DrSpunj's Class Balance Spreadsheet

[ouini]

... just give 1 mana for every 0 level spell (but they cost no mana to cast) and then 1 mana/spell/spell level. ...Once you have said points cast whatever spells you want.

You lost me. Do non-zero level spells cost mana to cast, then? Are there 1/2 and full level spellcasters? Do classes go away?

...I just don't feel a Ranger should be a spell caster

Here we agree. At least, I think they should have the *option* of not casting.

Caster level is caster level is caster level. If someone takes 15 half and [5] full magic levels they're caster level 20.

I didn't catch this when DrSpunj first posted. SSquirrel, I agree with you that caster level is caster level. But the huge trouble DrSpunj is trying to address is that it becomes easy to screw the whole system by taking one level of full caster, and then take the cheap half-caster levels from then on, using the more advantageous "full caster" table. So at 11th level, you've paid for 1 full level and 10 half levels, compared to someone who has taken 11 expensive full levels, but you use the same table? Nah. Either some conversion or a mana system is necessary.

Then again, maybe I'm misunderstanding one or both of you.

Ya know fractions and such are one of the things people really hate about Champions. Do we REALLY want more than 1 set of fractional increases? I don't think so.

Amen. But I think if the GM manages to keep any fraction other than "1/2" out of the player's sight, he's doing pretty darned well.

 

[DrSpunj]

See I have no problems with a freeform mana system...

SSquirrel, you're certainly free to take the spreadsheets and move into whatever direction you want, but as I said to ouini, I'm sticking with the AU Magic system. He & I put a lot of effort into a Mana-based Talislanta-like freeform magic system that had a lot of nifty (IMO) things going for it. Imagine my (pleasant) surprise when a lot of what we came up with made its way into the AU magic system. Ta da! I'm sold!

You've brought up many times how you'd push this into a totally freeform tool. More power to you, but I'm happy with what I've got right now and am more interested in refining things and addressing problems I may have missed. The caster level and how to stack Half & Full Magic definitely fall into that category.

Of course, I would also probably create a non-caster Ranger (haven't browsed the UA variant yet) as well cuz I just don't feel a Ranger should be a spell caster, but that's just me *grin*

Right! Along the line's of WoT's Woodsman or something similar. Either way, it's easy to do with the sheets "as is".

Wrong. Caster level is caster level is caster level. If someone takes 15 half and 6 full magic levels they're caster level 20. Their magic isn't nearly as impressive as it would be otherwise, but oh well. I assume with this system if you take 10 half levels and then grab a full you look at the level 11 full table for what spells you earn? This is what would make sense to me.

First off, it'd be a caster level of 21. Aside from that...you can't be serious, dude!

With 10 levels of Half Magic using the Mage Blade tables, you'd have Spell Slots per Day of 4/3/3/2/0 and Spells Readied of 5/5/4/3/0. By taking Full Magic at 11th level you think they should all of sudden jump to using the Magister's tables for Spell Slots of 6/5/4/4/3/2/1 and Spells Readied of 9/8/6/5/4/3/2? That's a HUGE jump in power!

And considering it only cost you 3 more CBs (7 for Full, 4 for Half), that'd be the biggest damn bargain in the system! Going from a maximum of 4th level spells (3rd if you don't have a bonus spell that high) to a maximum of 6th level spells with the purchase of a single level of Full Magic is WAY too much.

Sorry, not in my game. Buying a level of Full Magic should give you just about twice the benefit of buying a level of Half Magic whenever you do it, since it's just about twice the cost. No more, no less.

Still, I realize that Caster Level gets a bit confusing there, and my proposal leaves a lot to be desired. In that direction I'm wondering about using this system here, which allows a more uniform stacking method to determine Spell Slots & Spells Readied. I'd obviously only use the Magister table (to represent Full Magic) and the Mage Blade table (to represent Half Magic), though I'd rather come up with a new table entirely so that there's only one table to reference. I'm not sure that's possible, though.

Ya know fractions and such are one of the things people really hate about Champions. Do we REALLY want more than 1 set of fractional increases? I don't think so.

Since the BAB & Defense fractions only come up at leveling, I'm not too worried about them, and the stacking system outlined in that link gets away from fractions by using multipliers (x2 for Half Magic instead of 2/3 and x3 for Full Magic instead of 1). Take a look at it if you get a chance. It's a bit overwhelming at first glance, but very simple once you read through and understand it.

