The Mage: A Spell Point class with a twist

38 posts / 0 new
Last post
community.wizards.com/emerikol/blog/2012...

I proposed a new class in my blog.  I'd like to get feedback from pro-4e people as well as pro-3e people.  I tried to design it with both sides concerns in mind.  I am by no means proposing this class replace any other but rather ask the question - would this class be good for you in the abstract?

Emerikol how fascinating.  This is the answer to all our dreams.  Why it even gets geeks dates on Friday night with supermodels.  Why have you been holding back your genius from us?

 
So, it's pretty much just a different resource mechanic for something that is otherwise very wizard-like, eh?  I don't know that it's what I'd call a class, exactly, but if that's the way they're going to go about it...

I'm looking at it and seeing 20-30 spells per day at first level.  It seems really powerful in that regard.

The metagame is not the game.

Did look - not sure - tis fluxy

I am sure it wont do the supermodel thing though. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

@Sealorn
Actually at 1st level you'd only have one spell by the class design.  You have the potential to know 18 but you only get one per level automatically.  The rest you got to find.

What do you guys think of the roll to keep the point mechanic as a means of discouraging trivial uses of magic?

I also had an idea that permanent magical effects could use a point permanently until you dispel the magic.

Garthanos, perhaps I exaggerated with the supermodel in your case. 
I'm worried about spells per day, rather than spells known.  From what I read, you start with 5(!) points, and you only lose a point if you roll a 3 or less after casting.

It probably works out better at high level, but at level 1, I think that's too many spells per day.

The metagame is not the game.

I'd agree 5 is too many in that system, probably closer to 2+caster level/3, capping at 8 at level 18+. I'd also suggest changing the DC to something a little more conventional like 10+spell level*2. Assuming a spell level 7 cap, that puts the DC range from 12 - 24 (hope you can get a bonus somewhere). Specialization might lower the DC by your MAM for the specialty spells. If 20 (+5) is the highest ability score, you have a slight chance to keep a point after casting a level 7 spell (19+), but very unlikely.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I think you designed this system with the higher levels in mind, but ignored the low levels when spells are basically free.  I mean, the Mage absolutely is going to cast Knock, because the risk of losing a spell point is so insanely low--plus, if he loses one, he has 4 more!

I'm not saying the system can't work--I just don't think your way of calculating the DC is a good one.  Unfortunately, I don't have a better idea. 
Spell slots aside, I think the DC should be set at (15 + Spell Level - Spell Level Proficiency); where Spell Level Proficiency is the number of Class Levels the caster has been able to cast that level of spell.

Then just make a normal skill check against whichever ability the caster gets a bonus for magic (Intelligence for Wizards in the playtest). This gives DCs according to the following table:

 























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































CasterMax SpellProficiency / Spell LevelDC for Spell Success / Spell Level
LevelLevel123456789123456789
111        15        
212        14        
3231       1316       
4242       1215       
53531      111417      
63642      101316      
747531     9121518     
848642     8111417     
9597531    710131619    
105108642    69121518    
1161197531   5811141720   
12612108642   4710131619   
137131197531  36912151821  
1471412108642  25811141720  
15815131197531 2471013161922 
168161412108642 236912151821 
179171513119753122581114172023
1891816141210864222471013161922
199191715131197532236912151821
2092018161412108642225811141720


This gives a narrower range of success across the spell levels, allows success to improve as the caster becomes more familiar with casting spells of each level and still retains the OP's idea that higher level spells always remain harder to cast.

I also bottomed out the numbers at 2 to reflect a "1 always fails" ruling; this would suggest a "20 always succeeds" ruling as well. Alternately, you could grant auto success at the level where the number would become a 1 and make those spells At-Wills at that level (as some people on these forums have expressed a desire to see lower level spells become At-Wills over time); then ignore the "20 always succeeds" ruling as well, making some spell levels impossible to cast without an increasing number levels worth of practice for those with decreasing Intelligence modifiers.
Basically needs stat analysis and expected results but the general concept isnt bad
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Things you guys might be missing.

It was my intent for 1st level spells to be nearly at will.  If you notice there are no minor spells.  So these low level spells even for a 1st level wizard are intended to be practically at will.

I never want high level spells to be a given.  I want even an 18th level wizard to figure a spell point is majorly at risk if he casts a ninth level spell.

