Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Madacapa 09-04-06, 10:19 AM	On Monte Cook's web site, he suggests changing spell casters so that they can cast some spells as often as they wish. He writes that it could easily be balanced to other classes, but it would require a complete overhaul of the spell system. That does not sound easy, but I do agree it should be done. For example, he suggested that Mage Armor should have an all day duration. I agree. The man knows what he is talking about. I think that the Wizards of the Coast should make this happen for D&D 4.0, which should be released some time in 200X...:eek:
Joseph_Silver 09-04-06, 11:46 AM	That would make the game unbalanced. There would be no need for fighters because spellcasters would never run out of magic.
savant_warlord13 09-04-06, 12:03 PM	They might run out of magic for the encounter. It is much like the martial adepts of the Tome of Battle.
Madacapa 09-04-06, 02:08 PM	That would make the game unbalanced. There would be no need for fighters because spellcasters would never run out of magic. Its like saying, there would be no need for spellcasters because fighters never run out of sword swings or thieves never run out of sneak attacks. Once again, Monte's article is hard to dispute: http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?otherd20_Spellcasters Allow me a brief quote from it: "The 3rd Edition spellcaster has enough spells so that he need not be miserly but not enough so that he can cast them with real abandon. Just enough to encourage him to be imprudent but not enough to actually allow him to back up that tactic. So, then, why not just go all the way and create a balanced way for spellcasters to do some amount of magic "stuff" all the time? It wouldn't be hard, for example, to create balanced magical attacks or defenses that were on par with other classes' offensive and defensive abilities. In other words, the rogues' sneak attack is designed so that it's balanced even if he gets to make one every round. Surely the wizard can be balanced so that he gets a magical blast of some type every round. However, resource management isn't a bad mechanic. Quite the contrary. It leads to very interesting play decisions. In fact, it's interesting enough that I often wish that all classes had access to some form of it (that why I created the ritual warrior for Arcana Evolved). Getting rid of it completely would be a mistake. Imagine, then, a magical class set up with two different kinds of magical powers. Some things characters could do all the time, without cost. These aren't spells so much as just "things they've learned to do with magic." Call them magical disciplines. The other things they could use in a limited fashion, or were costly to them for some reason. Call them spells." Ok, not so brief, but he explains it far better than I can. Some spells would be unlimited, and others wouldn't. I think its about time this change be made; hopefully it will happen in D&D 4.0.
Damned slayer 09-04-06, 03:49 PM	Why argue about this they created Warlock wich is a mage that as a magical blast every round some spells that he can use at will more classes cast spell less they know spells wich is in my opinion balanced
Norhg 09-04-06, 03:56 PM	A trend where DnD is made more like other games on the Market. *Applause* Innovative mr Cook. Anyway, this trend is already here. Warlock and Binders are two examples of this. Refine and adapt them and you have your system done. Btb, one could also go for a system in which the costly magic uses Action Points. Suspect those will be base-line or near so in DnD4ed.
Millennium 09-04-06, 03:58 PM	I agree with a lot of what Monte says. But sometimes, I'm afraid I have to wonder what he was smoking. The idea that this could easily be balanced with the other classes is one of those times. As for "this should be done": why? So that players don't have to integrate the way they interact with magic into their personalities anymore? This seems like just another argument for video-game magic to me, and I'm not buying it.
EternalZzyx 09-04-06, 04:00 PM	i think i remember seeing a spell recharge system in unearthed arcana, depending on your class you can cast spells again after a number of rounds. would this be acceptable?
Fruscht 09-04-06, 04:45 PM	i think i remember seeing a spell recharge system in unearthed arcana, depending on your class you can cast spells again after a number of rounds. would this be acceptable? I have seen it, too. It's insanely powerful, IMO. Can't remember exactly, but I think you were basically able to cast a spell in every single round. Not the same level of spell, and not your most powerful ones, plus specific spells had recharge time measured in hours), but it's still too much.
Illithid_Tentacles 09-04-06, 04:55 PM	Hell no. Casters have wands, scrolls, and staves, and hell, even necklaces, rings, gloves, and lots of other stuff. No caster woth his salt should EVER find himself completely and totally out of spells or spell facsimiles in battle or some other dangerous situation, even if it's nothing more than a Teleport or Expeditious Retreat scroll or something. They are perfectly fine as is, and making them stronger would be kicking the fighter, barbarian, and rogue directly in the nuts. Paladins and rangers, too, but to a lesser extent, since they get spells.
