Ordos's page

Hi --

This relates to the 3.5 UA book rules for Recharge Magic.

I'm looking for some confirmation on a suspected error as presented in the rules for recharge magic. The 3.5ed Unearthed Arcana has the original language but the same language can be found here: d20srd

The issue in question is this example as written (specifically, this part):

Another example: Aliester the 10th-level sorcerer casts fireball in the first round of a fight. Once he casts the spell, he rolls 1d4 to determine his recharge time. He rolls a 2, so he must wait 2 rounds before he regains access to 3rd-level spells. In the following round, he casts cloudkill, one of his highest-level spells. Rolling a 4 on 1d4, Aliester is dismayed to learn he must wait 5 (1d4+1) rounds before he can cast cloudkill again. In the next round, he casts magic missile, rolling 1d3 afterward and getting a result of 1 for a 1-round recharge time. In the following round, Aliester regains access to his 3rd-level spells, so he can cast another fireball if he likes, or he can cast magic missile again (because the 1-round recharge time for his 1st-level spells has elapsed).

The way I interpret recharge magic is that there needs to be a 1 round delay AFTER the spell is cast. So if I cast a spell with a 1-round of recharge, on the following round, the caster CANNOT use the spell, but on the subsequent round it is again available. Basically, the example, as written, is wrong. It should be like this:

+--- round 1 -------+---- round 2 ------+ ---round 3 ----+
+--- casts spell ---+---- recharging ---+ casts spell ---+

And NOT this, as written:

+--- round 1 -------+---- round 2 -------+
+--- casts spell ---+---- casts spell ---+

Can someone please validate if my interpretation is correct?

Thanks

Example fighter character archetypes:
1. Armored Juggernaut - monstrosity with high defenses and high offenses. Particularly effective against groups.
2. Skirmisher - highly mobile skirmisher with good protection against ranged attacks and attacks. Particularly effective against single opponents.
3. Commander - officer leading armies. Often mounted. Decent offense, defense, diplomatic skills, decent mobility. Particularly effective with morale boosting abilities.
4. Protector - typical MMORPG tank character, i.e. fighter type with high defense, high hitpoint reservoir, ability to withstand SoD. Particularly effective at stopping opponent advance (Attacks of opportunity, Trip, Bash and so on).
5. Sheriff - self-sufficient fighter. Jack of all weapons and master techniques, able to self-heal, decent in all fighter areas.

Also, there are special aspect of fighter which should be important part of possible character development - these are not archetypes per se, rather aspects to be added to basic archetypes as per player wishes:
1. Arcane - fighter capable of shrugging off magic attacks.
2. Siege - fighter capable of operating siege machines.
3. Mounted - warhorse rider. Knows how to protect his mount from high level offense.

I love this.

Hi --

Dumb question but, why not make the feats for fighters just level based? It can be 'backwards compatible' if you make the level required to get the feat what it would have been in if you had a used a feat tree (or previous editions). So this way, if someone WANTS Whirlwind attack, they don't need to meticulously map our their character from 1st level. When they get to 15th level (or whatever level they would have been able to get Whirlwind attack), they meet the pre-req (more or less).

In the end, it becomes no different than a spell really...

Also, for the 15/-- debate, why not say that he can get 15/-- against a single foe only (that he designates); much like Dodge. So, this way, if he does fight a Tarrasque alone, he gets the 15/-- and if he fights 2000 Orcs, he'll be safe against one of them only. And the pre-req away from just 'armour' to being able to wield his weapon to 'block blows' (hence, giving him a 15/--).

Just a thought.

Thanks

Eg:

Whirlwind Attack [General]
Prerequisites:
Int 13+
Dex 13+,
base attack bonus +4 or higher
15th level.

Benefit: When the character performs the full attack action, he or she can give up all regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at the full base attack bonus against each opponent within 5 feet.

EDIT: I just noticed that Toyrobots suggested that; I should have read the post more carefully. In any case, I agree with his assessment.

Someone mentioned the recharge magic.

Well, actually I tried it in my game, in two of the endless playtests to find my own "Diego's game sorcerer".

Well...f you want to give spellcasters more power, than fo to it. If you think they are already very powerfull without extra options, leaving behind the combatents, then leave it out.

What I found was that while it was nice to see the system, it favored too much the combat spells. Then, while you could cast a fly only once in certain time, you could always cast all your combat spells... Then went color spray, scorching ray, fireball, or hold person and the clerical ones...

