New Magic System - Zelazny-Style Spellcasting


3.5/d20/OGL

1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I completed my variant casting rules, which I outlined in this thread. Here's the PDF.

I'm certain I didn't get it quite right on the first try, so please, comments, questions, advice, things that broke?


Okay, second try. First try got eaten. (Slightly abridged, I forgot to copy my post before hand. Sorry if it comes off terse.)

First a little background to help you understand my perspective: I am not familiar with the works of Zelazny, nor am I looking for a replacement for Vancian casting.

I didn't rake the mechanics with a fine tooth comb, but everything seems solid. Nothing seems broken, although I am confused about a few choices that were made.

Why are the number of prepared spells so limited? I get that a caster isn't limited to only prepared spells... But only 1 to 4 prepared spells for a "starting" caster feels a little light to me.

Why does a caster have to spend more Spell Points to get a spell effect that is "free" under Vancian style (damage dice)?

I also have a couple of observations.

It seems that casters would be more inclined to prepare combat spells, since utility spells don't often have any kind of deadline for casting time. I suspect this was intentional, or at least something you were aware of.

Also, I don't see the point of Sorcerers in this system. You trade a relatively unlimited spell list and the need for a spellbook, for a very finite spell list and faster prep time? I am not grasping it.

And finally, there was the statement that a Cleric could prepare Heal and cast it a dozen times a day, but only a couple of times per encounter. This suggested that Spell Points would regenerate during the day, but that isn't the case. Perhaps I read to much into that statement.

I hope this is somewhat helpful.


The basic premise looks like the UA material. I didn't read it as thoroughly as possible, however. I too ask why play a sorcerer.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Disenchanter wrote:

Okay, second try. First try got eaten. (Slightly abridged, I forgot to copy my post before hand. Sorry if it comes off terse.)

First a little background to help you understand my perspective: I am not familiar with the works of Zelazny, nor am I looking for a replacement for Vancian casting.

I like Vancian magic just fine. But it occured to me this might be an interesting variant. As for the works of Zelazny, the bulk of the inspiration came from this passage from The Chronicles of Amber:
Robert Zelazny wrote:
A good sorcerer may have a half-dozen major spells hung. Their judicious employment is generally enough for dealing with most situations. In a sorcerous duel the strategy involved in their employment is a major part of the game. If both parties are still standing when the spells have been exhausted, then they are reduced to fighting with raw energies. Whoever controls a greater quantity usually has the edge then.

'Hanging' a spell in this case is the same as preparing it. You work 90% of the magic, leaving just a trigger or fuse left to complete later. Zelazny's characters likewise required relative peace and quiet to hang spells. When I read this, years ago, I instantly associated it when vancian preparation.

Disenchanter wrote:


I didn't rake the mechanics with a fine tooth comb, but everything seems solid. Nothing seems broken, although I am confused about a few choices that were made.

Why are the number of prepared spells so limited? I get that a caster isn't limited to only prepared spells... But only 1 to 4 prepared spells for a "starting" caster feels a little light to me.

It is limited because of the complexity of magic. The idea is that you can only have enough spells available to deal with one fight quickly. A starting caster only has 3-6 spells available per day anyway. Having half of those available for a single fight seems fair.

Disenchanter wrote:
Why does a caster have to spend more Spell Points to get a spell effect that is "free" under Vancian style (damage dice)?

It was something already included in the Spell Points variant I was wolking from. Basically, it exists so that fireball remains a worse spell than cone of cold. Otherwise, at 9th level, I'd much rather spend 5 points on fireball than 9 on cone of cold for the same damage.

Disenchanter wrote:


I also have a couple of observations.

It seems that casters would be more inclined to prepare combat spells, since utility spells don't often have any kind of deadline for casting time. I suspect this was intentional, or at least something you were aware of.

It's quite intentional. A knock spell is rarely needed as quickly as a lightning bolt. The only spells you really want to prepare are ones you need to offload in a hurry: combat spells and buffs with short durations.

Disenchanter wrote:


Also, I don't see the point of Sorcerers in this system. You trade a relatively unlimited spell list and the need for a spellbook, for a very finite spell list and faster prep time? I am not grasping it.

