Improving the HP system (part 2)

Part one is here.

I'm doing two things here.

1) I'm adjusting player HP and monster damage to better fit into a Endurance/HP system.
2) I'm listing out all the restorative methods and how well they work on HP and Endurance.
3) Recommended tactics for players based on the Endurance/health model (or rather, expected tactics used by players to accommodate for this model based on how restoration works)

--------

1) Player HP and monster damage

MATH MATH MATH skip if you want

Okay. Player HP isn't so much of a problem. If I use 5E as a benchmark, then PCs might gain say 6/7/8HP per level (wizard/cleric/fighter), and thus have a total of 12/14/16 Health per level. Hrm. Fighters have only 33% more health than a wizard this way? Let's stick with that for now.

Damn, I have to do this by "Feel".

Monster damage, well, makes the player HP more complicated. I'd say that an average PC (rogue/cleric health) should sustain 2 hits to have their Endurance depleted, and another 2 hits to have their HP depleted.

Players need to take a little Endurance damage SOMETIMES in order to feel threatened. Or at least have enough of their endurance depleted that they are feeling really worried of getting true damage.

Previously for my calculations I had monsters take down an average PC in 4.5 attacks, assuming 50% hit chance (or 2.25 actual hits). Now monsters are going to be taking out an average PCs in 8 attacks, assuming 50% hit chance (or 4 actual hits). That may seem lenient, and it kind of is, but this system keeps in mind that PCs are going to be trying very hard not to take any actual HP damage since even a long rest only recovers 1HP per level.

Conveniently that means monsters should do 14/4 = 3.5 average damage per hit, or 1d6.
Let's check how long a fighter can stay on the frontlines all alone without a buddy to back him up. A fighter has 2 AC more than a rogue in my system, so the warrior will be hit 40% of the time or 30% of the time with a shield. Fighter has 16 Health or 8 Endurance and 8 HP.

No shield: 16 health divided by 3.5 =4.57 hits or 4.57/0.4 = 11.4 attacks, after which he may die.
8 Endurance divided by 3.5 = 2.28 hits, or 2.28/0.4=5.7 attacks, after which she should disengage to take some heat off and recover endurance.

With shield: 16 health divided by 3.5 =4.57 hits or 4.57/0.3 = 15.2 attacks, after which he may die.
8 Endurance divided by 3.5 = 2.28 hits, or 2.28/0.3=7.6 attacks, after which she should disengage to take some heat off and recover endurance.

It's hard to tell if that is too many attacks or not just like this. I need some more spreadsheets to look it over.

	wizard	rogue	cleric	fighter	fighter w shield
Health	12	14	14	16	16
Endurance	6	7	7	8	8
monster damage	3.5	3.5	3.5	3.5	3.5
hit chance	0.5	0.5	0.4	0.4	0.3
hits to kill	3.4	4	4	4.6	4.6
hits to bloody	1.7	2	2	2.3	2.3
atacks to kill	6.9	8	10	11.4	15.2
attacks to bloody	3.4	4	5	5.7	7.6

Fight scenario 1
Assume monsters go first, all monster attacks directed at one PC who does NOT back off.

	wizard	rogue	cleric	fighter	fighter w shield
Monster dam R1	14	14	14	14	14
Monster dam R2	10.5	10.5	10.5	10.5	10.5
Monster dam R3	7	7	7	7	7
Monster dam R4	3.5	3.5	3.5	3.5	3.5
inc hit chance R1	7	7	5.6	5.6	4.2
inc hit chance R2	5.25	5.25	4.2	4.2	3.15
inc hit chance R3	3.5	3.5	2.8	2.8	2.1
inc hit chance R4	1.75	1.75	1.4	1.4	1.05
Total expected damage R3	15.75	15.75	12.6	12.6	9.45
Total expected damage R4	17.5	17.5	14	14	10.5

Fight scenario 2
Assume monsters go first, players eliminate monster in 3 rounds, one monster attack directed to each player

	wizard	rogue	cleric	fighter	fighter w shield
Monster dam R1	3.5	3.5	3.5	3.5	3.5
inc hit chance R1	1.75	1.75	1.4	1.4	1.05
Total expected damage	7	7	5.6	5.6	4.2
% Endurance loss	100%	100%	80%	70%	53%
% HP loss	16.67%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

MATH MATH MATH OVER

That looks pretty good! Even with no cleric, on average the party can take on 4 encounters per day like that, RNG willing. A cleric will help control RNG. A Cleric would also have easily enough juice to make the "tank, spank, heal" the "tank, spank, heal" combo by healing a fighter with a greatsword work according to these numbers.

Easily? Will that make it too easy?

I'm honestly not sure.
-------

2) Restorative methods

a) Spells
Cure Wounds Cure Endurance restores 2*MOD Endurance per Circle.
Healing Invigorating Word restores MOD Endurance per Circle.

b) Short rest, second wind, bardic song, warcries, similar
None of these options heal HP at all.
A short rest heals Endurance fully.
Second Wind, an ability every PC has, restores Endurance fully. It typically takes an action to use and is refreshed every Short Rest.
Bardic song, warcries and so on restores Endurance for the stated value.

c) Potions
(Note: Potions are the exception because they cost money which is a finite resource.)

Potions can potentially heal HP efficiently, but mostly out of combat. If drunk fully, a Potion of Healing (Level 1) restores 8 Endurance and 2HP.  To use potions to heal HP efficiently (more than 1HP), the potion must be slowly and carefully dripped directly on wounded areas. This is an excruciatingly painful process, and takes time to do right. Used in this manner, Potion of Healing (Level 1) can heal up to 10HP. The leftover potion can be poured over a comrade's injuries to restore HP as well. Alternatively, leftover healing value can be can be drunk to restore Endurance equal to the leftover value but for no HP restoration. Egs. A potion with 4HP healing value left can  be drunk for 4 Endurance healing.

d) Long rest, medical attention, First Aid
24 hours of rest fully restores Endurance and restores 1 HP per level.
Medical attention (DC 10 intelligence check) improves the HP restoration after a long rest by 1 HP per level for the day that medical attention was received.
Excellent medical attention (DC 15 intelligence check) improves the HP restoration after a long rest by 2 HP per level for the day that Excellent medical attention was received. It does not stack with medical attention.

Immediately after a battle, player characters may spend 5 minutes administering first aid (through an Intelligence check) to PCs who have endured Hit Point damage during the battle. A successful First aid check (DC15) restores 1HP to the PC. If a First Aid kit is used, the the DC is reduced to 10. First Aid can only be to a PC once for every battle she endures HP damage.

---------

I'm a little concerned that 4 hits to KO a PC is too lenient, but I keep reminding myself that PCs roll death saves immediately when hitting 0HP and die with a single failed death save (rolling 5 or lower). PCs generally want to sustain their HP while sacrificing their Endurance.

Improving the HP system?

Summary

TL:DR version - Health is divided into two pools: Endurance and Hit Points. Endurance can be healed and restored easily and is thus expendable. Hit Points cannot be easily healed/restored and is thus much  less expendable. Roll Death Saves immediately when hitting 0HP. Failed Death saves (roll 5 or less on d20) result in immediate death.

Goal is to encourage players to play more sensibly with their PCs and not wait til the 2 death save before moving in to stabilize a PC.

----
Premise

So I've been reading Angry GM again. What else is new? Or old, as it were. In one of his old articles he laments about the HP system. Mostly about players not recognizing their characters are in serious trouble and doing something about it in spite of their HP dropping:

But I’ve reached a point now where all of these petty little annoyances – kill-or-be-killed, offense only, always bring a healer, ignore the downed character for two rounds, dropping characters every other fight at low- to mid-levels – all of those little niggling annoyances are starting to bug me. And I’m looking squarely at the HP system and saying “this is all your fault. Where the f$&% did you go wrong?” Because, to be honest, I HATE the HP system in D&D....
...The game was designed with this state called dying. And the whole point is that the game recognizes when you are in an emergency situation. And it jumps in to rescue you. It removes you as a target by taking you out of the fight so you hopefully won’t take any more damage. And it also takes away your ability to get yourself back into the fight and further endanger yourself until you’re no longer in an emergency state. And those are two very good ideas. I support those very highly.
...But it also makes you unconscious. It renders you unable to act. And that means, there’s nothing YOU can personally do to get out of the emergency state. I agree with the idea of pulling you back from the fight and sending you to your corner, but I don’t understand why it also has to break your legs so you can’t get back to your corner.

