The text below is a question I put out there for the worldbuilding project. There hasn't been a lot of activity on that so I thought I would fish for opinions here.
In my campaigns while magic is not particualrly rare, it isn't as if all NPCs or even PCs are all that familiar with it. Those who wield magic are kind of rare and maybe even a little scary. I also want to make the economy, and class selection (a little more) in line with the folklore/fantasy genre (as I understand it) without totally overhauling the RAW. Below is my basic argument and my suggested solutions (though the feats are intended to illustrate a mechanism - they are not a comprehensive list).
I would appreciate all opinions - and given this revised paradigm for magic use - if you felt the feats were balanced.
-------------------------
In most of the published campaign worlds and given the rules as written - I think there is too much opportunity for low level magic and (again my opinion) cheesy multiclassing. I have been thinking about it and have a proposal - that I would like your opinions on.
The proposal is that not all people have access to magic. Some people have access to arcane magic Some people have access to divine magic Some people have access to both And since there seems to be a high level interest some have access to psionics.
The way I am proposing this would work, is sort of like a regional feat. A feat that must be selected at 1st level. This feat would grant the character the ability to access a specific type of magic. Without this feat (which again can only be selected at first level) the character could not progress in a spell casting (magic using) class or PrC.
It seems to me that this constraint helps the world to make more sense. This rule provides both a crunchy reason and a logical reason as to why not every individual knows at least a cantrip, why characters don't multiclass just to pick up stray abilities. I won't argue that some people might find this constraint limiting, but I think after think about folks will see how it (could) makes sense, and help rationalize and balance the world.
It has the added benefit of making magic rarer and its wielders more mysterious and unique. It also gives a reason as to why magical healing is not readily available everywhere. It makes spellcasters more valuable without making them more powerful. Anyway please think about it and let me know your thoughts.
FEATS TO ENABLE SPELLCASTING
Magegifted: can pursue arcane magic using classes and PrCs freely. In addition individuals with this feat can choose a number of cantrips equal to their ability modifier (of the ability they use for spell casting) these cantrips can be used at will as spell like abilties.
Mageblooded: can pursue arcane magic using classes and PrCs freely. Can detect magic at will. +1 to caster level of a specific school of spell.
Mageborn: can pursue arcane magic using classes and PrCs freely. Darkvision.
Godtouched: can pursue divine magic using classes and PrCs freely. In addition individuals with this feat can choose a number of orisons equal to their ability modifier (of the ability they use for spell casting) these orisons can be used at will as spell like abilties.
Divine Spark: can pursue divine magic using classes and PrCs freely. Additional domain.
Blessed Zealot: Divine Spark: can pursue divine magic using classes and PrCs freely. Detect Magic, Detect Evil (or Good), weapon focus (dieties favored weapon)
Divine Gift: Divine Spark: can pursue divine magic using classes and PrCs freely. +2 to intimidate, listen, sense motive, and spot. Detect magic with a touch requires at least 3 rounds of physical contact with the object.
Mageblooded: Can pursue arcane and divine spellcasitn classes without penalty. Detect magic at will.
Feyblooded: Can pursue arcane and divine classes with limited spell casting (no spell in the class description above 6th level - so Bard, Ranger, Paladin). +2 to intimidate, listen, sense motive, and spot. Detect magic with a touch requires at least 3 rounds of physical contact with the object. Can use one cantrip (or orison at will).
These are just a few possible feats that would grant access to spell casting.
There would be feas that could be taken after first level to allow spell use - however they would require a story element as to why the character could now access magic, and - in general - would not include cantrip or spell like abilties.
What do people think of the idea of reigning in spellcasting with this technique?
