Mana-based spellcasting system

The homebrew forum

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Mana-based spellcasting system

Post by User3 »

Yes, I know I plagiarized this from you, Frank, and myself. If that is a problem, please bitch at me.

My (now my 'old') computer is dead, long live the laptop!

...

The basic idea is from Arcanum. The idea is to replace some aspects of "preparation," "spontanious spellcasting," and "psionics."

Why? Well, we all have our reasons. :)

Mana method: Limited # of 'slots' for spellcasting use. 'Buffs' fill a specified number of slots for as long as they are active. 'Instants' fill a specified number of slots before (casting cost) and after (recharge cost) they are cast. 'Instants' can be 'readied,' but this keeps as many slots full as if they were being cast.

For example, a 'Fireball' might have a casting cost 4 and a recharge cost of 8. This means that a character with 4 free mana could cast the spell in one round, and could then spend the next two rounds to recover completely, or could spend 8 rounds recovering and have 3 free mana (or use 2 mana to recover the next round followed by 4 on the round after, and then 1 for two rounds).

Augmentation:
The power of a spell can be increased by increasing it's mana cost. Duh.

Balancing factors:
1) Spells can be disrupted. A spell in the proccess of being cast can be interrupted (= 'fizzle'), and a buff can be knocked out. This is countered by Concentration (Or Willpower, or Elan, of whatever).
2) Spells must be 'crafted.' This requires one Spellcraft check per spell being cast per round.
3) Less powerful spellcasters can cast more powerful spells, but this takes time. A caster with a mana pool of 1 will take four rounds (and has to make 4 Spellcraft checks) to cast the above 'Fireball,' while a character with 12 mana could concievably cast the spell and recover completely in one round.


Exceeding the mana pool:
A character can go over his normal mana pool, but this applies negative status effects. Every round the caster exceeds his pool, he accumulates a 'mana debt' equal to the amount by which he has exceeded his pool. While a character has any debt, he is fatigued. If a character's debt becomes equal to 1/2 of his pool, he is exhausted.
If a character's debt becomes equal to his pool, he falls unconcious. If a character's debt is equal to twice his pool, he is immediately at death's door (-9 HP).
Depending on the campaign a DM could throw in ability drain too.

The above status effects remain until the caster in question repays the mana debt, in the same way that he would pay a recharge cost.
Any character rendered exhausted in this manner remains fatigued until he gets a full night's rest. Any character rendered unconcious in this manner remains exhausted until he gets a full night's rest. A character brought to death's door remains unconcious (assuming he doesn't die) until he has gotten a full night's sleep.

Problems I've thought of:
Well, maybe this is way too complex. Some of it comes from a computer game. Computers are good at handling complex mathematical book-keeping. Most humans are not.
However, I don't feel that it is too complex. Yes, I've added a lot of stuff, but I've also removed most spell durations, spells per day, and a lot of spells (probably).

What this doesn't address:
Spells known. You could do this a number of ways: Like a Psion, like a Spirit Shaman, like a Sorcerer, or in a more-or-less unlimited fashion. Maybe others. Maybe all of the above, for different spellcasting archtypes.
The spells themselves. Whether you're gonna do direct damage, healing, summoning, status effects, whatever.
The power level: How big of a mana pool is normal (and how much that changes per level), and how much spells cost.

Oh, and lastly, why I like it:
Fantasy writing is full of magic users who fuck themselves up like crazy to cast powerful spells. They get burnt out, exhausted, and sometimes kill themselves. If a spellcasting system can do that, it isn't mechanically flawed, but it lacks vital flavor.
At the same time, fantasy writing is full of magic users who throw around spells like confetti and don't even care.
There are spellcasters who call up things they can't control and work enchantments well above their level (at considerable cost).
There are lots of magic usesr who do all of the above. Any system which can't model that are lacking. This system can model it. And it also isn't any more complex than the D&D system.
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Mana-based spellcasting system

Post by User3 »

P.S.
This system could work to 'power' EQ as well, in a way similar to how I'm guessing "Magic of Incarnum" does (I haven't seen the book).

