Recently, one of my friends came up with a sort of new magic "houserule" that we would implement in his new campaign. While reading his post detailing the idea, I immediately saw the potential flaws with the proposed system. Here was his idea:
In this campaign world there is one noticeable change. Rather than have spellcasting be an art or a science, it is as a sorcerer would portray it, as a natural power controlled by emotion. The key change here is that all spellcasting classes are to be played similarly. The arcane or divine power imbued upon you is released through emotional energy rather than physical movement, verbal components, or material components known as focus objects. Though these things can be used as a means to release and define the energy you have created, it is not what generates it. This reflects on the campaign world by making spellcasters truly driven by emotion, literally. If a spellcaster finds himself in a situation where he is not driven by morals or spontaneous emotion to perform magic, he simply can’t. These restrictions on magic fall within the characters alignment, history, and of course, DM’s decision. For example if a lawful good spellcaster has managed to find a way to save someone from a sentenced death by performing a simple mage hand spell to pickpocket someone, he cannot, for it is against the law and therefore his morals. This can only be changed when another component is added, say the someone in need of saving is his only child or his wife (or too, if the caster was chaotic). Driven by an emotional urge, he can find himself performing acts he otherwise wouldn’t do. Also, to the DM’s digression, a caster can use his constitution to enhance his spellcasting ability by literally putting his soul into his magic. By sacrificing a number of CON points, a caster can mimic a metamagic feat, based on the amount of CON lost. The amount of CON needed to adjust a spell is equal to 1+ 1 per change in spell level. Thus, if a wizard wanted to suddenly empower a fireball spell, he would cast a 3rd level fireball, and spend 4 CON The amount of Constitution lost can be paralleled to the role-playing experience of your characters emotional attachment to what he is doing or for a cause. Constitution drained from such acts regenerate at a maximum of 4 points a day. Restoration spells do not remove such effects. In addition to this idea, a caster can perform a dying curse as a full round action. This is a purposeful act of suicide that after the spell is complete kills the caster, but, to the DM’s digression, performs extensively powerful effects.
I feel these rules will create power (the whole CON to metamagic bit) as well as rolepaying issues. However, I want to reply to his proposal without completely shutting his ideas down. I would appreciate if someone could help me first, identify the flaws with his ideas, and then, seek some alternatives. Thanks again for the help!
-Sprinkles
P.S. For this campaign, we would be using core rules.
The first problem with this is that he's clueless about what alignment means.
1) It's overly complicated. It adds a bunch of complicated new rules to force a particular brand of flavor where simple reflavoring would do.
2) It depends too heavily on the flavor interpretation and DM fiat. Emotions and alignment can be very subjective things. What one considers a particular type of emotional response will not be the same for another. Likewise, interpretations of alignment also greatly differ. For example, I believe your friend's interpretation that Lawful alignment means obeying the law is completely wrong. Whether his interpretation or mine is correct, however, not the point. The point being that such fundamental disagreements can, and most likely will, occur, will jeopardize the validity of spellcasting classes, and bring sessions to a grinding halt as the game changes from D&D to debate club.
This system basically creates the paladin dilemma for all casters, where a DM can (seemingly) arbitrarily deny PCs access to their abilities at inopportune times due to differences in interpretations of flavor.
Suggestions:
Basically, it seems your friend is trying to accomplish four things:
1) Magic is emotion based
Solution: This can be left completely as a flavor element. No need to muddle this with mechanics. Simply state that spellcasting is driven by emotion in this campaign setting and encourage players to supply the rest of the fluff whenever they cast spells, and even ham it up a little. Done.
Example: "I'm not fireballing you because I don't like you, I'm fireballing you because I really don't like you".
2) Magic is alignment based
Solution: Impose the cleric alignment restriction instead. When a character takes a spellcasting class, his casting becomes associated with his current alignment. If he ever moves more than one step from that alignment, he loses the ability to cast spells. Like a cleric, a single instance of an ill-aligned act is not enough to deny spellcasting, ect and so on.
4) No components
Solution: Either use psionics classes (the Wilder has exactly the flavor he's trying to capture) or simply make it so that spellcasters don't need components.
