Spell composition

[Indigo Knight]

The short premise is creating a set of smallest building blocks that will enable magic users to add together, then creating, spells.

It can be treated, I guess, as some sort of thought experiment. But I would like to take it to operational stage and play with it in my game.

I am aware of existing systems with similar concept (such as Ars Magicka). I used some parts of them as inspiration. Yet: a. they are usually not based upon logical division of the smallest units, and b. they are not compatible with d&d.
If you still think that I missed something in my research, feel free to link it.


For the moment it works as follows.
Creating a spell involves 4 steps:

1. Pick target type:
   

   Object	any inanimate matter	Surface	point of origin located on feature from the surroundings. spreading using that surface as vector.
   "	"	Void	a location in space from which the spell emanates regardless of obstacles.
   Creature	an independent entity such as the living, automatons, golems, constructs, animals, etc'.	Self	caster himself
   "	"	Natural	a willing creature
   "	"	Hostile	an unwilling creature, enemy

2. Pick casting range:
   Determines the maximum distance a target (as chosen above) be, to be cast upon.
   
   

   Melee

   Near

   Sight

   Unrestricted

3. Pick spell's duration:
   The span in which an effect will be active.
   
   

   Instantaneous	applying effect when the casting concludes
   Focus	enables the caster to keep an effect in action while he concentrate on the spell
   Short	apply for a short while after the casting and concentrating thereafter concludes

4. Pick occurring effect:
   Can be chosen multiple times.
   
   
   
   • (Mend/Repair) Restore AEGIS hit points to target material.
   • (Damage) Deduct AEGIS hit points of target material.
   • (Animate) Animate AEGIS of target material.
   • (deceive/illusion/phantasm/pattern) Create an illusionary image from nothing or change appearence of existing.
   • (Supress)->(Dispel) Disable AEGIS of ongoing spell effect.
   • (Harden) Grant target material DR up to AEGIS.
   • (Heal) Restore AEGIS hit points to target creature.
   • (Harm) Deduct AEGIS hit points of target creature.
   • (Weaken) Worsen condition on strength-weakness scale.
   • (Bind) Worsen condition on dexterity-paralyze scale.
   • (Exhaust) Worsen condition on constitution-exhaustion scale.
   • (Confuse) Worsen condition on intelligence-confusion scale.
   • (Frighten) Worsen condition on wisdom-panick scale.
   • (Compel/Charm) Worsen condition on charisma-charm scale.
   • (Haste) Grants target additional actions.
   • (Slow) Withhold actions from target.
   • (Contact) Communicate with target.
   • (Know) Target creature understand chosen subject.
   • (Sense)->(Detect) Reveal up to AEGIS of a certain topic.
   • (Figment/Glamour) target creature perceive a false sensation.
   • (Morph) Enhance creature's abilities up to AEGIS.
   • (Ward) Absorb AEGIS of hp damage directed at target
   • (Summon)(Conjure) Summon AEGIS.
   • (Banish)(Remove) Unsummon target up to AEGIS.
   • (Jaunt/Shift) Teleport target. AEGIS. 10ft' per level(?)
   • (Conceal) Hide features of target.
   • (Force) Push, Pull or hit (or float?) with AEGIS of magical force (or lift creature)
   • (Anchor) protects from teleporting

AEGIS = Appropriate amount for given spell level.


*****


As can be clearly seen, this is far from ready.
Any comment, criticism or suggestion for further improvements are greatly appreciated.

There are some specific items which I'm having trouble with:
The comment in the end, mentioning AEGIS, was created in favor of separating the process of breaking spells down to units and then quantifying each of them at a later time.
Earlier approach was having every aspect being available on it's own as 1st level spell.
Combining, multiplying or substituting units will increase spell level to higher levels.
Very high levels will force casters to enable the spell as a ritual rather then a combat spell (e.g. Teleporting to a different plane vs. blinking forward a few steps).

Some units seem to contain more possibilities then others; Detect for one. Force for another. I am not sure if to further divide them.

Another thing I got stuck on was energy types - such as radiant, fire or sonic. Energy types are usually tied to condition applied to target. But it's not a must as some didn't inflict condition. If it applies both damage and condition then it is no longer the smallest unit. And if the spell only inflicted damage then adding energy was extra spellcost for no benefit as an 'Harm' unit already existed. Some spells didn't even note an energy type of damage.


Thank you all for reading.

[aimlessPolymath]

Interesting.

I have dealt with something similar when I was trying to develop a system of d20 physics.
My general theorycraft was as follows:
-The basic unit of energy is the d6 of damage. This is a Medium-sized unit of energy. To convert to different sizes of units of energy, scale up or down using the weapon sizing rules. Every two size categories up or down effectively doubles or halves the amount of energy.

For example, a d8 (large sized) is about 40% "bigger" than a d6. (really, it's about 30% higher on average, but that's pretty close to accurate).

-Distances have size categories as well, based on the move speed of a given creature. This part is less useful, but it's useful for estimating the power of area effects;
1d6/level over a 30 ft radius is about the same as 1d8/level over a 20 foot radius, for example.
This is borne out to some extent by the comparable level adjustment of Maximise Spell vs. Widen Spell.

-A thought I just had; Energy types are somewhat more fantasy-themed. We can divide them up into "schools" and their opposites as follows:

Spoiler: Energetics: Fire/Cold

Show

Fire:
Damage type: Fire
Benefit: Attack and damage rolls. A truly fiery rage!
Curse: Reduced AC.

Cold:
Damage type: Cold
Benefit: Icy armor gives AC
Curse: Reduced attack & damage rolls.

Spoiler: Kinetics: Acid/Solidity

Show

A bit more awkward.
Acid:
Damage type: Acid
Benefit: Grace- speed and mobility. Water affinities, too.
Curse: Damage vulnerability.

Solidity:
Damage type: Assorted weapon damage types. Also some force damage?
Benefit: Damage reduction via armor.
Curse: Slow movement.

Spoiler: Light(ning)/Sonic

Show

Light(ning):
Damage Type: Light/Radiant/Electricity; Look, it's a bit of a stretch, but they have a lot of thematic overlap- fast as light vs. fast as lightning, a strong duality with sonic damage, a flash of lightning, etc.
Benefit: Mental effects- thinking and reacting fast?
Curse: Blindness or vision impairment.

Sonic:
Damage Type: Sonic (duh)
Benefit: Physical effects as a mirror? Can be justified with physiological enhancement- you heart beats faster, your muscles twitch faster, etc. Sonic doesn't have a lot of thematic space :(
Curse: Deafness or balance damage.

Each school of energy contains a damage type for its spells to inflict, a benefit that can be thematically granted by buff-type spells, and a debuff that can be inflicted. While some are scalable, I'd probably just set those to a flat level for easy comparison.
I would probably have energy damage over a threshold automatically inflict the debuff effect on a failed save.
Positive and Negative energy probably end up with no side effect, which is a big unfortunate, but cements them as unique in their class- the "purest" of damages. Makes them a good choice for untyped damage.

