Troll Lord Games

My biggest problem with Spell point systems has always been that they make the already too powerful Wizards even more powerful.

so this is what I am thinking, a direct conversion. IE however many spells the Wizard gets in the book, every level of each spell converts into a spell point. So every 1st level spell is worth 1 point, second level is 2, third is 3, and so on... Spells gained from attribute bonus" convert the same way, so an 18 INT would give 6 Spell Points.

Then the "cost" is the same, except here is where it changes things up. There will be two paths, "Traditional" and "Sorcerer". Traditional is pretty much like it is now, spells get prepared ahead of time. Just now they can allocate their points however they wish. So if they want to memorize 10 Magic Missiles, they can. If they want to memorize 10 Fireballs, they can, if they have the 30 points to do it with. Which eventually they will.

The Sorcerer, on the other hand, does not pre memorize spells. They pull the power out of everything around them as well as from within. However this will cost them double the points. So 6 points for a Third level spell. The benefit is they have the versatility to cast any spell they "know". So they can cast far fewer spells, but have the versatility of casting whatever they actually need or want at any time. Plus the Sorcerer only needs 8 hours of rest to refresh their Spell Points, they won't need to then spend potentially hours, especially if they are approaching Arch Mage level, to get their spells via memorization. They will be ready to go as soon as they are fully rested.

So while the Wizard with 10 Fireballs will be able to burn down pretty much anything flammable, they will be totally screwed versus anything immune to fire or has a Minor Globe of Invulnerability on them. Nor will they be able to cast any spells of higher, and likely, lower level, because they invested everything into Fireballs. So a smart Wizard will still diversify their spells as much as possible when they don't know what they will be facing. Sorcerers can respond as needed, but will soon burn out. So real trade offs, as I see it.

I am still considering putting a cap on how many spells of each level can be cast, but if I do it will likely be double what is in the books, and I will probably only apply it to those of the "Traditional" path, since the Sorcerer will eat up their Spell Points at twice the rate.

Another reason why I like this is because it will be easy to also adapt "Specialist" Wizards. Either the 2E or 3E version.

I am thinking that with regards to Divine Casters, I will keep them as is, but use the "Domains" idea to determine what types of spells they can "spontaneously" change out and cast. So if they have the "Healing Domain" they can spontaneously exchange any spell they prayed for with a spell from the Healing Domain, or if they take a Domain that covers Summoning, they can switch any spell out with spells that involve summoning, and so on.

Plus the biggest reason I like this idea, is that everything you need to know with regard to how many spell points you get is still in the Players Handbook. So look to see how many spells a 5th level caster can cast, total up the levels of those spells, including Bonus Spells from any INT bonus, and you have however many Spell Points you have. The cost is the level of the spell your casting, or in the case of the Sorcerer, levelx2. So minimal writing in a House Rules document.

Anyways, that is where my brain went this morning.

Treebore wrote:My biggest problem with Spell point systems has always been that they make the already too powerful Wizards even more powerful.

so this is what I am thinking, a direct conversion. IE however many spells the Wizard gets in the book, every level of each spell converts into a spell point. So every 1st level spell is worth 1 point, second level is 2, third is 3, and so on... Spells gained from attribute bonus" convert the same way, so an 18 INT would give 6 Spell Points.

Then the "cost" is the same, except here is where it changes things up. There will be two paths, "Traditional" and "Sorcerer". Traditional is pretty much like it is now, spells get prepared ahead of time. Just now they can allocate their points however they wish. So if they want to memorize 10 Magic Missiles, they can. If they want to memorize 10 Fireballs, they can, if they have the 30 points to do it with. Which eventually they will.

Did this EXACT thing in '81. Makes the wizards quite a bit more powerful than standard rules. Hence we dropped it like it was Harpy faeces.

Arduin wrote:

Treebore wrote:My biggest problem with Spell point systems has always been that they make the already too powerful Wizards even more powerful.

so this is what I am thinking, a direct conversion. IE however many spells the Wizard gets in the book, every level of each spell converts into a spell point. So every 1st level spell is worth 1 point, second level is 2, third is 3, and so on... Spells gained from attribute bonus" convert the same way, so an 18 INT would give 6 Spell Points.

Then the "cost" is the same, except here is where it changes things up. There will be two paths, "Traditional" and "Sorcerer". Traditional is pretty much like it is now, spells get prepared ahead of time. Just now they can allocate their points however they wish. So if they want to memorize 10 Magic Missiles, they can. If they want to memorize 10 Fireballs, they can, if they have the 30 points to do it with. Which eventually they will.

