Critique and Analysis

[anarkeith]

Both Randy and Adam had good insights on scaling and scaling issues. Adam asked why a player wouldn't just throw all his resources into a single attack. And Randy wanted to know how the system would work at higher levels, or with a mismatch between PC and monster (I'm paraphrasing both of them.)

For weapon-based combat, "A player is limited to spending points equal to, or less than, the highest value card allowed at their character’s level on any one heroic attack." So, it wouldn't be possible to expend all of one's resources in one "blast". The maximum is mathematically equal (in theory) to a 4e D&D daily power, without the artificial "daily" limit.

I didn't subject spell-casters to the same limit, on the grounds that building spells could be an expensive thing from a resource standpoint anyway, and any spell that dealt a lot of damage and/or had a lot of effects was likely to chew up a lot of the caster's resources. There's a functional limit, but that doesn't preclude the all-out blast. Adam's concern was that there wasn't a motivation for a caster not to use an all-out blast.

As a player, I wouldn't ever automatically use an all-out blast, but perhaps the system does need safeguards to prevent that being an automatic (or mathematically most-effective) choice.

One option Adam suggested was that spells have "levels", and that higher level spells have a point-levy attached to them. Since I want to keep the system modular, and not have to make lists of spells (the point of the system being that players are free to make their own, although some spells may be "found" in the game world as scrolls and whatnot), it seems best to associate such a levy with the points expended by the caster.

For example (and this is for illustration, not calculated as balanced with the system), a player casting a five-point spell would have to pay one extra point for the scale of the spell (total, six points). A six-point spell would need to add two (total, eight points). And so on.

Looking at existing 3e and 4e spells, I could base the levy on the level assigned to those types of spells. By stat'ing out a few example spells, I could determine where, and how much, levy would be appropriate.

My ultimate goal is to use the existing 4e mathematical structure, but to replace the hierarchy of defined powers with something simpler, yet flexible enough to be involving for the player who desires a more tactical and calculating experience.

[randy]

In line with Adam's suggestion for spell levels- one way to do this is to limit the number of points that can be used based on the level of the caster. As the caster increases in level, they can "use" more points in a given spell.

In my system I do this using only the base spell cost (as opposed to the total spell point cost). The Base Spell cost defines the effect, and the cost ranges from 1-20 points (or higher). As the mage increases in power they they can use higher level Base Spells (a starting mage will all "combat" points in magic could only use Base Spells up to 4 points). The other aspects of the spell- range, area of effect, and duration, also have some built in limitations (separate from the Base Spell ones) that are reduced as the mage gains more control.

This allows the mage to grow in power over time, helps balance powers, and helps balance encounters between different monster power levels.

[anarkeith]

Yeah, Randy. Given that I'm effectively doing that for the weapon-based characters, it makes sense to do something similar for the magic-users. And, it's cleaner than adding an extra cost to calculate.

[randy]

The other thing that does is balance the character classes. Of course you may not care about that- having, for example, a game where mages rule (i.e. are the most powerful character at each level). What happens when a 1st level fighter duels a 1st level mage (in varying conditions), a 5th level fighter vs 5th level mage, etc. Clearly there are cases where one or the other should win, but it is nice to achieve some sort of balance.

[djkester]

Tactics of a mage have to be very different from a fighter. If a mage takes a fighter on in melee combat likely its going to be bad for the mage. Just as if the fighter lets the mage get a spell off its going to be bad.

Balancing the power in this situation is IMO extremely difficult.

[randy]

I agree Dave, and you would not want them exactly balanced (sounds boring) even if you could. But certain relationships should exist, based on the system designer's vision. An example exists in a system like Keith's where you get points that can be used for extra damage. If the fighter is restricted and the mage is not, the mage may actually win a lot more duels (depending on how the whole system works, hit points, etc). If that is the intent then it is not a problem, but if not that means you have some adjusting to do.

Another example is should a rogue be able to take on a fighter of the same level? In a straight up fight you would hope not (at least as I see the class), although it could be possible a certain percent of the time. But if the rogue gets to use their skills like backstab, etc., they should have a good shot at taking down a fighter (once again dependent on the designer's vision) if they win the tactical battle.

One way I check for balance in some instances is using a group combat. In my game mages are mainly combat support- most of them would not want to be one on one with a fighter of the same level. What if a group of 5 fighters takes on a group of 4 fighters and a mage? I've done this for other types of games and it can be a useful exercise. You're not looking for a perfect balance (i.e. the win rate for each group is 50%), you are determining if the mage (in this case) can be an effective combat multiplier- once again based on how you feel it "should" be.

[anarkeith]

At this point I've opted for a limit on the total points a mage can spend on an individual spell. I'm basing it on the damage potential of existing 4e spells. With more experience comes the potential for dealing more damage.

The advantage of a mage is that they can potentially affect multiple targets. The game-mechanic that balances the mage in 4e, in my opinion, is that they must roll to hit against each target.

With my system, I'm trying to create an opportunity to bring back utility spells that mages can use to creatively solve problems that confront the party, both combat and non-combat.

[anarkeith]

First playtest went well, with players understanding the system, and identifying a few elements to be clarified. Mechanically they were able to do a fair amount if damage, but it remains to be seen how fatigue will factor in over several combat encounters.

[anarkeith]

Second playtest went OK. A fair number of questions about how to spend tactical points, but some excitement when spending points resulted in big damage, and an understanding that you could deal with minions without spending points.

I'm partially tempted to streamline the system by saying that you're eligible to spend points when you hit a hero number with your d20 roll. But, per Hillary's advice, I'm going to resist fiddling with the system and let the players get a better grasp of it. They've played it twice now.

I will be interested to see how the Sunday group settles into it. They've got a solid grasp of mechanics anyway (and Randy will have two sessions with these rules under his belt from the Friday group.) More data is good!