Sounds like it could be tuned by changing how the costs scale with spell level. Or making a spell that scales with level cost extra to scale with level.
Doesn't really work. An interchangeable points system functionally breaks down into action and resource economy. There are therefore precisely two meaningful options:
1. The spell that has the optimal TTK, independently of cost.
2. The spell that has the optimal damage-per-mana.
And in most cases, these frequently converge to the same spell, or there is only one viable option because #2 is impractical: Either the output is simply too low, or the added cost of extending the encounter is too high.
Sounds like it could be tuned by changing how the costs scale with spell level. Or making a spell that scales with level cost extra to scale with level.
Doesn't really work. An interchangeable points system functionally breaks down into action and resource economy. There are therefore precisely two meaningful options:
1. The spell that has the optimal TTK, independently of cost.
2. The spell that has the optimal damage-per-mana.
And in most cases, these frequently converge to the same spell, or there is only one viable option because #2 is impractical: Either the output is simply too low, or the added cost of extending the encounter is too high.
Basically nerds with calculators is part the reason we can't have nice things. Reality is that mfs will do exactly this and boil down the entire spell crafting system to a spreadsheet with the best few spells pinned.
Basically nerds with calculators is part the reason we can't have nice things. Reality is that mfs will do exactly this and boil down the entire spell crafting system to a spreadsheet with the best few spells pinned.
Imagine expecting your playerbase not to be nerds with calculators in a genre that was exclusively played by the biggest nerds on the biggest calculators money could buy.
Basically nerds with calculators is part the reason we can't have nice things. Reality is that mfs will do exactly this and boil down the entire spell crafting system to a spreadsheet with the best few spells pinned.
Imagine expecting your playerbase not to be nerds with calculators in a genre that was exclusively played by the biggest nerds on the biggest calculators money could buy.
To be expected. But what it boils down to is that it's kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation where no matter which option you choose there will be people unhappy about it. If you add spell crafting there will be people complaining about balance endlessly, or about changing balance, or about there being clear winner spells, or about not being able to optimize, etc.
If you don't, people will complain that there's no spell crafting. The latter is a much smaller group typically, so no surprises many opt out of spellcrafting.
It's a cool idea that doesn't mix well with the reality of who and how plays these games. I like the idea of spellcrafting myself, but I don't see how it can be implemented well without creating a mess.
Sounds like it could be tuned by changing how the costs scale with spell level. Or making a spell that scales with level cost extra to scale with level.
Doesn't really work. An interchangeable points system functionally breaks down into action and resource economy. There are therefore precisely two meaningful options:
1. The spell that has the optimal TTK, independently of cost.
2. The spell that has the optimal damage-per-mana.
And in most cases, these frequently converge to the same spell, or there is only one viable option because #2 is impractical: Either the output is simply too low, or the added cost of extending the encounter is too high.
It can be done, but it requires designers capable of playing like players.
