Post/Author/DateTime	Post
starfire311 05-25-07, 09:12 AM	I have never like how spell casting has been handled in DnD, I have always thought their must be a better way, and that is the piont of the thread. 1st step is we need to decide on a spell philosophy. Do we want to rewrite the entire spell system, making all new spells, or do we want a way to port the existing spells into a new spell casting system. Being able to port over the existing spell system would make it much easier. Maybe jsut need to craete new spell casting classes that don't get access to the high level spells. 2nd step we need the system. Here are a few suggestions Skill based casting: you have a casting skill and you must make skill checks to cast it, this can be similar to the Epic Spell seeds. or can be vastly different, maybe you have a casting skill for each school of magic, of for each kind of magic effect, and to cast a multi effect type spell, like a spell that deals cold damage and slows them, might require you to make a cold casting skill check and a debuff casting check. Spell Points this is the classic, just give out spell points, and have spells cost a different amount of spell points... but how do you regain spell points, maybe it can be a bit like MoI, where you get x spell points to cast spells, but any spell that has a non instant duration has those spell points "tied" up in the spell untill the duration expires. Once you cast a spell you can have a way "refresh" them witout resting 8 hours. ToB This would be where you get a certain number of prepared spells that you can expend once per encounter. Much like the ToB. Other Got a great idea I havn't thought of or forgetten about, please let me know. 3rd step Currency This probably goes nadin hand with the 2nd, but thisis the currency used to cast the spells Spell points Slots Hit Points Ability Damage/penalty None Other? Just try to keep an open mind in this thread, it is going to be very brainstorm type. I have no real preconcieved Ideas, and look forward to seeing what people can think of.
starfire311 05-25-07, 09:24 AM	My 1st submission I would like to suggest a skill based casting, using Spell points to power the spells. This is gonna take some time to type up, and I don't have a lot of time, but here is the idea. You devote skill points to different casting skills(1 for each school or maybe one for each type of effect, not sure yet.) You then make a casting skill check to achieve a desired effect. You get a very limited number of spell points. You must use these points to cast spells and to maintain an upkeep on any on going spells. At anytime you can spend a full round action and make a concentration check DC 15, to regain all your spell points that are not being used as an upkeep.
not Yoda 05-25-07, 09:26 AM	You beat me by 4 minutes.;) This may prove to be the better post but if you would like to post random thoughts mine is still open. I like the ToB system idea personally. If it is decided that we're going for a whole NEW system with new spells we should also consider the relative power of spells specifically Save Or Die spells.
SlinkyTWF 05-25-07, 10:13 AM	Here is the synopsis of where my system is different from SRD/PH d20 (taken from my rulebook - can't post a link because the PDF has some non-SRD content rolled up into it): MAGIC WHAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE D20 SRD? SPELL CASTING IS NOT AUTOMATIC To cast a spell, all spell casters (except Sorcerers) must make a Casting Check against the DC of the spell effect they are trying to create. Failure has negative consequences (see Spell Failure). NO SPELL LEVELS All spells are assigned a DC. UNRESTRICTED CASTING Spell casters are not locked into a tiered level system. They can attempt to cast any spell they know. Failing to cast a spell has potentially dire consequences for the caster, however, so attempting to cast a spell that is “over your head” should only be attempted in dire emergencies (see Spell Failure). Spell casters may also choose to cast any spell they know without having to memorize them per the standard 3.5 rules, however, wizards must still “prepare” a limited list of spells from which to choose (they may attempt to cast unprepared spells with the possibility of spell failure). CASTER SKILL RANK INSTEAD OF CASTER LEVEL Since there are no character levels in this variant, all instances where level would have formerly introduced a variable are now governed by the caster’s skill rank. All spells have a DC. MANA POINTS INSTEAD OF SPELL SLOTS Instead of having spell slots assigned to casters, this variant uses a “Mana Point” to govern how many spells you can cast. NO SPONTANEOUS CASTING Spontaneous casting is not needed because divine spell casters can attempt to cast any spell from their dieties’ spell domains at any time, providing the diety allows it. NO XP COST FOR CASTING SPELLS. In the standard d20 rules, some spells require experience points (XP) to cast. Since there are no experience points per se in this variant, any such requirement is converted to a material component of a gold piece value in gems. SPELL EFFECTS ARE SCALED Since this variant is much lower powered than standard D20 in terms of hit points, the effects of various spells have been adjusted so as to bring them