I'm reading through The Complete Wizard Handbook preparing a post for my blog and was interested in the comparative difference in how this task was handled in different gaming systems. This led to my wondering how different DMs might handle it, even if using the same system.
An example given in the book -- page 9, on the PDF -- is a Mage with an Intelligence of 9. Said Mage has a 35% chance of learning a new spell. Now, any math teacher (and we have a couple of teachers amongst us) will tell you that works a certain way, but I appreciate that -- through misunderstanding, or personal choice -- it can work one of two ways. For gaming purposes, I don't view either method as incorrect. The DM calls the shots in my "book." So . . .
On the percentile die, do you view anything 35 and under to indicate that the Mage learned the spell, or do you view anything 35 and over as the Mage having learned the spell? Just curious.
Also, do you use this percentile check while "out there," or do you use this percentile check only if your Mage travels back to his "home" and studies the spell at an Academy, or with his Mentor?
Or do you perhaps grant an automatic 100% success rate if your Mage learns the spell with his Mentor, or at an Academy?
Or do you, perhaps, veer from 2e slightly in the regard and use the "time devoted to study" method to decide the success rate, rather than the percentile die?
Remember, in a game where the DM calls the shots, there really is no "right" of "wrong," so there's plenty of room for disagreement. I mix and match systems to get what I want for my game.
Here is what I use in my PBeM game. I copy/pasted it straight from my game rules forum:
Spell Aquisition
Here's the new procedure, but first I want to copy a bunch of stuff from the DM's Guide:
"Acquisition of Spells Beyond 1st Level
Once a character has begun adventuring, he won't be able to have additional spell books instantly appear each time he goes up in level. Instead, the player character must find some way to get additional higher level spells. As with initial spells, there are several ways this can be done. Any or all of these can be used in your campaign.
Gaining Levels
First, whenever a character attains a new spell level, allow the player one new spell immediately. You can choose this spell, let the player choose it, or select it randomly.
The rationale behind this is simple: All the long hours of study and reading the character has been doing finally jells into something real and understandable.
No roll is needed to learn this spell, unless you allow the character to choose it. If the character is a specialist in a school of magic, the new spell should be from that school--if there is a spell available.
Copying from Spell Books
The second way to acquire new spells is to copy them from the spell books of other wizards. A character can copy from other player characters (if they will allow it), pay NPC wizards for the privilege (see Chapter 12 : NPCs), or take them from captured spell books. When copying spells, a character must roll to see if the character can learn the spell. No character can copy without magical aid of a spell of a level he cannot cast.
Scroll Research
Third, a character can research a spell using a scroll with the same spell as a base. The time and cost required for the research is half normal (or 1 week/level) and the player character must still check to see if he can learn the spell. Regardless of the success or failure of the research, the scroll is destroyed--the wizard had to read it aloud to analyze its effects.
Scroll research cannot be done in an adventuring situation. The wizard must have carefully controlled conditions even to attempt it.
Study with a Mentor
Fourth, and only if you allow it, the wizard can return to his old mentor and, with luck, copy a few spells out of his master's spell book. Use this method if, and only if, you feel it is important for player characters to have more than a few new spells each time they advance to a new spell level. Allow the characters to gain too much this way, or too frequently, and they will come to rely upon it, not using their own playing ability to develop their characters.
Determining Research Time
Research time requires the character be in good health. Further, he must refrain from adventuring while undertaking the study. During research, wizards study over old manuscripts and priests work at their devotions.
The minimum amount of time needed to research a spell is two weeks per spell level. At the end of this time, a check is made. For wizards, this is the same as their chance to learn a spell (be sure to account for any specialization). For priests a Wisdom check is made.
If this check succeeds, the character has researched the spell. If the check fails, the character must spend another week in study before making another check. This continues until the character either succeeds or gives up."
***
Some of this is fine, some will be changed, especially with regards to the Copy spell. Copy spell will NO LONGER be able to copy magical writings. As for the four methods of learning spells, I'll lay them out here.
First, when you gain a level, you have three choices:
A) You can choose to learn any spell, but you have to roll to learn it normally.
B) You can choose to have me GIVE you a spell of my choice, and this is automatically learned.
C) You may choose to learn any spell that you have either in another book or on a scroll, and it is learned automatically. If it's in scroll form, the scroll is used up permanently.
