Hey again everyone.
I had this idea for some spellcasting house-rules in my head, and would really like to discuss them with you.
DracoDruid's Spellcasting House-Rules
--------
Short Summary:
- prep. casters prepare spell list instead of single spells (like Monte Cook' Arcana Evolved)
- High spellcasting ability give spells known or additional spells prepared per day instead of spell slots.
- "Encumbrance penalty" instead of "armor ASF"
- and some more...
No one?
I REALLY would appreciate some feedback.
What are you trying to do...? It seems to make clerics and druids spontaneous casters (because they have access to all their spells anyway when they're a high enough level) and wizards into sorcerer hybrids.
Mithral chain armor and mithral heavy shield means no ECP and is much cheaper than bracers of armor. Also, the calculation is DC = 15 + (2 x spell level) – (2 x ACP/ECP). According to that ACP/ECP lowers the concentration DC.
I am trying to make (preparing) spellcasters more flexible.
I belong to those who HATE the vancian magic system, but I try to live with it and simply try to modify it in a simple way to make it bearable.
First step was to allow prep. casters to only prepare each spell once.
I strongly believe that this is a fundamental change to the better.
(and it was done by Monte Cook in Arcane Unearthed/Evolved)
Second change is the ARCANE SPELL FAILURE.
I always believed it was a stupid mechanic to prevent arcane casters from wearing armor, only to acomodate the "traditional way".
Although I can see that there SHOULD be some sort of limitation.
For me, it was clear. Not movement limitations but simple encumbrance should be the limiting factor.
When a mage has problems to concentrate while casting on a rocky boat, then he should also have problems concentrating while carrying a heavy load.
---------
I didn't thought about "divine preparers" and the repreparing rules. Maybe I have to limit or even remove it again.
Thanks for the pointer.
Wizards still have less spells to cast, so it remains: flexibility against quantity.
About Mithral: As I said, I'm okay with armored casters, and I don't know about your playstyle, but Mithral isn't optainable at every corner. So you'll need a source, a compentent smith and time, since it's automatic masterwork and must be fitted to you personally.
---------
Thanks for the DC mistake, that simply was a brain fart... :P
THANKS FOR THE INITIAL FEEDBACK
I am trying to make (preparing) spellcasters more flexible.
But the whole point of prepared casting is that the flexibility is between days, not between and within encounters.
I belong to those who HATE the vancian magic system, but I try to live with it and simply try to modify it in a simple way to make it bearable.
You could also try a psion-like method with spellcasters having spell points instead of power points.
First step was to allow prep. casters to only prepare each spell once.
I strongly believe that this is a fundamental change to the better.
(and it was done by Monte Cook in Arcane Unearthed/Evolved)
Eh, that's kind of misleading. You changed the way preparing spells worked so that it only needs to be prepared once.
Actually, I have a question because of the way the Wizard spells known works. Isn't a Wizard at a slight disadvantage to a divine caster because he doesn't automatically know all his spells? Mind you, their spell list is a lot better so maybe it balances out.For me, it was clear. Not movement limitations but simple encumbrance should be the limiting factor.
When a mage has problems to concentrate while casting on a rocky boat, then he should also have problems concentrating while carrying a heavy load.
They're not equivocal, though. The boat rocking is erratic and distracting because it is unpredictable and causes the caster to lose balance, focus, and disrupts the somatic and verbal components of spells.
Whereas, encumbrance is a constant, predictable thing and being weighed downed restricts movement but people don't carry gear in their hands or mouth to transport it.I didn't thought about "divine preparers" and the repreparing rules. Maybe I have to limit or even remove it again.
It's not a big thing, they would probably only rest again for non-combat utility spells that needed to be cast, or healing. Either way, nothing game breaking.
Wizards still have less spells to cast, so it remains: flexibility against quantity.
Not specifically related to this point but have you played this in any games? I'm interested to see a Wizard played with a Sorcerer. Or Cleric/Druid with an Oracle.
