Magic System: Or, Stargate525 tries again

[Stargate525]

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.

[Nomadic]

This is similar to my original magic system for quick play rpg.

[Llum]

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?

[Stargate525]

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.

[Llum]

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)

[Stargate525]

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.

[Llum]

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.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

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.

[Stargate525]

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.

[Superfluous Crow]

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.

[Stargate525]

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?

[Matt Larkin (author)]

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.

[Ra-Tiel]

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.

[Stargate525]

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?

[Ra-Tiel]

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.