Because a Wizard can get more spells per day from a larger list.Because of the "NOT FAILING AT ALL" thing. Oh, and the simple "failure" results in ABILITY DAMAGE. Why play a Wizard when you can play a Sorcerer?
And have never explained. Or given details for. Why do sorcerers NOT having a failure chance make the proposal unbalanced? Wizards gain the ability to cast their prepared spells at will, but may suffer a failure chance. Sorcerers are unchanged.
Most sorcerers can get by with what they have. The wizard's spells are just extra, and not worth taking ability damage over.
allowing them to channel a certain number of spells effortlessly while leaving all others outside their grasp (Spells Known chart).A couple of points
1.) There's no basis in RAW for saying Sorcerers cast their spells effortlessly. If you are adding this bit of color, I don't agree with it, but I do agree with your right (via rule 0) to add it.
2.) I certainly don't believe Sorcerers are mechanically weaker than Wizards. I think they are often misplayed (trying to play them as Wizards), so people end up playing them weaker. But, I think somebody who knows how to use the class will be able to have a very powerful character - easily as powerful as a Wizard (and, maybe, even more powerful).
In actual game play the difference is not big, but a lot of the wiz vs sorc threads have theoretical builds of what could happen if a player really wanted to powergame a wizard. Potential is the real measure of power in these cases.
Another point is that in actual games many players will hold their characters back so they don't overshadow the group consciously or unconsciously.
if you've ever played Dark Heresy (the warhammer 40K RPG) the "magic" or psychic powers in that universe are handled in a fashion such as this.
they start off rolling a d10 to cast their reasonably powerful powers anytime per day and get more d10's with experience if ever they roll a 9 on any of those d10 they roll on a percentile chart i believe if it is below 75 it is something harmless but interesting like some of the rod of wonder effects
if they roll above 75 they roll another percentile on a chart called "the perils of the warp" where they could do anything from antigravity to summoning a demon to making someone look like a demon
however i have played on this system and every time somebody used a psyker they ended up screwing over the party in some way, defeating the encounter but creating a whole new situation to deal with...but Dark Heresy has a fate point system that lets you stay alive even if you would die sometimes
And you are supposed to feel unimportant and expendable
i don't think a system like that is good in the long run but it can be interesting in the short term...if you must, use it as an adventure where someone messes with the natural order of things and makes arcane magic very dangerous, that way you can be done with it once you get tired of it
|
however i have played on this system and every time somebody used a psyker they ended up screwing over the party in some way, defeating the encounter but creating a whole new situation to deal with...
One of my pet peeves with some of the old Wand of Wonder or 'Wild Surge' results is that they were less punitive to the PC who caused them than to their fellow party memebers.
I'd definitely prefer any 'dangerous magic' to backlash primarily on the caster (through nonlethal damage, stunnage, etc.) than through stuff like 'your fireball detonates on you!' or 'you summon a demon!'
however i have played on this system and every time somebody used a psyker they ended up screwing over the party in some way, defeating the encounter but creating a whole new situation to deal with...One of my pet peeves with some of the old Wand of Wonder or 'Wild Surge' results is that they were less punitive to the PC who caused them than to their fellow party memebers.
I'd definitely prefer any 'dangerous magic' to backlash primarily on the caster (through nonlethal damage, stunnage, etc.) than through stuff like 'your fireball detonates on you!' or 'you summon a demon!'
and you would be right in wanting that...our group will play
Dark Heresy every once in a while for the cool flavor but as a long term game it doesn't really work especially if you are used to a fantasy RPG about heroes, because Dark Heresy is a game in which you are supposed to die horribly in many ways...only fun until the blood stops squirting 30 feet highand by rights i think a similar system for magic in Pathfinder would be not fun
Some years ago, I had some thoughts about this very idea, but never went as far as designing a complete system around it. Mainly because restricting the existing spellcasting classes would be quite harsh for them. I think we could create alternate versions of all spellcasting classes, adding some abilities (fighting and survivability) in exchange of facing consequences when casting spells (using their own HP to fuel spells, facing harsh laws against magic-users, etc).