Really, it was too powerfull...

Very interesting. They do state in UA that using this system like boosting the CR by +2 (of the party). I guess your experience has proven that. I find 4th Ed uses the same sort of logic as recharge magic since they basically gone to each spell, and made only one of three categories: at will, per encounter, per day -- i.s.o. some arbitrary number per spell.

Casting 400 1st level spells a day is not a problem at 20th level.

This is what I find problematic of the spell-point system. If you are going to be able to cast 400 1st level at 20th level (which I have no trouble with), then you are effectively saying you can cast an 'infinite amount'. That being said, perhaps the points should only apply to your upper 4 spell levels (or some number). So by the time you can cast 8th level spells, spell levels 1-4 are 'free'; or something to that tune.

Thanks

Hi --

You guys seem poised to make a decision, but I was just wondering if the UA Recharge Magic option was a possibility? I have always been intrigued by it, but never got a chance to play it. I raised this in another post, and someone mentioned that it works well at low levels, but becomes hard to manage at higher levels. I also don't know if it meets the requirement of being able to fit in a sidebar since it requires an entry for each spell.

Sorry, that's about all I can contribute to this issue. I've never been a big fan of spell points since its just as much book-keeping I find. Its not so bad if numbers are relatively low; but when you start to get into the hundreds, its just a nightmare I think. I have found systems like Shadowrun were nice; where casting each spell had a chance to drain you; but that system also had a specific 'drain' per spell. Also, I find spell points doesn't particularly address the anomalies that one can cast far too many of a certain spell than should be allowed (eg: wind up casting 15 fireballs a day i.s.o. only 5 as one is supposed to). I agree that still burns your points, but still -- it winds up being 'overpowered' to an extent; a walking wand.

In any case, there seems to have been quite a bit of analysis done, so I'm sure in the end, the alternate system will be well thought out.

Thanks

PS: Please pick something that will be easily 'portable' to monsters (so that I don't need to break my head wondering how many points [or whatever] a Balor will have).

It led to a lot of B.S., like spellcaster spelling-out each evening simply for the XP, rogues pick-pocketing party members "for practice" and then returning items afterwards. I never awarded XP for this stuff. It was tedious and time-consuming to track, and sessions became about the ancillary XP more than the plot.

Perhaps in your experience. In my groups, it was never abused. Doing trivial things like trying to rob your buddy has not even an issue. As for emptying out your spells before sleeping, you needed a valid reason to use the spell; not just some off the cuff whim. Our DM was not easily fooled, nor did we even attempt such ridiculous notions. And it took but 2 seconds to put a tick-mark on my XP sheet next to the spell level I cast...

I've got to say, I really don't know what modules you've been reading, because in my experience most modules, and particularly most Dungeon Magazine adventures have been doing this very thing for a decade or more.

I don't read Dungeon.

- All 3rd Ed WoTC modules.
- As far I saw, all Goodman games modules (there are what?, about 40?)
- The Freeport series (at least the first batch)

I'd say that is a decent representative chuck.

I guess I've just VERY unlucky in my choices...

To answer the first question posed, my 'complaint' is for modules in general; however, there are modules that do indeed give story awards at the end. But those awards are often a token amount in comparison to the XP gained from killing monsters. I haven't read any Paizo modules, so I can't comment.

Its interesting to hear that some of you have already abandoned the "kill-monster = XP" way of doing things.

I suppose my 'complaint' originates from the fact that if you take module like RttToEE, the Mines were designed as a meat grinder just to advance the PCs. I believe the author of the module admitted to that. The average WoTC promoted value of 13.33 fights of equal CR to advance; meaning you would have to kill 130 monsters to get to 10th level. That's a LOT of fighting ... people play DnD for fighting, but 130 times...

The issue I have with the DM simply deciding when to advance is that its the module designer (if he uses 13.3 encounters as the basis for advancement), who sets the pace of the module. Presumably, the module was tested with some sort of numbers in mind saying "Ok, the PCs start the module at 10th level.. and based on the CR of all creatures killed, they should be 13th when they go to this room". I suppose as a DM I could just eyeball it. But it just feels better if its by design, i.e. that someone took time to say, "ok... you should be about 12th level here"...

And its true, I do feel a bit weird about saying "ok, the PCs rolled a 20 on the Diplomacy check, so they got past the 1st 'Boss' bad guy'" and then hand them 4000XP for a single roll. I don't' know... it just erks me.

