Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tenzhi 06-17-05, 05:34 AM	A simple variant wherein one throws out the "must have 10+spell level ability score to cast a certain level of spell" clause. This allows characters with any ability score to potentially cast spells whilst still carrying with it some penalty. And all it requires, really, is filling out the bonus-spells chart intuitively: Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells Bonus Spells (by Spell Level) Score Mod 0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 1 -5 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 2-3 -4 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -3 4-5 -3 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 6-7 -2 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 8-9 -1 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 10-11 0 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 12-13 +1 1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 14-15 +2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 16-17 +3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 18-19 +4 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 -1 20-21 +5 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 22-23 +6 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 24-25 +7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 26-27 +8 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 28-29 +9 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 30-31 +10 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 32-33 +11 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 34-35 +12 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 36-37 +13 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 38-39 +14 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 40-41 +15 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 42-43 +16 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 44-45 +17 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 etc. . . As an additional variant, one might ignore the actual listed spell level for determining the bonus/penalty spells and instead treat the farthest right column as the highest level of spell. For instance, a Bard with an 11 Charisma would have bonus/penalty spells per day of 0, -1, -1, -1, -1, and -2.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 06-17-05, 09:11 AM	Looks interesting... I think I might apply it to my next 1st edition campaign (even though bonus spells only existed for clerics back then). It doesn't look game-breaking, although, the lower half of the table doesn't seem necessary (for ability scores 9 and under) because any caster who puts a 9 or lower in their spellcasting ability is an idiot (either that, or any DM who makes a player play a spellcasting character with a 9 or lower in the spellcasting ability is mean). On the other hand, for my 1st ed. campaign, the tables for 8 and lower won't be necessary, because you need at least a 9 intelligence to be a magic-user or a 9 wisdom to be a cleric. But, all in all, good work. I, for one, like it.
Tenzhi 06-18-05, 01:03 AM	It doesn't look game-breaking, although, the lower half of the table doesn't seem necessary (for ability scores 9 and under) because any caster who puts a 9 or lower in their spellcasting ability is an idiot (either that, or any DM who makes a player play a spellcasting character with a 9 or lower in the spellcasting ability is mean). In theory, such a caster shouldn't be any more of an idiot than a fighter with a Strength of 9.
jaerad 06-18-05, 01:12 AM	Hmm. Interesting. Basically gives Rangers that focus on melee-stats a few spells, but at later levels, etc. Same for other 1/2caster classes - Paladin, etc. I like it. It's not much, but it's a good step against MADing, which I hate, so I'm all for it. :)
StevenO 06-18-05, 10:56 PM	You have a good concept but it does have one drawback compared to the standard system. If I'm interepereting your table correctly you actually loose the spell slots. Normally you still get all the high level slots but you can only fill them with lower level spells if you don't have a high enough casting stat. A level 8 wizard with a 13 Int doesn't get any 4th level spells but does gain the spell slots and can fill them with lower level spells that he can cast. The previous aside I do like the idea that with enough work a spellcaster eventually can use some of those higher level spells.
Tenzhi 06-19-05, 01:07 AM	You have a good concept but it does have one drawback compared to the standard system. If I'm interepereting your table correctly you actually loose the spell slots. Yup, that's what I'm going for. Spell slot gain vs. spell slot loss. Granted, this means that a person with a lower attribute can't fill those slots with lower-level spells, but by the same token they can at least actually cast at that level. My problems with the variant thus far are: 1. I'm not sure the penalty slots penalize enough. I'm considering having the penalties accumulate by 1 spell slot every three ability score tiers (rather than every four as the bonuses accrue). 2. I'm unsure about the hastily stated variant for spellcasters that don't have the 0-9th level spells. I may want to create columns for each of the typical spell layouts (1-4, 1-6, and 0-7 (Clerics and Druids doncha know ;) )). Such a distribution would look something like this: Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells Bonus Spells (by Spell Level) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th Score Mod 0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th
StevenO 06-25-05, 05:09 PM	Looking more closely at this (the orginal chart) I now see this as being a little too good. It appears that having a low stat doesn't decrease when the "uncastable" spells become availiable except in the case of much higher level spells. As an example a Wiz20 with 3 Int would have a spell progression of 4/3/3/3/3/2/2/2/2/1, not truely a drawback considering that spellcasting whould be impossible normally. A more logical method is to keep the spell slots the same but require a low score caster to devote extra spell slots to reach otherwise uncastable spells. For example a Int13 Wizard needs to use two 4th level slots for each 4th level spell. A 5th level spell requires two extra slots (ability misses by two) with 6th level=three extra,... to a 9th level spell needing six extra slots or a total of seven 9th level slots for a 9th level spell. Using this a Wizard20 with Int13 has a spell progression of 4/4/4/4/(2)/(1.3)/(1)/(.8)/(.67)/(.57) with this representing actual spells at level. Note that fractional spells can't be cast but a higher slot can be used to ofset needing more slots.
Tenzhi 06-26-05, 07:55 AM	It appears that having a low stat doesn't decrease when the "uncastable" spells become availiable except in the case of much higher level spells. Actually, it does affect "when" spells become available. For instance, that Wizard with an Int of 3 won't get a 1st level spell until he becomes a 2nd level Wizard. And he won't get a 9th level slot until level 20 - three levels after a Wizard normally can cast 9th level spells. Three less 9th level spells per day is a pretty big detriment. And the hit to lower level spells is pretty serious for lower level casters, too. If I change it as I put forth in my previous post, he won't receive 9th level slots until possibly after 20th level, and he won't receive an 8th level slot until 20th level. Fractional methods are awkward to use even if they might look better mathematically on paper.