What a Sorcerer CANNOT do is change his spells known from day to day. If the adventure calls for an underwater session, the Wiz can change out his spells for those best suited to underwater. A Sor cannot. If the adventure calls for fight Erynies, the Wiz can take a balance of non-illusion and devil-fighting spells. The Sor cannot.
We are making SEVERAL assumptions and one improper assertion here.
Assumptions:1) Wizard has learned the beneficial spell.
2) Sorcerer has not learned the beneficial spell.
3) The major adventure hook is known ahead of time
Improper assertion:
The Sorcerer can't change his spells from day to day - but he can cast any spell he knows as long as he has spell slots of that level remaining. A Wizard can only cast spells that he has prepared ahead of time. Sure, he can save some slots. But those can't be prepared on "the fly" too effectively.
They are 1-shots. A Wiz can customize their spells for a single occasion. A Sor cannot.
Indeed he can. Given either a town with infinite resources and a good spellcraft check or a week's time.
And are we still on the patently absurd suggestion of "Sorcerers are unchanged; Wizards may take ABILITY DAMAGE from failing to cast a spell."
|
are we still on the patently absurd suggestion of "Sorcerers are unchanged; Wizards may take ABILITY DAMAGE from failing to cast a spell."
I think we shot that suggestion back to the pit where it belonged.
On the other hand, people should feel free to post ideas (good or bad) just to stimulate discussion and, perhaps, there might be some good in a suggestion which, at first, seems bad.
Like mine lol :P
are we still on the patently absurd suggestion of "Sorcerers are unchanged; Wizards may take ABILITY DAMAGE from failing to cast a spell."
I think we shot that suggestion back to the pit where it belonged.
On the other hand, people should feel free to post ideas (good or bad) just to stimulate discussion and, perhaps, there might be some good in a suggestion which, at first, seems bad.
Ok, I'll give it a shot:
Maybe intorduce a rule where a caster must make a concentration check if he moves too much during his round (say more than 5 feet or more than half speed)? Maybe he doesn't lose the spell, but it simply doesn't go off? Apply it to other concentration checks as well… a failed concentration check does not cause you to lose the spell; it simply doesn't go off that round, and you retain the spell.
To contrast, I've liked the idea of melee touch attack spells not provoking AoOs and may be cast while threatened without hindrance.
Moreso however, I like consequences akin to what some individual spells have, like a [i]teleport[/] that goes bad.
Guys, I said I thought we put the idea that "Sorcerers are unchanged; Wizards may take ABILITY DAMAGE from failing to cast a spell." into the pit.
I said -nothing- about the much broader idea of casting with consequences.
I like casting with consequences. Further, we all have our own ideas as to how it will work. If we're going to make any headway on it, we need to see if there is some way we can start pulling our ideas together rather than just have a bunch of individuals tossing isolated mechanics out into the thread.
I guess I'm not following what you mean then.
I guess I'm not following what you mean then.Guys, I said I thought we put the idea that "Sorcerers are unchanged; Wizards may take ABILITY DAMAGE from failing to cast a spell." into the pit.
I said -nothing- about the much broader idea of casting with consequences.
I like casting with consequences. Further, we all have our own ideas as to how it will work. If we're going to make any headway on it, we need to see if there is some way we can start pulling our ideas together rather than just have a bunch of individuals tossing isolated mechanics out into the thread.
Assume you had ten different sets of rule changes you could choose from. They were all different. What qualities in the rules would you use to filter the ones you'd like from those you wouldn't like?
For example, I'd like to see Sorcerers and Wizards be different only in that one is CHA based and the other is INT based. I'd like to see spells with consequences, but I want this loss to be balanced by some gain.
Hey, I'm not saying it's a good idea, but you did invite everyone to post ideas (good or bad) :)
I'm not seeing where a concentration check discriminates between spellcaster classes (if that's what you're implying. I'm not sure). But anyway…
Really, I'd like to come up with ideas like casting a really good spell with the possibility of consequence if something goes wrong (again, like teleport, but I'm drawing blanks at the moment. To me at least, that's what casting with consequences really refers to. So I guess, ultimately, the "qualities in the rules I would use to filter the ones I liked" would be ones like these or ones like casting spells from scrolls of a higher spell level than you can cast. You can get something really good off, but there's a chance it might fail and even backfire.