Second and Third, to copy from another spell book OR from a scroll requires the research time of 1 week/level as well as the peaceful working conditions and use of a library/study/lab/etc as described above. At the conclusion of the necessary period, you roll to learn the spell. If you succeed, the spell is written in your book. If it came from a scroll, it disappears from the scroll whether or not you were successful.
Fourth, if you have a mentor to help you learn, basically any wizard who is willing to teach you a spell you can use but do not know, then you can learn spells while adventuring (assume you spend a few hours a day in tutoring and practice). You still must roll to learn the spell. If you learn the spell while studying full time in a peaceful setting as in the research method above, you do NOT need to roll to learn the new spell.
Finally, you may still cast spells from books and scrolls, even if you do NOT know them. If you cast a scroll spell, it disappears. To cast from a book requires that you first cast Read magic. Further, if you cast from a book, it does NOT disappear. Finally, casting time is a number of rounds equal to the spell's level. In either case, there is always a chance of spell failure if you are casting a spell beyond your ability.
... Said Mage has a 35% chance of learning a new spell. ... So . . .
On the percentile die, do you view anything 35 and under to indicate that the Mage learned the spell, or do you view anything 35 and over as the Mage having learned the spell? Just curious.
35% or less says he learns the new spell. That is the base chance. If the wizard tries to learn it by reading it off of the scroll he found while travelling along through the countryside on horseback, that percentage may be negatively affected. If, however, he spends some time studying and researching the spell from the scroll back at his tower that is fully equipped with a magical library and alchemy laboratory, his percentile will be positively effected.
That's how I played it back when I played 1st and 2nd edition.
... Said Mage has a 35% chance of learning a new spell. ... So . . .
On the percentile die, do you view anything 35 and under to indicate that the Mage learned the spell, or do you view anything 35 and over as the Mage having learned the spell? Just curious.
35% or less says he learns the new spell. That is the base chance. If the wizard tries to learn it by reading it off of the scroll he found while travelling along through the countryside on horseback, that percentage may be negatively affected. If, however, he spends some time studying and researching the spell from the scroll back at his tower that is fully equipped with a magical library and alchemy laboratory, his percentile will be positively effected.
That's how I played it back when I played 1st and 2nd edition.
SirXaris
I played it in a similar fashion Sir Xaris. I still do, though one with a mentor gets a bonus equal to 5% for each bonus the mentor had to their intelligence and charisma scores. Intelligence for the knowledge of the spell and charisma for how the knowledge was conveyed to the student.
Just because someone is knowledgeable, does not mean they can convey their knowledge well.
We all do it similarly, it seems, with only some slight differences almost not worth mentioning.
What got me started was that I was reading one of Tiggertom's "generic" books; Renegade Wizard's Spellbook (Mongoose Publishing). In the section detailing the various "Schools" of magic, it mentioned Archaic spells and said this:
"Learning an archaic spell requires the spellcaster to spend a number of weeks equal to the spell's level doing nothing but studying. Breaks for eating and sleeping are allowed, but the spellcaster must spend a minimum of 15 hours a day studying the spell in question. At the end of that time, the spellcaster must make an Intelligence check (DC equal to the spell level plus 20). For each extra week spent studying, the spellcaster gains a +1 circumstance to this check." (page 4)
Granted this method seems to be addressing only a certain "class" of spell, still, it's no "percentile" dice roll. This is what got me to thinking about the various methods employed in everyone's games.
We all do it similarly, it seems, with only some slight differences almost not worth mentioning.
What got me started was that I was reading one of Tiggertom's "generic" books; Renegade Wizard's Spellbook (Mongoose Publishing). In the section detailing the various "Schools" of magic, it mentioned Archaic spells and said this:
"Learning an archaic spell requires the spellcaster to spend a number of weeks equal to the spell's level doing nothing but studying. Breaks for eating and sleeping are allowed, but the spellcaster must spend a minimum of 15 hours a day studying the spell in question. At the end of that time, the spellcaster must make an Intelligence check (DC equal to the spell level plus 20). For each extra week spent studying, the spellcaster gains a +1 circumstance to this check." (page 4)
Granted this method seems to be addressing only a certain "class" of spell, still, it's no "percentile" dice roll. This is what got me to thinking about the various methods employed in everyone's games.
But, for more of my thinking on it, you'll have to check out my Blog post!
