Quote from: GnomeWorks;760837I mean, it seems way better than normal Vancian, but still gonna say that I prefer spell point systems.

I imagine it wouldn't be that hard to convert this to a point-based system, either.

I also prefer spell point systems and yes this system would be very easy to convert if that's your preference. I don't like or play "let's outguess or chess with" with the GM. The World in motion is quite enough thank you very much.

And it's just seriously houserulable while never actually converting it if that's your preference.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;760837I mean, it seems way better than normal Vancian, but still gonna say that I prefer spell point systems.

I imagine it wouldn't be that hard to convert this to a point-based system, either.

I called it a pseudo-spell point system during the playtest. Because that is essentially what it is.

At 5th level as a cleric you have 4 alpha points, 3 beta points, and 2 delta points. Using a beta or delta point to cast a first level spell will boost its effect.

Its got all sorts of potential for modding and house ruling later.

Such as forgoing the boost from a higher tier slot to regain a spent lower tier. Or even just burning a higher tier to get back some lower tier slots.

IE: I've used all my first level slots. So I burn a second level slot to get back 2. Though Id go with a doubling factor to prevent abuse. A tier 4 slot would get you 2 second tier slots. That way youd only be able to regain up to 4th tier slots at the high end. At a prohibitive cost.

Just an odd idea that came up while looking it over.

Quote from: Marleycat;760836You would have to give them way more spell slots

No I wouldn't.  I won't have to let them go Pew Pew either.

Quote from: Omega;760841I called it a pseudo-spell point system during the playtest. Because that is essentially what it is.

At 5th level as a cleric you have 4 alpha points, 3 beta points, and 2 delta points. Using a beta or delta point to cast a first level spell will boost its effect.

Its got all sorts of potential for modding and house ruling later.

Such as forgoing the boost from a higher tier slot to regain a spent lower tier. Or even just burning a higher tier to get back some lower tier slots.

IE: I've used all my first level slots. So I burn a second level slot to get back 2. Though Id go with a doubling factor to prevent abuse. A tier 4 slot would get you 2 second tier slots. That way youd only be able to regain up to 4th tier slots at the high end. At a prohibitive cost.

Just an odd idea that came up while looking it over.

I like flexibility and resource management but too much swapping around spell slots and turning attempts and it seems like metagaming.  Course that line is different for people.

Quote from: Omega;760841Such as forgoing the boost from a higher tier slot to regain a spent lower tier. Or even just burning a higher tier to get back some lower tier slots.

IE: I've used all my first level slots. So I burn a second level slot to get back 2. Though Id go with a doubling factor to prevent abuse. A tier 4 slot would get you 2 second tier slots. That way youd only be able to regain up to 4th tier slots at the high end. At a prohibitive cost.

Just an odd idea that came up while looking it over.

Well, you always need to be careful with the math, there. It's usually not the case that a 3rd-level spell is worth a 2nd + a 1st, so you need to map the spell levels to some kind of formula or something to acknowledge that.

I believe that my d20 caster class went with squaring the spell level, but if you have higher-level spells (this only went to 5th or so), the numbers start looking a bit ridiculous. I'm not a fan of numbers bloat, though, so that probably wouldn't work here exactly, but something similar would probably be workable.

Quote from: CRKrueger;760844No I wouldn't.  I won't have to let them go Pew Pew either.

That isn't the issue. 5e full casters have 19 total slots, half casters 15 total slots, sorcerers and warlocks even less because they use point system/AEDU respectively. Good luck getting anybody to play your gimped wizard class in BASIC. Even in BASIC you proposal makes no sense without serious changes to the other classes. Even without multi-classing it makes the cleric and fighter the obvious and preferred choice. Seriously why would anybody play a wizard with so small a number of spell slots and be forced to lock it each spell like some game of let's outguess the DM all while every other class is untouched?


The problem is you're not changing any other class and have effectively created Codzilla but worse. Think it through I trust you will see it. Even I would multi-class into fighter or cleric if I were using anything beyond BASIC. Like say I want to play something like 1e or 2e? Don't even count the possible mixes with 3e/4e.