3) You can burn your self to create more powerful magic
Solution: The simple answer is to convert the Overchannel feat. Granting "easy" access to non-level adjusted metamagic rocks the balance boat too much.
Hello everyone,
Recently, one of my friends came up with a sort of new magic "houserule" that we would implement in his new campaign. While reading his post detailing the idea, I immediately saw the potential flaws with the proposed system. Here was his idea:
In this campaign world there is one noticeable change. Rather than have spellcasting be an art or a science, it is as a sorcerer would portray it, as a natural power controlled by emotion. The key change here is that all spellcasting classes are to be played similarly. The arcane or divine power imbued upon you is released through emotional energy rather than physical movement, verbal components, or material components known as focus objects. Though these things can be used as a means to release and define the energy you have created, it is not what generates it. This reflects on the campaign world by making spellcasters truly driven by emotion, literally. If a spellcaster finds himself in a situation where he is not driven by morals or spontaneous emotion to perform magic, he simply can’t. These restrictions on magic fall within the characters alignment, history, and of course, DM’s decision. For example if a lawful good spellcaster has managed to find a way to save someone from a sentenced death by performing a simple mage hand spell to pickpocket someone, he cannot, for it is against the law and therefore his morals. This can only be changed when another component is added, say the someone in need of saving is his only child or his wife (or too, if the caster was chaotic). Driven by an emotional urge, he can find himself performing acts he otherwise wouldn’t do. Also, to the DM’s digression, a caster can use his constitution to enhance his spellcasting ability by literally putting his soul into his magic. By sacrificing a number of CON points, a caster can mimic a metamagic feat, based on the amount of CON lost. The amount of CON needed to adjust a spell is equal to 1+ 1 per change in spell level. Thus, if a wizard wanted to suddenly empower a fireball spell, he would cast a 3rd level fireball, and spend 4 CON The amount of Constitution lost can be paralleled to the role-playing experience of your characters emotional attachment to what he is doing or for a cause. Constitution drained from such acts regenerate at a maximum of 4 points a day. Restoration spells do not remove such effects. In addition to this idea, a caster can perform a dying curse as a full round action. This is a purposeful act of suicide that after the spell is complete kills the caster, but, to the DM’s digression, performs extensively powerful effects.
I feel these rules will create power (the whole CON to metamagic bit) as well as rolepaying issues. However, I want to reply to his proposal without completely shutting his ideas down. I would appreciate if someone could help me first, identify the flaws with his ideas, and then, seek some alternatives. Thanks again for the help!
-Sprinkles
P.S. For this campaign, we would be using core rules.
Just a short one: It cries Dragonball Z to me ....that may very wel be a good thing, but I would advise against tampering with the crunch when you change the fluff.
"Roy, you lifted a city bus off of someone!"
"Well really it was more of a push... just to get it started..."
Spellcasters are going to be useless. Instead of just having limits to your capabilities you have to come up with a really good EXCUSE to allow you cast a spell at all. It's an interesting idea but it sounds highly dependant on arbitrary DM permission to do ANYTHING useful as a spellcaster. Nobody gets to be a quiet, dedicated, scholarly type of spellcaster - they all have to be Mr. Furious or Sven the Berserk from Eric the Viking; angry, maniacal, impassioned, freaks (or in practice, just people who WANT to be angry, maniacal, impassioned, freaks and have to find pathetic excuses for why they AREN'T.)
Just tell the DM that you are unconvinced that the new rules are going to work, you don't care to be the guinea pig to playtest them, and if he's going to continue to insist on using them then YOU at least will not be playing a spellcaster. Remind him that a campaign doesn't need to be groundbreaking and revolutionary to be fun and that you'd be happier sticking with more traditional approaches. Maybe he should save the idea for some other time when everyone WANTS to try something different just for its own sake.
Wow, that is an extremely creative idea. I really like a lot of the flavor and everything and it is really neat, but I am a little concerned that all these changes are going to create some balance and power issues and may need to be thought out a little more when it comes to the mechanics....
... and then list off your concerns. This way he sees that you appreciate his creativity and his willingness to think outside the box. But doesn't come off as being too critical. Then you can list off your concerns one at a time and address the mechanics.
