Spell Point curiousities

[knottyprof]

Biggest issue with trying to convert from a vancian system of x spells per level per day to a point system is that they don't mesh in a way that you can directly convert without putting some sort of limit or condition on casting the same spell per day.
Consider a 10th level Sorcerer and a simple 1 point per spell level conversion (6 1st level spells = 6 pts, 6 2nd level spells = 12 points, 6 3rd level spells = 18 points, 5 4th level spells = 20 points, and 3 5th level spells = 15 points) for a total of 71 points (not counting bonus spells for high Cha just to not muddy the waters). In this system a spell would cost as many points to cast as the spell level so a 5th level spell would cost 5 points. With the spell points earned that would be a possible 14 5th level spells in one day or 71 first level spells. The first case the character is way over powered compared to a normal sorcerer of the same level using standard rules while the second case is just rediculous as most games will not require a caster to cast that many spells in a single day (if you are you are facing a horde of minions).
Psionics gets around this by allowing the user to augment powers to gain more effects at the cost of more points so the powers themselves are generally (and I mean generally) more restrictive than their equivelant spell comparison.

Sure you can come up with variant spell point costs-such as the spell level squared example given above-but then you are effectively nerfing the character since he essentially has less of a pool to draw from then compared to a normal sorcerer unless you exponentially expand the number of points allowed (in which case you are back in the same boat). So for the exponential example the same sorcerer could have 6 + 24 + 72 + 80 + 75 = 257 points with a possible 10 5th level spells per day or 257 1st level spells. So the number of higher level spells allowed per day does diminish a little while the number of lower levels spells gets even crazier.

So a class or classes that many see as way over powered by the time you reach mid to high levels would be godlike with a spell point system unless some sort of controls were put in place (in which case then it could be argued to just fall back to the original vancian system). To put this in perspective, with the 1 point per spell level system for a tenth level sorcerer, he could throw 23 fireballs per day (71/3, compared to 6 for the vancian caster). That is a potential of 230d6 points of damage versus 60d6. For the squared system that would be even more devastating with 28 fireballs available (257/9) with a potential of 280d6 points of damage.

I am curious how you are house ruling spell points and how the class spell level progression gets converted.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Biggest issue with trying to convert from a vancian system of x spells per level per day to a point system is that they don't mesh in a way that you can directly convert without putting some sort of limit or condition on casting the same spell per day.

Indeed. It's not really a direct conversion.

Sure you can come up with variant spell point costs-such as the spell level squared example given above-but then you are effectively nerfing the character since he essentially has less of a pool to draw from then compared to a normal sorcerer unless you exponentially expand the number of points allowed (in which case you are back in the same boat).

Yes. You are effectively nerfing the character. My point is that in a spell point system, it is relatively easy to make radical changes that affect game balance. Since some people feel spellcasters need to be nerfed, my examples lean in that direction.

I am curious how you are house ruling spell points and how the class spell level progression gets converted.

Sure. I use different ability scores for spell DCs and bonus spell points. I simply calculate spell points as level squared, multiplied by 0.75 for classes like the wizard and cleric that have less spells, 0.5 for bards and duskblades, and 0.25 (using the reduced caster level as a bae) for rangers and their tertiary ilk. Bonus spell points are simply level x ability modifier. This is fairly close to what you'd get converting the spell slots to points, but I can calculate it without an obnoxious table. My main goal is simplicity. I don't use squared costs, but I've considered adopting it. But let's look at the implications.

To put this in perspective, with the 1 point per spell level system for a tenth level sorcerer, he could throw 23 fireballs per day (71/3, compared to 6 for the vancian caster).

Who cares? I mean, how many do you need? Also, the by the book system (and I use this part) charge extra to get that 1d6/level damage, so you really can't cast that many. If you just made all 3rd levels spells 3 points it would be probably overpowered. (vs 5 as in the book or 9 as in my squared suggestion). But even if you could, it hardly matters. How many 3rd level spells you can use per day is really only a significant balancing factor when those are your best spells.

Take a different example:
A 10th level sorcerer with 18 Cha has, by the book, 97 spell points. And in my system, 140. I'm generous. Given the existing costs, he can cast his best spells (5th level) either 10 or 15 times (before being basically worn out). If we keep the sorcerer's allotment the same but make the cost spell level squared (25 points), he can cast his best spell either 3 or 5 times before being almost worn out. Ouch.

 

[knottyprof]

With any type of system, either directly converting spell slots or a mathmatical formula based on caster level I would still put limits on the number of spells a caster can cast per day per level. Maybe caster level / spell level modified by attribute adjustment. So in the example given using a 10th level sorcerer with 18 Cha and your caster level method, that would be up to 14 1st level spells, 9 2nd level spells, 7 3rd level spells, 6 4th level spells, or 6 5th level spells. Of course actual number of spells cast would be limited to the number of spell points the caster possessed. This would still be much more versatile than the spell slot system but it would place some restrictions on the number of spells the user could cast per day.

With this sort of limitation I could see the ring of wizardry buffing the caster's maximum number of spells allowed. So the caster above with a Ring of Wizardry III could cast up to 14 spells per day.

In regards to the OP question on ring of wizardry, if using the system from Unearthed Arcana I would just use the suggestion under Miscellaneous Issues on pg 156 and convert the extra spells to spell points. So for our 10th level sorcerer with a ring of Wizardry III this would grant an additional 25 spell points (5 3rd level spells X 5 spell points per table 5-5).

