What if a caster could rapidly re-memorize his/her spells in a pinch?. It requires however 5 min of in a calm environment (not in combat to avoid the spaming of fireballs) but it is nevertheless a mentally exhausting process.
Rules: For every empty spell slot the caster has, he/she can make a spellcraft check of DC10 + 2x the spell level (so that it mostly work on low level spells) to recharge it with a spell of the said level. You fail the check, you cannot recharge the slot and in addition you become fatigued as a result. You can continue speed-reading a further time but this time you become exhausted if you fail your spellcraft check. This fatigue/exhaustion is magical in nature and can only be cured by 8 hours of rest. You can also use speed-reading to voluntarily change one of your memorized spell.
|
What if a caster could rapidly re-memorize his/her spells in a pinch?. It requires however 5 min of in a calm environment (not in combat to avoid the spaming of fireballs) but it is nevertheless a mentally exhausting process.
If that's the case, you may want to add in something like: you must roll fortitude after every 5 spells you recharge or become fatigued. DC 10 + the levels of spells recharged. Thus, if you want 3 Magic Missiles, it's only DC 13, but if you want 2 Wish Spells, it's DC 28.
|
|
I beg the world in the name of the grammer gods:
You put a BIG letter in front of a sentence, enters are used to seperate ideas or facts, periods say that a sentence is done, and a comma means that the point you are trying to make is particularly long.
I hope that this will make the world a better place. Thank You.
Doing away with spells-per-day would be (in my opinion) absolutely awesome. Now, how to actually do it...
How about: spells by encounter. Magical energy has to be drawn from a life source. This means that to cast a spell you effectively have to injure someone, and thus you can use combat oriented spells each time you have a convenient enemy to drain from. The idea could be to extract 1hp per spell level from one target for each spell cast. If there are no enemies nearby, but for some reason you still want to cast a spell you have to drain from an ally, or perhaps from the environment around you, but that pulls on the wrath of the druids who protect nature from the damage of magic.
This could work, but it comes with a lot of flavour:
You have magic as a draining item, essentially culling life to fuel itself.
You have magic less useful against undead as they have no life to cull, although in turn this increases the specialisations between the wizard and cleric.
You have a potential conflict between druids and wizards, at least those wizards that chose to draw energy from the land (one could imagine a lot of devastation would have to be inflicted to cast a powerful spell).
The biggest downside other than the associated fluff elements is that it actually adds an incentive to the wizard to cast his most powerful spells over and over. There will perhaps need to be a personal cost to him as well, or perhaps only certain types of power can be cast per-encounter (a certain branch of magic that draws life, effectively a sub-range of combat magic that is balanced to allow the wizard to still be useful in combat, but less so than a fighter per round, except when the wizard is casting his once a day truely powerful spells).
Just a thought.
Right...because every CR 15 bad guy pops out of the Abyss newly cloned, without any experience whatsoever how to prepare against and fend off the incursions of so-called "heroes" or "adventurers". They all build their evil empires or plot their apocalyptic plans within days, without having a clue about the world they are about to conquer and the powers that might come along to defend it from them, and without accounting for their abilities.
Gotta love those pushover nasties. :)
|
I'm not going to say that this isn't a problem from time to time, but honestly, I get the feeling that this was something that most people accepted as just part of the D&D style of play "If we go in guns blazing, we'll be finished in 15 minutes, if we play smart, we have hours to check this place out."
I'm not saying that its not valid, but I think somewhere along the line, some of the WOTC designers decided that they didn't like the "15 minute day," and started beating the drum, especially on the podcasts even pre 4e announcement, and started pushing the issue with reserve feats and classes like the Warlock.
Thus, what was at one time an annoying, but ultimately not major, issue with the game and its standard tropes, became a "problem" that needs a "fix." (emphasis mine)
I had to laugh at this, as it reminds me of the '13 problems with D&D 3.5', which we were all apparently crying out to be saved from.
I have known players who ran out of spells, and begged to rest, right after breakfast, but the other players simply told them "You're a stupid dick", and refused. It's always been seen as a problem of the player being unable to manage his resources properly, not a fault with the game.
Yet now we are told it is a genuine problem, and it even has a name, and solutions, which all involve giving PCs infinite spells/day. I shake my head in disbelief...