So his solution was to introduce a separate HP bar layered on top of the usual HP, called fighting spirit. Once fighting spirit is depleted, they have disadvantage to attack and all offence against them have advantage. Basically, a big fat sign saying: "Fly, you fools!"

------

Side note 1: Separate HP bar? Something else that tracks health as well as HP? Folks who have played 4E D&D and Pillars of Eternity may find his solution passingly familiar.
4E has healing surges: healing uses up healing surges, and once you run out, it's an indication that the adventurers need to retreat.
Pillars of Eternity has Endurance and HP tracked separately. Damage is always done to both Endurance and HP. Endurance is what keeps you up in battle: HP is a separate bar roughly equal to 4 times of Endurance. Once Endurance runs out your PC is knocked out in battle. Once HP runs out, your PC dies forever.

------
Can we do better than Angry GM?

A few comments about Angry GM's solution. (Two health bars. Depleting first health bar runs causes disadvantage to attacks and disadvantage to be attacked)

Firstly, simulationists will hate this system like the plague because it only applies to PCs, and not to monsters at all according to Angry GM. Only the PCs get a buffer HP which help keep them out of harm's way.  It's too obvious that the players are getting system fiat to keep them alive and give them an edge over monsters. Mind you, all modern D&D systems are specifically designed to keep players alive and skew odds in favour of the player, but making it too obvious like giving the player characters an extra hit point bar just because they're players is shoving in the player's faces a  bit too much.

Second, it's a form of Death Spiral. Which he points out is a bad system because as soon as you get hurt you get worse and worse at fighting back and it becomes hopeless (hence the name Death Spiral).

Lastly,
"The worst it is going to do is let people run around and be ineffective while they should be unconscious."-Angry DM

...which is exactly what I predict will happen. HP is just as expendable and easily recoverable as Fighting Spirit, and thus players will treat HP as such: expendable. They're just expecting the cleric to heal them so they don't need to suffer from disadvantages anymore.

And from that sentence you can see my idea how to improve the HP system.

My idea is to make two separate health bars just like Angry GM; Endurance and HP. But while Endurance is easily replenished with spells, bard songs and so on, HP is not. Endurance is expendable, HP is very much less expendable. Endurance represents the PC's skills and stamina in reducing the impact of blows that otherwise would have been deadly. HP represents actual damage that is deadly to the PC.

So recovering HP is incredibly inefficient compared to Endurance. A level 1 Cure Wounds only heals a single point of HP does not cure HP at all.. A long rest only heals a single point of HP. Short rests and second winds and inspirations from warlords and the like don't restore HP at all. Basically, PCs want to avoid real damage to their HP as much as possible because HP is a really limited resource.

-------

But should we even do this?

Gosh, should I really do this? I'm moving further and further away from traditional D&D. I've already revamped the ability scores, made warrior damage increase with every level. Didn't we learn from 4E that D&D players really really hate big sweeping changes?

Why am I doing this? Does this change really need to happen? Is there really a good reason why I'm trying to change the hitpoint system?

Tension. The purpose of this whole system is introducing tension as hitpoints slowly drain to zero. You'd think that hitpoints draining to zero would create enough tension, but that's not what happens in D&D currently.

Because good game design encourages good players behavior

In 5E, I'm currently seeing a fragile sorcerers refusing to disengage from the front-lines, back into the safety of the back-lines, because he's too focused on doing damage. All the while he's demanding the cleric to keep him standing while ignoring the pleas of his team mates and not wanting to have sanctuary cast on him to keep him safe because he wants to do DAMAGE.

I see clerics refusing to heal their buddies until they actually hit zero hitpoints because there are no negative hitpoints and penalties for hitting zero. It is quite literally more efficient for clerics in 5E (and 3E) to only heal PCs once they actually hit zero hit points as long as the PC doesn't die immediately from too much damage (very very unlikely). As long as the cleric comes before the dropping PC's turn so that they can healed and conscious for their turn. (Also because a certain Life cleric domain features only heal up to the halfway mark)

In a system where healing is prevalent, tension is sorely missing. However, players need to be able to keep on fighting due to access to resources. These are two pretty conflicting needs: The need to feel the danger and lack of resources tension in a system where players need to have the resources to keep going (otherwise they cannot continue fighting and that's worse)

So my solution? A compromise. A stack of renewable HP called Endurance which players can more easily renew. This is their expendable resource which they come into battle expecting to use. What is NOT expendable is their actual HP pool, which cannot be healed so easily. Each loss in HP is not easily gained back and has the illusion of dire consequence.

Yes, illusion, not real. Because no matter how dire it may appear in HP loss, there's still a stack of Endurance on top of it which CAN be renewed more easily. Sure, having most of your HP depleted and depending only on the Endurance bar is going to feel a lot more dangerous, and that is of course partly true. A partial truth is important to enforce a feeling of danger. The *feel* of the game is an important aspect of the game's enjoyment.

Warning: That last link is about game designer tricks used in creating great feelings from games using misdirection and illusion on the game designer's part. Exactly like a magician would do. Don't watch it if you don't want your illusions shattered.

------

It's familiar, so it's easier to accept

Best of all, flavour-wise this concept is not new! In 4E, there was this concept called "Bloodied" when you hit half HP. It happened to enemies too. Flavour-wise, all your attacks up to now had done mostly superficial damage due to skill in mellowing out the blow, the will to live, and luck. Once they hit the halfway mark in HP, the damage is real.

And so, this Endurance/HP bar system ALSO applies to enemies and creatures other than the player characters! Both monsters and players can get "Bloodied" when they have lost their endurance and start taking damage to their actual HP.

Since monsters are very very rarely healed, we just give the monster "health" score to GMs. Players will just assume, quite correctly, that monsters also have endurance and HP. We just don't bother to separate the two to make GM's lives easier, so they don't need to keep track of both. On the rare occasion monsters DO get healed it only recover at most half HP.

Side note 2: Doing a bit more research, seems like my suggestion is pretty close to the Vitality/Wounds system used in some systems based on D&D (star wars d20 apparently). Except in their system Wounds are just as easily healed back as Vitality. I guess they just wanted to make their system more "deadly".

-------

Monsters reduced to zero HP are either killed or knocked out/disabled, player's choice as usual. PCs reduced to zero HP have a chance of being killed. He rolls a death save in secret. A single failed death save (5 and below on a d20) means the PC dies for real. But he's not allowed to tell his party members if he's alive or dead. Every round the player keeps rolling a d20, even if he knows he's already dead.

I'm borrowing this next bit from another article by Angry GM (see Schrodinger’s PC). What the GM usually does is...

You know what? I shouldn't tell you. You can read about it on Angry GM's website. Don't read it unless you want an insight into how game designers and GM's use magician's illusions reality to improve the game for players.

------

Of course, health is going to accommodate this system. I'll do that later.

------
Results


Health is represented by Endurance and Hit Points. Endurance always = Hitpoints. All creatures lose endurance before they lose hitpoints.

Alternative: If you find Hit Points and Endurance difficult to keep track of, just combine the two as Health. Then take note when you take damage beyond the halfway point of your total Health. All damage beyond the halfway point is much harder to heal, as per Hit Point rules below.

a) Endurance
Endurance represents the ability to reduce the impact of a blow which would have cause serious injury into a more temporary discomfort with no serious consequences. Endurance may stem from the creature's skill, stamina, muscle mass, will to live, luck and other factors.
Endurance is more easily restored by health restorative resources available to player characters such as spells, second winds, rally calls, bardic music and long rest. Endurance is thus is a resource that is more expandable to player characters.
Endurance must be fully drained to zero before any further damage is done to Hit Points. All spillover damage from an attack which reduced Endurance to zero will be transferred to Hit Points instead.

b) Hit Points
Hit Points represents the ability to sustain real injury and still keep fighting. Hit Points are based in the same things as Endurance (skill, stamina, muscle mass, will to live, luck), but when Hit Points significant injury is occurring and the effects are more permanent.
Creatures which have lost hit points been BLOODIED.
Compared to Endurance, Hit Points are NOT easily restored by health restorative resources available to player characters. A long rest restores Endurance completely, but only restores 1HP per level of the player. Most healing spells only restore 1HP per Circle Endurance and not HP. Second winds, rallying calls and bardic music and short rests do not restore Hit Points at all.
When a non-player character falls to zero HP, it's usually dead (but sometimes not if the PC wills to spare it).
When a PC drops to zero HP, she is rendered unconscious and immediately makes a Death Save in secret. Every round thereafter, as long as the PC has not been healed or stabilized, the PC keeps rolling Death Saves on her turn in secret. A failed Death Save (score of 5 or lower on a d20) results in the PC dying.