About Mithral: As I said, I'm okay with armored casters,
I have nothing against Armored Casters, Clerics and Druids wear armour. Bards and Magus wear armour. Arcane casters (Sorcerers and Wizards, that is) are fluffed as requiring intricate hand gestures and movements that armour restricts, thereby making it hard to successfully cast spells. I have a problem with them (Sorcerers and Wizards) then wearing armour. You might need to change the fluff a little so they can move properly in armour.
and I don't know about your playstyle, but Mithral isn't optainable at every corner. So you'll need a source, a compentent smith and time, since it's automatic masterwork and must be fitted to you personally.
I'm a Wizard. I'm one of the most intelligent beings on the plane and have access to abilities well beyond most people's comprehension. I use my vast intellect and repository of knowledge and locate mithral. I'm in a high fantasy setting so it's not very hard and I teleport where I want. I find people who craft mithral armour. I have some made for me. I do not walk down to the local magic mart and hope they have a sale on mithral equipment in my size.
Alternatively, I'm a Sorcerer and roll Diplomacy.
Semi-facetious examples aside, the cost of this is far less than the equivalent cost of bracers of armor so it's a given it will happen.
Mithral Chain Mail + Mithral Armoured Skirt + Mithral Heavy Shield = 3,140gp = +5 AC, +2 AC (Shield)
Bracers of Armor +5 = 25,000 gp = +5 AC
I simply HATE HATE HATE vancian magic. Or whatever it is called.
It's counterintuitive, outdated, clunky and simply thinking about it makes me scream.
But it's what my favored game uses since the dawn of time, and I try to find a compromise.
I thought long and hard about spell points. But it always failed on the details. How many spell points per level for all the different classes?
How many spell points per spell to cast. Should they automatically scale in power without additional casting costs?
What problems will arise, that I don't see yet...
I really hoped D&DNext would finally come around, but their statement that they'll stick to it was a real downer.
Anyways, with my house-rules I'm trying to find some kind of middle ground.
I wouldn't even mind to fuse the wizard and the sorcerer to this end.
Simply decide whether to be an INT-caster (wizard) with a school, or a CHA-caster (sorcerer) with a bloodline.
Schools and bloodlines had to be streamlined, but I don't think that would be a big deal (in fact, I'll try that soon).
But it's not just about wiz/sor, with all those additional rulebooks and base classes, I would need a rules-set to accommodate them all.
The easiest way to do this, is to keep the spell slot system, but otherwise ease out the way they are used.
And since my main issue is with the prepared casting, I put my focus on that.
Allowing to prepare a spell list (instead of individual spells) is the first step and allowing to prepare more than once per day is the second.
I am aware that this somehow steps on the toes of the spont. casters, but I actually don't really care. I would be perfectly happy if - in the end - all casters would use the same system.
I never liked this "I have a loaded spell humming in my head" thing and this weird "V/S/M" components to activate it.
That's not how I envision magic. Especially for the divine casters (actually I always found divine "casters" a contradiction - they should get SupNat or maybe Spelllike abilities but no spell list. But that's just me again).
BTT, I think of spell components as tools to help the caster to focus his mind and not as spell triggers. Therefore, anything that distracts a caster from concentrating should impose a penalty or trigger a concentration roll. Carrying a 60 pound backpack is definitely something distracting. Not so much that it's hindering you but it's tiring you out fast. And being tired is a MAJOR distraction.
Sure, I could use the "fatigue-conditions" somehow, but as far as I can rememeber, there are no rules for becomming fatigued do to carrying other than a forced march or running.
I need a break. Hope I answered at least a few open questions.
I simply HATE HATE HATE vancian magic. Or whatever it is called.
It's counterintuitive, outdated, clunky and simply thinking about it makes me scream.But it's what my favored game uses since the dawn of time, and I try to find a compromise.
I thought long and hard about spell points. But it always failed on the details. How many spell points per level for all the different classes?
How many spell points per spell to cast. Should they automatically scale in power without additional casting costs?
What problems will arise, that I don't see yet...I really hoped D&DNext would finally come around, but their statement that they'll stick to it was a real downer.
Anyways, with my house-rules I'm trying to find some kind of middle ground.
I wouldn't even mind to fuse the wizard and the sorcerer to this end.
Simply decide whether to be an INT-caster (wizard) with a school, or a CHA-caster (sorcerer) with a bloodline.