Norhg 09-04-06, 05:32 PM	Hell no. Casters have wands, scrolls, and staves, and hell, even necklaces, rings, gloves, and lots of other stuff. No caster woth his salt should EVER find himself completely and totally out of spells or spell facsimiles in battle or some other dangerous situation, even if it's nothing more than a Teleport or Expeditious Retreat scroll or something. They are perfectly fine as is, and making them stronger would be kicking the fighter, barbarian, and rogue directly in the nuts. Paladins and rangers, too, but to a lesser extent, since they get spells. The idea isn't to make the Casters stronger, but to suppleant the vanacian system most classes work according to. Read the text quoted from Monte Cook and you'll get some insight.
Jackmojo 09-04-06, 06:00 PM	An option my friends and I were discussing was allowing infinite use of prepared slots of specific lower levels as higher casting levels are reached (note this works better for the wizard because unlimted acid splash is not broken whereas unlimited cure minor wounds can be) I.e. At caster level 6 or 8 or so (a level where no new spell level is gained) the character can cast an unlimited number of cantrips (while still being limited to a certain number prepared/known), at 11 unlimted first level, and so on. No playtesting has been done but the consensus amongst us was that other then unlimited healing potential it doesn't particularly affect balance and if you're wanting a more magical setting (spell casting rather then more items anyway) this is an easy enough addition. Jack
Oakspar77777 09-04-06, 09:37 PM	I have to agree with Norhg, as the Warlock is a spellcaster without a limit to the number of spells per day. Many of his spells also go on for 24 hours, so that you don't have to keep redundantly casting it over and over (unless you get nailed with a Dispel Magic). You could easily great a Peacelock with a healing ability every round (touch, and probably slower HD advancement) and a host of good-type abilities. Essentually, the limit on spells is the balancing factor for spellcasters, and to take it away would require a SIGNIFIGANT reduction in spell options and power. Note how much is taken from the Wizard to the Warlock. A Wizard becomes increasingly less powerful for each encounter he faces in a day. This is no different than a Fighter. True, a Fighter can swing all day, but each encounter he looses HP, and becomes, essentually less powerful. Can a Fighter be healed? Yes. A Wizard, however, can also have Staves, Wands, and Scrolls to keep things going.
honeynuggets 09-04-06, 09:53 PM	On Monte Cook's web site, he suggests changing spell casters so that they can cast some spells as often as they wish. He writes that it could easily be balanced to other classes, but it would require a complete overhaul of the spell system. That does not sound easy, but I do agree it should be done. For example, he suggested that Mage Armor should have an all day duration. I agree. The man knows what he is talking about. I think that the Wizards of the Coast should make this happen for D&D 4.0, which should be released some time in 200X...:eek: IF the goal is to re-create the exciting "mage combat" as seen in movies like The Covenant THEN a good solution imho would be to allow only certain spells unlimited useage. For example, each new spell level could have a spell called "Telekinetic Attack" which hurls objects at foes with more and more force as it goes up in level. At 1st level "Telekinetic Attack" could hurl objects with enough force to cause 1d4 damage and require a ranged attack. This could be cast unlimited times and would allow casters to participate without shooting arrows or other non-mage methods. As a 2nd level spell it could cause 2d4 damage, etc. I wouldn't make mage armor an unlimited cast spell though.
Yalius 09-05-06, 12:00 AM	Perhaps this question may be heretical to some, but why should spellcasters be given the ability to cast unlimited spells? Part of the original reasons for having classes to begin with was to allow each different archetype to have a particular area to shine, without overshadowing all other characters i all areas. Since when do all classes have to be equally useful in combat? A fighter (or variant) should, by my thinking, thouroughly outclass every other non-melee class (rogues, clerics, casters, whatever) in combat. Continually boosting the abilities of non-combat-oriented classes, without corresponding reductions in utility in other situations, really serves to marginalize the more melee-oriented classes. Clerics and mages get plenty of opportunity to play to their current strengths, rather than horning in on other classes. Personally, I'd prefer to see a massive reduction in spellcasters' combat abilities, maybe capping spell damage from any single spell at no more than the caster's current HP. Or something equally drastic. I'd much rather see combat more along the lines of "Spellcasters, get behind me! I'll keep you safe!" than "If you move out of the way, silly fighter, I could end this in a moment!"