I checked your blog dear sir. Perhaps you forgot to post on this topic. Though I decided you pulled a bait and switch on me as I found myself commenting on your Paladin post.
I checked your blog dear sir. Perhaps you forgot to post on this topic.
Not so! You merely "jumped the gun." I didn't mean that it was "up" now, I'm writing it "now." Look for it sometime tomorrow evening, O' Impatient One!
I checked your blog dear sir. Perhaps you forgot to post on this topic.
Not so! You merely "jumped the gun." I didn't mean that it was "up" now, I'm writing it "now." Look for it sometime tomorrow evening, O' Impatient One!
Glad you're anxious for the Blog post though!
Methinks your taking sloth lessons from a resident sage.
That's why I pursued the path of the barbarian. You wizard folk take too long to read over every little piece of information. Sometimes you just have to bash the door in.
Time for me to (finally) get a piece of this magical action.
For starters, 35% to me means if you roll 35 or lower, then you can learn the spell. The "how" part is a DM call.
I, for one, never cared for the limits that Intelligence placed (automatically) on the number of spells that a mage can learn. I let the die rolls determine that. Taking your 35% example, I let that alone dictate the total number of spells that mage is going to learn. I don't like the cap limit from the onset. That's like saying there's a finite amount of knowledge or proficiencies a person can learn from the onset. Intelligence is more dynamic and fluid than that.
I've further allowed mages who 'botch' their rolls to try again at a later timeframe (ex: when they gain the next level allowing them to learn the next HIGHER spell level bracket...for instance, if you failed a 3rd lvl spell, you can retry when you can cast 4th lvl spells, that being at 7th lvl). However, I keep track of the failed roll and SUBTRACT that difference from the new attempt roll. If that modified roll plunges the attempt to 0% or less, you cannot learn it (barring something like a Wish spell).
Ex: If our aforementioned mage (35% fellow) rolled a 48%, during his next attempt, subtract 48-35=13% from that next attempt. He now has only a 35-13=22% chance to learn it... I allow more chances til the mage either succeeds, or it is impossible to learn the spell.
I seem to do it similarly to the rest of you folks too.
35% chance to learn a spell for me means they must roll 35 or under on percentile dice.
I allow a wizard to automatically learn one spell of a level they can cast everytime they level up to represent the culminations of their current studies.
After that they must copy spells from spellbooks or scrolls. Accessing a mentor just means they have some access to their mentor's spellbook in return for performing various tasks. Emptying the chamber pot, gathering herbs etc.
I'm strict on the restrictions placed by Intelligence though. Magic is extremely complex and taxing. Some people are simply just not intelligent enough for their brains to grasp the more complicated principles of arcane magic and thus cannot cast higher level spells than their Int score allows.
To learn a spell the magic user needs peace and quiet. If for example they were cmaping in a quiet forest glade and their companions weren't being noisy and there were no random encounters for the duration of the scribing that would be fine.
I haven't had to deal with magic users trying to scribe spells in less than perfect conditions though. I'd probably allow them to try to apply a penalty to their chance to learn spell percentage.
An exception to the limit of spells known per level is spells researched by the caster. Such spells do not count towards this limit. This way wizards of a lower intelligence still have a chance to expand their knowledge. I consider allowing the wizard to use the same cost / time rules for spell research to scribe an existing spell into their book.
There's another reason I don't like to limit mages to a predetermined number of spells per level.
What about researching? If you are a mage who has already 'capped out' at your preselected number of spells, then there is really no reason to continue learning and researching.
Think about all those wizards out there who have spells named specifically for them: Tenser, Mordenkainen, Nystul... If they reached their spell limits, why even bother creating more??? Pointless.
"Hey, Otto, I've got me this here nifty spell I created and researched, but cannot memorize it cuz I've tapped out my brain here...filled with Lightning Bolt, Slow, Fireball..." You get the point.
Furthermore, you are really screwing over wizards (and their players) when you stumble along a new list of spells from other accessory books (for instance, Tome of Magic, Complete Wizard's Handbook, Spells & Magic). Then you run into the same issue. "Geez, sorry, pal. You cannot use that new, nifty spell we just found 'cuz your mage is already at his maximum."
Personally, I have a problem with that.
Clerics don't have a limit. They are only limited to the spheres that they can access from their God(dess). Depending on the number of Spheres on that list, some clerics have dozens upon dozens of spells they can cast! If you come along a new spell for your cleric, and it falls under one of those Spheres, you can merely add it to the priestly repertoire.