in line with their new environment. For example, instead of curing 1d8 + Caster Level when casting cure wounds, you now cure 1d4 + Caster Rank. WIZARDRY PROFICIENCIES ARE REQUIRED To cast a spell from a particular school, a wizard needs to have a proficiency in that school. Additionally, he or she must have the sub-school proficiency or else take a –4 non-proficiency penalty. CONVERTING D20 SPELLS TO THIS SYSTEM Converting older spells to fit the skill/mana-based system is fairly easy, but it may take a few tries at getting it correct and game-balanced. There are three basic things you need to determine: Casting DC, Minimum Sorcery Rank, Mana Cost. You may also need to alter the numbers, particularly with regards to damage. Use the chart below to determine the original spell level. Read across to see the suggested DC and Mana Cost for the spell in question. The Sorcery Rank is minimum Sorcery Rank you must have to learn and cast the spell (Designer’s Note: it is also the skill rank that the designers feel you should attain to have a reasonably safe chance to cast the spell if you are of average ability under ideal conditions). If you are converting a spell that has multiple levels (for different d20 classes/domains), you may choose any values within the range. For the official spell list conversions, the designer usually took the average of the given values (this is why you may see some spells that do not conform exactly to the table’s recommended values). Table: Converting d20 Spells d20 Spell Level Sorcery Rank New DC1 Mana Cost2 0 1 0 1 0/1 1 2 1 1 2 5 1 1/2 2 6 1 2 3 7 2 2/3 4 8 2 3 5 9 3 3/4 6 10 3 4 8 12 4 4/5 9 13 4 5 10 15 5 5/6 11 16 5 6 12 18 6 6/7 13 19 6 7 14 20 7 7/8 15 22 7 8 16 25 8 8/9 17 28 8 9 18 30 9 1. Each increment of 5 caster ranks you have increase the minumum casting check you can roll, so this also affects your ability to cast very powerful spells. 2. This is the recommended mana cost based on the spell’s power. Adjust upward or downward as you desire. You may wish to set the mana cost for some extremely powerful spells, such as wish, to 20 or more, or even ALL of a caster’s available mana (or even higher!). TYPES OF SPELL CASTERS There are four basic types of spell casters within this variant of the d20 System: Bards, Clerics, Sorcerers, and Wizards. All four are mutually exclusive because of the way they gather and use magical power. If a player learns any Wizardry skills, any other magical skills they know become inoperative. BARDS Bards perform music to evoke the latent magical power in their surroundings, creating directed or area effects which can protect their party or harm their enemies. Primary Statistic: Charisma. Required Skills: Bardic Magic and/or either Musicianship or Singing, depending on the nature of the song. Useful Skills: Various Muscianship proficiencies. Casting Check: Bards use their Musicianship and/or Singing skills to cast their magical effects. The specific skill(s) required depend upon the song. Simple songs may only require one or the other, while more powerful (and complex) effects may require both singing and playing an instrument. Some songs may require specific instruments, to it is wise for bards to develop a versatile Musicianship skill. If two skills are required to cast a bard song effect, the lowest of the two ranks is used to make the casting check (if non-proficiency penalties make one skill modifier lower than the other, use the skill with the lowest modifier). Spell Selection: Bards use Bardic Magic skill to learn new songs. Mana: Unlike other spell caster types, bards do not require mana to generate their magical effects. CLERICS Clerics gain their magical power from their patron dieties. This type includes all archetypical characters who would gain their power from a higher consciousness, including druids. Primary Statistic: Wisdom. Required Skills: Piety. Useful Skills: Concentration. Casting Check/Caster Rank Stat: Cleric spells use Piety skill for making any casting checks. Spell Selection: Piety. Spell selection is restricted to the “approved” spell line for the character’s religion. Each faith has its own spell list. Clerics can attempt to cast any spell from their approved list at any time. Mana: Cleric mana is based on the character’s Wisdom bonus multiplied by their [Piety] skill. SORCERERS Sorcerers are naturally attuned to magical fields and can cast innate spells as if they were spell-like abilities (which means that they never require spell components). Primary Statistic: Charisma. Required Skills: Sorcery. Useful Skills: Channeling, Concentration. Casting Check/Caster Rank Stat: Unlike other spell casters, sorcerers do not have to make casting checks, but they cannot attempt to cast a spell that is of a higher Sorcery Rank than their own Sorcery skill rank. See each specific spell description for details. Spell Selection: Sorcery. Spell selection is restricted to the “approved” spell line for the character’s sorcery line. Each rank of sorcery skill allows the sorcerer to learn another spell from the list. Sorcerers cannot learn spells that are of a higher required sorcery rank than their actual Sorcery skill rank. Mana: Sorcerer mana is based on the character’s Charisma bonus multiplied by their Sorcery skill rank. WIZARDS Wizards