Post/Author/DateTime	Post
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 05-22-04, 02:57 PM	This foundation is dedicated to all practitioners of magic. This foundation talks about arcane, clerical, druidic, bardic, and any other thats out there. This foundation doesn't have ranks and is available for all who wish to join. Please keep arguments polite, and lets keep the language down because there could be young posters. More or less stick to the CoC when you come here. Don't hesitate to mention any topic that concerns magic in all it's forms. Magic items, spells, books classes, PrC's etc... If you wish to join please put a link to the foundation in your description. I would also like to welcome you to this thread and other threads that our members may have, or may be a part of. Don't hesistate to check them out. Thank you.
thasis 05-22-04, 03:53 PM	Hmm, magic (drools). Don't you just love magic. I always play as a spellcaster. My favorite spellcaster class is a Wizard. Wizards only have limited spells in there spellbook but they can reasearch more spells and lots of there 3rd lv and up spells realy kick a$$.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 05-22-04, 03:58 PM	Originally posted by thasis Hmm, magic (drools). Don't you just love magic. I always play as a spellcaster. My favorite spellcaster class is a Wizard. Wizards only have limited spells in there spellbook but they can reasearch more spells and lots of there 3rd lv and up spells realy kick a$$. I agree 100%...:D I have always played a Wizard, or a combination of another class along with a Wizard.
thasis 05-22-04, 04:03 PM	After I am a 3rd lv wizard I take a Lv or two in cleric to get some healing powers and two double my spell cating limit. Whats better, gaining one extra spell per day by gaining pure levels in wizard or out of the blue getting 4 extra divine spells that could be healing spells by gainig one or two levels in cleric. I usualy tke some levels in blackgaurd yo so I can get some more powers. Good stradegy or not? If you have a better one please tell me.
Silmarien Aldalome 05-23-04, 01:44 AM	I neally *always* play wizards too - but will *always* develop a secondary spell class - after I've reached top end in wizardly+ 5/10 levels of Prestige Classing. I usually start adding cleric at that point. The combination of spirituality and wizardry is a really enjoyable combo, speaking personally. [GM-Voice]...well done Xun! :) I add that when Anglar returns (who seemed interested in Threadkeeping about this area too) - we'll look forwards to his advice, to see what he might wish for himself. *turns to all readers* There's plenty for everybody - bring it on.[/GM-Voice]
Tenzhi 05-23-04, 01:47 AM	I prefer sorcerors and druids, myself. Innate, natural magicks are what I like best. Though I also enjoy playing godless clerics.
thasis 05-23-04, 05:20 PM	My brother is a druid fan Tenzhi. I think you and him would get along quit well!
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 05-24-04, 10:32 PM	Originally posted by thasis My brother is a druid fan Tenzhi. I think you and him would get along quit well! My friend and fellow player loves druids.
anglar 05-24-04, 10:59 PM	Speak of the Devil, and I shall appear. Glad to see this get off the ground. Too much of D&D is about magic not to have a foundation dedicated to it in general. I've not played a sorcerer, but then I spend most of my 3E time as DM, so I don't really get a chance. The idea doesn't really tickle my fancy. Not that the story behind them isn't cool, I just have become so used to playing spellcasters who can at least get their hands on most any spell that playing one who only has a few known gives me the hebbee-geebbees. IMO, the sorcerer is suited for a fighter/sorcerer of thief/sorcerer who could greatly benefit from those spells that can be greatly used in certain situations. JMO. Druids: Play too many city campaigns to deal with them myself, but I think they are quite cool as well. Discusssion: As I've seen before, some of us are interested in a spell point system for D&D. I would like to hear your opinions on the matter and any ideas you may have for using one. In my 2E game, we have one like this. You get so many spell points for every spell you are capable of casting. You can prepare spells in the traditional manner by expending those points at the beginning of each day. You can also cast spells directly from your spellbook at the base cost of 1 spell point per level of the spell. This option would severely hurt sorcerers in 3E. Our system is 1st level: 5 points 2nd level: 10 points and so on until 9th level: 50 points instead of 45. Makes those 9th level spells a little harder to cash in lower level slots to get.
