balanced spell point system?

[AbeTheGnome]

ok, a thread that i started earlier compared the psion class with the wizard using the UA spell point system. we found that, under this variant, the wizard did not have the same spellcasting potential as the psion. it seemed to be a consensual opinion that the UA spell points system was broken, and that any spell point variant caster needed to be equal to its Vancian counterpart. so, with a little work, i wrote out this table. i assigned point values for spell levels: cantrips are worth one spell point. so, if a wizard could normally cast four cantrips in a day in the Vancian system, he gets four points per day in the new spell point system. all other spells are worth twice their level. one level-one spell per day is worth two spell points, one level two spell per day is worth four spell points, etc. this table illustrates the math that i used to come up with spell point totals for wizard levels 1-20. the "total" column is what i want to pay attention to. its progression is much more powerful than the UA system, and slightly better than the psion's progression. i plan to use the psionic system for augmentation: add one spell point to increase the spell's effective caster level. or should it be two? i dunno. take a look and let me know what you think.

Wizard Spell Points

Level	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Total

1	3	2									5

2	4	4									8

3	4	4	4								12

4	4	6	8								18

5	4	6	8	6							24

6	4	6	12	12							34

7	4	8	12	12	8						44

8	4	8	12	18	16						58

9	4	8	16	18	16	10					72

10	4	8	16	18	24	20					90

11	4	8	16	24	24	20	12				108

12	4	8	16	24	24	30	24				130

13	4	8	16	24	32	30	24	14			152

14	4	8	16	24	32	30	36	28			178

15	4	8	16	24	32	40	36	28	16		204

16	4	6	16	24	32	40	36	42	32		234

17	4	6	16	24	32	40	48	42	32	18	264

18	4	6	16	24	32	40	48	42	48	36	298

19	4	6	16	24	32	40	48	56	48	54	330

20	4	6	16	24	32	40	48	56	64	72	364

 

[Thanee]

The question is, what do you want to achieve?

Do you want to switch to a spell point system, like the one in UA, or XPH?

One effect of that is, that it makes all spellcasters more powerful, as it adds a lot of flexibility.

Another effect is, that it makes spontaneous casters obsolete, pretty much, when you use the UA system. You could, of course, have prepared casters hash out their prepared spells with all spell points applied in the morning (which would kinda negate the whole point of using it, because it will surely not be simpler than the vancian system then, and will eat up A LOT of time for preparation).

Also, how will you figure augmentation for spells, that are not truely dependant on caster level?

One thing that immediately comes to mind... it's probably better to use the caster level, when you first gain access to a certain spell level, as its basic cost (i.e. (spell level x2) -1, for spell levels above 0).

Bye
Thanee

 

[AbeTheGnome]

The question is, what do you want to achieve?

simplicity.

Do you want to switch to a spell point system, like the one in UA, or XPH?

yes.

One effect of that is, that it makes all spellcasters more powerful, as it adds a lot of flexibility.

i don't know that flexibility necessarily equates to power, but if that's what i need to do to leave fire-and-forget behind, then it's a regrettably necessary evil.

Another effect is, that it makes spontaneous casters obsolete, pretty much, when you use the UA system. You could, of course, have prepared casters hash out their prepared spells with all spell points applied in the morning (which would kinda negate the whole point of using it, because it will surely not be simpler than the vancian system then, and will eat up A LOT of time for preparation).

um... i'm trying to make spontaneous casting the only casting, not make it obsolete. and no, one of the things i hated about the UA system was the wizard's "prepare your spell points ahead of time" system. what's the point of that? this system would make wizards spontaneous casters and eliminate sorcerers altogether (warlocks make better sorcerers anyway). i hate the idea of preparing spells. i've been playing bookish sorcerers for years now

Also, how will you figure augmentation for spells, that are not truely dependant on caster level?

this is one thing i need help on.

One thing that immediately comes to mind... it's probably better to use the caster level, when you first gain access to a certain spell level, as its basic cost (i.e. (spell level x2) -1, for spell levels above 0).

i'm not sure i understand. please explain it to me like i'm a child.

 

[Pyrex]

For any wizard, the highest level of spells he can cast is (CasterLevel+1)/2

i.e., for a 3rd level wizard, the highest level of spells he can cast is (3+1)/2 = 2.