Rather than that whole confusing and dubious CON thing, he could allow the usage of action points, and let a player spend an action point to emulate a feat that he does not have, but for which he does qualify. In this way the DM could tie the action point reward, to how the player role plays the burning of the action point along with their soliloquy.
Insult my family will you?! Don't you know you are addressing the great wizard of the XYZ clan!? I shall strike thee down with a great blast of fire conjured from the very mouth of the teeming inferno BELOW! -maximized fireball.
Anyway, it is way cool he is being creative. Just a little TOO creative it seems.
In this campaign world there is one noticeable change. Rather than have spellcasting be an art or a science, it is as a sorcerer would portray it, as a natural power controlled by emotion.
Sorcerers aren't necessarily "emo" as a default.
The key change here is that all spellcasting classes are to be played similarly. The arcane or divine power imbued upon you is released through emotional energy rather than physical movement, verbal components, or material components known as focus objects. Though these things can be used as a means to release and define the energy you have created, it is not what generates it.
So does this mean that spells no longer have any components? Because that's going to make for some pretty powerful effects and greatly limit certain tactics such as Silence and grappling.
This reflects on the campaign world by making spellcasters truly driven by emotion, literally. If a spellcaster finds himself in a situation where he is not driven by morals or spontaneous emotion to perform magic, he simply can’t. These restrictions on magic fall within the characters alignment, history, and of course, DM’s decision. For example if a lawful good spellcaster has managed to find a way to save someone from a sentenced death by performing a simple mage hand spell to pickpocket someone, he cannot, for it is against the law and therefore his morals.
Since I think this idea is pretty silly, let's add some silliness. What if you were in a town run by thieves and the "law" was if you can steal it without the person noticing, it's legal. Can the LG caster now steal?
Alignment shouldn't be a straight jacket used to lock PCs into a cycle of behavior. If a LG person steals, that doesn't make the person suddenly chaotic or evil, perhaps less LG or even no longer LG, but that is a personal choice. There's no overseeing ability built into alignment that would force a LG person to be unable to make a decision to do something not LG, whatever that means.
This can only be changed when another component is added, say the someone in need of saving is his only child or his wife (or too, if the caster was chaotic). Driven by an emotional urge, he can find himself performing acts he otherwise wouldn’t do.
So, basically, the DM wants to have complete control over when any spellcaster can actually cast spells? Or does he expect the player to rationalize every spell cast? What if your idea doesn't match the ideas of the DM? This entire system is based solely on DM fiat.
PC: I want to cast Prestidigitation to clean the travel dirt off my robe.
DM: What emotion are you using to fuel your magic?
PC: Um, I'm really angry that my robe is dirty!
DM: But you're TN, would you really be that angry about a little dirt?
PC: OK, um, I take pride in my appearance so I'll need to clean myself up.
DM: Well....the only other people around are workers and other road weary travelers. You already look better than they do so you can't work up enough emotion.
PC: OK, I'm going to go play WoW.
DM: Huh? What's WoW got to do with anything?
PC: At least I understand the rules.
Also, to the DM’s digression, a caster can use his constitution to enhance his spellcasting ability by literally putting his soul into his magic. By sacrificing a number of CON points, a caster can mimic a metamagic feat, based on the amount of CON lost. The amount of CON needed to adjust a spell is equal to 1+ 1 per change in spell level. Thus, if a wizard wanted to suddenly empower a fireball spell, he would cast a 3rd level fireball, and spend 4 CON The amount of Constitution lost can be paralleled to the role-playing experience of your characters emotional attachment to what he is doing or for a cause. Constitution drained from such acts regenerate at a maximum of 4 points a day. Restoration spells do not remove such effects.
I like this idea, but not the implementation. Lowering Con is one of the worst things you can do in 3.5 simple because Con is pretty much the most important stat in the system. Casters already typically have lower HPs than normal, so this is just going to get your caster killed even faster.
What I might do is allow a person to modify a spell with metamagic and keep the level the same (example, maximize a fireball, but keep it 3rd level) by spend from a pool of points, the pool size equal to your Con score. Have it replenish at some rate, maybe 4/day or something as suggested. I'd also limit it to working with metamagic feats already known.
