|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 6:07AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Spell creation mechanics have been around in game systems for a long time. I really would like to see it implemented in 5e (at least internally/playtests) to better gauge the appropriate "spell level" of a spell. IMO, multi-target/aoe spells in general feel too low of spell level, especially those that inflict significant debilitating effects. I threw a quick set of mod charts as a rough start: Targets
Show
Single Target: 0
Multi Target: +1 every 2 targets (round down)
AOE (small burst): +1
AOE (med burst): +2
AOE (large burst): +4
PBAOE: 1/2 target mod (round down)
Damage
Show
No damage: -1
Minor Damage (d4+1): +0
Moderate Damage (d8+MAM): +1
Severe Damage ([d8+MAM]*2): +2
Critical Damage ([d8+MAM]*4): +3
ZOMG Damage ([d8+MAM]*8): +4
Damage over Time: double damage mod
Range
Show
Melee Touch: -1
Short: 0
Medium: 1
Long: 2
(Note: these are the hardest to evaluate IMO) Condition
Show
Death (save required): +8
Charmed/Unconscious: +4
Immobilized: +3
Slowed: +2
Prone: +2
Reposition (short): +1
Reposition (medium): +2
Reposition (long): +3
(Dis)advantaged (next attack): +1
(Dis)advantaged (end of next turn): +2
Multiple Conditions (chained): +1/2 per condition (round down)
Multiple Conditions (concurrent): +1/2 per condition (round up)
Other
Show
No Save: +2
Allows Save/None: -2
Allows Save/Half: -1
Min HP Threshold: -1
Requires attack roll: -1
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 9:43AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2012
|
Minion stomp L1.
Touch attack w/ zomg dmg. Only works against enemies with 40 hp or last. Requires a successful attack roll.
Did I miss the half dmg on a miss?
And as much as my spell is super silly (I view it as useful once a miniboss has lost enough life), I actually like the premise of this idea. But, I think AoE is only really bad w/ High damaging AoEs.
How do you feel abt Burning Hands as is in DnDn?
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning."
-Mike Mearls
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 10:12AM
#3
|
|
|
Heh, the problem is that point systems don't work well over a wide range of variables. They are inherently non-linear. Just as a crude example here if I create a very high damage and large AOE it is VASTLY more effective than a low damage large area AOE, yet you're charging me the same cost for the greater area. In fact those 2 factors probably should be MULTIPLIED, but you'd generally need some power law stuff in there to do the real work, although for some systems you can get away with hiding that in simple non-linear costs.
The specific problem with D&D is that damage, range, area of effect, and other 'ancillary effects' both go across a wide range, and are rather heavily quantified (IE the numbers are small enough, say for range, that the difference between 1, 2, and 3 is pretty big). It is a TOUGH system to assign point values to.
And that's really the simple part, because then you get into synergy... Even if you make it expensive enough to get the best spell there's every chance that the player can find some other unrelated character option that makes a cheaper spell equally effective, but is itself priced relatively low, so that the sum of those costs is far less.
WotC used a point system to design 4e weapons, that is pretty clear (various people have reverse engineered it). That was narrow enough a scope where the results were pretty good (and even then ranged weapons are out of whack with the rest). I'm highly skeptical it would ever work with powers/spells.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 10:34AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
I'm highly skeptical it would ever work with powers/spells.
I think it would have worked for 4E powers, mostly. But the moment you throw in something more open ended than that, it all goes bonkers.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 11:05AM
#5
|
|
|
I'm highly skeptical it would ever work with powers/spells.
I think it would have worked for 4E powers, mostly. But the moment you throw in something more open ended than that, it all goes bonkers.
I think 4e powers are pretty open-ended myself. Having built a point system for another game that was rather similar in many respects what I found was that even after weeks of careful work and revision my best friend broke it in 2 minutes flat, badly. We spent ANOTHER 2-3 weeks tweaking things again, and then I broke his version in again about 2 minutes flat. You can, with a LOT of work and some math, make something that might rate existing 4e powers and create a pretty good ballpark estimate of how they stack up against other powers. You'd probably spot most of the "sky blue" type stuff that way (but not all, because again, synergy). As soon as you then go 'round trip' and use the same system to make a new power, and make the best one you can within that system, you'll almost surely IMHO find you can make something far more effective than existing powers at no more cost. Especially if you're looking at a specific target character build.
No doubt charops people WILL create point systems (at least mathematical models of some sort) to analyze 5e material with. I remain deeply skeptical about using them as a basis for building powers, especially during play where the player will be looking for maximal effectiveness. Its a good crosscheck tool on design, but not a good game mechanic.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 2:25PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Good thoughts. I realize a pure point-buy is vulnerable vs munchkins, but the slightly different tack with this was using spell level instead of raw points. What is needed is some baseline data points to be established, then fill in the remaining areas.
For example, for pure damage single-target spells, what should the expected damage be per spell level? For multi-target spells? For small/medium/large AOE spells? Does adding a damage type mean more than window dressing (damage type-specific added effects, etc)?
The same would need to be done with the average mundane attacks. If a high-level wizard can zot a monster to ZOMG damage, I would want a mundane class to be able to specialize enough to do the same.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 2:45PM
#7
|
|
|
WotC used a point system to design 4e weapons, that is pretty clear (various people have reverse engineered it). That was narrow enough a scope where the results were pretty good (and even then ranged weapons are out of whack with the rest). I'm highly skeptical it would ever work with powers/spells.
If the system is solid, it will work fine. The HERO System works great, and you can point-buy damn near anything.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 4:44PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
@Mithrus
Thanks for trying. This is not back of the napkin kind of work. But conceptually a system would be great. I was promised the answers for 5e by Mike Mearls at Origins. So we ought to be able to use their formulas to design anything.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 7:27PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2012
|
@Mithrus
Thanks for trying. This is not back of the napkin kind of work. But conceptually a system would be great. I was promised the answers for 5e by Mike Mearls at Origins. So we ought to be able to use their formulas to design anything.
Yeah, I definitely like this idea and want to see the formulas they're using. I want to actually be able to craft spells for my PCs (and at higher levels let them do it). I do like Mithrus's idea. A lot. I just hope Mearls keeps his promise to Emerikol.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning."
-Mike Mearls
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 8:32PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
@Mithrus
Thanks for trying. This is not back of the napkin kind of work. But conceptually a system would be great. I was promised the answers for 5e by Mike Mearls at Origins. So we ought to be able to use their formulas to design anything.
Good to hear. I agree it isn't a simple task to get the right balance, especially once you factor in adding mechanical flavor to damage types (which I REALLY hope happens in 5e, at least as a module).
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