Well, in addition to the (much) faster prep time, you gain the ability to cast unprepared in a timeframe acceptable for combat. When a Wizard would be reduced to throwing Arcane Blasts, a sorceror could be getting d6s instead of d4s by casting lightning bolt instead, with the only extra cost being that he couldn't also move that turn. Also, since the base damage on spells is set by the minimum level for that class, when a sorceror spends 5 spell points on a fireball, they get 6d6 damage, where a wizard would only get 5d6.

Disenchanter wrote:
And finally, there was the statement that a Cleric could prepare Heal and cast it a dozen times a day, but only a couple of times per encounter. This suggested that Spell Points would regenerate during the day, but that isn't the case. Perhaps I read to much into that statement.
It means that a 15th level cleric has sufficient spell points to cast heal a dozen times per day, since a 15th level cleric has over 150 spell points and a heal costs 11 points. However, unless the cleric has a wisdom score in the hundreds, he couldn't have it prepared that many times at once, and would need to stop and prepare it between combats.
Disenchanter wrote:
I hope this is somewhat helpful.

It was. Keep 'em coming. You've told me I need to make it clear that casting a prepared spell consumes it, and that I need to clarify the advantages Sorcerors have over wizards. Especially the 'free' die of damage.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

The link has been updated with some better wording and illustrative quotes.

(For those who might want to see what was changed, the original version can still be found here.)


Zelazny Spellcasting.pdf wrote:
On the other hand, if he wanted to prepare or cast Sepia Snake Sigil, it would take 10 minutes, because Sepia Snake Sigil is a 3rd level spell, which is the highest level spell he can cast, and 10 minutes is shorter than double its casting time. If he simply wanted to cast the Sigil it would take 20 minutes; 10 minutes plus the Sigil’s 10 minute casting time.

Things here are a little wordy. Under normal rules, Sepia Snake Sigil takes 10 minutes to cast.

So, what's being said is that for a 7th level Sorcerer to hang Sepia Snake Sigil would take the 10 minutes (because 3rd level is the highest said Sorcerer can cast), right? Yet spontaneously casting Sepia Snake Sigil would take 20 minutes (double original casting time), right?

Zelazny Spellcasting.pdf wrote:
Any spell points spent within the last 8 hours count against a character’s daily limit and aren’t regained. The spell points spent on any spells still prepared when spell points are regained are likewise counted against the daily limit and aren’t regained.

So, if a wizard had 10 points of mana hanging when he "recharged", those spells would still remain hanging and those 10 points of mana would still be spent?

Zelazny Spellcasting.pdf wrote:
A character with non-stacking spellcasting ability from multiple classes (such as a cleric/wizard) has a separate pool of spell points and prepared spells for each spellcasting class.

Since each spellcasting class has a separate pool, does that mean that hanging spells are prepared separately of one another? Lets assume the Cleric-5/Bard-2 character has 18 Wisdom and 16 Charisma. Would this mean that the character is capable of hanging 7 spells; 4 spells for the high Wisdom from the Cleric spell list and another 3 spells for the high Charisma from the Bard spell list?

Regardless, this is a very interesting system for spellcasting that I am tempted of introducing into the next campaign my group plays.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Sintanan wrote:


Things here are a little wordy. Under normal rules, Sepia Snake Sigil takes 10 minutes to cast.
So, what's being said is that for a 7th level Sorcerer to hang Sepia Snake Sigil would take the 10 minutes (because 3rd level is the highest said Sorcerer can cast), right? Yet spontaneously casting Sepia Snake Sigil would take 20 minutes (double original casting time), right?

Right. It's actually a tie for the two ways to cast Snake Sigil unprepared for a sorcerer. 20 minutes is twice the normal casting time, but it's also 10 minutes plus the normal casting time. The wording is clunky. I'm working on it.

The intent of this rule is basically 'double its casting time, unless a wizard would be faster', but I can't just say that because Sorcerers and wizards gain spells at different rates, and Bards have a different spell list entirely.

Sintanan wrote:
So, if a wizard had 10 points of mana hanging when he "recharged", those spells would still remain hanging and those 10 points of mana would still be spent?

Exactly. It's basically so you can't carry spells from the previous day to bump your cap a little bit.