Let's see, looking over your spell effects...
Heal and Mend are redundant given that step 1 already exists. Regenerate/Injure are just variants of Heal/Harm but with a different choice in step 3.
Suppress/Dispel overrides Anchor and Banish.
Contact and Know are partially overlapping. Sense has overlap with Know. Also Detect.
Figment/Glamour, Conceal and (decieve/etc.) are overlapping given that step 1 already exists, unless you're nitpicky about "where" your illusions are.
Force and Flight overlap.
Ward and Harden have overlap.

The various mind-affecting abilities have a lot of overlap, and could probably be merged in some fashion.

[Indigo Knight]

I was assuming 1d6 as a good starting because of bolt damage. I don't know if it is mathematically.
More important - if anything a 1st level spell should be comparable to what a 1st level fighter can dish in a turn. So; does a 1st level fighter round damage output is 1d6?
Has anyone done numbers on it?

Side question - should spells diminish in effect the farther it hits?


For energies, can't say I see an opposing schools partition.
Fire spells are grouped under one name, Fire. But their opposite can be found in Water, Ice or Cold groups (search by spell descriptor). I can't really tell what is opposite of what here or if they really do occupy opposites standings (cold fire anyone?).
Fire applies DoT (burning) as well does acid or poison, ice applies slow or freeze, lightning is associated with speed but is not opposite of ice, earth or stone beats lightning, and sonic dazes a person.

I think if anything, energies could be handled with a rock paper scissor system of sorts (Lizard poison spock :P )


I can see how some units seem to overlap. But I think that attempting to create mathematical-esque definitions requires such fine groups. Each represent different manifestations of effects:

Banish is the opposite of summon against summoned creatures.
Anchor protects against teleporting you away against your will.
Supress/Dispel can be used in a way that renders Anchor and Banish mute. But they also encompass more options. I'm debating splitting dispel or consolidating all of the above.
Contact is spell list based around messaging spells.
Know is about a topic (Speak language).
Sense (or detect) is regarding surrounding objects and creatures (Detect traps, Detect Evil).
Conceal removes item's features to your sense.
Figment creates something that isn't there.
Ward absorbs spells
Harden improves Armor/Natural-Armor.


I updated the list with the rest.

I just remembered that I didn't addressed Polymorph in all of this.

[aimlessPolymath]

A fighter deals about the equivalent of 3d6 per hit at 1st level. It doesn't change much with level, beyond itemization.
Rogues and other skirmisher types deal about 2d6, plus 1d6 per two levels per hit.
The real power of a mage is usually in their ability to deal damage to groups, or more reliably than others-rather than dealing 3d6 to one person, they deal 1d6 to many people. They suffer a bit at low levels, when both spell/day and dice per spell are low.

Energies:
I'm not concerned with elemental opposition, where air and earth exist (A wind blast and a rock both deal bludgeoning damage). Cold can produce ice, and opposes fire. "water" damage from a wave is just bludgeoning damage.

The pairings I made up are mostly for organization, and can probably be discarded. I do like the idea of having the appropriate debuff be automatically added once a certain threshhold of damage is passed, though.

On separating spell effects:
My opinion is that it would be better for the system to have fewer, more versatile units than a larger number of more discrete ones.
Is casting Know on someone else to give them knowledge about what you're thinking meaningfully different from using Contact?

[Indigo Knight]

Threshold for applying debuff could be Massive damage or critical roll. Either could work I guess. It seems plausible.

The real power of mage is more then dealing damage to groups. It's in their vast array of available tools, irregular number spikes in the new spells presented at every advancement, access to all angles of influence (harm, heal, teleport, summon, hold, etc'). This is not only problematic; It is a game-breaker.

I wish to limit this by granting the wizard a small number of units to choose from. So even if I create a massive list, he can only pick a couple and work from there.
I wish to rely more on additional tool as prize for leveling up rather then inflating all the spells.
I thank you for the opinion that having a thinner system is better. I think so too usually. But not this time.


If I cast Know on you - then I understand things about you.
If I cast Contact on you - then I can talk to you telepathically.

[aimlessPolymath]

Sorry, I was responding to your question about blasting damage compared with fighters, not making a broader judgement call about the power level of versatility (on which I agree with you, to be clear).

I think we'll need to agree to disagree on more/less versatile/numerous spell units as a solution, though.

-----

On polymorph...

I can think of a few ways that the morph seed could work.

One is developing packages of modifications, which when combined, produce shapechanging that can still be balanced.

Not necessarily those pieces of homebrew/published stuff, but maybe just borrowing a bit.

------

Jumping ahead a bit, I'd like to flesh out a single spell unit, for the purposes of trying to balance out the system as a whole. I'm making the following assumptions:
-One spell unit carries approximately the cost of one power point in psionics- you can use a specific number of them up to a cap, there's a daily limit to draw from, etc.
-One spell unit deals 1d6 damage. That's just what the basic unit of damage is; 1d6/level is standard for spells.

So:
Ignite
Save: Reflex
A creature or object affected by Ignite takes 1d6 damage, or half on a successful Reflex save. If more than five units of Ignite are applied to the same creature, they are lit on fire on a failed save.

Some structure around this:
-Ray spells presumably have no saving throw allowed. Is there a cost to this?

-Effects with a duration have their each round, whether on an area or on a target. Thus, this effect repeats each turn.

Some thoughts after making it:
Looking over the costing, I suddenly very much like the structure of the range costing; it distinguishes between "close enough to be in danger" and "breathing room" in an elegant way- there really isn't a need for intermediate range categories in most cases.

I am a bit confused about the distinction between Surface and Void. Which one is a Fireball?

One quick thought on duration- the equivalent of Instantaneous for effects with a duration is 1 round(see True Strike). This may be a useful tool for costing duration.

[Indigo Knight]

That's a nice idea. Like small portions of benefits (or penalties) that you can mix and match from. I guess attributes, saves, natural armor, natural attack. Thank you.
I see Spheres of Power as the last one. What's that?

Jumping ahead a bit, I'd like to flesh out a single spell unit, for the purposes of trying to balance out the system as a whole.

Sure. Let me try:

So I want to make an arrow that I fling at a single enemy for nasty consequences.
I pick - 1. Creature(Hostile) 2. Sight 3. Instantaneous 4. Acid + Acid + Acid + Lightning + Frighten

So I get a ray (or a magical arrow - there's really no point in imposing flavor. I only want to balance the mechanical implications. So the player can choose a flying black rose, a kitten, skull silhouette or anything else) that is checked vs. dex and inflict 3d6 of acid damage (and maybe bestow a condition, as we discussed before) along with 1d6 lighting damage and a fear check.