Player characters which endure a lot of hit point loss over the course of an adventure should expect to spend a great deal of time off to heal their injuries naturally. Medical care and restorative magic will speed up the recovery process.

Recommendation: While Endurance is a resource that players should expect to spend often, players should avoid Hit Point damage as much as possible. Once your Endurance is depleted, try to disengage to safety and restore your Endurance before heading back into the fray. Working with your party members to switch out bloodied allies can be very effective.

Non-PC creatures also have both Endurance and Hit Points, but for book keeping purposes only their combined values are listed as "Health". The GM will tell you when monsters are Bloodied (down to half-health).

Values of basic class features (Part 3)

Part 1 is here and Part 2 is here.

Summary: Basically just adjustments to the way FP costs are distributed based on the math. FP at level 1 is now 12. Every level PCs gain another 12FP.

MATH MATH MATH Skip this blog post if you hate math.

In this section, I realize my previous folly when I attempt to confirm the true values of AC, hit dice, damage and attack bonus.

I assumed for the purpose of calculating Feature Points that 1AC = 1 hit-dice increase = 1 damage = 1 attack bonus. This was terribly wrong, of course.

For one, 1 hit-dice increase (say from d6 to d8) is worth so much more at level 1 than it is at every level thereafter. Because you get max hit dice roll in HP at level 1 (+2HP) then an average roll on every level thereafter (+1HP). Whooops.

The rest is failure to do the math. But first, an assumption.

ASSUMPTION 1: Every % increase in effective hit point (EHP) has the same worth as every % increase in average damage output.

Does that make sense? The best example of this assumption holding true in 5th edition is a fighter switching from a shield to a greatsword.

Without a shield, let's estimate the fighter in heavy armor is hit about 40% of the time. If his HP is 100, his EHP is then 100/0.4= 250. With a shield, his chance to be hit drops to 30%. So his EHP is now 100/0.35= 333.33 . Using a shield has resulted in this fighter's EHP to increase by 100*[1-(333.33/250)] = 33% .

Now let's have this fighter switch from Longsword+Shield to a greatsword. With a longsword, the figther's damage at level 1 is 1d8+strength mod = 4.5+3=7.5. With a greatsword it is 2d6+3=10. The % increase in average damage = 100*[1-(10/7.5)] = 33%

To summarise:
Fighter with Longsword+Shield, EHP increased by 33%
Fighter with Greatsword, Damage output increased by 33%

I hope you're convinced that Assumption 1 (%EHP same worth as % average Damage) is accurate.

So Assumption 1 is generally true, we can calculate the relative value of HP, AC, damage and attack bonuses are.  First we need our baseline, the weakest of the weak in HP, AC, damage and attack bonuses. This would be the wizard, of course.

We're going to be comparing one-handed melee weapons for the purpose of this calculations.

One-handed melee weapons the lowly wizard can use are daggers (d4) and quarterstaffs (d6). Best is d6, strangely.
The other simple weapons the Wizard cannot use are include the handaxe, light hammer, mace, sickle, spear. These are our simple proficiency weapons. Best is d6.
Best one-handed Martial weapons include the longsword (d8), battleaxe (d8), and so on.

To my surprise, quarterstaffs do 1d6 damage one-handed in this edition of D&D, the same as other one-handed weapons used by the rogue and cleric like the shortsword (1d6) and mace (1d6). The entire discussion is rendered moot if there is no improvement in damage moving from wizard to simple weapon proficiency, so it's best we leave out the quarterstaff. Anyway, most wizards should use daggers since they'll want the AC from their dexterity, not strength. I guess the game is somehow rewarding the odd wizard who decides that strength is better than dexterity and decides to clonk people on the head with quarterstaffs (really, 5E devs?).

So daggers vs mace vs longsword. Assume best ability mod (+3)
Dagger: d4+3 = 2.5+3 = 5.5
Mace: d6+3 = 6.5
Longsword: d8+3 = 7.5

And now calculate the % increase in average damage compared to the lowly dagger.

Mace: 100*[1-(6.5/5.5) ] = 18.2%
Longsword: 100*[1-(7.5/5.5) ] = 36.4%

Huh. I was expecting lower.  If we were to assume LESS than optimal ability scores for the wizard, these numbers make simple and martial weapon proficiency even MORE valuable.

Now let's look at the % increase in EHP from AC. Assuming 50% chance to hit an unarmored PC with 100HP,

	AC_	EHP___	EHP increase
no armor	13	200
light/medium	14	222.2	11.11
medium (bulky)	15	250	25
heavy	16	285.7	42.9

I had forgotten that additional AC gets more valuable once it's already quite high. That's how the math is. So moving from medium to heavy will be worth quite a bit more than moving from unarmored to light.

Let's look at HP at level 1. Assume Con 14, of course.

Hit dice (level 1)	HP_	%EHP increase
d6	8
d8	10	25%
d10	12	50%
d12	14	75%

Well, as I said earlier I forgot that at level 1 they get 2HP per hit dice increase not 1HP.

What about the value of archery fighting style which gives +2 attack bonus?

In 5E, if the PC has a 65% chance to hit, then with archery he'll have a 75% chance to hit. 75/65=1.154, so 15.4% increase. Much less than I expected! If I assumed the chance to hit without archery is 60%, then it's 70/60=1.167 or a 16.7% increase.

So anyway, it seems clear that 1 point of damage is worth so much more than 1 point of accuracy and 1 point of hit points. It seems like we can give each % increases of 10-14.9% a value of 1FP.

From this data, we can conclude 1 damage = 2 accuracy = 2HP. I never knew each point of average damage had so much worth! But that is because I'm used to comparing damage to the longsword, which starts of at 7.5 average damage. For a Feature Point system, we have to compare to our baseline wizard which has a mere 5.5 average damage with that dagger.

At level 1, hit dice increases = 2FP each since it gives 2HP. Simple weapon prof costs 2FP, Martial weapon prof (which includes simple) costs 4FP. I have to rework my table in my earlier posts.

I've been flip-flopping between light armor having the same value as medium armor or not. I had forgotten than medium armor also comes with shield proficiency, and that gives medium armor more value over light. Murgh. So light armor costs 1FP, Medium(which includes light and shields) costs 2FP, heavy (which includes medium, light and shields) costs 4FP since higher armor values have escalated enough for it to be worth that much more.

Fighting style just barely ekes out at 2FP.

Fighter has heavy armor+martial+d10hit dice+ fighting style = 4+4+4+2 = 14
Wizard spellcasting is now worth 14. Hrm.

Clerics have heavy armor+simple+d8 hit dice+spellcasting=4+2+2+x=14, x=6? Cleric spellcasting is worth less than half of wizard spell casting? Seems wrong to me. If I define clerics as medium armor users, then 2+2+2+x=14, x=8.  Average between those two value is 7, so still somewhere about half the worth of wizard spell-casting. Close enough anyway. I think cleric spells are stronger than the game makes them out to be, so I'm leaning to 8FP for cleric spellcasting.

14 is a weird number to work with honestly. Murgh. Anyway, we also want players to start with a bit more for cool features. How much is second wind worth? I'd say compared to our other numbers, about 4FP. So 18 is the new FP limit. Gah.

Every level up, the fighter has to gain +2 to damage, worth 4FP, and 2HP, worth 2FP. 6FP so far. We want more points for cool stuff... another 3FP? 4FP? It's the same cost as a fighting style. 9-10FP every level? Seems like wizard spell-casting is going to cost 7 every level up, cleric spell-casting 4 every level up.

This has been really tough. I have to revisit this again later.