If you want items to be 'balanced,' give them a mana cost to use. If you don't want them 'balanced,' I'm wasting your time ^^,
MrWaeseL
Duke
Posts: 1249
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Mana-based spellcasting system

Post by MrWaeseL »

This means that people will use (and thus prepare) a lot of different spells during combat, since most combats last ~5 rounds and spending two of those doing nothing but recharge your fireball sucks, especially when you have Scintillating Sphere prepared. This means that you might want to eliminate almost-duplicate spells from the spell list.

Also, it does nothing to buffs.
User avatar
erik
King
Posts: 5861
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Mana-based spellcasting system

Post by erik »

My experience from Earthdawn is that taking multiple rounds to cast spells is fairly irritating, even if it is more powerful than 2 weaker actions/spells. I rather disliked a mechanic which made it optimal for me to not get to do anything for half of combat. It sure as heck bores me in Dragonball when they take many rounds (even episodes) to activate a single power.

I could see it being potentially fun teamwork to have to immobilize some BBEG for the mage to use the multi-round super spell since nothing else will kill him... but that's a vast departure from how DnD works. Pretty much every thing can die from incremental paper cuts.

The thing I'd insist about a system like this is that *everyone* darn well better be a mana-user. Fighters and the like could use mana for self-buffs, ki shouts, weapon powers, combat maneuvers, etc. Rogues should have illusion, invisibility, buffs, etc.

So this means that mechanics for casting (like using spellcraft) would need some tweaking like making it just concentration, which would be available to all, or even better yet, just a primary stat+level check+a static number.

And powers/spells would be off of class lists I reckon. Possibly some with pre-reqs and most just general.
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Mana-based spellcasting system

Post by RandomCasualty »

I actually kind of like slow casting, so long as it doens't get excessive. Spending 1 round to cast is probably a good thing since it differentiates magic from using a sword. Spending 2 rounds is a long time, and should be a real powerful spell.

Spending 3 rounds charging is excessive IMO and tends to take the caster out of battle for a long period of time.

User avatar
erik
King
Posts: 5861
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Mana-based spellcasting system

Post by erik »

Have you actually played with slow casting?

It really sucked in my experience. It was even worse since in weaving threads for a spell prior to casting, I had the chance to fail in spell preparation and take even longer (and I managed to fail a couple deviations more than normal). But even when everything worked optimally, taking 2 rounds (first to prepare/weave, second to cast) made me just twiddle my thumbs during combats.

You want players being involved during all of combat, not twiddling their thumbs.
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Mana-based spellcasting system

Post by RandomCasualty »

A 2 round casting spell is something that shouldn't be used very often. Mainly because it's so risky and people seeing you cast it are going to jump you.

The maximum practical cast spell should have a 1 round charge time. Which I think people can deal with if rounds are pretty fast. Though to achieve this you really have to take a lot of effort to ensure that rounds stay quick.

D&D rounds start out fast, but get very slow as you gain more levels and you introduce swift actions, time stop actions, extra attack rolls and so on.
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Mana-based spellcasting system

Post by User3 »

First of all, thanks for the replies.
MrWaeseL at [unixtime wrote:1129553002[/unixtime]]This means that people will use (and thus prepare) a lot of different spells during combat, since most combats last ~5 rounds and spending two of those doing nothing but recharge your fireball sucks...
...Also, it does nothing to buffs.


I don't think you understand me. This isn't Unearthed Arcana 'recharge' spellcasting: You don't have a set recharge time for every spell you can cast. Rather, you have a set amount of power devoted to the casting of any spells, which can be used in various ways.

clikml at [unixtime wrote:1129555558[/unixtime]]My experience from Earthdawn is that taking multiple rounds to cast spells is fairly irritating, even if it is more powerful than 2 weaker actions/spells.


