>>44583272 The magic system in most D&D editions is only balanced against physical combat by having a limited number of castings per day, and is still considered horrendously overpowered if properly metagamed.
Early edition casters are weak in early levels because later on their sheer versatility comes to make most physical classes totally redundant.
Some folks like me sort of enjoy this because it makes being a mage challenging, hut also eventually rewarding and meaningful, because powerful magic is extremely powerful indeed, to make up for your limited list of spells early on.
Stapling a mana system onto the game would likely exacerbate this problem to the point where anyone playing a fighter would be shafted from the get-go.
Also, original D&D is not a very user-friendly or logical edition, being rather unrefined and inadequately tested.
The furthest I'd go back would be 2e
If you're really set on having a mana-like power pool system, I would honestly advise choosing a system built around that kind of mechanic, and balanced for it.
To be fair, a lot of the problems with DnD magic is the power of the spells. They wouldn't need to be so limited if the spells simply weren't so good. Having only one 'I-win' button each day may be balanced but I'm not really a fan.
Instead I would personally change it to using a mana system with weaker, more Harry-Potter style spells like stun spells, minor hexes for damage, and levitation, shielding, conjuring charms. You can conjure a snake maybe but not a fucking balrog. That's just how I view it anyway.
I would use the above style spells and use 'mana' as a boosting and limiting mechanic. For example you can hit a single enemy with your stunning spell each turn you attack with your magical wand, but you can spend a point of mana to hit two enemies with it, or three with another mana point spent, and so on with limits on how powerful you can make your spells based on your level and intelligence.
>>44583941 Honestly? You might want to look at 4e.
It addressed the balance rift between casters and clompers by giving non-magical characters special attacks that mechanically work similarly to spells, but can also represent non-magical abilities.
It's one of the gamier editions, not to everyone's taste, but it gives every class weak powers that they can use at will, middling ones they can use once per encounter, and powerful ones they can use once per day.
Do you want to use a mana system specifically to avoid the balance issues common to D&D?
Redesigning the entire spell catalogue might be hard too, and you must also bear in mind that at high level play, having gimped casters would lead to a lot of player deaths against monsters designed to pose a challenge even to a fully rated caster with a daily compliment of full power spells.
The mana system alteration would necessitate sweeping changes to the game's spell lists, monsters, and anything that interacts with either of those.
These systems exist in a delicate balance, and altering one has an effect on every other.
Step 1: Give up. People have been chasing that unicorn for 40 years, and nobody's ever made a mana system for D&D that wasn't either horribly broken, horribly underpowered, or much more fiddly and annoying than using the stock pseudo-Vancian system, or a combination of those.
>>44585000 >nobody's ever made a mana system for D&D that wasn't either horribly broken, horribly underpowered, or much more fiddly and annoying than using the stock pseudo-Vancian system, or a combination of those.
Nonsense, 3.5 psionics is neither broken, nor underpowered, nor annoying (it is much easier to track a single number than to track which particular slots you've spent.
>>44583858 >original D&D is not a very user-friendly or logical edition, being rather unrefined and inadequately tested.
Not true, OD&D was playtested like crazy for years on end. Its biggest problem is that the books were apparently written for people who'd already been taught the game by Gygax, Arneson, and Kuntz. Basic and AD&D were largely developed as kludges by adding and discarding systems until they worked, so you have a lot of systems that may not "make sense" from a perspective of logic and order, but which play very well at the table. (With the exception of some of Gary's AD&D rules, which seem to have come straight from his butt)
Considering how many people say they hate the psionics systems and ban them outright, I'm going to suggest that maybe that's a minority opinion. That said, I haven't played with the 3E psionics, as I found ALL of 3E to be unnecessarily complicated and fiddly and gave up on that edition after a few months of play. So you might be right on that.
Hmm. Well, I'd counter that what D&D 3.5 players call "Tier 1" is what most other folks call "ultra-mega-broken." I also remember 2e psionics being horribly slow to deal with so that any psionics fight was a good time to go get a sandwich, but I also thought the same thing about 3E combat in general, so maybe 3E players just have a higher tolerance?
3e psionics is exactly nothing like 2e psioncs (which made a lot of 2e psionics fans mad, back in the day). 3.5 psioncs takes no more time than 3.5 magic, it is literally refluffed magic with a mana point system.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.