Limits to Spell Burn?

[TheNobleDrake]

Some GMs I've played with...

"some GMs" will be "some GMs" regardless of what the rules say.

[Troy812]

Some GMs I've played with...

"some GMs" will be "some GMs" regardless of what the rules say.

lol

[Elaraiah]

There is a bigger problem at play here than what some people are looking at. The individuals recognizing spells like Patron Bond and the value placed by Spellburning them up to a natural 20 are on the right path, but as others have suggested, immediately requiring the wizard to go on a quest for said patron with spellburn is an excellent way of forcing the risk.

But what about a spell like invisible servant? Spellburn 20 points away, and you are suddenly rewarded with an immensely powerful servant that serves you, without requiring any sort of quest even flavor-wise, for 2d20+60 YEARS! Three weeks in bed for a lifelong servant more powerful than the strongest living humanoid seems a little...tough.

I guarantee that if shenanigans such as this and the Patron Bond/Find Familiar don't cause worry, frustration or disappointment at players, wait until the BBEG makes an appearance in game and is suddenly torn asunder by a Chaos Storm he can't possibly hope to Counter.

This just brings up another issue: Spellburning 20 points, read as written, not only gets you a natural 20 on the spell check roll BUT ALSO gives you a +20 to your total check result. The wording is a little sketchy here but that just plain seems like overkill. Originally I would have ruled it that you ONLY get the roll of +20 when burning 20 points and not the +20 bonus, but this mindset just makes spending 20 points entirely a poor decision at all but the highest levels: why would I want to just get 20 + double CL + Int when I can get a d20 roll +19 + CL + Int? Even taking average, you're looking at a 32 vs. a 37 for a level 5 character with a +2 Int bonus.

Houseruling does seem to be the appropriate solution for Spellburn in its current incarnation; we've ruled it that characters may only spellburn 2 points per CL they possess. I'm curious to hear other solutions and thoughts on this issue.

[TheNobleDrake]

But what about a spell like invisible servant? Spellburn 20 points away, and you are suddenly rewarded with an immensely powerful servant that serves you, without requiring any sort of quest even flavor-wise, for 2d20+60 YEARS! Three weeks in bed for a lifelong servant more powerful than the strongest living humanoid seems a little...tough.

The servant is powerful, but it can also be destroyed - and with DCC being as it is, even at level 3 you are likely to run into beasties capable of taking out your invisible servant in pretty short order if you use it heavily in combat.

There is also Dispel Magic, which I can't see why wouldn't send the invisible dude packing.

I guarantee that if shenanigans such as this and the Patron Bond/Find Familiar don't cause worry, frustration or disappointment at players, wait until the BBEG makes an appearance in game and is suddenly torn asunder by a Chaos Storm he can't possibly hope to Counter.

Three questions: 1) Why can't he hope to counter it? 2) Why does he have to hope to counter it instead of just weather it? 3) So what? The protagonists manage an excellent showing and handily dispatch the antagonist - good for them, hopefully they have long enough to celebrate and recover before the next plot-line happens.

There is nothing frustrating about the PCs making the BBEG look like a chump.

This just brings up another issue: Spellburning 20 points, read as written, not only gets you a natural 20 on the spell check roll BUT ALSO gives you a +20 to your total check result. The wording is a little sketchy here but that just plain seems like overkill.

The wording isn't sketchy at all - it says "option" (definition: a thing that is or may be chosen), so you clearly get one or the other.

Originally I would have ruled it that you ONLY get the roll of +20 when burning 20 points and not the +20 bonus, but this mindset just makes spending 20 points entirely a poor decision at all but the highest levels: why would I want to just get 20 + double CL + Int when I can get a d20 roll +19 + CL + Int? Even taking average, you're looking at a 32 vs. a 37 for a level 5 character with a +2 Int bonus.

You are forgetting one important difference between treating a roll as being a natural 20 and simply rolling with a +20 bonus - one of those two guarantees a 0% chance of rolling a natural 1 and possibly having a misfire or corruption occur.

Houseruling does seem to be the appropriate solution for Spellburn in its current incarnation; we've ruled it that characters may only spellburn 2 points per CL they possess. I'm curious to hear other solutions and thoughts on this issue.

My thoughts summed up quite simply: There is no issue, there is only some folks having a longer adjustment period to the sheer scale of DCC and the style behind it.