The purpose of the recharge time isn't to force magic users to twiddle their thumbs. Rather, it is to allow them to do more in a round (cast a number of low-cost spells) than before.
The 'slow-casting' option is really only for when using abilities beyond the norm for a character of that level is neccesary.
The recharge time is to balance the fact that there is no hard limit on how many spells a character can cast in a day (as is the buff occupying mana slots thing).

clikml at [unixtime wrote:1129555558[/unixtime]]
The thing I'd insist about a system like this is that *everyone* darn well better be a mana-user...etc.

Good idea. If we manage to get this system more fleshed out, it could probably function for any flavor of character, as well as a number of different game systems.

It could be ported into a D&D campaign as a silly 'psionics'-type option, be used as the basis for a '4-stat' system, or anything inbetween really.
User avatar
Judging__Eagle
Prince
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada

Re: Mana-based spellcasting system

Post by Judging__Eagle »

Hmm, this could actually work pretty well.

I think that the best way to record-keep would be to have each 'caster' have a bunch of tokens (pennies work great for this) that they keep somewhere, say stacked up in front of them.

When they use a spell, they remove an appropriate amount of tokens that they can get back when they recharge.

A few questions though:

How would you do total spell point progression?

How do you cost spells? (Spell level or caster lvl? I'm assuming this is for D&D at this point).

How would mana or spell point regeneration scale?

I'm guessing that every spell has a recharge cost equal to x2 it's csating cost?

Do you just get your total mana pool back every round or a portion of your total pool or is it some other method?

One way that I could se this work is that a player has say... 4 areas for tokens (rep. spell points) to be placed:

1. Current spell points availible
2. Spell point debt that needs to be paid off
3. Newly entering spell points
4. Big bucket of spell points that are used to represent spell point, spell debt, newly entering spell points

So, you cast a spell using area 1's tokens; then put those tokens (plus an equal number from 4 The Big bucket) into area 2. Also, the spell goes off.

In your next round you get to add X amount of new spell points to 3, which are then used to pay off your spell debt or something?

Currently running buffs would reduce your incoming spell points by Y amount or they would reduce your total base spell pool as long as they are running.

Also, I'm guessing that until your spell debt goes to 0, you can't cast any spells?

Just what I'm inferring from this system.

Which might not be that bad of an idea.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.

While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
Catharz
Knight-Baron
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Mana-based spellcasting system

Post by Catharz »

Judging__Eagle at [unixtime wrote:1171927080[/unixtime]]Hmm, this could actually work pretty well.
That's certainly my hope :)

Judging__Eagle at [unixtime wrote:1171927080[/unixtime]]I think that the best way to record-keep would be to have each 'caster' have a bunch of tokens (pennies work great for this) that they keep somewhere, say stacked up in front of them.

When they use a spell, they remove an appropriate amount of tokens that they can get back when they recharge.
Yep, that would probably be the only way to do it.


A few questions though:

How would you do total spell point progression?

That's totaly relative to the rest of the system. A system analogous to D&D would give you one point a level, and have each new 'level' of spells cost two more mana (starting at 1).

So a third level wizard could, in one round, cast one 2nd level spell (3 mana) or three 1st level spells, ignoring 'overcasting' for now.

This would be ultra-powerful compared to D&D as it stands, and so would need different numbers.

Judging__Eagle at [unixtime wrote:1171927080[/unixtime]]How do you cost spells? (Spell level or caster lvl? I'm assuming this is for D&D at this point).

I'd do it like psionics: Every spell has a minimum level, but you cast a spell 'at a level.' So you can cast a "ray of frost" with a minimum level of 1 at spell level 7 (increasing damage--to increase the number of targets you just cast it more), but you may need cast some other spell using a minimum level of 7.