Hey Kyr,
I think your post is very interesting. I do not disagree with you about the rarity of magic and how much MORE special it is when not every farmer is a 1st level sorceror. I also think the feats you presented are really neat and well thought out...my only concern however is that it seems to penalize the casters (who are already shorter on feats than others) when they have to spend their first one just so they can BE casters. I thought it might be negated by giving everyone an extra one at first level, but then that seems to reward the mellee classes more. Hmmm quite a pickle, i'm not sure how to do this without unbalacing the classes (with feat usages)...it may seem trivial, but at first level every feat makes a difference. The only way I adress this is to enforce the training to level rules (which I know not everyone uses) and make it hard to find appropriate level arcane and divine casters to teach potential students. This way they can still be rare in the game world WITHOUT having to be penalised feat wise.
It's not perfect, and maybe others will have a better solution for you Kyr, but for what it's worth hope that helps.
Be safe all.
thats why I added the cantrips as at will abilities - makes you a pretty potent first level caster. For example (to pick combat as an example) you could select ray of frost and effectively be the backup archer, you can probably hit each round, and right away you are more effective as an adventurer - no you can't stand toe to toe - but you can be involved and you are not committed to being a magic missile only caster at 1st level. Well that was my thought - but your right maybe the level 1 spell caster feat buys you another feat (from a limited selection) at a higher level - so you have to buy the feat (screens out the masses)up front but you get a bonus down the road. Good idea thanks!
Hmmm.... I take it you are concerned with the party, not NPCs? Obviously, you yourself can make the NPCs in the world have as much or as little spellcasting ability as you want. Most farmers don't become sorcerers just because they don't have dragon blood (or whatever you use to explain sorcerers). Most don't become wizards and clerics just because they don't have the brains or inclination or money to go to training for that. Most people in real life don't become uber-rich corporate lawyers or medical professionals; even those that have the ability rarely do. Why? Because it's just people. They don't always do what's the "most efficient." They do what they want to.
All right, so the issue of NPC spellcasters is moot. You're looking at the party. Here's a way to stop cherry picking without implementing new feats or anything: implement schooling time. See that starting age chart in the PHB? See where it says that wizards and clerics start at age 15 + 2d6 years? 2d6 years. That's a long time. Most people just *poof* have a wizard level. No, no, no. You want that? You find a master and be an apprentice for a while! You want a level of cleric? Go to seminary! Everyone else has to.
"But the party doesn't have time for that." Well, either tough for them, or buck up as the DM and alter the plot enough to GIVE them the time. There should still be a monetary component to the whole process, and the question of, "What is the rest of the group going to do while we wait?"
Now, weaknesses of this strategy- it doesn't stop characters made above 1st level from cherry picking, as it can be assumed that they already completed their academy time. It doesn't do anything for sorcerers, since they don't need schools or training. It can put a major cramp on any multiclassing, but it sounds like you want that. Personally, anything that takes up more lengthy game time and makes the party's adventuring "career" take more years within their world, the better, in my opinion. I hate seeing someone shoot from 1st to 20th level in 2 years or so.
Now, I would also use my magical DM powers to adjudicate what makes sense and what doesn't, and make adjustments based off that. Paladin wants a fighter level? That doesn't take anywhere near the training as being a wizard does, so yeah, go ahead. Wizard wants to take a fighter level? Eh... you're gonna need a trainer, because that's pretty far from what you're used to. And so on.
I like what you're trying to do to make cherry picking less of an option and make magic rarer and more special, but I think feats are too rare to require in order to get entrance to the class. But, the unspoken, seldom-used aspect of the time it actually takes to learn these skills can be a balancing factor in and of itself.
Note- this should only be used to stop behavior the DM feels is detrimental to the game. If you have a good player and don't have a problem with his character concept (and generally err on the side of his concept being okay, here), find a way to unobstrusively work in this training time. However, if the character just says, "Barbarian-Wizards r coolz!!!!!11!!!11!1!!!", go ahead and stop that.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think this is an okay house rule, but is ultimately a too DM-specific to be a general element of a campaign setting. It's a lot easier for a DM to add in a concept like this than to remove it when it is an integral assumption of a setting.
