| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I took the rules of Slayers d20, revised the hell out of them, and Pathfinderized them. I've mentioned this before and a few folks expressed interest.
But there's a LOT of rules -- classes, feats, skill rules (including majorly revised psychological warfare rules), not to mention the whole non-Vancian casting system and big ol' spell index to go with it. Oh, and the beastfolk race (with subraces) and a handful of monsters.
And I'm a bit at a loss of how to share them with y'all. I think trying to post the whole shabang into message board posts here would be difficult. I could try to upload them to GoogleDocs in doc or pdf form. Or I could upload them to my gaming blog, like I tried to do with my stalled Suikod20 project. Or I could email stuff to folks individually if only a handful are interested. Just don't start publishing it as your own work, right?
But DQ, what IS Slayers d20 and why did you Pathfinderize it?
You may or may not have heard of The Slayers which is a series of novels/manga/anime/radio plays/video games/etc. in Japan. It's a high powered fantasy story inspired, indeed, by the author's own fantasy RPG adventures. It is extremely silly with the occasional dash of darkness, and showcases powerful spellcasters.
Several years ago, the sadly now-defunct Guardians of Order (the same folks who brought you BESM) did a Slayers d20 rulebook, which took the concepts of the Slayers and applied it to the d20 system, including designing a pretty neat non-vancian casting system.
Thing is, it works fairly well on the surface, but--in my opinion--there were a lot of vagaries in the rules and a lot of unnecessary things like "required" Prestige Classes and added skills (on top of 3.x's already bloated skill system). It could use a revision and some streamlining -- while still featuring the pretty cool casting system. So I worked on a revision, simplified all the classes into base classes and rewrote classes without dead levels and so forth, added all the Pathfinder lovely stuff like its skill and feat system and Combat Maneuvers, and cleaned up the magic to the extent that it needed to be (mostly clarifying things and making the spell descriptions clearer and removing redundant spells--you don't need 65 spells that all are some form of fireball/flame arrow). It also had a cool idea for a psychological warfare system that I played with and overhauled.
DQ, does this mean you made a new Slayers game and have stats for Lina Inverse?
Nope. Slayers d20 by d20 OGL rules is an OGL rule game. What I did was take the RULES that were OGL and overhaul them. I tried to remove any and all IP references whereever I noticed them (though the humor and power level of the Slayers should still come through, as well as very broad concepts like magic coming from realms of order, entropy, and the elements). For the record, I call the revised rules "Insane Fantasy!" because I was struck by a deep insanity of wanting to try and take this project on in the first place.
Which also means hopefully I can post it to the Internet without copyright ramifications.
But you can of course probably take the Insane Fantasy rules and build Lina Inverse in your home games.*
What is it you want from me again?
To let me know if you're interested in looking at what I wrote up -- bearing in mind it is VERY alpha -- and if so, what format you'd suggest I try to upload it all.
Thanks!
* As an aside, I have occasionally threatened my players that if I ever wanted to really end the world they were standing on, I'd just have Lina show up in the game. :)
I have the old Slayers d20 sourcebook myself. Did you also examine the old Guardians of Order Slayers BESM books ?
I have the old Slayers d20 sourcebook myself. Did you also examine the old Guardians of Order Slayers BESM books ?
No, don't have them and didn't need them to update the d20 rules. Remember, goal was to work with the system, not the IP. :)
I'd like to take a look. Please and thank you.
I'd like to take a look. Please and thank you.
** spoiler omitted **
Thanks. Is Word okay?
Thanks. Is Word okay?I'd like to take a look. Please and thank you.
** spoiler omitted **
Sure is.
It would be terrific seeing that!
Please let me know if you can put it somewhere to download, e.g. googledocs :-)
MeTooMeTooMeToo!! Word is also okay for me.
The next step will be convincing my gaming group to try it. This may call for something drastic....
** spoiler omitted **
Good Luck ;)
Thanks guys. I am working on getting it up on GoogleDocs. Bear with me, hope to get it up by the end of the week.
WWLID? (What Would Lina Inverse Do?)
** spoiler omitted **
(On the last, pretty sure Lina has Improvised Weapon Mastery)
|
Oh, the cool Spellcasting system!