Again, just what I do in my games, so take it or leave it.
I agree with you. Especially since wizards must memorize spells in order to cast them. I like the fact a lower intelligence wizard will have a harder time to learn a spell. However, we are not computers. We have the capacity to expand our boundaries.
It's a fair point about the restrictions wizards get compared to clerics and I agree that for a player to be told he can't learn anymore spells is frustrating.
But to be honest I prefer not being too lenient on wizards. Personally I find at higher levels they start to dominate the game in comparison to most of the other classes so I think a few restrictions within the bounds of the rules isn't a bad thing. The calling of the wizard is hard and arduous and often doesn't lend itself well to long term adventuring but the reason such wizards fill up on their max spells they can know is because they are exposing themselves to many more sources of arcane lore than say a stay at home wizard, no wonder they fill their brains full with lore much quicker.
I do also believe that you should never say never though which is why I'd allow a wizard to research spells to add them in addition to his limit and would allow him to go through the same process to be able to add an existing spell he/she encounters.
Thinking about it the 3rd edition concept of allowing a player to increase one stat each level is quite a good one to represent development in an adventurer who is constantly being tried and tested and pushed to their limits. Perhaps that would be a good way of dealing with a wizard being able to increase his spell limit (provided he increases his Int).
ALso - I feel that for other wizards if they want to push the limits of their intellect beyond their stats - that is reflected by the increase through ageing (I think 1st edition and 2nd edition vary on the age modifiers but I'm not sure). That to me reflects a more realistic way for a wizard to be able to learn more spells, at least in regards to a NPC (I guess few players are going to want to wait until their hot young arcanist is in their 70s to learn that exciting new first level spell they just found! hehe)
Wolfling, it is true that wizards have a tendency to 'dominate' the game, IF you "let" them. The raw arcane powers they can harness are truly awesome, especially at higher levels. However, even if you don't hold them to a spell limit (I don't as mentioned previously...I let their die rolls to 'know' each spell to determine that), here are some things that DO keep even the most powerful sorceror in check (if you use them):
1) Spell components. I know some folks don't like them, but I think holding wizards (and clerics!) accountable for spell components is a critical 'game balancing' mechanic. It's great that your PC mage can toast a whole orc pack with Chain Lightning, but without the requisite glass rod and fur the point is quite moot.
2) Memorization time. I am diligent about this, too. A wizard (and cleric) needs time, and a decent amount of it at higher levels, to replenish his/her magical (or divine) energies. If you don't have that necessary time, for whatever reason (traveling, sleeping, recovering from wounds, lack of food and water, etc), then the spell-caster is at less than peak capacity.
3) Rest. There is a great chart in the 1e DMG that determines the necessary time that a mage (priests, too) is required before it is possible to rememorize (or pray for) spells. If you don't meet that requirement, your body has not rested and recuperated long enough to store/handle the stress of the magic. It is based on spell level so that lower level spells are less taxing on the body than higher level spells. This really keeps high level casters in check when they are throwing around Cloudkills and Disintegrates and the like.
In a current campaign in which I am playing, there is a very high level elven mage NPC in our party (14th lvl?) who is exceedingly powerful...but this bloke is constantly having to rest and recuperate, especially after any major forays. He is careful not to use his most powerful magicks, for they tax him greatly, but when you are facing yugoloths ( ), sometimes it cannot be helped!
The first post is "up" on my Blog. We all seem to do it similarly, but with differences and now you can read a more lengthy discussion of how I do it. It will take two posts to get it all in, however, much to discuss.
The first post is "up" on my Blog. We all seem to do it similarly, but with differences and now you can read a more lengthy discussion of how I do it. It will take two posts to get it all in, however, much to discuss.
Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts and methods with me!
Its about time. I was about to hijack your paladin post.
Wolfling, it is true that wizards have a tendency to 'dominate' the game, IF you "let" them. The raw arcane powers they can harness are truly awesome, especially at higher levels. However, even if you don't hold them to a spell limit (I don't as mentioned previously...I let their die rolls to 'know' each spell to determine that), here are some things that DO keep even the most powerful sorceror in check (if you use them):
-Lanthorn
Actually, I like that they can wield such powers. Of course, so do badguy wizards. Actually, they are even MORE powerful because, well, I don't actually figure out their spells before-hand. I just pretty much give them whatever they need on the spot. Ssshhh! Don't tell my players!!! However, I did just reign in the spells in my game, and reinstated limits of spells/level. I've always held to the spell limit as far as how many they can know. Of course, if they can get to a 19 INT (not easy mind you) then the problem is removed.