Plus, this set up would conflict with a great number of abilities and rules including:
Casting classes that don't get spells until higher levels (e.g., paladins and rangers);
It forces you to decide on your multi-classing and prestige classes at character creation (which increases metagaming) because otherwise you can't take spellcasting prestige classes later on. Even if you can take the feats later on, it adds a pre-req to any such prestige class.
Only humans could qualify for spellcasting classes that have both arcane and divine advancement/requirements because they are the only race that could start with the arcane and the divine feat.
What about supernatural abilities? Does the shadowdancer need the feat to use his abilities? Is the ability to use a spell x times per day (as granted by many prestige classes) spellcasting for purposes of this feat?
I apologize in advance, 'cause I'm at work and don't have my books in front of me. As a result, I could be completely wrong here...
During the character creation/level-up timeline, doesn't the player select a class before selecting feats? If you follow this part of the RaW, then casters would all have to be multi-classed. Is that your intention, Kyr? Also, what is the effect of your variant rules on humanoid races with a caster as a favored class? I like what you're trying to do, I'm just trying to understand it better.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Now, I would also use my magical DM powers to adjudicate what makes sense and what doesn't, and make adjustments based off that. Paladin wants a fighter level? That doesn't take anywhere near the training as being a wizard does, so yeah, go ahead. Wizard wants to take a fighter level? Eh... you're gonna need a trainer, because that's pretty far from what you're used to. And so on.
If you're going to use magical DM powers to arbitrate the issue, it doesn't make any sense to half-way incorporate it in the rules, neh? IMO, you either require training for multi-classing or you don't. I suppose you could have some complicated chart with each class along the axis and the amount of time for switching from class to class, but the risk is that you penalize some classes (particularly, wizards and clerics) and not others.
I like what you're trying to do to make cherry picking less of an option and make magic rarer and more special, but I think feats are too rare to require in order to get entrance to the class. But, the unspoken, seldom-used aspect of the time it actually takes to learn these skills can be a balancing factor in and of itself.
If you're looking to stop cherry picking, I would focus on the fighter type classes and not the casters. The incentive for a fighter to take a level in barbarian to get rage (which is well worth giving up a feat) is enormous. A single level of a caster does not provide significant benefits, particularly at mid to higher levels, unless you have a prestige class that somehow augments that casting ability (arcane archer, trickster, mystic theurge, etc) and even then, it's not as if those prestige classes are too powerful. Cherry picking spellcasting classes is a good way to make your character less powerful, not more powerful.
Note- this should only be used to stop behavior the DM feels is detrimental to the game. If you have a good player and don't have a problem with his character concept (and generally err on the side of his concept being okay, here), find a way to unobstrusively work in this training time. However, if the character just says, "Barbarian-Wizards r coolz!!!!!11!!!11!1!!!", go ahead and stop that.
Yes, but this rule is aimed at stopping DMs, not players. If the DM has these concerns and this is adopted as a house rule, that's one thing. But to have it bound into a campaign setting is another.
Multiclassing is one of the things I love about 3.5, but at the same time, as a DM you have to have control over how the world works. Logically speaking, I like the idea that no race is barred from taking a class, and I like the idea of a halfling wizard or a gnomish paladin from a role playing point of view. Its funny that many take what I saw as a roleplaying tool and turned it into a powergaming tool, and to me, it sums up the whole arguement, namely, that if you make a rule, someone will push the rule to its limit to make something as unbalanced and broken as they can.
Like Saern pointed out, in my campaigns I have ruled that if you want to take a class like cleric or wizard and have had no training, you have to spend at least two years in a proper learning institution to pick up that ability. If you want to be a barbarian, you had better have spent a few months at least foraging for food and fighting tooth an nail against hostile creatures in the wild.
I do have notes in the campaign documents that I have given my players stating that they have to spend the time to pick up these classes, and that classes like sorcerer and favored soul, if multi classed into, have to have a strong story element to explain them. I have also said that if you want to make your character about three or four years older from the start and you say that you dropped out of the seminary or the magical college early, before you learned how to "put it all together" then you could multiclass into that class later, if its part of your backstory.
