This post could also fit into Combat and Magic, Feats and Skills or New Rules fora.
The Rogue is a non-spellcasting class and it seems like a significant number of us don't like the fact that they can select magical abilities as their very own class features. I am not too keen on that myself, although the issue is but a minor peevee for me. While discussing the issue over at ENWorld, it occured to me that a better solution might be to have an optional, but universal system applicable/open to all characters that would enable them to attain some minor level of magical proficiency should that fit the character concept. Once again, it should probably be an optional system accessible to the players at the discretion of the game referee. Having suggested it on ENWorld, I thought that rather than staying at the debate level without any specifics, it might be a better idea to create a system that woul fit the bill.
The most likely candidate for such a universal system would be based on feat chains, but other possibilities also exist.
Options:
1) A feat system that would work for the non-caster acquisition of arcane spells and for divine spells
There are two types of arcane feats and two types of divine feats:
Minor Spell: Grants the use of a 0th level arcane spell once per day
Minor Prayer: Grants the use of a 0th level divine spell once per day
Each of these feats can be taken multiple times. The feat can used to acquire a new arcane or divine spell. The new spell is also usable once per day. Using the feat to gain additional usages of an already available spell is also possible and would always grant an extra use (or maybe two extra uses) of the spell per day.
Minor Spell feats would function as pre-requisites for Major Spell feats, whereas Minor Prayer feats would function as pre-requisites for Major Prayer feats. Please not that from now on I will use arcane magic as an example to avoid having to write the same thing twice, but the same principles could be applied to divine magic.
Major Spell feats would be numbered according to the spell level of the spell they represent. For example, a Major Spell feat used to take a 1st level spell would be “Major Spell 1” (with the name of the spell itself following the feat name after a colon), whereas a feat granting a 9th level spell would carry a label “Major Spell 9”. Of course, the 9th level spell is only a theoretical example and would be impossible to obtain in practice, as will be seen below.
Major Spell feats can be taken multiple times. Each major spell feat grants 1 use of the given spell per day and additional feats can be spent on gaining other spells or gaining more uses per day of already available spells in the same manner as Minor Spell feats.
The number of Minor Spell feats required to be able to gain a Major Spell feat can be dealt with in several ways:
1)a)
Spell point equivalence
Major Spell feat has a prerequisite of Minor Spell feats numbering:
Spell Level x 2 – 1
This results in the following table of prerequisites:
Major Spell 1: 1 Minor Spell Feat
Major Spell 2: 3 Minor Spell Feats
Major Spell 3: 5 Minor Spell Feats
Major Spell 4: 7 Minor Spell Feats
Major Spell 5: 9 Minor Spell Feats
Major Spell 6: 11 Minor Spell Feats
Major Spell 7: 13 Minor Spell Feats
Major Spell 8: 15 Minor Spell Feats
Major Spell 9: 17 Minor Spell Feats
This works out to the same numbers as the level of the full caster required to cast the spell, or the number of spell points required to cast the spell of the equivalent level when using the spell point system (which can be found in Unearthed Arcana).
I was, in fact, thinking that the Minor Spell feats could grant spell points for the Major Spell feats, but that would probably make arcane magic too much like psionics.
Clearly there is no need for a cap on the maximum attainable spell level using this system, since it is self-limiting. As you can see, a 20th level human non-spellcaster in the Pathfinder RPG could, in theory, use this system to gain up to a single 5th level spell (and nine 0th level spells) cast-able once per day if he spent all of his 10 feats on this (a human would have one feat left). In 3.0E or 3.5E, such a human non-spellcaster could at most gain a single 4th level spell usable once per day and would have no feats left. Of course, nobody in his right mind would actually spend the entire feat selection all the way to 20th level to achieve this effect. On the other hand, achieving lesser spell-like abilities is not horribly cost prohibitive in terms of feats.
1)b)
Chain prerequisites
Minor Spell feats don’t exist separately from Major Spell feats. There are only “Spell” feats that have chain-like prerequisites. The feat “Spell 0” opens up the feat “Spell 1” that in turn opens up “Spell 2”, which opens up “Spell 3” and so on.
This makes gaining higher level spells much cheaper and easier than in version A and would thus probably need a cap on the highest spell level attainable using this system (and that might well be level 1 or level 2 or at most level 3). The spell chains could also be restricted by school of the spell (transmutation “Spell 0” only opens up transmutation “Spell 1” and not say necromancy “Spell 1”).
1)c)
Linear prerequisites
This is a middle way between the two systems. A Major Spell feat needs a number of Minor Spell feats equal to its spell level.
Major Spell feat has a prerequisite of Minor Spell feats equal in number to the spell level of the spell granted by the Major Spell feat in question.
Note: In all of these cases/options, a restriction should probably be applied that stipulates that a number of Major Spell feats cannot exceed the number of Minor Spell feats.
Looking at the matter thus far, I personally probably find option 1)a) to be the most appealing, though there are some benefits to the other methods too.
2) Use one of the systems described in option 1, but do not base it on feats. In a high-magic game it is possible to grant player characters automatic/free backgrounds or background magical traits pre-constructed using the above system. That would make it less flexible but simpler and impossible to min-max the system beyond the pre-constructed magical backgrounds (could mesh well with some system of non-magical background traits too).
