Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HeavenShallBurn" data-source="post: 3254231" data-attributes="member: 39593">I largely agree, the UA spellpoints system is inconsistently designed and not very well done over all.  The whole point of a system is that it's you know, systematic and regular, and the UA version certainly isn't.  It does read like an attempt to make magic work like psionics that they only half-way finished.I think there are a couple basic realities of a spellpoints system they were trying to avoid.1.  Spellpoints blur the lines between Wizard and Sorcerer2.  The added flexibility greatly increases caster power regardless.3.  Metamagic needs to be spontaneous or it's wasted.4.  Consistency, mechanics need to be unified.Ultimately they failed to properly apply the advantages of a spellpoints system to their fullest and instead created a hybrid that doesn't do well at anything.  The last decent spellpoints system for D&D I saw was Netheril.  Things to fix1.  If you're using spellpoints you don't NEED both sorcerers and wizards just one, let wizards cast spontaneously from their spellbook.2.  Whatever class you use as a base it should get the same number of spells per refresh of its spellpoints reservoir as it's Vancian version got per refresh of its spell-slots.3.  Keep the autoscaling spells, otherwise magic loses most of its power compared to the Vancian version.4.  Let metamagic work on the fly and assess each metamagic feat a spellpoint cost to add to a spell.5.  (Houserule Warning)-Direct damage in 3e falls behind the curve past a certain level for save-or-die effects.  So pull the damage caps so spells can continue to compete at higher levels and with save-or-die effects.</blockquote>

Verification