The 15 minute adventuring day can be a problem at times, but it depends upon the nature of the adventure and the DM as much as the rules. Certainly, one could run an entire campaign in which this was never a problem. However, I agree that there can be times when the game mechanics encourage unrealistic or at least unheroic resting and retreat. My preferred solution is to NOT abandon the Vancian system, which I like for its tactical qualities as well as nostalgia. Instead, I might introduce rules that would encourage (though not require) players to continue playing rather than resting after spending significant resources. For example, what do folks think about a 10% experience boost for a party that exceeds a certain total number of ELs during a "day"? I see this as not too much to encourage recklessness yet a nice reward for aggressive parties. One thing I like about parties pushing on when casters are out of major spells is that it restores one of the original balancing aspects in caster vs. non-caster at high levels. I also like that it is a very simple tweak to the rules and thus highly compatible with 3.5E. Finally, I like that it gives the party a game mechanic reason, even if it is a small one, to continue pushing on. I think players want to push on, they are playing to play, not to rest, so any halfway good reason to push on would be enough for many groups I think.
Marnak
For me the 15 minute day can be a problem. Its sometimes more of a problem if players don't use their resources wisely. But even then it still happens. I've DM'd a number of adventures, which have been great, and players are being challenged, having fun, and they have to retreat because they are short of something HP or spells etc.
My solutions
For hit points, an increase at 1st level, and a change to the way -ve hit points are handled. Also allow the use of heal skill to gain Hit points.
For magic , use spontanous metamagic. I've found this greatly improves use of lower level spells at mid & high levels. Make divination spells (detect magic/identify etc)skill checks, eliminating the need for them as spells.
|
I don't like running out of stuff to do, but the fact that there are limits make the choices that player's have more important. Limiting the number of spells rewards planning, and is one difference between electronic and paper rpgs...well, not quite. I have spent too much time in electronic games bouncing around trying to find healing and magic type potions so I could do whatever I wanted. I'd rather plan, than be running around after the same potions time and again. I would rather plan than have no limit whatsoever.
Thanks,
Scott
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hiya.
I'd give each person casting an *arcane* spell a chance to keep it 'in memory'. Probably use a Spellcraft check with a DC equal to 20 + level of spell (or maybe spell level x2, have to play test to see how often it comes up).
I suspect that 20 + 2 x spell level would be about right.
This mechanic only seems about right.
...
However, a 20th level caster with max ranks and say a modifier of +6 (which is kind of low for a 20th level) would have a bonus of +29. The DC for a ninth level spell would be 38, so the caster would need a 9 (55% chance). This would increase his spell allotment by a little over half. He would automatically recover any spell fourth level or lower making them at-will.
Very true. Somehow, I'd let the "one new spell level every two character levels" parameter slip by me.
And it's actually worse than that, because the wizard could keep retaining a spell.
If the retention roll DC is "15 + 5 x spell level" then the DC for a 5th level spell is 40, which is probably going to be simple for a 16th or 18th Level wizard (with a few items that grant skill bonuses) but a major challenge for a 10th-Level character.
9th Level spells would have a DC of 60, which is justifiably tough, even for 20th Level wizards.
How about a channeling derivitive? Cannibalize HP or ability scores to power spells "in a pinch". It's been a seldom used houserule for us since revised 2nd.
Also, be careful when introducing spellcraft or knowledge arcana checks as a mechanic for ANYTHiNG. In my experience, a player who takes even mild interest in skill point management can easily hit DC's in the 30's and 40's by 15th level. Also, what about sorcerors? They have much fewer skill points to pass around.
Wizard NEEDS to pull a Delayed Blast Fireball out of his...er...hat? Lose 7 points of wisdom, and KABAAM! But he will be obviously distracted and "dazed" by doing this. Do this three or four more times? Party has to carry exhausted wizard to safety.
Put me in the column of people who don't find the so-called 15 minute adventuring day a problem. Indeed, for me, it's a feature of D&D and always has been. More to the point, v.3.5 is structured around it and, unless Paizo didn't really mean it when they said they wanted Pathfinder to be backward compatible, making the changes necessary to "fix" it would be difficult.
I firmly believe that the rules should support the way the game is actually played. In my experience, 3e plays like this:
- By second level, the PCs have purchased a wand of cure light wounds.
- Given 5 minutes, they can completely empty any wand and bring everyone back to full health.
- The PCs do everything possible to enter every fight at full hit points, if not necessarily at full ability.
- The cost of the cure wand (of applicable strength for the party level) simply becomes a tax on the PCs wealth.
- PCs will stop adventuring rather than continue in a sub-optimal state.
- The CR system is most accurate when the party is at their full capacity.
- Published adventures almost always go "off script" because the PCs retreat at unexpected times. My options as a DM are to allow it-- which means suddenly accounting for the passage of 1 day-- or to find some excuse to prevent them from retreating.
Here is my fix, which I believe is eminently backwards compatible:
10-minute Rest Period
- A “rest period” is 10 minutes of uninterrupted rest, to include no more than conversation and light activity.