So, you're okay with any rule change as long as it involves casting with consequences? There have been many alternatives posted in this thread including yours and you like them all equally well?
No.
I'm interested in spells having cool or powerful effects, balanced by the fact that if you try to cast them, something may go wrong.
Teleport is a good example. So is wish. I feel that some spells in the book are a little too good; rather than nerf them they could have consequences added to them to balance them. I also feel that certain spells aren't powerful enough, and would be more interesting if they were made more powerful but balanced by a consequence: by choosing to cast them, it may backfire on you. I don't want all spells to be this way. I see no point in applying this to every spell or even the majority of spells because then, playing a spell caster would indeed not be fun in all likelyhood. On the flip-side, I personally think it would be entertaining, as well as provide an additional tactical or suspenseful element if more spells did have consequences. I can also see certain spells being easy to master for any spellcaster. I can also see certain spells being risky to cast by even the most accomplished spellcaster.
For instance, IME, I get tired of seeing haste get cast in nearly every battle. I know people will disagree, but I'd entertain the idea of putting a consequence on that particular spell. Maybe targets are fatigued afterward? Or the caster is slowed for a period of time. The trick is to make the consequence not so punitive as to make the spell undesireable to take in the first place.
This is interesting. What you seem to be suggesting isn't a chance for failure, but rather that spells will always have the consequences. I hadn't considered this approach. I like it.
Well, not every spell. I can't personally envision a consequence to casting magic missile for instance. And I don't think the spell should always automatically incur the consequence either. I guess I prefer the CHANCE of a consequence occurring. It makes magic a little more unpredictable and exciting.
Taking the haste example, maybe it has the consequence of fatiguing all recipients of the spell when it ends, if they fail a Fort save. The result might be that it may not have any real affect if they use it in a battle with the BBEG, because what happens afterward usually doesn't matter. But if MIGHT if they decide to use it one or more of the several combats leading up to it. Also, if they think the fight with the BBEG might go longer than the duration (rare possibility I know), then maybe they might decide not to spam it immediately, which usually happens.
EDIT:
To add maybe it only requires the save you're hasted for a number of rounds that exceeds your Con modifier. Then it doesn't clash too much with an item like boots of speed. The problem is now it's starting to get complicated.
Moving forward, how could this be handled from a rules perspective? I'm interested in providing a consequence to spellcasting, partially for balance purposes, but mainly to create a world in which magic is valuable and rare.
D&D Magic has no consequence because often that is a negative in playing that class. The arcane classes are generally fragile enough that additional danger just from doing their job can be seen as 'not fun' to many players.
That said, it is a simple thing to put personal investment into magic to reflect that 'magic is dangerous'.
Everytime the caster casts a spell they take non lethal damage equal to the spells level. In addition they should make a spellcraft roll based on spell level and local conditions and distractions to not 'lose control' of the spells energies and 'level the college'.
If they fail the roll, then have a negative consquence happen based on how high their target number was and how much they missed it by, as a measure of overall danger in the spells casting an how badly they blew it, respectively.
I like adding consequences to certain spells better. Then you're giving the player a choice of whether or not to have consequences and how much. This wouldn't make a spellcasting class overall less fun to play, as a lot of the control is still in the player's hands.
I could see them equating in regard to how several feats are. Several feats have "consequences," in that if you use the feat, it comes with some sort of disadvantage. For instance, Power Attack allows you to do more damage with an attack. The consequence is that you are less likely to hit. Cleave allows you to strike more than one opponent on a standard action. The consequence is you are easier to hit. At the same time, there are several feats that do not have consequences. For instance, Dodge gives you a +1 dodge bonus to your AC. There is no consequence for using this feat. Toughness gives you extra HP at no expense. I'd just like to see this philosophy carry over to spells a little more.
Everytime the caster casts a spell they take non lethal damage equal to the spells level.