I have d20 Advanced Magic, so I know how cool it really is! :)
It's the coolest NON-VANCIAN magic system I've seen besides the one in the WoT RPG (the WoT RPG magic system is easier for the majority of who posts here to swallow, believe me, I KNOW!). THAT magic system should have been adapted to D&D 4e instead of what they did.
Dotted for the same purpose.
Dotting
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or you could just get the old Slayers BESM books. They're dirt cheap on Amazon. Being d20/Pathfinder doesn't automatically make something better. In fact, I find that when something was originally done with another system, the d20 versions tend to be quite inferior.
As I've already done the conversion, that's a bit late. And the point was to convert the specific d20 System already created to a Pathfinderized version, so BESM has nothing to do with it. I liked the specific d20 magic system introduced in that older game book and therefore worked on an update.
(Also for the record, Slayers d20 came out before BESM Slayers, so in the is case, what was "originally done with another system" was in fact the d20 version. Also, I believe the Slayers itself began as the author's campaign in either D&D or a similar fantasy RPG system, so BESM is in fact the farthest flung attempt from its origins.)
Anyway, I take it you're not interested. Have a nice day.
sounds pretty interesting to me, I'm a pretty big Slayers fan.
Cool. I may convert this stuff to .pdf after all so as not to lose some formatting.
Hope to get it up by Saturday, sorry it's taking so long, as noted in the OP I was trying to figure out how to get it uploaded and then as I was reviewing the material for upload of course I started noticing typos, and started fixing things... this is why I need to get other people to look at it.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, here we go!
Behold, rough, alpha documents for Insane Fantasy, a conversion of the mechanics from Slayers d20.
Things to bear in mind:
- This is a high magic game designed for light-hearted and loose gameplay. It does rely on the GM's discretion for a number of things and thus does not suit all manner of play styles.
- Game assumes high magic but not necessarily tons of magic gear
- Mechanics from core PFRPG and APG considered assumed and known/are referenced as backbone for all game mechanics not listed in documents below. UC is not used/referenced. UM is referenced in passing (spellblights suggested as one way a GM could reflect spell control check failure)
- This is rough; there are some things missing and some things that still need work. But I need to have other people need to look at this before "Insane Fantasy" becomes my own permanent state of mind. :) I have written a lot of to do lists and conversion notes at the end of each section (in the classes section they're after each class).
Insane Fantasy
Character Generation and Races
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rta68G2WbmwYN3bIAqmC_Nbq4yK8Qi8rgdFsOAM cFiU/edit
Classes
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18F7kfddnqCjFxIFi6G39KuWvaxA0yuoFbWVJ-Vc JoQs/edit
Skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-bMGnMA65CmGw2UUQXisjtV8cd5XsCW3SR3VDFj srxU/edit
Feats
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pHVodkSsXFx7ZAdD-er7VG8Mys4_WCOYL-Rj9Mv 1p1o/edit
Magic
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u4VkTVJt8Ko_D_oTMUZwh4-K6dKoL0rmXfld1oo 2_C8/edit
Spells
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12Tt-Dgl0hkEO1A0-i4QG27WPMjSjXrprG0zLrhP 7l1Q/edit
Bestiary
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RJGoold4jmue9K9xzEo8PA7kzguCj4g9rfjrADG EkwE/edit
(Oh, for good measure, the OGL: http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/OGLv1.0a.rtf)
These are word processor docs uploaded to GoogleDocs (I didn't do .pdfs after all). They should be set to viewable and commentable as long as you go there with link. If you have trouble viewing or prefer I still send it to you directly, let me know.
|
|
You got to remember it's Funny Fantasy. :)
After all, where else do you have a -- but in Slayers -- dragon who is amorous for human males? And after you watch that episode you assume that the dragon is gay for good looking human men?
You can call it insane, but there is rhyme and reason to that world. It's just D&D turned all the way up, and all the way up on the funny scale. Also, the story telling isn't the best.
Indeed, GM Elton. If there's any place I can make sure the rules and guidelines project the right tone by all means let me know.
