Magic using Weapon Rules - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Magic using Weapon Rules

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
greatfrito
Jun 08, 2011 18:43:53 Just a bit of braintorming. Not entirely an idea intended for 4e itself, but looking for general comments, suggestions, and ideas.

Actual content is on the blog post located here (linky linky!).

In short (copy-pasted from the start of the blog post):

So, more thinking about changes I'd make to the game. One I've been pondering is changing magic to generally look more like the 4e weapon system (which I think accomplishes things very well).

Along those lines, magic would have different options that would determine some core aspect that would then be "plugged into" different feats (er, powers by 4e deffinition).

I don't know what term I'd use for them at the moment - I'm leaning toward "spell seeds" or just "seeds".

So, without further ado, seeds! Note that the new property is explained below (it's a rough draft), along with changes to the Versatile keyword (which would apply universally to weapons as well). Also note that these probably need better names. Oh, and "Superior Proficiency" is the idea for replacing superior weapons/implements (again universally applied to weapons as well).

Spell Seeds

Acid
Proficiency: +2
Damage: 1d8 acid
Properties: Clinging, versatile (1d10).
Superior Proficiency: Damage changes to 1d10 acid, Versatile (1d12).

[More on the post, obviously.]
#2
rampant
Jun 09, 2011 0:03:02 I like the concept, reminds me of buying spells on the old final fantasy games.

I think there would be trouble trying to convert existing classes however.

That said I think your implement problem has solved itself in this case. The seeds/motes/whatevs are the implements. They can then be enchanted as such. The one major issue is the proficiency bonuses, since the vast majority of spells target NADs which are balanced based on the assumption that casters do not get prof bonuses this might skew things pretty far in the mote users' favor. I'd say -2 across the board should fix it. That way the prof bonus remains relevant (the current +3s remain more accurate than the +2s), but the skew should be minimized thus allowing mote-users to exist with traditional casters.
#3
greatfrito
Jun 09, 2011 1:14:50 Oh, I think you're correct - it's not an idea that would work really well with the rules as-is.

It's more an idea for a... revision of the system? Part of that would be (as discussed [briefly] over in the comments) dropping AC down to the same level as the other defenses, or more likely, moving over to the Saga system (no AC; weapon attacks target Reflex).

I think I'd prefer lowering AC down to everything else's level - and keeping proficiency bonuses as they are. We'd be left with generally more accurate attacks, but I'm perfectly fine with that.
#4
rampant
Jun 09, 2011 1:32:44 No see that doesn't solve the problem.

That just lets weapon users join the mote users in being OP.

The issue is that monster NADs are on average lower than AC because the math was done without proficiency bonuses for casters (that's why weapon users love the few powers they get that hit NADs). This means that Casters without motes (i.e. traditional casters) will be hitting on average 15% less often than the casters using motes. Now even if you manage to convert all the classes to motes (I think I may a rough formula for that actually) that means the casters have gotten a big jump in power, in such a scenario, dropping the average AC does even things out for the weapon classes but expect short fights as the players completely own your monsters. Furthermore classes such as the Swordmage who use a weapon as an implement are now caught in a weird spot.

Rough formula for converting from traditional implement to mote
Dice multiplier
d4 x0.5
d6 x0.75
d8 x1.0
d10 x1.5
d12 x2.0

multiply the number of dice by the multiplier for that dice type and that's how many base damage dice of the mote you should roll when using that power, as always when presented with a fraction round down
#5
greatfrito
Jun 09, 2011 2:23:49 I don't think I was clear enough:

This is not a house rule for use alongside existing classes.

It's not even intended for use with 4e at all.

It's brainstorming and idea branching for a different system (a hypothetical "ideal" that is getting more fleshed out, at random, as time goes on), based heavily on 4e and SW:Saga Edition concepts.

The suggestions regarding defenses and proficiency was meant to say that, in this different system, the general accuracy would probably be higher (for everyone, because of Proficiency Bonus vs. NADs for weapon and spell alike) - and whatever system is designed for enemies and challenges would have to take that into account. You'll note that this idea would also give "spellcasters" a general boost to damage (more in line with weapon users, including the "two-handed" option for the most damage available), which would also have to be taken into account.
#6
rampant
Jun 09, 2011 2:40:32 Oh, ok so the game would be designed from the ground up to account for this, ok that works fine.

Gonna yoink this next time I build a caster class though. It'll be great in 4e with just a little tweaking.
#7
greatfrito
Jun 09, 2011 2:48:04
Oh, ok so the game would be designed from the ground up to account for this, ok that works fine.

Gonna yoink this next time I build a caster class though. It'll be great in 4e with just a little tweaking.