Seerow 09-05-06, 12:10 AM	Yalius: The reason for that would probably be your fix only lessens the utility of Evocation spells which are currently the weakest spells a Wizard could want. So what you propose would change absolutely -nothing- Now, on topic, I've been toying around with (along with others) the idea of a limitless system in other threads around these boards. The idea I'm currently most fond of is limiting to 1 spell slot per level base, plus your bonus spells from a high casting stat, and regain your spells with 15 minutes of rest. This generally restricts to 2 or 3 of your top tier spells at most, and as it goes down the gradient you get more of the next level spells. But really, the point isn't to hose fighters. The problem is they're -already- getting hosed. There's also the problem that Casters as are CAN go into every battle fully prepped if they want, because they essentially dictate to the party when to rest (you ever see a Fighter want to go on without the Cleric to patch him up?). Even worse for a higher level Caster, who can Plane Shift and completely reprepare his spells in what's a fraction of a second in real time. So the solution is reduce the nova potential, make it per encounter so the fact that they CAN rest whenever they want doesn't really become an issue, so that you now have an effective balance point you can always count on rather than saying "Well the Fighter will be better after X encounters". Now you can bring up the Fighter types to this level without having to worry about it being too much in certain campaigns while not enough in others, so long as the two are used together.
Legdiwena 09-05-06, 12:55 AM	Not even psionics can use 0-lvl infinite times per day. Seems grossly over-powered to me, if anything use recharge system from UA.
pmurray@bigpond.com 09-05-06, 01:02 AM	On Monte Cook's web site, he suggests changing spell casters so that they can cast some spells as often as they wish. You can do this with the Warlock class. As for Mage Armour - my Wiz uses a Metamagic rod of Extend. More than enough for a dungeon crawl.
Madacapa 09-05-06, 08:36 AM	I think that the Vancian spell system must be ended by version 4.0. You can balance unlimited spell casting by requiring wizards to make a skill roll for each spell they use. Also, you can use spell points to represent a wizard's fatigue from casting powerful, high level spells. Also, you could require complex rituals and extra time for spells like Wish and Miracle. Really, the idea that when a wizard casts a spell the memory of it is wiped from his/her memory, and he/she has to re-memorize it sounds really silly. I am sure that Vance thought it was silly too when he wrote about it, but he never imagined that someone would create a entire magical system around it. Does anyone actually played the Dying Earth RPG?
Kimokeo 09-05-06, 10:07 AM	Here's one reason against it: Maximize Fireball (or any other spell) Imagine no limit to the number of spells you can cast. If I allowed unlimited spellcasting- I'd have to end the metamagic feats or limit them!
Madacapa 09-05-06, 10:49 AM	Here's one reason against it: Maximize Fireball (or any other spell) Imagine no limit to the number of spells you can cast. If I allowed unlimited spellcasting- I'd have to end the metamagic feats or limit them! As Monte said, the whole system would have to be overhauled from bottom to top. If you wanted to make a change now, then you would only allow certain spells to be unlimited. As many people have written, the Warlock can cast unlimited spells, but with great limitations. I do not know if the Warlock can cast unlimited fireball spells.
1CentSage 09-05-06, 11:06 AM	If I read the article by Monte Cook correctly, he was actually suggesting to REDUCE the number of spells per day of spellcasters and to compensate for that by giving them some usefull at will abilities (like the mage armor example) which are WEAKER than the spells you have to memorize, so that resource management would again become more important for the more powerfull spellcaster options (spells), but at the same time let the spellcaster continue play even after he ran out of spells. Nowhere did he suggest to get rid of the vancian system entirely by the way. Quote from the article: "One more thing that I would do is to not only limit the number of spells that can be used in a day but I would also limit the number that can be in effect at any one time, further extending the long-term usefulness of the mage and also providing the system with another balancing factor for spells. So a caster might be able to cast a fair number of spells in a day, but not all of them right away at the beginning. This change alone would extend the adventure (and therefore the fun of the game) for longer periods between periods of downtime. All this attention on spellcasters and in particular giving them unlimited numbers of minor abilities might seem like it would make them even more dominant in the game. This wouldn't have to be the case, however. In fact, the problem with the system now is that their effects are so dominant that the party members don't want to go on after they've depleted their magical resources. A well designed system could scale back the power of the more straightforward effects while letting spellcasters use them more often (as disciplines), and reserving major effects for the strictly regulated spell system."