------

Well, that's 5E anyway. For our system, I've changed the way PCs progress in order to fit our encounter building system better.

1) PCs gain full hit points and damage every level.
2) Armor proficiencies are gone, armor/shield Strength requirements are in.
3) PCs gain full FP every level (equal to what they get at level 1)



Previously,
Weapon damage + health + armor proficiency + weapon specialization = Wizard spell casting
or 4+4+4+2=14

After level 1, the cost of wizard spell-casting then drops to
Weapon damage + health = Wizard spell casting
or 4+2 = 6

In this system, PCs gain slightly more than 14FP at level 1 and 6FP every level thereafter.



We've removed armor proficiencies. We've also changed the amount of health PCs have and can gain via FP (Basic 10HP, can buy up to 14HP with FP)

So at level 1:
Weapon damage + health + weapon specialization = Wizard spell casting
or 4+4+2=10

Hrm. Weapon specialization is a one-time cost however.  And we want the cost of wizard spell-casting to be more consistent since PCs now gain the same amount of FP on level ups as they gain at level 1. So let's remove weapon specialization from the equation.

Weapon damage + health = Wizard spell casting
or 4+4 = 8

------------

So at level 1 and every level thereafter, players gain slightly more than 8FP. Let's say... either 10 or 12 FP total so players can get additional features. I'm leaning to 12FP per level. So most of the non-basic features should cost around 4FP.

How to avoid "Linear warriors, Quadratic mages" (part 2)

Part 1 is here.

One thing which annoys me about how I've designed the spell slot progression is due to how messy it is. The ratio of higher level spell slots gained per level keeps changing and I introduced the "encounter" spells which complicate it even more.

Maybe simple is best?

My original idea for balancing mages was implemented in a very simple manner; 6 spell slots, gain of 3  of the highest level spell slot every level. Like so:


Tier 1: Adventurer (3, 6, 3:3, 6)

Level 1: 3 Level-1 Spells-slots

Level 2: 6 Level-1 Spells-slots

Level 3: 3 Level-2 Spells-slots, 3 Level-1 Spells-slots

Level 4: 6 Level-2 Spells-slots


Tier 2: Heroic (3:3, 6, 3:3, 6, 3:3, 6)

Level 5: 3 Level-3 Spells-slots, 3 Level-2 Spells-slots,

Level 6: 6 Level-3 Spells-slots

Level 7: 3 Level-4 Spells-slots, 3 Level-3 Spells-slots

Level 8: 6 Level-4 Spells-slots

Level 9: 3 Level-5 Spells-slots, 3 Level-4 Spells-slots

Level 10: 6 Level-5 Spells-slots


And so on so forth. Simple and clean right?

The problems came in when I reached level 19:

Level 17: 3 Level 9 Spells-slot, 3 Level 8 Spells-slots

Level 18: 6 Level 9 Spells-slots

Level 19: 6 Level 9 Spells-slots

Level 20: 6 Level 9 Spells-slots

...that problem being that there are no level 10 spell slots in D&D. Whoops.

Perhaps there are ways around it. For example, I could have:

Level 19: 7 Level 9 Spells-slots

Level 20: 8 Level 9 Spells-slots

Which makes increased the number of spell slots players need to juggle. Also, the relative power of the mage has jumped at level 19 and 20.

level	Spell 1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Value	Target
1	3									3	3
2	6									6	6
3	3	3								9	9
4		6								12	12
5		3	3							15	15
6			6							18	18
7			3	3						21	21
8				6						24	24
9				3	3					27	27
10					6					30	30
11					3	3				33	33
12						6				36	36
13						3	3			39	39
14							6			42	42
15							3	3		45	45
16								6		48	48
17								3	3	51	51
18									6	54	54
19									7	63	57
20									8	72	60

Still, maybe this is the better system? Folks hardly ever reach 19 and 20 anyway, and those spells at level 19 and 20 are capped at the potential of a level 9 spell rather than a level 10 spell.

But here's the thing. Folks know that being able to cast six instead of three  9th level spells is a big deal. Intuitively, being able to cast seven instead of six 9th level spells doesn't sound like a big deal, in spite of the math showing otherwise. Wizard Level 19 and 20 SEEMS less worthwhile, even though Wizard level 19 and 20 gives the biggest benefits.

If only there were 10 spell levels instead of 9!

... what if we create a 10th spell level? Is there a spell so ridiculously overpowered that it demands a spell level of it's own? More so than Meteor Shower?

----------

Wish
Wish is the mightiest spell a mortal creature can cast. By simply speaking aloud, you can alter the very foundations of reality in accord with your desires...
---------

Ah. Wish. The most game breaking of all the game breaking spells in the wizard's repertoire. Why is it still in the game? How the hell are aspiring game designers supposed to design games around Wish? So we could just shift wish over to it's special own level 10.

Except... we don't have an equivalent for wish in Bard, Druid and Cleric. Cleric maybe some sort of divine intervention equivalent.

I think I should just use this version instead. It's so much cleaner, and players who cannot recognize the worth of level 19 and 20, well their loss.

Ability scores and armor (part 2)

Part 1 of ability scores is here.
Part 1 of armors is here.

Right. Using 5E's point buy system, I've been trying to calculate out what number of Point Buy is suitable for a system with only 5 ability scores five ability scores (Strength, Finesse, Intellignece, Will, Cognizance).

(Btw, I think Cognizance fits my usage of the term than Observation or Perception. As a reminder, Cognizance is going to cover concepts of aim, perception, insight, awareness, and attunement to surroundings/nature and is the spell-casting ability score for druids/rangers. Well, I figured the word Cognizance sounds more fancy than Observation :P )

So first thing I needed to do was check what an average roll of 4d6 drop lowest gives, since that is what the point buy is emulating. Fortunately, someone's done most of the work for 6 ability scores and I just needed to replicate his work for 5 ability scores.

For 6 ability scores, an average roll is roughly 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9. The closest to that in 5E is 15,14,13,12,10,9. Interestingly enough, if you use 5E's point buy system that works out to 28 point buy, just one point more than the default Point Buy value recommended in the 5E Player's Handbook.

For 5 ability scores, an average roll is 15.4, 13.7, 12.36, 10.86, 8.82, or 15,14,12,11,9. Using 5E's point buy system, that is worth 24 point buy.

On the other hand, the five sixth of 27 point buy is (5/6)*27=22.5 which is either 22 or 23. Hrm.

If you take the average value of 4d6 drop lowest, you get 12.24. 12.24 is worth 4.24 points, 4.24*6=25.44. Whereas 4.24*5 = 21.2 . But this estimate is a bit on the low side.

Let's look at the numbers then.


Point Buy 24: Standard human (+1 to all)
16 16 14 10 9
16 16 12 12 9
16 16 12 11 10
16 14 14 14 9
16 14 14 12 11
16 14 13 12 12


Point Buy 24: Elf (+2, +1)
16 16 14 9 8
16 16 12 12 9
16 16 12 10 10
16 14 14 12 9
16 14 12 12 12



Point Buy 22: Standard human (+1 to all)

16 16 12 10 9
16 16 11 10 10
16 14 14 12 8
16 14 14 11 10
16 14 12 12 11
16 13 12 12 12


Point Buy 22: Elf (+2, +1)

16 16 12 10 8
16 16 10 10 10
16 14 14 11 8
16 14 12 12 10
16 12 12 12 12


Looking at these numbers, I think 22 Point Buy gives a better spread of numbers for my system. The point buy scores for the elf (+2,+1) look particularly balanced at 22 Point Buy.


-----------------

Another issue that's been mentioned is how it is way too easy to don heavy armor in a classless system where you buy class features using feature points. Armor proficiencies have a one-time Feature Point cost which have big impact throughout the game. I tried to reduce access to heavier armor by putting a strength requirement on them. Thinking about it, that's probably all they need.

And so! There is no longer such thing as armor proficiency. (and thus cost no Feature Points) Instead, they have strength requirements.

Armor proficiencies never really made much sense anyway, from a flavor perspective. Especially for the lighter armors. You just wear them. What skill is involved in wearing leather armor? Even for medium and heavy armor, it's more a question whether you can wear that armor all day and not get tired out than being skilled at moving in said armor.