 

[Ahnehnois]

With any type of system, either directly converting spell slots or a mathmatical formula based on caster level I would still put limits on the number of spells a caster can cast per day per level.

Why? Psionics don't. The whole point of spell points is to make it so there's only one resource to track instead of many.

 

[knottyprof]

Psionics is a completely different system, designed differently where as the spell point system is a conversion. Again, it would be a house rule system anyway and if I were to incorporate it into my game I would add limits or some other factor so players do not simply blast their way through obstacles. If I was using the UA version I would probably use the vitalizing rules to some extent.

Also, the UA system doesn't completely get rid of the spell slot system. Casters that have to prepare spells are still limited to the number of spells that may be prepared per day is determined normally. They can just cast spells as many times as they have spell points available during the day and do not have to prepare a single spell more than once.

 

[N'raac]

Who cares? I mean, how many do you need? Also, the by the book system (and I use this part) charge extra to get that 1d6/level damage, so you really can't cast that many. If you just made all 3rd levels spells 3 points it would be probably overpowered. (vs 5 as in the book or 9 as in my squared suggestion). But even if you could, it hardly matters. How many 3rd level spells you can use per day is really only a significant balancing factor when those are your best spells.

Yes and no. By the time the caster has higher level spells, a lot of those low level spells are utility-based. If a trivial expenditure of spell points can have the entire party coated in a dozen 1 hour per level spells, that's a step up in power overall. Maybe we cover the whole team in Mage Armor, Darkvision, Protection from Energy (All five), nondetection and Greater Magi Weapon (likely on +1 weapons with ancillary enchantments). That's only third level spells at 9 spell points per level - if he can afford 49 points to cast L7 spells, then 3rd level spells are pretty trivial. Imagine using the Cleric list instead!

 

[Ahnehnois]

Yes and no. By the time the caster has higher level spells, a lot of those low level spells are utility-based. If a trivial expenditure of spell points can have the entire party coated in a dozen 1 hour per level spells, that's a step up in power overall.

That is true. Direct offensive power is one thing, excessive buffing is quite another. IME this is not a big issue for a variety of reasons because my players are not big into buff type spells, but I could see it being an issue for someone else.

That said, my conclusion would be that buff spells are a problem, spell point systems could expand access to them, but if you really want to fix the problem you need to take other steps entirely.

It's also worth noting that while this dynamic would be a step up in power for the party as a whole, in general the use of buff spells is very helpful to the characters receiving them, so they tend not to complain.

 

[N'raac]

I'm thinking more of the fact that the Vancian model requires sacrifice of a higher level spell slot in its entirety to get another lower level spell. If it's trivial to use 2 1st, 2 2nd and 2 3rd level spells on each party member, then that's likely to happen. If that takes out 24 spell slots (4 party members), some of which have to come from the higher level slots, that's much less likely to happen (and leaves the group much less resources to use in combat). The bigger the cost spread between spell levels, the more trivial the cost of using lots of low level slots. For the cost of level squared, those spells cost 76 spell points, so 5 L4 spells, or 3 L5 spells, or a couple of L6 spells. The greater the spread, the greater the general incentive to use large numbers of lower level spells rather than a few higher level spells. That could be a plus or a minus depending on the focus you want from the game. Seems the Cleric becomes a wand of CLW - why spend 16 spell points for Cure Serious (4d8 + 10 at 10th level)? I can get 16d8 + 80 from CLW, and divide them up more finely.

 

[N'raac]

It's also worth noting that while this dynamic would be a step up in power for the party as a whole, in general the use of buff spells is very helpful to the characters receiving them, so they tend not to complain.

To a large extent, this is why I've never found a lot of power comparison issues with our group - they tend to focus on overall group capability, rather than "my PC vs your PC", so the Cleric will enhance the Fighter's weapon rather than his own, and Invisibility gets used on the Rogue. Our first 3rd ed team developed a fighter focus of "get in flanking so the Rogue can sneak attack" and "if it threatens the Sorcerer, drop everything and defend him". Any one character's power boost helped the team.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The greater the spread, the greater the general incentive to use large numbers of lower level spells rather than a few higher level spells. That could be a plus or a minus depending on the focus you want from the game. Seems the Cleric becomes a wand of CLW - why spend 16 spell points for Cure Serious (4d8 + 10 at 10th level)? I can get 16d8 + 80 from CLW, and divide them up more finely.

Changes like this do create ripple effects. The increased incentive to use lower level spells is one. In general, I think this is a good thing. In the core game, a mid to high level spellcaster often doesn't use 1st level spells any more. With cure spells and a few others, however, it does sometimes render the higher level versions useless. This is not a dealbreaker in my book, but does suggest that those spells and the rules they're based on (hp) need some revision.

To a large extent, this is why I've never found a lot of power comparison issues with our group - they tend to focus on overall group capability, rather than "my PC vs your PC", so the Cleric will enhance the Fighter's weapon rather than his own, and Invisibility gets used on the Rogue. Our first 3rd ed team developed a fighter focus of "get in flanking so the Rogue can sneak attack" and "if it threatens the Sorcerer, drop everything and defend him". Any one character's power boost helped the team.

That's a good thing.