Clerics have (3) 6-9th level spells per day. That is (12) gamechangers a day, now figure that out what happens when you pick the War domain. Or some other domain most players will pick and be completely justified in thinking so because in reality they are the equivalent of modern day fire and brimstone evangelists. That cleric you see is basically a Cleric of Mishkal without any magic items.

I don't actually believe a guy like yourself would never try anything beyond BASIC you're too invested at this point. Whether it's your need to prove me or Sacrosanct wrong or just to prove how old school you really are it just doesn't matter at this point.

Somebody explain the AC 18.

Chain + Shield + -1 Dex = 18?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;760822That's... bizarre. Not Vancian, but not quite not-Vancian, either.

The Not-Vancian is okay in actual play. Like everything else in 5e, its an attempt to please everyone with pudding. It allows players of spellcasters to choose conditional spells without fearing they might not have something immediately useful. AKA, if you choose a couple of Anti-Undead spells, you don't have to run out of the dungeon when you meet orcs.

In the playtest, the math was a mess for casting spells at higher levels versus just casting a higher level spell instead, but I suspect we will see that fixed in the PHB. If they balance that, it will make some people happy.

apparently heavy armor negates dexterity completely, both bonus and penalty

So you can cast spells at 1st, but can't turn undead.

Hmm...

Quote from: Spinachcat;760851Somebody explain the AC 18.

Chain + Shield + -1 Dex = 18?

Chain is heavy armor, heavy armor AC doesn't factor in Dex.

Chain 16AC, +2 for Shield = 18

Quote from: Spinachcat;760853So you can cast spells at 1st, but can't turn undead.

Honestly, I'd much rather see turn undead become a specialty thing for priests of deities who don't like undead (or are associated with anti-undead things, or what-have-you).

It being a staple for clerics has always struck me as really, really bizarre.

Quote from: Marleycat;760849That isn't the issue.

Actually, at my table it's the only issue.  Funny how that works.

Quote from: Marleycat;760849Good luck getting anybody to play your gimped wizard class in BASIC.

Aw, you mad bro?  Am I badwrongfunning it by not allowing maximum somethingorother?

Quote from: Marleycat;760849The problem is you're not changing any other class.

According to who, your crystal ball?

Quote from: Spinachcat;760853So you can cast spells at 1st, but can't turn undead.

Hmm...

That is weird. But I guess chain is heavy armour in 5e. And he is using a shield. Not sure about the CR/HD change either whether good or bad. Spellcasting in armor isn't a thing as long as you're profiencent in said class of armour via class ability. Or it requires multiclassing or a racial ability, never saw a feat that grants it.

SO

Quote from: CRKrueger;760859Actually, at my table it's the only issue.  Funny how that works.

 Aw, you mad bro?  Am I badwrongfunning it by not allowing maximum somethingorother?

According to who, your crystal ball?

No by what you actually say. Do as you will because it's your game. See how that works? I just thought I point out the obvious but since you seem to think houseruling is nothing then you really should shut the fuck up and stop arguing about stuff you already know you'll change for pages and and trying to single me and Sacrosanct out. Or call me nuts.. see how that works?

It's what I do with EVERY game I run and any DM does with a brain. Like I said you're way too invested to not actually try the game. What's hilarious to me is that you actually plan to houserule sight unseen.

Quote from: Marleycat;760871you really should shut the fuck up and stop arguing about stuff you already know you'll change for pages and and trying to single me and Sacrosanct out.

Nah, I'll just do what everyone does, speak their mind, I just happen to feel like calling you two on it when you go off your fucking nut and become disingenuous brats who scream to get their way.

Not a damn thing you can do about it either except put me on ignore.  Sac's pride will never let him do the same thing so you'll see all the posts anyway.  But since "Go Away, I Don't Like What You're Saying." hasn't been workin' out to well for ya, might as well try something.  We both know stopping dissembling about other people's positions in your posts won't be it.

Quote from: MarleycatWhat's hilarious to me is that you actually plan to houserule sight unseen.

I just saw the rule. That's what 5e is about, right, rules on the sheets and modules so you don't need to thumb through the book.  If Wizards have the same rule, I'll change it.