Lanthorn wrote:
1) Spell components. I know some folks don't like them, but I think holding wizards (and clerics!) accountable for spell components is a critical 'game balancing' mechanic. It's great that your PC mage can toast a whole orc pack with Chain Lightning, but without the requisite glass rod and fur the point is quite moot.
-Lanthorn
I spent a long time going through this, and I have a very long and detailed list of them. I can print them here if people would like. It may save you doing the work of compiling them yourself! However, I then chose (AFTER doing all the work) to not use them. I simply want the players to use them for role-playing, but I'm not holding them to it. The only exceptions are the really powerful spells, like Stoneskin or Wall of Force. They have to have those components or they will use them with abandon. It's also a way to suck money out of them! Anyway, I can post my spell component lists if you'd like.
Lanthorn wrote:
2) Memorization time. I am diligent about this, too. A wizard (and cleric) needs time, and a decent amount of it at higher levels, to replenish his/her magical (or divine) energies. If you don't have that necessary time, for whatever reason (traveling, sleeping, recovering from wounds, lack of food and water, etc), then the spell-caster is at less than peak capacity.
-Lanthorn
I don't use memorization, using Spell Points instead. However, I use a chart which I think I based on the psionic point recovery system. Here is the method I use:
Consider that a 10th level wizard has about 50 points. It takes a good 5 hours to recover them all. So, you'll be able to pick up some points if you're sitting around not really doing anything. If you sleep, you'll pick them up pretty fast!
Lanthorn wrote:
3) Rest. There is a great chart in the 1e DMG that determines the necessary time that a mage (priests, too) is required before it is possible to rememorize (or pray for) spells. If you don't meet that requirement, your body has not rested and recuperated long enough to store/handle the stress of the magic. It is based on spell level so that lower level spells are less taxing on the body than higher level spells. This really keeps high level casters in check when they are throwing around Cloudkills and Disintegrates and the like.
In a current campaign in which I am playing, there is a very high level elven mage NPC in our party (14th lvl?) who is exceedingly powerful...but this bloke is constantly having to rest and recuperate, especially after any major forays. He is careful not to use his most powerful magicks, for they tax him greatly, but when you are facing yugoloths ( ), sometimes it cannot be helped!
-Lanthorn
Yeah, that's pretty much how to do it. I believe there is a good fatigue section in one of the Players Options with regards to magic too. I forget where. I haven't implemented fatigue, as it seemed just one more needless complication; however, I do recall reading it somewhere and thinking it had promise.
[quote="Lanthorn"]
I won't pretend to be able to sit at a table and discuss rules with the likes of y'all for very long, but, here is my two cents.
35% or less on the dice.
They get an initial spell book, after that, they must find new spells (scrolls or other PC/NPC spellbooks) or seek out a mentor.
I also allow rerolls as the player gains levels. I hadn't used the reduced chances mentioned earlier but I very much like it. Hope you do not mind if I steal the idea.
I only got back into playing about a year ago (played through the 80s up to mid 90s). When we broke out the books again, I didn't like the way wizards and priests had there spells set up so I also use a spell point system. It has been slowly evolving over the last year.
To keep the spell point system in check, it is very important to focus on rest, spell components, etc.
The rest must be enough sleep (number of hours influences max number of spell points recovered) and study time must be peaceful enough to allow concentration.
As for spell components, the basic, everyday, easy to find components I do not track (such as sand for sleep spell). But anything more rare and/or expensive must be purchased and tracked.
The players, when they cast spells, do not have to have a premade list for each day. They have access to all the spells they know at a moments notice. As long as they have the spell components and spell points available, cast away.
Again, a work in progress so I will see how it goes.
I agree that mages should be powerful at high levels. They earned it starting out with 1-4 hp and a quick pop of magic before they hide behind the fighters the rest of the day.
Playtesting so far with the spell points has given my players more interest in the low level mages. We do not get to game much so everyone is still pretty low level.