Sintanan wrote:
Since each spellcasting class has a separate pool, does that mean that hanging spells are prepared separately of one another? Lets assume the Cleric-5/Bard-2 character has 18 Wisdom and 16 Charisma. Would this mean that the character is capable of hanging 7 spells; 4 spells for the high Wisdom from the Cleric spell list and another 3 spells for the high Charisma from the Bard spell list?

Right again. This is true even if the classes use the same ability. For instance, a Cleric/Druid with a wisdom of 16 could prepare 6 spells, 3 as a cleric and 3 as a druid.

Sintanan wrote:


Regardless, this is a very interesting system for spellcasting that I am tempted of introducing into the next campaign my group plays.

Thank you.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Sintanan wrote:
Zelazny Spellcasting.pdf wrote:
On the other hand, if he wanted to prepare or cast Sepia Snake Sigil, it would take 10 minutes, because Sepia Snake Sigil is a 3rd level spell, which is the highest level spell he can cast, and 10 minutes is shorter than double its casting time. If he simply wanted to cast the Sigil it would take 20 minutes; 10 minutes plus the Sigil’s 10 minute casting time.

Things here are a little wordy. Under normal rules, Sepia Snake Sigil takes 10 minutes to cast.

So, what's being said is that for a 7th level Sorcerer to hang Sepia Snake Sigil would take the 10 minutes (because 3rd level is the highest said Sorcerer can cast), right? Yet spontaneously casting Sepia Snake Sigil would take 20 minutes (double original casting time), right?

Okay. I re-wrote that block to be a bit more clear. Here's the new text:

Spoiler:
Instinctive Spellcasting
Characters who normally cast all their spells spontaneously are called instinctive spellcasters under this variant. These classes—such as bards and sorcerers—still have to prepare spells. However, due to their instinctive knowledge of their spells, they can prepare spells much more rapidly than other casters. An instinctive spellcaster may prepare or cast a spell unprepared in double its ordinary casting time (consider a full-round action to be double a standard action). If this would be longer than the standard method above, the instinctive spellcaster may use the shorter of the two times. In general, this means that instinctive spellcasters recover from battle more quickly and perform better in prolonged fights.
For example, Mikhailov is a 7th level sorcerer. He can cast lightning bolt as a full round action even if he doesn’t have it prepared, because its casting time is normally a standard action. Likewise, it would take him a full round action to prepare lightning bolt. On the other hand, if he wanted to prepare Sepia Snake Sigil, it would take 10 minutes, because Sepia Snake Sigil is a 3rd level spell, which is the highest level spell he can cast, and 10 minutes is shorter than double its casting time. If he simply wanted to cast the Sigil it would take 20 minutes; 10 minutes plus the Sigil’s 10 minute casting time.

The PDF has been updated.


Ross Byers wrote:
It was. Keep 'em coming. You've told me I need to make it clear that casting a prepared spell consumes it, and that I need to clarify the advantages Sorcerors have over wizards. Especially the 'free' die of damage.

Yes, I missed those points entirely. They were the "glaring holes" for me in the system. They weren't big enough to harm the system, but they were the sticking points for me liking the system

After you quoted Zelazny, the limited number of prepared spells make sense. That was the piece I was missing.

As for the addition spell points for dice of damage, while I now fully grasp where it came from, I am not certain I accept it. But I think that was the sticking point for me liking the spell point system when I first read it. Fortunately, you don't have to sell me on this system. ;-)

Oh, one final thing. Something that was left out in my second attempt at posting was me saying that the system intigued me enough that I wouldn't need to be convinced to try it, but some aspects baffled me about it. After your clarifications, I am no longer baffled. :-)

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Disenchanter wrote:
After you quoted Zelazny, the limited number of prepared spells make sense. That was the piece I was missing.

That quote is now the first thing in the PDF, below the title and the credits. I hope that it also helps the Arcane Blast and Counterblast make more sense.

One of the aspects I like of the really low number of prepared spells is that it rewards planning and intelligence gathering.

I also put a quote about the process of hanging a spell near the relevant section. I think it helps the clarity immensely.

Disenchanter wrote:
Oh, one final thing. Something that was left out in my second attempt at posting was me saying that the system intigued me enough that I wouldn't need to be convinced to try it, but some aspects baffled me about it. After your clarifications, I am no longer baffled. :-)

Thank you once again.