StevenO 06-26-05, 05:48 PM	My example of a Int3 Wiz20 was an extreme. I'll admit missing 3 spell slots is a lot but in most cases fewer spells are lost. Under your initial proposal a character with a casting stat of 10 doesn't miss anything until they get 5th level spells thus some classes never need a higher score but retain full spell casting ability. What I propose is instead of reducing the spell slots available to charge extra slots to cast higher level spells. My fractions are hard to follow and not really relevent. What I'm trying to do is slow spells down by making them use more slots. If a character stat=14 then normally only spells of 4th level and lower can be used, when 5th level slot opens I'd allow that character to fill it with a 5th level spell but they have to pay a tax (in slots used) equal to how far their casting stat falls short. Higher level slots are worth more when used to learn lower level spells such that a 9th level slot can pay the tax for one 9th level spell down to equalling nine 1st level slots (for those with Stat2). This effectively lowers the number of higher level spells avaiable but maintains continuity with the basic rules. I have a hard time following your later table so I can't say where you stand now. While allowing spellcasters to exceed normal maximum spell levels should be allowed I believe you are possibly making it too easy. My prior example of with a 3 int wizard should point out how things can get out of hand.
Tenzhi 06-29-05, 02:50 AM	Under your initial proposal a character with a casting stat of 10 doesn't miss anything until they get 5th level spells thus some classes never need a higher score but retain full spell casting ability. This is what my second table addressed. It set different bonus spell columns for characters who cast 1-4th level spells (Rangers and Paladins), 1-6th level spells (Bards), and 0-7th level spells (clerics and druids by my reckoning, so not very relevant to anyone else). I mentioned modifying the penalty rate in a later post as well. The table in its entirety should now read like so: Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells Bonus Spells (by Spell Level) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th Score Mod 0 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 1 -5 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 -4 -4 2-3 -4 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 -4 4-5 -3 0 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 6-7 -2 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 8-9 -1 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -3 10-11 0 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 12-13 +1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 14-15 +2 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -2 16-17 +3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 18-19 +4 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 20-21 +5 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 22-23 +6 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 24-25 +7 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 26-27 +8 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 28-29 +9 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 30-31 +10 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 32-33 +11 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 34-35 +12 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 36-37 +13 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 38-39 +14 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 40-41 +15 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 42-43 +16 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 44-45 +17 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 etc. . . What I propose is instead of reducing the spell slots available to charge extra slots to cast higher level spells. I've heard similar proposals before. I just find them more difficult to contend with than a simple slot penalty. And it doesn't mesh with the existing system as well, either - a more fitting bonus system in that scenario would be to allow people with higher ability scores to fit more spells into each existing slot. Not a bad idea to toy with in itself, but not what I'm looking for here, either. While allowing spellcasters to exceed normal maximum spell levels should be allowed I believe you are possibly making it too easy. My prior example of with a 3 int wizard should point out how things can get out of hand. While I agreed with the notion enough that I increased the penalty a bit, your example also ignored all the intervening levels. Lower-scored wizards will be playing catch-up with higher-scored wizards at various levels as their access to certain level spells is delayed for one or more class levels. Your Int 3 wizard (and now an Int 4-5 wizard as well), for instance, won't even start with 1st level spells. His access to 2nd level spells will be delayed by one level as well. His access to 3-5th level spells will be delayed by three class levels. His access to 6th and 7th level spells will be delayed by six class levels, his 8th level spells by five, and now he won't get 9th level spells until possibly Epic. (Previously, his 1st-3rd level spell access would've been delayed by one class level, his 4th-7th level access would've been delayed by three class levels, his 8th by five, and his 9th by three.) It's also notable that it takes an ability score of 22 to entirely avoid penalty. Yes, a character with a score of 10 couldn't cast higher than 0-level spells previously; however, I saw that as a problem and didn't want a score of 10 to be very prohibitive to casters which is why I came up with this system in the first place. Making it cost nine 9th level slots to cast a 9th level spell for a character with a score of 10 would hardly be a solution given that outlook.
Kintara 06-29-05, 03:16 AM	Hmm. One thing that this does is give another benefit to spellcasters. Ability score damage really blows if it hits your spellcasting score, normally. In this variant, it wouldn't as big a deal. It hits your save DCs (for most classes), but not all spells need to worry about that. In a sense, I think it would be fair to drop ability score requirements for feats too, while you're at it. It makes things easier on certain fighter builds that don't really need the extra trouble in the first place, in my opinion.
Tenzhi 06-29-05, 03:44 AM	In a sense, I think it would be fair to drop ability score requirements for feats too, while you're at it. It makes things easier on certain fighter builds that don't really need the extra trouble in the first place, in my opinion. That's not entirely a bad idea, though it takes the usefulness out of odd-number ability scores (as feat prerequisites rely on odd-numbers rather than even). Of course, some have proposed getting rid of the ol' 3-18 ability score theme altogether. Call me a sentimental fool, but to me it just ain't D&D without it.