The last session I ran a player wanted to invoke his patron (the king of elfland) in hopes that it would help sway the outcome of the battle that was looking pretty bleak - the party faced a cult some 30 strong (the party being just barely 2nd level) mid ritual and had to stop them at any cost. He elected to spellburn, declared he would burn 15 and - as we do, following the suggestion of the rulebook - rolled to see what method of spellburn the King desired of him.

He ended up being required to come up with a joke, pun, or riddle to entertain the King, froze completely and could think of nothing, and was required to pay double ability scores in order to get his spellburn - which left him comatose on the battlefield, though did still lead to his spell going off extremely well to the benefit of whoever elected to pick up his now-imbued weapons.

That situation cannot happen with an arbitrary limit to spellburn - and that situation is, to me, exactly what DCC is about.

[bholmes4]

My thoughts summed up quite simply: There is no issue, there is only some folks having a longer adjustment period to the sheer scale of DCC and the style behind it.

I can't accept this statement. It implies that those of us who don't like the spellburn system will eventually "see the light" but we just aren't there with the rest of you yet. The truth is it just doesn't fly with my ideas of what makes a good long term campaign.

In one-off adventures or a fun, short campaign I can accept the spellburn system as written. In longer campaigns, where I DM, there WILL be house rules on this system to limit it. Beyond all the over-powering, over-shadowing arguements against the current spellburn system, I can't help but feel it removes some of the fun of gaining levels. When playing a wizard, acquiring new spells and using them in creative combinations with your other spells is half the fun for me. With the DCC spell system you also get the added bonus of potentially reaching higher and higher results with your spells. Seeing your magic missile spell go from a pea shooter to a nuke is exciting.... but if I can already nuke from level one, as long as I am willing to burn enough, it just isn't the same to me.

Anyway I don't care how others play. If the current system works for you embrace it and have fun. I don't want to try and convince you otherwise. Just understand it doesn't work for me, especially when the very first thing an Elf character did in my beta test games was spellburn 19 points for Patron Bond, and achieved a near max result. This, in combo with his d30 Invoke Patron spell (due to mercurial magic), made the entire adventure a boring cake-walk as he summoned a great demon lizard that promptly killed everything in sight for the next two game hours (until it gated back home). It was fun for about 10 minutes, got a bunch of laughs but eventually we realized we needed a cap.

I know, I know, the elf now owes his first born child to the demon but I just don't like it.

Note: I would also be cool with a player reaching top spell results if it wasn't so reliable and required some really lucky rolling as well. For example, I'd be much happier if spellburning granted you a die roll bonus: ie. something like spend 2 points for a d3 bonus, 5 points for a d6, 10 points for a d10, 20 points for a d16. And don't get me started on "buying" a critical. Criticals should NEVER be something you can guarantee. Talk about sapping the excitement out of them!

[TheNobleDrake]

My thoughts summed up quite simply: There is no issue, there is only some folks having a longer adjustment period to the sheer scale of DCC and the style behind it.

I can't accept this statement. It implies that those of us who don't like the spellburn system will eventually "see the light" but we just aren't there with the rest of you yet. The truth is it just doesn't fly with my ideas of what makes a good long term campaign.

I wasn't meaning for it to sound quite the way it did... just that, even with ongoing campaigns, it isn't an issue because the campaign rolls on even if the burned-out character sits down to rest.

Let me try to say it differently - spellburn isn't an issue because there is no such thing as "free", and there are no (at least extremely few) guarantees. With the spellburn system as written a character might find them self in a situation where they burn 19 in order to get a super-result on their spell... only to find out that they do not get to regain any of those 19 points until they have completed some quest assigned them by the supernatural power that now holds their very soul ransom.

There is never a time when the wizard can actually be sure that spellburn won't bite him in the ass, and is all it takes to keep players from going overboard in inappropriate instances in my experience.

...if I can already nuke from level one, as long as I am willing to burn enough, it just isn't the same to me.

I can see how it feels "less", but at the same time there is still a matter of increased reliability and reduced cost... a sort of "I can finally get this result reliably without playing Fate Roulette with my Ability scores," feeling that my players seem to be experiencing as they level up their spell casters - though that may be artificially created by the way in which I adhere to rolling randomly to determine the action they must take to achieve spellburn once they have declared the number (but not ability) to be burned.

And don't get me started on "buying" a critical. Criticals should NEVER be something you can guarantee. Talk about sapping the excitement out of them!