Schools and bloodlines had to be streamlined, but I don't think that would be a big deal (in fact, I'll try that soon).But it's not just about wiz/sor, with all those additional rulebooks and base classes, I would need a rules-set to accommodate them all.
The easiest way to do this, is to keep the spell slot system, but otherwise ease out the way they are used.
And since my main issue is with the prepared casting, I put my focus on that.
Allowing to prepare a spell list (instead of individual spells) is the first step and allowing to prepare more than once per day is the second.I am aware that this somehow steps on the toes of the spont. casters, but I actually don't really care. I would be perfectly happy if - in the end - all casters would use the same system.
I never liked this "I have a loaded spell humming in my head" thing and this weird "V/S/M" components to activate it.
That's not how I envision magic. Especially for the divine casters (actually I always found divine "casters" a contradiction - they should get SupNat or maybe Spelllike abilities but no spell list....
EDIT: Apologies on the quote here, it doesn't look like I'm speaking to the right point. Somewhere in the discussion is the "think of the sorcerers....what about them" line. Read on.
It always fascinates me how people, after reading a house rule proposal that effectively makes Wizards spontaneous casters, will immediately ask: "But what about the sorcerer?"
I get it, I love the fluff of the Sorcerer. But, the fact is, they didn't used to exist, and they were created in order to have an alternative to the weighty classic 'Vancian' system of older editions.
So, if you make Wizards spontaneous (or nearly so)...you can just ignore the Sorcerer crying in the corner....
Although, personally, I would alter the Sorcerer so that he has something different and special in the New Wizard Order. One possibility that I have monkeyed with over the years is making the Sorcerer the master of Meta-magic. It enhances the "magic comes from within" fluff.
Anyway....cheers.
I simply HATE HATE HATE vancian magic. Or whatever it is called.
It's counterintuitive, outdated, clunky and simply thinking about it makes me scream.I'm curious. How does a system for casting magic which only exists in fiction become "outdated"? On the other hand, I have similar problems with spontaneous magic as practised in D20. It's clearly a shoehorned fit which makes even less sense.
I prefer the Ars Magica system which is neither of the above, but that would take some work to integrate it but it would be doable. It also would be too powerful in a world with otherwise standard D20 assumptions.
So, how does a system for casting magic which only exists in fiction appear to be "a shoehorned fit which makes even less sense." Less sense than what?...the outdated magic system?.....?
To answer your question directly: Because after the D&D rules system was developed. Other games were released with more advanced designs, that improved on the original mechanics.....later...more recently.....
Honestly, I HATE HATE HATE when people ask the question: 'Realism? In a game where magic exists and dragons fly and breath fire? You must be joking...'
Got any constructive critics to my house-rules?
I simply HATE HATE HATE vancian magic. Or whatever it is called.
It's counterintuitive, outdated, clunky and simply thinking about it makes me scream.But it's what my favored game uses since the dawn of time, and I try to find a compromise.
I thought long and hard about spell points. But it always failed on the details. How many spell points per level for all the different classes?
How many spell points per spell to cast. Should they automatically scale in power without additional casting costs?
What problems will arise, that I don't see yet
To be fair with Vancian magic, understant that it is three things
1) Magic is packaged in spells. Even if you know many fire spells, you can't tune down a fireball to light your cigar.
2) Magic is finite. You can run out of spells.
3) Spells are to complex to cast on the fly. They need to be "precast" and then released at any time.
Do you have an issue with 1 and 2, or is it only about préparation?
Got any constructive critics to my house-rules?
Well, I've messed around with similar fixes, and I like it. The problem I've encountered is that if you stick to spell slots per day, you can have an even more exaggerated "15 minute work day". My solution is one I saw posted here on Paizo awhile back. Unfortunately, I don't remember who posted it, so I can't give proper credit. My apologies.
Basically, you halve the slots at each spell level that casters get, but they become "per encounter" instead of per day. I round down after the halving to a minimum of one, but then grant the full bonus slots.
Of course, you then need to come up with rules that govern what an encounter is, and how and when you recover your encounter spell slots. Between 4th, Next, Saga, and common sense, it's not hard to develop something that works for you.