Oh, and Lathiira, I hope I answered your questions in my first reply to Disenchanter.


One last thing. If it's there, I missed it, but:

Zelazny Spellcasting.pdf wrote:
Casting a spell requires either having that spell prepared or spending extra time to cast the spell without preparation.
Zelazny Spellcasting.pds wrote:
A spellcaster can discard an unwanted spell to make room for a new one. However, spell points spent on the discarded spell are not refunded. Discarding a prepared spell is a standard action.

What is the casting time of a hanging spell? I'm assuming that the answer will be something like "a standard action regardless of what the original rules say the casting time is" but I figured it would be best to ask rather than assume.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Sintanan wrote:

One last thing. If it's there, I missed it, but:

Zelazny Spellcasting.pdf wrote:
Casting a spell requires either having that spell prepared or spending extra time to cast the spell without preparation.
Zelazny Spellcasting.pds wrote:
A spellcaster can discard an unwanted spell to make room for a new one. However, spell points spent on the discarded spell are not refunded. Discarding a prepared spell is a standard action.
What is the casting time of a hanging spell? I'm assuming that the answer will be something like "a standard action regardless of what the original rules say the casting time is" but I figured it would be best to ask rather than assume.

The casting time of a hanging spell is the normal casting time of the spell. Otherwise you'd be able to do things like cast identify in 10 minutes. I will clarify this in the document. Edit: Fixed.

Discarding a spell is not the same as casting it. Basically, you sever your bond to the half-cast spell.


Alright, so I wasn't quite thinking clearly when thinking about the casting time.

But, I noticed, with this spellcasting system identify takes 62-70 minutes to cast in total depending on the caster's level (2-10 min prep time + 1 hour casting time). Edit: ...because most casters won't have identify hanging.

Good thing people normally aren't racing the clock when they pull out identify. :P

Liberty's Edge

I have to admit, this looks good, and I have been considering spell points for my campaign(although I'm not entirely decided), but there are some things I would do different.

Wizards, would still have to prepare all the spells they can cast that day, but they would be able to prepare fewer per day(overall) than the Vancian system. This is because, for instance, a Wizard would no longer need to prepare Magic Missile three times, and Sleep Twice, in addition to anything else they need. If the Wizard has Magic Missile prepared for that day, she could cast it as much as she wanted, provided she has the spell points; even to the exclusion of all other spells she had prepared that day. In essence, Spells Prepared becomes Spells Readied.

Cantrips and Orisons would be free, and have no limit. As a side note, they would also be considered always prepared for casters who have to prepare.

Sorcerers would not prepare spells, since they cast spontaneously. This would allow them to remain more convenient while being slightly less powerful and spells of equal power to Wizards costing more. This goes for Bards as well.

I can't speak for Clerics and Paladins due to the fact that they're handled a little differently. Druids don't have any difference, and Rangers don't automaticly gain spellcasting as it has become one of their possible combat styles.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Cato, consider that you'd be giving out unlimited cure minor wounds and virtue. Everyone would always be at full health.

Also, the system you just described just sounds like spell points with free cantrips.


Ross Byers wrote:

Cato, consider that you'd be giving out unlimited cure minor wounds and virtue. Everyone would always be at full health.

This problem with "free" cantrips and orisons has been brought many times, in many threads, on many forums.

The solution is simple : Change these two spells so that instead of giving HPs, they bring back a character to 0HP and consciousness.
Solved.

Dark Archive

Seldriss wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:

Cato, consider that you'd be giving out unlimited cure minor wounds and virtue. Everyone would always be at full health.

This problem with "free" cantrips and orisons has been brought many times, in many threads, on many forums.

The solution is simple : Change these two spells so that instead of giving HPs, they bring back a character to 0HP and consciousness.
Solved.

Other suggestions I've seen to defang the 'infinite Cure Minor Wounds' problem;

No more than X hp / day from this spell (similar to Goodberry, might be level based, so 1 hp / HD). It could even be an 'advance' from daily rest hit points even!

Only turns hp damage into nonlethal damage.

Spell doesn't exist at all.

Can only affect a person once / hour.