Finnesse/Dexterity increases AC without any need for proficiencies. This is true in every recent edition of D&D.

With this change, now Strength also increases AC without any need for proficiencies, albiet indirectly by allowing the use of heavier armors. So basically, Strength and Dexterity are competing as two different ways for PCs to increase their AC.

---------

Removing armor proficiencies has an impact on the cost of basic features in my system.

Previously,
Wizard spell casting = weapon damage + health + armor proficiency + weapon specialization
or 8=2+2+2+2

The problem was armor proficiency and weapon specialization are both one-time costs in 5E.
So after level 1, the cost of wizard spell-casting then drops to
Wizard spell casting = weapon damage + health
or 4 = 2+2

In this system, PCs gain 10FP at level 1 and 6FP every level thereafter.

However, I realized that players will sometimes want to spend a future level-up to gain basic wizard spell-casting, like they do in 3rd edition D&D. Due to the way I've priced features in my current game (basic wiz spellcasting = 8FP) vs how many FP points are gained per level (6FP per level), that's not really possible.

On the other hand, if both at level 1 and every level up thereafter~
Wizard spell casting = Weapon damage + Health 
or 8 =4+4

~then it will be possible because PCs gain an amount of FP points equal every level (10FP) to what they get at level 1 (10FP). This is more consistent with the "Each level up increases strength of PC by the strength of a level 1 character" paradigm that our Encounter building system now follows.

--------

Anyway, let me retool the armors a little bit...

Armor
Armor	Armor Class (AC)	Strength	Ability check	Start AC	EndAC
Light Armor
Leather	11 + Dex modifier	Str 9	—	14
Studded leather	12 + Dex modifier	Str 9	—		17
Medium Armor
Hide	12 + Dex modifier (max 2)	Str 11	—	14
Chain Shirt	13 + Dex modifier (max 2)	Str 11	—
Breastplate	14 + Dex modifier (max 2)	Str 11	—		17
Medium Armor (bulky)
Ring mail	15 + Dex modifier (max 1)	Str 13	Disadvntge	15
Scale Mail	16 + Dex modifier (max 1)	Str 13	Disadvntge
Half Plate	17 + Dex modifier (max 1)	Str 13	Disadvntge		18
Heavy Armor
Chain Mail	16	Str 15	Disadvntge	15
Splint	17	Str 15	Disadvntge
Plate mail	18	Str 15	Disadvntge
Shield	+2	Str 11	Disadvntge

--------

But now I need one more just one more rule to make is so that traditional wizards/sorcerors who do not wear armor more competitive:

Arcane spell-casting (Wizard and Sorceror) requires the caster to have 4 points of strength more than the armor and shield's Strength requirement in order to cast spells.

Druidic, Bardic and Occult spell-casting  (Druid, Ranger, Bard, Warlock) requires the caster to have 2 points of strength more than the armor and shield's Strength requirement in order to cast spells.
(otherwise you can't cast those spells while wearing that armor/shield)

Divine spell-casting (Cleric and Paladin) is not affected.

So for a wizard to cast spells in heavy armor, she'll need 15+4=21 Strength. Shields require 11+4=15 strength (perfect!). Medium armor requires 11+4 = 15 Strength (perfect!) and medium (bulky) armor requires 13+4=17 Strength (sounds right). Light armor would require 9+4=13 Strength.

A level 1 wizard with~
Strength 16, Finesse 12,  Intelligence 16, Will 10, Cognizance 8
~...could use Hide armor for a total AC of 12+1= 13 AC, same as a wizard who just has Finesse 16. but this Hide armor wizard could also hold a shield for 15 AC total, keeping another hand free for casting.

A level 1 custom race  (+2, +1) wizard with~
Strength 17, Finesse 12,  Intelligence 16, Will 8, Cognizance 8
~...could use Ring Mail for a total AC of 14+1= 15 AC. This wizard could also hold a shield for 17 AC total, keeping another hand free for casting. She paid for that AC in net ability score points since she invested in 17 Strength which gives no modifier bonus over 16 Strength. She also has disadvantage in relevant ability checks such as stealth and swimming.

If that still sounds overpowered, consider the Mage Armor spell which gives 13 + Finesse mod AC, which the Wizard will eventually be casting quite freely. I intend to change Mage Armor's benefit to be 12 + Intelligence instead of 13 + Finesse so that Wizards who don't want to be dexterity or strength-based are also viable. I'm also removing the 20 ability score cap since ability scores no longer improves accuracy.

Druids have quite a few offensive spells almost akin to Wizards rather than cleric spells, and hence have traditionally been forbidden from wearing metal armor in  order to limit their AC.

For a druid to cast spells in heavy armor, she'll need 15+2=17 Strength. Shields require 11+2=13 strength.. Medium armor requires 11+2 = 13 Strength (Sounds right!) and medium (bulky) armor requires 13+2=15 Strength (sounds right). Light armor would require 9+2=11 Strength.

A level 1 Druid with~
Strength 12, Finesse 16,  Intelligence 8, Will 10, Cognizance 16
~...could use Leather armor for a total AC of 14+1= 14 AC. She could also hold a shield for 16 AC total, keeping another hand free for casting. This AC is irrelevant when wild-shaped.

A level 1 Druid with~
Strength 16, Finesse 12,  Intelligence 8, Will 10, Cognizance 16
~...could use Ring Mail for a total AC of 14+1= 15 AC. She could also hold a shield for 17 AC total, keeping another hand free for casting. This druid has disadvantage in relevant ability checks such as stealth and swimming. This AC is irrelevant when wild-shaped. Well, that is assuming the Ring Mail is not made of metal, haha!

I should note that I intend to alter the Barkskin druid level 2 spell so that it gives 13+Cognizance AC so that Druids are not so dependent on Strength and Finesse.

Looking at these examples, Fighter-mages can work, with a bit of effort. Wizards/sorcerors who don't go for high strength or dexterity are viable, especially once they get Mage Armor consistently online.


Update: Tweaked the armor values slightly. The cost of the trade-off for disadvantage to ability checks is now consistently 2AC.

How to avoid "Linear warriors, Quadratic mages"

"Linear warrior, Quadratic mages" has always been an issue in D&D (except in 4th edition). The basic premise is that warriors improve at a linear pace, while wizards improve exponentially. The wizard is pitifully weak at low levels, but at high levels the wizard becomes an almighty deity.

Wizards in 3rd edition/Pathfinder are regarded as Tier 1 classes:

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

For the uninitiated, read that description of Tier 1 again very carefully.

I didn't make this up folks. That's how ridiculously strong wizards are (were?) considered to be, at least at high levels. In every Tier list, Wizards will share Tier 1 with Clerics and Druids. But when folks mention Tier 1 classes in D&D/Pathfinder (excluding 4E and 5E D&D), they're usually thinking of the Wizard.

This problem is less evident in 5E, but you know we can do better. ;)

----------

5th edition D&D has toned this issue in a number of ways, such as:

1) Increased the recommended number of encounters  in a standard adventuring day to 6 to 7 encounters per day

Pathfinder (a.ka. 3.5E) recommends about 4-5 encounters  in a standard adventuring day (as each encounters should drain about 20% of party resources).

13th age (aka 4.5E) recommends 4 combat encounters  in a standard adventuring day.

By increasing the number of encounters, warriors classes are made much more relevant compared to spell-casters. Many weaker enemies spread out through multiple encounters calls for classes which can consistently keep dishing out damage and soak hits.

Contrast that to only having ONE gigantic encounter in a standard adventuring day. Spell-casters will unleash all their high value spells and thus completely overshadow their warrior allies.

Unfortunately, many DMs find they cannot run that 6-7 encounters over the course of a standard adventuring day. And hence, this measure didn't really work for DMs who stuff harder monsters into fewer encounters.



2) Revamp the concentration mechanic
Previously, a lot of the power of Wizards came from maintaining a huge number of buffs, summons and conjurations at the same time. Most of these have been an assigned to a revamped concentration mechanic in 5E. Spell-casters can only maintain concentration on one spell which requires concentration at a time.

5E's concentration mechanic was a considered a pretty big nerf.


3) Reducing the overall number of spells spell-casters gain as they level-up.