Tangentially, I originally was going to call it "Inverse Fantasy" but I decided that was a little too derivative. I changed it to "insane" so I wouldn't have to change the initials "IF" and because of the high power levels and crazy sense of humor the game should have. :)
If any of y'all do take a look can you post here? Even if you've got nothing to say, helps me to know who saw the earlier post.
I have downloaded the files, I'll be reading them after work today or tommorrow, the quick glance I gave them looks good so far.
|
|
I started myself. I looked over the races section, and did some comparisons to the d20 book. I think the ability scores are much better than the original for the beastmen. One problem I have with it, and this was in the original too, is that the individual beastfolk feel too similar. It's quicker and easier the way it's done (and does fit the series for the most part), but it seems there's enough variety in the races currently present to use established races for many of them, at least imo. Lizard=lizardfolk, Fox=Kitsune, Cat=catfolk, Bear=bugbear, etc. Otherwise looks good!
I started critiquing the Crusader. The first thing I noticed is the Crusader Strike ability seems to be too clunky for the way it's currently presented. Take current classes in Pathfinder. Something like Paladin's Smite or Alchemist's bombs where there's little choice use the x/day mechanice. But in cases where you can choose from a pool of abilities, they establish a pool mechanic, like a monk's Ki Pool or a Gunslinger's Grit. I'd recommend coming up with a similar mechanic for the Crusader's Strike ability.
When I have a chance I'l post some more. Please note everything looks good, just offering some feedback. I like what I see thus far!
Thanks, Xzaral, I really appreciate the feedback -- especially the specific details.
For Beastfolk, in Slayers they really were referred to as more or less a single race with cosmetic differences. A lot of times when you saw beastfolk together, they even were of the different subtypes mixed together. So in the spirit of the inspiring material, adding more differences would make this deviate from the original -- but on the other hand, since this moves away from the IP anyway, that doesn't make it out of the question.
I wrote the race up before ARG or even looking at the later Bestiaries. I'd be willing to consider using the ARG races or at least use that as a starting point -- I think to use the exact beast-races as written would mean introducing races of varying power levels in, and I would prefer to keep the races pretty balanced (@ 10 RP more or less). But that's something to look at if I have time.
With the Crusader --
I do agree the mechanic is clunky and needs some clean up. It's roughly mapped after barbarian rage powers or, loosely, inquisitor judgments--basically different kinds of attacks or bonuses to be gained.
While it might be a rational, possible solution, I hate power pools with a fiery burning passion. I don't like the numbers-based feel they have, I don't like giving players of certain classes more things to track than others, and I just don't like them. Were this something I were attempting to pass off professionally, I'd consider it (though probably pass it off to another designer) but as this is at its core a personal project--for all that I do value others' feedback and want it to be playable by other people--I'll forego the kinds of mechanics I don't want to work with myself. I do value the suggestion even if I'm not willing to take it at this time.
And that said, I'm definitely willing to look at other ways to clean up the crusader's strike. I want to give them some customization options but I don't want them to be fiddly to play the way I feel the monk or gunslinger or magus are. One option is to take some of the special attacks and just make them standing class features (since the crusader needs more of those anyway), and turn the "choose your own power" thing into something more closely resembling the inquisitor's judgments--a more streamlined series of bonuses to gain (which is suitable, since the crusader and inquisitor have similar roles, even if the crusader is more satirical).
I also have the start of a magic item document. I haven't gotten very far with it -- wrote up orihalcon/orichalcum. Wrote up a broad description of talismans of metamagic but have applied no mechanics.
What if any other items should be included? I am wary about including something along the lines of Gorun Nova.
|
|
Trying to assemble a list of items from the series.
Lina's headband.
Zangulus's Demonic Howling Sword
Claire Bible (probably best not to include)
Mimi's and Nene's weapons (those were magic if I recall, would have to watch that episode again)
Zanafar armor from Evolution (also probably best not to include)
Mind control gems themselves actually
The cursed dagger from early in the first season
If you do the OVAs, the mirror that creates a shadow duplicate
The fox guys orihalcum tank (Okay, I really want to go and re-watch the entire series again)
Wooden weapons and armor from the one movie? Not magic, but funny nonetheless
The amulet's Lina made for money in the episode with the cursed dagger
Vrumugan's orb he used during the play (didn't really say much about it though)
The weapons of the warriors of justice
Just not enough item based magic I guess, aside from magic trains, golems, and way too awesome stuff to give to PCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The novels have some pretty interesting stuff, and the first seven (IIRC) have been translated... Interestingly the armor is the original form of zanaffar; the second half of the first series was heavily altered from the original.