- All character abilities that were previously granted “per day” are instead granted “per rest.” This includes rage, smite, etc. as well as spellcasting (see below).
- All players receive a number of “Reserve Points.” (In our campaign, we use Action Points, but I’ll replace this term here since Action Points come with their own set of baggage.) Set this number as desired: ½ character level, for example. You can also award additional Reserve Points for good play, reaching milestones, etc.
- You can, instead, use a "Party Reserve Points" pool. All PCs spend from the same pool of Reserve Points, so it becomes a group decision how best to manage those resources.
- All abilities are refreshed once every 24 hours, at no cost of Reserve points. (In other words, always at least as often as the current system allows.)
After a successful rest period, at no cost of Reserve Points:
- All “per rest” abilities are refreshed.
- All characters heal an amount of hit points equal to 50% of their normal hit point total.
- All Simple spells are refreshed. (see below).
- Any ongoing spell effects on your person are dispelled when your rest is complete, regardless of any duration they may have remaining. (This does not apply to spells with instantaneous or permanent durations.)
After a successful rest period, at a cost of 1 Reserve Point:
- A character can recover an additional amount of hit points equal to 50% of their normal hit point total (which will restore any character to full hit points).
- All Complex spells are refreshed. (see below).
- You may refresh one Exotic spell per Reserve Point spent.
Spellcasting
All spells are designated as Simple, Complex, or Exotic:
- Simple spells include:
All 0 level spells.
Any single target spell with a duration of 1 min/level or less. - Complex spells include:
Any area of effect or multiple-target spell.
Any spell with a duration of 10 minutes/level or longer.
Any Conjuration (creation, calling, or teleport). - Exotic spells include:
The big three gamebreakers: Divination/Commune, Raise Dead, Teleport
“Edge case” spells that create permanent goods (water, food, iron) at the DM’s discretion.
For me, this was rarely to never a problem. When it was, the solution was to put the players on the clock.
You’ll typically find PCs in one of two cases:
In the first case, the PCs are in a situation where there is no real rationale for pressuring them (such as exploring a largely abandoned tomb full of undead or golem guardians that are not inclined to pursue). If the PCs are able to retreat and rest overnight without being unduly harried, then I would just as soon get them back into the action after a short rest.
In fact I’ve found that most of my players, once they are forced to retreat and rest for a full day, will find all sorts of other things to do with their time besides getting back to the adventure I intended for them.
In the second (and more common) case, the PCs are engaged in some predicament that is “alive” and “responsive.” But in this case, too, I prefer the 10 minute rest period. It is much easier for me, as a DM, to look to the adventure and determine what the bad guys will do with 10 minutes to prepare—to cast spells, to hunt the PCs down, to organize defenses—than it is for me to lay out their plans given almost an entire day. Again, I’d rather the PCs were harried on a 10-minute clock than on a full day clock.
(As an aside, as a result of this change, I’ve started using Wandering Monsters again, and I’ve simply put the check on a 10 minute timer. The PCs are never sure of getting a 10 minute rest.)
I firmly believe that the rules should support the way the game is actually played. In my experience, 3e plays like this:
If so, my experience is an oddity (which is possible). In any event, I can only say that, while the ideas you suggest are fine and may even be backward compatible (though I have my doubts), they don't feel like D&D to me. That's purely subjective, of course, but for me they go too far. I don't want to see Pathfinder go down this route, which is a lot closer to 4e's approach than I feel comfortable with.
Others may disagree, Paizo included, but I see the 15-minute adventuring day as a feature, not a bug and find most solutions, this one included, to treat encounters as standardized set piece battles. 3e does this too much already as it stands for my taste.
But as I say, this is just my take on it. Others may like such an approach, but I don't and can't see how Pathfinder could adopt it without fundamentally changing the feel of both the rules and the world they constructed using them.
|
|
I really like the new domain abilities that wizards get, and the freebie combat rays that avoid the "Wow, I'm out of magic missiles! Someone protect me!" problems of low levels.
I'm really not a fan of the Vancian system at all, and I've been toying around with a modified version of the UA spell point system in my group for several weeks now.
The big change I added was to let players restore some of their spell/mana pool per hour. I'm giving them 1/10th of their total pool per hour of rest (rounding up to be nice), with a one hour minimum, and if they put in a full eight hours then they can get their full pool back.
So far it's actually worked very well; instead of calling it a day after an early rough fight, the group can retreat and rest a bit to recover some energy. Even a few hours of rest is of some value, and it's avoided the glaring problem with the old vancian 8-hour mechanic that's been a running gag in my groups for years.
Once a given game mechanic becomes a per-session joke complete with rolling eyes and looks of amused irritation, something might be a bit off.
