Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jens" data-source="post: 1416658" data-attributes="member: 605">Hi again 'Khaalis'<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> (one should expect bruch-offs when giving radical opinions to people who have put a lot of work into something. This is something I have observed, not deducted; to be kinda fair (memory faltering, who gives a damn), I remember soapm, jd and pol doing the same; everyone dossit.)Btw: I detest funky unreal screen names, it makes people behave less responsibly and seems immature to me. What's your real name? Yes- Jens is a proper name hereabouts; if you don't want to put it here, I read email at jenscl@hotmail....Here's a reason why spell weaving (or whatever it is called) should use different ratios: Otherwise you might as well use spell points. Think about it: If ratios are equal/inverse, you could convert all spell slots into 1st or 0th level slots and just convert back from there as needed. Besides, converting back and forth is usually wasteful (ex: go to a bank and exchange some money to another currency, then change back - see the loss?)Anyway, if introduced, slot weaving might either be given to all spellcasters, to some, made a feat, etc. I would suggest making it an aspect of spontaneous spellcasting which preparing spellcasters can get access to by taking a feat. This wound oppose Prepared Spellcasting or whatever it's called.From a long-ago discussion abous psion and powerpoints, I remember the main design reason for low amounts of powerpoints being that otherwise psions could keep using low-level powers all day, and not so much the possible number og high-level powers. Given that, the trade-down factor should be poor while the trade-up factor could be respectable.For simplicity, I would suggest replacing the 'ratios' with the following rule:"When braiding or unbraiding spell slots, slot levels are conserved given that the slot(s) gained count at one level higher than they really are." (Eg: The waste is one slot-level when trading up, and one slot-level per slot gained then trading down)Example: A 6th level slot is unbraided giving either 3*1st since 3(1+1)=6, 4th+0th since (4+1)+(0+1)=6, 3rd+1st, 2*2nd, 0th+1st+2nd, 6*0th, etc.Examples: Slots of levels 2,3,5 can be traded up for a 2+3+5=9+1 so 9th level slot. 2 4th level slotscan be traded up for an 7th level slot.Mimicking your table:A 1st level slot cannot be bouht using 0th level slots since N*0 < 1+1A 2nd level slot costs 3 1st level slots since 3*1=2+1. Factor 3:2A 3rd level slot costs 2 2nd level slots since 2*2=3+1. Factor 4:3A 4th or higher level slot can be gained using 2 slots of one level lower or:A Nth level slot costs a (N-X)th and a (X+1)th level slot ..or.. a (N-X)th and a (N-Y) and a (X+Y+1)th level slot etc. General factor: (N+1):N where N is the level gained...A 9th level slot costs 2*5th, 4th+6th, 3rd+7h, 2nd+8th, 2*1st+9th, 3rd+4th+6th., etc...When trading down the factor is (N+M):N where N is the level gained and M is the number of lower-level slots.</blockquote>

Verification