Sebastian, I realize what you are saying, but honestly, if you are actually roleplaying, and trying to make a setting feel logical and coherant, you have to have some kind of trade off, and game balance can't be the only thing involved. Heck, if game balance was the only thing involed, why have different starting ages for classes at all? Its all flavor to support roleplaying.
I can see a paladin picking up a level of fighter easily, just by explaining that he is just practicing his martial skills more than his religious ones. I can even see a cleric that is higher level picking up a level of figher by focusing on what he has already learned in combat. But I have a hard time with a fighter picking up a spellbook one day and saying . . . "hey, this stuff looks pretty simple, I just wiggle my fingers like so."
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sebastian, I realize what you are saying, but honestly, if you are actually roleplaying, and trying to make a setting feel logical and coherant, you have to have some kind of trade off, and game balance can't be the only thing involved. Heck, if game balance was the only thing involed, why have different starting ages for classes at all? Its all flavor to support roleplaying.
It's a game, not a reality simulation. There are all sorts of compromises that are made between the rules and reality. Armor shouldn't make you harder to hit. You shouldn't be able to fall off a cliff and walk away. You shouldn't be able to go from being Scrubby the 1st level fighter to Scrubster the 20th level fighter in a month. And yet all this stuff occurs because it is fun and part of the game. Multiclassing is the same way. It's fun to mix the classes and their abilities, and game balance should control that mixing at the ruleset level. At the individual DM table, they can put whatever arbitrary and nonsensical restrictions that comply with their sense of "realism" but in the rules, those types of things get in the way of the game.
I can see a paladin picking up a level of fighter easily, just by explaining that he is just practicing his martial skills more than his religious ones. I can even see a cleric that is higher level picking up a level of figher by focusing on what he has already learned in combat. But I have a hard time with a fighter picking up a spellbook one day and saying . . . "hey, this stuff looks pretty simple, I just wiggle my fingers like so."
First off, that's a strawman argument. If your players are really that interested in roleplaying, they aren't going to say "I wiggle my fingers and start learning magic." They're going to have a backstory that explains their interest in magic, or an event will happen in character that will cause them to pick up magic. That's what a good player interested in roleplaying does.
And to the extent it's not a strawman argument, to the extent that in my game I let my munchkin players change classes more often than underware, what does it hurt you that I don't require training? If that's the way my players like to run the game and that's the way I DM, I don't see why I should have to bend my game to your sense of "realism."
It particularly irks me that this crap always comes down on the spellcasters. About 75% of the ill conceived, poorly implemented house rules out there are based around the DM's conception of how magic "should work." As a player, I want to run spellcasters, and I want to run them the way the rules say they work. I get sick of every DM on the planet tinkering with those rules because they have their own conception of spellcasting that they want to impose on my playing.
As a player, I wouldn't tolerate a class specific training rule. If you can find players who would, more power to you.
I will apologize on one front. I did not specifically point out that obviously other people will run their campaigns however they wish, and that they may indeed have a lot of fun with such things. Other people may be less worried about internal logic than I am in my campaign, and I completely understand that and respect that. I was giving my opinion and examples from my campaign, and I should have stressed that it was what I have done and what worked for my campaign, and I apologize if it sounded as if I was saying that everyone should run their campaigns like mine.
On the other hand . . . there are tons of things in the rules that exist only for the sake of flavor and internal logic, and have nothing to do with game balance. You could say that all material components in the game are pixie dust, and that varying amounts of pixie dust are needed for different spells, thus taking X amount of gold away for each casting, which is the main game balance issue.
Being unfamiliar with the project, are you world building or game building? There is a huge difference...
As ever,
ACE
|
I don't see any problem with the basic concept. (I've done something very similar in point-buy game systems.) I wouldn't mind playing in such a game and I might use a similar concept at some point. That said, a few comments on implementation:
You have two feats called "Mageblooded" that give different benefits.