I must admit that the recharge system has a lot of appeal as well, but I'm not sure I like how it's currently described in UA. I've never found the total separation of spell levels all that sensible.
Good stuff
Wow, this is great. Have you been using it in your games? Do the PCs like the increased productivity during the day? The "recharge magic" variant from Unearthed Arcana would accomplish much on the same speed, but setting a fixed 10 minutes = Breather for Meditation and Focus sounds really interesting.
Good stuffWow, this is great. Have you been using it in your games? Do the PCs like the increased productivity during the day?
Yes, we have been using it in our games-- first in a quick 6th level Rappan Athuk playtest, but most recently in a new 1st level campaign set in DDO's Stormreach. (If you play DDO, you will know what I mean when I say that I am running them through Waterworks and Shan To Kar.)
As I said above, we use it in conjunction with Action Points (not simply Reserve points) but the concept works the same. I personally think APs are a little more important balancing mechanism, since the melee types tend to want to spend their APs on attack rolls and casters not so much; and casters need to spend their APs during rests, and melee types not so much.
The current group has no cleric and does not seem at all the worse for it. Clerics are still important as healers, but much more so during combat than afterwards. Unlike 4e, I do not allow every class access to healing during encounters-- only afterwards, and only after a successful rest period. Clerics will save your butt in a tough fight but aren't at all necessary as a healing battery between encounters.
You should try building a sorcerer using this variant, and paying attention to your spell selection. It is eye-opening with regards to Simple/Complex spells.
Others may disagree, Paizo included, but I see the 15-minute adventuring day as a feature, not a bug and find most solutions, this one included, to treat encounters as standardized set piece battles. 3e does this too much already as it stands for my taste.
(This is James Maliszewski, yes?)
I can't deny that.
I prefer my encounters to be dramatic affairs. I want more monsters in every encounter, and I want them to feel like knock-down, drag-out fights. I would much rather run one encounter that seriously tasks the PCs, than to run 3 throwaway encounters that serve no purpose other than to whittle the PCs down for the 4th "real" encounter. By the time I get to the proper "set pieces" most of my gaming time has been eaten up with the forgettable combats. Essentially, there is a good chance I'll have to stop each 3 hour gaming session at the cliffhanger, and pick it up next session-- which would be fine, if we played more often than once every two weeks.
Oh, and this is important too: I want to be able to assume that the PCs are going to be fresh so that the CR/EL system is accurately predictive of the outcome.
(This is James Maliszewski, yes?)
Yep.
I prefer my encounters to be dramatic affairs.
Every single one? As a preference, there's nothing wrong with that, but it runs counter to the assumptions behind D&D. Resource management on a strategic scale is important to the feel of the game. If most resources "reset" with each encounter, then there's very little need to manage them. Wizards can freely blow all their best spells every encounter and there are no consequences to such behavior, whereas in standard D&D this would be considered short-sightedness on par with downing one of only a few available healing potions anytime your character's hit points were below 100%.
The steady attrition of encounters, including random ones, is part of the calculus of dungeon delving. Do I use my fireball now or save it for later? Is this the fight to pull out my quiver of arrows +1 or not? And so on.
I can understand not liking this style of play, but it's what D&D is and, unless I'm mistaken, it's this sort of style that Paizo wants to preserve in Pathfinder.
Oh, and this is important too: I want to be able to assume that the PCs are going to be fresh so that the CR/EL system is accurately predictive of the outcome.
I agree with this point, but then I think the CR/EL system is both badly broken and poorly in tune with the way D&D's rules were written. I'd rather Paizo came up with an entirely new system that works better with the slow attrition/strategic management paradigm.
Every single one?
Well, as I said, the answer is a qualified YES. Yes, because my game time is limited. Once I get 6 "adults" gathered around the game table on a weeknight and all the bullshitting out of the way, I can either have one good combat or two forgettable ones. It's an easy choice.
As a preference, there's nothing wrong with that, but it runs counter to the assumptions behind D&D. Resource management on a strategic scale is important to the feel of the game. If most resources "reset" with each encounter, then there's very little need to manage them. Wizards can freely blow all their best spells every encounter and there are no consequences to such behavior, whereas in standard D&D this would be considered short-sightedness on par with downing one of only a few available healing potions anytime your character's hit points were below 100%.
The steady attrition of encounters, including random ones, is part of the calculus of dungeon delving.
I'm sensitive to that style of play.
First, I think it's important to note that what I have presented does not reset resources after every encounter. They reset after a successful 10 minute rest.
I'll repost here my answer to a friend who's helping me hone my thoughts on this:
If rage refreshes every rest, then every fighter or rogue I ever build WILL have 1 level of Barbarian.
