# Elements of Magic(R) and Buy The Numbers



## Archus (Dec 20, 2004)

This is my first attempt at combining Elements of Magic Revised and Buy The Numbers.  

Elements of Magic Revised is an alternate spellcasting system using magic points, noun + verb spell lists, and many other nifty things.  Buy The Numbers is a point based character creation system where you use XP to buy your abilities instead of having classes.

To do this I first totaled up how much each BTN primary spellcaster spent on magic for levels 1 - 20.  Then I tried to make the EoMR spellcasters spend about as much per level.  I smoothed out the MP improvements to numbers divisible by 5 because it made the math easier.

My assumptions for the EoMR caster are:
* They are roughly as powerful as core classes.  They give up some power for flexability.

* EoMR spellcasters improve in a fairly linear fashion.  So I wanted to make all of the costs work like the base attack bonus improvement in BTN or (Base Cost) * (New Total).

I broke the EoMR abilities up as follows, each is purchased separately:
* Max MP - The maximum MP you can spend on any one spell.

* Spell Lists - The noun+verb abilities.

* MP/Day - How much MP the spellcaster has in a day.  Always purchased 5MP at a time.

* Free Cantrips/Day - The number of 0 MP spells castable in a day.

* Signature Spells - The number of signature spells the caster knows at one time.

Here are the costs of improvement under BTN:

+1 Max MP = 250 * [New Rank]
+1 Spell List = 25 * [New Number of Spell Lists]
+5 MP/Day = [New Total MP]
+1 Free Cantrip/Day = 5 * (New Number of Cantrips)
+1 Signature Spell = 10 * (New Number of Signature Spells)

Note: You buy the EoMR magic skills (Dispel Magic, Scry, etc) like any skill under BTN.  The max MP you can spend on those skills is your Max MP or the ranks in the skill, whichever is lower.  

The total cost for magic between the core classes and EoMR works out fairly well with the above costs.  The EoMR caster starts out costing a little more, which seems fair for the flexability.  Eventually the core classes cost more, also fair since they have some more wacky and powerful spells.

Attached to the following page is a spreadsheet analyzing the numbers.
http://www.arcanearcade.com/wiki/index.php/HighArcana/RulesBuyTheNumbers

--Archus


----------



## Archus (Dec 20, 2004)

This idea originated in this thread:
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=100246&page=2

--Archus


----------



## Verequus (Dec 20, 2004)

I see, that you've gotten rid of the 1/2 caster level - because it isn't need with this system?

 You are giving spell lists a base cost of 25 XP - with an linear advancement of feats this means, that one feat costs the same like two spell lists. I've already mentioned here regarding a house rule floating here around, which used Extra Spell List as base, that this feat should give two spell lists instead only one. You are proofing me right. YAY!

 Looking at the charts: The ridiculous cost of the sorcerer always griped me. I'm sure that there is a design flaw, but I don't know, how to fix it... At least, the curve for the Mage looks to be exponential - simple and elegant. You've included only the costs for spellcasting, didn't you? How would you rate the three types of the magical boons? Like a simple ability, available for level x?


----------



## Archus (Dec 20, 2004)

Deleted dup post


----------



## Archus (Dec 20, 2004)

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> I see, that you've gotten rid of the 1/2 caster level - because it isn't need with this system?




Yeah, I just dropped the 1/2 caster level because there was nothing inheriently useful about them except for the pieces you can buy (just like there is nothing useful about the Cleric BAB progression until you get that full +1).  You can buy each piece of one of the 1/2 levels exactly as given on the table, except for MP - you can only buy 5 MP at a time.

So the a .5 caster would buy:
3 Spell Lists (25+50+75 = 150 XP)
2 Cantrips (5+10 = 15 XP)
5 MP (5 XP)
Total 170 XP

I haven't decided on if you have to buy each signature spell, or if you get a base number equal to your INT mod.  If you don't get a base then the .5 caster may also want to buy:
3 Signature Spells (10+20+30 = 60 XP)

If that is the case you would spend 230 XP to be a 1/2 caster.  Conviently enough that is really close to the 251 XP that a bard pays under BTN.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> You are giving spell lists a base cost of 25 XP - with an linear advancement of feats this means, that one feat costs the same like two spell lists. I've already mentioned here regarding a house rule floating here around, which used Extra Spell List as base, that this feat should give two spell lists instead only one. You are proofing me right. YAY!




Hmm, convenient but not really intentional.  I just played with the weights until I had a total cost roughly equal to a BTN caster and ratio's I was willing to live with.  I may alter the Max MP and Spell List costs a bit and lower the Max MP cost (200) while raising the Spell List cost (50).  My reasoning is that spell lists provide versatility and power (since you need several similar lists to take full advantage of your Max MP) while Max MP just provides power.  Since Max MP has a smaller range (1-20) and is the yardstick of how much oomph a character has, I'm keeping it as the most expensive part.  If Spell Lists cost too much more, then being an EoMR caster gets outrageous quick.