Spell Points are based off Int score, level of character and highest level of spell they can cast. This has given the low level mages a little more spell power but still keeps them in check. Spell points uses per level start at 1 pnt for 1st level, 3 pnts for 2nd level, 5pnts for 3rd level and so on (keep adding two points to the cost as spell level increases).
Casting higher level spells drains the spell points at an increasingly rapid rate. The rest and meditation does not bring back all points. They basically get back the number of points they gained at the last level per 8 hrs of sleep. And this can be reduced by bad sleep. Also, not getting enough sleep causing a chance of future spell failure. No sleep in 24 hrs starts the chances and it goes up from there (I work at night and raise kids during the day, I understand sleep deprivation).
What this leads to is a potent mage heading into a dungeon all cocky and powerful. After a few battles, spell points and components deplete and then add in and overnight in the dungeon, pretty soon that mage is starting to conserve themselves. It doesn't take long for a careless mage to be hiding behind the fighters again. :)
Interesting points and I'll be commenting on them further in my next Blog post.
mheaton118 wrote:
The priests spells points are similar.
This is a different subject altogether and when I post on it, you'll understand why I view it that way.
Simply put: A cleric/priest does nothing of his/her own power. They simply act as a conduit for their God's power. A god will never run out of the "spell points" you mention.
But, as I said, Clerical spells will be dealt with in a different Blog post, I won't talk about them "here."
Spell Points are based off Int score, level of character and highest level of spell they can cast. This has given the low level mages a little more spell power but still keeps them in check. Spell points uses per level start at 1 pnt for 1st level, 3 pnts for 2nd level, 5pnts for 3rd level and so on (keep adding two points to the cost as spell level increases).
This system seems to be quite adequate for spells that aren't direct damage-causing spells, like Knock, Invisibility, Divination, Wall of Force, etc. But, I see it causing you all kinds of problems when your PC mages get higher level.
Take the 9th level Wizard who can cast Fireball and Magic Missile. The choice between spending 5 Spell Points to cast a Fireball doing 9 - 56 points of damage or 5 Spell points for 5 Magic Missiles doing a total of 50 - 125 points of damage is a no-brainer in most situations. Granted, the Fireball may do more if a group of targets can all be hit by a single casting of the spell, but look at the difference in damage vs. a single target? The average damage for the Fireball is 31.5 hit points worth of damage. The average total damage for 5 castings of Magic Missile by the same 9th level Wizard is 87.5 hit points. Since the Magic Missles can be divided between different targets, the Fireball is only a better choice when it can target three or more targets at once (doing an average of 31.5 hit points of damage to three targets = an average of 94.5 hit points). However, those targets then get Saving Throws against that damage, potentially reducing its effects further. The targets get no save against the damage from the Magic Missles. With the good saves of most PCs at 9th level and the existance of abilities like Evasion (oops! this is not a 3.x ed. thread ), the efficacy of the Fireball decreases even more.
So, if you find that your PC mages don't bother with higher level damaging spells after a while, you'll know why.
My questions to those DMs who've used a spell point system is: How does it compare as far as the sheer number of spells a mage can cast? And pertaining to the first question, have you checked this against several levels?
I'm especially concerned about higher levels. The thought of a player character mage being able to throw around a couple dozen lightning bolts in a single day has given me pause. And on the other hand, I would not want to rip the players off as far as the spells their mages can cast.
Yikes! I can see where trouble is abrewing for me. I will have to ponder that one a bit.
This system may not hold up in the future. . . .
I look forward to the priest spells blog. I will hold my thoughts for it when it persents itself. Maybe by then, I will have my houserules more thought out for higher levels.
I have turned all spell-casters (priests and mages alike) into channelers, essentially.
The main reason was one of frustration with how rigidly affixed spells were aligned. Oftentimes, my wizard (or cleric) would only need a 'lesser' spell (such as Light) but, according to the rules (Mystic advises, "guidelines" and herein I agree fully), if you were out of 1st lvl spells, you couldn't do it, even if your 2nd, 3rd lvl, etc. spells were not expended. I didn't like how casters were 'pigeon-holed' in this manner.
I preferred a more fluid system, allowing casters to 'tap into' their magical reserves, arcane or divine in nature, and spend what 'spell points' they needed for whatever the task at hand demanded.