Watch out for Godtouched. If a player chooses Cure Minor Wounds, the result is almost a shareable Fast Healing 1.
In general, the ability to choose 3-4 Orisons/Cantrips to use at will is very powerful. (Certainly better than the analogous feats from the Complete series books, which allow a defined set of spells a limited number of times per day.)
HTH
I apologize in advance, 'cause I'm at work and don't have my books in front of me. As a result, I could be completely wrong here...
During the character creation/level-up timeline, doesn't the player select a class before selecting feats? If you follow this part of the RaW, then casters would all have to be multi-classed. Is that your intention, Kyr? Also, what is the effect of your variant rules on humanoid races with a caster as a favored class? I like what you're trying to do, I'm just trying to understand it better.
Well I am trying to create a world with a different feel if it was all the same - it would be the same.
I think in answer to your question race, class, feats etc are all pretty much chosen at the same time - to create a character concept - I don't think mandating a first level feat is particualarly cumbersome - but I wanted others opinions - thats why I posted.
The goal is to make magic more special - my though was that if you wanted to be a spell caster the extra cantrips themselves as spell like abilites were more powerful and more useful than most feats. But still created a boundary between casters and non=casters.
Yes it would also make bards, paladins, and rangers rarer - and give them a quirky 1st level feat. That to is by design. I think those classes should be rare.
To those that think that is unfair I say again that the list of feats I used were just examples to illustrate the point not a comprehensive list - and that the goal is to create a different gameworld.
Clearly Sebastian wouldn't be a fan - but differerent strokes - yes I want a wolrd were magic fits in better with how I think magic should work - well thats kind of the point of working up a new world - do something a little different that fits better with my vision - I would think that was pretty obvious. I think there are a lot of things that could be improved on in the game. And in this world there would be other differences as well:
No xp penalty for multiclassing
No green star adepts
Lots of races/monsters/classes/PrCs/etc would be missing
There would be race specific or at least race prefered spells
Sort of like how Eberron has jungle drow and magic trains
and other thinks that make my skin crawl/
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
*shrug* All I know is that I never encounter players requesting even more restrictions on their ability to create characters that they want to play (or, for that matter, DMs that want these types of restrictions that don't already impose them through house rules). It's always DMs who push this sort of stuff, and it's always to the detriment of spellcasters. I suppose that one method of making spellcasters rare is to make them suck, but I can't say it's a very appealing (or creative) method of game design. If you want to play a low magic game, play a game designed expressly for that purpose, such as Iron Heroes. All you're doing is paying a high cost (loss of player choice and options, possibly even the effective removal of certain classes and prestige classes from the game) for a very low benefit (satisfying a very limited view of "realism.")
If it's for your home campaign, that's fine. If it's for some sort of collaborative work or published setting, you're driving away potential members of your audience by making a house rule into a setting rule. You can make a world with limited magic without a rule like this and leave individual DMs to implement it on their own.
Sort of like how Eberron has jungle drow and magic trains
and other thinks that make my skin crawl/
The difference is that jungle drow and magic trains are setting elements, not changes to the core rules. Eberron (and most other campaign settings) provide additional flexibility and options. This allows individual DM's maximum freedom to cherry pick the good and disregard the bad. Paternalistic restrictions like this magic system restrict the DM's options. If you want low magic, create a magic system that is balanced with the core rules and cuts that way. If you want training rules, apply them equally to all classes. But if you just want to impose your sense of "realism" limit yourself to your own players.
seems like a lot of work to rework the wheel; you could get the same effect by just limiting who can play a mage type in your game; say; one mage and one divine as the limit; and not make very many mage type npcs; not sure why you want to make it all whole racial thing; I know several gms who do this sort of things in various games limit to one mage or one jedi or one whatever. Adding feats to a game with already a huge number of feats whereas you dont get many feats anyway seems like it would just increase player frustration; I would not play a mage in a game where I had to take a feat to have magic in the first place; just a penalty without any benefit. I prefet to design each of my cultures or races to give a overall benifit for playing that race and culture giving a choice of many so that people want to play them and identify with them. you will probably be better served by limiting the source books also to limit spells and classes to the basic fantasy genre.