are spell casters who have learned their abilities through study and practice. Primary Statistic: Intelligence. Required Skills: Channeling, Spellcraft, Wizardry. Useful Skills: Concentration (meditation). Casting Check: Wizards use their Wizardry skill for making any required Casting checks. Spell Selection: Wizard spell selection is based on which spells the wizard knows and has copied into his spell book(s). Transcribing or reverse-engineering spells requires Spellcraft skill, so that remains vital for effective wizardry. Although a wizard may scribe any spell he or she can find into their spellbook, they may only cast spells with whose school they are proficient. See Wizardry skill for more details. Mana: Wizard mana is based on the character’s Intelligence bonus multiplied by their Channeling skill rank. Spell Books: Wizards must have a spell book containing any spells they wish to prepare in their possession when they rest, or else they suffer a penalty when trying to cast their spells. Wizardry skill has the following effects: Reverse-Engineering Spells from Scrolls: Wizardry modifies your chance to reverse-engineer a spell from a scroll. If you fail, you may not try to learn the same spell again until your rank increases. If you roll a 1 on your check, you fail and the scroll is destroyed. Scribing scrolls: Wizardry is used when scribing a magical scroll. The DC is the DC of the spell plus the spell’s mana cost. Therefore, scribing a new scroll is usually more difficult than learning a spell from one. Any scroll you scribe will be cast at the caster rank you are when you scribed the scroll. Note this by placing your rank in parentheses next to the name of the spell on the scroll that you scribed. For example, “Magic Missile (6).” Casting Checks: Wizardry is the skill against which you make any required Casting checks. Spell Preparation: A wizard is limited in the number of spells they may “prepare” for casting per each day they have a chance to rest. The number of spells a wizard may prepare is equal to their Wizardry skill plus their Intelligence bonus.
SlinkyTWF 05-25-07, 10:30 AM	Another thing I did was to roll-up many similar spell effects into a single spell that has higher-powered variants. For example, here is the listing for Bull's Strength (there are many differences in this example and standard d20; it is the idea that is being put forward). BULL’S STRENGTH TRANSMUTATION Skill(s): TBD DC: 7 Sorcery Rank: 3 Mana Cost: 2 Components: V, S, M/DF Arcane Materials: A few hairs, or a pinch of dung, from a bull. Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Duration: 1 minute / caster rank Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) Origin: SRD; PH-207 The subject becomes stronger. The spell grants a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength, adding the usual benefits to melee attack rolls, melee damage rolls, and other uses of the Strength modifier. Bull’s Strength, Mass DC: 18 Sorcery Rank: 12 Mana Cost: 6 Range: 25 feet + 5 feet / 2 caster ranks Targets: One creature / caster rank, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart Origin: SRD; PH-207 This spell functions like bull’s strength, except that it affects multiple creatures.
aotrscommander 05-25-07, 10:33 AM	If you cast your eye a little further down this forum (or follow the link in my sig), you will find my attempt (which is about 95% complete!) The basic plan was to remove vancian (spellbooks) while leaving the basic spell level/metamagic system rules; changing only the amount you got per day and pumping the flexibility. A quick precise for those not bothered about having a detailed look: What I did basically was play with the front end, leaving the spells and feats untouched. I switched over to a mana-point system, and basically split the available mana into to bits. One, for 1-4th level spells only (as in general, they don't matter too much if spammed) and one for spells of any level. This prevents the spamming of high level spells (which would break the game), and encourages low-level spell use. I also biased the spell-level to mana point conversion, after several attemts. First to Forth level slots convert 1:1, 5th+ convert 1/2 round up. 0th level spells have their own pool (once I've amended the text anyway!), which is tied to caster level and key ability, rather than the original number of 0th level slots. (Because really, lots of 0th level spells per day; who cares! It means casters can show off a bit more with prestiditation a bit more or something!) For the low-level only pool, I've recently implemented a slow recharge; while it won't exactly get to ToB-speed refreshes, a spell caster with a couple of hours will get some power back. This means that unless encounters as spaced close together in time (like when you want to push the PCs and put the pressure on), the caster should have one or two spells to chuck every combat. Obviously, the next order of balance was to stop clerics, druids and wizards (in particular, especially the former pair) being able to cast any spell they like (which would be way too good). After some thought and a couple of dry attempts, I gave Wizards an Erudite-like learning method, and put clerics and druids on a unique spells per day basis (again, like the Erudite).