Actually, on second thought, casters are powerful enough, while still interesting, this is just boosting their power needlessly. Assuming that the caster can drum up enough emoness to cast the spell.
In addition to this idea, a caster can perform a dying curse as a full round action. This is a purposeful act of suicide that after the spell is complete kills the caster, but, to the DM’s digression, performs extensively powerful effects.
[sarcasm] Best option ever. For 5kgp (Raise Dead) and a minor level loss that will be easily made up in future xp, I can kill myself to auto kill any BBEG. No need to quest for the items needed to defeat the evil overlord, I'll just head over as soon as I can find him and kill him off with my boom curse. And, at higher levels, I won't even lose a level thanks to True Res.[/sarcasm]
Ask your DM something:
Why? Why is he implementing this system? What does he hope to accomplish with it? If his goals make sense perhaps there is another way to go about it with out so much being based on DM fiat.
You seem to dislike this setup. Tell your DM that as well. Praise his efforts to be creative, but don't be afraid to tell him that you feel this system will not be fun to play under. You might also talk with your fellow players and get their opinions on the matter.
See how he (the DM) actually plays it out.
Just remember, it's only a game. So wether some crazy sounding idea throws things out of wack for a week or two? It doesn't really matter. If it works, great. If it doesn't, then you'll have something concrete to discuss amongst the people who's opinions matter the most. Maybe you fix it, maybe you drop it. Either way you just get together same time, same place, next week & play some more.....
Hello everyone,
Recently, one of my friends came up with a sort of new magic "houserule" that we would implement in his new campaign. While reading his post detailing the idea, I immediately saw the potential flaws with the proposed system. Here was his idea:
In this campaign world there is one noticeable change. Rather than have spellcasting be an art or a science, it is as a sorcerer would portray it, as a natural power controlled by emotion. The key change here is that all spellcasting classes are to be played similarly. The arcane or divine power imbued upon you is released through emotional energy rather than physical movement, verbal components, or material components known as focus objects. Though these things can be used as a means to release and define the energy you have created, it is not what generates it. This reflects on the campaign world by making spellcasters truly driven by emotion, literally. If a spellcaster finds himself in a situation where he is not driven by morals or spontaneous emotion to perform magic, he simply can’t. These restrictions on magic fall within the characters alignment, history, and of course, DM’s decision. For example if a lawful good spellcaster has managed to find a way to save someone from a sentenced death by performing a simple mage hand spell to pickpocket someone, he cannot, for it is against the law and therefore his morals. This can only be changed when another component is added, say the someone in need of saving is his only child or his wife (or too, if the caster was chaotic). Driven by an emotional urge, he can find himself performing acts he otherwise wouldn’t do. Also, to the DM’s digression, a caster can use his constitution to enhance his spellcasting ability by literally putting his soul into his magic. By sacrificing a number of CON points, a caster can mimic a metamagic feat, based on the amount of CON lost. The amount of CON needed to adjust a spell is equal to 1+ 1 per change in spell level. Thus, if a wizard wanted to suddenly empower a fireball spell, he would cast a 3rd level fireball, and spend 4 CON The amount of Constitution lost can be paralleled to the role-playing experience of your characters emotional attachment to what he is doing or for a cause. Constitution drained from such acts regenerate at a maximum of 4 points a day. Restoration spells do not remove such effects. In addition to this idea, a caster can perform a dying curse as a full round action. This is a purposeful act of suicide that after the spell is complete kills the caster, but, to the DM’s digression, performs extensively powerful effects.
I feel these rules will create power (the whole CON to metamagic bit) as well as rolepaying issues. However, I want to reply to his proposal without completely shutting his ideas down. I would appreciate if someone could help me first, identify the flaws with his ideas, and then, seek some alternatives. Thanks again for the help!
-Sprinkles
P.S. For this campaign, we would be using core rules.
Calm Emotions a 2nd (3rd?) level bard spell can cancel all emotions. That means all spellcasting in his houserule...