I actually agree with you on this for the most part. My players seem to think it's not "worth it" either and opt to always just burn for a bonus and roll... but I think it's both worth it and a very interesting and fun option to have around - with the way I insist upon random spellburn action (because the caster is asking for help and some uncaring, alien being sets the price) almost no character is going to be able to burn for a critical and not have immediate consequence for it... that leads to very, very few burn-crits and encourages players to reserve them for dramatically appropriate moments of "I succeed now or I die" instead of using a strategy of burning big at the beginning of an adventure and riding the effect of their super-charged spell through the whole thing.

I know you, and everyone else desiring their own changes to the spellburn rules, have probably run things as is and run into problems before deciding to change things around... I can't help but feel, however, that its because you hold some notion of what a campaign should be like that formed before you ever played a session of DCC and are trying to bend DCC into a form that fits that notion instead of finding a new notion of what a campaign should be like as it applies to DCC.

I will apologize for it though, as I understand that is a deficiency in my ability to understand other people's motivations and not a deficiency found in said other peopl.

[beermotor]

I think the issue is exactly as TND said (maybe inartfully, but I don't think so): people with strong ties to other games are looking for the rules to answer a particular question. But rules are by nature approximations (of "reality," essentially). A finite rulebook will never be able to answer all questions. In this case, some people seem to have identified a place where the rules say "Judge needs to exercise discretion here." Either you're okay with that or you're not... if you're not, write down a houserule "in the margins and move on" (per the Great Old Ones).

I think it's pretty simple, really. I also liked the vignette about the guy who invoked his patron and then couldn't come up with a riddle, heh. That's a good way to handle things, I think. But (I think) it requires creativity on the fly, you can't mechanistically control for that.

It's your campaign, do what you want.

W/r/t the elf who spellburned 19 immediately upon starting the game (so this wasn't at level 0??), to me this is bad roleplaying and not particularly fun (as you discovered). In my to-be-started campaign, elves are essentially humans who've been corrupted/tainted by exposure to magic, such that they've now got strong innate ties with it (and all of the risks that go along with it). No Lawful elves, so most PCs would be Neutral (a Chaotic would not long hang around a party, CF Raistlin, e.g.). The better be a darn good reason #1 to summon ye olde demon lizard, and #2 let's assume there is, WTF would said elf deign to hang around with a party of level 1 losers in such a case? Why wouldn't he just let the lizard eat them and take their gear? What's my motivation, again? What's happened here is your player has meta-gamed the sh*t out of this situation, heh. Like you said, good for a few laughs for 10 minutes and then it's a one-way ticket to boring town. I think that's what the Funnel is supposed to do, get people into character. Maybe.

Anyway.

Also, okay so big demon lizard is tough, but it's just ONE thing. Mob of goblins is being mauled by big demon lizard but sees wimpy elf who is OBVIOUSLY DIRECTING PET LIZARD... what's to stop them from throwing a net over him, holding a knife to his throat, and commandeering the big demon lizard? So your level 1 guy who thought he was hot sh*t is now responsible for the complete destruction of the town by the goblins? Hah. Now he gets to try to atone for his sins, assuming they don't just kill him after the lizard gates away.

[bholmes4]

Couple points:

1. To be fair the beta-test Elf situation was a test of the rules, where we actively tried to push the rules to their limits and such. Meta-gaming was kind of expected and encouraged. It wasn't quite as bad as it sounds. He also only had 2 hp at level 1 so he wasn't feeling so mighty just yet You could easily argue he was just using the other players for the time being.

I know the arguement will be this isn't how it's going to play out in a true campaign though and I agree. It's not only about balance though to me, it's a variety of reasons.

2. In another thread people are discussing the "throw away" nature of the DCC characters due to the short expected life spans. This is ultimately up to the DM and what he designs for the players but when you combine a game with characters that have typically short life spans and a system with long term implications (ie. corruption, patrons that will demand future quests etc.), they will quickly wise up to the fact that the long term concerns don't need to be a priority. Who cares about the implications of corruption if you likely won't survive more than a few adventures?

3. I am looking to have two games of choice. One will likely be OD&D for simple, gaming fun that will be used for the odd retro fun mini-campaigns. Maybe for nights when only one or two players are available and we are mainly using it as an excuse to have some beers and hang out. The other I want to be a variant of DCC where things can go gonzo and unexpected but for the most part is somewhat close to the experience I get with B/X D&D. This will be my game of choice, the one I play 95% of the time. I want it to be a bit more "normal" so that the gonzo stuff is that much more crazy, special and fun when it happens. Maybe that gives more insight why I am looking to change things the way I am? I know what I want at this stage in my life and gaming experience.

[beermotor]

I know what I want at this stage in my life and gaming experience.