not Yoda 05-25-07, 11:03 AM	Fora while I played around with the idea of getting rid of spells per day altogether. This would also mean a drastic reduction in power per spell. As things progressed I decided to remove the spells per day limitaion on spells considered to be mastered IE spells 3 or more levels lower than your highest level spells. I had also considered, spells higher than 4th to be from one school only. If that doesn't make sense allow me to give an example. There were 8 schools of magic that I was toying with. A magic user would choose a school that they would specialize in at 9th level. Thusly only spells from that school could be learned that were 5th level or higher. This would make counterspelling much harder now that I think about it. As you would actually have to be specialized in the same school if you intended to counter a high level caster. One of the other major changes that I tried to incorporate was a more modular system. Where spells effects were cobbled together to create higher level effects. For example Fog Cloud is a 1st level effect Melfs acid arrow is a 2nd level effect about 2d6 of acid damage Slow is a 3rd level effect Combine all three for Acid fog a 6th level effect. It was along those lines that I was thinking.
Steely_Dan 05-25-07, 11:08 AM	ToB This would be where you get a certain number of prepared spells that you can expend once per encounter. Much like the ToB. This is the direction I would like to see it go – per encounter based/balanced. Also, no save or die spells.
starfire311 05-25-07, 11:21 AM	This is the direction I would like to see it go – per encounter based/balanced. Also, no save or die spells. the problem wiht this may come int eh form of abusive non-combat spells, or since it is per encounter, non-combat spells just couldn't even be utilized, Wizard: I cast teleport and go to watetdeep. DM: sorry, all spells are per encounter, and since you are not in an encounter you can not cast any spells. Or, you just allow the unlimied spell casting with the current spells tehre are even more abuses otside of combat. I do like the concept, but it almost seems like a caster would need 2 sets of spell rules, one for combat spells, and these can be like the ToB, and one for non-combat spells, perhaps these culd be rituals.
Steely_Dan 05-25-07, 12:18 PM	I do like the concept, but it almost seems like a caster would need 2 sets of spell rules, one for combat spells, and these can be like the ToB, and one for non-combat spells, perhaps these culd be rituals. That's what I was thinking; you don't want the wizard being able to cast teleport 38 times a day…
Feeb 05-25-07, 02:14 PM	the problem wiht this may come int eh form of abusive non-combat spells, or since it is per encounter, non-combat spells just couldn't even be utilized, I believe this is addressed in ToM via the binder class and in UA via recharge magic
Ra-Tiel 05-26-07, 02:34 PM	[...] Spell points Slots Hit Points Ability Damage/penalty None Other? [...] How about "time"? Think of it, no matter what restrictions you impose on a specific ability, none is more restrictive than the action costs it requires from the character. In my own system, I'm basing spellcasting (like saves and "mundane" combat) off of skills, thus putting all characters on an equal footing in what they have to spend their skill points on. Also, access to more powerful magics or better combat actions is exclusively gained by feats. Additionally, the standard DnD magic really doesn't fit my setting's flavor, therefore I'm creating a "new" system. It is similar to WoT's weaving. A caster knows a certain number of techniques of a given circle. To successfully cast a spell, a caster must succeed on a skill check (full round action) against DC 10 + 5*circle of the technique + misc modifiers from the used technique, and he requires a number of successful skill checks equal to the technique's circle. A technique is a single concept or specified use of magic, like "levitate" (handling anything from levitate to mass overland flight), polymorph (used for effects ranging from disguise self to shapechange), teleport (containing dimension door and up to teleportation circle), and so on. So, to create a spell, a caster is usually a sitting duck for at least one full round. More powerful spells (high circle), or rituals can take much longer. Of course, a circle 3 spell's impact will be enormous, but the difficulty is actually getting the spell off without being ripped apart in the midst of battle. This - hopefully - will reduce magic's impact on combat, and focus it more on utility/buffing uses.
