Magic under 3e

[Covetous]

I also posted this on the GM Tools thread, wasn't sure which one this'd fit better in.

Magic under the 3e system is pretty stagnent since it relies so heavily on the STAT modifier as opposed to the caster level. This really only leaves the option of having the spellcaster use damage-dealing spells. What if a spell caster wants to be more subtle then this, defeating opponents through spells such as Charm or Hold Person or Ray of Enfeeblement as opposed to defeating them with Magic Missile or Fireball?

Under 3e spells DCs are: 10 + Spell level + Appropriate modifier + Misc Modifiers.

In my game spell DCs are: 10 + half caster level (round down on odd numbered levels) + spell level + appropriate modifier + misc modifiers.

Notice that under the second system even low-level spells will gain in strength more regularly & spellcasters will have more tactical options open to them other then just "blowing the opponent to smitherines". Also they'll keep in pace with the opponent as far as having to overcome their saving throws. Under the first system a mid level "victim" has no real fear of a Spellcasters Charm spell, under the second the Charm spell has a far better chance of affecting the same victim.

I encourage people to try my second system & let me know their experiences with it, positive & negative.

[Locworks]

Howe does your party fare against enemy spellcasters under your system? The low will saves folks (fighters, rogues) must be having a very hard time with all the Charms and Dominations flying their way.

[Covetous]

Locworks wrote:

Howe does your party fare against enemy spellcasters under your system? The low will saves folks (fighters, rogues) must be having a very hard time with all the Charms and Dominations flying their way.

They fare pretty well. The saving throws aren't as slanted as you may be led to believe. Granted they are tougher to save against in a sense, but it is consistant. Also remember that as characters gain levels their saving throws don't just stay where they are. Even in your example where Rogues & Fighters have weak WIll saves, they do increase & they can get feats to increase them or abilities to increase their chances of saving vs these spells.

Under the current system saving throws go up while spell save DCs pretty much remain where they are. That DC 15 1st level Color Spray will pretty much remain at that DC long after the spellcaster in question has gone to his mid & higher levels, unless the player in question is anal about increasing just the one stat, & even then it's slower then the increase of the saves that a potential victim will have against it (a stat goes up +1 every 4 levels, while saving throws on average gain at rate of +1 every 2 levels for ALL saves). I've seen too many times where a spellcaster doesn't really bother with the low-level spells after a certain point because the opponent will just save against it with relative ease, so they make all their low-level spells slots as either support spells like Mage Armor & Fog or damage dealing spells like Magic Missile.

All I ask is that people try out my system. The Alpha is still under playtest anyway, what do you have to loose? I admit that I'm slanted in a way. I want people to try it out & gimme their experience in using it so that I can fine tune it accordingly. With any luck when the real version of Pathfinder comes out they'll have incorporated something along these lines for their own spellcasters.

[Do Not Ask For Whom the Bell Tolls]

Covetous wrote:

Under 3e spells DCs are: 10 + Spell level + Appropriate modifier + Misc Modifiers.

In my game spell DCs are: 10 + half caster level (round down on odd numbered levels) + spell level + appropriate modifier + misc modifiers.

I will note that in Core 3E, Heighten Spell can deal with this issue. Personally, I think that Heighten Spell should be a free side-effect of casting a spell at a higher level (meta-magiced or not), not a feat - but I'm now getting a bit off-topic.

Your suggestion will result in the following:

1) Higher DCs for spells, particuarly at higher levels (at LV 20, that's a +10 to all DCs)
2) The DC of the lowest level spell that can be cast under your system will have DC 20 + ability & other mods at LV 20. The DC of the highest level spell that can be cast under the core system at LV 20 is 19 + ability & other mods. In other words, a cantrip under your system is harder to save against than the highest level of spell in core.

So I'd suggest that this is a great idea if you feel that Spell DCs are too low, particuarly at higher levels. If, however, you'd like spell DCs overall to remain about the same, but lower-level spells to have better DCs, I'd suggest something like:

Spell DCs are: 8 + 1/2 caster level + appropriate modifier + misc modifiers.

This will result in Spell DCs roughly equivalent to those of 2 spell levels below the highest spell you can cast under core. It also makes all DCs the same. It still has the "problem" that 1st LV spells can have pretty high saves, but it ameliorates that slightly by giving your highest level spells worse saves.

Another alternate, which would give similar saves to core, but give some scaling by level:

In my game spell DCs are: 10 + 1/4 caster level + 1/2 spell level + appropriate modifier + misc modifiers.

A LV 9 spell cast by a LV 20 caster still has the same DC as core, but their LV 0 spells are now 5 higher (and their LV 8 spells have the same DC as their 9th LV spells).

[Cayzle]

Do Not Ask For Whom the Bell Tolls wrote:

Spell DCs are: 8 + 1/2 caster level + appropriate modifier + misc modifiers.

I think that the idea of tying save DCs to caster level, not spell level, is an exceptionally good one -- for the sake of multiclass casters, primarily.

For a single class caster, this makes low level spells more useful. A Grease or a Glitterdust becomes effective against foes with god saves. So it is a power booster for casters. But that is not what recommends it.

It is also a return to the earlier editions of the game, insofar as making a "save vs spell" did not vary with spell level. But aside from a perhaps debatable return to tradition, this is also not what recommends it.

The value to this rule is its potential to help multiclass casters.

What if a character's caster level is not a value locked into a particular class? What if one's caster level were the sum of all caster levels from all classes? For example, a cleric3/wizard3 would have a caster level of 6. A druid5/bard4/assassin10 would have caster level 19.

Combined with the rule that spell DC is 8 + half caster level + ability score mod + adjustments, now the multiclass caster, although penalized by a lack of high level spells, at least can cast his low level spells effectively.

Of course, caster level still would be used for all the usual purposes, especially determining variable effects like range, duration, damage, etc. And for dispel checks, spell penetration, etc. And here too, stacking caster levels puts the multiclassed caster on par with other casters.

Now the trade-off as a multiclassed caster is to gain a large variety of spells and a large number of low level spells but to lose access to high level spells.

I have another idea on this as well. Even if you are a wizard, your levels stack with your other classes to boost your BAB. Granted, wizard levels stack at half value compared with fighter levels, but they stack nonetheless.

I propose that all classes include a caster level component. Non-casters (barbarians, rogues, fighters, etc) contribute +0.5 caster levels per class level; poor casters (rangers, paladins, dragon disciples, etc) contribute +0.75 caster levels per class level; and good casters (bards, druids, wizards, etc) contribute one for one.

This also gives some benefit to multiclass casters who take non-caster levels.

By the way, I would give monks a +1 caster level per class level progression, and tie monk special ability saves to caster level.