However, the only abilities which had minimum caster levels would probably by story effects, like Plane Shift. Just about anything you would use in combat can be scaled up from level 1.

Judging__Eagle at [unixtime wrote:1171927080[/unixtime]]How would mana or spell point regeneration scale?

I'm guessing that every spell has a recharge cost equal to x2 it's casting cost?

That was the idea, although I'm thinking of dumping recharge costs and rolling that into 'overcasting.'

Judging__Eagle at [unixtime wrote:1171927080[/unixtime]]Do you just get your total mana pool back every round or a portion of your total pool or is it some other method?

Your whole pool. A fixed amount wouldn't scale well, and a fraction could get confusing.

Judging__Eagle at [unixtime wrote:1171927080[/unixtime]]One way that I could se this work is that a player has say... 4 areas for tokens (rep. spell points) to be placed:

1. Current spell points availible
2. Spell point debt that needs to be paid off
3. Newly entering spell points
4. Big bucket of spell points that are used to represent spell point, spell debt, newly entering spell points

So, you cast a spell using area 1's tokens; then put those tokens (plus an equal number from 4 The Big bucket) into area 2. Also, the spell goes off.

In your next round you get to add X amount of new spell points to 3, which are then used to pay off your spell debt or something?

Currently running buffs would reduce your incoming spell points by Y amount or they would reduce your total base spell pool as long as they are running.


That's a very good idea. If I removed recharge costs, I'd do it thusly:

  • Mana pool: This is a stack of fixednum nickels or something.
  • Upkeep pool: This is nickels taken from your mana pool, placed seperately to keep track of non-instantanious powers.
  • Instantanious pool: Move nickels from your mana pool to here when you spend them. Move them back at the start of each turn.
  • Debt: This is a stack of dimes or something. Every time you over-cast, you put a coin in the pile. You can spend two mana to reduce this by 1 (hence the nickels & dimes).
  • Gathering pool: every round you spend gathering power, put one coin in this pile. When you finish gathering, you can immediately add those coins to the 'Instantanious' pool to pay for spells. This help you stay out of debt. It has a maximum size (probably twice your mana pool).


So, you have a mana pool of 4, and you want to wow everyone by casting a 7 mana spell to stop the onrushing enemy forces. You spend two rounds gather power, temporarily increasing your mana to 6. You then cast the spell, incurring a debt of 1, and become fatigued. The next round you spend two of your mana, removing the debt, and you start mantaining two 'magic weapon' spells on your two buddies.

Judging__Eagle at [unixtime wrote:1171927080[/unixtime]]Also, I'm guessing that until your spell debt goes to 0, you can't cast any spells?
I'd just say that a character can't 'overcast' more than his mana pool in a single round. The cost should be enough to keep it balanced, and this also makes 'suicide bombing' a bit less attractive.

Judging__Eagle at [unixtime wrote:1171927080[/unixtime]]Just what I'm inferring from this system.

Which might not be that bad of an idea.

Heh. I haven't thought about this system in a while, so everything I just said may be 10* more stupid than my original post. Thanks for getting me to think about it again, and the idea of using counters to make it usable at all.

Which do you think would work better: Recharge cost or just overcasting?
User avatar
Judging__Eagle
Prince
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada

Re: Mana-based spellcasting system

Post by Judging__Eagle »

Just overcasting.


Spell Debt is an uneeded complexity and overcasting allows people to create spell debt anyway.

How would you do spell preperation?

Allow a caster to cast anything that they know?

Give the spont casters that Frank came up with get more spell points than a wizard would (say... 30% more) and give the Sorcerer...

No, fuck the sorcerer. He's getting folded into the wizard class.

How? Easy, some arcane casters keep all of their spells in their head, some write them down, some keep their magical info in tatoos. However, either type can tattoo spells onto themselves or can use a spellbook.

That's why Hennet has lots of tattoos on his chest, while Mialee and Nebin carry spellbooks.

