Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="index" data-source="post: 1648599" data-attributes="member: 21195">spell points : jump off that cliff!In WotC's Unearthed Arcana, they based spell points on whatlevel a wizard has to be to cast that level spell: 1 for 1stlevel spells, 3 for 2nd level spells, 5 for 3rd, etc.I've seen many criticisms of UA's version of a spell pointsystem elsewhere (along with comments and approval), I don'tremember which forum exactly.  People noted that WotC's UAcharts for spell points do not consistently match up withthe spells by spell level tables in the PH.Everybody has their own version of how spell points shouldwork.Some say giving wizards (and clerics) a spell point systemsteals the thunder from sorcerers.  I say good, but onlybecause I'm bitter from an ultra-stingy campaign where theNPC sorcerer out-shone the two PC wizards.  (The DM wouldn'teven allow us all of the two spells per level that wizardsare supposed to learn.)  I'll probably remain so bitterthat I'll always be in favor of something that might makewizards more powerful than sorcerers.Psyekl, don't worry about game balance too much.  If you'realready running a game, do NOT introduce a change this bigwithout the approval of all your players.  If this is for anew game, ask yourself: will everyone want to play clerics,druids, and wizards if I make this change, instead ofplaying fighters and rogues?  (As I mention above, I don'tcare about sorcerers.)  If I introduced this AFTER peoplemade characters (not that you will), would the guy playingthe fighter choke the life out of me for this?  Will I stillbe able to give equal 'screen time' to non-spellcasters if Iuse this rule?(Many people worry about making fighters and rogues feellike mere support cast for clerics and wizards.  But in myexperience, the exact opposite problem already applies.)Cheiromancer, I'm not sure that it's a weakness that spellpoint systems allow hordes of low level spells at theexpense of high level spells, or more high level spells atthe expense of low level spells.  I consider that a feature,myself.Of course, I've never understood the big deal about nerfingwizards more and more with each new edition to attempt to'balance' them with non-spellcasters.  The mere fact thatwizards can do 'impossible' things with magic will alwaysmake them 'unbalanced' except when played in the mostdirect, unimaginative manner.  Look at how hugely powerfulclerics are in 3e and 3.5e, and people STILL play wizardsfor the flexibility of researching new spells without somedeity telling you 'no'.off-topic:For those who are worried about warriors being 'grogs' (ArsMagica term, right?) compared to clerics and wizards -- mostlegendary warriors had some magical ability.(Multi-classing?)  And if you think the hit point system isoverpowered?  You could decide that PC-class heroes reallyARE that tough as a supernatural effect.  A 20th levelfighter becomes something very special even compared to a20th level wizard when he really CAN jump off a cliff,painfully pick himself up at the bottom, and charge into anopposing army.off-topic :I still have a fondness for GURPS (learn some spells, castthem until you're exhausted), but there are no local GURPSplayers.  ( http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/gurpslite.pdf).--index</blockquote>

Verification