Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RangerWickett" data-source="post: 913888" data-attributes="member: 63">There are two issues, one more serious than the other.Regarding the spell point vs. spell slot division, have you tried playing 3e psionics?  A similar 'problem' happens, where a 14th level psion can use a 7th level power 6 times per day.  If a psion tries to play like that, what happens is that he uses up his good powers quickly, perhaps kicking butt for a few rounds, but leaving him with little to fall back on if the party has multiple encounters in one day.  The effect is that the character uses up his resources overly quickly, and it is quite noticeable if the party has multiple encounters in the same day (which seems to generally be encouraged by the 3e rules).It's a slightly different dynamic from what most D&D-ers are used to, but it still works, especially with one other change we'll be making in the full revised rules.  Damaging effects will no longer scale by caster level, but by MP.  Thus, a 1 MP Evoke Fire spell will deal the same damage when cast by a low-level or a high-level casters.  If you want to deal 10d6 points of damage with an Evoke spell, you're going to need to spend (I think) 9 or 10 MP.  This will effectively negate any problem you might have with being able to cast multiple high-level spells per day.  If you think about it, a Lightning Bolt cast by a 10th level wizard is more like a 5th level spell than a 3rd level spell. Now, to the second issue - the access to more spells than an equivalent caster from the existing Wizard or Sorcerer classes.  There are several factors to consider in regard to this topic.  First, both Cyberzombie and I agree that the original system was broken in some places, being both overly complex and having certain areas where the power level was not conducive to a balanced game.  That's why we're giving them a fair overhaul for the revised version.Second, most of the spell lists cover a narrower area than current spells.  Charm Humanoid is much the same as Charm Person, but you need more than 10 different spells to equal Charm Monster.  When you see the other changes we're making, particularly to the Illusion spells, you'll see that EOM spells mix versatility and limitation in odd ways.  Again, it's a new paradigm of spellcasting, and so some of your expectations from D&D will have to be changed.Third, in both core D&D and EOM, a lot of the spells are there for flavor, rather than necessity.  I'm sure you've seen threads where people have figured out the optimal sorcerer spell load so that the character can cast a little of everything.  Charm person, mage armor, magic missile, shield, glitterdust, invisibility, resist elements, fly, tongues, fireball, stoneskin, polymorph other, scrying, cone of cold, teleport, greater dispelling, etc.  Pick these staple spells, maybe grab the Energy Substitution feat, and you have all the power that a character really needs.  The rest of the spells are just there for you to establish your schtick.In EOM, we just make it clearer what core spells you need if you want a little bit of everything, and then we encourage you to create a unique character.  In the revised rules, there are only going to be 12 primary spell lists:  Abjure, Charm, Create, Evoke, Heal, Illusion, Infuse, Move, Summon, Telepathy, Transform, and Ward.  Each has several different version, depending on what element, alignment, or creature type you pick.Fourth, remember about the scaling spells effect I mentioned above.  Think of the spells as being 56 1st level spells that just scale nicely as you gain levels, instead of being 56 7th level spells.Overall, I'm fairly confident that the system will work perfectly; we both plan to do some playtesting with our groups to make sure we don't make any completely moronic mistakes, and indeed, we may reduce the number of spell lists you learn slightly.  But the key thing to remember is that EOM magic doesn't work exactly the same as D&D magic.  They're like automatic vs. standard transmission, or between learning French or Japanese as a foreign language.  They accomplish much the same thing, but the specifics are a little different, and there are some things you can do with one that you can't do with the other.(By the way, in my opinion, D&D 3e right now is sort of like pidgin English being spoken in a colony in the 1500s. <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=":)" />)  On a half-related note, have you ever played Talislanta?  It's a great system, with a magic system somewhat similar to EOM (it's skill-based instead of level-based, but it's still close).  In that system, spellcasters have access to even more versatility than EOM mages do, but they don't overshadow the non-magic-using characters.  That's because magic has its drawbacks, and because a well-made warrior should be able to do more damage in combat than a wizard.  The wizard just gets the flashy, useful abilities, the real magic of things like flight, shapeshifting, and seeing the future.</blockquote>

Verification