Yet Another Non-Vancian Spellcasting System

[airwalkrr]

This is a really simple fix. It gives spellcasters quite a bit more power, but still requires them to budget resources. Each spell prepared can be cast a total number of times per day equal to the character's spellcaster level - (spell level x 2) + 2, with a maximum of the character's primary spellcasting ability score. So a 1st level cleric can cast each 1st level spell he has prepared once per day. At 2nd level he can cast each 1st level spell he has prepared twice per day, as long as he has a Wisdom of 14 or higher. At 3rd level, he can cast each 1st level spell he has prepared three times per day, as long as he has a Wisdom of 16 or higher, and he can cast each 2nd level spell he has prepared once per day, and so on and so forth.

Spontaneous casters can cast each spell they know a number of times per day equal to their current spells per day, with a limit of their Charisma modifier.

I do not believe this would be overpowering because it does not increase the number of times you can cast your highest level spells by the first level you have them and limiting high level spells should be the main concern of balance.

Another system is to allow each spell to be cast a number of times per day equal to your ability score - spell level - 9. So a cleric with a 15 Wisdom could cast each 1st level spell 5 times per day but his 5th level spells he could only cast once per day.

Yes, I know it gives spellcasters more power and that is the main gripe I predict will result from this thread. But it might be worth considering for those who think the Vancian spellcasting limits spellcasters far too much. A quick fix might be to simply reduce the durations of some spells to prevent characters from walking around super buffed all the time. This might work well with my fixed spell durations system.

 

[Machiavelli]

How many spells can a caster prepare? Perhaps the same as his normal spell slots?
This seems like a very ungainly system to be tacking on top of another, existing system, since it's not actually replacing anything.

One fun way to lift restrictions could be to make each spell cost its spell level squared worth of "mana points", while giving players the mana points needed at each level to cast the same spells they could using the Vancian spell slot system. That actually makes them much more adaptable, which equates to much more powerful most campaigns. There are other, similar, mana point systems in existence, and many of them are actually pretty fun.

Really, whatever system you use for your own campaign will have to fit with your goals for the campaign. If spellcasters will be facing lots of nasties with spell immunities and resistances, then by all means give them more power to play with. The converse is true, as well.

 

[airwalkrr]

There is an inherent problem with mana or spell point systems. I won't go into detail here, but to be brief, they allow a spellcaster to spend everything on high level spells. The above variant was an attempt at a system that increases the number of low-level spells per day while leaving high level spells more or less the same. If spellcasters have more low-level spells, then they can last a lot longer without having to rest.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I think, actually, that this is an inherent problem of poorly built spell point systems.

In fact, the majority of spells that casters don't cast at lower levels are the damaging ones. Nothing taught me better than playing in a game where damage wasn't the desired outcome. A highly political/espionage/sneaky/or even "bring-em-back-alive" bounty hunter games can prove this point. In another post in another thread on the same topic you said that MM is a laregly useless spell at higher levels, especially in a point system. Depending upon the scale, I can agree with that.

But, I think if a spell point system was truly designed properly the damaging spells could all be level one. They'd scale as the caster got better. What this would mean is that higher level spells could be designed to actually be non-damaging, or alternate damaging. Hold Person, for example. Fly, for another example. Augmentation could exist so that more spell points would increase things like duration and number of targets.

The great thing about spell point systems is that a wizard or sorcerer need not blow their whole base on higher level spells. You are correct that lumping all the spell points into one big number increases the likelihood of more of the powerful spells, but it doesn't have to be this way, too.

I feel like I am more or less rambling here, so I'll just stop!

 

[airwalkrr]

In another post in another thread on the same topic you said that MM is a laregly useless spell at higher levels, especially in a point system. Depending upon the scale, I can agree with that.

Actually my point was that mm is largely useless under the Unearthed Arcana spellpoint system because it costs as much as a 5th level spell to get maximal benefit out of it. At that point, why not just cast cone of cold? In Vancian spellcasting, mm is just fine. But enough thread-jacking.

But, I think if a spell point system was truly designed properly the damaging spells could all be level one. They'd scale as the caster got better. What this would mean is that higher level spells could be designed to actually be non-damaging, or alternate damaging. Hold Person, for example. Fly, for another example. Augmentation could exist so that more spell points would increase things like duration and number of targets.

Now we're talking about re-vamping the entire spell system. One day, I might do that, but spellcasting is one of those things that I think needs little adjustment. This variant idea was really just to see if it sparked anyone's imagination. Plus, I like thinking about house rules, even if I don't think it is an area of the game that needs fixing (like I feel about D&D magic).

The great thing about spell point systems is that a wizard or sorcerer need not blow their whole base on higher level spells. You are correct that lumping all the spell points into one big number increases the likelihood of more of the powerful spells, but it doesn't have to be this way, too.

Under the Unearthed Arcana(/psionics) system, I don't like the fact you get more mileage out of certain spells than you do out of others for the same point cost. For instance, shield is likely to last only one combat anyway, so you only spend one point usually to cast it. But you have to spend 9 points to get five magic missiles or 5 points to get a 5d4 burning hands. Such things seem silly when I can just spend 5 points to get a 5d6 fireball instead. Lower level spells should cost fewer points IMHO.

 

[Nel]

airwalkrr, your first system is...well not insane because pure power depends of what you have in front of you, but it's grossly overpowered in a classical D&D game.
With a 20th lvl wizard you can cast up to 4 meteor swarm, 4 wish, 4 prismatic sphere and 4 time stop per day ?
And the second is not any better, the same 20th level wizard with 26 Int would cast each one EIGHT times a day.

IMO, a better solution to the problem of "burn" that encounter young casters would be to do as such:
(ability score - (X - character level)) / spell level = spells per level
Where "X" is chosen number depending of the difficulty of your campaign and limitations to access spell level based on character level are still used.

With this system and a X of 10:
-a 1st level wizard with 18 Int will have (18-(10-1))/1=9/1=9 first level spells;
-a 5th level wizard with the same Int will have (18-(10-5))/1=13/1=13 first level spells, 13/2=6 second level spells and 13/3=4 third level spells;
-our first wizzy (20th level and 26 Int) will have (26-(10-20))/1=36/1=36 first level spells, 36/2=18 second level spells, 36/3=12 third level spells and so on, but only 36/9=4 9th level spells.

Of course it is only an example of what can be done, but something like that allows powerful wizards to brush menial threats off without being able to inflict incredible damage in a too short span of time.
After all, the limit of 1 spell per round is still there, and to do 5d4+5 damage per round when you fight some big nasty dragon is crap, even if you can do it many many times.

 

[airwalkrr]

That's not bad. The idea has merit.