Thanks for the list guys, that's helpful. Part of the daunting task is determining how creating magic items works -- need to reread the section in Sd20 too.
Xzaral, the mirror from the Slayers OAV is IN Pathfinder already, it's known as the mirror of opposition. The "GM" just had an extremely amusing take on "opposition" but that's still what it was supposed to be. Mind, the duplicates were supposed to be destroyed upon destruction of the mirror, but... :)
In other news, Google's switching GoogleDocs to GoogleDrive so let me know if you have any issues accessing the docs.
Wanted to pop in and say I've been watching this thread off and on for awhile and think what you're doing is great. Very cool stuff!
Thanks, Aleron!
Shameless bump. I know it's a lot of stuff to read. I really would appreciate feedback though.
It's been a couple weeks and I've received no comments that I know of (unless my comment updates/notifs are borked). Is there no further interest?
I want to cast DORAGON SURAVE (Dragon Slave).
Interested as well, love Lina Inverse (and Naga of the serpent).
Did someone say Naga ?
Thanks, Skeeve, I appreciate it.
In my spell list, you will find what you are looking for under "Dragon Slayer," Gandal.
SlimGauge, that is one of my favorite Slayers AMVs. I also like this one about Lina.
I notice you have all spells with a full-round/standard action casting time; was curipis about that since Slayers does a lot with incantations which take some time - Timing Dragon Slave's complete incantation, it'd probably have a casting time of three rounds (though Lina obviously has the Quicken Spell feat).
Was fun trying to pick out spells that I recognized, though.
|
|
Or you could just get the old Slayers BESM books. They're dirt cheap on Amazon. Being d20/Pathfinder doesn't automatically make something better. In fact, I find that when something was originally done with another system, the d20 versions tend to be quite inferior.
Your opinion is noted. However his conversions are already better than the terrible BESM system. When someone is sharing their creativity, the proper response is never "don't bother".
|
Your temporary filler text cracks me up. "Awesome Capstone - Is awesome" and so forth.
I love Slayers and Pathfinder, so this is a big win for me. My first 3.0 character was a sorcerer sooo transparently based on Lina Inverse. My only saving grace was that no one else in my gaming group was into anime at that time. ^_^;
You've generated a fair amount of content here. Well done! I haven't familiarized myself with it sufficiently to offer feedback that is super-helpful, but I will definitely say I look forward to reading more of what you come up with.
I notice you have all spells with a full-round/standard action casting time; was curipis about that since Slayers does a lot with incantations which take some time - Timing Dragon Slave's complete incantation, it'd probably have a casting time of three rounds (though Lina obviously has the Quicken Spell feat).
Was fun trying to pick out spells that I recognized, though.
If you read the Casting Time section in magic, you'll see you have the option to extend the casting time beyond 1 round. For each round you extend the casting--and thus are incanting the spell--you get a +5 bonus to your Spell Drain and Control checks. For exceptionally difficult spells to cast, it's nearly requisite to cast the spell over multiple rounds, which was intentional by design. :)
I'll go over the paragraph and make sure that option is more apparent in the text.
Your temporary filler text cracks me up. "Awesome Capstone - Is awesome" and so forth.
:)
I am sorely tempted to leave the as yet unidentified explorer class ability as "Thing."
In seriousness though, I'd love some suggestions for the class abilities that are missing. :)
I love Slayers and Pathfinder, so this is a big win for me. My first 3.0 character was a sorcerer sooo transparently based on Lina Inverse. My only saving grace was that no one else in my gaming group was into anime at that time. ^_^;
Don't feel bad, I once had a World of Darkness character based on the Pink Power Ranger. :)
You've generated a fair amount of content here. Well done! I haven't familiarized myself with it sufficiently to offer feedback that is super-helpful, but I will definitely say I look forward to reading more of what you come up with.