All of that is intentional.  I also was thinking a 1 always fails as my preference.  As I want my Mages not casting utilities unless they have no other option.  

It is why the spell level is multiplied by 4.  It makes the curve work out.  It makes the lower spells become practically at-wills as intended and it keeps the at level spells close to encounter risk.  At higher levels the risk is higher even at level which is intended.  No Mage should cast these spells without thinking a spell point is at risk.

@lawrencehoy
You just made a perfectly linear system.  I think this is less than best at low and high levels and closer to right in the middle.  

@storyteller
I also thought about making utility magic having a higher minimum DC in general.  Then permit a bonus for doing the utility as a ritual instead.

@mithrus
I disagree that five is too high but it is nice to have a system where you can change one number to increase or decrease the way a class plays.  


Another idea I had was static DCs that rise with level of spell.  The number of spell points would go up gradually as the caster gained levels instead of the DCs.   So maybe the DC on a 9th level spell is 16.  The DC on a 1st is 1 or 2.  

I guess whatever I'm proposing I am seeking for a curve that maybe you guys disagree with.  Any thoughts on my idea of a curve so that lower levels are easy and higher levels are always hard?



 

  • Would you get an Ability mod to the spellcasting check? (I assume not.)

  • Does (dis)advantage apply to spellcasting checks? (I also assume not.)

  • If a natural "1" always fails, does a natural "20" always succeed (i.e., does a level 1 mage have a 5% chance to cast a 9th level spell without spending a spell point?)

  • If there any limit to the level of spell that might be cast?  (I.e., can a 1st level mage cast a 9th level spell if he's willing to spend the spell point?)  If not, what is the limit?  I recommend that a mage cannot even attempt to cast a spell unless his primary Ability score (probably Intellience) exceeds the unmodified DC by 4 or greater.

  • Because of the 4-point increments you use, even a small bonus to the spell check makes a big difference.  With a +3 bonus, a 1st level wizard can cast a 5th level spell 20% of the time.  Ninth level spells become available at 14th level.


Other things that might affect the check (you already mentioned components and implements) include taking damage or having your mobility hampered.

I'd probably give the Mage some basic at-wills like the wizard so he can cast soemthing without worrying about a 5% chance to lose a precious spell point.

It's an interesting idea to deal with the 5-minute workday.  I could see this mechanic also working with martial classes.  Let's call him the "Duelist".  The duelist can make a basic atack at will.  Anything trickier requires him to roll a die or loss an "opportunity point".  Maneuvers would have varying levels of complexity. 

In other words, this makes a good alternative to both spell slots (whether using 3e-wizard spell memorization or 3e-sorceror spontaneous casting) and AEDU for power recovery.

Technically there's no reason you couldn't have a Vancian martial character.  Vancian, AEDU, and your Spellcheck system are all just different mechanics for expending and recovering powers.



@wrecan
I'm glad you liked it.  I am aiming for your best of page Smile

 
As for your questions (yours in bold)
Would you get an Ability mod to the spellcasting check?

I considered this and decided no.  I didn't want something so vital being so ability dependent.  Obviously it could be an option but I'd raise DCs if so.

Does (dis)advantage apply to spellcasting checks?

I hadn't though of this.  My first instinct was to say now because this is a power resource management thing.  But it might be an interesting twist if damage increased your DC.


If a natural "1" always fails, does a natural "20" always succeed (i.e., does a level 1 mage have a 5% chance to cast a 9th level spell?)

No.  I want a 1 to always fail because I want a Mage to fear using magic for trivial reasons.   I'd probably require a roll even for scrolls.  I also was limiting Mages to spells of half their level rounded up.  Meaning regardless of DC they can't cast a nine level spell at first level.

I considered an alternate rule where the minimum was the spell level itself.  This makes 9th level spells always have a minimum 45% chance of using a spell point.  A 5th level spell would have a 25% chance minimum.  If I did this though I might have to increase spell points.



 
@Emerikol:
There is a slight curve to my proposal; as the initial chance of success at each spell level decreases by 5% with each additional level of spell the caster gains (the first value in each column for the DCs). Plus it allows for near auto success (At-Wills) as the caster becomes more experienced. Your curve implies that the caster gets no better at using magic, in general, as he gets more experienced in using it. I don't like the implications of that; it would be like the fighter not getting any better at attacking with weapons as he levels up (whether expressed as increases to attack rolls or damage rolls). I like the concept though, as a way to make spell casting more balanced.