These are the notes I've written down for myself:
Can't combine more the caster level of units e.g. If I'm a 7th level wizard, I can't combine more then 7 units at once.
I have to know the units in order to combine them. So my spellbook from the example contains at least Acid, Lighting and Frighten.
I think every hostile actions deserve a 'save' of sorts. Fighters swing against AC and so caster will roll against Reflex or Will at certain places. Depends on the units being used (Side note: Healers sometime roll for how much they heal, so there's that, and summon could roll for how well they casted. maybe?).
If the spell being cast is very costly - say teleport offworld is Jaunt times 50 - then casting that as a ritual outside of combat reduce the price. Making it accessible for the party.
After picking parameters there's a function (needs to be an easy-back-of-the-napkin calculation) that gives the spell's cost; 3 + 3 + 1 + 5 = 12. Or something. It depends what we want to make pricey in order to set the operations, their order, and the pricing of the units. I guess we can agree that 'Harm once cost 1' as the relative scale for comparison, no?
I know that inventory chapter gives a range calculation for firing arrows. I think it's silly. Too much bookkeeping. Never liked it, never used it. I see it as either touch range, ranged range, or out of combat range.
I'm not sure how to account for repetitive magical effects (Each round. Jumping between targets, Fork Spells, etc.).



I am a bit confused about the distinction between Surface and Void. Which one is a Fireball?

Fireball as appears in books, is void. Where you point to a location somewhere with no limitation.
Surface is more of web, grease or Meld stone spells where the casting affects and rely on a certain surface (horizontal, vertical or otherwise). Do you have a better wording for it? Something that better explains what I meant? I'm open for suggestions.

[aimlessPolymath]

Excellent!

On the topic of resisting spells, do note that ray spells rarely allow a saving throw- the ability to dodge them is built into the attack roll involved. However, they rarely have save-or-lose type effects attached.

This is meaningfully different from "target creature makes a Reflex save".

On Void:
As written, Web affects an area- it's a cloud of webbing anchored at its ends, not a sheet.

I'm thrown off by the line "regardless of obstacles" in Void- does a Fireball then ignore a 5 ft thick stone wall?



Some relevant references for duration/targetting:
Finger of Death kills someone once.
Implosion kills someone every turn, and is 2 levels higher.
(Empower Spell adds two spell levels as well, and increases effect by 50%- perhaps a spell with effect each round rather than only one costs 50% more?)

I have no good comparison for Concentration effects.

There is a 4 level difference between most spells and their Mass version. This translates to a bit more than doubling their cost, using the previous comparison points.

Cone of Cold affects about twice the total area of Fireball, but deals the same damage. This is a two level difference. Widen Spell is another comparison point, as well, which quadruples area for 3 levels.

In general, 1 level of change in spell level via metamagic translates to about a 20% change in "mana cost", applied multiplicatively.

[Indigo Knight]

If it's a range attack roll, or save check, is less important for me. As long as there is a roll. I see no-roll spells as too powerful and not sure if there is a way to balance them. You asked 'what is the cost', and it's a valid question. What is the downside for a true-hit spell. Personally, I don't think there is. So I don't include them. In the end, I think that every spell should have a Vs. roll in it.

must be anchored to two or more solid and diametrically opposed points

That made me categorize it as a Surface. But your analysis is right in placing it as a Void.


I'm indecisive as to whether Void spells are confined by material or not.
Detect spells suppress solid matter (unless it is graphite for some reason). Fireball is not. I'm sure there are more examples for both ways.
I see four options:

1. Ignores obstacles.
2. Bypass matter if there is an opening (e.g. the behavior of light throu a slit)
3. Stopped by obstacle.
4. Additional step for creating a spell.

A big part of the hardship is that the spells are not balanced (the existing ones). There are better ones and subpar ones. Having a spell for comparison help us if we can't determine if the spell is on scale or not.
Even the 4 level difference for mass is a different weight of power when talking about 2nd to 6th contrary to 4th to 8th supplementing.
I think our answer would lie in the function of expected power availability of characters by level (I'm going back to the LWQW graph thing). If we can establish what the viable contribution at a level then we could place the spells. If we expect a fighter to be able attack twice at 6th level then it is ok to give wizard the ability to fork ray at 6th level. I guess.

Otherwise, you could look at the search page in imarvintpa.com/dndLive site for help.

But I think placing expectations is much better.
For example, we said that we can state 1d6, range attack, DC 11 as the basic 1st level Harm unit (or very close to it, I think. Maybe it's better as 0th level instead).
Assuming a mage who specialize in pure Harm unit. Where do we see him at 11th level? level 20? Every level? How is he compared to Fighter? Rogue? A psion?

[aimlessPolymath]

Someone who specialized in Harm only, to the exclusion of all else?

Keeping in mind that a rogue has more skills and a fighter can use armor, I'd guess somewhere in the range of 4d6 damage per level with significant resources expended, 2.5d6 per level sustained; this correlates roughly with an empowered or maximised disintegrate spell, and feels appropriate when compared to rogues considered the relative vulnerability of the wizard.

On linear vs. quadratic:
Actually, I'd guess that fighters are quadratic, and wizards are exponential:
In addition to a continuous gain in numbers from items, BAB, and chassis, fighters also have feats, and gain extra attacks, which provide modest force multiplication.

Wizards gain more caster level × more spells known for versatility × more spells per day for stamina × the actual spells themselves are much better; as I believe I've shown, one sixth level spell is far more powerful than three second level spells. I pegged this last progression as exponential, based roughly on the structure of metamagic feats.
That's at minimum cubic, probably at least quadratic, and is probably exponential.


In any case, I think that the thesis of my comparisons, that spell levels map exponentially to power (disregarding caster level) seems moderately accurate?

[Indigo Knight]

The number of spells that wizards know, the save DC's for each spell, and any other parameters are still in a sort of unknown territory. We have yet to determine them.

What you mention are numbers that exist within the "old" framework. Which is by fine. But - Discussion without numbers, even if for a moment, is moot. As well as this moment being appropriate for redesigning the increasing power slope.



So; spell damage for spell is ( SL ) ^ ( SL ) times d6?

[aimlessPolymath]

While disintegrate is a useful meterstick, I'm actually measuring against rogue damage, making the assumptions of TWF working out to around five hits. That degree of specialization in damage (and somewhat risky damage) seems similar to a monospecialized build, while the optimum of 4d6/level (i.e. eight hits) requires resource expenditure- accuracy boosts, haste spells, and the like.
The comparisons to disintegrate were for reference with current power levels.

I disagree with (spell level)^(spell level) in d6.
That's absurdly weak at low levels, but absurdly high at high levels.
I used the data available here, which is relatively similar to for 3.5, for reference.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

You should be able to see that it's ridiculously beyond anything else, I hope.