(Of course, a possibility also exists to use this in combination with the feat system to allow further development of the magical talents.)
3) Make a table and allow any character to roll for a chance of gaining magical abilities. This is the approach that was used for Psionics in the 2nd edition and might not be appropriate for 3.X edition or Pathfinder, which are more concerned with balance between characters unless there is some offsetting penalty that the PC than has to pay, such as Level Adjustment or going into ‘feat debt’ until the ‘virtual feat cost’ is paid back.
Note on Psionics: The same system as outlined for acquiring Arcane and Divine magic could also be used for Psionics – just replace the term Minor Spell with Minor Power (and make it grant a Power Point, thus making the character psionic) and the term Major Spell with Major Power… This would allow the taking of real psionic powers, rather than merely psionic feats as the current Wild Talent provides. (Alternatively, Wild Talent might be used in place of Minor Power, but granting 2 PPs and serving as a prerequisite to gain powers might be too much for the feat.)
Well, any comments? Would you like to see something along those lines replace the rogue magical abilities in the Pathfinder RPG?
For those interested in ENWorld discussion of the rogue's magical abilities, here is a link: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=225039
For those interested in ENWorld discussion of the rogue's magical abilities, here is a link: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=225039
I am curious why you feel a universal system would be better, rather than just leaving it to the Rogue?
I am not being snide either. It seems odd to me that you don't like the Rogue having it, so you think it would be better if everyone had it.
For those interested in ENWorld discussion of the rogue's magical abilities, here is a link: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=225039
I am curious why you feel a universal system would be better, rather than just leaving it to the Rogue?
I am not being snide either. It seems odd to me that you don't like the Rogue having it, so you think it would be better if everyone had it.
Don't worry - it did not come across as snide.
In any case, I do not like the rogue having it as a class feature, because the rogue is not a magical/spellcasting class.
Nevertheless, I can certainly imagine character concepts that would benefit from being able to cast a spell or two. These are by no means limited to rogues and wizard spells though. There could be a fighter, the son of a noble, who was studying to be a wizard, but had to leave to the front to fight a dynastic war and had to leave his education behind or a cleric whose parents were wizards and he picked up a spell or two despite his religious calling or a rogue for that matter, who was put in a cloister after being caught and has developed a newfound faith and the power of the prayer... and now seeks to use even his roguish skills for the good.
Also, if its a self-contained system that's universal but optional, it is easier for the DM to ban than a class feature if he thinks that it doesn't fit his game.
Is it that big of a deal
Well, for me it is not a big deal, but it is indeed a 'small deal' that this is a rogue class feature.
BTW: Disenchanter, thanks for making the link from the URL. How is that done on these boards?
|
Also, if its a self-contained system that's universal but optional, it is easier for the DM to ban than a class feature if he thinks that it doesn't fit his game.
How is it any easier to ban an optional system than an optional class feature? banning either takes the same amount of work, "hey guys you can't take x" since the player isn't loosing something either way I don't understand your argument at all. Now I agree that a universal system might be better than just a rogue class feature, but I severely disagree as to your argument as to why.
How is it any easier to ban an optional system than an optional class feature?
Also, if its a self-contained system that's universal but optional, it is easier for the DM to ban than a class feature if he thinks that it doesn't fit his game.
Three reasons:
1) The class feature is not really optional - it is an option - there is a difference.
2) A universal system could be self-contained and not require searching through class powers for class features to ban, especially if such features spread to other classes.
3) Banning a universal system does not pick on a single class, whose flexibility of class features would be removed, but rather on all classes essentially equally.
] Now I agree that a universal system might be better than just a rogue class feature, but I severely disagree as to your argument as to why.
In that case, why do you think that a universal system might be better?
Note: As I have already mentioned, easier banning is not the only reason why I consider a universal system to be preferable, there is also the fact that it supports more character archetypes with a touch of magic for those times when a DM is fine with that.
In any case, I do not like the rogue having it as a class feature, because the rogue is not a magical/spellcasting class.Nevertheless, I can certainly imagine character concepts that would benefit from being able to cast a spell or two. These are by no means limited to rogues and wizard spells though. There could be a fighter, the son of a noble, who was studying to be a wizard, but had to leave to the front to fight a dynastic war and had to leave his education behind or a cleric whose parents were wizards and he picked up a spell or two despite his religious calling or a rogue for that matter, who was put in a cloister after being caught and has developed a newfound faith and the power of the prayer... and now seeks to use even his roguish skills for the good.
There is such a system in place.
It is called multi-classing. Not only does it provide the balance for such a system, it provides flavor and causes you to make a sometimes difficult choice.
I think it makes as much sense for a rogue to have spells available as it does a bard. The only issue I see with it is that the potential for these magic feats is so great that they eclipse all or most of the other available rogue talents(Hi, 4 Shocking Grasp sneak attacks/day for 10d6 +5 bleed damage/round at level 10 ...yes please.). I surmise the biggest reason for this was the number of multiclass rogue/wizards, and the number of prestige classes that marry these two concepts. Paizo seems to be trying to restore a more classic idea of how to build a character, using mostly core classes, and at worst multi-classing. Maybe I'm wrong, but either way, I play tested this and it was neither overpowered nor did it seem as out of place as it might sound. It kinda seemed like it should always have been there, after all, rogues are supposed to be know for having any number of tricks up their sleeves, non?