Goodman Games

Two suggestions came out of session four that I forgot to mention:

1. New advantage called Extra Spell Action: Works similar to Extra Weapon Attack at same cost.

2. Split spell casting: Works like Split attacks do.

Any thoughts on game balance harm?

You can split Harm spells. Allowing it for other Effects is a good idea.

The Extra Spell Action would work too! Write it just like Extra Weapon (sans stuff about dual-wielding of course).

Oops, I forgot about that. I do have a question or statement regarding it though. It says you drop the lowest die when casting against a single target but if you split the attack do you still drop it? Since the lowest die would be just the one you rolled against that target it could potentially be rules lawyer-ed into meaning that the attacks would cost nothing.

I'd say no. You pay the points of each die at each target. You use more power to hit more targets.

I don't know... It seems like this would result in one-dimensional characters (all CP put into spell casting). (Hey, I know my players!) An extra attack doesn't seem to be as powerful as an extra spell.

That extra spell would still cost spell points, and retaining Resilience ensures a straight Harm spell isn't quite as effective as a direct physical attack. Other effects requiring a difficulty roll is another factor. A spell caster would still be limited by spell points and can only maintain so many things at once. Of course armor and other factors can effect that outcome.

You think allowing an advantage like Extra Spell Action would invite min/maxers? I'd say if the player wants a one-dimensional character (one trick pony?) then let him play just that. Pointing those points into an Extra Spell Action would only reduce the potential power and effectiveness of each spell.

I wonder how it's working out with 4E with the focus being on group composition and fulfilling requisite roles to have a "workable" party? I don't know that such a thing applies so much to ERP.

Why? If 6 CP are spent, wouldn't they have the full MRV of their Arcanum tree for each spell?

No clue. I'm trying to pay as little attention to 4e as I can!

Those points could be applied to a primary magical ADC to increase overall effectiveness. Assuming 12 CPs total, an arcanist would be choosing between something like D8 > D6 > D4 or D4 > D4 > D4 (thus Extra Spell Action also at 3D4 max). Also, if the arcanist didn't master something in the ability tree, then spending 6 points in the Extra Spell Action would also be pointless.

If it works the same as Extra Attack, then 2 CPs grants access to the basic rank only (arcanum basic). With another 2 CPs, the character could choose any one of the magical specializations to add an Extra Spell Action, assuming the spell is known (or follows the 'read from scroll' rules).

I haven't played it yet. Probably won't until I hit a convention, because I have no room for a minis collection in my little apartment. I prefer to play without minis and a battlemat anyway (like...with a game of Eldritch!).

Since most characters tend to lean strongly in one direction anyway,I don't think it makes much of a difference other than increasing the viability of playing a magic using class.

Well, my point was that the player would still max out the spellcasting tree, but the CPs for the Extra Spell Action would come at the expense of some other Ability, thus resulting in a more narrow character. It may not be that big a deal--flexibility is a good thing, too.