2008-10-13 M20 Spellcasters Loose Hitpoints
In our last M20 Hard Core session ā the second session of River Into Darkness by Greg A. Vaughan ā I got the feedback from the level 4 wizard player Marco that he wasnāt enjoying the rule that spellcasting costs hitpoints.
River Into Darkness by Greg A. Vaughan
Emotionally, there is not much we can do. Heās unhappy, and the rules are there to allow us all to have some fun. I guess one possible reaction would be to tell Marco that maybe the M20 wizards are not for him.
In terms of balance, I felt that the wizard was just right. He didnāt overshadow anybody using spells and yet the wizard didnāt suck because there was always things to do. Consider that Moniās fighter spent four rounds below the ship destroying the trap ā doing nothing at all, if you want.
In terms of comparison with a D&D 3.5 wizard I also felt that we werenāt doing too badly. Letās assume a level 4 wizard in D&D 3.5 has 12 hitpoints and knows three 2nd level spells and five 1st level spells (add one each due to an ability bonus).
An M20 HC wizard would have around 24 hitpoints, and if he were to cast his favorite spells, heād spend 12+10 hitpoints to cast three 2nd level spells and five 1st level spells.
Yes, in this situation the M20 HC wizard is living very dangerously with only two hitpoints left and no way to heal.
Then again, after 30 minutes the M20 HC wizard will be back with his full array of spells. Thereās no rationale to demand a 15 minute adventuring day! This, I feel, is a great benefit.
At the same time, a wizard can decide to cast three 2nd level spells and leave it at that. Heāll have 12 hitpoints left just like his D&D 3.5 friend, and heāll still be able join the next fight.
Plus a M20 HC wizard has the same attack progression as everybody else. Using a crossbow or a sling will continue to make sense later in the game.
When I compare it to my current level 3 dwarven wizard Gar I find that I need to play my D&D 3.5 wizard even more economically. I wonāt be using my spells for most encounters, and Iāll use maybe ten charges from a wand per day ā most of it being *mage armor* and *burning hands*. Personally I didnāt feel like the M20 HC wizard was significantly weaker than the D&D 3.5 wizard.
All of these arguments wonāt really solve the problem for Marco. So here are some options.
1. Use a house rule Iām using in my Sunday D&D 3.5 game: Level 0 spells can be cast at-will.
2. Reduce costs of all spells by 1. That would mean that level 0 spells can be cast at-will as they cost no hitpoints, and other spells would also be easier to cast.
3. Return to a Vancian magic system with spells per day, and less hitpoints for spellcasters.
I need to think about this some more. Right now I donāt feel like changing the rules because the result feels about right. But unfortunately the result just feels right to me.
ā#RPG ā#M20 ā and ā#M20 Hard Core
Comments
(Please contact me if you want to remove your comment.)
ā
Iād suggest going with 0 level spells being at-will.
Alternatively, give him a Magic Point stat which is equal to 3/4 of his current max HP total, and set his new max HP equal to 1/4.
For example: if his current max HP is 24, that becomes 18 MP and 6 HP.
If he runs out of Magic Points, he can burn Hit Points instead.
Essentially itās still the same (actually a little worse - one good hit and your poor 6 HP Wizard is dead meat) but with a little more old-school (ie, weak Wizard) style.
Heāll soon be demanding the original way back š
ā greywulf 2008-10-14 00:01 UTC
---
Your writeup provokes several thoughts; some emotional, some logical.
Emotionally, I find it perhaps a little unfair to be told āwizards are not for meā. I think that blaming it on the player is little bit too easy to say. On the contrary, wizards are my class of choice above all other classes. Surprised? Itās true. To say āthereās not much we can do for himā is also untrue. This is play-testing, right? Feedback is the point, and evolving the game is a positive result of play-testing. Of course, you may be *unwilling* to alter the rules, in which case you have my feedback.
