Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ouini" data-source="post: 1639993" data-attributes="member: 3506">SSquirrel: I probably wasn't the only person to notice a while ago that, overall, the mana advancement table for a regular (full) caster that you posted above comes out almost exactly to:- at first level, you get 2-4 points of mana,- after first, whenever you gain a level, add your new level to your mana pool.- ...and half casters get about half that.I'm using this technique, instead of tables which are derived from core tables (which were in turn quite possibly extrapolated from a &quot;gain your level in mana&quot; rule of thumb), because there's no question or hassle each level.* half caster? Gain half your level in mana.* full caster? Gain your level in mana.This is the simplicity for which I think it will be all right to trade in the traditional table-based (or newly generated and carefully balanced new tables-based) system, for a mana-based system.DrSpunj: After playing with the Excel files for a while, I can say I agree that at least for the non-spellcasting classes, the system looks and feels quite balanced. For the spellcasters, I think it should be balanced, but I have to admit I still don't understand how to use the 1/2 or full caster tables to derive your spells each level. That is, I get that you can just cheat and use the cool &quot;Total Spells&quot; tool that tells you, but I don't grok its derivation. I did once, when I first read that guy's article/proposal, but have since lost the thread.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ouini, post: 1639993, member: 3506"] SSquirrel: I probably wasn't the only person to notice a while ago that, overall, the mana advancement table for a regular (full) caster that you posted above comes out almost exactly to: - at first level, you get 2-4 points of mana, - after first, whenever you gain a level, add your new level to your mana pool. - ...and half casters get about half that. I'm using this technique, instead of tables which are derived from core tables (which were in turn quite possibly extrapolated from a "gain your level in mana" rule of thumb), because there's no question or hassle each level. * half caster? Gain half your level in mana. * full caster? Gain your level in mana. This is the simplicity for which I think it will be all right to trade in the traditional table-based (or newly generated and carefully balanced new tables-based) system, for a mana-based system. DrSpunj: After playing with the Excel files for a while, I can say I agree that at least for the non-spellcasting classes, the system looks and feels quite balanced. For the spellcasters, I think it should be balanced, but I have to admit I still don't understand how to use the 1/2 or full caster tables to derive your spells each level. That is, I get that you can just cheat and use the cool "Total Spells" tool that tells you, but I don't grok its derivation. I did once, when I first read that guy's article/proposal, but have since lost the thread. [/QUOTE]

Verification