Silmarien Aldalome 05-25-04, 06:30 PM	Originally posted by anglar Speak of the Devil, and I shall appear. :rofl: Glad to see this get off the ground. Too much of D&D is about magic not to have a foundation dedicated to it in general. Aye! Discusssion: As I've seen before, some of us are interested in a spell point system for D&D. I would like to hear your opinions on the matter and any ideas you may have for using one. In my 2E game, we have one like this. You get so many spell points for every spell you are capable of casting. You can prepare spells in the traditional manner by expending those points at the beginning of each day. You can also cast spells directly from your spellbook at the base cost of 1 spell point per level of the spell. This option would severely hurt sorcerers in 3E. Our system is Can you spend your spell points in any way - i.e. if you have 15, can you cast three fifth level spells, say or 15 first level spells? I've got much more to say on this topic.....first off though....
anglar 05-25-04, 07:00 PM	This is truly how we do things. We still use the "by the book" number of spells per day. Off the top of my head, let's say a 19th level wizard has the slots of 1st-9th spells of 6/5/5/5/5/4/4/4/4. I'm sure that's wrong, but this is just an example. His total spell points would be derived as such 6 1st level slots = 30 points (5 points each) 5 2nd level slots = 50 points (10 points each) 5 3rd level slots = 75 points (15 points each) 5 4th level slots = 100 points (20 points each) 5 5th level slots = 125 points (25 points each) 4 6th level slots = 120 points (30 points each) 4 7th level slots = 140 points (35 points each) 4 8th level slots = 160 points (40 points each) 4 9th level slots = 200 points (50 points each) Grand total of 1000 spell points Now, you can prepare spells in the tradional fashion by expending the necessary points for each slot. You can spend your points however you want. If you want all 9th level spells, then you can have 20 of them just as easily as he could have 200 1st level spells prepared that day. This is only for the "I memorize these spells and put my spellbook away" castings. We usually have a smaller "travel spellbook" because we save a few spell points for direct castings. As a full-round action, the caster can cast any spell in his spellbook for the cost of 1 spell point per spell level. 0-level spells or cantrips - Cantrips can be memorized at a cost of 1 spell point per cantrip or direct casted for free so long as the caster does not exceed his total INT score for the day. My DM has also worked in most of the meta-magic feats (this is still a 2E game) with a thing we call "adding stars" to a spell. For an increased cost of spell points, you can cut the casting time, change the area of effect, change the duration, change the damage, and a number of other things. You can have up to 5 stars per spell with each star costing the spell's points again. For 3E games, I'd say simply make the cost equal to the adjusted spell level. A fun part could come with casting spells above 9th level in power. I would have 10th level slots be worth/cost 70 points and 11th level slots worth/cost 100 points with each slot above costing an addtional 10 points above the difference. 10th = 9th +20 11th = 10th +30 12th = 11th +40 13th = 12th +50,etc. OF course you still must be able to access those slots before you can prepare a spell in the slot. EDIT: I almost forgot. Spell points stay in that spell until the spell is cast. Basically, if you adventure for a day and don't cast a spell, then all of your spells are still prepared the next day. Upside: may not have to worry so much about getting that hour to memorize spells. Downside: Can't swap out one spell for another. You have to cast the spell to free up the points the next day.
Tenzhi 05-25-04, 07:46 PM	Originally posted by anglar This is truly how we do things. We still use the "by the book" number of spells per day. Off the top of my head, let's say a 19th level wizard has the slots of 1st-9th spells of 6/5/5/5/5/4/4/4/4. I'm sure that's wrong, but this is just an example. His total spell points would be derived as such 6 1st level slots = 30 points (5 points each) 5 2nd level slots = 50 points (10 points each) 5 3rd level slots = 75 points (15 points each) 5 4th level slots = 100 points (20 points each) 5 5th level slots = 125 points (25 points each) 4 6th level slots = 120 points (30 points each) 4 7th level slots = 140 points (35 points each) 4 8th level slots = 160 points (40 points each) 4 9th level slots = 200 points (50 points each) Grand total of 1000 spell points Seems a bit gratuitous... the costs per level could easily be divided by 5 (and by association the number of spellpoints one accrues).
anglar 05-25-04, 09:19 PM	Originally posted by Tenzhi Seems a bit gratuitous... the costs per level could easily be divided by 5 (and by association the number of spellpoints one accrues). Except that would remove the ability to cast spells directly from the spellbook. We've found that it's easier to keep track of the total spellpoints if they're in increments of 5. For whatever reason it's a simpler math at our table.
Tenzhi 05-25-04, 09:31 PM	Originally posted by anglar Except that would remove the ability to cast spells directly from the spellbook. A process which, for the sake of balance, should actually cost more than casting a prepared spell - or at best have the same price with a longer casting time.
