A New Magic System (per encounter and per day)

[Khuxan]

Once, I was a strong advocate of giving every class abilities usable per encounter instead of per day. After all, that would get rid of the problems of requiring four encounters a day, spellcasters resting after every encounter, and so on. But then an argument raised by the "per dayists" got me thinking - if you balance things per encounter, what happens to strategy, planning and conserving your resources? Characters go all-out in every encounter, without worrying about what they might face in the future.

What I'd like instead is a compromise, where most spells are usable per encounter, but there are a few, quite powerful options that can only be used once or twice a day. I've come up with a few options:

1. Combining two magic systems: Invocations and spells. Maneuvers and spells. Invocations and 'rituals' (which I'd have to come up with myself).
2. Base access on spell levels: Your highest level of spells can be cast X times a day while most of your spells are usable per encounter or even at will.
3. Corruption or long-term cost: Every time you use a 'ritual' or very powerful spell, you suffer corruption or ability damage. Normal spells can be used per encounter.
4. Reserve feats and spells: Making reserve feats much more common.
5. Invocations and magic items: You can create magical items of spells you cannot cast (in fact, spells that may be impossible to cast). This gives you a limited store of very powerful spells.

By the way, I've pretty much used invocations as short-hand for "an invocation or maneuver-like magical ability usable either at will or per encounter" and spells as short-hand for "a magical ability usable per day". Invocations could be, for example, something to do with Incarnum or Ironcarnum, for example.

I'm asking you guys for help because I can't think of any existing magic system which does what I'm asking for, and I need assistance working out the viability of various options. As you can see, at the moment I'm basically brainstorming - but I'd like to brainstorm with other people.

 

[Voadam]

1st check out the Unearthed Arcana Recharge magic variant, it puts many spells on a per encounter basis, some on a 1/per day (effectively so due to the long recharge time). Feats like the complete arcane sudden metamagic series that are useable once per day then come in for the big fight saved resources.

I really like using my spells all the time in the recharge variant though, I prefer that style of resource management (which of these do I use now in this encounter at a cost of not using the others now vs. which of these do I use up now and can't use later).

 

[BiggusGeekus]

I don't like the UA system because it looks like one heck of a lot of bookkeeping.

Shadowrun had a system of "drain" where the spellcaster would essentially make a saving throw to avoid being damaged from using magic. What ended up happening though is that PCs would min/max and use a few spells very often and use the big spells to blow up the boss-type monsters. There are some Iron Heroes spellcasting variants that do something similar, BUT ....

I really don't like it when spellcasters are asked to use hit points or risk CON damage because they are generally weak in that department to begin with. It's like asking a Fighter to take a -4 WILL penalty. You take an Achilles' Heel and turn it into an entire Achilles' Leg. STR might be more appropriate. If you used STR (and only STR, no fatigue penalties) you could also experiment with decreasing the arcane spellcasting penalty for armor. Since the wizards would be risking a 6 or a 4 STR, plate mail would be risky.


Hong had a system worked out that let you have magical effects or feats that would help you avoid taking damage while flat-footed or would simply absorb one spell attack. The idea was to force PCs and bad guys to save their big attacks for something other than the first salvo. One big burst attack from the darkness makes a lot of sense in the real world, but it's not very dramatic for RPG storytelling. That might help your 1/day issue.

My own thought is to have the spellcasting penalty be the spellcaster's base DC. This plays up to the tactical nature of the game, because if the caster is lobbing his big spells around all the time, he won't be able to handle the boss encounters and if he saves it all up for the end, well, then he's not casting! The problem with this is that it simply encourages the use of defensive and utility spells instead of offensive. Which I think is awesome, but a lot of people do love their invokers!

 

[Voadam]

I don't like the UA system because it looks like one heck of a lot of bookkeeping.

House ruling it so the recharge times are standardized instead of rolling dice each time helped make it much easier to track and go quickly and smoothly in play.

 

[Piratecat]

Off to the House Rules forum! Vrroom!

 

[hong]

I don't know where people get the idea that per-encounter balancing takes away strategic thinking. I suppose they're also going to say that the D&D Minis and Dreamblade games involve no strategy and planning, because those games also effectively recharge "per encounter".