EDIT: I should say that this will absolutely screw with the standard encounter levels and encounters per day. My group has barely ever stuck to those rules having come from 1st and 2nd editions, and having developed our own advancement rate. Our encounters are mostly over-powered for our level, and most are duels to the death (for the party, not just the monsters). So, I'm not afraid to mess with the CR guidelines. In fact, because of our style we have had even more trouble getting away from the "15 minute adventuring day".
Cheers
@ Laurafindel:
I don't have a problem with 1) or 2). It's simply the preparing and releasing that annoys me.
I actually also have a problem with spell slots or power slots.
If slots represent a certain amount of power, then why can't I exchange one higher spell slot for SEVERAL lower ones?
Or combine several lower ones for one higher one?
And if it is power, why does the same spell cast from a higher leveled caster have more power than cast from a lower caster?
If it is not power, then what is it?
@ CFTP:
To address the 15 minute day, I added additional slot regeneration rules at the beginning. Might need some tuning but I like the basic idea.
@ CFTP:
To address the 15 minute day, I added additional slot regeneration rules at the beginning. Might need some tuning but I like the basic idea.
As written, it seems to me that your spell slot regen will enforce the short adventuring day, or at least break it up into a couple of short sorties.
One of the permutations that I tried for my "per encounter" design was similar though. Recover one spell slot per spell level with a "short rest". It's a compromise that let's you adventure normally, and still get the full "nova" if so desired. Personally, I hate the "nova" effect. I'd rather encourage casters to use some of their lower level spell slots once in awhile. But, I also think they should be able to sling magic every round, just like my fighter can power attack constantly.
So do I.
I added some quick and dirty "spell point system" as optional to the end.
You can also let the divines only have access to spells belonging to their deities' 'spheres'; spells that are thematically appropriate for that deity. That solves that problem I think.
Myself I looked at variant casting methods and did some research and hard work. I like the True Sorcery system. True Sorcery is from a setting called Black Company iirc. It is skill-based and very intricate; it makes it much harder to be a (arcane) caster because you have to do a bit of math and preparation.
There is also Legends of Sorcery which provides a simpler system. Both are worth looking into but require some work to implement.
I added a new rules part about multiclassing casters.
I got this idea while thinking about my ranger and level dipping into inquisitor...
Interesting...
Have you looked at the HypertextD20 system? It solves the Vancian fire and forget glitch, allowing the flexibility I think you're seeking.
You can always just replace all wizards in your world with Psions :) The psionics rules from Dreamscarred Press seem pretty balanced to me. And the upside is that you don't have to do any play-testing of your own.
I do have those, but what do you suggest?
Using the psions with their psionic powers and pretend they are mages?
Or use the psion class but the sorc/wiz spell list?
Either way I see problems, since the psionic powers mostly either of telepathic or telekinetc origin or simply work on yourself, which doesn't "feel" very magical.
And using the psion with the sorc/wiz spells could all sorts of power problems I can't think of right now...
Well, I meant that you could just call Psions Wizards. Its your world. If you say that magic is an exercise of will, who is to say different :) You could even add verbal and somatic components if you want the feel.
I recently remembered that Wizards put out some variant casting systems in UA. They had Spell Points and Recharge Magic. I am not sure how balanced they are since I have not really looked at them. I, personally, think that adding more flexibility to wizards makes them too powerful. Still, you could give those systems a look.
I think you can just bump the sorcerer's spell progression by a level (so they get 2nd level spells at CL 3, 3rd level spells at CL 5, etc...) and call him a wizard without breaking the game.
-----------------------
Some other thoughts on your system. I got around to reading the Doc, so I can give some better feedback.
Wizards don't actually have less spells per day than the sorcerer. Compare a level 4 wizard vs sorcerer. I'll use level 4 because that's when the sorc gets a new spell level.
With 18 Cha, the Sorcerer has 7 level 1 spells and 4 level 2
With 18 Int and a school specialization, the wizard has 5 level 1 spells and 4 level 2 spells.
So in the end, the wizard has the same number of his best spells, he gets them earlier and he has more options. Just keep this in mind when balancing.