Thanks very much!
To the rules itself... - I've been thinking more about how to fix the crusader. I'm considering cribbing Judgment straight from the Inquisitor class and adding that in--or something similar. Conceptually, the classes are similar in some ways (although the crusader is more warriorish and silly). I would turn the idea of Crusader's Strike into an extension of Fists of Justice, a single imbued attack or much smaller series of attack options that improve at larger intervals, filling in some of the dead levels currently in place. Thoughts?
Have you put thought into using an Energy Point system that was used in BESM, instead of the Non-lethal damage, I had some of my players either max out their CON or outright complain about losing hit points when I experimented back in 3.5 with a modified version of this system using a lot from the Slayers D20 and also from the Advanced D20 Magic both produced by GoO. I have been tempted to go back to it, but to many people are stuck on the vancian casting. The other problem i ran into is some players felt there was to much dice rolling required to cast a spell, using this system. I personally like it but can't find anyone willing to run it so i can play using it.
Have you put thought into using an Energy Point system that was used in BESM, instead of the Non-lethal damage,
I had some of my players either max out their CON or outright complain about losing hit points when I experimented back in 3.5 with a modified version of this system using a lot from the Slayers D20 and also from the Advanced D20 Magic both produced by GoO.
I don't own BESM so I don't know that per se. There are some mana systems in d20 of course that I could look at. I've thought about it in a general way, as it does keep the high Constitution "requirement" out of the issue, as the existing system makes it optimal for characters to both have as many hit points as possible and a high Fortitude save, and players don't feel "taxed" to keep two stats high (Con and their casting stat, usually Int).
On the other hand, the reason why I have kept it so far are
1. I want to avoid additional pools for players to keep track of. I mentioned my dislike of pools earlier in this thread. You already track HP and nonlethal damage, on the other hand, so that's nothing new.
2. I _like_ the idea that spellcasting taps into life force, and can drain you of your Strength--which also comes straight from Slayers flavor as well. Spellcasting dealing nonlethal damage is the most forgiving way of doing that. Nonlethal damage can heal back easily but it still is a resource you don't want to give up easily.
3. The spellcasting system as written is kind of the whole reason I started doing this conversion, because I liked it.
Even that said, it's not an idea I'd write off completely, but those are the reasons so far for my sticking to something close to the original. If you have run a system with mana points or energy points yourself and can report your experience that would be helpful.
Others' feedback on playing with the system as written would also be useful, although I don't know how likely I will get it. At some point I'll want to playtest this stuff but I need to do things like fill in missing class abilities and stuff work.
I have been tempted to go back to it, but to many people are stuck on the vancian casting. The other problem i ran into is some players felt there was to much dice rolling required to cast a spell, using this system. I personally like it but can't find anyone willing to run it so i can play using it.
I did at least eliminate one die roll during spellcasting -- rolling spell drain damage. I just made it a flat number (especially since at high casting DCs, it was a ridiculous number of dice to roll).
Ideas for further streamlining the existing system would be welcome. One thing I've thought about is just making the whole thing a single Concentration check, rather than Fortitude save, then possible Concentration check. So you cast a spell, take a flat amount of nonlethal damage, make a Concentration check -- success, spell is cast, failure, spell fizzles, failure by a lot incurs some kind of backfire.
|
This took me longer to get back to than I thought, but I haven't forgotten about it. I've mostly only just looked through the magic and spell sections at this point, and it seems pretty nicely done.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a conversion of the standard d20/Pathfinder spells to this system, but I think that might be a little outside the scope of what you're trying to do here.
Also, I've been finding it entertaining to go through the spell list and try and figure out what each spell was supposed to be.
This took me longer to get back to than I thought, but I haven't forgotten about it. I've mostly only just looked through the magic and spell sections at this point, and it seems pretty nicely done.
Thanks! I know it's a lot of stuff so I appreciate you taking the time to look at any of it.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a conversion of the standard d20/Pathfinder spells to this system, but I think that might be a little outside the scope of what you're trying to do here.
