Rules for XP costs for spells are reducing their value for players to almost zero
- Thread starter Mr_Spicoli
- Start date
Mr_Spicoli
Explorer
The quote you refer to taken out of context may appear sarcastic. But if taken in context, with the caveat that I should have referred specifically to state: If one is only using the Player's Handbook(core rulebooks only), cleric spells choice of level four is very limited in comparison with the abundance of choices presented in the Spell Compendium (obviously). But the point is there are probably quite a good number of people who only play with the main core books, and as a result have much fewer options(besides spell research and creating their own spells). It seems the Players handbook game designers could have spent more time creating more everyday useful spells to put in the Player's Handbook, but without having to take any of the existing ones away. Basically the spell section is to brief.
The spells take up a heck of a lot of space in the PHB if you only play fighters. One such player could argue that the feat chapter should be expanded.
I have never seen any 7th-or-higher-level cleric bemoan the scant selection of spells in the PHB. There are an awful lot of DMs (including I) who bemoan the poorly executed "official" Spell Compendium.
Back to your original post: I feel that spellcasters in general (with or without the Spell Compendium) are overpowered. I have recently been toying with the idea of doubling all casting times. Another option, I see, is adding XP costs to every spell. Thank you for the idea.
I have never seen any 7th-or-higher-level cleric bemoan the scant selection of spells in the PHB. There are an awful lot of DMs (including I) who bemoan the poorly executed "official" Spell Compendium.
Back to your original post: I feel that spellcasters in general (with or without the Spell Compendium) are overpowered. I have recently been toying with the idea of doubling all casting times. Another option, I see, is adding XP costs to every spell. Thank you for the idea.
Mr_Spicoli
Explorer
Bad Paper said:
Thats pretty funny, that would be akin to subtracting a player's XP for using a feat in a fighter's case. In a campaign with limited options and perspective that choice would suit.
However, for the full gaming experience, to push gaming and imaginitive creativity to the extremes, limiting participant choices is not a good idea. The question then is, why are you playing a fantasy game, why not play Recon, a Vietnam War roleplaying game if you don't want to expand beyond the scope of the real world. Why not just play paint ball?
Is not one of the most intriguing if not THE most and inspiring reasons to play RPGs the aspect of mutual world creation and exploration, worlds that are not existant? Is it not to expand our horizons and thoughts beyond the experience of the everyday world? If everyone views RPGs as just a more complicated hobby version of something like poker, I think they are only experienceing 180 degrees of the whole sphere. Players' and DMs who do not push the rules and options are not striving for the full experience, they are only "rolling with it"
Actually, I think that small XP costs (10 XP/Spell LV?) for, say, all higher-level spells (3+ ?) might be an interesting option. Having played a number of mid-high-level spellcasters, I often found that even if my PC was a level behind the rest of the party, (s)he was often one of the strongest members of the party (usually only the other major spellcasters were competition).Mr_Spicoli said:
Mr_Spicoli
Explorer
Well having played 1st and 2nd edition for years and only recently getting into 3.5 this is a new issue to deal with. If the XP rules are enforced by the DM then a player who is behind for XP loss should catch up pretty well. However, in the real world I have seen that not all DMs strictly go by the book. I would not want to play in some of these campaigns for other idosynchratic DM behavior as well.
But a simple solution I can think of is rarity of spell components and/or increased cost to purchase instead of XP loss for spellcasting and item creation. It was the method used in prior editions. That method does not have to be that time consuming either as player's can stock up on rare componenets in larger settlements or even go on mini component hunting side quests that can be melded into campaigns.
But a simple solution I can think of is rarity of spell components and/or increased cost to purchase instead of XP loss for spellcasting and item creation. It was the method used in prior editions. That method does not have to be that time consuming either as player's can stock up on rare componenets in larger settlements or even go on mini component hunting side quests that can be melded into campaigns.
Thanee
First Post
Once you hit a certain level, losing a couple hundred XP every now and then is really no big deal anymore.
I have played characters with XP component spells (esp. Limited Wish, of course) more than once and used them quite liberally. Never felt, that I was lagging behind.
Bye
Thanee
I have played characters with XP component spells (esp. Limited Wish, of course) more than once and used them quite liberally. Never felt, that I was lagging behind.
Bye
Thanee
Nail
First Post
Exactly.Thanee said:
Mr_Spicoli, you need to look at the numbers to get a better idea of XP costs. Let me help:
A Clr 7 can cast Lesser Planar Ally, and gain a 6 HD outsider for 100 XP and 600gp.
At that level, we expect CR 6 - CR 9 opponents -- let's settle on a CR 7 opponent. The Clr 7 expects to earn (2100 XP / 4 party members = ) 525 XP. So, the Clr has his options: Played right, a 6 HD outsider is a big help, and the Cleric's party will easily handle the CR 7 threat....but the Clr will earn (effectively) 100XP less. Or, the Clr can chose not to summon the ally, and the threat will be a little tougher to handle.
Do you get it? Sure, the XP cost is a trade off - but there is a real benefit. It's not a no-brainer.