What per-encounter balancing does is shift the strategy so that it applies _per fight_, instead of between fights. Do you blast the monster in front of you, or wait until its friend comes in range? Do you use your big strike now, even though conditions aren't optimal, or wait for a better moment? Do you use your last slot on an attack power, thus risking your skin if you don't take the bad guy down? Etc.

If that's not good enough, planning out encounters to increase the tension level between fights is easily done as well. For an Nth level party, first you fight an EL N-2 encounter, then an EL N encounter, then EL N+2, then EL N+4. The first will (or should be) a cakewalk, the last will be a killer. Heck, most modules that I've seen follow this basic principle as well: the first few encounters are always relatively easy, compared to the BBEG at the end. The very term "BBEG" implies that the climactic fight will be the toughest of the lot.

Not to mention that in all this, there's still one resource that doesn't recharge per encounter: hit points. Noone, as far as I know, has said anything about getting rid of hp.

 

[Khuxan]

My own thought is to have the spellcasting penalty be the spellcaster's base DC. This plays up to the tactical nature of the game, because if the caster is lobbing his big spells around all the time, he won't be able to handle the boss encounters and if he saves it all up for the end, well, then he's not casting! The problem with this is that it simply encourages the use of defensive and utility spells instead of offensive. Which I think is awesome, but a lot of people do love their invokers!

I like that idea. Powerful spells risk ability damage, so you'll more seriously consider using weaker spells in their place. That would integrate well with recharge magic, I think.

I don't know where people get the idea that per-encounter balancing takes away strategic thinking. I suppose they're also going to say that the D&D Minis and Dreamblade games involve no strategy and planning, because those games also effectively recharge "per encounter".

I can't speak with authority on either game, but with them the focus seems to be on scissors-paper-rock - using the fast troops to seize the ground to win victory points, using high-attack creatures against high-AC creatures, and so on. In Dungeons and Dragons, characters are much more able to use the same ability again and again - a warlock using eldritch blast every round, for example.

What per-encounter balancing does is shift the strategy so that it applies _per fight_, instead of between fights. Do you blast the monster in front of you, or wait until its friend comes in range? Do you use your big strike now, even though conditions aren't optimal, or wait for a better moment? Do you use your last slot on an attack power, thus risking your skin if you don't take the bad guy down? Etc.

Fair enough, but I'd like to require strategy _per fight_ and _per day_.

If that's not good enough, planning out encounters to increase the tension level between fights is easily done as well. For an Nth level party, first you fight an EL N-2 encounter, then an EL N encounter, then EL N+2, then EL N+4. The first will (or should be) a cakewalk, the last will be a killer. Heck, most modules that I've seen follow this basic principle as well: the first few encounters are always relatively easy, compared to the BBEG at the end. The very term "BBEG" implies that the climactic fight will be the toughest of the lot.

This doesn't seem to address my problems, though - it doesn't require planning or strategy from the PCs, just increases the tension. What I'd like is if the party goes all-out, the first few encounters will be cakewalks but they will find the last encounter particularly challenging and resource-intensive - maybe it'll even force them to regroup, spend money on reinforcements, or search desperately for another approach. If the party conserves their resources, they might find the last encounter significantly easier - but they'll have been challenged by the encounters before them.

Not to mention that in all this, there's still one resource that doesn't recharge per encounter: hit points. Noone, as far as I know, has said anything about getting rid of hp.

No one has, true, although a magic system that recharges per encounter is conductive to reserve points or faster hit point recovery. Hit points are not a usable resource in the same way a barbarian's rage or a wizard's spells are, though. I want my players to preserve their fireballs until they're absolutely needed... I expect my party to preserve their hit points no matter what.

Thanks everyone for your comments and advice. I'm thinking very seriously about using recharge magic (or a form of recharge magic), and whether I'm worrying too much about per day planning anyway.

 

[hong]

I can't speak with authority on either game, but with them the focus seems to be on scissors-paper-rock - using the fast troops to seize the ground to win victory points, using high-attack creatures against high-AC creatures, and so on. In Dungeons and Dragons, characters are much more able to use the same ability again and again - a warlock using eldritch blast every round, for example.