Grand Lodge

Hi Ross,

I took a short look at this because I really love the Amber books and the magic used there. I always thought that using "hanging" spells would make their casting time less then a standard action, because you actually only have to use one or very few words to complete them. Wouldn't that make them almost free actions?

Anyway, those were my first thoughts, otherwise a wizard/sorcerer wouldn't go through the trouble of hanging those spells that are already 1 standard action for casting time.

Tio

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Tio wrote:

Hi Ross,

I took a short look at this because I really love the Amber books and the magic used there. I always thought that using "hanging" spells would make their casting time less then a standard action, because you actually only have to use one or very few words to complete them. Wouldn't that make them almost free actions?

I looked at it the other way: In order to get down to a standard action (which is less than 6 seconds), you need to hang the spell. Merlin didn't seem to be dabbling with a crossbow or anything like that that a wizard might do between spells.

Tio wrote:
Anyway, those were my first thoughts, otherwise a wizard/sorcerer wouldn't go through the trouble of hanging those spells that are already 1 standard action for casting time.

Well, no, because as written, without hanging those spells, it would take much longer than a standard action.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Updated: I fixed a few typos, but I also gave a bit of a buff to Heighten Spell. It's really quite good now, but it was getting the shaft before.

Oh, Tio, it occurs to me you could cast a hung spell as a swift action if you hang a quickened spell.

Liberty's Edge

Ross Byers wrote:
Cato, consider that you'd be giving out unlimited cure minor wounds and virtue. Everyone would always be at full health.

Simple solution: Cure Minor Wounds cannot be used to take you above 5 hitpoints. Virtue cannot be used more than once(by any caster) on a single person for one minute, so that if it were used in combat and the was player still rendered incapacitated, it can be used to keep them from reaching death(since that takes ten rounds).

Yes, for the most part, it is spell points with free Cantrips, but I did not have my copy of Unearthed Arcana handy last night(I have a tendancy to post during downtime at work). I shall take it with me to work tonight and look it over.

However, I probably won't go too far into detail until I find out whether or not my players would prefer to use a spell point system or not.

Grand Lodge

Ross Byers wrote:

Updated: I fixed a few typos, but I also gave a bit of a buff to Heighten Spell. It's really quite good now, but it was getting the shaft before.

Oh, Tio, it occurs to me you could cast a hung spell as a swift action if you hang a quickened spell.

Yeah, a swift action sounds more like what happens in the Zelazny books. That would be a great modification. I'm already thinking of starting up a Amber side-campaign.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Feel free to make that modification for your game. I kept it at a standard action because that's generally how long doing something in D&D takes. If you do go to a swift action, keep in mind how much that would bump up the power level of spellcasters.

Edit: I'm also removing the buff to Heighten Spell. I feel like you pay too much for the DC bump without the buff, but the other way there was never a reason NOT to heighten damage-dice spells if you had the feat.

Grand Lodge

Ross Byers wrote:

Feel free to make that modification for your game. I kept it at a standard action because that's generally how long doing something in D&D takes. If you do go to a swift action, keep in mind how much that would bump up the power level of spellcasters.

Edit: I'm also removing the buff to Heighten Spell. I feel like you pay too much for the DC bump without the buff, but the other way there was never a reason NOT to heighten damage-dice spells if you had the feat.

Yeah, I'll have to reread your PDF (I only scanned it before), but without reading I would say there is a maximum of like 50% of your spell points that you can use to hang spells (which would then be available as a swift action), and your other spell points can then be used as raw magical energy or to cast actual spells that would take double the normal amount of casting time (ie bump them to the next step in actions, standard action -> full round action, etc. Or this could be lengthened even more, making it even less effective during combat). I think that would even out the power level of spellcasters, but I'm interested in your views on that, since I've never actually done much for home-brew rulings.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Right now, there's a cap of your ability modifier for spells hung. That is, a wizard with an INT of 19 could prepare 4 spells. 50% of your spell points would be less at low levels, but much more at high levels.

As far as swift actions go, there's a reason Quicken Spell costs so many spell levels. Increasing the number of things you can do in a round means a lot.

Grand Lodge

Ross Byers wrote:

Right now, there's a cap of your ability modifier for spells hung. That is, a wizard with an INT of 19 could prepare 4 spells. 50% of your spell points would be less at low levels, but much more at high levels.