The other issue (and its something that Pathfinder has fixed to a certain degree), is that in the past, if you died and were raised, or a specter hit you, you got drained levels. So the only way to advance was to try to get more XP than your friends for a certain degree of time. If you level everyone up at the same time, what do you with the people who 'got lagged'? Do you just boost him up 2 levels i.s.o one? Does he just keep lagging for the rest of the module? Maybe its a minor issue.. admittedly, I haven't gien it much thought, but these are quick examples I came up with.

1st Ed DnD used to have XP for using one abilities. So a thief unlocking a chest would get XP. Of course, it was a token value. One would have to pick 50,000 locks to get to 10th level. Magic-Users used to get 50XP per spell level of a spell being cast. This was in the core rules. All I'm trying to say is that I'd like to see modules that explicitly take the shift of XP accumulation away from just combat, and award it for milestones achieved; regardless of how those milestones are achieved.

We often talk about improving the game rules, but I find we rarely talk about those things (ie: modules) that actually make us execute all those rules. Modules are just as important (to me at least), as the rules themselves. It would be nice to see discussion on how improvements to modules themselves could help improve the game overall. XP for milestones (i.s.o. combat) is but one (small) aspect that I believe could simplify and improve the gaming experience for us all.

Thanks

Cricket cricket... anyone agree? :)

Thus, I think that drawing a weapon as part of a move should be a 'free action' (assuming a BAB +1 or higher), along with talking (done while moving).

Aside from a non-warriors at 1st level only, can someone tell me why we needed such a specific rule (ie: assuming a BAB +1 or higher) about drawing a weapon, and it being a free action? I mean was this caveat really necessary? Everyone after 1st level has a BAB of +1. It just complicates things.

Sorry -- I didn't mean to hijack the thread.

But I agree, creating a whole new action to support 2 or 3 feats/cases seems like too much for too little in return. A simple text caveat on each action would have been sufficient.

Thanks

Hi --

I would go so far as to add healing spells to the wizard spell list also. I find it completely ridiculous after the 1000's of years that mages have been around, SOMEONE hasn't invented a 1st level "Heal Minor Scratch" spell.

They get Wish... but not one healing spell... makes no sense.

Thanks

Hi --

I'm sure is been discussed to some degree, but I would like to see some forum on module improvement (and not just game mechanics). I find that no matter how good (or bad) a game is, its the modules they come out with, which the DM DM's and players play, that sets the tone for the system.

Its easy to say in the rule books, "Wizards are a rare breed, feared by many. The sight of one strikes fear in the hearts of.. etc etc etc", but then when you play a module, there is one in every room. The same goes for magic items. They are supposed to be wondrous, but give too many, and it quickly becomes boring.

My experience with modules in 3.0 have been with the fact that in order to advance, players feel they need to enter combat. There is no incentive for them to do something else. Now, this issue can be relegated to a question of gaming style, but I'll give you an example.

I played RttToEE, a very good module, but very long because of the fact that the mines were largely there to get players from 4th level to 10th level before the REAL stuff began; it was largely a meat grinder. My players, who are quite experienced, played DnD the way its always been played: To advance, you need to kill the bad guys --> Killing a monster = XP. Now, one can make up all kinds of reasons to say "well, if my PCs bluff their way past the bad guys, they should get the XP also". Yes, you can do that, just because someone had one good roll, or someone dumped everything into Diplomacy, would you just give them 5000 XP because the area had 30 guards, 1 dragon, and 2 trolls -- and they got a successful bluff attempt on a low level guard? You could, but it would seem dodgy.

What you really want is a module that rewards ideas and not just combat. So in effect, the module would give story awards based on how the PCs got by a certain obstacle. Bonus XPs based on the fact that they risked their neck to free prisoners even if they were not asked to explicitly. So, lets say the PCs had to get into the Black Lords castle; possible options are:

- The PCs fought their way in: 3000 XP
- The PCs disguised themselves and got in: 3500 XP
- The PCs magically transported themselves in: 2500 XP.
- The PCs dug a tunnel under the wall: 4000 XP
- Some other innovative way: 3750 XP.

- If the PCs gave the prisoners at the entrance food ans water: + 500 XP
- If the PCs rescued the prisoners at the entrance: + 1000 XP

What this does is create incentive for PCs think of ways alternate to just pulling out a sword to overcome an obstacle. This of course, is a 'cultural' thing. Players must know that modules (from now on) reward ideas and not just combat (which is always the default).