Skeetweasel 05-29-07, 09:43 PM	I just posted on the other thread but as always I have more to say. I like to ToB idea. Spells would be much less powerful. 1. No scaling. Fireball is 5d6. Always. A more powerful fireball is a higher level. 2. Short durations. Spells would rarely if ever be a minute per level. Round per level spells would be even shorter. 3. Shorter range. Maybe 100' +10' per 2 levels, 50' +5' per 2 levels, 25' +5' per 4 levels. 4. Current spells will be of higher levels. This is really what needs to be playtested. I don't really have an answer. 5. A "fatigue" system should be in place. This is something that all D&D needs. With spells being unlimited, something needs to force the PCs to rest. Healing never runs out, travel spells are unlimited, divinations are constant. We can't have that. So a system that strips spells, attack base, damage, spell potency, anything offensive based on how "fatigued" they are would limit the "unlimited spells." If teleport automatically caused "1 fatigue point" and these points took spell slots, PCs would teleport all the time. To me, the idea of a new system would balance both spellcasting and the party as a whole. As a DM the party would always be at full hit points when the battle starts. Healing spells would cause no "fatigue." "Fatigue" would not affect saving throws, hit point max, defense ability (AC), since I really want the party to survive. "Fatigue" would affect attacks rolls, damage, offensive ability, because I don't want the party mowing down all encounters without resting. The "fatigue" factor is some I need to work on. But I think it could be used with a ToB spellcasting style to limit spells such as teleport or divinations. I sincerely hope to work with everyone who wants a new system. I need to get this done because I can hardly play my favorite game with the current system. You can e-mail me directly at khrayt@gmail.com. Thanks in advance for all of you who try to make our game better.
pippin_nl 05-30-07, 01:44 AM	Another idea I had was: 1) spell point system 2) spells become cheaper as you level; highest level spell you can cast at 8 spell points, than 4, 2 and 1 (also improving the even levels a bit) 3) spellcasters get 8 spell points plus a bonus for high ability 4) spell points are regained at 3 points an hour 5) if you use up al your spell points, you become fatigued and regain only 2 points an hour 6) you can even go beyond (-1) that and become exhausted, regaining 1 spell point after an hour 7) and you can cast even beyond that with a risc (fortitude save) of death disadvantage is that 19th level casters and beyond can cast spells too often and too cheap
starfire311 05-30-07, 09:00 AM	Thanks everyone for posting, this is a pretty good discussion, and we got some great ideas, between this thread and yoda's thread. Another idea I had was: 1) spell point system 2) spells become cheaper as you level; highest level spell you can cast at 8 spell points, than 4, 2 and 1 (also improving the even levels a bit) 3) spellcasters get 8 spell points plus a bonus for high ability 4) spell points are regained at 3 points an hour 5) if you use up al your spell points, you become fatigued and regain only 2 points an hour 6) you can even go beyond (-1) that and become exhausted, regaining 1 spell point after an hour 7) and you can cast even beyond that with a risc (fortitude save) of death disadvantage is that 19th level casters and beyond can cast spells too often and too cheap This is a very interesting idea, that I think has some merit, this is exactly the kind of stuff I was hoping to see. Not sure about the 8,4,2,1 progression this would mean that your 2nd highest spell is half as powerful as your highest... as 7the level wizard 2 3rd level spells are better than 1 4th. Maybe if we went with something like 100 Spell points spells cost 30-casting stat- 5 per level below highest. this math may be too envolved, and better served for a video game, but this is just an exercise. So if you are an 18th level wizard with a 26 Intelligence, you will still have 100 spell points but the cost to cast your spells is 22 for 9th level spells down as follows, 17, 12, 7, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 Then we can set a threshold for becoming fatigue, for exmple, if you are below 50 spell points you become fatigued, if you cast a spell and you have less than 20 spell points you must make a fort save DC 10 + spell level + number of spells cast since being reduced to less than 20 spell points, if you fail you fall unconscious. Regaining spell points could be a set number like 5 per hour of activity 10 per hour of rest. or it could be based on your casting stat or wisdom or constitution. I another thing I have always thought might be neat would be MAD casting. I did it for one game and it was fine, decent nerf to casters and went more for the feel of the world. For all casters, intelligence determined the highest spell level you could cast, Wisdom determined your bonus spells, and Charisma determined your save DCs.
Rhialto 05-30-07, 02:35 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10057710&postcount=73 My thoughts on revampiing the magic system totally for a low/dark-magic setting. Also there are notes on the design issues involved in chjoosing a magic system.