@Wrecan:


  • I'm in favor of the two rulings (1=failure, 20=success) always being included or excluded as a set. 

  • Regardless of which system is used, a caster should not be able to cast a spell that he/she is incapable of knowing/learning (as a class feature based on experience level).

I considered an alternate rule where the minimum was the spell level itself.


I think you're overcomplicating things but that's fine.

My biggest concern is that there's no limit to the level of a spell that a mage can cast if he's willing to lose a spell point.
I considered an alternate rule where the minimum was the spell level itself.  This makes 9th level spells always have a minimum 45% chance of using a spell point.  A 5th level spell would have a 25% chance minimum.  If I did this though I might have to increase spell points.

I'm confused. This alternative provides less chance of losing a spell point, so shouldn't there be fewer points available?

Regardless of which system is used, a caster should not be able to cast a spell that he/she is incapable of knowing/learning (as a class feature based on experience level).


In the spirit of Emerikol's proposal, I'd like the rules of knowing/learning to be tied to the DC equation he set forth.  Here's the DC chart for unmodified DCs:








































































































































































































































































Spell Check DCs
 Spell Level
Character Level123456789
13711151923273135
22610141822263034
3159131721252933
448121620242832
5-137111519232731
6-226101418222630
7-31591317212529
8-4481216202428
9-5-1371115192327
10-6-2261014182226
11-7-315913172125
12-8-44812162024
13-9-5-13711151923
14-10-6-22610141822
15-11-7-3159131721
16-12-8-448121620
17-13-9-5-137111519
18-14-10-6-226101418
19-15-11-7-31591317
20-16-12-8-4481216
If we go with my proposal...

A mage cannot cast a spell unless his primary Ability score exceeds the unmodified DC for casting the spell by 4 or more points.

Assuming 20 as the highest priamry Ability Score a character will begin with, the highest spell level a mage could cast would be:

1st-3rd: 4th level spells
4th-7th: 5th level spells
8th-11th: 6th level spells
12th-15th: 7th level spells
16th-19th: 8th level spells
20th and up: 9th level spells

I actually think this may be too high at low levels and too low at high levels.  The high level issue may be handled if ability scores do increase slowly as has been implied.  If you get a new Ability point at 6th, 12th and 18th level, then the chart becomes...

1st-3rd: 4th level spells
4th-6th: 5th level spells
7th-10th: 6th level spells
11th-13th: 7th level spells
14th-17th: 8th level spells
18th and up: 9th level spells

And that looks pretty good.  I just think 4th level spells are too high for 1st level characters.

Maybe a better proposal is...

At 1st level, you can cast 1st level spells.  After that, you gain the ability to cast a new spell level every odd-numbered character level

Which is the traditional rule.

Then the DC chart is...








































































































































































































































































Spell Check DCs
 Spell Level
Character Level123456789
13        
22        
315       
44       
5-137      
6-226      
7-3159     
8-448     
9-5-13711    
10-6-22610    
11-7-315913   
12-8-44812   
13-9-5-1371115  
14-10-6-2261014  
15-11-7-31591317 
16-12-8-4481216 
17-13-9-5-137111519
18-14-10-6-226101418
19-15-11-7-31591317
20-16-12-8-4481216
@wrecan
Thanks for the chart.   Having the DCs be included as the baseline for knowing a spell makes it harder.

My original proposal was based upon a max number of spells known being your int and you only get to learn one automatically when you got access to a new level of spell.  The rest had to be found.  Generous DMs could make it really easy to find spells and Stingier ones could be tougher.  This is a handy DM throttle for power.

A table could be provided to the caster that looked something like this for purposes of minimums.  I always want casting a spell to be a resource decision.








































































































































































































































































Spell Check DCs
 Spell Level
Character Level123456789
13711151923273135
22610141822263034
3159131721252933
4148121620242832
5137111519232731
6126101418222630
712591317212529
812481216202428
912371115192327
1012361014182226
111235913172125
121234812162024
131234711151923
141234610141822
15123459131721
16123458121620
17123457111519
18123456101418
1912345691317
2012345681216


 
@wrecan
Just saw your latest proposal.  It is interesting as an option.  It does give Mages though fourth level spells at first level.  Even given that it uses up a spell point I imagine the strategy would be to use those high level boom spells.