I think, as Paizo has noted, that's the fault of the fighter and the rogue. There's simply no reason not to diverge from fighter or rogue, because there isn't a lot waiting for them at higher levels. But I'm not sure why you wouldn't do this now, anyway. The rest mechanic doesn't really change the relative usefulness of rage-- it's on the same par as any other existing per day mechanic-- smite, spells, etc.
Is it possible that you will have overpowered things more than you think?
It's possible, but my thinking is that it is only a power boost in the context of the necessity to rest, or not, and for how long. There is nothing inherently more powerful about any class under this structure-- if anything, spellcasters are a bit less powerful under this structure as compared to everyone else, because their demands on Reserve Points are higher.
Nothing about this boosts PC powers within the context of a single encounter. They have gained nothing.
They have only gained with respect to the amount of time it takes them between encounters to return to full capacity. As the DM, if that's a problem, it is my responsibility to harry them on the 10 minute clock, just exactly the same as it would be to harry them on the 1 day clock.
Let's say you build your fighter under existing 3e rules, and you dip into barbarian. In the first fight, you use your rage. Now you convince the rest of the party to retreat for the day and come back tomorrow. It takes 2 minutes of "table time" and you have your rage again, and all the spellcasters have all their spells again, and everyone is all healed up. The players are ecstatic, happy-- and a bit smug. Assume that's the status quo in 3e.
What are my options as a DM?
How do my options change under a 10 minute rest structure, instead of a full day rest structure?
In the end, the 10 minute rest structure only changes the amount of in-game time that passes between such rests as I choose to allow. I find the continuity of the game is much improved if only 10 game minutes pass between such rests, as opposed to a full day.
Reserve Points (or Action Points, as I prefer) continue to press on the players as an important resource to be managed. There are still "errors" to be made in resource allocation and expenditure to be exploited. Even given essentially unlimited opportunities to snatch 10 minutes of rest, the PCs feel the real danger of resources being whittled down, as it requires a steady supply of Reserve Points to return to full capacity.
In the end, the 10 minute rest structure only changes the amount of in-game time that passes between such rests as I choose to allow. I find the continuity of the game is much improved if only 10 game minutes pass between such rests, as opposed to a full day.
Interestingly, it is this that is what bothers me most about your proposal. The shift from 24 hours to 10 minutes changes the feel of the game quite dramatically. Entering an ancient tomb to battle its undead guardians knowing that what you bring with you is all you have for the next 24 hours (at least) makes the adventure feel more like an expedition. Knowing that many of your resources refresh after 10-minutes rest makes it feel more like an action movie.
To me anyway. I can only speak for myself here, but D&D has always felt more "literary" to me than "cinematic." Long stretches of time preparing and planning, and then taking care to execute those plans in the most efficient way because you knew your resources required a degree of safety that you couldn't guarantee -- that's what D&D feels like to me. A shorter reset time might work just fine and even be a lot of fun but it'd ultimately not feel like the D&D I want to play anymore than 4e does.
In any event, it mostly comes down to personal preference. I'll be curious to see if my read on Paizo is correct and that they favor the older style with its longer required rest period. If not, well, I already have several iterations of D&D that give me what I want, so I can't complain. I'm still hopeful, though, that Pathfinder might be a current iteration that hews closely to my own preferences.
Knowing that many of your resources refresh after 10-minutes rest makes it feel more like an action movie.
Thanks for the compliment. ;)
I'll be curious to see if my read on Paizo is correct and that they favor the older style with its longer required rest period.
Judging from the alpha, there's no doubt in my mind that they are much closer to your style than to mine.
Fortunately my "fix" is completely compatible with anything they intend to do. Much easier to add it later, than to pull something like this out of the guts of the game. (Same with Action Points.)
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
What if a caster could rapidly re-memorize his/her spells in a pinch?.
Super bad idea in 3.5 type rule system. Who ever has that power would obliterate anyone without it. Who doesn't have it (Sorcerer/Bard) would be severely at a disadvantage from a utility perspective.
Quite simply, it isn't D&D if it goes to a MMORPG type of casting (infinite spells of all levels) per day or even anything containing any sort of per encounter or per rest mechanic.
In short, none of this is required. There is plenty of ways around this problem (Reserve Feats, Sunbeam like spells, etc.) There isn't any point in destroying all that is good about D&D to please those players who prefer not to manage any resources.
|
|
I've read through the myriad of posts on this subject: It seems the split for removing Vancian or not is pretty 50/50.
I have to say that I have never been a big fan of the system - though its use and simplicity is pragmatic and makes sense.
I say for compatibility issues it needs to be the main crux of the magic system - as opposed to the "per encounter."