-------------------------
On ASF:
Its very easy to get the ACP to 0. A mithral breastplate has an ACP of 0 (-1 masterwork, -3 mithral.) This means that you boost the AC of all casters by 6 for free. Are you ok with that? From a verisimilitude perspective, I kind of agree with you that an ACP of 0 basically means that armor is pyjamas, so should not hinder casting. Maybe you could reword the rule that ACP is doubled before reduction for things like armor training/mithral. That way the ACP-for-spellcasting of a chain-shirt would be 8. With mithral, it would be 4. Still reasonable.
----------------------------
On your spell point rules:
Be careful with just porting the psionics augmentation mechanic. psionics is balanced around it, but magic assumes you cast all your spells at max level. For example, DCs of many psionic powers scale with the power point investment. For example, most level 1 power cast with 9 power points are essentially heightened for free. Some parameters of psionic powers scale with manifester level for free. Usually, you don't need to augment powers to get more duration.
The reason for these differences is that the psion only knows 2 powers per level, and he needs to have low level powers still be versatile enough to not be useless. If the psion had to augment all his powers to the max to get any use out of them, then he'd burn through his power points like lightning.
-------------------------
Anyway, I hope my ramblings are useful to you.
On ASF:
Its very easy to get the ACP to 0. A mithral breastplate has an ACP of 0 (-1 masterwork, -3 mithral.) This means that you boost the AC of all casters by 6 for free. Are you ok with that? From a verisimilitude perspective, I kind of agree with you that an ACP of 0 basically means that armor is pyjamas, so should not hinder casting. Maybe you could reword the rule that ACP is doubled before reduction for things like armor training/mithral. That way the ACP-for-spellcasting of a chain-shirt would be 8. With mithral, it would be 4. Still reasonable.
You're confusing arcane spell failure with armor check penalty. ACP is a negative number that applies to skills. ASF is a perrcentage of failure for casting spells in such armor.
You're confusing arcane spell failure with armor check penalty. ACP is a negative number that applies to skills. ASF is a perrcentage of failure for casting spells in such armor.
I know, DracoDruid wants to replace ASF with an ACP penalty on concentration checks.
Hey KM! Thanks again for the feedback.
I do know the spell point rules from UA. They are somewhat similar (maybe a bit more complex) than mine.
They too use the rule for augmenting a spell (they are always cast at minimum level but can be increased by 1 per additional spell point).
This was done out of balancing, and I totally agree and like it.
I will check the spell progressions again. Never looked TOO deep into comparing them.
(I also never understood EXACTLY why sorcs or better ALL spont. casters get their spell levels one level later...)
About ACP/ASF:
I am pretty sure, mithral is only reducing ACP by -3 ALREADY including masterwork quality.
I believe two mithral armors are presented in the Magic Item section and they follow that rule.
Come to think of it, both Max.DEX and ASF are improved by an equivalent of 2 points (=10%) and so would ACP, but with mithral always being masterwork it's -3 total.
And yet, the wizard would A) need proficiency and B) still calculate the armor's weight to check for encumbrance.
Sure mithral doesn't weigh much but still.
I've mentioned it here before, but I think its a beautifully elegant way to help mitigate the huge problem some people have with the Vancian style of magic.
And, ironically, the idea is to exacerbate the underlying fault with it.
If the presumption of Vancian magic is that it is prepackaged, and difficult to cast on the fly from memory, hence the requirement of 'pre-loading' just about all of the spell and then finishing it when needed. Then take that to it's next inevitable step.
Wizards cannot cast spells form memory. No amount or combination of wits intellect or memory is going to allow them to do so. That's why it's all written down, in huge, thick, dusty books. Wizards have to cast their magic from their spellbooks, not from their heads.
The simple game mechanic is to actually seriously enforce the spell scribing rules, and the adding spells to a spellbook costs, and then have the wizard cast every one of their spells form the spell book as if it were a re-usable scroll. Take a standard action to flip through to the desired spell, and a standard action to read it off and cast. A wizards version of the Quickdraw feat could allow for a swift or free action to find the spell.