In terms of pure system conversion, it's easy. All you really need to do is determine the spell casting DC, which directly relates to spell level (0 level is DC 20, and it goes up by 5 from there). Then you'd need to determine the spell slots it'd take up -- usually one slot plus one for what would be in Pathfinder a lengthy casting time or costly or numerous spell components, or just if a spell is very powerful for its level, relatively speaking.
The harder part is determining what really works within the conceits of the system -- a lighthearted, high magic, high powered game where spellcasting is dependent on life force. So for example, you have to be careful with healing magic because you could restore someone to full health, including removing all nonlethal damage taken, and thus make spellcasters be able to cast spells endlessly. (Now, if you wanted to use Pathfinder spells, that would be an argument per Darkon Slayer's point about switching to a non HP based system instead, but staying close to the spirit of the original, it's something to consider.)
As for the source of inspiration for the system, the Slayers itself focuses very much on evocation/blasty spells, with only some battlefield control. Adding the vast amount of battlefield control spells in Pathfinder could very much vastly boost the power level of spellcasters.
So it is possible but how it would affect the power level would be the major consideration. Of course many spells are essentially the same as in PF or D&D anyway (fireball, etc.). Or similar with minor variation.
Also, I've been finding it entertaining to go through the spell list and try and figure out what each spell was supposed to be.
:) Some are more obvious than others. Some spells I also combined -- Slayers d20 had IIRC freeze bit and freeze bullet which were extremely similar, and I just made them one spell.
So, I've been taking a look at the classes (the beastmen seem pretty reasonably put together), and if I'm deciphering this correctly, each of the three spellcasting classes seems to have a slightly different method of determining what their bonuses to Drain and Control checks are for each school of magic. I don't mind admitting that it's a little confusing to puzzle out.
Given that, and the fact that most of the Slayers main cast seemed to be, shall we say, extremely 'multi-discipline' in their spellcasting, if it might not be a little simpler and a little truer to the source material if every class had a Spellcasting Bonus (advancing at either +3/4 or +1 per level, like in Advanced d20 Spellcasting) to all Control and Drain checks, and then an additional scaling bonus to spells of that class' discipline.
Using the elementalist as an example; with a +1 base Spellcasting Bonus per level and an additional +1 to Elemental spells per Elementalist level works out to a +4 bonus to spellcasting checks every other level. I think that works pretty elegantly with each individual spell level being a +5 to the DC of the spell.
It might make Control checks trivial at higher levels, though, so that might require some fiddling if you go with this.
-----
I'm also experimenting a little with using this as a spellcasting system directly in Pathfinder, and I'd like your opinion on my 'conversion notes' as it were.
My plans are to have the base DC be 15 + spell level*5, and have level 1-3 spells take up one slot, 4-6 spells 2 slots, and 7-9 spells 3 slots, plus an additional slot for costly components or long casting time or whatever. Drain is going to be non-lethal damage, not curable by magic healing. I'm also debating making a Drain check be either your choice of a Fort or Will save, just to narrow the gap between wizards and clerics a little.
I'm also planning on having cantrips be learnable at 3 to the spell slot, and the 'Cantrips' feature allow you to take 10 on Drain Checks when casting them, basically making them a non-issue to cast unless you're already exhausted or something, but I'd welcome your thoughts.
So, I've been taking a look at the classes (the beastmen seem pretty reasonably put together), and if I'm deciphering this correctly, each of the three spellcasting classes seems to have a slightly different method of determining what their bonuses to Drain and Control checks are for each school of magic. I don't mind admitting that it's a little confusing to puzzle out.
It SHOULD all be the same for the priest, elementalist, and mage, so if it's different, that is my error in editing (at some point I boosted the bonus at a higher level and may have failed to update all the entries). I'll double check and make sure the text is clear, and will post here when I am finish. Thanks for pointing that out! I can edit other people's stuff fine, but when writing my own, all the words start to blur in front of me after awhile so I start to miss what should be obvious things.