I believe it does what I'm looking for, namely allowing the stacking of Half & Full Magic levels in a meaningful way that reflects their cost differences. A 20th level PC with 10 Half & 10 Full Magic levels has a BMP of (10*2 + 10*3 =) 50, which is slightly better than a 20th level PC with 15 levels of Full Magic (a BMP of only 45). Since the former costs a few more points (though that's spread out over more levels, so the impact is less), I like that they receive quite a few extra low level spells. By the same token, I like that someone who's paid for more levels of Full Magic (and therefore didn't have those points to put towards other things over a narrower range of levels) benefits by having higher level spells (and more of them).

Your Caster Level in this system would just be sum of your Half & Full Magic levels, as you requested above. Here, though, there aren't any unreasonable & abusive jumps in spellcasting power because of the modified tables.

One last thing, I finally noticed that the Greenbond tables aren't exactly like the Magister tables. The differences are negligible enough, IMO, that I'm going to use the Magister tables exclusively for Full Magic and drop the Greenbond tables to simplify things a bit.

Thanks!

DrSpunj

 

[SSquirrel]

SSquirrel, you're certainly free to take the spreadsheets and move into whatever direction you want, but as I said to ouini, I'm sticking with the AU Magic system. He & I put a lot of effort into a Mana-based Talislanta-like freeform magic system that had a lot of nifty (IMO) things going for it. Imagine my (pleasant) surprise when a lot of what we came up with made its way into the AU magic system. Ta da! I'm sold!

You misunderstand me. I dig the AU system and will leave it alone, I was just saying that mana based isn't a terrible thing and provided a quick and simple solution for any who wanted one. At some point I may do more on it but I have limited downtime from my job right now...and probably less very soon as I will be working as much OT as they'l let me...ugh.

You've brought up many times how you'd push this into a totally freeform tool. More power to you, but I'm happy with what I've got right now and am more interested in refining things and addressing problems I may have missed. The caster level and how to stack Half & Full Magic definitely fall into that category.

As I'm going to point out below you misunderstood what I meant on stacking the half and full magic, so really what I posted earlier does clear it up a bit. Wait for it.

Right! Along the line's of WoT's Woodsman or something similar. Either way, it's easy to do with the sheets "as is".

Oh I know tehre's space to put my own stuff in and I will...just need to decide what variant of Ranger I want. A Ranger with "real" Half Magic might be far more interesting than the standard 4th level max one, but I still debate if its "better" than just a woodsy fighter which I always have sorta pictured the Ranger. Either way, what a Ranegr should or shouldn't be is for another thread heh.

First off, it'd be a caster level of 21. Aside from that...you can't be serious, dude!

Actually that was just a typo I meant to say 5 heh.

With 10 levels of Half Magic using the Mage Blade tables, you'd have Spell Slots per Day of 4/3/3/2/0 and Spells Readied of 5/5/4/3/0. By taking Full Magic at 11th level you think they should all of sudden jump to using the Magister's tables for Spell Slots of 6/5/4/4/3/2/1 and Spells Readied of 9/8/6/5/4/3/2? That's a HUGE jump in power!

And considering it only cost you 3 more CBs (7 for Full, 4 for Half), that'd be the biggest damn bargain in the system! Going from a maximum of 4th level spells (3rd if you don't have a bonus spell that high) to a maximum of 6th level spells with the purchase of a single level of Full Magic is WAY too much.

Sorry, not in my game. Buying a level of Full Magic should give you just about twice the benefit of buying a level of Half Magic whenever you do it, since it's just about twice the cost. No more, no less.

Ok. Step back a minute and reread what I said. 10 levels of Mage Blade gives 4/3/3/2/0 and 5/5/4/3/0 as you said. At level 11 if you take a level of Magister that would add 0/0/0/0/1/0/1 and 0/1/0/0/0/0/2. I will admit I said this earlier without actually glancing at the table and seeing that it gives you access to _2_ spell levels higher than you had before (but as you gained no new 5th level spells at 11th, you need to have an Int of 20+ to have a bonus spell of said level), but the point was that for your first level of Full Magic you wouldn't add based on level 1 magister...you would add based on level 11 as that is your current caster level. So his new total casting would be 4/3/3/2/1/0/1 and 5/6/4/3/0/0/2.

It may end up all screwy my way, but my point was just to be that caster level is caster level period. A 3.5 Paladin is caster level-3 (I think) based on when he starts his magic career. So his total levels that he has magic ability. Should a 10th level half caster only be able to cast a 5d6 Fireball? Nope, it should be a 10d6 just like a 10th level full caster. Full caster has the benefit of being able to cast more of them however. Like I said, I didn't glance at the tables before posting and comparing the tables the math does work well to split to determine what level from the magister table you would add to the stack. But does your method also mean that when it comes to casting spells that the caster would only be 5th level in the fireball example or is he 10th level? B/c I don't think they should be 5th level.