Silmarien Aldalome 05-26-04, 02:55 AM	Yes Tenzhi - that's an argument I've heard for Spell-Point Systems. Anglar! *nice one* OK - I think the core idea behind "game-balance" is "equality of power between the classes". There are two ways to retain game balance. 1. Nerf the magic system (and it's pretty nerfed, already IMO). 2. But - I concede that to add freedom to spellcasters creates a distortion in the power balance in D&D. So - *up the power of non-magical classes*. We began a discussion of this at D&D magic a few months back. The core idea, in a nutshell - is the idea of "cross-class competencies". This method explores new ways of importing magic into the non-wizard classes - and *conversely* importing non-wizard competencies into Wizard/Sorcerer PCs. Stav
anglar 05-26-04, 03:18 AM	Originally posted by Tenzhi A process which, for the sake of balance, should actually cost more than casting a prepared spell - or at best have the same price with a longer casting time. But by casting from your spellbook, you expose yourself to having said spellbook targeted by an enemy. Besides, the way we do things does not have to be how you do them. If you choose to have it cost the same as memorizing to pay for the flexibility of not having to memorize it, I'd call that fair. The casting time is already increased to a round where you can do nothing else but cast the spell. Not even a 5-foot step in 3E terms. If anything distracts you, you fail at casting the spell and still lose the points.
Tenzhi 05-26-04, 04:06 AM	Originally posted by anglar But by casting from your spellbook, you expose yourself to having said spellbook targeted by an enemy. Theoretically, if you can cast it from your spellbook, you should be able to cast it with Spell Mastery as if you were casting it from your book... Combine that notion with the ability to craft items of Spell Mastery, and you could have wizards casting spells from staves and the like - staves that are essentially non-magical and personalized so that only the wizard who crafted them could easily use them. But I'm rambling on a bit. Besides, the way we do things does not have to be how you do them. Indeed - this being a Foundation, the general notion would be to bandy about ideas, discuss their finer points, and thereby produce a number of viable options for visitors to harvest as they see fit I would think. And I do like to bandy about ideas... ;)
anglar 05-26-04, 10:12 PM	After thinking about it and adapting it the 3E terms, this is what I got To simplify the math: An Arcane caster gets the spellpoints equal to the number of slots available times the level of the slot. For prepared casters, the caster can designate the points necessary to fuel the spell in the same way as memorizing spells in the slots. The points value and cost of the slots are: 1st: 1 point gained/cost 2nd: 2 points gained/cost etc thru 8th level spells 9th: 10 points gained/cost 10th: 13 points gained/cost 11th: 17 points gained/cost 12th: 22 points gained/cost For slots higher than 12th, follow the formula of the cost of the previous slot + the difference between the previous slot's value and the slots before it + 1 point. Direct from the Spellbook casting option: If a prepared caster saves points for the day, the caster can cast spells from his spellbook at the same value of having to memorize the spell. (IMO this way the advantage of the Sorcerer isn't negated fully) To cast a spell from a spellbook takes a full-round action and any distraction disrupts the spell. No Concentration check is allowed to save the spell. The spell points are used up even if the spell fails. Meta-Magic Feats: Feats that increase the effective spell slot of a spell use the points necesarry to fill that slot. Special: Quickened for Socerers: A Sorcerer can now make use the Quickend Spell Feat, but at the cost of a spell 5 slots higher. This balances the fact that a Sorcerer can quicken on-the-fly while a prepared caster must prepare those spells before hand. (A Wizard can NOT cast a Quickened Spell from his Spellbook) Not counting bonus spells from high stats, a Wizard would have 184 spell points at 20th level while a Sorcerer would have 276. What do you think? Any suggestions?
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 05-28-04, 10:47 PM	Originally posted by anglar After thinking about it and adapting it the 3E terms, this is what I got To simplify the math: An Arcane caster gets the spellpoints equal to the number of slots available times the level of the slot. For prepared casters, the caster can designate the points necessary to fuel the spell in the same way as memorizing spells in the slots. The points value and cost of the slots are: 1st: 1 point gained/cost 2nd: 2 points gained/cost etc thru 8th level spells 9th: 10 points gained/cost 10th: 13 points gained/cost 11th: 17 points gained/cost 12th: 22 points gained/cost For slots higher than 12th, follow the formula of the cost of the previous slot + the difference between the previous slot's value and the slots before it + 1 point. Direct from the Spellbook casting option: If a prepared caster saves points for the day, the caster can cast spells from his spellbook at the same value of having to memorize the spell. (IMO this way the advantage of the Sorcerer isn't negated fully) To cast a spell from a spellbook takes a full-round action and any distraction disrupts the spell. No Concentration check is allowed to save the spell. The spell points are used up even if the spell fails. Meta-Magic Feats: Feats that increase the effective spell slot of a spell use the points necesarry to fill that slot. Special: Quickened for Socerers: A Sorcerer can now make use the Quickend Spell Feat, but at the cost of a spell 5 slots higher. This balances the fact that a Sorcerer can quicken on-the-fly while a prepared caster must prepare those spells before hand. (A Wizard can NOT cast a Quickened Spell from his Spellbook) Not counting bonus spells from high stats, a Wizard would have 184 spell points at 20th level while a Sorcerer would have 276. What do you think? Any suggestions? Pretty cool............
anglar 06-01-04, 07:11 PM	Hey, Sil, for somebody who wanted a spell-point system, you haven't commented on this. Love You.