Rather than doing all this work and have your players get frustrated and not want to play; involve them in the process. One good way to do this is just let the world develop through playing; for instance; if you rogues want a theives guild; have them build it and the organization; then you have one; same for other things; then your world will have a rich history built by players and events and things will have meaning rather than just some spoonfed fluff; I hope this doesnt sound to harsh; but in my experience players really get their jollies out of this stuff cause mine tell the stories about what their characters did and how they influenced the world like it is gospel. Many people will want side adventures and to make characters to play at other times even solo just to make stuff happen; its contagious and players will put in a lot of work designing forts; castles, all kinds of stuff for their characters if you just let them have access to it by doing things like giving a warrior the kings commission to build a frontier fort at such and such place and clear the area of monsters. Have the game do the work for you; its a win-win situation.
well, piazo ate my other one with yet another cant find the server thing; sheesh; not gonna write it again; was long. boils down to this; control magic with your choice of homebrew dieties; have them grant all magical power; have arguements between deites spawn off the friction between cultural groups in your world that follow them; make a two prophesies; one for the good guys; one for hte bad guys that constantly come in conflict with battles for who will be the ultimate winner and decide who runs the worlf; this will give you many advantages in gaming; many many plot threads; and give your players something to do with long range goals. Sorry my post about how to set this all up got sucked into the piazo black hole of doom
... so I thought I would fish for opinions here.
While I like the general idea, and also immediately saw the Cure Minor Wounds at Will loophole as well, I have one suggestion.
Since there is already complaints / comments on required a truly precious first level feat, here's my fix.
Make your 2-4 general feats that are needed to cast from either one, both, or somewhat from Arcane/Divine magics.
Then, with choice of that feat, offer an immediate/subsequent bonus feat.
That would even encourage the "spell casting" feat tree that you hint at.
That way, they can be a divine caster, and then choose how that should be specialized, whether it is with one of your really nicely overpowered options listed, or perhaps even offering them a choice of metamagic and item creation feats as well.
That's is all I really wrote in to say, but I've come up with an off-the-wall question:
So, if a player doesn't take divine magic and still plays a cleric / paladin, does that mean they are just holy characters who can turn undead? Or are you optioning out that class feature as well.
Same general question for familiars (though who on earth would play a d4 hit die character without spells???)
Food for thought.
-c
Thanks for all of the comments so far.
Including those that come from people that don't care for the idea.
I still like the idea, but people have brought up some points that I need to work through to create a viable execution. So again, thanks.
And I agree with Sebastian people never seem to clamour for fewer options. In my expereince they never clamour for brussel sprouts either. In setting out this world I am trying to establish a new baseline, with a different feel (which granted may not appeal to everybody - such is life), but from that baseline individuals could add elements as they saw fit.
My goal, and maybe its silly but I want to clarify - so that others can post some more constructive critiques. Is to bring back a sense of wonder and the exotic.
It seems to me - and this is just my opinion - that with the constant additional of new material to existing campaign settings - everythings goes, nothing is exotic, and even the presence of mindflayer PCs, liches in the market square, and bugmen shopkeepers, is "the norm".
Wanted I wanted to try was to lay out a world where even elves were exotic. And provide a more grounded baseline. People could still play whatever, even a warforged sorcerer (shudders uncontrollably) but that character would be exotic, alien, and have to deal with the negative/positive reactions of that.
Anyway that was my thinking.
There are a number of other world elements, but I didn't want to lay out all of them - to long a post even for me.
Maybe the idea of reigning in casters (though I think this actually makes them a lot more fun and more magical especially at low levels) won't work.
A kite flys because of the string (the constraints) just as much as the wind.