This is the crux of the problem in my opinion. The sheer number of spell-slots the wizard gains over the course of her career was staggering. Let's look at 3rd edition/Pathfinder's spell progression table for the Wizard:

3E/Pathfinder spell progression

	Spells 0th	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th
Lvl 1	3	1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
2	4	2	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
3	4	2	1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
4	4	3	2	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
5	4	3	2	1	—	—	—	—	—	—
6	4	3	3	2	—	—	—	—	—	—
7	4	4	3	2	1	—	—	—	—	—
8	4	4	3	3	2	—	—	—	—	—
9	4	4	4	3	2	1	—	—	—	—
10	4	4	4	3	3	2	—	—	—	—
11	4	4	4	4	3	2	1	—	—	—
12	4	4	4	4	3	3	2	—	—	—
13	4	4	4	4	4	3	2	1	—	—
14	4	4	4	4	4	3	3	2	—	—
15	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	2	1	—
16	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	3	2	—
17	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	2	1
18	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	3	2
19	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	3
20	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4

At level 1, the lowly 3E/Pathfinder wizard casts 1 lousy level 1 spell and 3 cantrips per day. She can cast twice at level 2. She'd better get used to throwing DARTs at monsters for some time to come. Get some levels into the 3E/Pathfinder wizard however...

By level 20, the 3E/Pathfinder wizard has an incredibly ridiculous 32 spell-slots at level 20 (excluding cantrips). And this was back when each and every spell-slot must be filled with a specific spell beforehand, no changing halfway during the adventure. How on earth players are meant to keep track of 32 spells-slots as well as all the ongoing buff spells at high levels, I have no idea.

In Baldur's Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal, the famous CRPG which uses AD&D rules, a specialist wizard could have as many as 53 spell-slots by the end of the game. Fortunately, the computer will keep track of your many many MANY spell-slots for you.

Now let's compare to the 5th edition wizard.

5E's spell progression:

Spell-slots gained per level

	spell 1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Lvl 1	2
2	3
3	4	2
4	4	3
5	4	3	2
6	4	3	3
7	4	3	3	1
8	4	3	3	2
9	4	3	3	3	1
10	4	3	3	3	2
11	4	3	3	3	2	1
12	4	3	3	3	2	1
13	4	3	3	3	2	1	1
14	4	3	3	3	2	1	1
15	4	3	3	3	2	1	1	1
16	4	3	3	3	2	1	1	1
17	4	3	3	3	2	1	1	1	1
18	4	3	3	3	2	1	1	1	1
19	4	3	3	3	2	2	1	1	1
20	4	3	3	3	2	2	2	1	1

At level 1, the 5E wizard can cast two Level-1 spells per day. She also has an unlimited supply of cantrips. Better than the 3E wizard, but still pretty weak. At level 2 she can cast 3 level-1 spells per day. Murgh.

At level 20, the 5E wizard clocks in with 21 spell-slots, which is much more manageable than 32. However, 21 spell-slots is a very large amount of spells to be managing and book keeping. Worse, most of those spells are so low level that they have minimal impact on higher level games.

Having said that, someone actually did the math. 5E wizards still overtake the fighters in the later levels. Still, those power curves look much better than the Pathfinder/3.5E power curves. At least the 5E Wizard is not regarded as capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing.

But some fighters are still jealous of the power of the high-level wizard in 5E...


--------

You came here wanting to know how to fix wizards, right? At least make spell-casters more consistent?

Let's get this first point out of the way: As long as we use the traditional spell-slot progression, spell-casters will never be balanced nor consistent.

The problem, in my opinion, is that when spell-casters gain higher level spell-slots they also keep their lower level spell-slots as well.

Mind you, casters absolutely do need the higher level spell-slots to deal with stronger enemies and more difficult situations. That is why in 3rd edition and Pathfinder, casters eventually gain as many high level spell-slots as they have lower level spell-slots (4 each). What 3E/Pathfinder does NOT take into proper consideration is that spell-casters still have ALL their lower level spell-slots as well.

To compensate for keeping all those lower level spell-slots, 5E attempts to give spell-casters much fewer high level spells. This sort of works. But the wizards still has a very very tiny pool of spells at level 1 and 2. To help low level wizards out, 5E wizards can cast unlimited cantrips. Again, this kind of works. At least wizards are no longer depending on throwing 1d4 DARTS.

So what's the solution? The 5E devs actually delved a little into the solution with their work on the 5E Warlock. The Warlock has very very few spell-slots which refresh with a short rest, starting with 1 spell-slot and ending with 5 spell-slots. 5 spells per short rest is strong, but a far cry from the wizard. The big difference is that all these spell-slots are at max level.

Yes, that's the solution. Part of it anyway, in concept. Gain higher level spell-slots, dump the lower level spell-slots. This makes balancing casters so much easier: Game developers only need to account for the new high level spell-slots when balancing the casting power of the class against warriors. Not  having to also balance against the lower impact spells-slots which are becoming ridiculously numerous as the caster gains levels is a big deal.

Apart from the usual spell-slots, a certain key spell is made available at-will to Warlocks via "invocations": Mage Armor. The balance of the Wizard's defenses assumes that Wizards are always maintaining Mage Armor on themselves at higher levels. Mage Armor does not require concentration for this reason in-spite of being a long lasting buff spell. Warlocks do not need to waste their spell-slot on Mage Armor for this reason as well, in-spite of having light armor proficiency.

(On another note, in 5E the warlock is also the only class other than the Fighter to gain 4 attacks per Attack Action through the "Eldritch Blast" cantrip's rays. The "Eldritch Blast" cantrip is also one of the few cantrips which allows ability modifier damage to be added to EVERY attack through an invocation. Evocation wizards and Light domain clerics only add the ability modifier damage once.)

I bet the 5E devs know how to fix spell-casters. The just don't dare due to the backlash gotten from the D&D community after the sweeping changes made in 4th Edition D&D. Tradition dictates that spell casters keep a plethora of less useful lower level spell-slots as well as their huge number of more useful spell slots

--------

But the warlock's version of the spell slots were balanced for the Warlock, not the Wizard. After all, the Warlock has that excellent "Eldritch Blast" cantrip at her disposal.

There are ways to use the same concept and making it more suitable for more specialized spell-casters which don't have access to the powerful "Eldritch Blast" cantrip. Making spell-casters more consistent overall would be nice too.

For example,

Tier 1: Adventurer (3, 5, 3:2, 5)

Level 1: 3 Level-1 Spells-slots

Level 2: 5 Level-1 Spells-slots

Level 3: 3 Level-2 Spells-slots, 2 Level-1 Spells-slots

Level 4: 5 Level-2 Spells-slots


Tier 2: Heroic (2:3, 4:1, 2:3, 4:1, 2:3, 4:1) + Enc 1

Level 5: 2 Level-3 Spells-slots, 3 Level-2 Spells-slots,
+Encounter Spell: Level-1

Level 6: 4 Level-3 Spells-slots, 1 Level-2 Spells-slot
+Encounter Spell: Level-1

Level 7: 2 Level-4 Spells-slots, 3 Level-3 Spells-slots
+Encounter Spell: Level-1

Level 8: 4 Level-4 Spells-slots, 1 Level-3 Spells-slots
+Encounter Spell: Level-1

Level 9: 2 Level-5 Spells-slots, 3 Level-4 Spells-slots
+Encounter Spell: Level-1

Level 10: 4 Level-5 Spells-slots, 1 Level-4 Spells-slots
+Encounter Spell: Level-1


Tier 3: Paragon (1:4, 3:2, 1:4, 3:2, 1:4, 3:2) +Enc 1, Enc 2

Level 11: 1 Level-6 Spells-slot, 4 Level-5 Spells-slots,
+Encounter Spell: Level-1, Level-2

Level 12: 3 Level-6 Spells-slots, 2 Level-5 Spells-slots
+Encounter Spell: Level-1, Level-2

Level 13: 1 Level-7 Spells-slot, 4 Level-6 Spells-slots
+Encounter Spell: Level-1, Level-2

Level 14: 3 Level-7 Spells-slots, 2 Level-6 Spells-slots
+Encounter Spell: Level-1, Level-2

Level 15: 1 Level-8 Spells-slot, 4 Level-7 Spells-slots
+Encounter Spell: Level-1, Level-2

Level 16: 3 Level-8 Spells-slot, 2 Level-7 Spells-slots
+Encounter Spell: Level-1, Level-2


Tier 4: Epic (1:4, 2:3, 3:2, 4:1) +Enc 1, Enc 2, Enc 3

Level 17: 1 Level 9 Spells-slot, 5 Level 8 Spells-slots
+Encounter Spell: Level 1, Level 2, Level 3

Level 18: 2 Level 9 Spells-slots, 4 Level 8 Spells-slots
+Encounter Spell: Level 1, Level 2, Level 3

Level 19: 3 Level 9 Spells-slots, 3 Level 8 Spells-slots
+Encounter Spell: Level 1, Level 2, Level 3

Level 20: 4 Level 9 Spells-slots, 2 Level 8 Spells-slots
+Encounter Spell: Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level-4

Encounter Spells are spell slots that spell-slots are regained after 1 minute (but cannot be used on healing spells). One Encounter Spell of a higher level is gained every new tier and at level 20.

