How to add more sorcery points?

[FrogReaver]

And with these statements you have agreed with me. Imbalance is fun. All that's left to determine is where the line is drawn for each individual. Where you draw the line will be different from where I draw the line, and where he draws the line will be different from the two of us.



For you. He and his players may draw the line farther on than you do, as I do. That's why I included the very important "if" in my first response to you on this. IF he and his players will get more enjoyment from spell points than without them, balance should take second seat.

I believe spell points are so far outside any reasonable acceptable bounds of relative strength that we can objectively call them unbalanced (my definition, not yours)

 

[Quartz]

I am working on an alternate sorcerer to accomplish two things, distinguish it more from wizards and make subclasses feel more distinct.

How about digging up one of the old Dragon articles on Path Magic? Sorcerors follow a path - a restricted set of spells - in return for more sorcery points. For instance Orius Fire-thrower follows the Fire Path which comprises Fire Bolt, Burning Hands, Flaming Sphere, Fireball, Fire Shield, Wall of Fire, Conjure Elemental (Fire), Delayed Blast Fireball, Incendiary Cloud, and Meteor Swarm. At some point Orius might pick up a second path which has a second set of spells. Perhaps the path of the Body: Disguise Self, Alter Self, Feign Death, Water Breathing, Stoneskin, and Shapechange.

To progress along a path you need to take at least one spell of each level available, so Orius could not take Meteor Swarm without having first taken Fire Storm which in turn required taking Conjure Elemental which in turn required... Then instead of a Sorcerous Origin feature you get a Path feature. E.g. Orius might gain the ability to Counterspell Fire spells or the Elemental Adept: Fire feat.

And the benefit is that you get extra Sorcery Points or applying metamagic to path spells costs fewer SPs.

Alternatively you could turn the Sorceror into a short-rest hybrid class following this post and allow a number of sorcery points per short or long rest equal to half the proficiency bonus (round down) +1, gaining +1 SP at each of 6th, 14th, and 18th levels instead of the origin feature.

 

[Maxperson]

I believe spell points are so far outside any reasonable acceptable bounds of relative strength that we can objectively call them unbalanced (my definition, not yours)

So why does your definition of unbalanced overrule what we think is fun? If it doesn't overrule what we think is fun, then if the players are having fun, balance should take second seat.

 

[FrogReaver]

So why does your definition of unbalanced overrule what we think is fun? If it doesn't overrule what we think is fun, then if the players are having fun, balance should take second seat.

Because anything that falls in my definition of unbalanced is less fun than something that falls inside my definition of balanced.

 

[GameOgre]

Huh, well I love Old School games like Classic D&D and AD&D as well and those gets pretty darned unbalanced at times. I find them just as fun or more fun than the later editions....sometimes. Lucky for me there are rpg's for just about every single mood I can have.

 

[FrogReaver]

Huh, well I love Old School games like Classic D&D and AD&D as well and those gets pretty darned unbalanced at times. I find them just as fun or more fun than the later editions....sometimes. Lucky for me there are rpg's for just about every single mood I can have.

I didn't play classic D&D or AD&D so your example while interesting doesn't really mean anything to me. I have no reference point for those games so I can't agree with you and I can't disagree with you.

 

[Maxperson]

Because anything that falls in my definition of unbalanced is less fun than something that falls inside my definition of balanced.

Only for you. Your completely subjective definition doesn't apply to me or anyone else.

 

[WaterRabbit]

So why does your definition of unbalanced overrule what we think is fun? If it doesn't overrule what we think is fun, then if the players are having fun, balance should take second seat.

It think there might be a misunderstanding about balance here. Balance in a RPG is more about perception. If one character can easily handle all of the challenges or dominates one aspect of the game, then it is unbalanced. So if you are making powering up the sorcerer, how will you balance the spotlight with the other classes?

It is when one class dominates play or becomes so much better than all of the others is when the game becomes unfun. Otherwise, no matter how powerful a class is, the DM can always provide a challenge.

To me the proposed changes seem like they will lead to one character in the party being "The Mighty Thor" and the rest being his sidekicks. This seems unbalanced and unfun to me. Sorcerers are already very powerful. Giving them more sorcery points without any meaningful cost swings them to "Why would I play any other class" category.

 

[Maxperson]

It think there might be a misunderstanding about balance here. Balance in a RPG is more about perception.

If one character can easily handle all of the challenges or dominates one aspect of the game, then it is unbalanced. So if you are making powering up the sorcerer, how will you balance the spotlight with the other classes?

I agree. If you perceive it to be a problem, it is. If you don't, it isn't. In games that I play in, it doesn't matter of the sorcerer is a putz or a god. Combat is only one portion of the game. The paladin will shine with his story and religious activities. The rogue will shine in his bailiwick. And so on. Everyone will get the spotlight.

It is when one class dominates play or becomes so much better than all of the others is when the game becomes unfun.

For some people, sure. For others, the game remains fun.

 

[WaterRabbit]

I agree. If you perceive it to be a problem, it is. If you don't, it isn't. In games that I play in, it doesn't matter of the sorcerer is a putz or a god. Combat is only one portion of the game. The paladin will shine with his story and religious activities. The rogue will shine in his bailiwick. And so on. Everyone will get the spotlight.



For some people, sure. For others, the game remains fun.

For few people. It might work for your group, but IME (playing since 1979), yours is a rare exception then. Yes, combat is only a portion of the game, but it is a significant portion of the game as most of the rules in the book are preoccupied with it. If combat is such a minor portion of your game that it doesn't matter that one class would dominate it, then you are using the wrong game system anyway as there are much much better RPGs that focus on the other aspects than D&D.