A new spell system: a "token" based wizard

[Sadrik]

Great system! Here is how I would do it:

When they create a token pool they get one token per level plus the casters stat modifier.

Spells cost 1 plus the spell level in tokens (so, 1-10).

A token pool is created when a token caster uses the standard casting times for spells. If they slow cast they can cast their spells without creating a token pool.

The token pool time vs. slow cast
1 action -> 1 minute
full round action -> 10 minutes
1 minute -> 1 hour
1 hour -> 1 day

(The magnitude of these increases could be debated.) Also, adding some additional time penalty for the level of the spell could be important. Limiting the higher level spells that are overly powerful using this spell system because of the infinite castings.

Once a character creates a token pool they do not recover it until an hour after they do not draw from it. (The duration could be debated.) When a character has an active token pool they draw from the pool even if they slow cast.

If the pool ever becomes empty (at 0 or they gain one negative token) the character becomes fatigued. If the character is already fatigued and they suffer another negative token they become exhausted. If they are exhausted they become disabled. If they cast a spell or gain a negative token while disabled they die.

Token pool

0 or -1   fatigued
-2         exhasted
-3         disabled
-4+       dead

It takes 8 hours of rest to get rid of the fatigued condition. After 1 hour of complete rest a character becomes fatigued (both as RAW). To remove the disabled condition they need eight hours of complete rest to become exhausted.

Note that this is a special application of the disabled condition. (I wanted something that didn't simply make them helpless but was really bad.) While disabled they remain at their current hit points and they lose a hit points when taking an action as normal.

 

[DreamChaser]

I've never liked in vs. out of combat rule disinctions, all the way back to 1e they bugged me, almost as much as the different speeds in a dungeon versus overland.

The spiraling down rule I suggested above was not because I thought the system was too strong but as a way of toning it down for people who did. I suggested it as an alternate rule.

DC

 

[Sadrik]

I've never liked in vs. out of combat rule disinctions,

If you are refering to the system I proposed. In practice it is essentially an out of combat/in combat system but really it is easily explained. To cast spells quickly characters must draw energy from themselves (or where ever) and it tires them out by casting quickly. By coaxing the spells with longer casting times they can ignore that penalty.

 

[SteveC]

v1.1 uploaded

I have uploaded version 1.1 to the first post in the document.

This is mostly a cosmetic change, but I added the reference to using a swift action for regaining tokens in combat (so that it may only be done once per round) and a new state for tokens has been created: expended, which is where any permanent spells go until the wizard has a chance to rest and recover.

I also did some clarification on recovering tokens and how this will be an issue for the GM to balance the class with. I am still discussing how to officially balance token recovery multiple times per day. Some kind of fatigue/subdual system might work (as has been suggested) but I think tracking this might be clunky in practice. I have never really liked the subdual (I mean non-lethal--my age is showing here) damage system that D&D uses. I'll keep working on it, and your suggestions are always welcome!

What's up next? The next thing I'm going to do is insert the sorcerer into these rules. This is a short addition, since the sorcerer gets some color text and some additional tokens for the pool and that's about it.

After that, the big one: clerics. This is a big deal, since clerics have the ability to heal, and the ability to heal a theoretically unlimited amount really messes with the standard D&D assumptions. My solution is a variant on the Reserve rules, where you can only be healed up so much before you have to let time take it's course. I'm going to start another thread on the subject of balancing unlimited healing spells in the next couple of days, but feel free to make any comments you wish in the mean time.

--Steve

 

[Sadrik]

I thought I would give you some of my critiques of your system before you "go to print" so to speak.

Preparing Spells:
3 + int of every level is too much. I also don't like that you get 3 + int as soon as you gain access to that spells level. I think something like 5 + int +2 for every level you are and then abiding by your table: 1. Or use the spells memorized chart out of the PHB and add 1 or 2 to every level. So a first level caster would be able to prepare 3 first level spells etc.