Since I'm planning on using 100 * New # Feats for the cost of feats (instead of the  quadratic increase in BTN) then my planned 50 for a spell list would still fit your idea of reasonable cost.

I've been tinkering with those two weights a ton and haven't decided what looks best.  The other weights I'm pretty happy with.  They are the core of the cost for a spellcaster.



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Looking at the charts: The ridiculous cost of the sorcerer always griped me. I'm sure that there is a design flaw, but I don't know, how to fix it... At least, the curve for the Mage looks to be exponential - simple and elegant. You've included only the costs for spellcasting, didn't you? How would you rate the three types of the magical boons? Like a simple ability, available for level x?




I only included BTN spellcasting costs for Wizards, Clerics, etc. that included access to spell lists, access to domains, caster level, spell slots, known spells, and spell conversion.

Sorcerors have always been screwed.  I'm taking care of that problem by only using EoMR magic.  I'll use modules and source materials as they are (some balance by having mightier spells), but anything I or the players create (plus important things I choose to translate) will use EoMR.

I'd magical boons them like class abilities: 300 * Level.  Remove the abilities that grant a feat (use feat costs) and those already in BTN (trackless step).  The costs would be:
* Minor Boon Cost = 300 xp
* Moderate Boon Cost = 600 xp
* Major Boon Cost =  2400 xp

I may want to go do some comparison on the abilities to price them more fairly, but that is a rough ballpark.

--Archus


----------



## Verequus (Dec 20, 2004)

Archus said:
			
		

> Yeah, I just dropped the 1/2 caster level because there was nothing inheriently useful about them except for the pieces you can buy (just like there is nothing useful about the Cleric BAB progression until you get that full +1). You can buy each piece of one of the 1/2 levels exactly as given on the table, except for MP - you can only buy 5 MP at a time.
> 
> So the a .5 caster would buy:
> 3 Spell Lists (25+50+75 = 150 XP)
> ...



 Interesting.



> Hmm, convenient but not really intentional. I just played with the weights until I had a total cost roughly equal to a BTN caster and ratio's I was willing to live with. I may alter the Max MP and Spell List costs a bit and lower the Max MP cost (200) while raising the Spell List cost (50). My reasoning is that spell lists provide versatility and power (since you need several similar lists to take full advantage of your Max MP) while Max MP just provides power. Since Max MP has a smaller range (1-20) and is the yardstick of how much oomph a character has, I'm keeping it as the most expensive part. If Spell Lists cost too much more, then being an EoMR caster gets outrageous quick.



 Outrageous quick? What is the meaning of that?



> Since I'm planning on using 100 * New # Feats for the cost of feats (instead of the quadratic increase in BTN) then my planned 50 for a spell list would still fit your idea of reasonable cost.
> 
> I've been tinkering with those two weights a ton and haven't decided what looks best. The other weights I'm pretty happy with. They are the core of the cost for a spellcaster.



 Take your time!



> I only included BTN spellcasting costs for Wizards, Clerics, etc. that included access to spell lists, access to domains, caster level, spell slots, known spells, and spell conversion.
> 
> Sorcerors have always been screwed. I'm taking care of that problem by only using EoMR magic. I'll use modules and source materials as they are (some balance by having mightier spells), but anything I or the players create (plus important things I choose to translate) will use EoMR.



 Sorcercers are screwed in the core rules, too? That this problem can be get ridden of, is clear, but I'm still wondering, where the screwdriver has been stuck. It is academic interest, so.



> I'd magical boons them like class abilities: 300 * Level. Remove the abilities that grant a feat (use feat costs) and those already in BTN (trackless step). The costs would be:
> * Minor Boon Cost = 300 xp
> * Moderate Boon Cost = 600 xp
> * Major Boon Cost =  2400 xp
> ...



 Nice!


----------



## Archus (Dec 21, 2004)

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Outrageous quick? What is the meaning of that?




Because you purchase many more spell lists (total of 45) than max MP (total of 20), if you increase the cost/spell list much then the total cost of a btn spellcaster gets high very quick.  The cost also stays above the btn core classes much longer.  It seemed a bit too expensive. 



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Sorcercers are screwed in the core rules, too? That this problem can be get ridden of, is clear, but I'm still wondering, where the screwdriver has been stuck. It is academic interest, so.




Sorcercers just seemed screwed in play.  On the surface they looked cool, but then our sorcercers were just outclassed by the wizards constantly.  Could have been my experience.


----------