I created a 'Mana Pool' using the original system, the chart of spells given for each cleric or wizard, based on spell level. I added up the SUM TOTAL of all spell levels, and allowed the caster to use whatever spell he/she desired (in his/her repertoire, be it spell book or Spheres, for priests).
I also give casters bonus spells for high Intelligence and Wisdom (use the cleric Wisdom table for Intelligence with regard to mages). Ex: a 16 Intelligence grants a mage 2 first and 2 second lvl bonus spell lvls to add to the "Mana Pool."
Ex: a 5th lvl mage, according to the Player's Handbook, can cast 3 first lvl spells (3 mana pts), 3 second lvl spells (6 mana pts), and 1 third lvl spell (3 mana pts). This adds to 9 mana pts. Adjust for high Intelligence (if the mage in question had a 16 Int, add 4 more pts) and/or mage specialization.
Each spell cast costs its level in mana points. A 1st lvl spell is worth but one pt whereas a 5th lvl spell costs 5 mana pts.
Yes, at high lvls this grants a mage (or cleric) a MASSIVE number of spell points for the mana pool (Mordenkainen would have well over 100 pts!), but, as I mentioned earlier, there ARE checks and balances to spell-casters, including time for prayer/memorization, rest and recovery, fatigue, and perhaps most important of all, COMPONENTS.
I have used this system for some time now and have come to thoroughly enjoy it, allowing greater flexibility and freedom for priests and mages to cast their spells while still holding them accountable to the rigors of magic use.
Lanthorn. That is good to hear. I like the concept of spell points, mana points, etc. very much. I will have to look at my system and see how it goes but your system seems pretty darn easy to run.
If mine collapses in utter failure, I may have to give yours a go.
Yeah, it works for me. Maybe it will for you. It is really nice to let clerics and wizards have the flexibility to cast whatever spell they need at that moment, without being rigidly held to some type of 'spell level caste system.' If you need a spell (and KNOW it from your spell book or scrolls...or have access to the necessary Sphere, as a priest), have the mana points for it, as well as the necessary components, then let them fly.
Blue Witch. So far at low levels it has made the mages a lot more fun. They have a little more power and a lot more flexibility.
As stated, the variety of spells increases.
As far as high levels go, it may be an issue. I think it can be controlled by the DM in regards to spell components and rest, etc though. I can not say myself since I have not playtested it out that far.
I meant to add, it does give them more spells, especially low level spells when the mage is high level.
I did some analysis between Lanthorn and my systems and they actually seem to be pretty comparable. His system seems easier to manage that mine though.
I agree with Lanthorn, I didn't like the rigid way spells were done. I will keep experimenting until happy with some sore of spell point system.
I'll point out that Lanthorn's system is basically what D&D did with sorcerers in 3.x ed. - they have a small number of spells they know, but they can cast whatever spell of a certain level they want, when they want to, up to their limit for that level per day.
Lanthorn's system is basically what D&D did with sorcerers in 3.x ed.
I accused them of turning their Wizards into Sorcerers on my Blog.
The way it was written, Wizards were more versatile than Sorcerers, but not necessarily more powerful. In using the method they prescribe, they've basically made their Wizards more powerful than was at first intended.
After giving Wizards this addition power, they then set about trying to come up with ways to keep their Wizards from unbalancing the game!
Back when I played and ran 1st/2nd editions I was pretty strict in the application of the limits imposed on wizardry. I think it kept itself balanced fairly well.
However we liked rolling high numbers for success so a 35% successful chance was 65-100.
We usually implemented rules such as if you are trying to learn a 1st level spell and you can cast say up to 5th level, you get a 5% bonus per level you can cast.
So a wizard with a 35% success rate trying to learn a 1st level spell and can cast upwards of 5th level would have a 55% chance to learn the spell.
There were other various modifiers that we would add in, positive or negative based on circumstance. One other rule we did allow was "forgetting" a spell. We basically saw the limit as a capacity for how much knowledge one could hold onto before they had an aneurysm or something of the like. So instead if a wizard has reached his maximum spell allotment for a level and encountered a new spell then they could "forget" one of their spells to make room for the new spell.
This was especially useful for my first edition fighter/mage who's only offensive spell through the first 8 levels was burning hands (a whopping 1 dmg per caster level at the time! wooo) it did however force me to capitalize on supportive magic and that was awesome. I learned an appreciation for different spells that most people wouldn't even bother with and came up with several new applications for them, but that's neither here nor there.