As far as swift actions go, there's a reason Quicken Spell costs so many spell levels. Increasing the number of things you can do in a round means a lot.

Yeah, I was just re-reading the pdf and I read that there was a cap on hanging spells of your ability modifier. This strikes me as rather low, espescially at higher levels. If I remember Merlin (son of Corwyn) he had a lot more then 4 spells hanging at a time. Also to cast spontaneous spells in this system takes at least 10 minutes. Therefor I would see a table perhaps with a progressive number of possible spells hung. This could probably be tied into the number of spell points a caster has per day.

There is a reason Quicken Spell costs so many spell levels I'm sure, but the meta-magic feats would really fall short in this magic system imho. You already have to use extra spell points to cast a stronger fireball here, while in the Vancian system that is automatic at no extra cost.

Let me know what you think.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Tio wrote:

Yeah, I was just re-reading the pdf and I read that there was a cap on hanging spells of your ability modifier. This strikes me as rather low, espescially at higher levels. If I remember Merlin (son of Corwyn) he had a lot more then 4 spells hanging at a time. Also to cast spontaneous spells in this system takes at least 10 minutes. Therefor I would see a table perhaps with a progressive number of possible spells hung. This could probably be tied into the number of spell points a caster has per day.

There is a reason Quicken Spell costs so many spell levels I'm sure, but the meta-magic feats would really fall short in this magic system imho. You already have to use extra spell points to cast a stronger fireball here, while in the Vancian system that is automatic at no extra cost.

Let me know what you think.

First of all, I apologize if I'm incoherent. I didn't get to sleep last night, and I only got 5 hours the night before that. Fair warning.

By Merlin's own admission, one rarely has more than 6 'major' spells at a time. Seeing as many wizards have an Int of 22 by middle levels thanks to a Headband of Intellect, that still seems on target. Since spellcaster abilities do tend to go up with level, it is already kind of progressive. (Before I dug that quote back up that's now on page one of the PDF, I thought I remembered a lower number).

Spontaneous spellcasting, actually, always takes less than 10 minutes, unless the spell already had an long casting time. If I was a 15th level wizard, capable of casting 8th level spells, it would only take 3 minutes to prepare or cast a first level spell.

I wish I had a better precedent for Merlin saying how long it took to hang a spell, because then I could build a sliding scale to center around that number.

I've considered metamagic. They all seems as fair as they ever were, except Heighten, which got gimped but the only reasonable way to fix it makes it broken.

I don't expect this to work exactly like Amber, because in Amber magicians are allowed to just beat up non-magicians. But in D&D swift action spells are good. If ALL spells were swift, well, under RaW it might not break, because you are only allowed one swift action per turn. But I don't know a single DM would won't let you cast a Quickened spell as a standard action if you need to. Since D&D has an established balance, I also tried to stick to it as well as possible. This means basic things like spells taking a standard action, and that combat will probably only last 3-5 rounds.

I don't expect to be able to make stats for Merlin using these rules, for example.

Grand Lodge

Ross Byers wrote:
First of all, I apologize if I'm incoherent. I didn't get to sleep last night, and I only got 5 hours the night before that. Fair warning.

No worries there Ross, I saw from your posting time that you were up very late (I'm in Europe, hence my posting times).

Ross Byers wrote:

By Merlin's own admission, one rarely has more than 6 'major' spells at a time. Seeing as many wizards have an Int of 22 by middle levels thanks to a Headband of Intellect, that still seems on target. Since spellcaster abilities do tend to go up with level, it is already kind of progressive. (Before I dug that quote back up that's now on page one of the PDF, I thought I remembered a lower number).

-SNIP-
I wish I had a better precedent for Merlin saying how long it took to hang a spell, because then I could build a sliding scale to center around that number.

I'll try to dig up some time indication from the Amber books. I seem to remember there being something of a time indication in there from Merlin when he's preparing.

With the Headband of Intellect yes it does go up, but none of the Wizards in Amber had that kind of stuff. It was a really low magic setting in that regard. That Merlin had a Fakir (did I remember right) was exceptional.
Hence my opinion would be to use this only in an Amber game, but that's just me I guess. And they would be much smaller parties if not one on one games. That would probably make stuff a lot less broken, because anything you really come up against has got the same powers. And the cards, those are really really really (did I mention really?) cool.

