Removing the XP requirement from spells

[der_kluge]

That would, of course, be the simplest thing to do.

Honestly, I could. And I might. But I think, at the very least, Awaken, and Simulacrum would need something to limit their use.

Otherwise, there's nothing stopping a druid from awakening an entire forest.

Actually, Druids IMC are NPC-only, so the PCs can't play them. So, that's not a big deal. But Simulacrum could be a problem.

 

[Quartz]

Yea.. negative levels. That's *much* easier. :\

OK, how about the spell slot can't be re-used for some time instead?

 

[arnon]

Honestly, I could. And I might. But I think, at the very least, Awaken, and Simulacrum would need something to limit their use.

Otherwise, there's nothing stopping a druid from awakening an entire forest.

Actually, Druids IMC are NPC-only, so the PCs can't play them. So, that's not a big deal. But Simulacrum could be a problem.

Then limit them material wise.

How about an HP penalty when casting XP costing spells? May CON damage? Notice that none of these will be permanent of course...

 

[GreatLemur]

One AP for a commune spell seems a bit too much to me, but the only cost I see as really problematic is 2 APs for a Greater Restoration. That's really un-fun to me because you're penalizing the cleric for having to heal one of his party members. When you cast greater restoration, it's because you have to, not because you want to.

It might be worth pointing out that der_kluge is giving out action points as story rewards and roleplay bonuses, rather than using the whole set-number-of-new-APs-per-level method. So they might not be all that rare in his game.

If you trust your players not to be too greedy, how about just removing the XP cost all together?

Seriously, the time requirements alone might balance things pretty well. Not every campaign allows a lot of down time.

 

[Randolpho]

I HATE HATE HATE artificial limitations imposed on the game that make no sense.

... at the very least, Awaken, and Simulacrum would need something to limit their use.

I'm confused. You hate artificial limitations, yet you want to artificially limit your players.

XP costs were put into the D&D rules to artificially limit players. In your example (which I didn't quote) you complained of Druids Awakening an entire forest. Why not? It could actually make for an interesting story, a la the Ents attacking Orthanc. What's the difference between artificially limiting a Druid from using Awakening anytime he likes and allowing a wizard to churn out +1 swords left and right?

Like it or not, WotC did a good thing when they spent so much time on "balance" in D&D. XP costs are part of that balance. Since you don't use XP (something I applaud, BTW, I don't use XP when I run games either), you are losing an important balancing factor. You can use kludgy AP/XP conversions, and microscopically fine-tune every spell and magic item if you like, *or* you can find a way to re-use the balancing factor that you lost by dropping XP entirely.

 

[Randolpho]

Then limit them material wise.

How about an HP penalty when casting XP costing spells? May CON damage? Notice that none of these will be permanent of course...

Interesting.

 

[der_kluge]

I'm confused. You hate artificial limitations, yet you want to artificially limit your players.

XP costs were put into the D&D rules to artificially limit players. In your example (which I didn't quote) you complained of Druids Awakening an entire forest. Why not? It could actually make for an interesting story, a la the Ents attacking Orthanc. What's the difference between artificially limiting a Druid from using Awakening anytime he likes and allowing a wizard to churn out +1 swords left and right?

Like it or not, WotC did a good thing when they spent so much time on "balance" in D&D. XP costs are part of that balance. Since you don't use XP (something I applaud, BTW, I don't use XP when I run games either), you are losing an important balancing factor. You can use kludgy AP/XP conversions, and microscopically fine-tune every spell and magic item if you like, *or* you can find a way to re-use the balancing factor that you lost by dropping XP entirely.

I don't want to "artificially" limit my PCs. I want to realistically limit them.

A 2nd edition bard and a 3rd edition bard go into a bar, and sit next to a wizard. Both bards are 3rd level, and both of them *just* because 3rd level. The 3rd edition bard has already chosen his new 3rd level spells - thus, his "spells known" is already defined.

They go into the bar and sit next to the wizard. They discuss magic and stories, and have a great time. At the end of the night, the wizard says, "Hey, I just researched a couple of new spells. I'd be happy to share them with you guys, if you want to learn them." The 2nd edition bard says, "Great! I'd love to. I love picking up new spells wherever I go." Meanwhile, the 3rd edition bard says, "Gosh, I'd really ike to, but I've already chosen my new spells for this level. I can't learn any new spells until I gain a new level."