Also calculated: An average creature usually has between 10 and ~17 hit points per CR. It's a slightly greater than linear rate.
This implies that we should have a rate of around Xd6/level, where X increases by about half from level 1 to level 20 (regardless of its initial level).
Where X should lie is a matter of opinion, but I feel pretty comfortable with my estimate of 2.5d6/level at high levels translating to 1d8/level at low levels.

Unless we're redesigning monsters as well?

[Indigo Knight]

Sadly, as everything is measured against the other, redesigning spells and spellcasting means redesigning other items (e.g. monsters) if you want to address problematic aspects in the existing mechanics. Unless you don't mind (which, I do mind) that the underlying problems trouble your homebrew as well.
I haven't planned on changing anything monster related. But I'm also won't let it limit the new design.


I know that the slope is ridiculous. It was so all to way back from vanilla 3ed'.

Rogue damage is 1d6 per 2 levels, shift one level up (1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th...). Right? So that's the mark you meant?
In my experience rogue damage outpace monsters hp as level increase. Is that something you've observed yourself?


The tables you've attached are a useful resource. Are they made by you?
I've found paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/magic/designingSpells.html#damage-caps. I just don't know if there was any calculation done about it.
Funny coincidence - that page has a link for Words of Power. Very close to our subject here.

[aimlessPolymath]

Tables are something I found a while back-not mine, but the analysis is mine.

Most of my experience with rogues has been in the 1-7 level range, so I can't speak to how it develops at higher levels.

Yes, the rate of 1d6/2 levels (or 0.5d6/level) per hit was what I used as a benchmark. It actually seems to develop similarly to monster hit points, based on my tables; it appears that the ability to gain lots of extra attacks is what would push it over the edge. Lacking information about rogue attack bonuses/numbers, I don't really have numbers to back out my estimate of 5 hits, though.


I'm confused by what you mean by this:

Sadly, as everything is measured against the other, redesigning spells and spellcasting means redesigning other items (e.g. monsters) if you want to address problematic aspects in the existing mechanics. Unless you don't mind (which, I do mind) that the underlying problems trouble your homebrew as well.
I haven't planned on changing anything monster related. But I'm also won't let it limit the new design.

So-
-You are planning to redesign the "curve" of magic damage- maybe not to (spell level)^{(spell level)} in d6 (which is absurd), but something else.
-But you won't correspondingly adjust monster hit points?

What are you pegging your numbers to, if not monsters, other players, or existing spells?

[Indigo Knight]

I loved playing rogues. Kept trying my characters the suave cool guy with two sharp long knives.

As for the damage curve. I mainly want it to keep in line with the other archtypes damage output capability. So, whatever a fighter or a rogue (or maybe a psion) can bring to the table will have the same weight as the wizard. In other words - make the player not hate playing on low levels and not overshadow the other players at top levels.
Monsters would need a rebalancing? Maybe. Probably. But not today. Some other time perhaps. Theres only so much one can place on his platter.
Existing spells won't conform to the new curve? Change them. There already exists a plethora of guides that show which spells are a must and which serves only as newbie traps.

As (I hope) I told before - creating what I describe involves two fold plan: Limit the availability of spells for each caster to certain fields. Instead of the massive array of tools a Wizard can employ today. Maybe penalize for cross schools knowledge, maybe outright ban. Also, create a scale to which each spell is measured against. Serving as a top-down approach rather then a ground up environment where the spells are made without a reasonable way to compare their power levels.


Does this answer your question? Or have I missed it?

[aimlessPolymath]

Okay, so you're conforming to existing characters' powerlevel.
That makes sense.

In that case, I think that a curve of "effective units available" (1 unit = 1 die), matching the curve of (let's say) a rogue, would approximate something like this:
(2 dice + 1/2 level) x (number of virtual hits)
The "virtual hits", here, is 1 +1 per 3 levels, likely to a limit based on the degree of failure on the saving throw/success on the attack roll of the spell- compare it to systems which merge full attacks into a single roll, but add an extra "hit" for every 5 points of success on the attack roll.


The number of 1+1 per 3 levels is based on an Average base attack bonus with TWF, smoothed out a little (rather than 2 attacks every 7ish levels, 1 every 3).

Plugging it into my equations, this yields a surprising result of dealing approximately 85-90% of an equal-CR monster's hit points, consistently across all CRs!
Furthermore, the difficulty of reaching that point of power, based on my hypothetical "virtual hits" system, should roughly correspond with the difficulty in reaching 100% accuracy with a rogue, depending on how the DC system gets scaled.
It's also very easy to scale up or down as needed by adjusting the value of one "unit".

Do note that this compares a high damage archetype(TWF rogue) with a proposed "theoretical maximum" of Harm optimization- a wizard built like this should certainly have trouble with other spells.

I can run some estimated numbers on fighters, too, although I'm not sure what build to base it off of.

Another consideration is whether or not you want to make mages as good as rogues at dealing single-target damage, given how efficient area of effect spells are- 5d6 to three people is a lot more than 10d6 to one person.

[Indigo Knight]

No, I don't think it is necessary. Maybe it has a different approach, but in the end a high damage fighter and a high damage rogue fill the same square - a high damage output.
In contrast, a fighter can create a high defense archetype. We can use that build as comparison for defense oriented wizards. Or a kind-of control build a la improved trip mastery which can also be compared to. Maybe.

Spoiler: a bit of insight

Show

Some answers lies within how I envision the system developing.
To me, it goes something as follows.
At the start there were only two items - deal damage or receive damage. A bit later healing damage was added. There was no scale to any of it, no symmetry of sorts. So in a way healing damage was outshined by doing damage and was usually postponed until after combat.
A lot happened in between here and there. I'm not going to delve into. Suffice to say that by the time people played 4th, it evolved to a certain partition of 'roles'; Each player plays a character that has a certain advantage in one of four roles - Defender, Striker, Leader, Control.

I can't tell if this separation is accurate, or if it even covers all the bases.
But I do know that that is the answer to some of the Wizards ailments.

I said it time and again. I think part of the problem is the access an arcanist has to every tool existing. He can fill every role without investing too much resources. Scrolls, wands, changing memorized spells at whim. He can destroy, he can ruin, he can animate and lead an army of scores, he can safeguard, he can even sometimes revive, he can hold and bind, can even stop time. And so he outpace and outclass all others.
A counter is limiting his access. Breaking the 'Wizard' to multiple Wizards and making his choices a bit more permanent. Closer to the way other classes work.

Overall, I'd splinter casters (according to the units the players choose) to a few different builds:

	Damage	Heal/Shield	Buff	Debuff	Control
Damage	Evocation	*	*	*	*
Heal/Shield			*	*	*
Buff		Abjurer		*	*
Debuff		Necromancer			*
Control			Transmuter

Due note that this is heavily "work in progress" and that this table shouldn't be used as guidance to anything. Names can be changed, positions can be changed, inner divisions apply (such as damaging multiple targets or just nuking a single one, or what is "control"), and alot is missing.