Still, I realize that Caster Level gets a bit confusing there, and my proposal leaves a lot to be desired. In that direction I'm wondering about using this system here, which allows a more uniform stacking method to determine Spell Slots & Spells Readied. I'd obviously only use the Magister table (to represent Full Magic) and the Mage Blade table (to represent Half Magic), though I'd rather come up with a new table entirely so that there's only one table to reference. I'm not sure that's possible, though.

Since the BAB & Defense fractions only come up at leveling, I'm not too worried about them, and the stacking system outlined in that link gets away from fractions by using multipliers (x2 for Half Magic instead of 2/3 and x3 for Full Magic instead of 1). Take a look at it if you get a chance. It's a bit overwhelming at first glance, but very simple once you read through and understand it.

I believe it does what I'm looking for, namely allowing the stacking of Half & Full Magic levels in a meaningful way that reflects their cost differences. A 20th level PC with 10 Half & 10 Full Magic levels has a BMP of (10*2 + 10*3 =) 50, which is slightly better than a 20th level PC with 15 levels of Full Magic (a BMP of only 45). Since the former costs a few more points (though that's spread out over more levels, so the impact is less), I like that they receive quite a few extra low level spells. By the same token, I like that someone who's paid for more levels of Full Magic (and therefore didn't have those points to put towards other things over a narrower range of levels) benefits by having higher level spells (and more of them).

Your Caster Level in this system would just be sum of your Half & Full Magic levels, as you requested above. Here, though, there aren't any unreasonable & abusive jumps in spellcasting power because of the modified tables.[/QUOTE]

You lost me. Do non-zero level spells cost mana to cast, then? Are there 1/2 and full level spellcasters? Do classes go away?

With my mana idea 0 level spells are the only free spells. They just provide 1 to your mana pool so the table is al still used and ucz I think it's nice to give a small bump there. Spells fo level 1-9 cast their spel level to cast. SO a 3rd level spell costs 3 mana. If you have 19 mana you can cast 6 3rd level, 1 1st level and all the 0 level magic you want. 0 level magic has always felt to me to be like the small things you would see Gandalf do frequently like turning Bilbo's smokerings into things or Raistlin doing very simple effects in the DL novels. I don't think these should cost you anything in a mana system. The damaging spels are pure crap and most folks who would consider casting them have a crappy BAB anyway. The healing I already havea restriction set for so that's no issue.

Half and full casters are still there as you need to look at the specific table to know how much mana they have. There would likely be a per level bonus of your Int bonus or Int bonusx2 as well. Referring to teh charts. a 10th level half caster would have a base mana of 19 as there are no 4th level spells yet. Bonus spells due to intelligence would add to teh figure as well so an 18 Int for this character would also add 11 mana for the 1/1/1/1/1 bonus spells and 4 more for the actual Int bonus. Total of 34 mana for a character who has a total ability of 5/4/4/3/1 seems pretty reasonable to me.

A full caster of similar level and Intelligence has 6/5/4/3/3/2 or 7/6/5/4/4/2 after Intelligence. Total mana pool would be 65 after Int bonus. Once you have these mana totals, ignore the tables as you can cast whatever the mana allows. The Everquest RPG has a good mana system as well, but it's also MUCH more damage based heh. Good rules for mana regen as well.

Hagen

 

[ouini]

...a lot of what we came up with made its way into the AU magic system. Ta da! I'm sold!

I looked it over some more last night. I actually do like the system. It solves a lot of, well, not *problems* per se, but messiness. It definitely inspired me to drop Wizards/Sorcs altogether, and run with the "prepare" & "slots" idea in AU. (But, is there any way in AU for 1st and 2nd level casters to heal directly, or must they transfer wounds, instead?)

My problems with using a modified AU system with my players, then, are that:
- The system can't be explained on a single side of a sheet of paper. The players would have to buy and read AU, or I'd have to photocopy the spell lists and get the players to the point of being comfortable with the new spells. That's unlikely to happen, and so is really too bad.
- Ironically, the explanation at the link you provided for spellcasters, combined with the AU book tables, again just seemed too complex to foist onto players. Well, my players, anyway. If I'm going to change systems on them, I wouldn't feel right about having them reference multiple spell level vs. level tables (esp. in books they don't necessarily want to own). (Comment: I think the Witch/Blade Mage tables are more like 3/4 caster, btw)

Of course, I'm glad you found a system that you like. I'm even a little envious of your group's attitude towards new games. It'd be cool to play with a group willing to put a bit more effort into reading and playing. Through nobody's fault, I think we may well have to part ways on the magic system. At least for now.
.
.
.