Ra-Tiel 05-30-07, 04:40 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10057710&postcount=73 My thoughts on revampiing the magic system totally for a low/dark-magic setting. Also there are notes on the design issues involved in chjoosing a magic system. Interesting ideas, but I disagree on your comment about opportunity costs and skill based casting. There is an opportunity cost: the time required to cast a certain spell. If you, for example, require a "casting time" like to following table Level Casting Time ======================================== ======= 0 swift action 1 standard action 2 standard action + swift action 3 full action 4 full action + next swift action 5 full action + next standard action 6 two full actions 7 two full actions + next swift action 8 two full actions + next standard action 9 three full actions it becomes pretty obvious what I mean. The cost of casting a given spell here and now, is the possibility of playing sitting duck for several rounds in the middle of battle - which is a thing nobody would do lightly. Another idea I had quite some time ago was introducing some sort of "mana die" for casters, similar to "hit die" for all classes. My layout was the following Class Mana die ======================== Bard d8 Cleric d8 Druid d6 Paladin d4 Ranger d4 Sorcerer d12 Wizard d10 with the die showing max for first level (or level 4 for paladins and rangers), the caster's key ability modifier added to each die (just like Con is added to each HD), and spells costing a number of mana equal to (1 + intended caster level + spell level)*2, with the "intended caster level" setting the dispel DC, the bonus on opposed caster checks, the range, damage, duration, etc... However, this also does not solve the problem of a wizard possibly casting gate 15 times per day. But to my defense I must add that this idea is several years old, and that I was "young and stupid" back then. ;)
Werral 05-30-07, 04:52 PM	I like the Spell DC idea near the start of the thread. How about each time you cast a spell you add the level of that spell to the DC of the next? Spell DC's don't go down till the spellcaster rests. That way it's impossible for spellcasters to overuse spells. And a note on "Preparing" spells. Say you decide that Wizard spells take a long time to cast (say 10 minutes per level). Obviously that's too slow for combat. Well say the wizard does most of the casting out of combat (equivalent to studying the spellbook) and just leaves out the "activation" element. This would have several advantages for the wizard: They could take 10 on the casting check. They would have spells usable in combat. They could use spellbooks or other aids to add a circumstance bonus to the caster check (especially usefull if they're casting spells over their head). That way they don't have to prepare spells, but it's handy.
Rhialto 05-31-07, 05:37 AM	With varying time taken to cost a spell (combined with skill checks) depending on spell level, you can still thow a fireball every round, all day. Not much of an opportunity cost if you ask me.
Ra-Tiel 05-31-07, 06:05 AM	With varying time taken to cost a spell (combined with skill checks) depending on spell level, you can still thow a fireball every round, all day. Not much of an opportunity cost if you ask me. Maybe. However, in your other post you described opportunity cost as "what are the drawbacks in casting a spell here and now? What incentive is there to save a spell for later?". And from this point of view, casting time dependent on spell level is an opportunity cost. Also, what good is 10d6 elemental damage in a high-level encounter again? Especially if the damage is [fire], the type against which resistance or immunity is most common? And consider the effects on highlevel spells. No more time stop + 5 delayed blast fireballs, or a horrid wilting every round. Additionally, you could always scale the base DC for casting. Imagine a DC of 15 + spell level + 2 per previously attempted casting of the same spell - 1 per hour of rest since last previous casting. A simple fireball would have a DC of 18. The second one would have DC 20, the third one DC 22, and so on. The 11th fireball in a row would have DC 38. And that's not so easy to make for a midlevel caster. ;)
Rhialto 05-31-07, 10:29 AM	Maybe. However, in your other post you described opportunity cost as "what are the drawbacks in casting a spell here and now? What incentive is there to save a spell for later?". And from this point of view, casting time dependent on spell level is an opportunity cost. ok, I accept that longer casting times is an opportunity cost, but it is an opportunity cost of a tactical, rather than strategic nature. It certainly has no effect on any decisions you might make in your next fight. That's what I was thinking of in terms of "saving the spell for later". Having that as the only significant opportunity cost also means there is nothing to prevent the wizard from nova-ing every battle. Also, what good is 10d6 elemental damage in a high-level encounter again? Especially if the damage is [fire], the type against which resistance or immunity is most common? And consider the effects on high level spells. No more time stop + 5 delayed blast fireballs, or a horrid wilting every round. I'll ignore the bit about fire damage. I was using fireball as an example, and any decent battle mage will have a suitable selection of combat spells up to 3rd level. If you run the numbers of the mana point system I was proposing, a wizard would have to be nuts to attempt more than his caster level in spells every couple of hours. They can get lucky (or unlucky) of course, but my house system has a significant check on novas, without the need to make high level spells take longer to cast. Additionally, you could always scale the base DC for casting. Imagine a DC of 15 + spell level + 2 per previously attempted casting of the same spell - 1 per hour of rest since last previous casting. A simple fireball would have a DC of 18. The second one would have DC 20, the third one DC 22, and so on. The 11th fireball in a row would have DC 38. And that's not so easy to make for a midlevel caster. ;) First, any decent battle mage will have a decent selection of combat spells, not just one, making it simple enough to avoid this penalty for repeatedly casting the same spell. Second, a munchkin mage will just research a spell with the same effect so he has 2 different spells (with identical effects, maybe different SFX), again avoiding this cumulative penalty. Third, it feels like a mechanic to hamper casters, and not something grounded in any kind of arcane lore (ie what is the arcane pseudo-scientific gobbledeygook to explain it?). That last one can be explained away somehow I guess, but the other two are still sufficient to break this as a means of weakening the munchkin mage.
