Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6970790" data-attributes="member: 37579">The two goals may be mutually exclusive or incompatible. The existing spell system is based around reference charts, because there is no firm pattern. Not all spell levels are equal and not all levels are equal. There is a greater increase in power from 2nd to 3rd level than from 1st to 2nd or 3rd to 4th. And the jump in power from 4th to 5th is also steep. Any formula would be super complex, and a chart would be easier. Especially one you only need to reference when you level. At worst you need to print out a ¼ page cheat sheet.  I believe 3e has spell points cost 2x level - 1. Which is a little more than the points recommended in the DMG.Figuring this out without defaulting to a chart is tricky. People gain spell points in surges and at an irregular pace. Making a simple formula is opting for simplicity over balance. It's going to make certain classes more or less powerful at certain levels. Approach with caution.  I'd keep the 6th level slot limit and then grant super high level characters the ability to recharge a  6th or 7th level slot after a short rest. Keep the base rule as simple as possible, and include the variation in classes. That is the perpetual problem with spellpoint systems. The problem with that is two 9th level spells is a huge bump to power. Fatigue and gaining a few levels of exhaustion doesn't matter when it's the final encounter of the day.  That would be a cool option, The catch I can see with this is, if you need to hit with the roll anyway, why not just spam your most damaging spell? It makes every spell a cantrip, potentially with better odds of hitting.Okay, let's look at the math of this system. Assuming a starting casting stat of level 16, you have a +3 bonus and a DC 11 to cast your spell. That's requires a roll of 8, so you have a 65% of casting your spells. At 5th level, you might have an 18, and can cast 3rd level spells. So you have a 70% chance of casting a 1st level, 65% of a 2nd level, and a 60% chance of a 3rd. At 8th level the character can hit cap with a 20 in their spellcasting stat. They have their maximum 75% chance of casting a 1st level spell or a 60% with a 4th level spell. They're odds now never change. Casting a 5th level slot is 55%, a 7th is 45%, and a 9th is a 35% chance. It could actually work in play rather well at higher levels, since the caster will have a high chance of flubbing their higher level slots. It would encourage casters to focus on lots of lower level spells. And high level magic would be more of a gamble. It would be interesting for a low magic game, since even at high levels, powerful magic would be unreliable. I'm not sure it would be fun though. Nothing like really, really needing that high level spell and having it go "poof". A lot of potential to waste your turn.  The catch I see with that is healing magic. If you have unlimited casting, healing magic becomes broken. Doubly so when you have a 25% increase in your chances of casting. The thing about such a radical change to systems it it tends to snowball in design. It leads to what I call "asterix design" where you're constantly adding small little patches and fixes to the base rule to accommodate new elements. You're adding lots of asterixis to the rule to explain the myriad exceptions.  What about spells with multiple attacks, like scorching ray?What about the difference between low AC/high hp and high AC/low hp monsters? Do monsters still need to roll saving throws to avoid things like fireball? If yes that adds two points of failure to those spells (the player's and the monster's) making direct target spells much more efficient. If the chance to cast spells is static, you have just as good a chance of hitting a kobold as the tarrasque</blockquote>

Verification