Meh. D&D is just as much, if not moreso, about paper/scissors/rock. Use hold person on the fighter with crap Will save, disintegrate on the wiz with crap Fort save. Rogues slice up living creatures, but are hopeless against undead. Clerics toast undead and are the designated healer, while wizards toast everything but can't heal. Being grappled by a melee brute kills you, unless you have a ring of freedom of movement in which case grappling fails completely. Etc.

Die, stupid paper/scissors/rock balancing principle. Die. Die. Die.

This doesn't seem to address my problems, though - it doesn't require planning or strategy from the PCs, just increases the tension.

Of course it requires planning and strategy from the PCs. If they get overconfident in the EL N-2 fight, one or more of them could die. Nothing about per-encounter balancing obviates the need to be smart and careful about what you do during a fight.

What I'd like is if the party goes all-out, the first few encounters will be cakewalks but they will find the last encounter particularly challenging and resource-intensive - maybe it'll even force them to regroup, spend money on reinforcements, or search desperately for another approach. If the party conserves their resources, they might find the last encounter significantly easier - but they'll have been challenged by the encounters before them.

You are turning the bug back into a feature. In practice, what happens is that if the party doesn't conserve their resources, they'll just rest and come back the next day. So, unless you impose all sorts of controls over when people can rest, there is no planning and strategy here either. In practice these controls often tend to be lacking, which is the basic reason why per-encounter balancing is so nice: it removes another potential point of failure for the system.

No one has, true, although a magic system that recharges per encounter is conductive to reserve points or faster hit point recovery. Hit points are not a usable resource in the same way a barbarian's rage or a wizard's spells are, though.

A resource is a resource. Just because you can't exercise direct control over when hit points get expended doesn't mean they don't serve to constrain your options in exactly the same way as other resources do. If you're on 1 hp you're not going to be charging into the frontline, just like if you're on 1 magic missile you're not going to be fireballing anyone.

I want my players to preserve their fireballs until they're absolutely needed... I expect my party to preserve their hit points no matter what.

And the difference is...?

 

[WhatGravitas]

No one has, true, although a magic system that recharges per encounter is conductive to reserve points or faster hit point recovery.

In my pet "per-encounter magic" project, I've found the solution to this in the "Reserve Points" variant, and effectively making healing spells Reserve-to-Normal converters and Transferring-Wounds spells. Just a suggestion.

 

[Henry]

I suppose they're also going to say that the D&D Minis and Dreamblade games involve no strategy and planning, because those games also effectively recharge "per encounter".

What per-encounter balancing does is shift the strategy so that it applies _per fight_, instead of between fights. Do you blast the monster in front of you, or wait until its friend comes in range?...Etc.

For D&D Minis, it doesn't matter, because you don't care what happens past the one engagement (usually; if you're planing some kind of multi-round scenario with the same forces, then keeping units in reserve, etc. becomes important.)

To me, what you're referring to isn't strategy, it's tactics.

In military usage, a distinction is made between strategy and tactics. Strategy is the utilization, during both peace and war, of all of a nation's forces, through large-scale, long-range planning and development, to ensure security or victory. Tactics deals with the use and deployment of troops in actual combat.

How are you going to keep enough resources through multiple steps to a goal? Strategy. Where to place the lightning bolt, or who to use the Hold Person on? Tactics.

Wizards to me are the ultimate in strategic expression; they could have almost ANYTHING up their sleeves. Sorcerers, however, are the ultimate in tactics. They only have a limited list, but they can use it whenever and however they see fit.


Now, I can see using hit points as a resource - but if you're going to, how do you preserve it as a finite resource? Turn healing off completely? Give it back to only the clerics and druids, and make it like the paladin's lay on hands? have a "reservoir" like Iron Heroes? To me, at least, none of these are satisfactory (well, the lay on hands idea's not too bad), but it goes to the unsatisfying idea of making hit points the ONLY resource to manage. If hit points are the only resource to manage, it's like running a game with nothing but fighters it in - you keep whacking things in new and creative ways until the enemy whacks you down first.

I'm not saying it couldn't be implemented, but the way I've seen various people experiment with it so far just hasn't "rung" with me. I'll be curious to see STAR WARS SAGA's take on healing, resting, etc. Before, Jedi were some damned good healers; I'd love to see what happens now.