how about this mana point version?
- Thread starter evilbob
- Start date
evilbob said:
Let me try and clarify a bit and see if we can agree.
Over the course of a day, a Wizard should be able to expend ~70% of the spell points that a Sorcerer of the same level can expend; the extra 30% being the "tax" that he pays for improved spell selection.
evilbob said:
It may be fewer total spells than the RAW Wizard; but that's ok. We aren't balancing against a RAW Wizard, we're balancing against a fast-regen Sorcerer.
evilbob said:
Agreed. Which is why I have no problem making cantrips free. You just have to be careful about which effects can be used huge number of times per day.
evilbob said:
Just because they can't cast a 9th level spell every round doesn't mean they're not a cannon. An 18th level Sor casting a 9th an 8th and a 7th level spell on consecutive rounds is still doing pretty good. Especially given that he can do that 10 or 12 times a day.
If manapool and/or regen goes any higher you're reaching the point where you give the Sor their entire expected daily volley of Top and Top-1 level spells for every encounter; which is going to make them impossible to balance with other classes.
A RAW 18th level Sorcerer only gets to cast 3, mabye 4 9th level spells all day long and they're expected to last him four encounters. Allowing a fast-regen caster to cast those three spells in each of four encounters is going to make him impossible to balance with other classes.
Also keep in mind that the BBEG is going to be under the same restriction, so you can't really optimize based on that.
evilbob
Adventurer
I had added this as an edit to my previous post, but since that's on the previous page now (at least for me), I'm making it its own post...
Ok, so I will paraphrase your last idea, Pyrex (please correct if I'm wrong): your idea would be to take something similar to the wizard pool chart I made in post 71, and giving the wizard that many spell points per day. They could then prepare any of their spells as normal, but each spell prepared would use up a set amount of points from their pool. So they could, in theory, prepare exactly as many spells as before at each valence, or they could rearange these spells using their points to get more of a certain level at the cost of several of the lower level spells.
The only major drawback that I can envision off the top of my head is that it would be a major hassle to rearange spells each day. Every time you'd have to get out a calculator and do lots of math. This is the first time I've ever looked at the fire-and-forget system and thought, "my what a simpler way to handle that!"
On the other hand, you're technically just doing the same amount of math, you're just front-loading it. There's no difference in the number of times you subtract; you just do it all when you're preparing (or later when you prepare more), rather than during each encounter.
A few minor drawbacks are that the wizard I just described would obviously be more powerful than a standard wizard, so some kind of reduction would be in order (probably a slightly smaller mana pool, like 4/5ths or so), and that at the end of the day, this idea just isn't all that much different than the standard wizard. That might appeal to some, and it still gives more flexibility which is ultimately the goal, but something about it just doesn't feel like "enough" to me...
Also, re: balancing against a RAW wizard: actually, I still think ultimately balancing against the RAW is what we're doing for all of these ideas.
Ok, so I will paraphrase your last idea, Pyrex (please correct if I'm wrong): your idea would be to take something similar to the wizard pool chart I made in post 71, and giving the wizard that many spell points per day. They could then prepare any of their spells as normal, but each spell prepared would use up a set amount of points from their pool. So they could, in theory, prepare exactly as many spells as before at each valence, or they could rearange these spells using their points to get more of a certain level at the cost of several of the lower level spells.
The only major drawback that I can envision off the top of my head is that it would be a major hassle to rearange spells each day. Every time you'd have to get out a calculator and do lots of math. This is the first time I've ever looked at the fire-and-forget system and thought, "my what a simpler way to handle that!"
On the other hand, you're technically just doing the same amount of math, you're just front-loading it. There's no difference in the number of times you subtract; you just do it all when you're preparing (or later when you prepare more), rather than during each encounter.
A few minor drawbacks are that the wizard I just described would obviously be more powerful than a standard wizard, so some kind of reduction would be in order (probably a slightly smaller mana pool, like 4/5ths or so), and that at the end of the day, this idea just isn't all that much different than the standard wizard. That might appeal to some, and it still gives more flexibility which is ultimately the goal, but something about it just doesn't feel like "enough" to me...