IMarvinTPA 09-05-06, 02:26 PM	Our group thoroughly enjoys the Recharge magic system from Unearthed Arcana. http://www.imarvintpa.com/dndLive/RechargeRules.php Basically, you loose access to spells for a limited time which forces you to use other spells until those recover. But after a while you will always have some sort of choices. IMarv
Jhaelen 09-05-06, 02:30 PM	An option my friends and I were discussing was allowing infinite use of prepared slots of specific lower levels as higher casting levels are reached (note this works better for the wizard because unlimted acid splash is not broken whereas unlimited cure minor wounds can be) Shadowcasters (from ToM) are similar. Starting at level 14 they can cast their fundamentals an unlimited number of times. Fundamentals are typically a bit better than 0-level spells. One of them (Caul of Shadow) grants a deflection bonus to AC (maximum bonus +4 at level 18), by the way, so this is very similar to the example Monte has given.
Madacapa 09-05-06, 03:09 PM	I am advocating that D&D get rid of the Vancian spell system. I never said that Monte Cook wants to do away with the Vancian spell system; however, he certainly implies that in part one of his article. I really like the idea of having spell points and having wizards recharge. HOWEVER, the whole system needs to be overhauled completely for D&D 4.0, sometime around Christmas 2007 or Summer 2008.
batmanjr 09-05-06, 04:18 PM	Really, the idea that when a wizard casts a spell the memory of it is wiped from his/her memory, and he/she has to re-memorize it sounds really silly. That's why it is now more often called preparing spells. The caster is preparing components/focus materials, etc. It's not like they have literally forgotten the spell, they just don't have any more material. Sort of like a mason who is grouting. Once they are out of grout, it isn't like they forget how to lay down the material. No, they have the knowledge and ability, they just need to prep more grout. Yes yes, I know not every casting class uses components, but it is just the concept. Sorcerers just have so much spell energy that they can expel per day, and clerics are only granted so much power from their gods.
Furion Thamior 09-05-06, 04:53 PM	As mentioned earlier, I think adapting a Tome of Battle model to work for spellcasting would be great. If you base the class around a Swordsage-like progression, by the time you strip away all the Swordsage's nifty extras and slap on the d4 hit die, poor BAB, lack of armor, and a Wizard's skill list, you can justify it for powerful spell effects and the ability to learn more spells via a spellbook. Obviously, more tweaking than that is needed such as for metamagic effects and the like, but it would probably be a very elegant system once fully developed.
Rerednaw 09-05-06, 05:28 PM	There have been methods for casters since at least 3.0 to have all day casting. A feat, sacrifice a 9th level slot and you a 1st level spell all day long. As well as the aforementioned warlock. I definitely can see balance issues with essentially having powers at will though. Not the concept of at will abilities, simply because some spells are much more powerful than others of the same or even higher level. And that it is usually more difficult to affect something with a direct physical attack (i.e. normal attack versus AC) than via a spell (touch attacks, or hits automatically and saves for 1/2 or some minimal effect). I still like the concept though. Then again, I like ANY spell system other than the vancian one. Cheers.
IMarvinTPA 09-05-06, 11:57 PM	This is a skill based casting option. For INT casters, they would use Craft (Magic). For CHA casters, they would use Perform (Magic). For WIS casters, they would use Profession (Magic). (The key abilities of those are INT, CHA, and WIS respectively.) I'm debating wether or not to add an extra skill point per level to casting classes. The spell DCs would be: Lvl DC 0 12 1 15 2 18 3 21 4 24 5 27 6 30 7 33 8 36 9 39 The Skills section describes the DCs as Average (10) Tough (15) Challenging (20) Formidable (25) Heroic (30) Nearly impossible (40) Which actually describes the above DCs nicely. Cantrips are harder than Average because, well, it's magic and there is no such thing as average magic. First level spells are Tough things to achieve. 9th level spells are nearly impossible, but mages pull it off fairly regularly. Classes that prepare spells use that time to select their spells for the day, but they have no limit on the number of times they may cast them. A miscast is just a miss. Classes that spontaneously cast spells don't have much to gain from this so far. I think dropping the full round to cast metamagic is an easy boon for them. Heighten would be a no-brainer as well as any other handy metamagic feat. Feats and abilities that grant x/day times (Sudden Empower) would be tricky to adjudicate, I would probably have the effect permanently affect the selected spell for the remainder of the day. This would not replace any concentration checks that may apply. What are your thoughts on this? IMarv
King Bulba 09-06-06, 05:13 AM	They might run out of magic for the encounter. It is much like the martial adepts of the Tome of Battle. People seem to be ignoring you so I will Q.F.T. Seriously, unlimited not as in the warlock but as in Tome of Battle. You get less spells but can refresh them with five minutes of rest/study. It prevents novaing since you dont have the resorces to spare. You can't use 4 enounters worth of spells for 1 encounter because you can only have 1 enounters worth at a time. Only getting spells once every 24 feels so artifical to me, this actully makes sense, to me at least.