Honestly, it doesn't sound like that guy should be running a game. He wants more control over the gameplay than even DMing grants him, and that's a really huge red flag. It sounds like he wants to be able to invoke your alignments to force you to act (or not to act,) and to have veto power over all spells cast during the campaign. He's setting up the campaign world on the assumption that you guys are going to quibble over the moral absolutes inherent to certain actions, and wants something to beat you with when you disagree with him on moral issues.
I'd pick someone else to run games. If there was nobody else to run games, I'd do something else with my playtime.
Flaws...
Suggestions...
This. Just have a calm friendly chat with your DM in which you say that you're concerned about these house rules of his, and use Fireclave's suggestions. If he doesn't budge, just try his game. Who knows--it is actually possible that he'll use these house rules to make the game more interesting rather than crushingly restrictive. Or run a game yourself if his game isn't worth the risk of your time and energy.
TS
His whole idea is that he wants to encourage roleplaying. I roleplay a lot, but it seems that some of the others players in my group prefer just to hack their way through adventures. My friend (the creator of the above-posted idea) and I always say at the beggining of adventures, "Now guys, lets try to roleplay", but despite our efforts, no one ever does.
In my opinion, this is alright. D&D dosen't have to be all about roleplaying. I guess my friend just wants to try to get everybody to at least try. Everyone always seems to want to roleplay, but for some reason it never happens.
Has anyone else had success encouraging roleplaying by making houserules or through other means without comprimising the game mechanics?
Thanks for the help!
-Sprinkles
Put another way, his system serves only as a punishment, a way that the DM can say "No, you cannot do that." It makes roleplaying a chore, something to be performed on command.
What he should be doing is encouraging roleplaying by rewarding good character development. Consider, for example, suggesting that action points be used as an incentive. If you have a particularly emotional moment, you can activate an action point in order to boost your spell, your attack, your skill, whatever it might be. This will allow the system to not only work for any class, but to encourage Moment-of-Awesomeness thinking.
Look at it this way: the DMG instructs the DM to say yes, and work from there. It's the theme of the whole bloody book. The players are supposed to tell the DM what their characters do and say and think, and he's supposed to work it into the story, to interpret their decisions into their effects in the world around them. Your DM is telling you that rather than telling him what your characters do, he wants you to ask him if they're allowed to do it, and that he holds veto power over their actions. He's doing the opposite of his job: saying NO and working from there.
I especially appreciate your input Fireclave - it will be helpful to be able to explain my position.
I'm happy you found my post useful
His whole idea is that he wants to encourage roleplaying...Everyone always seems to want to roleplay, but for some reason it never happens.
Then this is the wrong way to go about it. No mechanic, however good or ill conceived will ever encourage roleplay. They might inhibit or enhance roleplay by the way they work with or against suggested flavor or how they add or subtract from the game's fun-factor, but they will never, as an inherent quality, encourage roleplay.
The reason is that mechanics, reduced to their most basic definition, are rules and nothing more. They are the 1's and 0's they make up your imaginery world and exist primary to define what can and can't be done in your world and adjudicate causes and effects.
Roleplaying occurs when, and only when, you add human creativity to the game. A paladin is just words and numbers on paper until the player gives him name, personality, objective, and conflict. The nameless city on the hill remains naught but DM notes from a published adventurer until the DM weaves description, flavor and plot. Because they lack the human creativity necessary to make characters and places come alive, you will never see game mechanics roleplaying with itself (at least until science finds a way to create the Matrix, but that creates a whole different set of problems).
If you want to encourage roleplaying, you need to target the players, not the rules. You need to find some way to convince your players to want to invest more in roleplaying.
Instead of altering the mechanics of the game, I instead suggest encouraging your players to invest more time and effort in the character's development. A developed character, one that lives and breaths outside of its class and stats, is not only more personal, and therefore more likely to encourage roleplaying, but is also much easier to tie roleplaying hooks into because. In addition, their character's fate will mean more because they now represent (hopefully) significant effort on the player's part. I suggest having your players try the 10 minute background (see the Good Links in my sig) and then work from there to incorporate roleplaying elements into your game. Surely they can invest 10 minutes of their time for a better gaming experience, right?