The basic premise remains the same: Instead of opening all the doors at once, let the player choose - keep investing in the same area, keep doubling the same units, and become a master at a specific role (which is pictured by the use of schools and other flavorey stuff). Or branch yourself out and gain a plethora of tools without special bonuses to any field.

[aimlessPolymath]

The idea of splintering casters has been done before, although the spells are grouped thematically rather than based on their effect. Also see Spheres of Power, which rebuilds magic around at-will invocation-like effects, collected into groups- taking lots of talents improves the effects gained.

I'm personally mostly interested in developing the fundamental system more at this point, rather than jumping over to how to balance the casters that use it.

[Indigo Knight]

Sure.
Then what are the next steps to do?

[aimlessPolymath]

My personal next steps would be to work on the following checklist:
1) A framework for developing balanced effects. In particular, how much a bonus or penalty, or one action, is "worth" within the context of this system, as well as valuation of proactive vs. reactive effects; this has relevance to virtually all spell "units", such as the relative power costing of Summon vs. Unsummon or Heal vs. Harm, the level of effects available through Morph, Confuse, Charm, Weaken, and so on. I have a few thoughts on this, but I'd like to hear yours.

2) The actual system by which people cast spells. If I am a spellcaster and I want to cast, say, a spell which uses both Fire and Electricity on everyone in an area at range, I have the following questions:
-How much does this cost to use relative to just using Fire? What advantages/disadvantages do I have if I do this? (with reference to our discussion on fire spells lighting people on fire)
-Ditto, but for range changes?
-What if instead of an instantaneous effect, I want it to last a while? What happens? What is the "cost" to doing so?
Essentially, in addition to defining spell "units", steps 1-3 need to be integrated into the casting system.

3)
Arguably relevant to your division into subclasses, a reorganization of the spell units available into related groups, either by effect or by thematics. This should be fairly quick, but I think is important for relative costings.

4)
We have a baseline for the maximum extent to which a single type of spell can be focused on by a full-caster, presumably to the exclusion of everything else. What remains is to decide on how much and how generalizing/specializing is punished; if someone invests into both fire and electricity to equal extents, how strong are they at either compared to a monospecialist? Should that degree of specialization even be allowed?
This is relevant for later class design, though it's more of a philosophical question than the others.

5) Are spell units truly linear in value? The value of damage probably looks something like a bell curve; you need a minimum amount of damage to have your action be worth anything (compared to, say, slapping your opponent with an unarmed strike), but past a certain point, you're in rocket-tag territory. Likewise, attack bonuses only matter up to a point (100/95% accuracy, depending on houserules).

I'm most interested in studying the answers to 1) and 2) from a game-theoretical standpoint, though I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on 3) given the set of spell units you developed. 4) is, to some extent, an arbitrary balance point. 5) probably has no good answer without far more equations and player data than I'm willing to deal with (or have access to... character sheets are rarely in easy spreadsheet form).

[Indigo Knight]

Understood.
Thought I read and re-read your post quite a few times and I'm having trouble giving you solid answers. Most of the points go from "I don't know what the answer should be" to "I hoped this was explained in the opening post".


1. Our hint comes from the surrounding framework. The d20 system is, in essence, a low risk dice game of numbers between 1 and 20. Common bonuses are +1, +2, +5 and +10 that represent tiny, small, solid and substantial bonus respectively. I have seen 5th ed' use roll 2d20 and choose highest as a new kind of bonus. I have never seen, but think that there is a design space with bonuses such as 2d8+4. All of the above apply to penalties as well (only minus instead... you know...).
Hostile actions such as debuffing and damage dealing effects are influenced from the the above - either calculating the severity of the effect, or landing a strike ( attack rolls or save rolls ).
Other actions like buffing, healing or summoning aren't, usually, rely on rolling a dice. In their case I would argue for adding uncertainty for the boon with rolling dice, just as debuffing spells.
As for actual numbers; I have no idea. There's no existing comparison for such numbers. Even ECL is something with no clear mathematical sequence. The only thing that does show such behavior is the Average Wealth table.


2. For the example you wrote - your spell (which you memorized before hand) would have to be composed of at least a Fire unit and an Electricity Unit. I assume there would be Harm unit as the spell would damage the target. What we haven't finalized yet is if the energy types pertain to the Harm unit (and are sub category of it) or are they independent of it and must be chosen separately. These units are chosen after you picked the three previous categories of type, range and duration as explained in the opening post (If something is missing or unclear please point me to it and I'll fix).
You asked me for cost. I'm afraid I don't have numbers to show.
I would like the Wizard (and Wizard) to be able to come up with spells that have party-contribution at lower levels without overtaking all other players at later levels.
I would also like to accommodate all players and all of their creations, hence creating disadvantages for picking fire-electricity instead of sticking to solely fire is a bit unnecessary, in my opinion.


3. Dividing the units to subclasses by theme is out of the work space for this item. I specifically want to design by crunch and ignore decisions based on flavour only. It seems (to me) counter intuitive to balancing rules. As for effect grouping - The whole point for the units is for each of them to represent a whole slew of spells with a common factor. I fail to see the difference. Maybe I simply misinterpret your wording.


4. As stated in former section, I wouldn't want to limit players certain paths. Especially if there is no mechanical reason for it. I'd like to provide freedom in playing the character you wish to play.
What we are left with is only the task of balancing spells in such a way that the casters aren't more powerful then other characters at any given moment. Whether you summoned a creature, warded a companion, altered materials or fired energy. Some actions in that spirit we can already see in the official reworks of Polyform, Ritual type spells, concentration and Summoning. I think it's the right direction only that it need to be fully committed to.


5. Skills, in any pnp game, are never truly linear, I think. Whenever you take the first rank in any skill you grant yourself another tool - another action or positive you benefit from. I think that point should always be the priciest one. But, as I stated before, unless willing to rework all rules at once, the new numbers should match the other classes numbers. For starts.

[aimlessPolymath]

Responses to responses!

1.
My question wasn't referring to "what is a bonus". It was "what is a bonus worth"- how hard should it be to add a +1 bonus to your attacks? Is it easier or harder than dealing 1d6 damage? Is a -4 penalty to one number the same value as a -2 penalty to two numbers (numbers meaning attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, etc)?
If you want to actually ever implement the system, you should be looking for comparative bonuses and penalties to draw from. I know you disliked drawing from existing spells for inspiration, but that's really the largest resource we have available.

My alternative involves creating an estimated set of bonuses-by-level for fighters, charting it against average AC, and working out the change in value from each bonus, or relying on comparisons such as Power Attack.