One post I read did strike me well to make sense and sound good.
Why not combine a little of what the sorcerer can do and what the wizard can do.
The wizard has a book full of spells. He can only memorize an X number of them. Each day the wizard prepares his spells based on the X amount per spell level. Then he can cast a Y amount of spells of any given level.
This gives a little more diversity than a sorcerer - in that the wizard can choose which spells he wants to be able to cast that day - and it allows a little more diversity to the wizard in that he doesn't need to determine exactly how many memorizations of any particular spell he intends to use that day (or exactly which ones will be enhanced with meta-magic feats).
DDO uses this system to some degree - except that it uses spell energy. Instead of spell energy, just make a finite number of castings of any level of spell that day and the wizard simply casts from the short list he memorized that day.
To address the per encounter need or fear that they'll run out of speels - reserve feats can be introduced, or the wizard has a specialized "domain" spell that he can cast once per encounter etc.
While were talking about wizards - I think the Specialist Wizard in the PHB is too weak. Losing two schools for one good one is too punitive for what you get. Furthermore, a wizard should get either that "domain" spell per encounter option I mentioned above - OR spells of his chosen school are cast at +1 caster level (like the cleric gets with the Good or Law domain).
Robert
Keep the Vancian. Anything else you either damage backward compatibility or maybe should look at 4th.
My simple fix:
Alter the bonus spell/day chart for high ability modifiers. Increase the bonus slots for low-level spells.
options:
half-price potions. My players never bought them(for years!) until I lowered the price.
adjust prices of pearl of power at all levels(minor)
|
|
I would love to see some kind of second wind mechanic to give the PCs a little more healing.
I run an Eberron campaign and allow the use of "Second Wind" on action points, Sinc eaction Point represent the heroic nature of the adventurers, the ability to push thru the pain, to continue, I might also allow the use of an action point to recover a spell...
|
|
Annoyed Rant at 4th haters, seemed out of place after reading the missing page, decided to delete
moral of the story, like sebastion (in like the best thing the guy ever said) your not going to win players over with hate, I mean look at me here, I'm switching to forth but I'm still here reading your stuff, I could be pulled into the fold, if it wasn't for all the snide put downs about my choice.
(and if i actually thought you could pull off this change but not change thing, but hey I've believed in stupider)
anyway sorry about rant, Mod feel free to delete post.
I'm not going to put someone down for their choice...that's ridiculous, my only beef is with 4e, not the people who will play it.
I just prefer my 3.5e, not what they're making D&D into, it's a slaughterhouse over there, the poor sacred cows =(
I'm sticking with Vancian, although I've toyed with an Earthdawn system in my head, I just haven't gotten it to work. Basically you put a couple spells into memory, and you use spellcraft to cast them, and to switch them out. You can cast any of your unmemorized spells raw, but it will cause non-lethal damage, or if you fail the casting, lethal damage.
Rather that allowing PCs to gain more spellcasting for each day, I'd like to see downtime put to good use. After all, once you start clearing out random dungeon x, even if you're running by the 15 minute day, you tend to keep at it until it's done, returning the following day as many times as needed until you've either accomplished whatever goal took you down there in the first place, or given up on it as a lost cause.
By contrast, in between adventures, PCs get days, weeks, perhaps even months in which they're casting few spells if any. Why not let them put those spells to good use? Let the casters spend a day recharging wands or staffs using their unused spell slots, at a rate determined by the CL of the item.
Voila, instant, replenishable casting of favoured spells, though probably a few levels below that of the heavy ordnance. You have to be working pretty hard to burn through 50 castings of magic missile over the course of a single adventure, after all. Nor do you have to keep repurchasing the same wand whenever you do burn it out, thus allowing wizards to spend some of their money on other things (and also drastically pruning back the cottage industry of wand-makers). And who doesn't feel the agony of deciding whether now is turn right time to burn charges from that hugely expensive staff you sunk your savings into?
Granted, all this is probably an issue for when the new rules for crafting magic items come out, but I figured I'd put it out there.
|
|
The healing does something to address this, but the healing was only part of the problem.
The bigger part of the problem is "Guys, I've cast all my highest-level spells today, time to go home!" after a small handful of encounters.
Let's fix it!
How about using healing to regain used spell slots instead? The player can declare that, when healing's applied to his PC, some of the Cure whatever points go into recovering the spell slots. I envision the cost per spell to be the spell level's squared, with a minimum of 1 for 0 level spells (i.e., to recover a 3rd level spell would cost 9 Cure points (3x3); 5th level spell costs 25; 9th level spell would cost -- gasp! -- 81 points, etc. And this is PER spell.)