Silmarien Aldalome 06-01-04, 07:59 PM	No worry Ang.....strange how the imagination works, 'cause - in my head - I can see a post somewhere I've posted about it. *scratches head* *mutters* "the posts blur together after a while" OK - I love *any* method that uses spell-points. In all fairness - I must resist the impulse to say something like "no....more more spell points" *chuckles* There's some great ideas in the system - I like the system of balancing you've used. I'm not sure I understand the crucial distinction between Wizard and Sorcerer. Or that there is a need to have such a distinction in a spell-point system. 1. Am I right in that you allow 12th level magic in this system - or am I befuddled? 2. Do you also wanna mess with the way 3.5 blocks the progression of spell power in particular spells (e.g. magic missile etc)? stav
anglar 06-01-04, 09:30 PM	Originally posted by Silmarien Aldalome No worry Ang.....strange how the imagination works, 'cause - in my head - I can see a post somewhere I've posted about it. *scratches head* *mutters* "the posts blur together after a while" OK - I love *any* method that uses spell-points. In all fairness - I must resist the impulse to say something like "no....more more spell points" *chuckles* There's some great ideas in the system - I like the system of balancing you've used. I'm not sure I understand the crucial distinction between Wizard and Sorcerer. Or that there is a need to have such a distinction in a spell-point system. 1. Am I right in that you allow 12th level magic in this system - or am I befuddled? 2. Do you also wanna mess with the way 3.5 blocks the progression of spell power in particular spells (e.g. magic missile etc)? stav 1) I allow spells to be meta-magicked up to 12th level slots and beyond so long as you have the feats necessary to give you the slot. If you're meaning spells that are naturally 10th level or above, then no. I leave those to Epic Spells. If I did, then I'd severely up the spell point cost. 2) Speaking for my 2E game, we already got rid of it. There's more difference between a 10th level wizard's fireball and a 20th level wizard's firball than just the range he can cast it at. For 3E, we do the same at my table.
Silmarien Aldalome 06-01-04, 10:01 PM	Speaking to point two you've raised: A friend of mine pointed out (who is generally a lurker - HI there lurkers!!!) an interesting Game Balance item. Tenet 1: allow spells to progress in power, continually. E.g. Magic Missile at 17th level you get 9d4+9. Tenet 2: allow spell points to be allocated as you wish. No need for constraint to spells/level as we currently have. Consequence: all Spell points channelled into Magic Missile at 17th level = a helluva lot of d4's. His objection was that the spell-level damage block protects wizards from - munchkinising. My response was to grin of course (i.e. bring on the Ueber Wizards). But I was curious to understand how you balance this out in your 2E campaign. cheers stav
Tenzhi 06-02-04, 12:21 AM	Originally posted by anglar There's more difference between a 10th level wizard's fireball and a 20th level wizard's firball than just the range he can cast it at. Indeed - the latter's fireball is maximized & empowered. Originally posted by Silmarien Tenet 1: allow spells to progress in power, continually. E.g. Magic Missile at 17th level you get 9d4+9. The crux of the matter is that, regardless of the power of the caster, a 1st level spell is still a 1st level spell along with all the limitations that construes. The only way to increase the power of a spell beyond its normal limits is to virtually increase its level via metamagic. If you get rid of this limitation, you may as well get rid of spell levels altogether and adopt a system such as the one used in Dragonlance 5th Age/SAGA - whereupon a spellcaster contructs his spells on the go and the only limitations are his own ability and spellpoints (the epic spell system reminds me in many ways of the DL5 spellcasting system).