2.
Okay, sounds fine. Yes, I was prodding for more exact numbers, but if you don't have them yet, that's okay.

3.
The reason for grouping by effects is related directly to question 1; it provides a context in which effects can be balanced against each other. For example, here's a hypothetical grouping based on the mechanical theme of action advantage/denial:
Confuse/Frighten/Charm/Compel/Haste/Slow.
All of these have a significant ability to dictate how many actions people can take, either by (going off existing effect types):
-Making people act randomly, giving them some % chance to lose their action, or take an action that is against their best interests
-Making people lose their action, and forcing them to take a generally safe but nonproductive line of action
-Preventing people from taking some kinds of actions, with some ability to make them act as you like
-Force people to take actions against their best interests, instead of the actions they'd prefer to take
-Give allies more actions
-Make enemies take bad actions.

Most of these do some subset of the following:
-Keep enemies from taking actions that are bad for you
-Make them do things that are good for you instead

When developing them, the internal balance of this group provides a strong and easy measuring stick, which makes it a "good group" in my opinion, and most of them seem to "ask" the same question- what is a standard action worth?

I might similarly group the spells that deal with information together, measure most of the "benefit granting" spells together, and collect the "illusion" effects to some degree.

4.
To clarify, one of the things you might do when developing this system, if you do more than one class, is have them get different numbers of spell units known/available:
-A "sorcerer" knows only a few different units, but can use more powerful effects and stack them harder.
-A "wizard" knows lots of units, but can't do as much with them.
-A "specialist" knows one or two units, but are very good with them.
-A "ranger" knows a few units, and isn't great with them, but can also fight.
If you're not planning to have different kinds of classes, this isn't relevant, but it's an interesting thing to think about either way. Is knowing half as many units, but having 50% more power an equivalent exchange?

When you asked me what the true maximum power of someone specialized in harm can do, was that a question about "what can a specialist who knows no spells except harm" can do, or about what "someone who knows the harm unit, with no particular investment in it" can do?

5.
This is a question about the scaling value of spell units, essentially, and especially pertaining to bonuses. 3d6 damage is a whole lot at 1st level, but not very much at 10th. However, a +1 bonus is equally valuable at 1st and 10th level.

[Indigo Knight]

1. I think the bonuses I mentioned are a good comparison model. If we're building inside d20 system and we're not planning on changing the surrounding lines then the probabilities of success are what gives us the outlines to work with. Whether we're looking at DC 5 of starting campaign or DC 65 for heroic story, players are going to roll the same d20 to determine success. Which, in turn, rely on probabilities of 1-20 as percentage. +20 is an almost assured victory, reserved for epic level plays. +1 or +2 is a bonus for starting characters which means 1st level power.
And before you ask it - no, I don't think that the graph should be linear. Gaining absolute perfection (+20) would require an immense investment.



3. Following that line of thought I suggest starting with preliminary outlines of what attributes (not referring to character statistics) can be messed with:

• Hit points
• Actions
• Armor (magical or not) that reduce damage taken
• Output of damage
• Saves that negates undesirable effects
• Chance to succeed in one or more skill checks (including attacking and casting)
• Position, relative or absolute

From those we can estimate spell effects by meshing with the positive/negative duality. In accordance:

• Heal / Harm
• Haste / Slow

etc'

That's how I came up with most of the Keys.
(Sidenote: There are units which occupies the same role. There are roles that don't infer a dual nature. Not everything sits nicely)

Basing ourselves within an existing system, we can already decipher the smallest units - damage being 1d4 (usually for cantrips), summons as 1 sickly old rat of eighth of a CL, bonus action of a minor action.



4. For the moment I'll be focusing the design with the Wizard in mind and nothing else. I know that there are other classes and that they would need some iteration of the spellcasting rules, but for the moment...

I asked more in the sense of "what would a wizard with a 9th slot spell pumped all the way to the nines would be translated to?"



I'll try to give the theory some meat by trying to translate some spells. Caveats do apply as this is a work in progress and the following might not be an honest application of the system. Also, as having to come up with numbers - the math is mostly wrong.

Spell Name: Detect Evil

Units:	Object (Void)	Melee	Instantaneous	Sense (Evil)
Cost:	2	1	1	1

Spell Level: 2*1*1*1 = 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spell Name: Find Familiar

Units:	Object (Void)	Near	Permanent	Summon
Cost:	2	2	4	1

Spell Level: 2*2*4*1 = 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spell Name: Invisibility, Mass

Units:	Creature (Natural) x 3	Melee	Short	Conceal
Cost:	2 x 3	1	3	1

Spell Level: 6*1*3*1 = 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spell Name: Fireball

Units:	Object (Void)	Sight	Instantaneous	Harm, Fire
Cost:	2	3	1	1 + 1

Spell Level: 2*3*1*2 = 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spell Name: Misty Step

Units:	Object (Void)	Near	Instantaneous	Jaunt
Cost:	2	2	1	1

Spell Level: 2*2*1*1 = 4
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spell Name: Bronzebeard's Stream of Annihilation

Units:	Creature (Hostile)	Sight	Focus	Necrotic, Acid, Ice, Slow
Cost:	3	3	2	4

Spell Level: 3*3*2*4 = 72
--------------------------------------------------------------

_{Note* - The multiplication product results in a rather high spell level. And, true, in the middle of combat would be a heck of an achievement to pull. But by conducting the spell outside of combat (i.e. Ritual) and elongating the cast times (matter of hours instead of seconds. Usually) you can lower the spell level to one more manageable.}

Apart from that note, I highly emphasize that all numbers and calculations are probably out of line. The 1st level spells are easy to duplicate. Others come out very wierd. One idea I had for later was giving "specialist" a bit of a bonus - If I'm a pyromancer then I get a discount for 'buying' fire unit (up to a minimal cost of unit).

In a more general sense: A player picks units for his character at creation (according and up to written in class table), later on he would add more.
When the wizard rests, he create the spells he would like to use for the next period. He uses the spellbook to chart them down. From that moment and up to his next rest - he can cast those spells with no limit, and in compliance to the spell duration, casting time, attack rolls and saves DC's necessary.
I haven't decided what scrolls, wands, rods or magi focuses would do.
I'm also unsure if the spell effect number (such as how many dice for damage in fireball) is limited by calculated spell level of repetitive unit (Fire + Fire + Fire).

[aimlessPolymath]

Hm.

My calculations were under the assumption of the ultimate degree of "specialization", in whatever fashion it is in the system- not necessarily the equivalent of a general "9th level spell slot". That's why I went for TWF rogue over a more generic build (in which case, the "virtual hits" go down to the baseline of 1+1/7 levels, more or less- around half as strong)

A thought about bonuses:
What if the "standard unit" of Harm isn't 1d6? What if it were (1+ 1/n CL)d6 (or alternately, 2 +1/2 CL d6, making it the equivalent of one attack)? The value of damage falls off with level, while bonuses retain their value across levels.
This then produces a clear value for the number of seeds that can be "stacked" by level (the other side of the product), which can be rolled into class design later.