That's your money quote right there, dude. Like Nike says, just do it(tm)!

[Skyscraper]

This is a cool discussion in that it highlights options on how to play this (or another) game.

The sense I get from having read DCC is that roleplaying must be at the forefront. This game was designed with that idea in mind. There is some flux in the rules, some leeway, that is voluntarily present to allow for the cool stuff to happen, such as the spectacular 20-spellburn nuke by the mage at the dramatic moment to save the day; but for that to exist, the designer chose rules that could be abused if left unchecked. It is a choice. I don't think DCC is a game where you can let players read the rules and try to pry every advantage they can from them, putting the DM back in his chair and not allowing him to limit that power based on those rules, as far as I understand the core concept of the game. However, if you accept the core concept and are indeed desirous of bending your playstyle to abandon a strict adhrerence to the rules, then the game system appears sound to me and I don't see much problems with abuse of the spellburn mechanic. As mentioned in DCC, the DM holds the power, period. That's the basic principle.

Also, I seem to recall, when reading the book, that the rules suggest that spellburn comes in some specific way. It is not just "burning 2 points of strength": this means that the PC is actually doing something to materialize this spellburn. This could be cutting his arm to draw blood, or cutting off a finger, etc... I don't have the book in front of me right now, but if rules are what you're looking for, I do believe it's in there, black ink on white paper. So, this means that when the PC says that he's willing to spellburn, you could tell him what is required of him, such as:

1 point: cut on your forearm
2 points: notch on your cheek
4 points: pry all hair from head
5 points: cut off a finger
10 points: cut off a hand
20 points: cut off a leg

The above might be too extreme for your or your player's taste, you can adjust as you see fit. If you trust your player to play the game according to a tone that you are looking for, you can ask him to decide what his spellburn means instead of deciding for him. This opens the game up to interesting RP opportunities, IMO.

[Rostranor]

Sorry for the almost year to the day thread necro.

I was curious how this turned out for those who commented on the thread. I am at a similar point where I am wondering whether I need to develop some kind of spell burn house rule as well.

One of my concerns is that I am looking at the Wizard/Elf characters in a vaccum and not fully considering the result of tampering with the spell burn rules on how that will affect their interaction and scalability of other classes. If the spell burn is adjusted from the RAW, then does it become lopsided against say for instance a Warriors sick Mighty Deeds at higher levels?

[Monster]

I think a wizard with average 3D6 scores or less, 9,9,9 or 10, 10,10 should be allowed to use the spell burn rules as written. My awesome wizard has a 9 intel and average scores.

I think the only huge spell burn I actually did was wizard staff. Sure I got close to the top possible result (I did not use 20 points, didn't know the auto crit rule), but I only have 30 total points to burn and never know what is around the next corner. The D24 spell burn chart has had me cut a pound of flesh, bleed myself, and snip off a finger tip. It has cost me and left the wizard with many a scar. I spend days resting up after big fights if I spell burn.

Some mega stat wizards and elves may be a small problem, but how often do those characters actually get rolled up with MONSTER stats? You can't base a situation on characters with big stats and forgot the average or the little guy who survived with only luck and expect the same results. Those big stat characters are already more powerful than the average joes, so they were going to get bigger and better results anyways. Limiting everyone to stop a small portion of people who are going to try and mega game every way possible is punative to the wrong group. Think about that before you change these items.

[cthulhudarren]

I place limits to spellburn in combat, I'm not 100% settled; I was thinking that a wizard can spellburn 2 points per action die. The process takes time! If you want to spell burn ten points as a first level wizard it is going to take you 5 rounds to cast that spell.

[GnomeBoy]

I place limits to spellburn in combat, I'm not 100% settled; I was thinking that a wizard can spellburn 2 points per action die. The process takes time! If you want to spell burn ten points as a first level wizard it is going to take you 5 rounds to cast that spell.

Isn't this a little like saying you can only do so much damage to a foe in one round, or per Action Die?

[ccy]

I've followed this and a couple of other threads about spellburn "balance" issues with some interest.

I can't really comment because I've still not been able to get a game of DCC going, which means, honestly, I don't know diddly. However, since I'm hooked on the game, and a chronic homebrewer, I put together some:

Alternate Spellburn Tables.

The idea is you roll once on each table for each attribute type you burn. So if you burn 4 points of Strength and 3 points of Agility, roll once on the "Strength" table and once on the "Agility" table.