Also, re: balancing against a RAW wizard: actually, I still think ultimately balancing against the RAW is what we're doing for all of these ideas.
evilbob
Adventurer
This is a very good point. But he's still losing multiple 6ths, 5ths, 4ths, 3rds, etc. I guess I'm just thinking about battles where I've seen a sorc throw everything, including getting down to 1st level spells (and the proverbial kitchen sink) at the enemy, and that's what it took to win. Trash mob battles may be decided by a single high level spell, but sustained, dramatic, boss battles tend to take every resource you've got. And if "every resource you've got" is 3 spells... well, you suck.Pyrex said:
This is also a very good point, though.Pyrex said:
As for "but the bad guy is balanced, too" - eh, I don't know if I really buy that argument since we're talking about one class (or even "all mages"). There's still the BBE fighters to look out for.
evilbob
Adventurer
Ok. I've figured it out.
I know exactly what it is about your prepared system that's throwing me. First, if we don't give prepared casters any amount of spontaneous casting, then we don't really need to give the spontaneous casters anything else. Sorcs can stay as they are. They could just simply arrange their own spell points into any spell combination they wish on the fly, instead of having to plan it out before hand. Also, they'd retain the "33% more spell (points)" rule, along with all other limitations normally given, etc. etc.
Second, if that were the case, we have the basics for a very nice and extremely similar mana point system that's just as good but slightly more versatile than the current slotted one (and thusly, slightly more powerful). However, what makes it more versatile? Well, you can already "downshift" spell slots, where you trade a higher spell for a lower one. All you're really gaining is the ability to "upshift" as well. (And you're "conserving total power" by allowing the "downshifted" spell to have a remainder; i.e. your 3rd level spell turned into a 1st and a 2nd, instead of just a 2nd).
So... why change the system at all? Why not just add a perk of some sort that equates to this ability? For example:
Feat: Upshift Spell [metamagic]
Req: Ability to cast 3rd level spells
Benefit: When preparing spells (or choosing to cast a spell spontaneously), you may sacrifice a [spell level -1] slot and a [spell level -2] slot to gain a [spell level] slot. (For example, sack a 3rd and 2nd to gain a 4th.) You may not use this ability to gain a slot higher than the highest level spell slot you have available. Zero level spells cannot be sacrificed, and you cannot gain any spells lower than 3rd level this way. You may do this as many times as you have spell slots, including using any newly created slots to make higher level spells. (For example, sack a 2nd and a 1st to gain a 3rd, and then sack another 2nd plus that 3rd to gain a 4th.)
Viola.
Or, if that is too strong for a feat, how about this:
Feat: Downshift Spell [metamagic]
Req: Ability to cast 2nd level spells
Benefit: When preparing spells (or choosing to cast a spell spontaneously), you may choose to sacrifice a spell slot to gain a spell slot 1 level lower and an additional spell slot 2 levels lower (to a minimum of a zero level spell). (For example, sack a 3rd to gain a 2nd and a 1st.) You may not sacrifice any spell lower than 2nd level in this way. You may do this as many times as you have spell slots, including using any newly created slots to make more lower level spells. (For example, sack a 5th to get a 4th and a 3rd, and then sack that 4th to gain another 3rd and a 2nd.)
Normal: You may sacrifice a spell slot to gain one spell slot any spell level below that one.
Feat: Upshift Spell [metamagic]
Req: Downshift Spell; ability to cast 3rd level spells
Benefit: As above
OR, you could just allow spellcasters to upshift in a more generic way that accounted for the extra strength by costing them spell power. For example:
You may use a spell slot to prepare a lower level spell. You may also prepare a spell one level higher than that spell slot, (but not greater than the highest level spell you know,) but you must sacrifice an additional spell slot from that level to do so (and cannot do so if you do not have the additional slots). For example, if a wizard had four 3rd level slots and could cast 4th level spells, he could prepare a 4th level spell in one of the 3rd level slots, but he would lose another 3rd level spell completely. He could only do this twice before running out of 3rd level slots. If he were able to cast 5th level spells, he could then use those two new 4th level spell slots to prepare a single additional 5th level spell instead.
And there are many other ways this could be done/balanced. In fact, I'm kinda surprised I've not seen a feat like this before.
Interesting?
I know exactly what it is about your prepared system that's throwing me. First, if we don't give prepared casters any amount of spontaneous casting, then we don't really need to give the spontaneous casters anything else. Sorcs can stay as they are. They could just simply arrange their own spell points into any spell combination they wish on the fly, instead of having to plan it out before hand. Also, they'd retain the "33% more spell (points)" rule, along with all other limitations normally given, etc. etc.
