Why is applying a Spell Failure Chance unacceptable to the community?


General Discussion (Prerelease)

301 to 322 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Matt Rathbun wrote:
It would seem that PfRPG is balanced from the assumption that each encounter, on average, will last 5 rounds. From that assumption it is possible to mathematically determine the impact of spell loss to a caster relative to the impact of action loss for a non-caster.

Even so, if you do calculate it to "about 5 rounds, roughly" multiplied by the traditional 4 encounters per day, you get a loose "about 20 rounds, roughly" answer.

Fine.

So a mage should be able to cast 20 spells?

What about a level 1 mage? Should he have 20 spells?

A 10th level wizard gets 20 spells (not counting any INT bonus). But what if he prepares some non-combat spells, like Alarm, Mount, Identify, Arcane Lock, Locate Object, Magic Mouth, Rope Trick, Explosive Runes, Tongues, Tiny Hut, Gentle Repose, Water Breathing, or many others I didn't name. Should this wizard still get 20 combat spells too?

No, these guys have to choose the right time to cast the spells they have, and conserve some of their combat spells for future combats (even if it is the 4th encounter of the day, you never know what the DM, or the gods, or the fates, have planned).

So calculating it down to exact number of rounds, or even "about 20 rounds, roughly", doesn't really help the discussion.

Even if it did, failing a critical spell, or losing it for any other reason, means we fail to kill/incapacitate that monster this round so the combat goes on one extra round, bumping us up to "about 21 rounds, roughly", at least for today.

And, now we have 1 fewer spell with which to face our 21-round day because we lost one for whatever reason.

Given that, a count of expected rounds/day becomes even less meaningful.

So we have no recourse but to speak in more abstract terms, like this:

Any caster who loses a spell for any reason has lost a non-renewable resource in terms of this adventuring day. Further, the difficulty of the current encounter increases because the caster tried to be effective but failed. Increased difficulty means increased risk. Increased risk means more need to handle that risk by expending more resources. All of which leads to consuming resources at a further accelerated rate that ultimately began by losing a spell. All of which is conducive to shortening the adventuring day regardless of how long or short it would have otherwise been.

Which is why losing a spell is a significant hardship to the caster who loses it and to his adventuring companions who rely on the caster being useful, and to the players who rely on adventuring to have fun, and on DM who relies on having his players adventuring to have fun.


DM_Blake wrote:


Even so, if you do calculate it to "about 5 rounds, roughly" multiplied by the traditional 4 encounters per day, you get a loose "about 20 rounds, roughly" answer.

Fine.

So a mage should be able to cast 20 spells?

No. If the mage chooses their spells and items wisely they will not need to cast each and every round to be effective.

DM_Blake wrote:


What about a level 1 mage? Should he have 20 spells?

Technically, he does. He has 2-3 level 1 spells and an unlimited number of Cantrips. At level 1 Cantrips are rather effective as they can deal damage via touch attacks, making the caster the most likely member of the party to land a hit, and setup tricks like daze locking. Mot to mention he may very well have an at will ability that lets him deal even better damage as a touch attack - note that Seoni still had her Arcane Bond.

DM_Blake wrote:
A 10th level wizard gets 20 spells (not counting any INT bonus). But what if he prepares some non-combat spells, like Alarm, Mount, Identify, Arcane Lock, Locate Object, Magic Mouth, Rope Trick, Explosive Runes, Tongues, Tiny Hut, Gentle Repose, Water Breathing, or many others I didn't name. Should this wizard still get 20 combat spells too?

The idea that a Wizard needs 20 "combat" spells to be effective only makes sense in a world where the Wizard is not making good spell choices. If one chooses their spells wisely each spell has an impact on the tide of battle and only a few are needed to sway any encounter. The Wizard is still a hero without having to chuck a spell every time they come up in initiative.

DM_Blake wrote:

No, these guys have to choose the right time to cast the spells they have, and conserve some of their combat spells for future combats (even if it is the 4th encounter of the day, you never know what the DM, or the gods, or the fates, have planned).

So calculating it down to exact number of rounds, or even "about 20 rounds, roughly", doesn't really help the discussion.

It may not help the player know exactly how many spell slots they should hold back. Our hobby is intentionally built on a foundation of randomness. However, it does help game designers determine how much the loss of a spell hurts a caster relative to how much the loss of a round hurts a non-caster.