Overall, this has a two-fold effect on the game:
1) It simplifies the need to calculate XP on a per encounter per creature basis since the module designer did the math already. In effect, the module is broken into a series of 'encounters', each with own 'self contained' experience point value.
2) It creates for a system where PCs can advance without it being solely combat based. It behaviorally changes the way in which DnD is perceived.

Now, if in the example above, the PCs talked their way past the guards, got the 3000 XP, then had to fight them all after trying to escape with the Black Lord's daughter, they would not double dip; so some management must still be done by the DM.

The focus of this has been mostly around XPs, but I'm sure there are other aspects of modules that can be 'fixed'.

Thanks

Like fighting a troll without flasks of acid or alchemist's fire, acid or fire spells, or corrosive or flaming weapons? They aren't required to defeat the troll, they just make it easier.

And that is exactly my point; although the troll is somewhat of a different case since one can still damage the troll (fire or not), its just that it comes back. With DR, you may be hacking at something, and not doing any damage at all.

All I'm saying is that instead of there being 10 fixed ways of overcoming DR, make the possibility infinite instead; so this way no one spends their time focusing on how to overcome it -- they will keep their favorite Whip-weapon, and if it defeats the DR, great. If not, tough. The fight is harder. Its either part of the storyline to overcome DR, or you just can't do it (which is in the end the simplest solution... just make all DR /- and be done with it). Why MUST we be able to overcome it anyways? Its a bit of a throwback to 1st Ed where you needed a + weapon to damage a creature. So, its either you can hurt it, or don't try. 3.0 just 'teased' people by making it 30/+3... and 3.5 made it even more titillating by reducing the DRs 15/... Just make the DR 10/- or 5/- and forget the rest.

And if a monster should have an Achilles Heel, then state so in the text of the module.

And the CR of a creature should be based on the fact that the DR is NOT overcome; ie: worst case scenario.

Thanks

You're welcome. We could indeed tweak the trouble spells, but there were quite a lot...in the end it was the tracking issue that wasmore of a problem. For now, we're discussing this approach:

Use spell points with a lower point pool (perhaps half that in UA), but allow the points to regenerate faster. So, you couldn't drop tons of high-level stuff in a single fight without running out of spells 3-4 rounds into combat, but after the fight you'd regain something like 1/4 your spell point total per hour of no casting. You might run into situations then where relying on the Pathfinder classes abilities other than spells (domain powers, arcane school powers, etc.) would be preferable in some fights so you don't stop spell point regen. I'm also considering a "casting hurts" option where once you run out of spell points, you can continue casting spells if you like, but each spell forces a Fort save (DC 10+spell level) and deals either nonlethal (successful save) or lethal (failed save) damage. So if you've burned through those points, but then need to make a heroic effort you've got the option.

Again, quite interesting. The only problem with spell points is the tracking again. You need to meticulously track time and points which can get troublesome no? For example, I can a spell that drains 10 points from my pool of 100. The regen rate is 5 points per hour, for example. So after 1.5 hour I get back 5 points back (drop fractions). Then I cast another spell for 10 points. That means its only 30 mins until I get back 5 more points for my first casting, and I need to wait 1 hr for my next 5 points after that. See what I mean? You need a "When spell was cast vs. How much time has elapsed since then" table.

Would not an overall 'drain' system as you stated work better, similar to Shadowrun? I like the non-lethal -> lethal idea. I find this has much more potential. you can eventually cast yourself to death. Or perhaps you age when you cast a spell. It would make elven wizards much more powerful as is often the case in many fantasy genre. The aging is temporary and wears off after some rest (but that would wind up being similar to spell points). Just some ideas. Not sure if Clerics would work the same way.

The idea of always having fallback powers is also very good. What you want to avoid is as you originally said, having 'per day powers' that, when burned, will ultimately make you rest even in 4th Ed.

Thanks

Hi --

My beef with the 'golf bag ' theory is how does this affect the CR of a creature? For example: if a creature has a CR of 10, and DR 10/something, is the CR based on the fact that you can overcome its DR, or that that you need to kill it without exploiting its Achilles heel?

Personally, I think that CR is based on the fact that you fight the creature with its full immunities applicable. The fact that is has some "Achilles heel" is a technicality that oyu may or may nor be able to exploit.