Ra-Tiel 05-31-07, 11:17 AM	ok, I accept that longer casting times is an opportunity cost, but it is an opportunity cost of a tactical, rather than strategic nature. It certainly has no effect on any decisions you might make in your next fight. That's what I was thinking of in terms of "saving the spell for later". Ah, I see. Now I can understand your reasons, thanks for explaining. :D Having that as the only significant opportunity cost also means there is nothing to prevent the wizard from nova-ing every battle. And I ask: is that so bad? Of course, with the current spells it is, but if you take a look at the warlock, incarnum, or ToB, you can see that it is possible to create systems that allow repeated and/or continuous access to your strongest effects. These have just to be toned down and be kept in line (which is something not really true for spells... :shifty: ). I'll ignore the bit about fire damage. I was using fireball as an example, and any decent battle mage will have a suitable selection of combat spells up to 3rd level. True. However, direct damage is a weak option nonetheless. Battlefield control combined with damage over time and/or debuffs is usually a much more efficient approach to any given opponent than simply blasting away at his HPs. If you run the numbers of the mana point system I was proposing, a wizard would have to be nuts to attempt more than his caster level in spells every couple of hours. They can get lucky (or unlucky) of course, but my house system has a significant check on novas, without the need to make high level spells take longer to cast. There is something that throws me sort of off balance with your system: what about the other casters? So far I've seen wizard and cleric, but what about bards, warmages, sorcerers, beguilers, rangers, paladins, hexblades, etc.? How much mana do they gain? First, any decent battle mage will have a decent selection of combat spells, not just one, making it simple enough to avoid this penalty for repeatedly casting the same spell. Second, a munchkin mage will just research a spell with the same effect so he has 2 different spells (with identical effects, maybe different SFX), again avoiding this cumulative penalty. Third, it feels like a mechanic to hamper casters, and not something grounded in any kind of arcane lore (ie what is the arcane pseudo-scientific gobbledeygook to explain it?). [...] Hehe. Well, first you could always expand the mechanic to include all spells of a given spell level. So it would increase the casting DC no matter what spell you cast, but based on what level it was. Second, researching custom spells that are not "in the books" is a problem with any magic system and can easily break any mechanic (compare the popular question "can I learn a metamagiced version of a spell from a scroll?"). So that doesn't really apply here at all. ;) Third, as an "explanaition" you could easily use the typical stuff about "fabric of reality" et al. That a caster can only strain reality for a certain amount before the weave becomes to complex or resistant to further attempts of manipulation. Also, this is just a random idea, a suggestion. It's not a system I'm using. Just as a reminder. :)
Rhialto 05-31-07, 11:52 AM	And I ask: is that (nova-ing every battle) so bad? Of course, with the current spells it is, but if you take a look at the warlock, incarnum, or ToB, you can see that it is possible to create systems that allow repeated and/or continuous access to your strongest effects. These have just to be toned down and be kept in line (which is something not really true for spells... ). I think nova-ing every battle is bad. Not from a combat point of view, but from a roleplay pov. Fighters and rogues shouldn't be thinking too much about the future. but wizards are meant to be the thinkers in the team. they should be thinking more long term. Forcing them to make decisions that have a longer-term consequence than teh decisions that other classes are forced to make is, to me, a cheap way to highlight the way the characters are supposed to be thinking. I must admit, I'm not terribly familiar with the detailed mechanics that underline most of these variant prestige class casters. However, the fact that you are posting on this thread at all suggests that either you don't want them in your game for campaign reasons, ort you don't think they are particularly fixed either. ;) There is something that throws me sort of off balance with your system: what about the other casters? So far I've seen wizard and cleric, but what about bards, warmages, sorcerers, beguilers, rangers, paladins, hexblades, etc.? How much mana do they gain? They don't. They don't even exist. The pseudo-scientific background behind how magic exists is that casters are either taping energy from a magical dimension by conscious will (wizards), or making alliances with powerful entities that live in that magical dimension (priests). In that context, bards don't exist because the explanation for magic doesn't support bardic magic. Rangers and paladins are changed to non-casting variants, although either could take levels in the priest class (with an appropriate deity) to emulate the vanilla class. There are no sorcerors. Because my system makes all casters spontaneous casters, the wizard/sorceror distinction just doesn't exist. I've also removed most of the prestige classes; there's just too many of them for anyone to make an informed choice (psych studies have shown that more than about 7 options at once results in most people stopping at the first one that looks good, rather than examining them all).