DM_Blake wrote:
Even if it did, failing a critical spell, or losing it for any other reason, means we fail to kill/incapacitate that monster this round so the combat goes on one extra round, bumping us up to "about 21 rounds, roughly", at least for today.

That is no less true for the Fighter who missed with all of their attacks this round.

DM_Blake wrote:
And, now we have 1 fewer spell with which to face our 21-round day because we lost one for whatever reason.

Or the Fighter has fewer hit points as they failed to put down their opponent and as a result took damage for an additional round.

DM_Blake wrote:
Given that, a count of expected rounds/day becomes even less meaningful.

Expected rounds don't mean much for players in game, I have never advocated that they did. They are, however, meaningful when balancing game mechanics as now you have a standard by which to compare spell loss to the action loss of non-casters.

DM_Blake wrote:

So we have no recourse but to speak in more abstract terms, like this:

Any caster who loses a spell for any reason has lost a non-renewable resource in terms of this adventuring day.

Two problem with this:

1) The adventuring day was going to be four encounters. The loss of any one spell does not change that number, the party will still face four encounters. The adventuring day is not shortened.

2) Actions as a whole are non-renewable resources. Once an action is lost it is gone forever, the ability to take a similar action next round does not remove the sting of that loss; an opportunity was missed.

The idea that spells are non-renewable where as other actions are not misrepresents the actual mechanics of the game. A non-caster will see a limited number of rounds per day. The game designers have stated that on average that number is 20. That means the non-caster has 20 combat rounds per day to get to use their allegedly renewable resources, not counting the number of rounds they will waste getting into and staying in position.

As a result, as a game designer or DM attempting to build a balanced encounter, for any level of play you can effectively calculate the impact of the loss of a spell slot relative to the loss of a non-casting action: Combat Spell Slots per day/Effective Rounds per day.

DM_Blake wrote:

Further, the difficulty of the current encounter increases because the caster tried to be effective but failed. Increased difficulty means increased risk. Increased risk means more need to handle that risk by expending more resources. All of which leads to consuming resources at a further accelerated rate that ultimately began by losing a spell. All of which is conducive to shortening the adventuring day regardless of how long or short it would have otherwise been.

Which is why losing a spell is a significant hardship to the caster who loses it and to his adventuring companions who rely on the caster being useful, and to the players who rely on adventuring to have fun, and on DM who relies on having his players adventuring to have fun.

None of that is any more true for the caster than it is for a non-caster who also lost actions, at least not in anyway that could not be calculated to compare the relative opportunity values and as such allow spell loss to be fairly balanced against action loss. For example, the 10th level Wizard with 20 spell slots, if they only prepare half of those for combat, and we assume that the non-caster spends at least one round per encounter getting into position, each of the Wizard's spells is only worth the equivalent of 1.25 rounds for the non-caster - the Wizard has 5/8ths as many opportunities as the non-caster. So as long as a given penalty is only 5/8ths as likely to cause spell loss as it is to cause the loss of a round for a non-caster it is balanced.

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Matt Rathbun wrote:
Crazy Talk.

I'm not sure how you can honestly say that a Fighter who misses with his best attack equates to a Wizard losing his best spell. Sure, both PCs lose an action, but the Fighter can use his best attack again on the following round, whereas the Wizard has to wait till the following day to recoup his best spell.

It's apples and oranges, no matter how much fuzzy math you want to use to prove your theory.


Larry Lichman wrote:
Matt Rathbun wrote:
Crazy Talk.

I'm not sure how you can honestly say that a Fighter who misses with his best attack equates to a Wizard losing his best spell. Sure, both PCs lose an action, but the Fighter can use his best attack again on the following round, whereas the Wizard has to wait till the following day to recoup his best spell.

It's apples and oranges, no matter how much fuzzy math you want to use to prove your theory.

I have never said that a Fighter missing with their "best" attack is equivalent to a caster losing their "best" spell. What do "best" attack and "best" spell mean anyway? What I have said is that there is a way to compare the loss of a spell to the loss of non-casting actions; I am saying that the ratio is knowable and calculable.

I also assume that players are intelligent. An intelligent player will make good spell selections at all levels. An intelligent player will not attempt their "best" spell under conditions which they know may cause them to lose that spell, they will instead use a spell completion item, spell trigger item, have their arcane bonded item cast the spell or attempt to cast a different spell.

Spells are not infinitely more valuable than non-casting actions. Non-casting actions are also limited in their uses per day by the functional mechanics of the system.