 
I considered an alternate rule where the minimum was the spell level itself.  This makes 9th level spells always have a minimum 45% chance of using a spell point.  A 5th level spell would have a 25% chance minimum.  If I did this though I might have to increase spell points.

I'm confused. This alternative provides less chance of losing a spell point, so shouldn't there be fewer points available?




Thats the minimum.  You take the higher of the two methods for the DC.  Thus at higher levels there is a floor.  
What we ended up doing after various spell point experiments.

Wizard has a number of points equal to caster level X intelligence. 10th level wizard with 20 intelligence has 200 points.

There are no spell levels.

You can learn any spell at any time.

You can cast any spell that you know at any time.

All spells scale.

Spells cost 1 point per caster level to cast. 1 magic missle costs 1 point, 10 magic missile cost 10 points. 

If a spell is cast at a level greater than caster level it does damage. Either to HP or stun (25% of total HP is the stun value, if reached the caster is unconscious). The saving throw is 10 + the level cast. 10th level wizard casts 15 magic missiles the save is a 25.



 
Over all, I think this could be a solid alternative to a wizard, and it would make for a game that is more fun and easier on my sensibilities.  The chance of it being implemented, of course, is next to nil given the direction they seem to be taking.

The metagame is not the game.

Actually, looking at the current chart, I'm not sure how much of a check these DCs are.
Here's the current chart (which I've adjusted for Emerikol's rule that the DC can never be less than the spell level:








































































































































































































































































Spell Check DCs
Mage Level Spell Level
 123456789
13        
22        
315       
414       
5137      
6126      
71259     
81248     
9123711    
10123610    
111235913   
121234812   
13123471115  
14123461014  
151234591317 
161234581216 
17123457111519
18123456101418
1912345691317
2012345681216


With a natural 1=failure/natural 20=success, Here's how many spells a caster can hope to cast before losing his 5 spell points (if he only cast one level of spell over and over):










































































































































































































































































Expected Spells Cast/Day
Spell Level
123456789
Mage Level120
230
36510
46515
56520
665309
76530108
86530158.25
96530208.57.5
1065302097.75
116530201087
12653020158.257.25
13653020158.57.56.5
146530201597.756.75
156530201510876
1665302015108.257.256.25
1765302015108.57.56.55.5
18653020151097.756.755.75
1965302015109876
20653020151098.257.256.25


At first six levels, the mage isn't going to really about worrying about running out of spells.  His 1st level spells are essentiall at-will.  After that, when we assume the 1st level spells aren't that useful, his power begins to decrease dramatically.  If we assume that the top three spell levels are most relevant in battle, then his expected number of effective spells is as follows:


  1. 20

  2. 30

  3. 37.5

  4. 40

  5. 42.5

  6. 34.67

  7. 16

  8. 17.75

  9. 12

  10. 12.25

  11. 8.33

  12. 10.33

  13. 7.5

  14. 7.83

  15. 7

  16. 7.42

  17. 6.5

  18. 6.75

  19. 7

  20. 7.25


If we assume -- through the miracle of flat math -- that a mage's spell is never obsolete, then he still has a dramatic drop-off in power, though somewhat lessened.  The median expected daily spell usage is as follows:



  1. 20

  2. 30

  3. 37.5

  4. 40

  5. 42.5

  6. 30

  7. 20

  8. 22.5

  9. 20

  10. 20

  11. 15

  12. 17.5

  13. 15

  14. 15

  15. 12.5

  16. 12.5

  17. 10

  18. 10

  19. 10

  20. 10


The solution, in either case, may be to start the mage out with some at-wills and only 3 spell points, and then grant the mage a new spell point at 6th, 11th, and 16th levels.  The result is (not flat/flat)



  1. 12/12

  2. 18/18

  3. 22.5/22.5

  4. 24/24

  5. 25.5/25.5

  6. 27.7/24

  7. 12.8/16

  8. 14.2/18

  9. 9.6/16

  10. 9.8/16

  11. 8.33/15

  12. 10.33/17.5

  13. 7.5/15

  14. 7.83/15

  15. 7/12.5

  16. 8.9/15

  17. 7.8/12

  18. 8.1/12

  19. 8.4/12

  20. 8.7/12

The trick to allowing wizards to have utility spells without making them obsolete the rogue is to require the casetr to put them in a higher level spell slot to remain relevant.