+20 is an almost assured victory, reserved for epic level plays.

Similarly, reaching about 50% beyond (2+1/2 CL)(1+1/3 CL)d6 will almost assure you a 1-turn kill on average- but the actual damage represented by that value changes significantly with level, while a +20 bonus is constant with level.

(Also note: One full-round action is worth about (1+1/n level) standard actions, going by BAB- perhaps you can only cast "1-hit" spells as a standard action, making higher power spells the equivalent of full attacks?)

The main question I have after your response is about this:

Gaining absolute perfection (+20) would require an immense investment.

What kind of investment?


On your example spells:
My only note is that Misty Step is actually a Personal, melee(?) spell, with the Jaunt seed's effect of shifting the target by 10 ft/level. So, it's probably cheaper than what you did there. I think using Void targetting on it makes it teleport an area, based on how Fireball works?

Based on your example Fireball, I think I'd advise making the various energies subtypes of Harm, or giving them inherent damage, so that fire spells are affordable at low level.

An oddity of this system is that rather than having spells of different "unit" count have roughly equal damage (a standardized 1d6/level) but different area (compare Fireball and Cone of Cold), targetting and damage are both linked with spell level.

[Indigo Knight]

Not sure I get the equation you wrote down. Is it a shrinking series?

n=1	1 + 1/1	2
n=2	1 + 1/2	1.5
n=3	1 + 1/3	1.33
n=4	1 + 1/4	1.25
n=5	1 + 1/5	1.2
n=10	1 + 1/10	1.1

Huh? I'm lost.
Probably not reading it right.

Do keep in mind that it's a words and papers game. So we can't use complicated functions for players unless we provide the results as well. I'm trying to restrict the complexity to a 'back of napkin' calculation difficulty.

What kind of investment?

When I'm mentioning investment I'm usually alluding to class build - what usually is talked about in Optimization boards - picking skills, feats, race, sub-race, abilities, alternate abilities, tradition and flaws. Less in regards to role-play choices, friends and contacts, gear or treasure.

My only note is that Misty Step is actually a Personal, melee(?) spell, with the Jaunt seed's effect of shifting the target by 10 ft/level. So, it's probably cheaper than what you did there. I think using Void targetting on it makes it teleport an area, based on how Fireball works?

You are, obviously, 100% correct. I think I ate a bad carrot or something and can't think straight. You see? I am baffled by my own design.
Misty Step uses the caster as target, so it's Self. And you can simply use Melee to target yourself. Only item not present is how far can you blink to? 3 choices are available:

1. Limited by Finished Spell's Level.
2. Determined by coupling effect - 10 feet for each Jaunt unit.
3. A set number you may jump 'up to'.

I'd like to take a moment to delve into Detect spell, for a moment. It's a great example to use.
Already I can see that overwhelming number of detect spells are 2nd or 1st level spells. So the spell level function needs to come out as either 2 or 1.
There are two parameters that the current setting doesn't answer.

A. How does the caster gain access to different detect spells?

In the Spheres casting page (god, that system makes me sad. It's like what I intended to create only that they beat me to it ) they state that

If you possess certain other spheres, you may divine for information other than magical auras.

In other words: If you want to cast Detect Evil you must be able to cast Detect spells as well as Evil spells. Which is quite the contrary to what is common fantasy up to now.
This resembles a bit the question about the Harm and types of damage.

B. Are we missing area options?

Some detect spells are obstructed by solid or fluid in the way. Some ignore such limitations. I think I already answered myself - maybe there is a need for "void-obstructed" along "void-unhindered" (obv' not final names).

I think the oddity you mentioned is less of a design choice and more of a - I didn't cover it yet.

[aimlessPolymath]

Oops! Missed writing "Caster level" in that equation.

The series I mentioned is a scaling of (1 + caster level / n), where n is dependent on the spell type- the difference between Good and Average BAB, essentially.
"Virtual Hits"(note: find a better name) scales either at a rate of (1 + caster level / 3) or (1 + caster level/7), depending on whether you want to use an "optimized" or a "generalist" character- analogous to Medium BAB, or Medium + TWF BAB.

So (for example) 1d6 at level 1, 2d6 at level 3, 3d6 at level 6, 4d6 at level 9 etc.



Detect spells are something of a special case. They aren't able to pass through all barriers, but they can go through some. Their penetration methods are meant to be a reference to X-rays- note how denser materials (including lead, the quintessential radiation-blocker) blocks them more effectively?
They actually have a really generous area, comparable to Cone of Cold, just with an odd restriction.
They're just... 1/5th as powerful.

Imagining any fire spell (even, like, 1d6 damage/round) with comparative area and Focus component (because it is a concentration spell, y'know) to Detect Evil is something I see as at minimum one, probably two levels higher.

[Indigo Knight]

I see.
Well, that's a relief. Yet in the end it's just a list of numbers per level. It's not a dynamic parameter - right?
And, is it 2d6 at class level 3? Or spell level 3?

As a general note - I don't think that increasing number of attacks per round is a good way to advance the Wizards' power. Just a personal preference.



Most of the spells are a special case. That's whats wrong with them. Each have it's clauses and outside clauses and exceptions. Non are linear. Non are upgradable. Even turning a spell to 'mass' version is hard.

If I'm up against a decision to keep tradition as opposed to managing an easy game to learn and play, i would vote for ditching these obscure remnants. I mean, why X-rays? why not infrared? or ultra-violet? that is MAGIC so I'm having a hard time finding a proper reason.
I'd much rather have a smooth working system that is fun then a convoluted heap of wall of rules.
You?


Can you list an example of fire (or any other damaging theme) spells, like domain of sorts, were we can see their scaling behavior?

[aimlessPolymath]

The n parameter was originally an estimator for the quadratic advancement of full-attack damage, measuring the rate at which new attacks were gained. For a rogue, a nonspecialist's damage is essentially
(2 + L/2)(1+L/7)d6 (n=7)
where L is class level. A TWF rogue has around twice as many attacks, so the damage became
(2 + L/2)(1 +L/3)d6 (n=3)
The n=3 parameter fits the scaling of creature hit points best across levels, for what it's worth- the n=7 parameter starts at around 80%, then falls off rapidly to around 40% of AHP; this is likely to make up for the vastly increased danger at low levels.
In this analogy, if a wizard has a Good "Base Casting Bonus" (n=5, say), then a bard might have an Average BCB (n=10, say), but have some kind of ability to apply effects via song.

