Reviewing everything I've posted so far on spellcasting mechanics, it came to my attention that basing some classes' mana off of Constitution also would alter the dynamics of multiclassing. AD&D and 3rd Edition both use a spells/day system, so multiclassed spellcasters, even if both classes used the same stat for spells, don't have to worry about sharing a mana pool. In the system I grew up on, however, each casting stat has its own mana pool (ie: Intelligence gave Arcane mana, Wisdom gave Divine). This meant that while you could play a Mage/Illusionist, or a Cleric/Druid, you wouldn't gain any additional casting power, just another spell list to choose from.
By making Constitution the casting stat for Mages, Druids, and Rangers, I've now reduced the effectiveness of a Mage/Druid or Mage/Ranger multiclass combination.
I also have a system I've developed to give Fighters and other melee-based classes more versatility and variety than AD&D without making them quite as powerful as 3rd Edition's tireless killing machines. This system uses Endurance points, also based on Constitution. They aren't magical abilities, but I can still see arguments for a Mage/Fighter using a single pool for both casting and the fighting abilities. After all, if you've drained your body by channeling arcane or nature-based force, why would you still have just as much Endurance?
Effectively, though, this would mean that hardly any melee-based class would want to multiclass with Mage or Druid, while Rangers would end up being almost at a disadvantage since they come prepackaged with both spells and the fighting abilities. Power-wise, anyway. The benefit, still, would be increased versatility despite the lack of additional power. Whether this would be worth the increased Experience cost to level, I'm not sure. I guess that would vary, depending on the person.
On the other hand, it would open up Cleric/Druid as a more potent multiclass option, since Clerics draw power from Faith. Paladin/Druid would still have the problem of splitting Constitution between Endurance and Mana. Mage/Cleric would still be just as effective as before. The Thief class gets a few Endurance based abilities, but not as many, which means multiclassing into Mage or Druid might be a slightly more attractive option than it is for the more combat-focused melee classes.
3 comments:
The chief thing about any gaming system is that a character's power comes at some sort of cost. The details don't matter as much. The system you grew up with "penalized" the druid/cleric...the one you propose "penalizes" the fighter/mage. So long as your internal philosophy is consistent, you can do this.
You might want to consider adjusting any additional experience cost so that it is proportionate to the character's overall power. Versatility is good, versatility plus extra power is better. If you have more spells plus a bigger mana pool, this is worth more sacrifice than just more spells. Et cetera.
That brings up some interesting thoughts concerning the valuation of different classes and class combinations. We had already established that some classes in AD&D were effectively worth two "class slots", but this would possibly introduce classes & combos worth 1.5 classes. That means a closer look at my experience tables, among other things.
Are there any classes that would only be valued as half of a class?
This also spurred some thought on making Intelligence play a part in determining not just how many classes you can learn, but how fast you learn them. I'll probably make those thoughts my next blog post.
Original D&D gives an experience bonus to characters with a 16 or better in their primary stat. It seems to me that using intelligence here would make sense.
Post a Comment