...but the point was that for your first level of Full Magic you wouldn't add based on level 1 magister...you would add based on level 11 as that is your current caster level. So his new total casting would be 4/3/3/2/1/0/1 and 5/6/4/3/0/0/2.

First, thanks (SSquirrel) for explaining the free-cantrip system. I now get that your cantrips listed on an advancement chart add mana to your pool, but take no mana to cast.

Next, I'm going to pre-empt DrSpunj's reply again, and go out on a limb to say that this probably wouldn't be acceptable for either of us. Good if it works for you, but it seems very counter-intuitive, and seems to use some math that would be convoluted to the uninitiated or not math-savvy. I do agree in principle, though, that a mana system can be much easier to use, and can clean up much of the ugliness of gain-a-level, do-some-math-to-know-which-charts-to-consult.

As far as "caster level is caster level period", I'd still love to agree. But 3.5 says, "Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is one-half her paladin level." DrSpunj is okay with that (and I'm not set against it, but will avoid it if I can). You and I agree that there are probably preferable ways to do it, and found them.

 

[DrSpunj]

I looked it over some more last night. I actually do like the system. It solves a lot of, well, not *problems* per se, but messiness. It definitely inspired me to drop Wizards/Sorcs altogether, and run with the "prepare" & "slots" idea in AU. (But, is there any way in AU for 1st and 2nd level casters to heal directly, or must they transfer wounds, instead?)

I don't think so, that's "Greenbond" territory, which Monte made efforts to keep distinct from what any old magic user could do (for instance, check out the Blessed & Corrupt magic feats; the former gives you access to all negative energy spells while the former does not because Monte didn't want to step on the Greenbond's toes; I'm not worried about that here so I'm giving positive energy spells back to the Blessed feat).

Regardless, remember that in our Talislanta-like Mana system we had come up with the exact same thing: It's easier to convert real damage into subdual damage than it is to heal real damage straight away. I'd have to go back to our last version of that system to check, but I'd bet that 1st & 2nd level casters in our system would have been in the same situation.

My problems with using a modified AU system with my players, then, are that:
- The system can't be explained on a single side of a sheet of paper. The players would have to buy and read AU, or I'd have to photocopy the spell lists and get the players to the point of being comfortable with the new spells. That's unlikely to happen, and so is really too bad.

I think I can explain most of it to anyone familiar with the Core rules on a single sheet of paper. I'd start with something like this:

Every spell caster shares a big spell list like a Cleric, has Spell Slots every day like a Sorcerer, and chooses which spells to ready like a Wizard.

Starting from there it's not too difficult to explain the differences between Simple, Complex & Exotic spells, and the spell templates are a natural step from that. Weaving isn't a difficult concept, and Diminished & Heightened spells just make so much sense when you look at some Core spells as examples.

I think since I'm only going to be using two sets of tables (Half & Full, which I may rename to something like Basic Magic & Advanced Magic) rather than almost a half dozen class-specific tables, that it's not all that bad.

- Ironically, the explanation at the link you provided for spellcasters, combined with the AU book tables, again just seemed too complex to foist onto players. Well, my players, anyway. If I'm going to change systems on them, I wouldn't feel right about having them reference multiple spell level vs. level tables (esp. in books they don't necessarily want to own). (Comment: I think the Witch/Blade Mage tables are more like 3/4 caster, btw)

You're right, that would all be too much to for most anyone to absorb, which is why I plan on drawing up my own 2-3 page document describing the system and including the only 3 tables anyone will ever need. Then no one has to look at the AU book or that Alternate Mechanic document and possibly get confused by what they're supposed to have.

And yes, the Mage Blade progression at 20th level is somewhere between a 12th to 13th level Magister, so Half isn't a fair label, but the point costs we both independently generated (4 & 7) work out to be about as close as you can get.

Of course, I'm glad you found a system that you like. I'm even a little envious of your group's attitude towards new games. It'd be cool to play with a group willing to put a bit more effort into reading and playing. Through nobody's fault, I think we may well have to part ways on the magic system. At least for now.