Casting Spells:
Why make the caster level of effect more expensive token wise? It also is not real clear how much things cost because of the language. Does the math work like this:
9th level caster

She wants to cast magic missile and get 5 missiles. It will cost her:
1 (caster level 2) + 4 (to get +8 caster level capped at 9th)= 6 tokens or
1 (caster level 2) + 7 (to get +7 caster level)= 8 tokens or
1 (caster level 2) + 2 (to cast at maximum caster level)= 3 tokens or
1 (caster level 2) + 1 (to cast at maximum caster level)= 2 tokens

She wants to cast a fireball and get 9d6 damage. It will cost her:
3 (caster level 6) + 1 (to get +6 caster level capped at 9th)= 4 tokens or
3 (caster level 6) + 3 (to get +3 caster level)= 6 tokens or
3 (caster level 6) + 6 (to cast at maximum caster level)= 9 tokens or
3 (caster level 6) + 1 (to cast at maximum caster level)= 4 tokens

Is there a reason you want to complicate the costs casting of the spells. Psionicist don't scale for free because they have too many power points. With this system that is not the case. A 20th level caster who has 26 tokens casts a 9th level spell and bam they are 17 another and bam they are at 8. I think it is pretty limited already without adding in extra costs. (I am sure I dont need to remind you what a standard 20th level wizard could cast.)

Casting 0 level spells:
I think you should cost all of the spells as spell level +1 (1-10). It would put a very definate cap on the number of 0 level spells per encounter.

Casting into negative tokens:
Let people cast into the negatives but make the penalties real and dangerous for doing so.

Spell DC's:
Way out of control. These need to be reined in. Depending on what the above token thing counts out as the worst case scenario is you want a ninth level spell to have a DC of 28 + int modifier (say a conservative 24 int, thats a DC of 35). Obviously that is not right. I would go with the standard method of determining DC (10 + spell level + int mod).

Recovering tokens in combat:
I am weary of this. I think if a caster does not access their pool for a while then it fills back up. Or even just have it regenerate 1 token per minute or something. But in combat regeneration by making a concentration check. Mmm, na.

Specialist wizard tokens:
Maybe they should be more dramatic than this with more gradations. Not 100% sure about that though.

Its a great idea and it gives me a lot of ideas. Look at my earlier post, it is how I might impliment it. Some of the casting times and recovery times might change.

 

[Sravoff]

This may be slightly off topic but you could add a random factor into the amount of spells a spellcaster could cast. If the class got a certain number of spell hitpoints and then the spells did damage to them through their spell HP. Also the class should have a way to take less damage from the spell.

Maybe 1d12 spell hp per level, no max at first. Add the csaters attribute bonues per level. Spells do damage equal to their level +2. Concentration checkw or will saes will reduce it by percentages. Concentration check DC = 10 + Spell Level + 2/3 caster level.(Or some other such formula.) Allow casters to voluntarily lower caster level to reduce DC. Every 5 full points they fail the check they take an addittional d4 damage and every full 5 they beat the DC they take -1d4 damage from the spell.

Perhaps Damage is 1d4/spell level and a lower DC or something else.

This will probably require lots of tweaking before it is playable.

This system derives from Shadowrun where wizards and Shamans have spell drain that is resisted. In that game sorcers can cast many many spells of low potential per day without taking effects. However there when they take damage it makes it harder to cast spells and to shoot guns and do anything else.

Food for Thought. Comments Welcome!

-Sravoff

 

[Cheiromancer]

@Sadrik: I think the CL of a spell is twice the number of tokens you spent on it, or your level, whichever is lower. To cast a 5 missile MM spell, a 9th level caster would need to spend 5 tokens. To get a 9d6 fireball would also cost 5 tokens. It would be 10d6, but the CL cap kicks in.

Having to pay for increased CL is a feature of the psionics system, which is basically a point based spellcasting system. I understand that spellcasters become exponentially more powerful without it. So it is interesting that they changed metamagic. The change to metamagic is definitely a powerup- a reaction, I think, to the criticism that with metamagic you have to pay twice; once for the feat, and then a second time for the level increase. The token wizard still has to pay twice, but he gets a second benefit. But given how cautious 3.5 is with spells that boost DC (e.g. nerfing spell focus), I suspect they've gone overboard.

I like spellpoint systems that use the spell level +1 mechanic. Giving normal wizards 5 points/level would be a good implementation; a little more power at low levels, a fair bit weaker at high levels. Fiddling with it a little (+1 spell point per point of Int bonus, but no more than +1 point/level, or something) is about right. A 1 token/level (plus a few) system would be about right for a mix of 4 or 5 encounters. In the right ballpark at least.

The thing is, high level wizards *will* run out tokens in big battles. Being able to scrounge up a few extra tokens makes sense; they can't just pull out their crossbow like 1st level wizards do. There is a certain cinematic element to trying to work that one last spell. I would prefer, though, to streamline the way that casters recharge in combat.

