivar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ra-Tiel]

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

Ok, sorry for having not been more clearly earlier.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snakefing]

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

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

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

[Ra-Tiel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ivar]

Ok, sorry for having not been more clearly earlier.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snakefing]

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

As to your other points:

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

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

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

[Ivar]

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

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

[Ra-Tiel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snakefing]

...would that be so bad?

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

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

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

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

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

[Ra-Tiel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snakefing]

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

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

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

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

[Matt Larkin (author)]

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

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