So the real question w.r.t those golf-baggers, is why does one need to carry a golf bag in the fist place? Does the golf-bag include wooden stakes for Vampires? Holy Water for undead? Fire for Ropers? Fly-swatters for Stirges?

To remedy the problem, DR should be dumbed-down somewhat. I find all those metals and alignment things just cumbersome without really adding to the game. I understand why they are present, but its just more complexity in an ocean of rules.

I've read people say how their PCs died because they didn't have x-y-z type material of spell memorized. If that is the case, then maybe the creature needs to be rebalanced, not he PCs. If the creature is just too hard to beat without overcoming its Achilles Heel, then its not a fair creature.

An idea:
- Reduce the value of the DR of a creature by 5 (to a minimum of 5) jsut to make fighting a monster fair.
- The way to defeat the DR should be monster specific; specified in the module. The rationale being that since each monster is 'unique' in its own way, it should have its own Achilles Heel; and not some generic "Good + Silver" way of overcoming the DR. If a demon is the Lord of Pepper, then one needs to sprinkle pepper on a sword to overcome his DR. This is how Warhammer used to work; especially for Beastmen. The monster is generic in the "monster manual", but in the module, it has its own write up on what powers the mutations give it, so reading the 'monster manual' gave you nothing really -- only the fact that it MAY have some Achilles Heel.

The entire rationale behind doing this is that some monsters have DRs, but they are so specific that players cannot carry golf-bags; its just impractical; and that overcoming the DR is considered an Achilles Heel, and is not the 'right' of PCs to be able to overcome all DRs in all cases. Instead, the burden is on the module to provide hints (if it so chooses), on what kind of material/magic would overcome the DR of a given creature. The players may figure it out with luck, or some clue is given.

Again, the rationale behind this is that when a monster has a 'vulnerability', its considered to be an Achilles Heel, and that information should not necessarily be generic in all case; in fact, it becomes a very powerful storyline tool. A monster guardian could be given a DR of 50/something. Fighting it would be useless unless some secret is discovered on how to break through it; part of the storyline.

My 2 cents :)... for what its worth.

First up, welcome! You'll find several threads on this subject so do browse around a bit for more insight. I'll go in reverse order...

I have been testing out the recharge variant for the best several months now. The liberation it provides to spellcasting is initially a nice change. However, when you get into the 6-8th level range, there are some pretty good spells that have a duration exceeding the recharge rate, making them virtually permanent. This greatly shifts a DM's need for planning a session. In addition, the need to track recharge times in combat gets very cumbersome.

I have also tried skill-based systems (I like them, my players not so much) and now we're giving spell points a whirl I think.

Now, for the other issue, my first (and only so far) experience with 4e was actually the opposite from my 3.X sessions--we had to rest after every battle because everyone had used up their daily powers and/or had gotten the crap kicked out of them. In addition, the repetitive nature of the power's mechanic (i.e. used daily/encounter power, then repeat use of at-will's until target dies) left me a bit wanting. Coupled with the limited array of powers/feats in the current system, I found 4e too cookie-cutter for my tastes in a long-term game.

In 3.5, my group rarely rests after...

Very interesting analysis. Could not the troublesome spells that you mention be 'tweaked' to have a longer recharge. I remember when I looked at the system, I cherry picked some spells to correct. As I said, I never got a change to play it.

Although I had not given it much thought, now that you mention it, the tracking of recharge times can be problematic, I do agree.

When I first read about it, it did seem like a neat solution without a complete system overhaul. However, I would tend to think it breaks down at really low levels since the delay is per spell level; so at low levels, you don't have many spells levels to choose from. I tended to think it would START to get interesting at about 6-8th level.

Thanks for the feedback however.

Hi --

I'm curious if there are any plans to change the 'attrition model' of combat to a more 'event based' one?

I'm not a 4th Ed proponent, but I find the "wake up at 10:00am, and need to rest by 10:02am because of one medium-sized fight" somewhat tiresome; which 4th Ed seemed to have solved to some extent.

Unearthed Arcana had a good "Recharge Magic" type system which I have considered using, but have not yet play tested.

Just wondering.

Thanks

PS: This is my very first post on these boards so if I have inappropriately placed this thread in the wrong place, please forgive me. I think Pathfinder rocks (except in name perhaps... :)) so I'm quite eager to join in these discussions.