Rule: If a spell-slot of level X is used to cast a spell of level Y, then the caster regains a spell-slot of level = X-Y after casting.
So don't worry about wasting your high level spell-slots on lower level spells.

If you prefer to see that as a table:

level	Spell 1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Value	Target
1	3									3	2.5
2	5									5	5
3	2	3								8	7.5
4		5								10	10
5	1	3	2							13	12.5
6	1	1	4							15	15
7	1		3	2						18	17.5
8	1		1	4						20	20
9	1			3	2					23	22.5
10	1			1	4					25	25
11	1	1			4	1				29	27.5
12	1	1			2	3				31	30
13	1	1				4	1			34	32.5
14	1	1				2	3			36	35
15	1	1					4	1		39	37.5
16	1	1					2	3		41	40
17	1	1	1					4	1	47	42.5
18	1	1	1					3	2	48	45
19	1	1	1					2	3	49	47.5
20	1	1	1	1				1	4	54	50

-"*1" are Encounter Spells
-"Value" represents total value of spell-slots in combined spell levels.
-"Target" represents the target value that is appropriate, taking into consideration how PC warrior strength progresses in my system.

As you can see, the total value of combined spell slot levels increases in a generally linear fashion. Since these spell slots are interchangeable with lower level spell slots of the same combined value, combined spell slot levels are a good indication of the caster's rise in power.

I think it should be obvious that in this system, a Level-2 spell slot is exactly twice as potent as a Level-1 spell. A Level-1 spell, say Magic Missile, does 2d10 if cast using a Level-1 spell slot. It'll do an additional 2d10 for every higher spell-slot used.

In this spell progression system, players only need to manage 5 Primary spells-slots (other than at level 1). Even if you include all the low level Encounter Spells at level 20, at most the players need to juggle 9 spell-slots. Very manageable.

For example, if a player uses cards to represent the spell-slots, the player can easily fit all 5 cards representing Primary spell-slots in one hand and the cards representing Encounter spells in another hand.

-------

Since the Primary spell-slots (almost) always clock in at 5 spells, we can now recommend a rule of thumb to guide players how often to use their spells.

Assuming 4 combat encounters in a standard adventuring day, casters should try to limit themselves to casting one spell per encounter. Keep one spell in reserve in reserve for difficult encounters.

Level 1 casters should cast a spell once every 2 encounters, keeping one spell in reserve for tough encounters.

I would like to impress upon my readers how important it is to be able to actually recommend a guideline to players how many spells they should use per encounter. Players should read:

"Players who play full spell-casting characters are recommended to try to limit their spell-casting to one spell every two encounters at level 1, keeping one spell in reserve for tough encounters.
Beyond level 1, it is recommended to try to limit spell-casting to one spell per encounter, keeping one spells in reserve for tough encounters.

Spell-casters who do not ration out their spells in this manner are in danger of running out of spells when they really need it."

Because we have EXPLICITLY told players this guideline of 1 spell per encounter, players should expect to be punished for breaking this guideline. Players will be glad when they don't use their primary spell-slots in an encounter, because they know that they are "ahead of the curve". Using this guideline, players can keep better track of how much spells they have left relative to how many spells they need for future encounters.

Indirectly, this guideline is also an assurance to players that they are expected to only have to use one Primary spell-slot every encounter. Impressing this expectation on the players gives the players an idea of how many spells slots they actually need overall. Thus there should be much less feelings of "I don't have enough spells!". Perception and managing expectations is important to a player's enjoyment of the game.

The extra "reserve" spell slots help the players turn fights around regain traction in fights which turn south due to bad luck with dice rolls, thus reducing the RNG factor of the game. The reserve spells are also perfect for big boss fights and the players know it and expect it.

-------

There you go! So instead of linear warriors, quadratic mages, we have linear warriors, linear mages. Mages are now increase in power linearly, and I have the math to back up that claim.

Fail Forward, Traps, Investigation Ability Checks

Unlike all my other posts, this one is applicable to any game of D&D, Pathfinder and various other RPGs and not just our system.

Running my own campaign of 5E D&D has led to me thinking of how to run the game better. I've been thinking about traps and ambushes in particular. So I've been researching how to let PCs detect traps in an engaging manner yet satisfies players who want a bit more simulation in their RPGs.

Angry DM's opinion how traps are normally run in D&D is that "Traps suck". Basically because how players interact with them. Traps are not engaging, he argues: 

"If your character has a high enough passive Perception, the GM tells you “there’s a trap over there.” But what if you don’t? Because that process doesn’t actually involve you making any decisions. That’s just the GM telling you that your character was alert enough to spot a trap..."
"...Either way, though, in most games, there’s really only two strategies to searching for traps. First, there’s guessing blindly....
...The second strategy is to search absolutely everything that could reasonably be trapped..."

R20 has a video on how traps in D&D are often the Dungeon Master "cheating":

"The problem here? YOU, as the Dungeon Master, are your player's eyes, ears and senses. You are also the person who put the trap there. If you set a deadly trap and then have it kill a PC, they're gonna feel cheated. And having your players feel like their choices don't matter is perhaps the worse thing that can happen in your game."

Both of them recommend foreshadowing as the main solution to make traps feel fair. Angry DM also suggests the "Click" rule; when the trap is triggered, there is an audible click and in that split-second the PC can respond to the trap.

----

On the sort-of-related-but-not-really note, I contributed to a discussion about "Fail Forward"-like rules in my local RPG facebook group. Heavy metal GM explains what Fail Forward (from 13th Age) is:

The idea of this mechanic is that a character never really fails something, whether it be picking a lock or climbing a cliff face. Rather than outright not being able to do it, there’s an added complication upon your success. 

Not everyone is a fan of the Fail Forward rule. The reasoning being that always succeeding in "robs the players of the chance to be creative and figure out a way around an obstacle". Which can be a lot of the fun in RPGs.

There are quite a few systems with something similar. The Gumshoe system has on rules on "giving out clues": 

"If the consequence of failure is that a character fails to get a piece of crucial information, success should be automatic provided that the character has the ability in question, and the player thinks to ask for it. However, any credible attempt to get information that would yield a given clue yields that clue, whether or not this is the ability you’ve specified in the scenario."

Doesn't that sound extreme? But Gumshoe is a narrative RPG system; the system is meant to facilitate investigation and mystery.

I've been in a game where players failed a single roll to gain information. Without that information, players didn't know what to do next. So week after week, the players tried various ways to figure out what to do next to complete their objective but to no avail. Essentially progress in the game had halted and could not progress. 

The Dungeon Master in this game was a firm believer in running his games as a simulation rather than a narrative. The universe isn't going to bend backward to feed the PCs clues if the players can't find them. Even if the adventure comes to a screeching halt.

I talked about foreshadowing traps to the same Dungeon Master. He hated the idea. He argued that traps are made by enemies to kill the players. Players shouldn't get a deus ex machina to foreshadow that there is a trap. The universe doesn't bend over backwards to give PCs a fighting chance, so niether should the DM/GM.

I've heard this argument elsewhere as well. Puffin Forest for instance calls out the act of DMs helping the players as cheating. He's talking about the DM/GM fudging rolls to help the players. He doesn't approve. He argues it can undermine player choices (if they cannot make bad choices and suffer for it).