That just seems mean.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
however i have played on this system and every time somebody used a psyker they ended up screwing over the party in some way, defeating the encounter but creating a whole new situation to deal with...One of my pet peeves with some of the old Wand of Wonder or 'Wild Surge' results is that they were less punitive to the PC who caused them than to their fellow party memebers.
I'd definitely prefer any 'dangerous magic' to backlash primarily on the caster (through nonlethal damage, stunnage, etc.) than through stuff like 'your fireball detonates on you!' or 'you summon a demon!'
Hehe you never played in my campaigns, one wizard triggered a spell failure from what I recall the results were . . .
Dwarven Fighter: Turned into living purple metal (essentailly gained construct template to his delight)
Something Something: Got his own theme music that played a musical acompnient e.g. loud stiring music when he was doing something heroic, da nuh dah nuh dandandan (jaws music) when he was in danger and various sneaky music when he was trying to sneak. He had mixed feelings on it.
Human Mage: Killed, turned into a log and when split open by the party spilled out gold.
I can't remember specifically what happened to the fourth party member but it was bad, I think they instant aged to 81 but I can't say for sure that may have been soemthing else it was quite awhile back.
Magic could be very dangerous in that game but it was also using true sorcery (mostly) so the mage could cast a lot more spells per day as long as they didn't tire themselves out (one of the houseruled changes was the drain from spell casting could only be cured by normal rest not magical healing to avoid the refilling caster trick) and a bit more dangerous to opponents. Admitedly that wasn't something most people would like to play in often but they were willing to give it a try and see how it went. In the end it got abandoned because the calculations on the spells took up too much time.
Shame really I rather like true sorcery as a system. Although admitedly there were some changes I made to it. Especially since with the increasing spellcraft skills the DC's for failure on lower level spells eventually dissapeared although the drain (non-lethal hp damage) could never drop below 1.
Another house rule I've used a few times that may offer possibilities in the wizard/sorcery discussion (possibilites only this wasn't that well received even in a game without sorcerers so probably not workable without changes) is the wizards fire and forget spell casting system comes from the strain of maintaining a nearly complete spell in their head.
The spells per day therefore is in reality the spells they can cast off the top of their head per day. On the other hand they can cast an unlimited number of spells from their spellbook. The catch here is that since they are casting from the spell book a new fresh spell the casting time is the casting time + the memorizing time (using the old 15 minutes per spell level as the memorizing time). For example a 1 round 1st level spell takes 15 minutes and 1 round to cast from the spellbook, a 7th level 10 minute casting time spell takes nearly 2 hours to cast.
This means a wizard can do a lot more outside combat but wont affect and take away from encounters too much. You want wards cast at the end of the day? The wizard spends a bit over 15 minutes casting it out of their spellbook. You want a moat for your new castle? The wizard casts move earth from their spellbook taking an hour and a half to cast it then another 4 hours and 10 minutes moving the maximum amount. You want a fireball cast on the invading armour? They spend 1 round triggering the memorized spell.
I created this because it allowed a wizard to memorize spells that met a specific set of circumstances but still cast other spells they knew without rememorzing. It was for D20 Modern (no sorcerers) and technology took over a lot of the functions that were previously magic only but like I said it wasn't that well recieved.
|
|
Thread necromancy!!
I my game world you last two posters would be burned at the stake for such evil as necromancy. Shame on you both. Double shame in fact for now you've caused me to be complicit in the necromantic act.
Arrrrrrrghhh, the horror!!
I just reply to threads on the first page if they catch my interest I don't check dates.
Try Warhammer if you want random magic to screw up entire campaigns! Rolled badly on your attempt to set fire to a goblin? A chaos demon tears its way out of your skull and destroys everything in a hundred metres in the blink of an eye.
If you're going to make magic a sub-optimal solution, it helps if the spellcasters have something useful they can do BESIDES spellcasting. (Unlike a D&D wizard who without spells is a glorified Commoner.)
Forgive me if I don't see the issue with Nerfing casters. If anything, its an easier way to balance the system than making every non-caster step up a notch.
And magic did use to have consequences. Certain spells did cost you XP and/or levels. Material Components use to matter.