Yeah, I think it could work well with 4e as-is if you built a class with it from the ground up. Ignore most of the "proficiency" bonuses, and account for the greater-than-most-implement-user damage, and it could be great.
#8
rampant
Jun 09, 2011 3:02:09 There's all sorts of stuff you can do with em.

#9
Ahrimon
Jun 15, 2011 23:52:29 I would do it more along the lines of the impliment/weapon system. Wand +3 1d8 damage, Rod +2 1d10 damage, Staff +2 1d12 damage etc.
#10
greatfrito
Jun 16, 2011 13:51:35 I think basing it on implements would work well/better within 4e - but starting from the ground up, I'm really enjoying using each element. It allows me to create more "generic" feats (er, powers) that do different things depending on the energy used, while still leaving the door open for specific powers tied to specific energy types (just as some powers are now tied to specific weapon types).

For instance, the "core" talent for the Battlemage Talent Tree can grant proficiency with three energy motes (of your choice), and the magic ranged basic attack energy bolt, which can be used with any energy mote, and have slightly different effects based on which. Other talents may provide more or less benefit when using this power (or others) using a particular mote.

In contrast, one of the "core" talents for the Mentalist Talent Tree grants proficiency only with the psychic energy mote, and the magic ranged basic attack mind thrust, which can only be used with the psychic mote.

Somewhere in the middle of these is the other "core" talent for the Mentalist Talent Tree, which grants proficiency only with the force energy mote, and the magic ranged basic attack telekinetic strike. This power, though, can be used with any energy mote you have proficiency with (you have to get that proficiency elsewhere), though the damage it deals is always the type based on the mote used and force (a blend of both types, allowing a character to model something like pyrokinesis, cryokinesis, or whatever kinesis they'd like).
#11
ceiling90
Jun 30, 2011 0:53:28 Mind if I poach this idea?

I sort of want to work on something, and your idea pretty much reinforces some thoughts I had on it.

I sort of want to make magic a little less... mage-y? Or technolyze it so that anyone can use it. All you need is the proficiency; kinda like ritual magic, but then allows even the fighter to have some magical basic type, but as a basic attack, it lacks the same oomf as an at-will.
#12
stargazer_dragon
Jun 30, 2011 1:39:27
not sure if it is the same idea but allowing wands to be used as ranged weapons is kinda a nice idea I think I might adopt a varient of it for my home games