In fact, that chart 4 needs to be streamlined. The numbers there look like they were pulled out of someone's... hat.

 

[Sadrik]

I think the CL of a spell is twice the number of tokens you spent on it, or your level, whichever is lower. To cast a 5 missile MM spell, a 9th level caster would need to spend 5 tokens. To get a 9d6 fireball would also cost 5 tokens. It would be 10d6, but the CL cap kicks in.

I am not sure that is right, we will see when the OP answers... Regardless, I am not a fan of the costing system he has in place no matter how it comes out. A simple 1 + spell level would be fine. And using the DC as 10 + stat + spell level would also be fine.

I like spellpoint systems that use the spell level +1 mechanic. Giving normal wizards 5 points/level would be a good implementation; a little more power at low levels, a fair bit weaker at high levels.

5/level would be way too much. Remember, these tokens are essentially infinite and the OP has a five minute lapse to refresh them. Now, something like 2 + int at first and then +2 at every level after that. So at 20th they would have 40 + int essentially giving them the ability to cast 4 9th level spells (10 tokens each [40]) and still have a few left for the encounter. Now that is opposed to 1/level +int they would have 20 +int at 20th and cast 2 9th level spells (10 tokens each [20]) and have a few points left over for the encounter. It all depends on how many 9th level spells you want to be thrown around in a high level game. Do you want the caster to think about conserving their tokens and use lesser level spells? Or do you want them to say I don’t care and fire off the big'uns every time. I think I like the 1/level because of this. (5/level is way out of control. 10 9th level spells per encounter!)

The thing is, high level wizards *will* run out tokens in big battles. Being able to scrounge up a few extra tokens makes sense; they can't just pull out their crossbow like 1st level wizards do. There is a certain cinematic element to trying to work that one last spell. I would prefer, though, to streamline the way that casters recharge in combat.

But you want to give them limitations so that they have to make hard choices about how they proceed. And not just give them enough points (tokens) so that they can blast everything in sight with their highest level and best spells every encounter. They have to be limited somehow! A standard caster won’t have access to their higher level spells if they had an early difficult encounter (they already used them). This caster has an advantage that they refill between every encounter and can cast there highest level most effective spells again. That in my mind means that they should have fewer points (tokens) to play with. So that if they think the battle will go long they cast lower level spells to conserve there points (tokens).

Something that I also thought of is certain spells that do int damage could potentially kill this caster in combat. Touch of idiocy and feeblemind come to mind, I am not sure if these spells are balanced with this system of casting...

Sravoff I'll comment on you system if you make a new thread. I don’t want to detract from the discussion here.

 

[SteveC]

@Sadrik: I think the CL of a spell is twice the number of tokens you spent on it, or your level, whichever is lower. To cast a 5 missile MM spell, a 9th level caster would need to spend 5 tokens. To get a 9d6 fireball would also cost 5 tokens. It would be 10d6, but the CL cap kicks in.

Cheiromancer is correct. In the most simple terms, your caster level is based on the number of tokens you spend like so:

1 token -->max CL2
2 tokens->max CL4 (min for lvl 2 spells)
3 tokens->max CL6 (min for lvl 3 spells)
4 tokens->max CL8 (min for lvl 4 spells)
5 tokens->max CL10 (min for lvl 5 spells)
6 tokens->max CL12 (min for lvl 6 spells)
7 tokens->max CL14 (min for lvl 7 spells)
8 tokens->max CL16 (min for lvl 8 spells)
9 tokens->max CL18 (min for lvl 9 spells)
10 tokens->max CL20

Of course you are always limited to a maximum caster level by your level as a wizard. What this means is: a 5th level wizard who cast magic missile would get 1 missile for 1 token, 2 missiles for 2 tokens and 3 missiles for 3 tokens. For the same three tokens, they could also cast fireball for 5d6 damage.

This means that it is generally not a good deal to cast lower level spells with more token expense, which is an intended feature: higher level spells are better to use in this system than lower level ones. I have changed things so that save DCs increase by spending more tokens, so there is at least some incentive to do so.

Hopefully that part makes some sense. I figured that not everyone would really like this system, but it was a compromise I made to keep things simpler. I guess I felt that the issue of casting a billion magic missiles was not as much fun as casting a handful of meteor swarms as a high level mage.