As I wrote it, this is how it should work universally: at 1st level, a spellcaster gets a bonus to spell drain and control checks equal to their class level for their specialty and for universal spells (so for priests, sacred magic; mages, entropic; and elementalists, elemental). At 7th level, this becomes their level x 1.5. At 15th level it becomes their level x2.
Given that, and the fact that most of the Slayers main cast seemed to be, shall we say, extremely 'multi-discipline' in their spellcasting, if it might not be a little simpler and a little truer to the source material if every class had a Spellcasting Bonus (advancing at either +3/4 or +1 per level, like in Advanced d20 Spellcasting) to all Control and Drain checks, and then an additional scaling bonus to spells of that class' discipline.
I will bear your suggestion in mind.
To explain why things are as they are currently:
1. It is inspired by what was in Slayers d20
2. Slayers does emphasize strongly the differences between a sorcerer, priest, and shamanist, and that they do NOT have all the same areas of expertise. Sylphiel struggling to cast Dragon Slave as a good, if exaggerated, example. Lina can cast sorcery and shamanist spells expertly, with some white magic, but that's because Lina is Lina F&#&ing Inverse, and even she notes there are say, white magic spells she cannot cast well and looks to Sylphiel or Amelia to cast as well. (Lina also can't cast Rah Tilt). I especially look to the light novels for guidance in this because they provide actual lengthy exposition of how magic works, which is more useful than the exposition in the anime. It seems like folks always have one area of expertise, even if they master a few spells from all schools (which you can still do in the system as written).
2. I do not want a single spellcaster to be good at casting all kinds of spells without having to work for it, or if one is not careful, one could find a way to create a caster who masters all forms of magic with no penalty.
3. You can gain bonuses to casting from other schools from multiclassing, the Explorer class (secret of control and secret of advanced control), and the Spell Mastery feat.
THAT SAID...
Using the elementalist as an example; with a +1 base Spellcasting Bonus per level and an additional +1 to Elemental spells per Elementalist level works out to a +4 bonus to spellcasting checks every other level. I think that works pretty elegantly with each individual spell level being a +5 to the DC of the spell.It might make Control checks trivial at higher levels, though, so that might require some fiddling if you go with this.
Yes, that is my concern, but there might be a more elegant way of doing it all, or at least allowing for the possibility. Maybe more feats could be added as an alternative. I will consider it most definitely.
I'm also experimenting a little with using this as a spellcasting system directly in Pathfinder, and I'd like your opinion on my 'conversion notes' as it were.My plans are to have the base DC be 15 + spell level*5, and have level 1-3 spells take up one slot, 4-6 spells 2 slots, and 7-9 spells 3 slots, plus an additional slot for costly components or long casting time or whatever.
Base DC in this is 0 level spells are DC 20, 1st level are DC 25, 2nd 30, 3rd 35, etc. so your math puts it all lower by 5. But on the other hand, you are making higher level spells generally take up more slots, so it would probably balance out. And as a rule of thumb for determining slots, it's good. That was one thing I could not figure out if they had a system for in Slayers d20 or they just determined per spell "what made sense at the time"--I had trouble seeing a pattern to it.
Drain is going to be non-lethal damage, not curable by magic healing. I'm also debating making a Drain check be either your choice of a Fort or Will save, just to narrow the gap between wizards and clerics a little.
Well, everyone has a good Will save in terms of base saves (just clerics also have high Wis), so wouldn't most take the Will save if that choice was offered? It's not a bad idea--in some ways, it makes a lot of sense!
I'm also planning on having cantrips be learnable at 3 to the spell slot, and the 'Cantrips' feature allow you to take 10 on Drain Checks when casting them, basically making them a non-issue to cast unless you're already exhausted or something, but I'd welcome your thoughts.
That's a very cool idea. I think 3 to the spell slot might be generous, but certainly 2--assuming you're using all Pathfinder cantrips/orisons--would be fine. And since your high level slots will take up more spell slots that's also okay. I like the idea of taking 10 on Drain checks on them as well, that is a good way of converting the system to the "at will" of core PF. You could just even say you auto succeed as long as you are not fatigued or exhausted, and take the take 10 language out--keep it simple since it's already a complex system.
If you do get to playtest this, please let me know how it turns out!
And thanks so much for the feedback.