Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 3481464" data-attributes="member: 32164">Okay, I've been kicking something like this around for MONTHS now. I was working on it a bit, inspired by systems in the Midnight Campaign Setting, The Black Company Campaign Setting (& True Sorcery, natch), Thieves' World, Elements of Magic - Mythic Earth, Tome of Magic, True20, Warhammer FRP Reserve Feats from Complete Mage, Warlocks from Complete Arcane, <a href="http://www.malhavocpress.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?otherd20_Spellcasters" target="_blank">this</a> article from Monte Cook, and just about every fantasy novel I've ever read.I started hammering it out over on the Iron Heroes boards, and we hit on Tokens, which are generated by spending actions, as the primary mechanic. The thread for the most recent discussion I've had on the topic is <a href="http://p222.ezboard.com/fokayyourturnfrm36.showMessageRange?topicID=1990.topic&start=1&stop=20" target="_blank">here.</a> For those who don't want to wade through that, I'll start with some helpful exerpts from a post one of the other guys made (FYI, "Ironcarnum" is a system he's developed himself):My basic response, which hasn't changed, was pretty much along the following lines.I agree most abilities are set up on the initial cost, and scaling cost basis. However, what D&D has always glossed over is the difference between an ability that can be used once, and an ability that can be used repeatedly in a short period of time. The "boom cost," as CJM put it.Some of the most abusive scenarios I've heard about in high-level D&D involved multiple uber-spells in rapid succession. The theory behind spell slots was good, forcing casters to use their weaker spells for weaker threats, and save their BOOM spells for dangerous opponents. However, what often happens in practice is that they burn through their spells at an alarming rate and then force everyone to rest. This is unrealistic in a game-world sense, and awfully unfun. It also totally countermands the design theory behind spell slots. It's worth noting that X uses per day abilties mostly work the same way. When they're done, the player of that character usually wants to stop. Fortunately, most of those classes have things they can still do so that they can still have fun. But when spellcasters are out of spells, everything tends to grind to a halt. It ends up falling to the DM to enforce balance by making rest spots hard to find. And DMs who do so find themselves with unhappy players. Again, unfun.One of the things I like about Iron Heroes is that token-based abilities have a per-encounter opportunity cost. That way, you only use your "big guns" when your little ones don't work. So you just shoot the cannon fodder, but save Aim tokens up to take out the goblin shaman. Magic should work similarly. Albeit there are some special considerations when it comes to the world-altering aspects of magic. More on that later.So I'm looking to make a system where the caster has nearly unlimited minor magical effects (although maybe with some limit to how many he can have active at once), but reaching for his big guns costs him. A mechanism like fatigue really appeals to me. So that if you go for a BIG spell, you blow your wad magically. If I toss my fireball in a battle, then I'm depleted after that. No more big gun. But I still have access to my lesser powers.I'm pretty sure it's possible to balance at-will abilities for 3rd-level and higher casters. I'm pretty sure you can have a couple of at-will abilities at that level without it being unbalancing. Really low level spellcasters are a bit of a special case, but I'm sure something could be worked out. A very limited number of powers, perhaps. I've had long threads about what magic should be able to do, and what magic shouldn't do. For example, I'd like to see a magic system without a spell that just opens all mundane locks. Using magic as a tool, maybe even a tool with a bonus is fine. But a straight on-off is, IMO, bad. That way, the spellcaster can't just replace the character with the open lock skill.I'd like to limit buff spells too, as they are one of the most abused spells in D&D. Self buffing is no problem (as long as there's a limit to the number of buffs that can be active at one time), but the ability to buff everyone in the group can quickly be abused. Unless there's some opportunity cost.I could see a system that used actions, spell durations, fatigue, spell recovery time, or skill checks to reign in spellcaster power. Classically, D&D has always used durations and spell recovery time only. There's plenty of other options. As Wulf has said, actions seem like the best and most obvious control, with durations, caster fatigue, spell recovery, and skill checks adding some secondary limiters.The Tome of Battle and Star Wars Saga Edition primarily use encounter-based recovery time. A bit cheesy I suppose. Here's the guts of the system I've been working on, in general concept:- Casters have a pool of powers, some at-will and others that require a bit more effort.- There's some mechanical encouragement for spellcaster restraint.- Using up their big powers forces the caster to rely on their lesser abilities.- Casters don't have to fall back on mundane weapons except in rare circumstances.- Theoretically, casters should have to trade off raw power and magical versatility.Those are my initial reactions. Thoughts?</blockquote>

Verification