Matthew L. Seidl (seidl) wrote in dnd3e,
Matthew L. Seidl
seidl
dnd3e

UA spellpoints VS conventional spell levels

I'm going to cut this as its gets long and involved (and math heavy), but I'd still love comments or discussion.



So, was doing some analysis today on spell points as presented in UA while procrastinating copy editing our latest journal submission. And the results were fairly interesting I thought.

From UA, Sorcerer's get this many spell points per level. I'm ignoring bonus points based on stats for now, as they're roughly equal between the two varients.

Level Spell Points
1 - 3
2 - 5
3 - 8
4 - 14
5 - 19
6 - 29
7 - 37
8 - 53
9 - 61
10 - 81
11 - 97
12 - 115
13 - 131
14 - 149
15 - 165
16 - 183
17 - 199
18 - 217
19 - 233
20 - 249


Now, lets look at a conventional Sorcerer from the PHB. In order to cast all the spells they'd normally cast, you'd need the following spellpoints, again, I'm ignoring things like spells from stats.:

1 - 3
2 - 4
3 - 5
4 - 15
5 - 18
6 - 36
7 - 44
8 - 70
9 - 82
10 - 116
11 - 132
12 - 174
(got tired of doing math).

So, so far this isn't that bad. Spell point Sorc12 gets 115 points, Conventional gets 174. But the Spell Point Sorc has a lot more flexibility, since they can adjust what spells they get. But ... this doesn't take into account the spell points the conventional caster gets 'for free' by upping the damage. With that taken into the extreme (i.e. all spells cast get bonus dice per level), things get much worse. As a note, I've assumed that Magic missile is 1 point per missile here. Really, according to the rules it would be 1 for the first missile and then 2 for each other missile, which just makes these numbers worse. As well, by ignoring the bonus points from high stats I've helped the UA system, as it would give the same number of points to both characters, but the normal sorcerer gets damage boosting by CL while the UA caster doesn't.

1 - 3
2 - 4
3 - 10 (5 MM's, each getting 2 missiles).
4 - 21 (6 MM's and 3 Scorching ray)
5 - 30 (6 MM at 3 missiles and 4 SR)
6 - 48 (6 MM, 5 SR, 3 Fireball)
7 - 94 (6 MM with 4 missiles, 6 SR at 2 rays, 4 FB)
8 - 127 (6 MM, 6 SR, 5 FB, no clue on 4th level spell)
9 - 154 (6 MM at 5 missiles, 6 SR, 6 FB, 4 4th)
10 - 194 (6 MM, 6 SR, 6 FB, 5 4th, 3 Cone of Cold)
11 - 242 (6 MM, 6 SR at 3 rays, 6 FB, 6 4th, 4 CoC)

etc.

So, to compare:

Level UA Spellpoints PHB Points
1 3 3
2 5 4
3 8 10
4 14 21
5 19 30
6 29 48
7 37 94
8 53 127
9 61 154
10 81 194
11 97 242


As you can see, the number of spell points you'd need (in an extremely worst case) for a Sorcerer to achieve damage output equal to a PHB Sorcerer is huge.

So, how would I go about fixing this? Not sure. If you simply allowed spells to advance in damage with spell points like they do conventionally, MM wins. You'd get 5D4+5 per spell point instead of something more like 1D6 or 1D6+1 per point with psi or fireball. So that doesn't work. :)

Overall though, I'm a real fan of PP for psi, but I don't like the current spell point system for PHB classes.

Opinions from others? Its possible my math is borked, but I think its at least close enough to be illustrative. I've tried to make sure all my assumptions and simplifications hurt the PHB caster (i.e. give him fewer points), and he still comes out way on top.
Subscribe

  • Monsters of ROCK!

    So, it's been quiet lately. Over the decades, there's been hundreds and hundreds of monster entries, from time-tested fan faves to critters which…

  • Question, 3.5, PHB II: Regroup

    Hello all! I have a question about the spell Regroup from the PHB II, D&D version 3.5. Background: We're a 22nd-23rd level party: rogue,…

  • Selling off my gaming collection for charity.

    Hey gang, I am clearing out my closet and selling off a lot of my gaming and book collection with the majority of the money going to charity. The…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 8 comments