Divine casters are completely spontaneous; even Domain spells are spontaneous.


All other classes that can't normally cast spells get to have 1 spell (or 2 spells?) every even level and they get half as many spell points as a normal caster would. They can pick any spell from any spell list.

Barbarians could have perma: Detect Magic, Expeditious Retreat, Bear's Endurance and Keen Edges. Happy Birthday.

I'd even give these powers to melee PCs using Frank and Kieth's supplements, since spell casters are getting a similar boost.


I'm going to have to test this though.



I like the nickel/dime analogy; some people sometimes own poker chips, those could also work; or you have pennies that are marked with a 2 cent symbol.

I used pennies since for $ 0.50 - $1.00 most groups would have all the tokens that they would ever need.

Plus, they could tape 9 pennies together and play the "Look how much a coin in D&D weighs, 9 grams (0.32 ounces)! That's heavier than any Monopoly playing piece."

Yes, I've done that to show the rest of my group how 'heavy' a gold piece is; now that they have felt it, everyone is willing to get a cart and mule to lug home treasure. If we get that heavy loot at least.


Okay, so far we have the following info:


1. Spell points =
Normal Casters get: 1 per level (20 points by lvl 20);

Spont Casters get: 4/3 levels (total of 26 at lvl 20);

Sorcerers don't exist (they're normal casters, or they get more spells known to mathc other spont casters)
or
Sorcerers get: 5/3 levels (total of 33 at lvl 20)

2. Casting a spell reduces your spell pool for that round.

3. A spell removes it's cost of (Normal full caster level needed to cast the spell) from your Spell Pool for that round.

4. Your Spell Pool is also reduced by spells that you have 'active'; these spells cost ....

... the same as casting the spell? 1/2 rounded up? I want to be able to have my highest lvl buffs active, but they'd cost my whole spell pool and if I'm spending my whole pool keeping them fresh then I can't do anthing else)

5. You can overchannel to cast a higher level spell by spending your Spell Points in one round and placing them in a charge-up area; once you feel you have enough you have to pay the spell's remaining spell point cost.

6. If you spend too much at any time you incur a spell debt of x2 the amount that you went over your Spell Pool or Charge-Up Area's spell points. This must be paid off before you can cast any other spells.

What am I missing?
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.

While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
Catharz
Knight-Baron
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Mana-based spellcasting system

Post by Catharz »

Judging__Eagle at [unixtime wrote:1171980334[/unixtime]]
How? Easy, some arcane casters keep all of their spells in their head, some write them down, some keep their magical info in tatoos. However, either type can tattoo spells onto themselves or can use a spellbook.

That's why Hennet has lots of tattoos on his chest, while Mialee and Nebin carry spellbooks.

'Hennet, why are you staring at your chest?'
'Prepping spells, go away.'


Let them store spells however they want and prep a limited selection to be spontaniously cast for the day. Unprepared spells take ten times as long to cast (because you have to constantly check your notes).

Everybody gets some number of spells know each level, and can research or discover new spells. Sound good?

Judging__Eagle at [unixtime wrote:1171980334[/unixtime]]1. Spell points =
Normal Casters get: 1 per level (20 points by lvl 20);

Spont Casters get: 4/3 levels (total of 26 at lvl 20);

Sorcerers don't exist (they're normal casters, or they get more spells known to mathc other spont casters)
or
Sorcerers get: 5/3 levels (total of 33 at lvl 20)

It is in no way balanced to allow one primary casting class to have a mana pool 6 greater than another. In this model, that's supposed to be six actual character levels better.

secondary casters can get away with less mana because they'll be using it purely for buffing and utillity.


4. Your Spell Pool is also reduced by spells that you have 'active'; these spells cost ....

... the same as casting the spell? 1/2 rounded up? I want to be able to have my highest lvl buffs active, but they'd cost my whole spell pool and if I'm spending my whole pool keeping them fresh then I can't do anthing else)

They cost the full casting cost. Putting up a buff costs exactly as much as keeping it active.

