Huh? Scay-whats?
That's a fancy but precise way to address the quantitative and definitive answers to the following questions:
- how many "points" of mana does it cost to cast a particular type of spell or use some kind of magical power?
- how many "points" of basal mana does a character have available to use?
The two questions really need to be answered together, because a small change in one dramatically changes the application of the other. If a magic missile costs 1 mana point to cast, and a 4th level magic user has 100 points of basal mana to work with...well...watch out. Similarly, if it costs 100 points of mana to cast a magic missile, and a 4th level magic user doesn't have at least that much basal mana available at full reserve, then something is wrong with the rule set-up.
I've emphasized that I want the net effect of this new set of mana house rules to be roughly proportionate to the core magic rules in its effect. In the core rules, a 4th level magic user can cast two 1st-level spells and two 2nd-level spells, or a total of 6 cumulative spell levels, per day. However much mana those spells cost to cast and how much basal mana a 4th level magic user has should come out roughly equal to that power level.
We could just say that a spell costs as many mana points to cast as whatever its spell level is, and the level of basal mana available is equal to whatever the cumulative spell levels are. That would be simple. However, as we then try to address the basal mana supply, we'll discover that an approach like this will quickly make higher-level magic users vastly more powerful than they already are. For instance, under the core rules a 20th level mage can cast four 9th-level spells per day. That same mage also has a power level of 192 spell spell levels. 192 divided by 9 is 22. Higher-level mages are already ridiculously over-powered without being able to cast 22 Wish or Power Word Kill spells per day (or even 192 magic missiles).
If we set basal mana to be proportional to the highest level of spell available to cast (for instance, a basal mana of 36 would limit that 20th-level mage to high-level casting power equal to the core rules for her highest spell level, but dramatically reduce other spell-casting ability. That might work, except that the spell level progression chart does not follow a direct linear relationship which lets us have a smooth progression of basal mana levels along with experience level and casting ability.
For instance, at 20th level, a magic user gets to cast four 9th level spells, translating to a basal mana level of 36. At 19th level, it's three, for a basal mana of 27. At 17th level, a mage get the first 9th-level spell, suggesting a basal mana of 9. Yet at 16th level, the mage had a maximum spell-casting level of two 8th-level spells, suggesting that her basal mana was already 16. This quickly becomes a mess when we project it both backwards and forwards.
We could just say that basal mana is equal to the highest of the number of spells known at each level on the spell progression chart times that spell level. That gives us something that looks like this (with the highest multiple of spell level vs. spells available – shown bold - used as basal mana level):
Level | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Basal Mana |
1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||
3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |||||||
4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | |||||||
5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | ||||||
6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | ||||||
7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6 | |||||
8 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 8 | |||||
9 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 9 | ||||
10 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 12 | ||||
11 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 12 | |||
12 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 15 | |||
13 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 15 | ||
14 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 18 | ||
15 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 20 | |
16 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 24 | |
17 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 28 |
18 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 32 |
19 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 32 |
20 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 36 |
This is simple, but there isn’t a whole lot of consistency or logic to the way the power levels increase here (which is actually a flaw in the original spell progression chart which is propagating forward into this analysis…but we’re trying to keep it anyway). Also note that although this keeps a spell caster from being able to cast more high-level spells than would normally be allowed, it doesn’t do so consistently either (a 17th-level mage would have 28 mana points and could could therefore cast more than one 9th level spell even though he should only have one). It also radically reduces the caster’s ability to cast both high- and low-level spells during the same day. We might want to limit that a little bit, but not so much. Nor can we increase the mana level to compensate without increase the cost to cast a spell.
Clearly, this approach isn’t going to work.
Conversely, we could say that the cost to cast a spell is the spell’s level times the caster’s level, which make high-level casting of high-level spells very expensive while making lower-level spells more accessible. Without even drawing up a chart, it’s clear that such a thing would require an exponential increase in mana at each experience level, further imbalancing the game. So scratch that idea too.
Finally, we could go with a deductive percentage system. A 9th-level spell takes 50% of whatever the basal mana level is or something like that. The proportionality of a percentage system is nice, but tracking it is cumbersome and doesn’t really allow for differing basal mana levels (for, say, a lich vs. a plain-old magic user).
What we really need is something in-between all these options.
One thing the simplistic approach does not do is take any account of the fact that as somebody practices something for a long time and gets good at it, it becomes much easier and more intuitive for them to do it. It should take less effort and energy for a 20th-level mage to cast a 1st-level spell than for a 1st-level mage to do it. Similarly, when progressing to the first spell of a new, more advanced spell level, it should take more effort and energy to cast than after mastering more or higher-level spells.
To calculate how much mana it should cost to cast a spell, we need to have a number that is both proportionate to the level of the spell and also proportionate to how many spells of that level are available to a character of similar experience level. That gives us an equation that looks like this:
| Spells Known at Level 20 | ||||
| Cost to Cast Spell | = | Level of Spell | x | ---------------------------------- |
| (in mana) | Spells Known at Current Level |
Just as with the first approach, the mana required to cast a spell is directly proportional to the level of the spell. However, now I’m multiplying that number times a ratio of how many spells the caster knows at their current level versus a benchmark (in this case, the hypothetical maximum of spells known at level 20…more about that later).