Having to pay for increased CL is a feature of the psionics system, which is basically a point based spellcasting system. I understand that spellcasters become exponentially more powerful without it. So it is interesting that they changed metamagic. The change to metamagic is definitely a powerup- a reaction, I think, to the criticism that with metamagic you have to pay twice; once for the feat, and then a second time for the level increase. The token wizard still has to pay twice, but he gets a second benefit. But given how cautious 3.5 is with spells that boost DC (e.g. nerfing spell focus), I suspect they've gone overboard.

Yep, the change to metamagic was intended to be a power up on my part. I like metamagic, but I've never really had characters use it very much at all, because you get to both pay for the feat and pay each time you use it. I wanted to make wizards take lots of metamagic feats and use 'em. You're also correct that the basis for the increased cost for improving a spell's caster level comes from the psionics handbook. Actually it is a mix of that and the spell point system from Unearthed Arcana. The thing is, I like the idea of having wizards cast their more powerful spells as combat effects. I think it makes magic more interesting to play that way. If you don't use some kind of a mechanic like this, you see spells like magic missile being cast waaaay too often, even at high levels, because it's such a good spell.

I like spellpoint systems that use the spell level +1 mechanic. Giving normal wizards 5 points/level would be a good implementation; a little more power at low levels, a fair bit weaker at high levels. Fiddling with it a little (+1 spell point per point of Int bonus, but no more than +1 point/level, or something) is about right. A 1 token/level (plus a few) system would be about right for a mix of 4 or 5 encounters. In the right ballpark at least.

I agree with you on the 1+1 per level mechanic. I went a little different way here, because it allows me to have a mechanic where I can cast an unlimited number of level 0 spells. This gives a wizard something to do with their spells all the time.

The thing is, high level wizards *will* run out tokens in big battles. Being able to scrounge up a few extra tokens makes sense; they can't just pull out their crossbow like 1st level wizards do. There is a certain cinematic element to trying to work that one last spell. I would prefer, though, to streamline the way that casters recharge in combat.

Now that I am able to look at how Iron Heroes handles tokens, I have some more food for thought on how to handle tokens and recovery. The effect of the token system that I was looking for was that wizards will run out of tokens and have to spend actions recharging them. That's one of the reasons they have a higher Hit Die, actually, since they will need to stay in a combat longer now. A lot of my reasoning for how many tokens a wizard has and how many they use comes from my assumptions on how long a combat will take. In my experience, a typical combat lasts maybe 5-6 rounds at lower levels, and actually takes less time at higher ones. The reason? Magic "nuke" effects really take control of the battlefield. A high level wizard in this system will be able to cast two or three full power spells. If they have their buff spells running like I normally see, they'll get off maybe two spells. This is okay with me too, since having waaaay too many buff spells running in high level combats is another thing I'm not too happy with. The result of this system in play has been that a high level wizard is able to open up with their usual combat opening spells for a round or two, but then comes another couple of rounds where they have to recharge, and the rest of the party gets to make a difference.

In fact, that chart 4 needs to be streamlined. The numbers there look like they were pulled out of someone's... hat.

Hey now, my hat resents that! Actually, the reasons for table 4's numbers are that if you spend a full round action, you get enough tokens back with a successful check to power up one more spell of your highest level. Spending less time gives you back a progressively smaller amount of tokens.

--Steve

 

[Cheiromancer]

Giving normal wizards 5 points/level would be a good implementation; a little more power at low levels, a fair bit weaker at high levels.

5/level would be way too much. Remember, these tokens are essentially infinite and the OP has a five minute lapse to refresh them.

Notice I said "normal wizard." Maybe "PHB wizard" would be clearer? Token wizards should have about 1/4 or 1/5 of that (presuming the game is balanced at 4-5 encounters per day). So something like 1 point/level should work. 2 points/level might be a little much.

In EoMR there is a flexible spell system, but the default casting time is 2 rounds. If you write it up ahead of time it can be a "signature spell" and take 1 action to cast. Something like that might work with a token wizard. Let spells cost half the normal amount if they take two rounds to cast them. Then the thematic feel is the same; a token wizard can cast a lot of spells if he has lots of time, but can't keep up with a normal PHB wizard for short, intense encounters.

If you do this, you might not need special rules for recharging in combat. Instead of casting a spell and recharging for a round to get back half the tokens you just spent, just take two rounds to cast the spell for half the normal cost. The details will be different, but the problem will be addressed in either case.