Spell Point System to Replace Standard Spell Progression?

[Sundragon2012]

Another way of looking at it is that the "Sorcerer" was the 3rd Ed. authors' attempt to insert a "spell-points" something into the core rules. You might consider allowing only Sorcerers in your campaign world, no Wizards.

Sorcerers are alright in theory but I don't like the limitations of the class at least insofar as them being the only wizard type. As an option for those who would like to play them however I am all for them iin their own distinct role I far prefer a more flexible wizard as the iconic magic user in my setting. Though I am also tooling clerics in the same way as I couldn'y possibly allow wizards to have the flexibility I am talking about while still tying clerics to the PHB spell progression chart.


Chris

 

[Thanee]

I think it would be easier to balance, if you would not use spell points, but rather the system they employed with the spirit shaman in Complete Divine.

Bye
Thanee

 

[dcollins]

SD: If that was the only concern, Unearthed Arcana also has a variant to switch clerics to a sorcerer-like spontaneous caster.

 

[Sundragon2012]

I think it would be easier to balance, if you would not use spell points, but rather the system they employed with the spirit shaman in Complete Divine.

Bye
Thanee

Is the material in the Complete Divine OGL?

 

[Sundragon2012]

SD: If that was the only concern, Unearthed Arcana also has a variant to switch clerics to a sorcerer-like spontaneous caster.

As I hammer all of this out I have to look at the broadest range of options. I'll see how that might work as well.

We'll see.

Chris

 

[Thanee]

Is the material in the Complete Divine OGL?

I don't think so. :\

Bye
Thanee

 

[Sundragon2012]

I don't think so. :\

Bye
Thanee

This is the problem with this kind of thing.

WoTC puts out the OGL license and that is a great thing but I am noticing that what should become standard reference works for the game such as the Complete Divine, Complete Fighter, Monster Manual 2, Monster Manual 3, Liber Mortis, Book of Vile Darkness, etc. are not OGL.

IMO this is not the best way to do things. Making some of this stuff OGL would from a positioning perspective make sense because many would like to just plug into standard references for the D20 system made by WoTC. Not that WoTC products are automatically better, but having books like the MM2 and MM3 as OGL would simply spread the use of even more iconic D&D monsters. Having books like the Complete Fighter OGL would spread standardization of concepts created by WoTC thereby spreading more "D&Disms" across the D20 marketplace.

Oh well, not like I can't create my own rules or borrow from some of the excellent 3rd party stuff out there.


Chris

 

[Sundragon2012]

Now I am checking the fine print on other books like the 3.5 Monster Manual and I am seeing that it says that the book does not contain any open game content??????

Now hold on here, I must be reading wrong here because I know that folks are using the updated monsters in their 3rd party materials...they are even appearing in places like this: http://www.d20srd.org/ Great site by the way.

I have more reading to do.


Chris

 

[dcollins]

On OGC:
- Technically the core hardcover books (PHB, DMG, MM) do not themselves designate OGC. That's what the online SRD is for (which just happens to include almost all the mechanical rules in those core books). OGL writers are recommended to look only at the SRD, not their hardcover books.

- I agree that WOTC has gotten stingy with OGC. Recall that the original proponents of OGC have left the company; my observation is that WOTC has really backed off from their initial commitment to OGC.

- Remember that at least everything in Unearthed Arcana is OGC. I assume this was a market-test for how well an OGC supplement book worked for them.

 

[HellHound]

*almost* everything in Unearthed Arcana. They still lock down the IP monster races int hat volume also (yuan-ti, mindflayer, etc).