If we want spellcasting effects to scale similarly, I suggest taking those scaling elements and breaking them apart- one of them goes to the number of units you can link into a spell (i.e. the "number of attacks"), and the other becomes the effect of the Harm spell unit.

What value of this parameter (or any other, but this one is easy to measure against other classes) to use is a personal decision regarding scaling, and may not be applicable to other seeds. Perhaps the generic Boost seed provides a +2 bonus (analogous to Aid Another) without scaling at all, and you need to stack it repeatedly for effect- so then you have a bonus which scales dependent on the number of seeds you stack together.

My personal preference is to have Harm apply (2+L/2)d6 of damage, and you can stack (1+L/n) seeds together, to avoid bloating spellcasting.


On area: Right. I think it's not a stretch to say that making detect spells operate based on the normal parameters of area spells is a good thing.
However: A comparison of any Detect spell vs. a substitution of Detect seeds for Harm seeds indicates that no matter what scaling you use, Detect should cost significantly less than Fire.

Your basic Detect evil spell targets a 60 foot cone (blocked by barriers), and lasts as long as you concentrate.
Your basic Burning Hands spell targets a 15 foot cone, is instantaneous, and deals slightly less than a 1st level single-target melee spell (Shocking Grasp, the "gold standard" for 1st level spells).


There are clearly some significant differences between the value of the two seeds.

[Indigo Knight]

Translating the function (using TWF) to numbers gives

L	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
d6	3	5	7	9	12	15	18	22	26	30	35	40	45	51	57	63	70	77	84	92

((I just passed it throu a graph plotter))
Is this what you see at your end?

I wouldn't say that this must be all end all for damage spells, but if this is the ladder then that's the milestone we work by.

Do keep in mind that most of the spells, as they exist now, are not balanced against other spells or within
the system. And I got the feeling that this is the same for rogue and fighter as well.


I agree that having additional effects will lower the damage output as a counterbalance. i.e. the cost for full damage spell equals the cost for partial damage and partial other.


I can see the "standard" bonus as being +2, as you pointed. It's either that or +1.
I'm against cumulative application. Whereby you can cast a couple of buff spells (not necessarily the same one) and gain multiple bonuses to the same score. I think that's an opening for troubles (I had a player once, that played a bard, which could sing a +15 bonus when he started the campaign, at level one). This is unlike creating a bigger bonusing spell, where you stack units - gaining a bigger linear bonus at the cost of an semi-exponential price.

My personal preference is to have Harm apply (2+L/2)d6 of damage, and you can stack (1+L/n) seeds together, to avoid bloating spellcasting.

So,

L	1	2	4	6	8	10	12	14	16	18	20
d6	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12

Can you explain the stacking seeds? I'm not sure I understood that.

Detect should cost significantly less than Fire

Something which I was desperately trying to avoid.
Not that I don't agree with you; Almost every iteration which I came across gave the diviners a less powerful feel when compared to evokers and other types of casters. The divination school holds mostly detect spells and augury spells and the like. These doesn't seem as game changing as other spells.
But until now, the build treated all units the same cost - as (PH/WIP) 1 point. Stacking more of the same cost you more. Stacking different units was slightly more expensive.
Having effect Units be of different prices (albeit being the right thing to do) would add a complexity layer that makes me very anxious when I'm thinking of my group-players.
I'm not saying no, but this makes me nervous.

[aimlessPolymath]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...uEQ/edit#gid=0

The top chart contains an estimate of the damage total (number of d6 * 3.5), divided by the average HP by CR of monsters. I haven't bothered with rounding numbers off, so there are some fractional dice involved.
I disagree with your proposition that spells are not balanced against each other.


On bonuses....
Hm.
So, first of all, some notes:
-My generic Assist, as the equivalent of Aid Another, affects one roll, once. If I were to allow it to affect multiple rolls (all for 1 round if it's Instantaneous, or whatever duration if another duration mode were selected), then it could be cut to a +1 bonus per seed stacked. With n=5 (a reasonable assumption IMO- see below for what I mean by this), this creates a spell with a duration that applies a +1 bonus, +1 per 5 levels, or a one-use spell that applies a +2 bonus, +2 per 5 levels.
-It does not stack with other magical bonuses, including itself. If you want a bigger bonus, you need to cast a spell made up of Assist + Assist, or Assist + Assist + Assist, or whatever.

Can you explain the stacking seeds? I'm not sure I understood that.

Based on this line, in post 7:

I pick - 1. Creature(Hostile) 2. Sight 3. Instantaneous 4. Acid + Acid + Acid + Lightning + Frighten

I assume you can combine multiple of the same seed in the same spell.
The guideline I might set for that is that the number you can have in one spell is limited by level; 1 + L/n (n balance specific).

Assuming n=5, then at level 1 I could stack a single Harm seed, dealing 2d6 + 1d6/2 levels in damage. As I level up a bit, I deal a bit more damage and can use it a bit more flexibly- maybe an area effect. Then, at level 5, I'm given the ability to use two seeds. Instead of using a single Harm seed, I can use two (Harm+Harm), to make a spell that deals 4d6 + 1d6/level damage, or use Harm+Weaken to make a spell that deals 2d6+ 1d6/2 levels, but also weakens them. Either way, a two-seed spell is more expensive, so I don't have the ability to use it as an area spell yet, until perhaps level 9 or so (or whatever). At level 10, I have the ability to cast three-seed spells. And so on.

Regardless, my limit on how many seeds I can combine within one spell is limited by 1 + L/n.

Hard-capping this also lets us be a bit more lenient with the cost increases for area/duration effects, because there's another control on how powerful spells can get.

On bloat: While having a spell name long enough to sound like a verbal component is cool, I'd like to avoid making the actual construction of spells annoying. Therefore, I suggest setting a low cap on how many seeds can be combined in the same spell. My 1+ L/n (L is level, n is arbitrary) suggestion supports this.

Having effect Units be of different prices (albeit being the right thing to do) would add a complexity layer that makes me very anxious when I'm thinking of my group-players.
I'm not saying no, but this makes me nervous.

Trust me, I agree. 1 = 1 is absolutely what I'd like to have. I'm just not sure how to do it.
My best solution involves buffing Detect; even though it's an honestly fine divination effect for level 1, it's just that, well, it's the kind of thing where changing the range and duration has really weird effects on how useful it is. Even if it were an instantaneous effect limited by touch, it still wouldn't be the kind of thing appropriate for a cantrip!

Hm.
New idea: Detect is actually Sense, reflecting spells that enhance the sensory abilities of the target.
Detect Evil becomes a Personal/Melee spell, because it no longer is cast on an area- it's cast on the caster, granting them the ability to perceive a specific alignment.
Rather than an area effect targeting a cone which reveals information, it's a buff effect that lets people generically perceive more stuff.
It still takes Focus, because duh, but a total cost of 2 is absolutely more manageable than, like, 8-12.
Does that work better?