Furion Thamior 09-06-06, 11:51 AM	Seriously, unlimited not as in the warlock but as in Tome of Battle. You get less spells but can refresh them with five minutes of rest/study. It prevents novaing since you dont have the resorces to spare. You can't use 4 enounters worth of spells for 1 encounter because you can only have 1 enounters worth at a time. Exactly. It moves it abit closer to a video-game like Mana resource, but this isn't a bad thing. It takes 5 minutes from the last spell you cast for you to recharge your spells. Perhaps to account for longer combats there could be higher level feats and abilities that allow a mage to spend a full round action to recover a single spell, and once per day, to recover all thier spells. Without factoring bonus spells, under a 4 encounter per day model a 20th level wizard can generally cast 10 spells - one per level - each encounter. A character with a high Intelligence probably inceases their spell output by 50% or so... so where looking at about 16 spells per encounter. The only consideration is long lasting buff spells and ultility spells are essentially given limitless use, also some heavy work would be needed to decide what the difference is between a sorceror and a wizard, since as far as I can tell a sorceror would look even worse next to a wizard than it does now.
Daernet 09-06-06, 12:04 PM	There is one posibility that wouldn't take a serious amount of overhaul and that would be as follows: A wizard may decide to cast a spell without expending it if he takes a full round action to do so and succeeds at a spellcraft check DC dependant on the level of the spell cast. If the check suceeds the spell is cast successfuly and the wizard retains that spell for later use. If the check fails the spell is still cast successfuly but the spell is lost from it's spell slot and can't be recast until rememorized. If the Check Botches there are a couple of options, either the spell can fizzle emptying the spell slot, or it can be treated as wild magic. This would maintain the need to carefully prepare a wizards spells in advance, keep the usefullness of multiple spell slot, not detract in any way from other casters, and save your wizard having to take a nap and over an hour to prepare his/her spells in the middle of an adventure. The same rules could be applied equally to a sorcerer cleric or any other spell casting class wishing to retain one of his/her spell slots. It could even be applied to psionic characters wishing to retain power points for later use. If neccesary this could be gained from taking an Epic level Feat, but I think it would still be usefull and balanced as a 1st level feat. I would guestimate that a base DC of 15 for cantrips (no taking 10 at first level) with an increasing DC of 5 for each spell level thereafter, would give a DC 60 to cast a ninth level spell without expending the charge (virtually impossible to even achieve when you first get 9th level spells without taking the right feats, but as a character becomes more Epic and Godlike such feats become more achievable) Possibly even allow for the spell to be cast as normal for an even greater penalty to the DC check, a guestimate could be DC 20 for a cantrip and each spell level thereafter taking an extra 10 DC so to cast a ninth level spell without expending the slot and at the usual casting time would take a DC 110 roll.
Pyke_Moonshadow 09-06-06, 01:01 PM	I used to play Earthdawn and that system allowed for unlimited casting. The limiting factors? You could only have a handful of spells (like 6 at the high end) spells prepared. You could switch them out but it took time. The spells required multiple skills to cast. The more powerful spells took more than one round to cast. I had no problem with that system.