By the time I learned magic missile I had already reached my cap for 1st level spells, the DM allowed me to "forget" a spell I knew and replace it with MM.
That worked fine for us and we all agreed on it.
Other bonuses included having a mentor, or even a colleague around to help, among other random miscellaneous bonuses.
Another rule we used was if you failed to learn the spell 3 times then you cannot ever learn it.
I hope you weren't altering the rules because you were used to playing with wizards with Intelligence scores of 9 (below average intelligence; Know Spell: 35%) too often. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
My questions to those DMs who've used a spell point system is: How does it compare as far as the sheer number of spells a mage can cast? And pertaining to the first question, have you checked this against several levels?
I'm especially concerned about higher levels. The thought of a player character mage being able to throw around a couple dozen lightning bolts in a single day has given me pause. And on the other hand, I would not want to rip the players off as far as the spells their mages can cast.
I used a spell point system for my online game, and at lower levels it did, indeed, work better. Priests and Wizards had much more versatility, and they had far more fun, which is to be expected. The problems didn't really set in until around 5th or 6th level.
My system was rather basic. I figured out your spells per level normally, adjusted by whatever other things were pertinent, such as specialization, high INT (just like wisdom), etc. Then I just translated them into points on a one-for-basis. A 1st level spell was 1 point, 2nd was 2 points, 3rd was 3 points, etc.. It was simple and easy, then it started to break down. I'll quote from my online game to show you.
***
Spell Points and Spells/level
I'm making an adjustment to how magic works. My spell point system is still going to be used. However, I actually am re-instituting the spells/level. You aren't going to be limited to them, but I will now keep track of them on the Player Notes thread. Once you use the max number of spells of a given level, the cost will double if you cast more of that level. If you go over the max again, the cost triples, etc..
Here's the rationale. Let's just take Hepla. She's a 10th level mage. Her spell points are: 47. Her spells/level are: 1st (6), 2nd (6), 3rd (4), 4th (3), 5th (1). By the RaW, she would have a max of 6 1st level spells. That's good, as something like Magic Missile does a lot of damage, is nearly unstoppable, and she could cast it 47 times! Now she's going to be more limited. Once she casts 6 1st level spells, any further ones will start costing "2" points. If she goes beyond her limit again (i.e. has cast 12 1st level spells) the cost goes up by another increment! So, while you will still have quite a bit more flexibility than virtually any other mages in DnD, I will now use the standard spells/level to add in a slight brake to this flexibility. For the most part, not much will change. For those of you to whom I've spoken about limiting spells to try and not take advantage of my spell point system, you can now ignore that. This should be totally enough.
***
It's been a few months since the change, and things had been going well. However, I then found this to be a bit tedious, keeping track of both point AND spells/level. So, I just dropped the points altogether. Now I simply allow spellcasters to use higher level spells to cast lower level spells. I don't allow them to use lower level spells to cast higher level spells. Anyway, now all I have to do is keep track of the spells/level normally, and it is easier. I still don't require memorization though.
In addition to running a spell points system (see above long entry) and removing the limit number of spells permitted per level (I let the memorization chance determine that), I have also allowed mages more than one attempt to know a given spell:
The first time they attempt and fail, I record the difference. Ex: if a wizard has a 75% chance to know a spell and rolls 88%, I record "13%." When the mage rises in level, I permit another attempt, subtracting the difference from the chance. Ex: the second time this wizard attempts, it will be at 75-13 = 62%. This compounds each and every time until it reaches "0%."
I've even tinkered with the notion of a system of spell hierarchy, too, based on spell effect similarities, requiring a wizard to know 'prerequisite' spells first before moving on to more advanced types, but so far I haven't done so.
For instance, the 1st lvl Burning Hands could be the prerequisite spell for the 2nd lvl Flaming Sphere, which in turn leads to the 3rd lvl Fireball, and so on...
I hope you weren't altering the rules because you were used to playing with wizards with Intelligence scores of 9 (below average intelligence; Know Spell: 35%) too often.
No, not generally lol, the character I played in 1st ed. had some rather gaudy stats. But there were a few wizards throughout the game that had lower int scores than 18.
18/70 strength (somehow later in the campaign it was permanently altered to 18/00 although I cannot remember how or why)
16 dex
16 con
18 int
10 wis
9 cha
19 com
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