That's an artificial limitation. Another analogy would be the following:

A wizard creates a potion of blur. Then, a kobold enters his chamber, and he kills it - and then promptly gains a new level. He has _exactly_ the amount of XP he needs to gain this new level, and not 1 XP more. He tries to create yet another blur potion but finds that he cannot. Why? No more free XP to burn. That's an artificial limitation.

A realistic limitation would be - the wizard tries to create another potion of blur, but realises that he's used up all his Blink Dog saliva for his last potion. "Damnit! I'll need to get more blink dog saliva if I want to create another potion." That's a realistic limitation.

 

[evilbob]

In both of your examples you've taken a mechanic, narrowly defined it, and then complained that it is too narrowly defined. That hardly seems fair, doesn't it? The wizard in your second example could simply not gain a level. As long as he doesn't gain a level until makes the potion, then there's no worry. And as a character, he would know that he had just enough XP to level, and not enough left for a potion. I have seen wizards hold off on levels before so that they can make magical items. It's just a question of what the wizard would like to do. It doesn't have to be narrowly defined that way by the DM. "Options, not restrictions."

As for the bard example, I don't know how 2nd edition worked, but as a DM if I had a bard character want to learn a different spell mere in-game hours after they leveled, I would have no problem adjusting for that. It makes sense, it feels fair, and to interpret the rules more narrowly than that seems more like a limit the DM is making.

 

[Randolpho]

I don't want to "artificially" limit my PCs. I want to realistically limit them.

A 2nd edition bard and a 3rd edition bard go into a bar, and sit next to a wizard. Both bards are 3rd level, and both of them *just* because 3rd level. The 3rd edition bard has already chosen his new 3rd level spells - thus, his "spells known" is already defined.

They go into the bar and sit next to the wizard. They discuss magic and stories, and have a great time. At the end of the night, the wizard says, "Hey, I just researched a couple of new spells. I'd be happy to share them with you guys, if you want to learn them." The 2nd edition bard says, "Great! I'd love to. I love picking up new spells wherever I go." Meanwhile, the 3rd edition bard says, "Gosh, I'd really ike to, but I've already chosen my new spells for this level. I can't learn any new spells until I gain a new level."

That's an artificial limitation. Another analogy would be the following:

A wizard creates a potion of blur. Then, a kobold enters his chamber, and he kills it - and then promptly gains a new level. He has _exactly_ the amount of XP he needs to gain this new level, and not 1 XP more. He tries to create yet another blur potion but finds that he cannot. Why? No more free XP to burn. That's an artificial limitation.

A realistic limitation would be - the wizard tries to create another potion of blur, but realises that he's used up all his Blink Dog saliva for his last potion. "Damnit! I'll need to get more blink dog saliva if I want to create another potion." That's a realistic limitation.

As evilbob mentioned, I think you're confusing game rules with the game itself. The two are not the same. The rules are there to artificially delineate skill, knowledge, and power progression for a game. Levels, classes and feats are not part of the setting itself.

Seriously, other than in comic strips like Order of the Stick (incidentally, what's with their server recently?) where it's used for humorous effect, characters in fantasy don't generally go around talking about who they are in terms of levels and feats and skill point ranks. They don't refer to a Longsword +1 as a Longsword +1, they refer to it as an enchanted or magic sword. Perhaps they give it an interesting name, like Orcrist the Goblin Cleaver or Glamdring the Foe-hammer.

In your example, the 3rd edition Bard could say "sure, I'd love to study your spell", and go ahead and actually spend a few weeks studying the spell with the wizard but, for some reason, find himself unable to wrap his head around the spell. Then, when he finally achieves another level, *ding*! suddenly something makes sense, and he gets the spell.

Don't confuse the rules with the setting. The rules are there just to help organize the gameplay, maybe streamline it.

Anyway, I'm out of this thread. I think you'd be better off using/modifying the existing mechanic simply because it's already been playtested and balanced. I believe I've successfully demonstrated my case. Feel free to use my suggestion or not.

 

[der_kluge]

Don't confuse the rules with the setting. The rules are there just to help organize the gameplay, maybe streamline it.

You keep telling yourself that. Maybe it'll help you sleep better at night.