"Because if the players feel like their decisions aren't having an impact on the game they stop taking the game seriously."

I kind of see where they're coming from. If you use too much DM fiat to break the universe in order to help the players, the immersion in the game world is broken and player decisions and victories matter less. However, I'm concerned about instances when the players get stuck and the adventure has ground to a halt. What do you guys think?

At least for the traps, I've tried to find a compromise that will satisfy both the simulationist and the narrative player.

-------

1) Special Rule: Investigation Ability Check

First, I have written an new rule about resolving ability checks to uncover information. Long story short, there is a simple failing in the system used in D&D which I wanted to correct and it is relevant in the discussion of the next two points.

2) Optional Game Practice: Free Plot-critical information

Next I talk about some optional game practices inspired by "Fail Forward" that help keep the adventure going.

3) Recommendation: Signs of Danger and Red Herrings

Finally I've written a recommendation how PCs should detect dangers such as ambushes and traps considering that I hope is both fun to play and satisfies the simulationists.

-------

Special Rule: Investigation Ability Check

For the purpose of this rule, “Investigation Ability Checks” are ability checks where the PC is attempting to find clues or glean additional information in the current situation, but it is uncertain if the PC will determine these clues or uncover this information correctly. Investigation Ability Checks include actions such as noticing ambushes, detecting traps, discerning lies, identifying the true nature of magic items, spotting hidden treasures, researching a topic or remembering weaknesses of a monster.

When resolving Investigation Ability Checks, the player does not roll the dice for their PC. Instead, the player tells her GM the modifier bonuses/penalty their PC has for the roll, and the GM makes the roll on behalf of the PC out of sight of all the players. Players do not see the rolled result and do not know if the PC passed or failed the roll. Based on the results, the GM will tell the players what information the PC thinks she has uncovered. The GM usually does not tell the players if the information is correct or not; just the impressions that the PC has based on the results of the roll.

Usually, the results of an information gathering roll can be ruled as follows;

-       Passed roll: PC uncovers information correctly

-       Failed roll by less than 5: PC uncovers no information or does not know

-       Failed roll by more than 5: PC uncovers WRONG information instead

Optional Game Practice: Free Plot-critical information

Sometimes Investigation Ability Checks are made to uncover information which is important to move the narrative forward: the adventure cannot continue if players are unsuccessful in uncovering this information or clue. If the adventure prepared by the GM or the adventuring content in a module is only accessible if the PCs glean specific clues and information accurately, then these clues and information may be “Plot-critical”.

For example, For example, finding a hidden door which leads to a treasure hoard may not be considered “Plot-critical” since the only consequence to the PCs is reduced treasure. This may change drastically if the treasure hoard includes a treasure map which leads to more adventure that the GM has planned; finding the hidden door may now be “Plot-critical”. As you can see, how far information is “Plot-critical” can be rather subjective.

In regards to information that is "Plot-critical", GM may find it helpful to allow the PCs to uncover Plot-critical information even on failed Investigation Ability Checks so that players can continue playing the game content. Instead, a failed roll may introduce additional complications that the PCs will need to overcome, such as alerting their enemies to their position or needing to provide a favor to an NPC. Alternatively, the Investigative ability check may be ruled to be trivial enough not to need a roll so that the PCs will always gain "Plot-critical" information.

Take note that most Investigation Ability Checks are used to uncover information that may not be critical to continuing to access further game content. This information may be important in other ways, but the adventure can continue even if the PCs fail to uncover the information. Discovering traps, identifying magic items, monster weaknesses, and discerning lies are some examples of information that are generally not plot-critical because the adventure can continue or even become more interesting if the PCs fail to uncover the information.

Ultimately, how “plot-critical” information is depends on the needs of the GM to keep the game going and engage the players with campaign content. It may not be necessary to invoke this practice in some situations:
a) The GM can think of ways to keep the adventure going even when players find themselves stuck due to failed rolls.
b) The GMs can create additional avenues for players to uncover the information on the fly.
c) The GM can prepare new adventure content on the fly even if the players never discover the adventure content the GM had planned.
d) The players themselves are resourceful enough to think of solutions around the problem.

Players, please be understanding: GMs cannot always anticipate what will happen in a campaign and may need to use some tricks to keep the game going. If the GM is honest with you and says she's stuck because she needed something to happen, try to think of a solution together with with her. Talk about it, take a break to think about it, figure out what works best for your group.

Update: (I think it's better written like this)
GMs, it may be worthwhile to be honest with your players when things don't go as planned and you're not sure how to keep the adventure going. Discuss solutions with your players, take a break, then come back to the game. Expect to make some compromises and ask the players to make some compromises.
Players, it is okay to ask for advice from the GM sometimes if you're not sure what to do. Sometimes the GM will encourage you to think harder and only give a subtle hint. That's okay too; that's one way of teaching. At least by asking, you are communicating to your GM what your situation is and that you don't mind getting some help. Communicating your issues and expectations in a polite manner can improve the game for everyone.

------------

Savvy folk may realize that I've set up Investigation Ability Checks so that the GM can fudge rolls without his players' knowledge very easily. That's a side benefit; the main aim is to make actions for gathering information more interesting. Having the option to fudge important rolls is a good side benefit though, haha.

----------

Recommendation: Signs of Danger and Red Herrings

When describing an environment which holds a hidden danger to players, GMs will always include descriptions that suggests there are dangerous elements (traps, ambushes, etc.). However, the GM will also sometimes include descriptions that suggests danger when there is actually no danger. The GM does not have to explicitly tell the players that there are signs of danger in the environment; The GM may just describe an extra detail in the environment. It may be up to the players to realize that the description made by the GM sounds dangerous. 

Some examples of signs of danger include seeing a body with an arrow in its side, a small hole in the wall, differently colored stone tiles on the floor, birds are hooting around the party, a small rustling in the bushes, and a fallen tree blocking the path. Possible signs of danger may be for a once specific source of danger (egs. An ambush in the road ahead) for all the dangers of the same type in the area (a traps in a dungeon that follows a set pattern).

Players may ask for an Investigation Ability Check to help recognize if the signs of danger are genuine or not. An Investigation Ability Check result may inform players (correctly or wrongly) that there is a trap, ambush or some other danger. If the players ask for an Investigation Ability Check when none was called for (as there were in fact no possible signs of danger in the GM's description), the Investigation Ability Check may be considered trivial and so the GM immediately inform the player it’s safe. (This is generally recommended)

Etiquette: Players should try to let the GM finish their description before asking for an Investigation Ability Check. Asking for an Investigation Ability check for every mundane description by the GM is bad manners: save it for when you really think something truly sounds amiss.

Pragmatics: If a GM find that players too often misread their descriptions of the environment as suggestive of danger when that was not the GM's intention, the GM may consider making their descriptions of possible danger more obvious to players.

Players are not compelled to take any action based on the results of the Investigate Ability Check. For example, if the PC thinks that the crack in the wall isn’t really a trap due to their Investigation Ability Check, the player can still decide to play it safe and have their PC take another path further away from that crack in the wall.

To confirm their suspicions, even after an Investigative Ability Check is made, players may ask the GM’s to describe the immediate environment in more detail. Players may need tell the GM which part of the environment their PC examines more closely and how they examine it (egs. prodding the ground with a long pole).

As usual, if a PC attempts actions of which it is uncertain if the PC would be successful (egs. jumping over a wide floor trap), ability check rolls may be used to resolve the action. It is in the player’s interest to role-play out actions which are trivial enough not to require an ability check roll (egs. dropping a heavy bag on the floor).

Why should the GM always describe signs of danger when danger is present?
The GM acts as the eyes and ears of the PC by describing the environment to the players. The GM is also responsible for placing dangers that threaten the PCs in the environment. Since both describing the environment and placing dangers in the environment is the GM's responsibility, we think it is only fair for the GM to include of signs of dangers she had placed when she describes the environment.

False alarms are used to create uncertainty so that players never know for sure if the danger is genuine or not. It is up to the PCs to determine the signs of danger are genuine or even realize that the GM just described something in the environment that may be dangerous. This method gives players agency and the responsibility to be alert to possible dangers in the environment themselves.

---------

So those are my thoughts. Does anyone have any input? Ideas how to do it better? Better advice for players and GMs?