Jerks 09-06-06, 01:33 PM	Yeah, the Tome of Battle model would work wonders for a new spellcasting system. You could still have wizards capable of knowing an unlimited number of spells, but instead of 5 minutes to switch out, have it take at least an hour to do so. Maybe even the standard 8 hours + 1 hour of study. Once expended a spell is unavailable until refocused. Refocusing should take at least a full round action. Maybe more depending upon spell level or type of effect. The problem is deciding how long. Too long then it's REALLY not worth it to recharge a spell during combat. Too short, and the 1 round of not doing anything pales in comparison to how much damage you sling. Buffs could be similar to stances, in that a character could activate them at any time but be limited to how many they can have active at one time. It would definitely take a lot of work. Manuevers don't really scale in level. Spells do. Eliminating or eliminating scaling effects (or damage caps) would probably need to be done. I really like this ideal. I just got a call telling me not to go into work tomorrow...maybe, just maybe I'll have to work up a rudimentary system.
Madacapa 09-06-06, 02:45 PM	Jerks wrote, "I really like this ideal. I just got a call telling me not to go into work tomorrow...maybe, just maybe I'll have to work up a rudimentary system." Maybe you should find out why they don't want you to come into work tomorrow instead. You may need to start looking for a new job.
Jerks 09-06-06, 03:08 PM	Jerks wrote, "I really like this ideal. I just got a call telling me not to go into work tomorrow...maybe, just maybe I'll have to work up a rudimentary system." Maybe you should find out why they don't want you to come into work tomorrow instead. You may need to start looking for a new job. Not to worry. I work doing environmental water quality sampling from the sewers. We can't work for 72 hours after a major rain storm. It dilutes the levels of pollutants below "everyday" values. Heck, it's looking like it's going to rain for several days around these parts, so I may have a lot of free time on my hands.
Nightwhisper 09-06-06, 04:09 PM	If you're going to work up rudimentary basics on this kind of thing, I might suggest that maybe allow mid-battle recalling of expended spells to only apply to spells X levels lower than the highest the caster can cast? Buffs as stance-like that you can have a predetermined number active whenever you want sounds like a nice idea too. If you want to get more complicated with it, divide them to wards (spells that protect) and enhancements (spells that improve or give new abilities) so that different classes can excell at different types of buffs. Alternatively a difference between self-buffs and others-buffs is possible. Also to be considered is whether or not a caster should be able to prepare multiples of their spells at all, freely, or with limits. I'd propose limiting this too to lower-level spells so that a spellcaster can't keep raining multiples of their higher-level spells, but higher-level casters can throw a series of less impactful spells. Not to mention the decision of keeping or discarding spells prepared of a given level instead of total distriputed among spell levels as seen fit.
Pyke_Moonshadow 09-06-06, 04:19 PM	I think the spells would have to be scaled down some though if they are to be used on a per encounter basis.
Seerow 09-06-06, 04:34 PM	Well, to see how things go, we'll look at the worst case scenario, let's look at a Wizard20 with 32 Int Spells: 0th-4 1st-7 2nd-7 3rd-7 4th-6 5th-6 6th-6 7th-6 8th-5 9th-5 So, you get 16 spells per day from your top 3 levels. You have an average of 13 spells per encounter, 4 from your top levels. Switch it to Tome of Battle using a Swordsage-esque setup: 12 Spells prepared. If you use the Spells Known Progression as the Swordsage Progression (really making this a Sorc rather than a Wizard) you have the following available to you: (assuming you always trade out a lowest level spell for a highest level spell) 1-0 2-1 3-3 4-3 5-3 6-3 7-3 8-3 9-6 So with your 12 prepared spells you prepare 6 9th level spells, 3 8th, 3 7th, you can cast these spells every encounter. So in a given encounter you cast more 9th level spells than you normally could in a full day. Using the system I described earlier, you end up with something like this: 0th-4 1st-4 2nd-4 3rd-4 4th-3 5th-3 6th-3 7th-3 8th-2 9th-2 So you get to cast 7 of your top level spells, and have all your various buff/warding spells prepared in lower slots. Maybe a few combat spells down there too so you can still contribute some after you cast your 7. So you get 3 more top level spells, but it's better than a straight Swordsage adaption because there you get EIGHT extra top level spells. This also keeps the Wizard close to what he is already, in that he still prepares some of the weaker spells and utility spells for when he runs dry. Cause 7 spells might not always last you the whole encounter, either because your enemy is -really- tough, or because there's too damn many of them to kill all at once. But this does make me question the wisdom of in battle spell regeneration (such as the proposed 1 slot for a full round action). I suppose giving up actions in combat is enough of a limiter to make it reasonable, but I'm unsure. Pyke: Which spells specifically do you foresee having problems?