Well, I've spoken with most of the people in my group about the possibility of using this system for PC generation, and everyone to date has been receptive to the idea. I'll also allow anyone to continue to use the classes as written in Core & AU, but most classes will have changes (some substantial) for balance reasons, that it'll likely be eaiser just to come up with something from scratch.

And BTW, ouini, I was going to ask you if you wanted to play in the campaign. At this point I'm looking at 1 weeknight per month and likely not starting until August. You already have the AU book for spells!

Next, I'm going to pre-empt DrSpunj's reply again, and go out on a limb to say that this probably wouldn't be acceptable for either of us. Good if it works for you, but it seems very counter-intuitive, and seems to use some math that would be convoluted to the uninitiated or not math-savvy.

Yep, and I apologize for misunderstanding what you were proposing, but I don't like the wonkiness that can lead to learning & casting a 7th level spell before you know or can cast any 5th or 6th level spells. Ideally buying a level of Half/Basic magic would get you about half as much as buying a level of Full/Advanced magic. Unfortunately the AU magic system doesn't allow that much granularity, so something else needs to be done.

As far as "caster level is caster level period", I'd still love to agree. But 3.5 says, "Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is one-half her paladin level." DrSpunj is okay with that (and I'm not set against it, but will avoid it if I can). You and I agree that there are probably preferable ways to do it, and found them.

I'm probably going to see if I can whittle down that Alternate Mechanic BMP system to something manageable. Since I'm only using two types of Magic, Basic & Advanced), I only need 3 tables. Figuring out your BMP is a bit of math, but anyone playing this game should be able to multiply Basic x2 and Advanced x3 and add them to get their BMP!

And using this mechanic you do just add your Basic & Advanced magic levels together to get your Caster Level, so a Basic5/Adv7 would have a Caster Level of 12. The only time those 3 tables come out is at leveling time, which I believe my players & I can live with.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[SSquirrel]

- Ironically, the explanation at the link you provided for spellcasters, combined with the AU book tables, again just seemed too complex to foist onto players. Well, my players, anyway. If I'm going to change systems on them, I wouldn't feel right about having them reference multiple spell level vs. level tables (esp. in books they don't necessarily want to own). (Comment: I think the Witch/Blade Mage tables are more like 3/4 caster, btw)

I couldn't get the document to download on my computer. Can someone email that to me? Spunj?

First, thanks (SSquirrel) for explaining the free-cantrip system. I now get that your cantrips listed on an advancement chart add mana to your pool, but take no mana to cast.

No problem.

Next, I'm going to pre-empt DrSpunj's reply again, and go out on a limb to say that this probably wouldn't be acceptable for either of us. Good if it works for you, but it seems very counter-intuitive, and seems to use some math that would be convoluted to the uninitiated or not math-savvy. I do agree in principle, though, that a mana system can be much easier to use, and can clean up much of the ugliness of gain-a-level, do-some-math-to-know-which-charts-to-consult.

As far as "caster level is caster level period", I'd still love to agree. But 3.5 says, "Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is one-half her paladin level." DrSpunj is okay with that (and I'm not set against it, but will avoid it if I can). You and I agree that there are probably preferable ways to do it, and found them.

See this shows how frequently I even look at Paladin (I kinda hate them heh). Considering Paladins are already considered 1/2 caster level in core rules not level-3 like I was thinking (wasn't it 2E that did it that way?) AND the fact that half Mage Blade lines up nicely with the Magister table, Spunj's way is better. I may still utilize the mana system I mention (which was a seperate idea and very simple as a 9th level spell is worth 9 points, a 3rd worth 3 etc), but remember you still do look at the tables. Or you can kill the tables from the books by looking at them yourself and making a new table that goes like this:

Half Caster Full Caster
1 2 4
2 1 2
3 1 2
4 1 3
5 2 4
etc

Which is how the tables breaks down with my easy mana system. Naturally you also get your Int bonus (or Int bonusx2 I can't decide which I like better) and you also get points at 1st level for your bonus spells. You could rule that they only earn the points for the levels they can actually cast or you can give them all the points at once thus allowing a bit more flexibility for a low level mage.

The EQ RPG has a different mana system. Controlling stat (Int/Wis/Cha) x2xcaster level. So 5th level with a +3 stat bonus gets 3x2x5=30 mana. More simply...Mana pool=(ability bonusx2)xcaster level.

Multiclassing is a simple bit of figuring for each class and adding together. They have 3 types of magic (arcane, divine and songs) which are ket seperate and we'd only have 1 pool so that is nice and simple. Mana is regained based on a Meditation skill for Ability bonus+Meditation skill/hour of rest, every 2 hours of light activity and every 4 hrs for strenuous.