That's intentional. It's a long way from D&D, but you have to pay real power to keep buffs active. This would mean that in an ambush, the amushed wants all his mana sunk into buffs, and the ambusher wants none of them sunk (so he can go nova).

This might not work so well. If we want to make sure a caster isn't a glass cannon, it would be reasonable to give casters 'buff slots' which can only be spend on buffs. They would have to be purely defensive, however, or a caster could still sink everything into attack.

-

Lastly, in a SAME system (and possibly in a D&D system, modified enough) you would actually want a fixed mana pool over all levels. Every spell would have a fixed mana cost, with its power and access scaling by your level. This would be nice. You'd only ever have to keep track of four mana.

This would also mean that certain spells are just really tough to cast, and never get easier. Even an archmages fall unconscious after casting Genesis.

It would also make 'buff slots' more doable. If you only ever have one or two, it's no longer such a hassle.
You could also switch them to just mantaning a constant ability you've used. Charm someone? It immediately goes into one of your sustaning foci. Have Mage armor and Fireshield in your sustaning foci already? Drop the fireshield.

So in our Sample SAME system, every caster has a "mana pool" of 4 and two "sustaining foci." He can also "overchannel" by up to two, meaning that the maximum "force" of a spell is 6.

We can mess with things even more. Maybe it's simpler to say you incur a "drain" equal to twice what you can overchannel, letting you pay back tokens 1-for-1.

As stated earlier, as character with a drain of 1 is fatigued, a drain of 2 exhausted, a drain of 4 unconscious, and 6 at deaths door. More and you explode.

So to go nova, the 'best' a character can do is overchannel to 5 (drain 2), "recharge" 1 (drain 1), and overchannel to 5 (drain->3), and overchannel to 6 (drain->7, = kaboom).


Oh, and the possible terminology:
  • Drain: How much mana you need to spend to get out of debt.
  • Force: The amount of mana a spell takes.
    Mana: :)
  • Overchannel: How you get into debt.
  • Sustaining focus: Where you put your continuous abilities.

User avatar
Judging__Eagle
Prince
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada

Re: Mana-based spellcasting system

Post by Judging__Eagle »

Catharz at [unixtime wrote:1171993343[/unixtime]]
Judging__Eagle at [unixtime wrote:1171980334[/unixtime]]
How? Easy, some arcane casters keep all of their spells in their head, some write them down, some keep their magical info in tatoos. However, either type can tattoo spells onto themselves or can use a spellbook.

That's why Hennet has lots of tattoos on his chest, while Mialee and Nebin carry spellbooks.


Mialee: 'Hennet, why are you staring at your chest?'
Hennet: 'Prepping spells, go away.'
Mialee: [Hmm, mebe I should get tattoos on my chest] 'Does it matter whose chest the tattoos are on?' :D
Hennet: 'Yes, no horse-faces allowed' :ohwell:
Redgar: 'Ah snap!' :lmao:


Fixed.


Let them store spells however they want and prep a limited selection to be spontaniously cast for the day. Unprepared spells take ten times as long to cast (because you have to constantly check your notes).



Hmm; you can cast any 4 spells per spell level spontaneously; clerics get +1 healing or inflict per level, their domain spells can be spont for the day or left to be 'prepared'.

I'd have prepared spells take 2 to 5 times as long; at 10x no one will cast in combat and will probably just prep running-away spells to assess a situation before returning.

I think that x2 is enough.



Everybody gets some number of spells know each level, and can research or discover new spells. Sound good?


That's cool. I'd probably go with learn 4 every level; and anyone can learn new spells.

From any tradition; magic is magic at a mechanical level.

Getting someone who will teach you what you want is different; wizards don't normally teach clerics. Druids and clerics would never teach a wizard.

Mystic Theurges are taught by anyone and eveyone goes to them for teaching.