anglar 06-02-04, 01:00 AM	Originally posted by Silmarien Aldalome Speaking to point two you've raised: A friend of mine pointed out (who is generally a lurker - HI there lurkers!!!) an interesting Game Balance item. Tenet 1: allow spells to progress in power, continually. E.g. Magic Missile at 17th level you get 9d4+9. Tenet 2: allow spell points to be allocated as you wish. No need for constraint to spells/level as we currently have. Consequence: all Spell points channelled into Magic Missile at 17th level = a helluva lot of d4's. His objection was that the spell-level damage block protects wizards from - munchkinising. My response was to grin of course (i.e. bring on the Ueber Wizards). But I was curious to understand how you balance this out in your 2E campaign. cheers stav Tenet 1: That's exactly how we do it in my 2E game. One can also add "stars" to the spell. A star cost the same as the spell itself. So, in my 2E game, for 10 points you can have a magic missile withone star attached. This star can do many things, like change it from 1d4+1 to 1d4+2, add one more missile, allow you to strike targets that are further apart than normally allowed, etc. Tenet 2: Also how we do it. If you want to spend all your points on the highest level slot you can cast, then so be it. You can only prepare spells at your highest level known, so if you can only cast 5th level spells then that's the highest you can prepare. Your points, you just get fewer spells that day. OTOH, you could also memorize a helluva lot of magic missile spell. Avoid Munckinising?: I laugh at that. When everybody has the ability to do it, it's not unbalanced, just high powered. A munchkin, IMO, is someone who tries to dominate the game in any way, be it power, spells, killing ability, or OVER ROLEPLAYING, which I like to Oompa Loompa. A lot of it has to do with the DM and the players. Zarthos is a place where dying is a reality. There's a part of town where the gangs run things. Now those gangs are backed by legitimate members of the govt, but that's metagaming, the biggest sin in RPing. It got so bad that my characters couldn't step outside without a legitimate assassination attempt occuring. That's why Anglar went in a led a small war to eliminate one of the offending parties. The result was their deaths an two other groups who didn't like us getting over it one way or another. The only thing that remains in a obvisous way is what's left of a Witches Coven and their Warlock leader, who are going to do everything they can to kill you and me, Sil, and anyone else who gets in the way, when we get married there. I have some things I need to PM you about that.
Tenzhi 06-02-04, 01:09 AM	Originally posted by anglar Avoid Munckinising?: I laugh at that. When everybody has the ability to do it, it's not unbalanced, just high powered. That's a fine philosophy, but unless everyone is a spellcaster, not everyone has the ability to do it and it therefore needs to be relatively balanced with those who cannot. Of course, what one considers balanced is entirely subjective...
anglar 06-02-04, 02:06 AM	In which we enter the ability for weapon fighters to go up to Grand Mastery in weapons. We have a number of level of skill is individual weapons (Untrained, Basic, Skilled, Expert, Master, and Grand Master). Each level cost you character points and the total is based on your race and class or classes. If you are a Grand Master of the Longsword and are of 13th level or higher, then your attacks receive a +6 to your rolls, your base damage is 2d8+8, and you can attack 4 times per round. 13th level WIZ v. 13th level FTR with a STR of 16 WIZ does average of 46 points of damage on 13d6. FTR who hits AC 0 on a 2 or better would do an average of 88 points if all four attacks hit (2d8+8+5[STR bonus to dmg] x4). Even if the WIZ got all 6's and the target failed its save, it would only do 78 points of damage. Higher levels mean that the FTR needs to invest in magic weapons with higher plusses and go to TWF. But at 20th, a WIZ is going to max out at 120 while the FTR20 can theoratically have two longswords +5 and Gauntlets of Ogre Power for total avg dmg of [(2d8+8+5+6)x8] with a THAC0 of 1 = 252 points on the average. Minimum is 162.
Tenzhi 06-02-04, 03:16 AM	Of course, the wizard is hitting several targets with that 13d6 at the same time. Let's say he's hitting a mere 10 targets with it, in which case he just doled out 460 points of damage on average in a single round - and at range no less with no attack roll necessary. Compared to the decked-out 20th level fighter's average 252 in melee... and that was just a 13th level wizard with no need for extra magic items to help him out (and magic items shouldn't be figured into it anyway, as making the fighter dependent on them also makes him dependent on those that make them and thus just further increases the power of the spellcasters in the example). The balance, in theory, comes with the wizard's limited ammunition and the limitations of spell level. A 3rd level spell, for instance, uses a certain amount of the wizard's "ammunition" and does a maximum of 10 dice of damage - to increase the damage beyond that maximum should use an appropriate amount more of the wizard's "ammunition" lest it become unbalancing in the conventional sense of the word. Edit: In previous editions, the balance also was kept by different experience progressions. Perhaps an important note, perhaps not.