Again, I think my mana system is easier b/c in their system each individual spell has different mana costs. Mine is straightforward and based on spell level.

Naturally, use it if you wish or skip if mana pools aren't what you want. Mana pools are really outside of this spreadsheet anyway honestly.

Hagen

 

[DrSpunj]

I couldn't get the document to download on my computer. Can someone email that to me? Spunj?

Just sent it to the email on your website (I think it's the same one I have at home!).

See this shows how frequently I even look at Paladin (I kinda hate them heh). Considering Paladins are already considered 1/2 caster level in core rules not level-3 like I was thinking (wasn't it 2E that did it that way?) AND the fact that half Mage Blade lines up nicely with the Magister table, Spunj's way is better.

I'm not impressed with the mechanics of the Paladin or Ranger, either. I think the Champion is substantially better designed, and the Ranger can vary widely (if the alt.variants are any indication) depending on whether you're after a partial caster or the straight woodsy type.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[DrSpunj]

Alright, because of ouini & SSquirrel's comments I spent a little time tonight getting friendly with the Excel Index function. The result (after about 1.5 hours) is the spreadsheet I've attached below.

Enter the PC's name, their number of Basic & Advanced Magic levels, and their relevant Ability Score. It then dumps out your total Spell Slots Per Day & Spells Readied At One Time through the Base Magic Power tables I linked to above. It also does an amazing computation (called "addition" by some) and outputs your Caster Level.

If you print in Landscape the whole thing prints out on a single sheet.

Now, this exactly matches the Mage Blade & Magister outputs from AU except for the fact that I bumped the 0-level Bonus Spells due to your Ability Scores by one step, so you'll always end up with one extra 0-level Spell Slot and Spell Readied. Why? Because, like SSquirrel, I believe Cantrips are cheap and like to see them used. I've always pictured high level casters using things like Mage Hand to bring the wine decanter over to them and being able to do stuff like that all day long (with Cantrips) paints a good picture for me.

If you don't feel the same just Unprotect the Sheet (there's no password), and copy that entire column down EDIT: two steps, then delete the '1's in the 10 and 11 rows so that the column matches that from AU. No biggie.

Note that the Ability Table only goes up to 45, like it does in the PHB & AU. Anyone wanting something higher than that will have to expand the Ranges in the Index functions (which is a bit of a repetitive pain; I've warned you!).

Under this system it's probably important to note/realize that if you have the potential to cast magic from two different sources that use different ability scores (like Divine Training using Wisdom and Bardic Music using Charisma), your Bonus Spells and Spell DCs should always be calculated using the higher of the two abilities. That's a minor benefit for a mixed caster as Ability damage that lowers their highest ability (say Wisdom) below that of their other casting attribute (Charisma) would mean that Bonus Spells and Spell DCs would now be based off of the new high score (Charisma). I figure if they've studied two or more various forms of magic and broadened their magical abilities/knowledge accordingly, they deserve such a minor perk.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[ouini]

Well, I think the AU magic system is good enough that I'll give incorporating it a go. It'll probably involve some photocopying of spells to distribute to players.

So here's a rough of how the low cost a la carte system might look at 1st level, magic and all, on two sheets.

http://www.sharemation.com/ouini/draft.rtf

 

[DrSpunj]

So here's a rough of how the low cost a la carte system might look at 1st level, magic and all, on two sheets.

It definitely needs some rewording in places for clarification, but an it's a very good first draft for what you've been describing.

I'm not clear, even after seeing what you've written in this thread, how I'd go about creating a PC beyond 1st level (I realize it's a 1st level sheet, but at the bottom you give space to map out the next 4 levels and there's none of your past explanation on how much a combat feat is at 2nd vs 3rd, etc.), or with Magic at all (though I'm not trying too hard since I'm skipping the Mana system for my own campaign).

Mind creating an example over the first 4 levels? Say, the Bard? That Jack-of-all-Trades class would likely access nearly every part of the ruleset you've outlined.

Oh, and as it's worded I think you're being too tough on Exotic Weapons. You've taken the Weapon Group variant from UA but combined it with the Exotic Weapon Prof feat from Core. If that was deliberate, I'll just avoid using more than one Exotic Weapon if I ever find myself in your game, but it seems a bit silly to me that if you learn how to use all types of normal flails & chains with a single feat you have to now spend two more feats to become proficient with both the Dire Flail and the Spiked Chain. Just my 2 cents.

Thanks.

DrSpunj