Which is why they exist; if not no wizard can learn cleric spells and no cleric can learn wizard spells.



Judging__Eagle at [unixtime wrote:1171980334[/unixtime]]1. Spell points =
Normal Casters get: 1 per level (20 points by lvl 20);

Spont Casters get: 4/3 levels (total of 26 at lvl 20);

Sorcerers don't exist (they're normal casters, or they get more spells known to mathc other spont casters)
or
Sorcerers get: 5/3 levels (total of 33 at lvl 20)

It is in no way balanced to allow one primary casting class to have a mana pool 6 greater than another. In this model, that's supposed to be six actual character levels better.

secondary casters can get away with less mana because they'll be using it purely for buffing and utillity.



Oh, ok.

I was basing the extra spell points on the fact that a sorcerer would have less spells to pick from, so they'd be trying to either make more flexible spells more powerful, or simply try to outblast their enemies; while a caster with more options would have to rely on thier wider repertoire.





4. Your Spell Pool is also reduced by spells that you have 'active'; these spells cost ....

... the same as casting the spell? 1/2 rounded up? I want to be able to have my highest lvl buffs active, but they'd cost my whole spell pool and if I'm spending my whole pool keeping them fresh then I can't do anthing else)


They cost the full casting cost. Putting up a buff costs exactly as much as keeping it active.

That's intentional. It's a long way from D&D, but you have to pay real power to keep buffs active. This would mean that in an ambush, the amushed wants all his mana sunk into buffs, and the ambusher wants none of them sunk (so he can go nova).

This might not work so well. If we want to make sure a caster isn't a glass cannon, it would be reasonable to give casters 'buff slots' which can only be spend on buffs. They would have to be purely defensive, however, or a caster could still sink everything into attack.



Hmm; let's assume half of their spell pool can be used on buffs.

Let's not forget that many buffs can affect more than one person; so getting Haste from the Wizard, Prayer II from the Cleric (it's a 4th lvl spells or a 3rd lvl domain spell; I forget it's real name but it does +2/-2 instead of Prayer's +1/-1), and say Good Hope from the Bard; while the Druid channels a Briarweb in front of the group and the Archivist keeps a Black Light up while he and the wizard Ebon Eyes the group.



-

Lastly, in a SAME system (and possibly in a D&D system, modified enough) you would actually want a fixed mana pool over all levels. Every spell would have a fixed mana cost, with its power and access scaling by your level. This would be nice. You'd only ever have to keep track of four mana.

This would also mean that certain spells are just really tough to cast, and never get easier. Even an archmages fall unconscious after casting Genesis.

It would also make 'buff slots' more doable. If you only ever have one or two, it's no longer such a hassle.
You could also switch them to just mantaning a constant ability you've used. Charm someone? It immediately goes into one of your sustaning foci. Have Mage armor and Fireshield in your sustaning foci already? Drop the fireshield.

So in our Sample SAME system, every caster has a "mana pool" of 4 and two "sustaining foci." He can also "overchannel" by up to two, meaning that the maximum "force" of a spell is 6.

We can mess with things even more. Maybe it's simpler to say you incur a "drain" equal to twice what you can overchannel, letting you pay back tokens 1-for-1.

As stated earlier, as character with a drain of 1 is fatigued, a drain of 2 exhausted, a drain of 4 unconscious, and 6 at deaths door. More and you explode.

So to go nova, the 'best' a character can do is overchannel to 5 (drain 2), "recharge" 1 (drain 1), and overchannel to 5 (drain->3), and overchannel to 6 (drain->7, = kaboom).


Oh, and the possible terminology:
  • Drain: How much mana you need to spend to get out of debt.
  • Force: The amount of mana a spell takes.
    Mana: :)
  • Overchannel: How you get into debt.
  • Sustaining focus: Where you put your continuous abilities.

The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.

While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
Post Reply