This allows the Wizard to shake the shackles of Vancian spell slot memorization, and has the bonus of not needing to do a thing to the sorcerer, since their magic is borne of blood and willpower, not dusty books.
This does place a bit of onus on the GM to treat the spellbooks as not just background fluff and flavor clutter, it's the source of a wizard's power. take away the book, damage the book, and the wizard's power suffers.
I would not, under any circumstance, give wizards any other ability to offset the risk of losing the book. It makes them forces to be reckoned with. The protection and maintenance thereof should be absolutely first among the character's priorities.
I've been in games where this is the way wizard's magic works, and it doesn't upset things terribly much, I'd say no more than some of the things that are absolutely legal by RAW. With the caveat that the GM is very careful of what spells the wizard has access to, and how much gold the wizard is putting into that book.
You're confusing arcane spell failure with armor check penalty. ACP is a negative number that applies to skills. ASF is a perrcentage of failure for casting spells in such armor.I know, DracoDruid wants to replace ASF with an ACP penalty on concentration checks.
Gotcha. I missed that. My bad.
I actually also have a problem with spell slots or power slots. If slots represent a certain amount of power, then why can't I exchange one higher spell slot for SEVERAL lower ones?
Or combine several lower ones for one higher one?
I actually like the fact that the spell levels, to asome extent, mirror quantum levels in physics. Makes the whole thing seem cooler to me -- but that's personal preference only, and given that you hate it, OK.
Feedback on your proposed rules: They make prepared casters, who are already gods at higher levels, even better. I don't really care about the armor thing, but being able to prepare a whole mess of spells at will, and then cast them freely however you like, is a serious boost for the classes that need nerfing the most. Seriously, if you do this, make sure the players understand that in your houserules, there are only two classes: wizard and cleric. The rest are no better than NPC classes in comparison.
The fact that Monte Cook did it doesn't help at all. Monte is the guy who, in designing 3.0, removed all the spellcasting limitations from the earlier editions, and then added a bunch of limitations to martial classes besides, making the martial-caster disparity (which existed but was manageable in 1e) into something that destroys the game after 10th level or so, in the hands of players who actually think about their spell selections instead of just blasting stuff. Monte then turned around and finished the job in his Arcana Unearthed/Evolved stuff. You really think an 11th level akashic or unfettered is operating at anything close to the power and flexibility that an 11th level magister is? No chance. Monte loves full casters, and wanted to make sure that anyone not playing one was punished so severely that they'd regret their choice, and learn better for next time. Remember -- Monte is also the guy who explains how they intentionally added a lot of "trap" options to 3.0.
One possible offset is to make full casters (at least arcanists) MAD.
That's one I did in my houserules, even using normal Vancian casting.
In DD's proposed scheme, you might make spells known Int-based, Concentration checks Wis-based, spell save DCs Charisma-based, and spell slots per day Con-based. That would be almost enough MAD to make a difference.
|
True Sorcery is an alternate magic system I've heard good things about.
Personally I'd like to see a completely different casting system that works very differently, but I haven't seen one that works the way I'd like yet, and I haven't sat down to write one.
I personally think that the entire magic system and weapon system could be revamped into something resembling a skill system.
furthermore all spells would follow a progression related to the spell or the school. so you couldn't really cast creat pit until you had learned expeditious evacuation or maybe fireball until you had learned spark.
fly would first require airwalk which requires levitate etc etc.
yes.. its a spell tree system.
only... doing so would require a complete revamp of how the game works and although it would open up many other possibilities it would mean that things simply work differently.
it would be a different game. maybe a 2.0 but no matter how you cut it... its not happening today and I dont think it can be properly home ruled.
|
|
I personally think that the entire magic system and weapon system could be revamped into something resembling a skill system.
furthermore all spells would follow a progression related to the spell or the school. so you couldn't really cast creat pit until you had learned expeditious evacuation or maybe fireball until you had learned spark.
fly would first require airwalk which requires levitate etc etc.
yes.. its a spell tree system.
only... doing so would require a complete revamp of how the game works and although it would open up many other possibilities it would mean that things simply work differently.
it would be a different game. maybe a 2.0 but no matter how you cut it... its not happening today and I dont think it can be properly home ruled.