Silmarien Aldalome 06-02-04, 06:19 PM	Avoid Munckinising?: I laugh at that. When everybody has the ability to do it, it's not unbalanced, just high powered. There are two ways of maintaining game-balance, as you've rightly alluded to. The one, does what 3.5 has done to magic by the various limit-setting boundaries, such as limited spell-slots, power progression of spells, range, duration etc. attributes and so on. This method lowers the bar of power - so that an equally powered Fighter would look like "x". The alternative - is raise the bar for all classes. It then becomes encumbent on the DM to power *up* the fighter to "y". I think Tenzhi was alluding to this. A munchkin, IMO, is someone who tries to dominate the game in any way, be it power, spells, killing ability, or OVER ROLEPLAYING, which I like to Oompa Loompa. Guilty as charged - Sir! Except - my trick in my campaigns is to encourage RP in others by example. It's "bursts" of munchkinising - followed by retreat - as an example to be followed. Then - encouraging others to - as you say - raise the bar **for everyone**. After all - there's enough RP-cake to go around. Justifying the limiting of RP is like saying "there's not enough sunlight for everyone". I find that RP is a bit different to the other tools of social power/domination. Because - more often - the reason why the bar is *so low* is because people are very ashamed to be theatrical, or shy, or have been taught that they'll be teased if they engage in RP/acting. The truth is that RP is a deeply liberating experience. It should be encouraged. I have some things I need to PM you about that. I've responded. Expect a delivery of documents for the situations you've described. This Zarthos place sounds like the creation of safety needs to occur. Sil's formulating some tools/methods of social transformation at the macro level. stav
anglar 06-02-04, 06:44 PM	Originally posted by Silmarien Aldalome There are two ways of maintaining game-balance, as you've rightly alluded to. The one, does what 3.5 has done to magic by the various limit-setting boundaries, such as limited spell-slots, power progression of spells, range, duration etc. attributes and so on. This method lowers the bar of power - so that an equally powered Fighter would look like "x". The alternative - is raise the bar for all classes. It then becomes encumbent on the DM to power *up* the fighter to "y". I think Tenzhi was alluding to this. Guilty as charged - Sir! Except - my trick in my campaigns is to encourage RP in others by example. It's "bursts" of munchkinising - followed by retreat - as an example to be followed. Then - encouraging others to - as you say - raise the bar **for everyone**. After all - there's enough RP-cake to go around. Justifying the limiting of RP is like saying "there's not enough sunlight for everyone". I find that RP is a bit different to the other tools of social power/domination. Because - more often - the reason why the bar is *so low* is because people are very ashamed to be theatrical, or shy, or have been taught that they'll be teased if they engage in RP/acting. The truth is that RP is a deeply liberating experience. It should be encouraged. I've responded. Expect a delivery of documents for the situations you've described. This Zarthos place sounds like the creation of safety needs to occur. Sil's formulating some tools/methods of social transformation at the macro level. stav Game-Balance: The problem with this argument is that it is too objective. What one calls unbalanced, another calls fun. The only thing I can say it do what makes themajority of you table happy or play by the book. Oompas - RP is in no way a bad thing. I enjoy it more than any other part of the game. What irks me is when people try to take over a game with the RP of their character and hide behind the shield of RP. I have literally seen three near exact copies of the same PC. This same player has a version of this same character in almost every game setting he's ever played. Ever since he thought this character up, it's been the same story and same character in nearly every game with only minor changes to fit the setting. I'm not talking about limiting the RP, just keep it on course. If everybody else is having tuna caserole, don't start making lasagna, red velvet cake, spinach dip, and fruit parfaits just because you feel like it, epsecially if no one else is going to eat it cause they're already full.
Azer Firelord 06-02-04, 07:07 PM	Hallo, magical people! What does this foundation think about the artificer core class, released with the Eberron CSB? Artificers claim to channel raw magic itself in its pure form, neither arcane nor divine. They're particualrly good at making magic items. So, any thoughts?
anglar 06-02-04, 07:17 PM	Don't have the book to go off of, so I have to trust what you give me. Idea seems nice. All depends on the extent of what they can do. Spells/day. Spell Known. Things like that go a long way in determining how good, bad, or too good a class can be.
Azer Firelord 06-02-04, 07:35 PM	Well, I don't have the book either- it is only out in Finland! However, there was a dragon article on this class a while back. Which I haven't read either, I'm just going off stuff on the Eberron boards. Now, some extra things- the artificer isn't as powerful a spellcaster in a straight fight as a wizard or sorceror. He doesn't have healing magic like a cleric (well, unless you happen to be a construct, in which case he is pretty much the only source of healing magic around). He can wear medium-light armour while casting. I think he's more of a back-up and support class, like clerics- he can really help the party out with magic item acquisition. I don't even remember if he memorises spells or if he is a spontaneous caster...
