Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DrSpunj" data-source="post: 1534371" data-attributes="member: 994">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! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />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. Right! Along the line's of WoT's Woodsman or something similar. Either way, it's easy to do with the sheets "as is". <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> First off, it'd be a caster level of 21. Aside from that...you can't be serious, dude!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!    :eek:"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" />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!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!    :eek:"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" />  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /> 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  <a href="http://home.pacbell.net/jdchambe/ArcanaUnearthedAlternateSpellProgression.doc" target="_blank">here</a>, 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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />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</blockquote>

Verification