Thus the injured wizard/sorcerer has to decide which is more important: hit points (always a precious commodity) or recovering those spell slots.
|
|
So, I'm reading the alpha rules now, and I really like what I see. Many of the additions may lessen the issue, but I still don't see a solution for the spellcasters running out of spells before noon, though.
Perhaps an option (feats?) of taking an early withdrawal for the next day's allotment, with the penalty being:
1. No spells for tomorrow, of course, and
2. Loss of spell-casting related ability (Wis, Int, Chr) point(s) for a day.This could be applied to both divine and arcane magic. Maybe the cleric would pray urgently, or the wizard would pour over his tome, studying intently, or the sorceror would spend time meditating, digging deep down inside his/her soul (or spend X action points, or sacrifice some XP, or <insert option here>) to gain the much-needed spells to overcome adversity.
This way, you CAN get more spells when your party truly needs them, with the further understanding that you had better be finished by tomorrow....and without turning your magic system upside-down.
Wizards need to be able to evaluate the situation and decide IF the party needs a high level spell or if a low level spell will do. Perhaps a perception roll to see how the monster is looking in terms of damage. Wizards should never be the blasters, sprcerors can get away with it, but not wizards...
|
|
As is happens, I am currently playing a "Dungeon Crawl Classic" with a seven year old girl, two eight year old boys and three fathers who have been playing for about thirty years each. The party is third level and I'm playing a wizard. The DM has a home cooked spell point system that allows unlimited 0 level spells. This is great fun! I don't want to spend spell points on "real" spells so I shoot d3 rays at the goblins all the time. I don't think I have ever dropped one that wasn't already staggered, but that is OK. If I hit a zombie at the start of a round and my son drops him with his longsword at the end I say "I softened him up for you." or "Good team work!" I think the new pathfinder abilities that scale up with level will do that for every spellcaster. No, you can't steal the show (and close it) after your big spells are gone, but you can sure contribute so let's carry on.
Admittedly I haven't read every post of this thread, so I apologize if this has been suggested.
What if casters could specify a non-healing spell no higher than 1st or 2nd level to be a per encounter ability? Meaning that a wizard could select magic missile and have a single use of it replenish every encounter? This would ensure that casters could adventure longer and still maintain some usefulness without being to over the top.
My two cents.
|
Just a note from the Backwards Compatibility thread:
What worries me, are some of the other suggestions on the board. Changes to armor rules, getting rid of hit points. That kind of stuff is too far fetched to accomplish the goal of being backwards compatible. I have faith in Paizo in ultimately making the game how they want it, with input from the fans of course, but holding the final decision.
You do not need to worry at all about changes of this magnitude. Whether or not an increase in starting hit points has a long-term effect on "portability" of stat blocks between systems is an interesting and useful discussion. Suggesting that we change the core classes or races or that we ditch Vancian spellcasting or what have you is not helpful, as it violates the spirit of the project.
Some of these suggestions are really cool, and I can already see an "add-on options" book forming in my head, but we are not going to reinvent the wheel into a square.
It would seem that this issue is moot except from an options standpoint but keep if it amuses you to keep pressing the attack, by all means keep at it.
While there have been some very interesting rules suggestions, both backwards compatable and completely new mechanics, none of them seem to fix the percieved problem of spellcasters running out of spells. I say percieved because this isn't a problem with spellcasters or the magic game mechanics, its a problem with player resource management, player threat assesment, and DM encounter level balance.
No matter what you do with spellcasting, eventually the spellcaster will run out of spells. The simplest solution being: increase the number of spells per day. No new mechanics are needed, no complex formula to see if spells can be recovered or to see how many spells of what levels regenerate. Just increase the spells per day; double them or triple them, quadruple them! It still won't matter, players will still use them all up and need to rest. Which they should.
The next simplest solution is spell-like abilities. SLAs at per day uses are no different then spells per day, so that's no fix. At will uses give an infinite source of magical power. That's a slippery slope.
I don't want to flame here, but if what you're looking for is casters that continually cast spells all day long, play 4th edition or find a video game. There's nothing wrong with those options, but there's no way its backwards compatable to 3.5.
My view is that spell casting is a taxing endeavor and magic is not an infinite well of power. Spellcasters running out of spells is one of the biggest balancing factors between casters and non-casters. Magic is powerful, but when its gone the fighter is still swinging.
If you think fighters don't measure up to casters at higher levels now, wait til they're compared to casters that never run out of magic. No non-caster will be desirable except for purely role-playing reasons.