Side-thought
My brother wanted to try his hand at DMing, but wanted to start with some one on one gaming. I guess I'm going to steer him towards something like the Amber setting. Of course, I'll have to find a pre-written adventure for him to run then.

Ross Byers wrote:
Spontaneous spellcasting, actually, always takes less than 10 minutes, unless the spell already had an long casting time. If I was a 15th level wizard, capable of casting 8th level spells, it would only take 3 minutes to prepare or cast a first level spell.

There you go, I didn't look to deeply into the spontaneous casting time yet. Seems there is a reasonable time when you reach higher level. Though 3 minutes for a simply 1st level spell is still long. I remember from one of the books that Merlin had something similar to a Knock spell. He once had it prepared and it was instant, but when he didn't have it prepared it wasn't three minutes either. Once again, I'll have to dig up the books (not at my home right now) and get some quotes.

This is fun, thanks Ross!

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Tio: I agree. To run an actual Amber game, I would suggest reducing the preparation time by a factor of five or ten (Minute-> one or two rounds), and speeding casting time.

PDF Update: I'd been referring to Roger Zelazny as Robert Zelazny. First, I need to turn in my nerd card. Second, how come none of you noticed?

I'm also working on a rule to make 0-level spells easier to prepare, since they represent 'apprentice' level spells and are therefore an order of magnitude easier than 1st level spells.

The Exchange

I don't have any comments about mechanics, but I have really enjoyed reading the pdf you put together as well as the discussion in this thread. :)

Grand Lodge

Ross Byers wrote:

Tio: I agree. To run an actual Amber game, I would suggest reducing the preparation time by a factor of five or ten (Minute-> one or two rounds), and speeding casting time.

PDF Update: I'd been referring to Roger Zelazny as Robert Zelazny. First, I need to turn in my nerd card. Second, how come none of you noticed?

I'm also working on a rule to make 0-level spells easier to prepare, since they represent 'apprentice' level spells and are therefore an order of magnitude easier than 1st level spells.

Doh!!! I never noticed you referring to him as Robert. I guess my nerd card needs to go as well...

And Ross, yeah those would be good adjustments for a true Amber game.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

janxious wrote:
I don't have any comments about mechanics, but I have really enjoyed reading the pdf you put together as well as the discussion in this thread. :)

Thank you.


I seem to remember him going off and hanging spells at one point in Blood of Amber, describing them as "crippled butterflies" in the web of his vision. The hanging time was consistent with the time it takes a Vancian caster to prepare spells, IIRC. The main thing that struck me, though, is that he had to spend a lot of effort "editing" his spells to be more energy-efficient. In game terms, that implies to me a Spellcraft check, failure of which means a large increase in spell point cost... but still nowhere near the "rivers of energy" he states are needed for impromptu spellcasting.

I'm very sympathetic to your aim because I once spent days working on this exact same thing, but ultimately abandoned it as of potentially having a much higher "complexity vs. fun" ratio than I was comfortable with for gaming with others.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'm very sympathetic to your aim because I once spent days working on this exact same thing, but ultimately abandoned it as of potentially having a much higher "complexity vs. fun" ratio than I was comfortable with for gaming with others.

Right now it's about as complex as I'd want it to to get.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

The PDF has been updated. It is now smaller, contains bookmarks, and I have made 0-level spells easier to cast. I also improved (and renamed) Counterblast, and improved Divine Intervention.

Grand Lodge

Blood of Amber one of the first chapters is where Merlin goes with Flora to the apartment of Julia. He takes about 20 minutes to cast invisibility sphere.

I'm reading the books to find more casting times. I'll post when I have them.


What about power sources? Are we going to have an Initiate of the Broken Pattern prestige class, able to use arcane sight at will, and also spectral hand?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Kirth Gersen wrote:
What about power sources? Are we going to have an Initiate of the Broken Pattern prestige class, able to use arcane sight at will, and also spectral hand?

Not from me, but I'm not trying to run an Amber (or Magic Goes Away) game. Tio might have some ideas, though.

Grand Lodge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
What about power sources? Are we going to have an Initiate of the Broken Pattern prestige class, able to use arcane sight at will, and also spectral hand?