Silmarien Aldalome 06-02-04, 07:35 PM	What one calls unbalanced, another calls fun. The only thing I can say it do what makes the majority of you table happy or play by the book. Don't get me wrong - high powered campaigns are fun very. Especially where magic is involved. I also favour a spell point system for its flexibility as a spell caster. I'm encouraging a discussion of game-balance though. Devil's Advocate stuff. I don't buy the "too objective" thing though. *smiles* Cause - Game balance is measurable by game-play trials. Also - there's nothing like a resentful ranger/fighter/paladin - complaining about being useless to upset the party. Game-balance attempts to (mark the "attempts") respect the principle of equity. So - I'd enjoy the spell-slot equity discussion to continue - as long as no-ones' gettin' upset about it.... In Trust-- Stav If everybody else is having tuna caserole, don't start making lasagna, red velvet cake, spinach dip, and fruit parfaits just because you feel like it, epsecially if no one else is going to eat it cause they're already full. Ahh, I see: there's a long history behind your comment with a player who has vexed you. I'm cautious, therefore, to add to this aspect. But - I'll cautiously add (remembering that you are a friend of mine - and so, say it in trust). I add, first, that we tend to dislike the player who doesn't know how to take turns or who is greedy, or who doesn't know when to stop. In my own experiences with these things - what I tend to do is "counter-assert" myself. I.e. - make space for myself. If that doesn't work, I tackle the person head on - with empathic confrontation. I'm greek - it comes naturally. When you come from a big extended family - you have to grab the food quick (and are encouraged to grab it quick). Whether that food is casserole, or luxury food. Has anyone ever spoken to him about it? Regards stav
anglar 06-02-04, 08:00 PM	Slots V. Points - Slots are very static and help to keep things in a set form. Spell Points allow for greater flexibility. Here's the real difference. In the slot system, you can still use higher slots for lower spells, but you "lose" the bonus of it being a higher slot and you can't trade multiple lower slots for a higher spell. Let's use the world greatest wizard, Joe Fabietz, as an example. Joe only 9th level right now, but he's good. Joe just learned two 5th level spells, but he can only cast one of them a day under the spell slot system, so he has to choose between Wall of Force and Cone of Cold everyday. He doesn't have a lot of use for his 4th level spell slots, but he doe fill them with lightning bolts. Now if Joe was able to use the spell point system, he could trade one of those 4th level spell slot's points and the point left over from using another 4th level slot on a 3rd level spell to be able to memmorize both his 5th level spells. OTOH, if Joe just likes Magic Missile, then he could have them out the wazzoo. It all comes down to how the DM controls the shift in power. With a spell point system, a caster has what's normal, fewer but more powerful, or more bu less powerful spells at his disposal.
Silmarien Aldalome 06-02-04, 08:30 PM	I like it Ang. ! What does this foundation think about the artificer core class, released with the Eberron CSB? Artificers claim to channel raw magic itself in its pure form, neither arcane nor divine. They're particualrly good at making magic items. So, any thoughts? I don't know about the core class - can you describe it more. But, from what I read of your comments - I really like the sound of it. I developed a PrC once called "Weaveless Casters" for such an expedition into Raw Magic. There's also a bunch of PrC's from Ultimate Prestige Classes that are about same. I've chosen one that allows some interesting "Raw Magicy" ideas. Throwing this into Ang's discussion piece - using RP devices to turn "Formless Magic" into "Formful magic" is another idea. I.e. "Spells-on-the-fly" and a system for making something like this happen. regards stav
Azer Firelord 06-02-04, 08:38 PM	Well, unless there is someone round here who reads Dragon, we could be rather stuck. However I'll try to tell what I know. Artificers's spells are called 'infusions'- they aren't technically spells at all...they are generally specialists in the sought of spell that is used to make magic items- i.e creation spells, permanency, that sought of thing. They have Use Magic Device as a class skill, for fairly obvious reasons. They have a whole range of new 'infusions' (some of which are added to the sorc/wiz list as well), which specialise in repairing damage to objects and constructs: this makes sense on Eberron partly because their is a new race of 'living constructs' playable at ECL 0, the Warforged, who are healed by these spells rather than normal healing ones (which heal them for half). They have a seperate 'experience pool' for making magic items- what on earth that involves I have no idea... Oh well, when I get the CSB I'll tell some more:)
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 06-02-04, 09:28 PM	Originally posted by Azer Firelord Hallo, magical people! What does this foundation think about the artificer core class, released with the Eberron CSB? Artificers claim to channel raw magic itself in its pure form, neither arcane nor divine. They're particualrly good at making magic items. So, any thoughts? Is it anything like the Forgotten Realms Artificer?
Azer Firelord 06-02-04, 09:52 PM	Why, a very good question. Just what is the Forgottrn Realms artificer? (I know of Faerun little beyond this bloke called Elminster and some Shadow Weave thingummy...)