It could be house ruled in pretty easily, or even put in "officially" pretty easily, by making Archetypes of the existing casting classes that trade spellcasting with the old system for spellcasting with the new system.
At most, some Alt. Classes.
Adding new classes isn't too difficult. But yes. I doubt it will come from Paizo. However, a 3pp or Houseruled Archetype wouldn't be that hard. It would involve designing the new magic system that your archetypes will use; but it could be done.
New Magic System + 1 Archetype for each spellcasting class. that only changes the spellcasting class feature, and potentially adds new feats to the bonus feat list that apply for the new magic system (if applicable).
I use similar houserules, with spellpoints. The sorcerer? Simply give him the benefit of using metamagic on the fly without increased casting time. Besides, they are your houserules. Play them out & see if they work for you.
My personal idea I have toyed with is to have one main spellcasting class, for the wizard/cleric types. Tie the spellcasting stats to specific schools of magic. You run into MADS, but on purpose. Built in specialization. Mimics novels, too. This mage casts Charms like nobody's business, but have him cast a magic missle & it fizzles, or he can't because his stat in that school isn't high enough to get the spell.
|
The problem is, you're taking what's almost unanimously considered to be one of the most powerful classes in the game, and removing even more restrictions from it. Your modified wizard has all the flexibility of a sorcerer, while retaining the ability to expand his spellbook's contents to infinity; plus the superior spellcasting progression of a wizard.
At what point do the entitlement issues for wizard players end?
Wow! Thanks for all the feedback!
Actually, I had no problem merging the wizard and the sorcerer into one class.
Just either pick a school or a bloodline (with some adjustments of course) and name yourself whatever you want, but the casting mechanic/potential stays the same.
I would have rather seen a clearer distinction between arcane casters and divine ones, actually.
Or maybe a distinction between INT, WIS and CHA casters.
(I think "Midnight" did this to some degree - INT (Wizard casting), WIS (Cleric/Druid casting), CHA (Sorcerer casting))
The whole concept of "I get my powers from my god" but then having to prepare (pray for - whatever) my spells EXACTLY like a wizard (one spell multiple times, with spell components to finally cast them) is just totally weird and doesn't really produce a fealing of "I call upon the hand of god" but rather "I am a wizard with a full spellbook in my head, because I follow a God/Religion (not unoften only more or less)"
I hope you know what I mean.
Putting out more and more spell casting classes doesn't make this any easier.
(The witch made a pact with some powerful being to get her powers (just like the cleric!) but is an ARCANE caster?)
I know I am getting off-topic but this is one part of the problem I have with the official spell system and one part of the reason why I tinker with it.
I must also agree with ATARLOST, the problem with overpowered casters is probably not the number of spells or how they cast them, but WHAT KIND of spells they can get access to.
----------
And about limiting the flexibility of my system. It might not be much, but at least when using the spell point option, you don't get to cast your spells all at maximum power, but rather with minimum power if you wish to cast the exact same number of spells per spell slot as under the vancian system.
(But of course instead you can pool your lower level slots to cast more higher level ones - so to speak...)
Ah. I just know that the system as is still sucks and want something else. Something better. But I just don't know what exactly.
But I'll get there...
|
|
Ah. I just know that the system as is still sucks and want something else. Something better. But I just don't know what exactly.
But I'll get there...
Here are some things to look at for different types of mechanics you could use:
True Sorcery - Alt. Spellcasting system for d20. Way more flexible, a bit less powerful.
Psionics Expanded - Spellpoint based magic system. You could take its main mechanic and make some tweaks and then apply it to your other caster classes. Would take a bit of doing though.
Ghosts of Albion - Has an interesting system that has no limited casting, but relies on a "spellcasting roll" with a DC based on the spell level of the spell to succeed in casting anything, with dangerous things that can happen if you fail. You still learn spells from spellbooks.
Ars Magica - I dont know anything about this one, but its something people point to alot as an alternative system to D&D magic.
The trick once you've figured out HOW you want it to work, is HOW STRONG you want it to work. (IE scaling it so it isn't always way better than melee classes always.)