I really am of the camp that if you want the Wizard to cast Wish for you, THEN YOU NEED TO GIVE HIM A DAMN GOOD REASON TO DO SO. Because it should cost him XP/Levels. It should be at GREAT RISK to him. When you start to manipulate the universe with spells near potent to that of a god then there should be a significant risk vs. reward.
Casters have gotten off easy in the 3.X series. They need to be taken down a notch. And I see nothing wrong with making them pay for the power they want to wield in game.
Magic has consequences. It already has the same consequence as swinging a sword. Furthermore it cost the caster either slots or power points to use strong magic.
The more powerful spells require vast amounts of material wealth to perform.
The idea of adding more consequences could be interesting, but let us not pretend that magic does not already come with heavy cost.
I may have to check out Warhammer, sounds like their magic system could be interesting.
If I remember, to cast a spell you roll a number of d10s equal to your casting rank vs the target number of the spell. If you succeed, you cast the spell.
However, if you get any 9s in the above roll, you roll a percentile die on the 'perils of the warp' table. It ranges from things as mundane as your hair changing colour... to the aforementioned uncontrolled demon-summoning.
Yes, this means that the better you are at magic, the more likely something terrible is going to happen.
I prefer "soft" consequences, like defiling magic in Dark Sun or resurrection in Death Gate. Things work as written, but that doesn't mean there aren't other, often unforeseen, consequences. Toss around enough wishes and you might put a few cracks in causality. Keep bringing someone back to life dozens of times and an inevitable might come to collect.
Mechanical differences are fun, too, but only if the group is on board.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea of adding more consequences could be interesting, but let us not pretend that magic does not already come with heavy cost.It doesn't, really. "Heavy cost" is things like your soul, your sanity, or your firstborn child. Spending a round and some powered ruby on a spell isn't heavy by any stretch of the imagination.
Most Fantasy settings don't carry much a price on using Magic, other then the difficulty of learning it. Oh sure there's a few, but they are a vast minority. And that's because very few costs are actually interesting from a storyline standpoint. And there's even fewer costs that make for fun gameplay.
Most Fantasy settings don't carry much a price on using Magic, other then the difficulty of learning it. Oh sure there's a few, but they are a vast minority. And that's because very few costs are actually interesting from a storyline standpoint. And there's even fewer costs that make for fun gameplay.The idea of adding more consequences could be interesting, but let us not pretend that magic does not already come with heavy cost.It doesn't, really. "Heavy cost" is things like your soul, your sanity, or your firstborn child. Spending a round and some powered ruby on a spell isn't heavy by any stretch of the imagination.
You must not read the same books that I do. As for fun, well, that's subjective. Make sure the entire group is ready and willing to play the same game and you're good to go. If the party wizard prefers playing a "magick ALL the things!"-type, best to stick with the core rules.
I'm talking about fantasy settings as a whole. When's the last time Aang traded his unborn child's life to bend? Where is there any indication of the sanity damage that Merlin took?
The concept of magic having a price or risk is so ubiquitous that it has subtropes of its own. Rather than list a bunch of examples, I'll just point here and ask that you skim past the irrelevant stuff and look for the links relating to magic. A few that are especially popular in fantasy are Cast From Hit Points, Cast From Lifespan, Equivalent Exchange (a personal favorite), Soul Powered Engine, and Powered By A Forsaken Child.
Some of these . . . won't work well in some forms of tabletop gaming. Some of them definitely can, depending on the system and on the group.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4
|
Been lurking in this thread for a while and only just now thought to offer up something to those interested in the concept of magic with consequences.
I did a blog post earlier this year regarding the concept of "magic corruption" in Pathfinder, you can find it here.
Hope this is something that's helpful to people looking to add some consequences to spellcasting! :)
And even those subtropes are a minority of all fantasy settings. (And equivalent exchange is actually pretty cost free in the manga since the power comes from geothermal energy).
And even those subtropes are a minority of all fantasy settings. (And equivalent exchange is actually pretty cost free in the manga since the power comes from geothermal energy).
Without performing statistical analysis. I won't challenge this statement directly, but I've seen it pretty frequently in the works I've read.