# What about the MP amount?



## CapnZapp (Nov 16, 2004)

I started to think "I wonder how close the Lyceian Arcana variants of the core spellcaster classes will come to the official magic point using version of these?" and then I had to stop at the following question.

I'm referring to the Unearthed Arcana variant rule on spellpoints. If we apply this rule we get Wizards and Clerics with magic points, because unless I'm horribly wrong we can equal 1 spell point with 1 magic point.

However, UA spellcasters get significantly less magic points than EoM:R spellcasters. For instance, a 20th level Sorcerer gets 232 SP. A EoM character with CL 20 gets 370 MP.

So I checked Psions (from Expanded Psionics Handbook), they get 343 PP (Power Points, another name for essentially the same commodity) not counting bonus points for a high ability score.

So EoM is about (or exactly?) the same as XPH. Perhaps there's nothing controversial about the EoM point pool after all, perhaps the relevant question is "what's up with the UA point pools?".

This has been discussed elsewhere, for instance here:
http://www.wakinglands.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=14&t=101&st=0#entry836
Now Wizards get 324 spell points, while Sorcerers get 486 (at 20th level). Now EoM is somewhere in the middle, and the comparison looks much better.

So, is there more to the EoM point pool than this? And am I ill advised to compare to UA?


----------



## RangerWickett (Nov 17, 2004)

Mind you, I don't have UA, so I can't judge.  Compared to the XPH, how similar is the 'scaling' of spells?  Does a 5 spell point fireball still do d6 damage per level, or is it 5d6, plus 1d6 per extra spell point spent?

Also, EOM spellcasters have much more flexibility in designing spells, but the power level of spells available at a given level differs, particularly for offensive spells.

Long story short, it's a complicated comparison.  My playtest group consisted of about 8 people, and we never had a chance to run an entire campaign with the rules, just a few adventures and fights, so the MP at each caster level is one of the most 'eyeballed' parts of the rules, balance-wise.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 17, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Mind you, I don't have UA, so I can't judge.  Compared to the XPH, how similar is the 'scaling' of spells?  Does a 5 spell point fireball still do d6 damage per level, or is it 5d6, plus 1d6 per extra spell point spent?



I think you need to spend points for level equivalency, just like augmenting psionics or casting EoM spells. You still get the stuff you have to pay with enhancements for in EoM for free, though (5 MP gets you a 5d6 fireball with a range of 600 ft and a 20' radius)


----------



## CapnZapp (Nov 17, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> the MP at each caster level is one of the most 'eyeballed' parts of the rules, balance-wise.



That's my answer.

Fair enough, you seem to have come to about the same totals as XPH, and the same totals as UA would have come to if AC didn't feel the need to nerf casters*, so it should work ok.

(Probably because things like getting range and area of effect for free. As EoM "wizards" need to pay for these things, it's enough explanation at least for me).

The numbers on the liked site may still interest you, however. They are a compilation of how many powermagicspell points the slots of each core caster represent at each level: a level one slot = 1 MP, a level two slot = 3 MP... including the separation of specialist and domain slots from the general slots.

If LA core casters have differing amounts of MPs, and/or if LA core casters get bonus MPs for high ability scores; then they might come in handy.

Thanks!


----------