So, for instance, Knock as a 1st level spell may only pick DC 12 locks.  If you cast it as a higher level spell, the maximum DC it can open increases by 1.

Invisibility can come with a DC to spot that is a little worse than a thief of that level can hide.  But if you cast it in a higher level spell slot, the DC to spot it also increases.

That way you don't really have to worry about wizards obviating thieves.  At worst, they make decent back-ups and that doesn't change base don which method of spell recovery (Spellcheck, AEDU, or Vancian) you use.
@wrecan
Appreciate the math work.  I think some of the low level stuff isn't high enough.  But the point is well enough made.

I think it still is a disincentive.  I'm assuming anything in your second table that exceeds 20 is an at-will.  I don't mind things being practically at-wills for high level casters.  This is though why I don't include at-wills in the game for this class.  If I did include minor spells ala 5e then I'd definitely push the DCs up even higher.  

I debate back and forth on utility magic.  Knock is easy I agree but not every utility power is so easy.  And in some cases I'm not sure it's even desireable.  So I like the disincentive.  In vancian it's covered by the fact you already lose a spell slot when you use a spell.  As long as the DM is reasonable at handling resting it's handled.  I thought this approach was just a variation that might prove interesting.

Another option might be increasing the spell points and also the DCs.  This system is very tweakable in an excel spreadsheet kind of way.  You could play with the numbers a good bit to find the right set of circumstances.   Just assigning static DCs to every spell is fine by me.  The designers could decide for each spell how easily it is kept.  Maybe simple combat spells are easier to keep than a spell like fly.  Maybe fly is third level but it is super hard to keep.  So you can know it easily but do you really want to likely burn a spell point to use it.







 
I think it still is a disincentive.  I'm assuming anything in your second table that exceeds 20 is an at-will.


I think you mean that anything less than zero is at-will.  But that contradicts your prior ruling that the DC is never lower than the spell level.  So which is it?  Are low-level spells infinite or have a DC equal to their level?

If it's the former, then low-level mages are way overpowered, because they get negative DCs for spells that are still going to be relevant to them.

The designers could decide for each spell how easily it is kept.


The greatest selling point of this system was its simplicity and formula.  If we have to decide the cost of every spell based on utility, and cannot rely on level, you've lost the best part of the system.
I think it still is a disincentive.  I'm assuming anything in your second table that exceeds 20 is an at-will.


I think you mean that anything less than zero is at-will.  But that contradicts your prior ruling that the DC is never lower than the spell level.  So which is it?  Are low-level spells infinite or have a DC equal to their level?

If it's the former, then low-level mages are way overpowered, because they get negative DCs for spells that are still going to be relevant to them.


I was looking at your second table.  If you can cast it over 20 times with 5 spell points then it's practically at-will.  Only failing on a 1 makes it practically at-will for me.  It's not.  It still has a small risk.  Thats why I put in the idea of a DC that had a minimum so 5th level spells don't become at-will ever.


The designers could decide for each spell how easily it is kept.


The greatest selling point of this system was its simplicity and formula.  If we have to decide the cost of every spell based on utility, and cannot rely on level, you've lost the best part of the system.



It's always nice to know a formula I agree.  But from a pure play perspective a spell with a DC is pretty simple.  Obviously the designers would need a formula of some sort and they'd need to expose that to the DM in the DMG.  But that formula doesn't need to be super simple if the outcome of the formula is in the spell block.  Kind of like monster hit points.

A better way to do this whole thing if I had more time would be to start with a 10th level wizard and figure out all the DCs from there.  Then figure out a formula that fits those DCs.






If you're designing spells, you can give each spell a drain DC to represent how likely it is to eat your MP.  This way, you could balance powerful spells (Sleep, Color Spray, etc) against weaker spells (Magic Missiles) even if they're the same level.  Higher level spells would naturally have a higher drain DC, but would still allow you to distinguish more and less powerful spells of the same level.

The metagame is not the game.