Did this EXACT thing in '81. Makes the wizards quite a bit more powerful than standard rules. Hence we dropped it like it was Harpy faeces.

While I can see how it appears to make a Wizard more powerful, 10 Fireballs can be very powerful after all, especially in a town full of 0 levels, I would think with the access that needs to be given up to all the other spells would be a decent counter balance to doing such a heavy load out. If they do 10 Magic Missiles, I don't care, still not as powerful as a bow used by a Fighter, until 7th level or so, except in that its a guaranteed hit, assuming its not a Wizard with a Shield spell up, etc...

Still, something I want to play test, with my current understanding of game balance, not what I thought "balance" was over 30 years ago.

Interesting stuff. Did you consult the CKG? IIRC, it offers a couple of similar systems, might be worth a look.

kreider204 wrote:Interesting stuff. Did you consult the CKG? IIRC, it offers a couple of similar systems, might be worth a look.

Yep. They didn't resonate with me. This idea I like, and most of what is needed to know is still in the PH, so hopefully I end up liking it. Again, to address the "even more powerful" problem, I may still keep some kind of cap on each spell level, but I still have a hard time seeing 10 Fireballs as being all that much worse than 5 Fireballs. So will give it a try without before I try the capping idea.

Treebore wrote:[
While I can see how it appears to make a Wizard more powerful, 10 Fireballs can be very powerful after all, especially in a town full of 0 levels, I would think with the access that needs to be given up to all the other spells would be a decent counter balance to doing such a heavy load out.

When you are playing wizards RAW and they have limited new spells each level it makes a Wizard much more powerful. If you aren't playing RAW, it is up in the air and then depends on what house rules one is using. We tried it for about a year. It was conclusive vs. a RAW Wizard.

Wellllll .... it might sound odd coming from me (being the resident low magic setting supporter) but I have no problem with a MU that can fling 10 fire balls. I actually like the idea of a MU being able to cast what ever spell he knows and needs at the time he needs it. With that I've never liked the RAW on memorize the spell, cast the spell, forget the spell. Yes, changing the rules does make MU more powerful, but to me (even in my lower magic worlds) MU should be powerful.

That said, they should be powerful, but not ALL powerful. With that, there does need to be a way to limit or cap it. That is the sticking point for me... Is it limiting the spells they know? Is it 'paths of magic' - an idea I do like but have never seen in action - ? Or, is it Tree's idea on making them memorize spells in addition to having spell point? That I do not know ...

My worry about your method Treebore is that it treats levels as directly proportional to one another- IE, that a 2nd level spell is twice as powerful as a 1st level spell, and half as powerful as a 4th. I don't know that spells typically scale that way, and thus point totals may cause an unintended skew. Just something to keep an eye on.

My favorite spell point magic system came from the Midnight Campaign setting.

Every spell costs a number of points equal to its level. A spellcaster has a number of casting points equal to his level plus modifier. A spellcaster can also take temporary Constitution damage if he exceeds his total.

Yes, this results in fewer spells overall. But i have found that just by increasing the multiplier (ie, 2 points per level instead of 1), you can get a similar overal magic potential.

Personally, i like it for its simplicity, and i tend to run low-magic games anyways so it works well for that.


-Fizz

Yep, I have the Midnight setting too, and recall that system. Like I said, this one seems like it might work, seeing how it goes and tweaking will likely occur, and in the end I may scrap it. For now its a system I am willing to give a try.

Fizz wrote:My worry about your method Treebore is that it treats levels as directly proportional to one another- IE, that a 2nd level spell is twice as powerful as a 1st level spell, and half as powerful as a 4th. I don't know that spells typically scale that way, and thus point totals may cause an unintended skew. Just something to keep an eye on.

My favorite spell point magic system came from the Midnight Campaign setting.

Every spell costs a number of points equal to its level. A spellcaster has a number of casting points equal to his level plus modifier. A spellcaster can also take temporary Constitution damage if he exceeds his total.

Yes, this results in fewer spells overall. But i have found that just by increasing the multiplier (ie, 2 points per level instead of 1), you can get a similar overal magic potential.

Personally, i like it for its simplicity, and i tend to run low-magic games anyways so it works well for that. -Fizz

Never heard of Midnight, that is exactly the system I came up with for my homebrew game. You only the modifier extra point if you take that class at first level though (3rd edition style multi-classing.... kinda).