Similarly, the highest level of spells available to a a 17th level wizard is (17+1)/2 = 9.

What Thanee is suggesting is that you reverse the formula and set the base cost of a spell to be equal to it's minimum caster level, just like the XPH does.

i.e., a 2nd level spell costs 3sp, and a 9th level spell costs 17sp.

This makes augmenting spells by caster level completely linear: You can never spend fewer than 5sp on a Fireball (minimum caster level 5), and can never spend more SP than your caster level (10sp at level 10 for 10d6, or 15sp at level 15 for improved range and increased chance to penetrate SR).

 

[AbeTheGnome]

oh, is that why XPH and UA used those numbers? i thought they were just being arbitrary. it seemed much less confusing to me to just say "twice the spell level" instead of bringing subtraction into it. not confusing so much, but just one extra step i didn't see the point in. now i do. i'll run the math with the new numbers. i have a feeling i'll come up with numbers very close to the psion's progression...

 

[Thanee]

i don't know that flexibility necessarily equates to power, ...

It does. Otherwise the Sorcerer class would suck beyond belief.

um... i'm trying to make spontaneous casting the only casting, not make it obsolete. and no, one of the things i hated about the UA system was the wizard's "prepare your spell points ahead of time" system.

Actually, the UA system makes Wizards spontaneous casters.

I consider that a huge weakness of the system (since it makes Wizards too powerful), but if you want every caster to be spontaneous, then it's what you are looking for, obviously.

You just need to be careful, that you do not make the spellcasters too good in comparison to the mundane classes. That can happen quite easily this way.

i'm not sure i understand. please explain it to me like i'm a child.

What Pyrex said.

Bye
Thanee

 

[AbeTheGnome]

You just need to be careful, that you do not make the spellcasters too good in comparison to the mundane classes. That can happen quite easily this way.

yknow, i just assumed that the easiest way to keep class balance with a spell points system was to try and give casters the same amount of spellcasting power as they have now under the Vancian system. everyone seems to think that spell points throw a big wrench into the system, though. personally, i think casters are more powerful than other classes as is, and many of my players feel like their characters are routinely outshined by casters. i wouldn't be opposed to making a spell points system like the hit points system: mages roll 1d10+ability mod per level, or a lower die for bards and the like.

 

[Bacris]

The augmentation portion shouldn't be that difficult.

All the "stat block" parts of the spell should remain augment independent. For example, the duration should be based on actual spell level, not on spell points spent.

The effect of the spell outside the stat block, ie what it does, should be dependent on points spent. (I.e. scaling damage, number of targets, number of missiles, etc)

For this, you simply specify that the number of points spent = your caster level for that spell "effect", but your caster level always = your caster level for the stat block portion.

As an example:

Fireball always uses your caster level to determine range (400 ft + 40 ft / level)
The damage of it would be based on the number of points spent (5 points = 5d6, 6 points = 6d6, etc).
The SAVE should be based on the number of points spent, just like augmenting powers in psionics. So if you spend 17 points (or a 9th level spell), it should have a 9th level spell DC, or 19 + Mods

 

[AbeTheGnome]

Actually, the UA system makes Wizards spontaneous casters.

kind a sorta...

With this variant, spellcasters still prepare spells as normal (assuming they normally prepare spells). In effect, casters who prepare spells are setting their list of “spells known” for the day. They need not prepare multiple copies of the same spell, since they can cast any combination of their prepared spells each day (up to the limit of their spell points).

they still prepare their spells, which is one thing i'm trying to leave behind.

 

[AbeTheGnome]

All the "stat block" parts of the spell should remain augment independent. For example, the duration should be based on actual spell level, not on spell points spent.

The effect of the spell outside the stat block, ie what it does, should be dependent on points spent. (I.e. scaling damage, number of targets, number of missiles, etc)

isn't this exactly what the UA system does? i never understood why. it's like they're saying that effects like range and duration don't warrant the expenditure of extra spell points. in my understanding, augmentation raises effective caster level beyond the minimum level needed to cast the spell in question. effective caster level determines most of the spell's parameters, including range, duration, and damage dice. i know this is not the way it works under the UA/XPH system, but does anyone understand the reasoning behind this?