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 06-03-04, 12:42 AM	Originally posted by Azer Firelord Why, a very good question. Just what is the Forgottrn Realms artificer? (I know of Faerun little beyond this bloke called Elminster and some Shadow Weave thingummy...) The Forgotten Realms Artificer is a gnome prestige class where Gnomes use machines to duplicate spells. They make the machines as they level higher.
Tenzhi 06-03-04, 12:45 AM	Originally posted by Silmarien Aldalome Don't get me wrong - high powered campaigns are fun very. Especially where magic is involved. I also favour a spell point system for its flexibility as a spell caster. Indeed, I'm currently gearing up for an all-ninja game. The three ninja classes I've created for the purpose aren't anything like balanced for a "normal" game of D&D. I'm encouraging a discussion of game-balance though. Devil's Advocate stuff. It's an important thing to consider when putting ideas out into the public. If something isn't balanced as-is for a "normal" game then it should have that emblazoned upon it as a disclaimer. And if it can be balanced with a few changes, that can be sussed out and tacked on as well. I don't buy the "too objective" thing though. Given the context, I swear anglar meant to say "too subjective." As my signature says, balance is 9/10 perception.
Azer Firelord 06-03-04, 01:10 AM	Well the Eberron Artificer is a base class open to all races which uses spells to make magic items. It sounds as if the Faerun Artificer is really quite different. A bit of a nuisance for anyone combining the two... "My Artificer just qualified for his new Prestige Class" "Oh, yes, what's that." "Artificer" :confused:
Silmarien Aldalome 06-03-04, 10:36 PM	I think a distinction between "perception" of game balance (subjective) - and ways to "measure" game balance is a good place to explore. The former is about how each of us reads our relative ranking of powers - magical ones seem to especially challenge people. The latter are apply the tools of skill-based play and probability to the measure of Game-Balance. The trick here, though, is that Player Skills have a great many permutations. These "subjective skills" make it really hard to measure Game Balance. To counter this - one must have many different people trial-play the same magic tools over and over. Thereby, getting at an "average" measure of power overall. Hi There Azer Firelord - great to see you.
Tenzhi 06-04-04, 12:28 AM	I'd help you out, Azer, but I don't buy Forgotten Realms stuff if I can avoid it (the major exception being monster manuals, especially those that contain extra dragons and beholders) and I haven't been able to find a copy of Eberron in stores around here (I'd typically order it online if I were sure I wanted it, but this book I want to flip through first). The most I can tell you about the Eberron artificer is that I understand its a class based around creating those magi-tech things you find in Eberron that people keep insisting aren't magi-tech.
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 06-05-04, 10:09 PM	Originally posted by Tenzhi I'd help you out, Azer, but I don't buy Forgotten Realms stuff if I can avoid it (the major exception being monster manuals, especially those that contain extra dragons and beholders) and I haven't been able to find a copy of Eberron in stores around here (I'd typically order it online if I were sure I wanted it, but this book I want to flip through first). The most I can tell you about the Eberron artificer is that I understand its a class based around creating those magi-tech things you find in Eberron that people keep insisting aren't magi-tech. Sounds to me like it uses machines to duplicate spells. Like a Flamethrower that shoots flame that acts as a Burning Hands.
thasis 06-06-04, 04:40 PM	Eberon has been relesed!?! Ididn't know that!!! I wan't even if it is game unbalancing. I finnaly will have a campaign setting pregenerated for me!!! Yay!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :invasion:
Silmarien Aldalome 06-06-04, 08:06 PM	Hi there Xun, Thasis, Tenzhi, Ang and reader. Thasis - tell us more about why you like Eberon so much, I'd be curious to know more. I'm developing a Stone Mage PrC at the Dwarven Foundation based on Stone-related magic. I was thinking of a number of spells and spell-like effects steeped in Stone Lore. Here are some ideas, do you have any thoughts? - Stone Fire - Vengeaful Stone - Living Stone Blade - Bar Passage - Imbue Stone with Spirit Cheers stav
XunValDorl of HouseKilsek 06-07-04, 09:15 PM	I am working on two classes. First, I m working on a War Magus, and second, I am working on a Specialty Priest of Guanadar (The Drow God of Slimes and Corruption,) Can't remember how to spell the name off the top of my head.
thasis 11-07-04, 11:39 AM	Let us restart this thread for it's for jolly good fellows. @Sil I got Ebberon and Shadows of the Last War. I realy enjoy the books. Why? Because it's so originol. It has concepts of uniqness well keeping to the traditional fantasy concept. I would have to say it's up there with Everquest D20 and Forgotten Realms (I got both of them recently to).