Will the Magic System be shown the door?

[GreatLemur]

What about reverse spell points? Instead of depleting spell points, with the caster no longer being able to cast when they've all been used up, add up "spell fatigue points".

Some spells could add more points, and you could install penalties for having high "spell fatigue points", like a spell failure chance, that would increase all the way to 100% if someone is at 10x his "spell fatigue comfort zone".

True20 has something like this going on. Some supernatural powers as designated as "fatiguing", and require the user to make a Will save each time they're used. Failure, of course, means increasing levels of physical fatigue. And, every time you use such a power, you collect another cumulative +1 to that save DC.

But the way you worded your idea makes me think about about something completely different. What if the limiting factor of magic wasn't that using it drained you of something, but that you instead accumulated something bad. I don't mean like a taint/corruption mechanic, so much as a magical residue or radiation. You don't spend magic points; you take them on. As they stack up, they impose unwanted modifiers on various things. They could be applied as a penalty to things like social skill checks and saving throws, or constitute the DC of some kind of magical mishap check. Might be fun if it had some small, specific positive effect, too, like an Intimidation bonus.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

"Similar spells of its level"? Huh? It's a feat. It doesn't have a level.

As it was explained to me, the feat is available as long as the caster has a spell readied. The feat's power is based on the spell in question.

If you mean highest-level spells that the caster has available, they'll generally be doing double the damage of the feat.

Oversimplified (depending on the source spell), but let's go with that.

If I give you the option of two identical spells, one of which does X damage once per day, and the other which does X/2 damage as many times per day as you want, it's pretty simple.

It's not really a question of whether you are better off in any given situation using your highest level spell or not. You still have the same access to all your spells that you did before.

But at the cost of one feat and half damage, all of your spells are usable multiple times per day.

I shouldn't get dragged too far out into this discussion-- firstly because it's off topic and second because I don't have the exact wording of the feat in front of me.

 

[apoptosis]

I am probably the oddest one. I thought the vancian system is probably the thing I like best about D&D (though I really dont like it for clerics). It is weird and bizarre which fits magic well.

I think the tatical aspects are interesting and it allows a little better balance to allow spells to be powerful.

Without some of these odd and bizarre things in D&D, I would probably never play it (though in reality I am more likely to play C&C anyways), as there are other fantasy systems with better mechanics for the type games I enjoy.

For me, if you lose some of the sacred cows there is no reason to play D&D.

Apooptosis

 

[hong]

Oversimplified (depending on the source spell), but let's go with that.

If I give you the option of two identical spells, one of which does X damage once per day, and the other which does X/2 damage as many times per day as you want, it's pretty simple.

Yes. I'd go with the X damage once per day, assuming X is sufficiently high.

In practice, I'll already have plenty of ways of dealing with situations where the X/2 damage would be a significant contributor. These situations aren't the problem. The problem is the big fight where I want to deal as much damage as possible, in as short a time as possible, and then it's the _rate_ at which damage is churned out that becomes critical.

It's the same reasoning that leads me to spend 30000 on an item that gives true strike on my next attack as a swift action 1/day, as opposed to 3000 on another item that gives the same thing as a standard action, unlimited no. of times per day. I actually had both these items in the AOW campaign recently ended (or, very similar ones anyway; the 3000 gp item actually made my next attack a touch attack which was a _better_ deal than true strike).

I used the 30000 gp item all the time (albeit 1/day). I used the 3000 gp item... once. Having to eat a turn activating the item is a huge factor. As said before, DPS is the key; whether that's X damage once every 2 turns, or X/2 damage each turn, both are inferior _when it matters_.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Within the existing D&D ruleset, I'd say those are broken. (I'd lay that design work at the feet of someone who plays a lot of MtG.)

I would agree with the parenthetical sentance: the reserve feats very much show the influence of Magic the Gathering design. Specifically, reserve feats are what Magic designers call a 'win-more' option: they appear powerful and exciting and, when used, will completely dominate the opposition, but will almost never win you a game (an encounter, in this case) that you wouldn't have won anyway.

It's a perfect example of one of dozens of design principles that MtG's budget, massive playerbase, DCI structure and competitive focus allow that team to research, test and refine in a way no RPG, D&D included, ever could.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

In practice, I'll already have plenty of ways of dealing with situations where the X/2 damage would be a significant contributor. These situations aren't the problem. The problem is the big fight where I want to deal as much damage as possible, in as short a time as possible, and then it's the _rate_ at which damage is churned out that becomes critical.

I'm arguing from the assumption (possibly mistaken) that a wizard with the Reserve feat loses none of his "ultimate fight whammy" and gains considerably compared to a wizard without it. (I have inferred that you can still cast the spell you put in Reserve at full effect, if you wish, but you lose access to the feat special ability.)

Most importantly, this feat upsets the balance of a lot of fixed-damage spells-- flaming sphere, ice storm, and other staples I am sure I am forgetting.

I'm still not arguing that the feat is game-breaking, so you can lay off the counter-argument there.

 

[Mercule]

I think reserve feats are an acceptable fix to Vancian magic. If the system needs to be rebalanced somewhat, sobeit. I haven't seen the reserve feats in actual play (I'm done buying suppliments -- I can't track what I already own), but they are, intuitively, an "acceptable" tweak. Compared to x/encounter, which falls firmly into the "unacceptable" category (IMO), it's really an easy choice.

 

[Psion]

I'm arguing from the assumption (possibly mistaken) that a wizard with the Reserve feat loses none of his "ultimate fight whammy" and gains considerably compared to a wizard without it.

We are digging up arguments that have been had.

To reiterate what I might have said at one time: Yes, you are correct. A wizard, in essence, pays nothing for using these abilities while they are prepared.

But I think that basing the argument that they are "overpowered" on this alone is a faulty. It's an opportunity cost thing. When it comes down to it, what really matters is what you can deliver during the fight. Yeah, you may be whipping out mini-lightning bolts with impunity, but in the meantime you and your allies are taking damage from a creature that might have been dead if you had used the big lightning bolt powering it.

The only way in which I think reserve feats are overpowered is that I think that some of the deals are a bit too sweet for the loss of that opportunity cost.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

But I think that basing the argument that they are "overpowered" on this alone is a faulty.

Who are you "quoting" there, exactly?

Whatever argument is getting rehashed here, it's apparently not with anything I've said...

Done!

The actual thread's topic interests me.

 

[Kunimatyu]

I see spells becoming collectors card sets with each caster knowing a certain amount of cards per spell level per level. Each card is a differant spell with differing affects and only lasts for the duration of the encounter. Each spell can only be played once per encounter but can be used every encounter.

I hope I'm wrong though.

Bah. This sort of thing would be fine...as long as said cards are a helpful add-on you can purchase, and not a requirement for playing a spellcaster.

Spell cards from third party sources already exist in D&D3.5 and I don't see many people up in arms about it.