Some other comments & possible houserules:

• 1) What actually started me on this topic wasn't "balance" per se, but the fact that so much of the fiction that emerges from the Spellburn tables seems to be oriented around Personality (eg tatoos, etc); furthermore, tying most spellburn actions to, say, "Strength" is pretty consistently tough (I found this out firsthand working on the linked table). So, I'm considering what it'd look like to allow Spellburn of only TWO attributes: Stamina & Personality. Of course, this would mean that a wizard with < 22 points of total Stamina & Personality wouldn't be able to "burn 20" - further differentiating the mighty from the meek. And that either works for you or it doesn't.
  2) I'm generally more into "risks and rewards" than "balance". So, if you roll the dreaded "1", you lose a point of EACH ATTRIBUTE TYPE YOU SPELLBURNED. So in the aforementioned example, you'd lose a point of Agility AND a point of Strength.
  3) A lot of spellburn effects take time, perhaps right "in the middle of things"... not that this matters for burns during ritual castings.
  4) A pound of flesh is sure a lot of flesh.

[Skyscraper]

I've followed this and a couple of other threads about spellburn "balance" issues with some interest.

I can't really comment because I've still not been able to get a game of DCC going, which means, honestly, I don't know diddly. However, since I'm hooked on the game, and a chronic homebrewer, I put together some:

Alternate Spellburn Tables.

The idea is you roll once on each table for each attribute type you burn. So if you burn 4 points of Strength and 3 points of Agility, roll once on the "Strength" table and once on the "Agility" table.

Some other comments & possible houserules:

• 1) What actually started me on this topic wasn't "balance" per se, but the fact that so much of the fiction that emerges from the Spellburn tables seems to be oriented around Personality (eg tatoos, etc); furthermore, tying most spellburn actions to, say, "Strength" is pretty consistently tough (I found this out firsthand working on the linked table). So, I'm considering what it'd look like to allow Spellburn of only TWO attributes: Stamina & Personality. Of course, this would mean that a wizard with < 22 points of total Stamina & Personality wouldn't be able to "burn 20" - further differentiating the mighty from the meek. And that either works for you or it doesn't.
  2) I'm generally more into "risks and rewards" than "balance". So, if you roll the dreaded "1", you lose a point of EACH ATTRIBUTE TYPE YOU SPELLBURNED. So in the aforementioned example, you'd lose a point of Agility AND a point of Strength.
  3) A lot of spellburn effects take time, perhaps right "in the middle of things"... not that this matters for burns during ritual castings.
  4) A pound of flesh is sure a lot of flesh.

Cool stuff. Very flavorful. I like a lot of the results you propose.

Comments on a rare few :

1) Cutting out one pound of flesh per spell level seems pretty steep. Where do you take that on one's body? This probably results in a wound that is very likely to bleed a lot, get infected, etc... Maybe this was the intention, but it seems like, almost impossible to even accomplish without passing out.
2) A few of the "sacrifices" do not require any physical alteration by the wizard, e.g. burn down a house, sacrifice a pack animal, ... To me, this doesn't sound like a spellburn, where the wizard's body is weakened or altered or where there is otherwise some mark of the spellburn.

[ccy]

Alternate Spellburn Tables.

• 1) What actually started me on this topic wasn't "balance" per se, but the fact that so much of the fiction that emerges from the Spellburn tables seems to be oriented around Personality (eg tatoos, etc); furthermore, tying most spellburn actions to, say, "Strength" is pretty consistently tough (I found this out firsthand working on the linked table). So, I'm considering what it'd look like to allow Spellburn of only TWO attributes: Stamina & Personality. Of course, this would mean that a wizard with < 22 points of total Stamina & Personality wouldn't be able to "burn 20" - further differentiating the mighty from the meek. And that either works for you or it doesn't.

Cool stuff. Very flavorful. I like a lot of the results you propose.

Comments on a rare few :

1) Cutting out one pound of flesh per spell level seems pretty steep. Where do you take that on one's body? This probably results in a wound that is very likely to bleed a lot, get infected, etc... Maybe this was the intention, but it seems like, almost impossible to even accomplish without passing out.
2) A few of the "sacrifices" do not require any physical alteration by the wizard, e.g. burn down a house, sacrifice a pack animal, ... To me, this doesn't sound like a spellburn, where the wizard's body is weakened or altered or where there is otherwise some mark of the spellburn.

Making these tables is an "exercise" that really does deep dive into the underlying principles fictionally and their mechanical (game rules & affects) implementation. Like you said above (and awhile ago) it really is up to the negotiation between player and judge. Per the RAW, the player is supposed to "roleplay" it, resorting to rollplay only if she can't come up w/something kewl.