If you're designing spells, you can give each spell a drain DC to represent how likely it is to eat your MP.  This way, you could balance powerful spells (Sleep, Color Spray, etc) against weaker spells (Magic Missiles) even if they're the same level.  Higher level spells would naturally have a higher drain DC, but would still allow you to distinguish more and less powerful spells of the same level.



Exactly.  This would be a valid approach.
Interesting, and I can see people would want to use it. Wouldn't work for us, though, because it requires a roll to even cast the spell, where a fighter doesn't have to roll to be able to USE his attack, or a rogue to USE his unlock ability, just a roll to be successful.

We're working on a magic system that uses spell points. Spells cost points to cast, and the mage has to roll to succeed, just like a fighter or rogue does. Cantrips do not cost points, and might or might not need a success roll (depends on the spell). Where a fighter can use Power Attack (or something like that) to boost the hit, the mage can use more points to boost the spell. Spell effects would not increase with level, but more powerful spells are available at higher levels. Spell points regen fastest if asleep, slower if awake but resting, slower still if just walking around, and not at all if doing something more than that.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

@SteeleButterfly
I recognize that some people want just a spell point system.  That though is too much bookkeeping for me.

Keep in mind when you roll the roll you are not rolling for success.  The spell goes off no matter what and if a to hit is required then it is rolled.  If a save is required then that is rolled.  This initial roll is purely to see if you ALSO lose a spell point.  So the spell goes off no matter what just like the fighters attack.  

For purposes of speed, I'd probably suggest rolling 2 d20's when you are making an attack roll.  The red d20 can be for spell point loss and the blue d20 can be for the to hit roll.  I'm actually a pro-3e guy who probably prefers defenses to rolling saving throws.  But I can live with it either way.  

I do find it bewildering though that the fighter having at-will no risk abilities is even an issue.  Magic is different.  We are trying to find ways to make it different and still fun for both the wizard and the fighter.  If it doesn't feel any different than non-magic then that is likely a deal breaker for me.  

 
Keep in mind when you roll the roll you are not rolling for success.  The spell goes off no matter what and if a to hit is required then it is rolled.  If a save is required then that is rolled.  This initial roll is purely to see if you ALSO lose a spell point.  So the spell goes off no matter what just like the fighters attack.  

Sorry, then I misread it. My apologies!

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

I really like this mechanism.  Perhaps it should be adjusted in a way that at 1st level mages have 10+ 0 level spells and only around 3-5 1st level spells.

Perhaps drop the 5 daily points down to 3 and let the mage go into the negative with bad things happening as a result.

When a mage goes into the negative they begin having conditions affect them (confused, dazed, exhausted, fatigued, nauseated, sickened, unconscious, etc.)

This would seem to be more in line with wizards in fantasy settings.  Perhaps they could even sacrifice more than 1 point to cast a spell of greater level than they can normally cast and risk suffering some condition as well.
I really like this mechanism.  Perhaps it should be adjusted in a way that at 1st level mages have 10+ 0 level spells and only around 3-5 1st level spells.

Perhaps drop the 5 daily points down to 3 and let the mage go into the negative with bad things happening as a result.

When a mage goes into the negative they begin having conditions affect them (confused, dazed, exhausted, fatigued, nauseated, sickened, unconscious, etc.)

This would seem to be more in line with wizards in fantasy settings.  Perhaps they could even sacrifice more than 1 point to cast a spell of greater level than they can normally cast and risk suffering some condition as well.



I love magic that is dangerous but not all do.  This system though does seem to provide an approach that would easily accomodate optional rules.  Change the spell points for example to give a higher or lower level of magic.  I could even see a natural one going to a critical misfire table.  Of course I might require some sort of confirmation roll like a crit for fumbles so only failing on a one isn't always a crit.
Seems like all the great wizards eventually cast spells or use magic that exceeds their ability or they are forced to use powerful magic beyond their resources.  I would like to have mages have the option to stretch their capacity with dangerous consequences.
Seems like all the great wizards eventually cast spells or use magic that exceeds their ability or they are forced to use powerful magic beyond their resources.  I would like to have mages have the option to stretch their capacity with dangerous consequences.



Like I said.  I'm for it.  As an option for us.  I wouldn't force it on everyone.
This thread has been moved by VCL request.

If you have any questions, please contact:
Customer Service