Community

@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.







 

Jul 13, 2012 -- 11:58AM, wrecan wrote:

Jul 13, 2012 -- 11:41AM, Emerikol wrote:

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.

Jul 13, 2012 -- 11:58AM, wrecan wrote:

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.

Jul 13, 2012 -- 12:26PM, Saelorn wrote:

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.