Raiden Drake 05-31-07, 12:31 PM	I dont know if u have read a book call advanced magic d20... I know is a besm book but the magic system described there is one of the best I have seen. Casting any spell needs a casting check and the caster recives damage (letal or non-letal depending on the check). Each spell have a different DC and depending how u cast it(taking more time, using a focus, etc), depends the modifiers u can add to this DC. I been thinking of using this system with a per encounter basis aproach as ToB but i dont have anything clear to show yet. I'm thinking instead of a caster check to cast a spell having readied spells (like maneuvers) but keeping the damage done to the caster.
Ra-Tiel 05-31-07, 01:59 PM	I think nova-ing every battle is bad. Not from a combat point of view, but from a roleplay pov. Fighters and rogues shouldn't be thinking too much about the future. Not necessarily. A fighter has imho also quite alot of thinking to do. What action should he take next against enemy X? Should he retreat now and drink a potion, prolonging the combat, or stay and attack, hoping to end the battle here and now? What options does he have available against flying opponents? Emergency plans for surprises? Backup weaponry? This also extends to the mechanical aspects, like if he should take the two-weapon fighting route, or concentrate on combat expertise and the various combat actions (disarm/sunder/trip). but wizards are meant to be the thinkers in the team. they should be thinking more long term. Forcing them to make decisions that have a longer-term consequence than teh decisions that other classes are forced to make is, to me, a cheap way to highlight the way the characters are supposed to be thinking. Well, but wizards not necessarily do have to be the thinkers. Of course, their profession (usually) requires logic, and mental discipline. But that not really is required to be the "brain" of an adventuring party. A fighter in the role of a commander or covert ops agent probably has more "practical thinker" stuff in his head than the typical wizard. I must admit, I'm not terribly familiar with the detailed mechanics that underline most of these variant prestige class casters. All mentioned classes/system go away from the so far prevailing "4 encounters per day" balancing and the inherent problems. Instead, they either give "weaker" abilities with unlimited uses (warlock, incarnum classes), or provide limited "quite" strong abilities that are balanced on a "per encounter" base (ToB). This completely eliminates the nova problem, as there simply are no additional resources a character could pump into a given encounter to "steam roll" it. However, the fact that you are posting on this thread at all suggests that either you don't want them in your game for campaign reasons, ort you don't think they are particularly fixed either. ;) Hey, I just like to tinker with the mechanical aspects of the game and theorize about different stuff. :P Seriously, I'm currently working on my own system and am looking around for ideas, inspiration, or things to consider when messing with the rules. So far, my system is seriously different from standard d20, and I think I like what I've devised. ;) They don't. They don't even exist. The pseudo-scientific background behind how magic exists is that casters are either taping energy from a magical dimension by conscious will (wizards), or making alliances with powerful entities that live in that magical dimension (priests). [...] Ah, ok. I already started to wonder if I was blind when I read your other post. :thinks: [...] I've also removed most of the prestige classes; there's just too many of them for anyone to make an informed choice (psych studies have shown that more than about 7 options at once results in most people stopping at the first one that looks good, rather than examining them all). The problem with the current amount of PrCs - imho - is that many of them (especially caster PrCs) give too much for too little cost. And that is not something setting specific. Be it FR's Incantatrix, Eberron's Planar Shephard, or Greyhawk's Initiate of the sevenfold veil, they all grant abilities whose benefits far outweight the loss of a few bonus feats or some spent skillpoints, while even continuing [mostly] full casterlevel advancement.