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 greatfrito Jun 08, 2011 18:43:53	Just a bit of braintorming. Not entirely an idea intended for 4e itself, but looking for general comments, suggestions, and ideas. Actual content is on the blog post located here (linky linky!). In short (copy-pasted from the start of the blog post): So, more thinking about changes I'd make to the game. One I've been pondering is changing magic to generally look more like the 4e weapon system (which I think accomplishes things very well). Along those lines, magic would have different options that would determine some core aspect that would then be "plugged into" different feats (er, powers by 4e deffinition). I don't know what term I'd use for them at the moment - I'm leaning toward "spell seeds" or just "seeds". So, without further ado, seeds! Note that the new property is explained below (it's a rough draft), along with changes to the Versatile keyword (which would apply universally to weapons as well). Also note that these probably need better names. Oh, and "Superior Proficiency" is the idea for replacing superior weapons/implements (again universally applied to weapons as well). Spell Seeds Acid Proficiency: +2 Damage: 1d8 acid Properties: Clinging, versatile (1d10). Superior Proficiency: Damage changes to 1d10 acid, Versatile (1d12). [More on the post, obviously.]
#2 rampant Jun 09, 2011 0:03:02	I like the concept, reminds me of buying spells on the old final fantasy games. I think there would be trouble trying to convert existing classes however. That said I think your implement problem has solved itself in this case. The seeds/motes/whatevs are the implements. They can then be enchanted as such. The one major issue is the proficiency bonuses, since the vast majority of spells target NADs which are balanced based on the assumption that casters do not get prof bonuses this might skew things pretty far in the mote users' favor. I'd say -2 across the board should fix it. That way the prof bonus remains relevant (the current +3s remain more accurate than the +2s), but the skew should be minimized thus allowing mote-users to exist with traditional casters.
#3 greatfrito Jun 09, 2011 1:14:50	Oh, I think you're correct - it's not an idea that would work really well with the rules as-is. It's more an idea for a... revision of the system? Part of that would be (as discussed [briefly] over in the comments) dropping AC down to the same level as the other defenses, or more likely, moving over to the Saga system (no AC; weapon attacks target Reflex). I think I'd prefer lowering AC down to everything else's level - and keeping proficiency bonuses as they are. We'd be left with generally more accurate attacks, but I'm perfectly fine with that.
#4 rampant Jun 09, 2011 1:32:44	No see that doesn't solve the problem. That just lets weapon users join the mote users in being OP. The issue is that monster NADs are on average lower than AC because the math was done without proficiency bonuses for casters (that's why weapon users love the few powers they get that hit NADs). This means that Casters without motes (i.e. traditional casters) will be hitting on average 15% less often than the casters using motes. Now even if you manage to convert all the classes to motes (I think I may a rough formula for that actually) that means the casters have gotten a big jump in power, in such a scenario, dropping the average AC does even things out for the weapon classes but expect short fights as the players completely own your monsters. Furthermore classes such as the Swordmage who use a weapon as an implement are now caught in a weird spot. Rough formula for converting from traditional implement to mote Dice multiplier d4 x0.5 d6 x0.75 d8 x1.0 d10 x1.5 d12 x2.0 multiply the number of dice by the multiplier for that dice type and that's how many base damage dice of the mote you should roll when using that power, as always when presented with a fraction round down
#5 greatfrito Jun 09, 2011 2:23:49	I don't think I was clear enough: This is not a house rule for use alongside existing classes. It's not even intended for use with 4e at all. It's brainstorming and idea branching for a different system (a hypothetical "ideal" that is getting more fleshed out, at random, as time goes on), based heavily on 4e and SW:Saga Edition concepts. The suggestions regarding defenses and proficiency was meant to say that, in this different system, the general accuracy would probably be higher (for everyone, because of Proficiency Bonus vs. NADs for weapon and spell alike) - and whatever system is designed for enemies and challenges would have to take that into account. You'll note that this idea would also give "spellcasters" a general boost to damage (more in line with weapon users, including the "two-handed" option for the most damage available), which would also have to be taken into account.
#6 rampant Jun 09, 2011 2:40:32	Oh, ok so the game would be designed from the ground up to account for this, ok that works fine. Gonna yoink this next time I build a caster class though. It'll be great in 4e with just a little tweaking.
#7 greatfrito Jun 09, 2011 2:48:04	Oh, ok so the game would be designed from the ground up to account for this, ok that works fine. Gonna yoink this next time I build a caster class though. It'll be great in 4e with just a little tweaking. Yeah, I think it could work well with 4e as-is if you built a class with it from the ground up. Ignore most of the "proficiency" bonuses, and account for the greater-than-most-implement-user damage, and it could be great.
#8 rampant Jun 09, 2011 3:02:09	There's all sorts of stuff you can do with em.
#9 Ahrimon Jun 15, 2011 23:52:29	I would do it more along the lines of the impliment/weapon system. Wand +3 1d8 damage, Rod +2 1d10 damage, Staff +2 1d12 damage etc.
#10 greatfrito Jun 16, 2011 13:51:35	I think basing it on implements would work well/better within 4e - but starting from the ground up, I'm really enjoying using each element. It allows me to create more "generic" feats (er, powers) that do different things depending on the energy used, while still leaving the door open for specific powers tied to specific energy types (just as some powers are now tied to specific weapon types). For instance, the "core" talent for the Battlemage Talent Tree can grant proficiency with three energy motes (of your choice), and the magic ranged basic attack energy bolt, which can be used with any energy mote, and have slightly different effects based on which. Other talents may provide more or less benefit when using this power (or others) using a particular mote. In contrast, one of the "core" talents for the Mentalist Talent Tree grants proficiency only with the psychic energy mote, and the magic ranged basic attack mind thrust, which can only be used with the psychic mote. Somewhere in the middle of these is the other "core" talent for the Mentalist Talent Tree, which grants proficiency only with the force energy mote, and the magic ranged basic attack telekinetic strike. This power, though, can be used with any energy mote you have proficiency with (you have to get that proficiency elsewhere), though the damage it deals is always the type based on the mote used and force (a blend of both types, allowing a character to model something like pyrokinesis, cryokinesis, or whatever kinesis they'd like).
#11 ceiling90 Jun 30, 2011 0:53:28	Mind if I poach this idea? I sort of want to work on something, and your idea pretty much reinforces some thoughts I had on it. I sort of want to make magic a little less... mage-y? Or technolyze it so that anyone can use it. All you need is the proficiency; kinda like ritual magic, but then allows even the fighter to have some magical basic type, but as a basic attack, it lacks the same oomf as an at-will.
#12 stargazer_dragon Jun 30, 2011 1:39:27	not sure if it is the same idea but allowing wands to be used as ranged weapons is kinda a nice idea I think I might adopt a varient of it for my home games