Well yeah, if you're going to run an Amber game then you're going to have people that have walked the Logrus, Pattern or one of their images/broken ones.

I'm reading the Amber books again right now to get inspiration and then I might expand on what Ross did here and do something with it all. In the books there are different kinds of sorcerers, so that will take something to figure out. Then of course I'm going to do a search on google to see if someone else hasn't already done this for me.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I've read over the system now. While I find it a bit intriguing, I think using the quote from the original spell point system that it increases versatility is a bit disingenuous. A Wizard, at lower levels, could almost precisely duplicate the system by simply not preparing all his spells at once.
The added "Arcane Blast" and such effects add a needed "I'm out of spells, what do I do" effect.
This system is far more restrictive than the normal spell system, or the original spell point system, and does not "reward" planning so much as require it. I'm not saying those are bad things though - should be fun to play.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Majuba wrote:

I've read over the system now. While I find it a bit intriguing, I think using the quote from the original spell point system that it increases versatility is a bit disingenuous. A Wizard, at lower levels, could almost precisely duplicate the system by simply not preparing all his spells at once.

The added "Arcane Blast" and such effects add a needed "I'm out of spells, what do I do" effect.
This system is far more restrictive than the normal spell system, or the original spell point system, and does not "reward" planning so much as require it. I'm not saying those are bad things though - should be fun to play.

You're right. It should say 'adaptable', not Versatile, since most casters do in fact load up once per day. I'll fix it.

Grand Lodge

Has someone already taken a look at Amber Diceless RPG and the WIKI?

And what were your thoughts?

The Exchange

janxious wrote:
I don't have any comments about mechanics, but I have really enjoyed reading the pdf you put together as well as the discussion in this thread. :)

Another comment: Reading this thread pushed me to buy a zelazny book and put it on the top of my queue (planet stories be damned!). It has delivered SO HARD. I put down the first two books (I got some book club collections, so it was the first two novels combined) once because it was 4 in the morning and I had to be at work at 9. Anyway, thanks again.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Tio wrote:

Has someone already taken a look at Amber Diceless RPG and the WIKI?

And what were your thoughts?

I've seen them. I'm not normally a fan of diceless systems, but I've been tempted to try to pick up the PDF and see how it works.

Janxious: I'm glad I was able to turn you on to a good author.

The Exchange

Ross Byers wrote:
Janxious: I'm glad I was able to turn you on to a good author.

Hehe. I finished the latter 3 books of the "Corwin cycle" last nights after 2 sittings. Zelazny ftw.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Since lots of people are in a playtesty/rules-discussing mood, and with us all waiting on the PFRPG beta, I thought it might be a good time to *bump*.


Tio wrote:
Has someone already taken a look at Amber Diceless RPG and the WIKI? And what were your thoughts?

We've played Amber Diceless. For character creation, it's the best system ever devised. The attribute auction, and freedom of develping your own artifacts & creatures, are unbeatable.

In actual play, it pretty much sucked. Number one, everyone has to be basically a god, and that limits the excitement of the D&D peasant-turned-adventurer-turned-noble archetype. Number two, the diceless system means you're all pretty much just making up a story; there's no real rules to it.

After two long multiple-session adventures, we gave up on the system and rolled up all our characters as 1st level D&D characters (adding a "Power over Shadow" feat and a "Walk in Shadow" skill), then played like them like that. They were almost without exception the favorite, most memorable characters in our long history of playing D&D.


Hey Ross, I was wondering if your thinking of updating this to fit some of the PFRPG changes at some point.

I've really enjoyed it, and liked the concept! So I wouldn't complain!!!


Very very interesting concept, seems to give caster's alot more freedom than Vancian casting. However, it is also exceedingly more complex than Vancian casting. The glory of Vancian casting is you check a couple spells off a list when the party rests and you're good to go. Certainly a player could spend some time thinking of a few basic spell point configurations, or "load-outs" and prepare each "load-out" at each prep time. It seems like there would be an enormous amount of micro management, with calculating "spontaeneous" memorization times(not to be confused with instinctive casting per the pdf) and adding up and tracking spell points. Overall, a decent variant, but needs a little bit of tuning for simplicity's sake.

1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 3.5/d20/OGL / New Magic System - Zelazny-Style Spellcasting All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.