Talk:Recharging Magic (3.5e Variant Rule)

Ratings
The reason it's better is because there's a lot less book-keeping. Between a spell every round along with extra from immediate/swift actions, the UA recharge system has a ton of book-keeping which is a pain to do. At least in this one you simply mark which ones are available and which ones aren't. Also note that you can recharge more than one spell level at a time at higher levels. And you're assuming that lower-level spells are useless at higher levels, but that's patently untrue if we're still talking about spells. --Ghostwheel (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I guess if we assume the popular homebrewing idea of making spells that don't become useless at higher levels because of damage or save DC numbers, this system probably becomes rather tolerable for encounters that last no more rounds than half your level. --Foxwarrior (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

How does it break the game when compared to casters already in the game? How is it any worse than the wotc variant? Lastly, if you want a nerf, it's meant to be paired with this variant to have casters on a per-encounter basis rather than per day while forcing them to cast spells tactically rather than 10' away from an enemy. --Ghostwheel (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The WOTC variant is also bad. I didn't like that version either, for the same variety of reasons. This variant hurts blaster mages as they can only a few spells off before having to resort to using suboptimal spells, and praying that the dice gods decide to give them their good slots back. Consequently, mages who buff themselves into the stratosphere before firing off a single killer spell now enjoy the luxury of having unlimited spells/day. The guy who casts color spray on a group of goblins isn't hurt because he will probably win on round one, and now he can keep his buff spells active at all times. The guys who uses burning hands will only be able to get one spell off before having to resort to using weapons.Fluffykittens (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As opposed to ... Vancian casting where wizards don't even have the option to blast since they don't have enough spell slots to use a spell every single round, and sorcerers suffer the same problem just without it being visible immediately? Yeah, daily-based resource management is so bad that this is a big step up from it. Second, buffers have always been problematic. There are a multitude of ways to get permabuffs in 3.5, and this variant isn't what causes the game to break--it's how powerful the spells are, and the fact that there are a million and one ways to make sure you don't have to spend actions in combat, or to gain extra actions to buff yourself up, often digging into gold (which is a river resource) rather than having to spend daily spell slots. And the guy who's using color spray on a group of goblins is going to be 15' from the furthest one and casting for a whole round, causing them to smack him in the face and lose that-there spell since, as I said before, we're using the above variant as well. --Ghostwheel (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't really a step up from it, though. An 1st-level wizard with at least 12 INT will be able to get 2 spells off in combat before having to take a break. Your version can only get 1 off, and then has to pray to the dice gods. An 1st-level sorceror with at least 12 CHA will be able to get 4 spells off in combat before having to take a break. Your version can only get 1 off, and then has to pray to the dice gods. "There are a multitude of ways to get permabuffs in 3.5, and this variant isn't what causes the game to break--it's how powerful the spells are, and the fact that there are a million and one ways to make sure you don't have to spend actions in combat, or to gain extra actions to buff yourself up, often digging into gold (which is a river resource) rather than having to spend daily spell slots." True, but your variant only encourages this sort of behavior by allowing casters the luxury of not having to spent gold in order to keep their shields up. "And the guy who's using color spray on a group of goblins is going to be 15' from the furthest one and casting for a whole round, causing them to smack him in the face and lose that-there spell since, as I said before, we're using the above variant as well." True, but using a flat casting time system like you described would also nerf spells like Mordenkainen's Sword even further, and do nothing to fix the brokenness of Batman-style wizards.Fluffykittens (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait, so it's better to be able to cast 4 spells... and then be 100% useless for the rest of the day, compared to being able to cast one spell every combat for sure and then having a chance to cast more spells? Remember, according to the DMG, a sample "day" consists of 4 encounters. Explain to me how it's better for a wizard to have only 2 spells over the entire course of the day? And if you think casters have a problem just making gold turn up out of thin air, I'd like to introduce you to the wish economy--basically, at around level 9ish, money is rarely a concern for casters since they can just planar bind a genie and wish for whatever it is they want.
 * Also, I can't believe that you're bringing up Mordenkainen's Sword up as a serious spell--you might as well complain that this doesn't make polar ray any better. There are a number of spells in the SRD that suck because the designers made them suck, and without completely rewriting all the spells top-to-bottom, there will never be an easy fix for them.
 * But again, I think you're missing the point of this variant. The point isn't to "fix" the wizard, and if you're rating it on its ability to do that, then you're not rating it rightly. The point of it is to put casters on a per-encounter basis without A. having to do a lot of tracking or bookwork, and B. being able to cast all their spells constantly. And on those two counts, I think it fulfills its purpose well. --Ghostwheel (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I remember people saying a few similar things about your review of Mana-Based Spellcasting. --Foxwarrior (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Completely different, in that mana-based spellcasting did nothing for the system--it solved no problems and only exacerbated the ones that are already inherent in the system. This solves the 15-minute work day. So false analogy. --Ghostwheel (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The analogous part is "you're missing the point of this variant". Mana-Based Spellcasting doesn't set out to solve balance problems, it aims to solve flavor problems. --Foxwarrior (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Fine
So here's a challenge for all the nay-sayers. Make me a variant rule that A. doesn't require immense amounts of book-keeping, B. sets spells to a per-encounter schedule rather than per day, C. does not allow the spamming of the same spell constantly, D. has some renewable resource management, and E. does not require you to rewrite most of the spells in the book. If you can do that, I'll welcomingly change this. If not, then I'd say this variant does precisely what it sets out to do with no one being able to improve on it, and deny your ratings on the basis that they don't even address what this variant aims to solve. --Ghostwheel (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The best possible solution to an impossible problem still isn't very good. Also, I've done things like it several times, as classes. --Foxwarrior (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't remember the UA system that much, but I think spellcasters shouldn't exactly regain their spells while in a combat. Instead, they could regain one or a couple of spells when resting and taking a break between battles. This would give something to do to the casters after a battle while the rogues searches for loot and the fighters restore their combat fatigue, if you're working with such a variant of sorts. Also gives the opportunity to role-play breaks and meals, which are usually just ignored (hell, I don't even remember consuming food or drink in D&D, aside from Hero's Feast and one or two beers in the stereotypical tavern setting). I guess the number of spells recovered could simply be calculated according to the score of the character's Concentration check, since every spellcaster has the skill and it allows for natural scaling most of the time. It could also work by spell levels in order to make the character take strategic decisions: more spells, or fewer, more powerful spells? I guess some items could help in those checks, like good food, sweet drinks or drugs (namely COFFEE!! Tea could be better :P ), maybe even bards... This also works wonders with Power Points. -HarrowedMind (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The thing is that I don't want characters to *ever* be in the situation where they are useless, regardless of whether it's 5-6 encounters into the day, or 3 rounds into an encounter. On the other hand, I don't want them to be able to blow their strongest spells over and over. That's the dichotomy I'm trying to deal with currently :-/ --Ghostwheel (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at your recent revisions, but I still don't think it's doable. Spells are just not designed to be handled that way. --DanielDraco (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)