Logically, I find the āspellcasting costs HPā incorrect. Fighters donāt take damage when they deal it - at least, not directly. A fighter with a high AC, or an archer (even better example) doesnāt take 5HP damage for each bow he shoots. Wizards do.
For me, hitpoints represent your will and strength to live. Physical resilience and indestructability. Is spellcasting that harsh that you pour your life essence into each spell you cast? Perhaps, but itās not what I imagine spellcasting to be.
What I propose is the Mana system we discussed last time. You have Mana equal to your hitpoints - in my case 20. The argument against it as I recall was twofold: Wizards have too many hitpoints anyway (1d6 per level), and the spell DCs are far too high, which compensates for only casting two to three spells per round. I would say reduce the hitpoints (make it 1d4 hit die for wizards, or something), and make the monsters harder to hit. Reintroduce the save perhaps? (magic attack = d20 + caster level + spell level + MIND modifier, magic defense = d20 + hit dice + appropriate modifier). In my case I would have 16HP instead of 20, and my magic attack bonus would depend on the monsterās skill and luck.
Important for me is that I can participate as a wizard for the entire combat (not a crossbowman or oil hurler or whatever).
With regard to Greywulfās comment, I think youāve hit on to the same idea I have except that, as you point out, itās not an improvement. 6HP is not much - I suggest 1d4 per level like regular wizards.
Regardless, Iāve laid a few ideas. Take them, drop them, discuss them. I hope it helps develop the game.
ā Marco 2008-10-14 11:25 UTC
---
Food for thought indeed. Iāll have to figure out what Mana means in terms of numbers of spells a wizard will be able to cast during a fight. It would seem to me that while melee fighters do not take damage while theyāre dealing damage, they do need to put themselves into harmās way in order to do it. Ranged fighters do not take damage while theyāre dealing damage, and thatās why the hard core rules variant doesnāt grant a STR bonus to ranged weapon damage.
I thought that saves are equivalent to magic defenses, except that the attacker rolls the dice:
**D&D**: Attacker determines DC, eg. 10 + spell level + ability bonus. Letās assume sleep spell by an Int 16 wizard and the DC is 14. Defender rolls d20 + save + ability bonus. Letās assume a first level guy with a āgoodā save and no ability bonus, ie. save = level = +1. Mathematically that means roll 13 or higher on a d20 to āsaveā (40% to save).
**M20**: Defender determines DC, 10 + character level + ability bonus. In this case that would 11. Attacker rolls magic attack which is d20 + character level + ability bonus, ie. d20 + 4. Mathematically that means roll 7 or higher on a d20 to āsucceedā, ie. 6 or less to fail (30% to save).
There will be larger differences as time passes because in a high level D&D game lower level spells have less chances of succeeding due to DC scaling with spell level, ie. caster level halved and good saves progressing at two thirds of your character level.
Changing this to a magic attack roll and a magic defense roll would be like changing AC to d20 + armor bonus + dex bonus (this option is in fact discussed in the DMG), ie. it would add more randomness to the result. Iām sure thatās not the intended effect.
Sorry about the wording regarding wizards and you. All I wanted to say was that maybe āM20 wizards _as written_ā are not to your liking ā I didnāt want to imply anything about D&D wizards or wizards in general. After all, I knew about your wizard character in Bevās game!
ā Alex Schroeder 2008-10-14 12:09 UTC
---
Maybe I could suggest another way. Iāve recently started playing microlite74, and Iāve added a Vancian houserule to the mix. http://retroroleplaying.smfforfree4.com/index.php/topic,62.0.html
http://retroroleplaying.smfforfree4.com/index.php/topic,62.0.html
The twist is that a Vancian style Wizard can try and reuse the spell, but there are real dangers and very little chance that might happen. (I might, as my players get higher level, allow a bonus to increase the possibility, but I donāt know yet)
Not sure if thisāll help, the math you outline makes sense and it sounds like youāre working on a different approach.
ā Chgowiz 2008-12-01 20:08 UTC