Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Michael Morris" data-source="post: 763775" data-attributes="member: 87">The problem in this are as follows:&nbsp; <ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Any spell point system that doesn't&nbsp; take into account the caster level of the spell and scale the costs is, IMO, missing the point of having a spellpoint system.&nbsp; There is no reason to replace the slots with such a cumbersome system as it does not offer any real additional flexiability.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Dusk spellpoint system is deliberately geared low because this is the only way the setting reinforces it's low magic nature.&nbsp; Without it, given the huge number of spells the setting has the magic would quickly proliferate to the power level of the Forgotten Realms.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Spellcasters honestly do not need the enough points to replicate their old progressions in standard 3e.&nbsp; This has been playtested quite throuroughly - unless a caster mindlessly blasts away with his most poweful magics like an idiot he won't run out of points that easily.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Your system in no way prevents a caster from throwing 10 to 12 of their strongest spells.&nbsp; Dusk has no such restrictor either, but also the casters cannot use more than 6 of their strongest spells already.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">You have to have bonus spell points - without them players *will* complain.</li>
</ul>I am quite happy with the Caster Level + Spell level costing system.&nbsp; It has worked well for over a year.&nbsp; It does dramatically change how spells are used.&nbsp; It certainly weakens some spells and strengthens others.&nbsp; On the whole it reduces the presence of magic in the setting without totally neutering the spellcasters as most low magic systems attempt to do.&nbsp; It is quite good at balancing the need of the setting to have a lowered occurence of magic with the player's need to feel that they and what magic they have can make a difference.Anyway, I'm getting very sleepy, so it is high time I went to sleep.&nbsp; Goodnight.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Michael Morris, post: 763775, member: 87"] The problem in this are as follows: [list] [*]Any spell point system that doesn't take into account the caster level of the spell and scale the costs is, IMO, missing the point of having a spellpoint system. There is no reason to replace the slots with such a cumbersome system as it does not offer any real additional flexiability. [*]The [i]Dusk[/i] spellpoint system is deliberately geared low because this is the only way the setting reinforces it's low magic nature. Without it, given the huge number of spells the setting has the magic would quickly proliferate to the power level of the [i]Forgotten Realms[/i]. [*]Spellcasters honestly do not need the enough points to replicate their old progressions in standard 3e. This has been playtested quite throuroughly - unless a caster mindlessly blasts away with his most poweful magics like an idiot he won't run out of points that easily. [*]Your system in no way prevents a caster from throwing 10 to 12 of their strongest spells. Dusk has no such restrictor either, but also the casters cannot use more than 6 of their strongest spells already. [*]You have to have bonus spell points - without them players *will* complain. [/list] I am quite happy with the Caster Level + Spell level costing system. It has worked well for over a year. It does dramatically change how spells are used. It certainly weakens some spells and strengthens others. On the whole it reduces the presence of magic in the setting without totally neutering the spellcasters as most low magic systems attempt to do. It is quite good at balancing the need of the setting to have a lowered occurence of magic with the player's need to feel that they and what magic they have can make a difference. Anyway, I'm getting very sleepy, so it is high time I went to sleep. Goodnight. [/QUOTE]

Verification