Second, if that were the case, we have the basics for a very nice and extremely similar mana point system that's just as good but slightly more versatile than the current slotted one (and thusly, slightly more powerful). However, what makes it more versatile? Well, you can already "downshift" spell slots, where you trade a higher spell for a lower one. All you're really gaining is the ability to "upshift" as well. (And you're "conserving total power" by allowing the "downshifted" spell to have a remainder; i.e. your 3rd level spell turned into a 1st and a 2nd, instead of just a 2nd).
So... why change the system at all? Why not just add a perk of some sort that equates to this ability? For example:
Feat: Upshift Spell [metamagic]
Req: Ability to cast 3rd level spells
Benefit: When preparing spells (or choosing to cast a spell spontaneously), you may sacrifice a [spell level -1] slot and a [spell level -2] slot to gain a [spell level] slot. (For example, sack a 3rd and 2nd to gain a 4th.) You may not use this ability to gain a slot higher than the highest level spell slot you have available. Zero level spells cannot be sacrificed, and you cannot gain any spells lower than 3rd level this way. You may do this as many times as you have spell slots, including using any newly created slots to make higher level spells. (For example, sack a 2nd and a 1st to gain a 3rd, and then sack another 2nd plus that 3rd to gain a 4th.)
Viola.
Or, if that is too strong for a feat, how about this:
Feat: Downshift Spell [metamagic]
Req: Ability to cast 2nd level spells
Benefit: When preparing spells (or choosing to cast a spell spontaneously), you may choose to sacrifice a spell slot to gain a spell slot 1 level lower and an additional spell slot 2 levels lower (to a minimum of a zero level spell). (For example, sack a 3rd to gain a 2nd and a 1st.) You may not sacrifice any spell lower than 2nd level in this way. You may do this as many times as you have spell slots, including using any newly created slots to make more lower level spells. (For example, sack a 5th to get a 4th and a 3rd, and then sack that 4th to gain another 3rd and a 2nd.)
Normal: You may sacrifice a spell slot to gain one spell slot any spell level below that one.
Feat: Upshift Spell [metamagic]
Req: Downshift Spell; ability to cast 3rd level spells
Benefit: As above
OR, you could just allow spellcasters to upshift in a more generic way that accounted for the extra strength by costing them spell power. For example:
You may use a spell slot to prepare a lower level spell. You may also prepare a spell one level higher than that spell slot, (but not greater than the highest level spell you know,) but you must sacrifice an additional spell slot from that level to do so (and cannot do so if you do not have the additional slots). For example, if a wizard had four 3rd level slots and could cast 4th level spells, he could prepare a 4th level spell in one of the 3rd level slots, but he would lose another 3rd level spell completely. He could only do this twice before running out of 3rd level slots. If he were able to cast 5th level spells, he could then use those two new 4th level spell slots to prepare a single additional 5th level spell instead.
And there are many other ways this could be done/balanced. In fact, I'm kinda surprised I've not seen a feat like this before.
Interesting?
Last edited:
That's certainly workable, and very close to what I had in mind. Tracking them as slots instead of mana does reduce the workload substantially. In a game where Sorcerers change to the Fast-Regen model I'd likely just give Wizards 'Upshift' and 'Downshift' as class features when they reach the appropriate level though.
It has been done before, but usually the progression (in either direction) is not as favorable as the Fib-sequence we've been working with.
The last iteration I saw published was upshift 2(n-1) to get one n, or downshifting a spell gets you that many spell levels of lower level spells.
evilbob said:
It has been done before, but usually the progression (in either direction) is not as favorable as the Fib-sequence we've been working with.
The last iteration I saw published was upshift 2(n-1) to get one n, or downshifting a spell gets you that many spell levels of lower level spells.
evilbob
Adventurer
That's the same as my last example. Another fun fact: that's equivalent to the 2^(spell level) cost progression as well.Pyrex said:
Was this a feat, or effectively a "house rule" that applied to anyone? I'm now fairly interested in whether or not this would make a good feat, or be ok as a general rule, or if it would need further modification for either. "Would you pay two spells to get a higher level spell?" A sorc would probably do that in a heartbeat; a wizard might take that option occationally. I guess even 2(n-1) cost for 
seems powerful when you can't do it currently, even though it's far worse than the fib as you said. I'm guessing it'd be a feat, with a prejudice toward sorcs and their high slot count.However, this doesn't solve the spell point idea...
Similar Threads