The "pound of flesh" thing is serious business - and it's pulled directly from the RAW. It's an edge case that highlights the connection between mechanics and fiction due to the sorts of issues you mention. Something I encountered over and over in filling out those tables was the notion of whether we want to mechanically extend the implications of these BEYOND the stat loss. That is to say, are we merely representing the effects of losing 8 points of Strength, or are we implementing the effects of losing 8 points of Strength? There's a difference! In the RAW, it is pretty consistently "representing" - but not always.

Some examples to illustrate:

* OK, you cut out 2 pounds of flesh per your spellburn for your 2nd level spell. Do you have to do it immediately (an issue if we're in the middle of a fight)? Do you have to do it BEFORE the casting? Can you even DO it?
* You hop on one leg (another one pulled from the RAW). The naturally association for that is w/an Agility burn. Wouldn't that (radically) impact your movement? Your AC?
* As to the various "sacrifices" - I agree w/your comment! They're all merely attempts to "theme" spellburn with the Attribute being burned - the original being "sacrifice one of (the wizard's) most favored possessions", which is straight out of the RAW! I actually toned it down to "something of value", because it has the potential to be severe, ie the only thing he owns worth talking about is a prized magic item.
* Something like "sell your soul" (from the RAW) would be shruggable to a lot of players. Because I'm always trying to make costs "real", I moved it to "allow himself to be possessed". But thats an effect BEYOND stat loss - is it appropriate?
* What about the scarification, the tatoos, etc? All of these, to me, really are about Personality, not some physical stat. Yet Personality isn't "up for grabs" for spellburn. Maybe it should be...?

That last point was where it started for me. The "feeling", the "easy fit", to me, is that Spellburn is some combination of exhaustion (Stamina) along with surrender of some aspect of the caster's sanity / appearance / social skills (Personality). But that's a big change to the RAW.

[Skyscraper]

Good points to reflect on.

[Monster]

I have never had to cut a pound per spell/point of burn. Just the idea of me having to slice off a pound of my own flesh to "seal the deal" I made to get my result is enough of a negative. I certainly do not take it lightly, nor do I down play the effects of the loss of flesh and my weakened stat from the stats burned.

I have less than 30 points in Str/Agi/Fort. Those are my limits. Sure I can get off one death blast with a take 20, then I am left nearly spent and in need of 3 weeks off to rest up.

Compare that to the might deeds at each level that cost the warrior...Nothing?

[GnomeBoy]

Compare that to the might deeds at each level that cost the warrior...Nothing?

Well, you've got your spells, just like he has his Mighty Deeds. Neither are guaranteed 100% of the time.

You can just crank yours up to 11, if you dare...

[Rostranor]

Spell Burn; 60% of the time it works every time!

[Monster]

Compare that to the might deeds at each level that cost the warrior...Nothing?

Well, you've got your spells, just like he has his Mighty Deeds. Neither are guaranteed 100% of the time.

You can just crank yours up to 11, if you dare...

That is what I paid for with D4 hit points, no armor, and all that jazz.
If I dare, who are you to arbitrarily limit my death bloom!

I sit at a table with a warrior in platemail and 38 hit points at level 3.
I put on my wizard cloak and hat with 5ish hit points.

[cthulhudarren]

I place limits to spellburn in combat, I'm not 100% settled; I was thinking that a wizard can spellburn 2 points per action die. The process takes time! If you want to spell burn ten points as a first level wizard it is going to take you 5 rounds to cast that spell.

Isn't this a little like saying you can only do so much damage to a foe in one round, or per Action Die?

More like "you can only do so much damage to YOURSELF per action die"

[cjoepar]

Compare that to the might deeds at each level that cost the warrior...Nothing?

IMO, a spell result in the high 20's + is hardly comparable to a mighty deed.

[Gameogre]

Compare that to the might deeds at each level that cost the warrior...Nothing?

IMO, a spell result in the high 20's + is hardly comparable to a mighty deed.

I agree! The Mighty Deeds are WAY WAY out of wack!

Your next game add up all the damage(from Might Deed) and effects for the entire game and then add up the same for Spellburn! I don't know about you're game but in mine the Mighty Deed is the True Power at the table. Heck Spellburn is just a poor stepchild sitting alone off in a corner.

All because spellburn blows everything in one massive burst and Mighty Deed just keeps on getting it every single round.

Add to that low hit points,low ac and a tendency to explode or mutate into unnatural monstrosities and its a wonder ANYONE plays Wizards.