It seems to me that if a caster is blowing all his magic on the first few encounters of the day, either the encounters are too tough for his level (DM's fault) or he doesn't do proper threat assessment and resource management (player's fault). Threat assessment and resource management are important skills for a player to learn, for both casters and non-casters. Magic should be a precious resource and knowing when to use it and when to save it will help the character/player fight/play smarter and better.
The same could be said of hit points. A fighting character shouldn't burden the healer of the party constantly with whining to be healed to full hp after every encounter. He should know when to suck it up and fight defensively rather than just wade into every fight without regard to the damage he takes. If the caster is out of spells because the others in the group aren't being smart, then the others are as much to blame as the caster.
If your particular group needs more spells for the caster, just up the spells per day by whatever number makes sense at the time. Don't re-invent the wheel, just grease the axle.
If Recharge Magic (mentioned near the beginning of this discussion) doesn't suit your taste, there's also Spell Points using the Vitalizing Variant. The second optional rule can even be used without using the spell point system: To cast a prepared spell already cast or a known spell without a sufficient spell slot, make a Concentration check (DC 20 + spell level) or take one point of lethal and non-lethal damage for each spell level of the spell.
There is no fix to this problem, because there is no problem.
As has been stated, players who burn their spells early in the day are going to want to rest unless all their powers are encounter based. If that's what you're looking for, I would suggest D&D 4th edition.
The issue, not problem, is some play styles forego any kind of resource management; casters burn spells, fighters burn hps, etc. They also tend to eschew threat assessment; 3 goblins don't really require a third level spell. Another issue is that sometimes an encounter leaves a character with nothing to do; if an encounter doesn't warrant spells, the caster just stands around. Oddly, no one whines much when the rogue is the only one dealing with a trap encounter.
Sometimes the DM has too many encounters of too high a difficulty level. This is a DM issue (or maybe an adventure issue if it occurs in a pre-written) and should be dealt with by the players talking to the DM about the issue.
Magic is intended to be a precious resource, and should be used with a great deal of judgment. Many people have posted about how fighters don't measure up to casters, especially at high levels. Imagine how disparate it would be if casters never ran out of spells. This is one of the biggest balancing factors between casters and non-casters.
When the caster is out of spells, the fighters are still swinging.
The solution to most of these issues is smarter play. But if a caster simply MUST have more spells, new mechanics and complicated formulae are not the answer. Don't re-invent the wheel, grease the axle. Just give them more spells per day. Remember though, that you could double or even triple them and the player is still going to burn them and want to rest, even if they have additional spell-like abilities.
|
If Recharge Magic (mentioned near the beginning of this discussion) doesn't suit your taste, there's also Spell Points using the Vitalizing Variant. The second optional rule can even be used without using the spell point system: To cast a prepared spell already cast or a known spell without a sufficient spell slot, make a Concentration check (DC 20 + spell level) or take one point of lethal and non-lethal damage for each spell level of the spell.
I run my games with recharge magic, my players and I love it.
|
|
not at all. I am stating that the rules, as written encourage careful husbanding of resources and intelligent and creative strategies to overcome obstacles. The rules, when abused, lead to the 15 minute day.
*snipped for brevity*
Underling, thank you for expressing my feelings about the so-called "15-minute adventuring day." I've played spell-casters in "basic" D&D, 1e AD&D, 2e AD&D, and 3.x D&D, and rarely ever ran into the problem of being a useless member of the party because I was out of spells. Then again, I knew I had a limited resource that I had to manage and because of that I didn't "go nova" at the first sign of trouble. D&D has always rewarded playing smart, and working as a team--when you do this, you find that the "15-minute adventuring day" exists more in theory than in reality.
|
|
Actually 4e embraces the fact that PC's will want to enter everybattle at full. That's why they created the short rest period for the game. As for 3.5, I don't see a problem with the 15 min. Adventure Day. It doesn't really come into gameplay until the later levels and even then, it's only a problem when players are not managing their resources carfully enough.
Going nova is bad teamwork. The rest of the party has to favor the Wizard because he decides that he wants to waste all his spells in a few encounters. That wizard is not working with the team, he is in it only for himself. A good team of characters will learn to manage their resources and wouldn't let one of their members become useless but if that wizard kept making himself useless, they would eventually make him learn some new abilities so he would stop slowing down the party.
|
|
It's ironic you say that, because really the main thing that I've found that acts as a buff agaisnt the 15 minute adventuring day is bad teamwork. Basicalyl when your wizard goes totally nova and the rest of the party, still at full strength, decide to keep going and not let the wizard rest.
If teamwork is in full swing then most parties will freely nova at will and take full advantage of the infinite ammo cheat by continually resting after each fight.
In my experience, if there's actual teamwork involved, there's no need for the spellcaster to go nova as everyone is contributing to the encounter.