Pyke_Moonshadow 09-07-06, 08:00 AM	Pyke: Which spells specifically do you foresee having problems? Anything over 6th really. I did a quick comparison to the ToB and the most powerful manuevers there would be 5th or maybe 6th level. Even then I balk at casters teleporting at will or casting disintegrate all day long.
Seerow 09-07-06, 03:57 PM	Hrm, really Teleporting once a day is exactly the same as teleporting an infinite times per day, unless you're under time constraints, so I don't see that as an issue. But looking at the high level spells from the Wizard list... the combat use spells aren't really all that bad. The biggies are going to be Plane Shift, Scrying, Forcecage,Ethereal Jaunt, Limited Wish, Trap the Soul, Planar Binding, Clone, Simulacrum, Disjunction, Gate, Ethrealness, Time Stop, Wish. The combat spells that might be bad: Finger of Death, Irresistable Dance, Power Word: Stun, Symbol of Death, Temporal Stasis, Imprisonment, Dominate Monster, Power Word: Kill, Weird, Wail of the Banshee, Shapechange. What separates these from the others? Basically, all of them equate to "I win" in one form or another. But really, these are -already- problem spells. I can see the problems with them in an unlimited per day system, but I see the problem as EVEN WORSE in a per day system. Why? Because, the idea is the Mage will rest when he's low on spells anyway, so him getting this more per day just removes the need to rest. By the time you have 7th-9th level spells, you have Plane Shift. You shift to a timeless plane, you completely rest and restore your spells, and maybe spent 5 minutes of real time. So at this point not even time constraints from your DM are stopping you from recharging between encounters. The thing that will stop it is dimensional anchor or something similar throughout the entire dungeon, but that's just kind of silly. So my philosophy is let them have their unlimited spells, but give them far fewer of them that can be used at once. If you only have say 6 high level spells for an encounter rather than 16, you're severely limited in the ability to nova and take out an encounter on your own. Also, while I agree that most high-end maneuvers are about equal to a 6th level spell or so, there is the point that, excepting the Swordsage (whom I would alter), the Martial Adepts recover their maneuvers FAR more quickly than a Wizard can while in battle. The Wizard gets his 5-6 high level shots, he's out and goes to lower level spells, or spends every other round doing absolutely nothing (a really big balancing factor TBQH). The Martial Adept gets his 7 shots out, next turn he attacks someone and gains them all back, or he simply gains them all back for free, or he spends a full round action and gains them all back (The change I'd make to Swordsage of course is he starts getting them all back with a Full Round, rather than one. Because with the ruling on Adaptive Style, it doesn't make sense otherwise.) Also, while I agree with you on the relative power of maneuvers, tell that to the wrong people and they'll argue until they're blue in the face that the maneuvers are every bit as powerful, citing the 9th level maneuver that does +100 damage (likening it Finger of Death)
ravenshrike 09-16-06, 07:31 PM	That's why it is now more often called preparing spells. The caster is preparing components/focus materials, etc. It's not like they have literally forgotten the spell, they just don't have any more material. Sorcerers just have so much spell energy that they can expel per day, and clerics are only granted so much power from their gods. Actually, the idea is that wizards can hold X number of fixed spells in their mind per day, and that they need 8 hours of continuous rest and an additional (60/#ofspd*#ofspellsneededtomemorize)minutes to relearn the ones they burned previously.
Archtyrant Terevoth 09-16-06, 07:53 PM	As for "this should be done": why? So that players don't have to integrate the way they interact with magic into their personalities anymore? This seems like just another argument for video-game magic to me, and I'm not buying it. Honestly the current magic system with slots or magic points or whatever is more video-game magic than infinite use attacks. Video games are entirely based on a resource depletion paradigm. You've got some big dungeon you've got to go through, and you fight a bunch of random encounters along the way until you finally run into a boss monster. The point of the random encounters is to burn up your magic points. And D&D tries to do that, only in D&D you've got teleport and the option to rest whenever you want, as opposed to having to make it to a predesignated rest point as in a video game. Slots per day were an old mechanic that never really worked. I'd prefer to see abilities based on: -infinite use -once per battle -X/adventure It'd make a heck of a lot more sense than the current video game style we've got now.