Made folder for GM guide, cleaned some files up

ruleset/forGameMasters/balancingConsiderations/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+These are some considerations to take into account when making your own changes to the ruleset, or making custom items, abilities, feats, etc.
+
+It is not super imporant that you follow these, it is mostly just my rambling while doing math I am making up entirely on the spot that sounds/feels just about right. This section was made entirely becasue of me going insane trying to think of how I could balance spellcasting with a mana-type system rather than a traditional spell-slot system like dnd5e or pf2e. I could just give up, switch to slots, all is well and good. But I hate myself, so lets go.

ruleset/forGameMasters/balancingConsiderations/spellcasting.md

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+Spellcasting using a mana system is a bitch
+
+# Spell points
+## Cost
+The cost of spells in LE1e is loosely based on the fibonacci sequence, when basing a spell on another in dnd or pathfinder the fibonacci number of the spell level (starting at 2 for level one spells) is used, then adjusted for more fine-tuned balance
+
+|Spell level|SP cost|
+|:---------:|:-----:|
+|1|2|
+|2|3|
+|3|5|
+|4|8|
+|5|13|
+|6|21|
+|7|34|
+|8|55|
+|9|89|
+
+Using this sequence lets us use a non-linear scaling pattern, "bigger" spells can feel big pretty quickly, small spells feel small pretty quickly.
+
+Where this model falls apart is in trying to get casters to not use only super big spells every time they cast one. Give them too many points and there is no reason not to cast nuke every turn, too little and they can't do more than one encounter while being useful. ~~only enough to cast a level 9 equivalent spell at the level you want them to start thinking about casting them and your small spells have to do quite a bit for DPS casters to be able to deal damage. Give them enough to cast that same spell a couple levels early? now they can cast level 7 spell equivalents every turn in combat every combat they are a part of.~~
+
+There are a few ideas to fix this, but it is quite difficult to balance between them. The goal is to keep big spells feeling big, and small spells feeling small, while still giving a reason to cast the small ones
+
+### Spell scaling
+A major thing with scaling spells is that when you do, either new more-costly spells are better (which is a good thing, I think) or the player gets an ol' reliable at level one, that outscales anything that costs more than it does before it ever reaches the same cost. You have to be careful about all of the spells to make one spell that scales not just objectively better than another. ~~Non-scaling spells should have more cost-efficiency than scaling spells, but the damage potential of the scaling spells is only limited by the amount fo SP the player has readily available.~~ 
+
+### Resource efficiency
+A player with 150 SP might be able to cast a big scaled spell that deals 40d6 damage at once for all 150 SP, or they can cast 15 spells for 10 SP that deal 3d8 each. That big spell will ***feel*** big, but at the same time the small spells are efficient enough that the player can know without having to do math that they may deal more damage, just not all at once
+
+~~Give the players an ol' reliable spell. The idea is to get spells that deal damage more efficiently than bigger spells, but never quite hit the same level. This is, of course, easier said that done.  If I make a level one spell that deals 1d6 damage, and make the cost scale by +2 every time, it needs to scale 44 times to hit the same cost as a level nine equivalent spell. If we just increase the number of damage die, our 9th level spell has to deal more than 45d6 damage to be more worth it than our level one.~~