It occurs to me that we are in need of experience and spell-point systems. [Yes, we DO need spell points. There's a loophole in the rules that makes warriors' attack magic stronger than their weapons, and fixing this by messing around with power alone would: A) make warriors' magic completely useless, and B) seriously weaken mages. So instead, we put simple, Wisdom-based limits on magic.]

Firstly, the spell-point system. Two types of spell points exist simultaneously: AP, or Ability Points, and EP, or Energy Points. The main difference is that AP is separate for each ability, whereas EP is the total energy supply from which all abilities are drawn. When at full power, each ability's AP and the character's total EP are equal to that character's Wisdom; using an ability decreases its AP by five points, and decreases total EP by one point. [Note that this is the standard amount; some abilities, such as healing spells, use up AP significantly faster. DM's discretion on this.]

AP and EP slowly recover overtime with non-use (exactly how slowly is DM's discretion; full recovery could take anywhere from a few hours to a few days.) Obviously, when AP is below 5 for an ability, that ability can't be used until restored; when EP is depleted, a character can't use *any* special abilities until it's restored. Running out of EP isn't often a major problem, except in seriously magic-intensive adventures, but a character with low Wisdom can very quickly run out of AP if they rely too much on one ability.

***

Well, that's SP done with - I hope it was relatively painless. On with XP:

***

As you probably know, in most RPGs advancement in power is determined largely by an intangible factor known as experience, gained in no small part by killing stuff. Rather than having pointless escalation, where tens of thousands of experience points are needed to gain every level, a character needs 1 experience point to get from level 1 to level 2. That's right, just one. From there, experience required increases as the square of level: 4 more points to get to level 3, 9 more points to get to level 4, and so on. Thus, for example, it takes 81 experience points to get to level 10 from level 9, or 225 to get to level 16 from 15.

Meanwhile, experience is gained proportionally to the level of the stuff one fights. A level-1 monster is worth 1 XP, a level-5 monster is worth 5 XP, or whatever. Consequently, defeating monsters of a level equal to one's own produces rapidly diminishing returns - by level 50, gaining experience by combat alone, one would need no less than 51 kills of level-50 opponents to advance to the next level! (Note that not all of these would have to be struck the final blow directly by the experience-getter, though; participation in a group that defeats an opponent is sufficient to gain experience for the victory. Nonetheless, 51 kills is rather a lot.)

Consequently, combat is not the only means of gaining experience, and other means become increasingly important at higher levels. Training, and usage of magical items, can both give additional experience to characters; furthermore, challenges not directly related to combat (such as escaping a trap, solving a puzzle or finding something vital to a quest) will award varying amounts of experience.

The maximum level that can be gained through experience is 99 (requiring 9604 experience from level 98, and 318549 total experience). To reach level 100 (the highest level a PC can permanently attain without some kind of powerful magical assistance), a character has to do something fairly impressive, generally involving some kind of personal quest.

As far as XP is concerned, you're entirely right... though I do dispute the supposed impossibility of a level-10 party killing a level 15 enemy. Furthermore, the level-15 enemy would most likely be a boss and therefore give an experience bonus. Nonetheless, your basic point stands. I'm not at all sure what I was thinking when I thought up that crud. Blame it on the insanity-producing effects of Doom Moon II, if you must.

But never mind all that. The point is, you should probably disregard the XP system entirely, or better yet, improve it. One possibility would be making XP requirements equal to the fourth power of the level and XP rewards equal to the cube of the level, but considering the circumstances under which I'm writing this, there's probably something wrong with that idea, too. (For one thing, it introduces the massive-amounts-of-XP thing, but that's more an aesthetic problem than anything.)

As far as SP goes, well, I'll defend my rules:

A cost of 5 AP means, of course, that a 10-Wisdom fighter gets 2 castings of each of their spells in the time it takes to fully recharge AP. Generally, I'd define this time as 24 hours, but depending on the pace of an adventure, that could vary. Since most adventures are fairly non-combat-intensive, 2 spells of each type per day is often not as much of a burden as it would seem. If you are planning on a more combat-based adventure, feel free to provide plenty of magic-restorative items to the PCs.

It's also worth noting that the rule changes are by no means fueled by self-interest. The changes are most important when fighters are fighting each other, rather than when they're fighting mages; against mages, physical attacks will basically always work best, but against fighters, there's actually no reason to use a weapon rather than a spell... and therefore, even less reason to use a shield. And that's bad, because shields are good.

There is one workable alternative I can think of to the SP system, but it maims fighter/mages significantly more than this system does, so I won't even mention it.

I agree with Imban (or was it Alec?); 5 AP per spell seems a little harsh. Especially to Sparrowhawk. Eight spells a day? He frequently needs almost that many for a single battle, and he hasn't even really been challenged yet (except by Thissa, who he should have beaten, but that's a seperate rant). Why should SP vary from ability to ability anyway? If I read this correctly, a character's EP would be pretty much meaningless unless he had more than five different SP-using abilities. Granted, it seems like this burden will be allevieated(SP?) somewhat once Sparrow gets a second spell, but it still sucks.

Now that I think about it, another plus of this rule, intended or no, is that it discourages people from creating single-spell mages that just blast things over and over. Yes, these characters annoy me, too, and can be overpowered, but you have to be fair to the ones that exist.

I suppose eight attack spells might be limiting in a heavily combat-based or magic-using quest. I stress that the rules are meant strictly as a guide - DMs. in such a quest, feel free to allow your players a few extra spells.

Yes, EP would be meaningless until one got more than 5 abilities. Better to make it increase with level, I suppose. How about giving EP an initial value equal to 22% of Wisdom and then increasing it by an additional 2% of Wisdom every level? (Fractional points, of course, would add up over time.)

Oh, and Absorption WOULD count as an ability, y'know. (No absorbing things indefinitely!)

And yes, the AP/EP distinction is designed specifically to prevent single-spell mages and encourage people to use multiple different abilities. In fact, by higher levels, I'd seriously consider making spells cost 10 AP. Right now, I suppose reducing the AP cost might not be such an awful idea until people get more abilities.

However, there is one major problem I see with this system, and it's this: players know exactly how long they can keep throwing spells around, and can budget accordingly. That's why DM discretion is so important in bending the rules for dramatic effect - there's nothing quite like finding out you just launched your last fireball halfway through the battle. (DMs, the operative word here is "discretion". There is such a thing as an abuse of power.)