So, for example, it would require six (6) mana points for a first level magic user to cast the 1st-leve spell magic missile (mana = 1 * 6/1), but only one (1) mana point for a 20th-level magic user (mana = 1 * 6/6). For the sake of simplicity in accounting (a subject I’ll cover in depth in a future post), the result of this equation is rounded up to the nearest 1/2 point.
Therefore we get a chart that looks like this:
BASE MANA COST PER EXPERIENCE & SPELL LEVEL
Level | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
1 | 6 | ||||||||
2 | 3 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | 12 | |||||||
4 | 3 | 6 | |||||||
5 | 3 | 6 | 15 | ||||||
6 | 3 | 6 | 7.5 | ||||||
7 | 2 | 6 | 7.5 | 20 | |||||
8 | 2 | 4 | 7.5 | 10 | |||||
9 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 25 | ||||
10 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 12.5 | ||||
11 | 1.5 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 12.5 | 30 | |||
12 | 1.5 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 8.5 | 15 | |||
13 | 1.5 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 8.52 | 15 | 28 | ||
14 | 1.5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 8.5 | 10 | 14 | ||
15 | 1.5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6.5 | 10 | 14 | 32 | |
16 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 4 | 5 | 6.5 | 7.5 | 9.5 | 16 | |
17 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 3 | 5 | 6.5 | 7.5 | 7 | 11 | 36 |
18 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 3 | 4 | 6.5 | 7.5 | 7 | 8 | 18 |
19 | 1 | 2.5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 7.5 | 7 | 8 | 12 |
20 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
Lower-level spell casters have to spend more mana to cast spells, and the cost of casting a spell at a certain level goes down at higher experience levels. This matches our intuitive sense about how such a thing should work, and provides a proportionate cost at every level.
We might also add in another column here for so-called “level zero” spells (cantrips), stating that casting any cantrip costs 1 mana point up to level 10, and 1/2 thereafter. This provides a tidy mechanism for allowing cantrips to be used in an early-edition campaign without having them unbalance the spell casting.
Note also that even though this mana cost chart has been developed from the magic user spell progression, the same equation applies to all spell-casting classes. Toward the end of this, when I’ve finalized all the details associated with these house rules, I’ll provide a handy PDF of them which includes charts for each class.
The second question hasn’t been answered yet, though. Now that we have an idea of the relative costs of casting spells at various levels, how much mana should be available?
One thing we should make sure of is that for each point at which a caster’s experience level makes a new spell level available, the caster’s basal mana level should be less than twice the mana cost for that first spell at the highest available level. In other words, since a 17th-level magic user gains the ability to memorize and cast one 9th-level spell on attaining that experience level, he shouldn’t already have enough basal mana to cast it twice in one day.
Also, when a spell becomes available to a caster, there should be enough basal mana available to cast it. For instance, a 1st-level magic user wouldn’t be much of a spell-caster if he didn’t already have at least 6 basal mana points available at first level to cast his one spell per day.
Fortunately, except for the odd little bump down in cost for the first 6th-level spell to the first 7th-level spell (which is an artifact of the core rules’ spell progression table), the numbers follow a fairly linear progression upward. In fact, if we stick to multiples of three, we get a nice, simple progression that fills all our basic requirements.
Without going into the minutiae then, we can now state a couple of simple rules for basal mana levels at any experience level:
- The basal mana level for any standard human or humanoid (not including elves) at level zero is three (3).
- Through training and discipline, spell-casting classes gain an additional three (3) basal mana points per experience level.
- Non-casting classes gain an additional one (1) basal mana point per experience level, even if they do not have the ability to use it through spell-casting ability.
That’s it. If you’re a human or non-elf humanoid caster, your basal mana level is your experience level times three plus three. If you’re a non-caster, it’s your experience level plus three. Elves are a special case because they’re innately magical, and we’ll talk about them when we get into the implications of how this system works.
So, updating the base spell cost chart to include basal mana levels, we get this:
MAGIC USER
BASE MANA COST PER EXPERIENCE & SPELL LEVEL
| Class | Spell Level | Basal | ||||||||
| Level | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Mana |
| 1 | 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 2 | 3 | 9 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | 12 | 12 | |||||||
| 4 | 3 | 6 | 15 | |||||||
| 5 | 3 | 6 | 15 | 18 | ||||||
| 6 | 3 | 6 | 7.5 | 21 | ||||||
| 7 | 2 | 6 | 7.5 | 20 | 24 | |||||
| 8 | 2 | 4 | 7.5 | 10 | 27 | |||||
| 9 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 25 | 30 | ||||
| 10 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 12.5 | 33 | ||||
| 11 | 1.5 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 12.5 | 30 | 36 | |||
| 12 | 1.5 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 8.5 | 15 | 39 | |||
| 13 | 1.5 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 8.5 | 15 | 28 | 42 | ||
| 14 | 1.5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 8.5 | 10 | 14 | 45 | ||
| 15 | 1.5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6.5 | 10 | 14 | 32 | 48 | |
| 16 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 4 | 5 | 6.5 | 7.5 | 9.5 | 16 | 51 | |
| 17 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 3 | 5 | 6.5 | 7.5 | 7 | 11 | 36 | 54 |
| 18 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 3 | 4 | 6.5 | 7.5 | 7 | 8 | 18 | 57 |
| 19 | 1 | 2.5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 7.5 | 7 | 8 | 12 | 60 |
| 20 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 63 |
Up next, a quick digression into accounting.