I am not sure how math can be fuzzy, but I would be happy if someone other than me wanted to put some numbers to these concepts or come up with their own suggested calculations.


I've been following this discussion for a while now and have come to the following conclusion that will probably upset many.

(puts on flame retardant suit)

Those arguing against spell failure chance are arguing against the Vancian magic system!

Target made his save, didn't beat his spell resistance, target is immune to energy type I have readied, missed (ranged) touch attack, memorized utility spell I though I would need instead, I rolled all 1s for damage and his energy resistance soaked it all, etc. All of these things have the same opportunity cost. The spell is gone with no effect. Unless the rules change so that EVERY spell works EVERY time, this is the reality casters have to deal with. This IS the Vancian system as it exists in D&D (and by extension Pathfinder).

Magic tips the scales between two sides in and encounter more dramatically than any other factor. The limitations placed on it exist to try to retain some level of balance.

Why do many find spell failure chance unacceptable? Because it reduces their opportunities to tip the balance decidedly in side's favor. They want their spell to work every time or the ability to keep trying it until it does. Since the second option conflicts with Vancian mechanics, they scream against anything that cuts into their spells working every time. What they fail to realize is that spell failure is also a part of those same Vancian mechanics.

It's not like a caster loses their ONLY spell for the day (Ok, prior to unlimited cantrips this may have happened at low levels). Not only that they can also use scrolls or wands - more spells in separate containers.

Shadow Lodge

That is not the case with me. I am against any aditional chance for spells to fizzle or have deminished effects simply because I know how annoying it is for those spells to either not do what they need to or to be an altogether waste of time.

I predominatly play clerics, and after the low levels, when I have the spells to do it, I prepair according to what I think will be needed. I typically have one or more lesser restorations, delay/neutralize poison, remove paralysis, and the like. Clerics in particular have many either touch or very close range spells, meaning they must be in combat to really use them. That means I already face many problems with spell failure. I know for a fact that by the rules, having to cast defensively is not some rare occurance. (It may be for arcanists, but that is not all casters and there is a lot less times where the entire party depends on single spells working). If my fighter gets paralyzed, I only have the one chance to get over there and get him working again. If I cast my spell than wait to move up, than the dm is going to have to let pass that either the fighter doesn't get coup de graced or the rogue mr fighter was flanking with is now alone, going to likely get ponned and now I have to both save the fighter and blow the next 2 encounters worth of my spells to heal both of them up, and probably use more spells to make sure I don't die before this fight is over. Either way, that wizard that was on the back 9 tossing their arcane bombs is in a lot of trouble.

In the spell point system, infinitely better in my opinion, this sort of problem, in fact just about every problem with spellcasting, is solved. There really isn't any case were that one spell you absolutely need is gone, you can just try again next round, just losing a few of your spell points. Unless it is the last fight for that day, you might be low on spell points.

Liberty's Edge

One funny thing I've noticed in these endless arguments:

People telling the fighter fans to "get over it" always seem to list a zillion magic items fighters should have to compensate for their lack of built in class abilities, but the same people go on about "wasting spell slots".

Let's see. Wizards get an ability, for free, at first level that makes the whole "spell slot" argument moot: Scribe Scroll. If a wizard (or cleric, druid or sorcerer) doesn't have a bunch of scrolls written, boo freaking hoo if they run out of spell slots. For one feat and some gold (xp cost is gone now), spell casters can have the ability to almost never run out of useful spells. If your DM doesn't give you time to scribe in your downtime, maybe you need a new DM.

Let's play the "in MY game" card: In MY game, I've never seen a spell caster without an ample supply of scrolls.

Sheesh, wizards and sorcerers (at least) should have no problem stocking up on scrolls and still have plenty of gold for their other needs, WBL. They don't have to purchase expensive armors and weapons before getting expendables/ability boosters/miscellaneous stuff.

But keep up the debate, it's been good reading.

Shadow Lodge

The diference is that fighters specifically don't have to have all the problems that the people that complain about them having. They focus exculsively on high ac and usually a single super weapon, and than they don't realize that all the threats that they can't avoid now could have been built up against as well.

I'm arguing against any more spell nerfs and against any additional spell failure because I have been in the position to many times were someone else's character died because I didn't have any chance to save them. No choice or action on my part was bad, it was just pure bad rolling. And that isn't fun for anyone. The guy that dies is usually a little angry, the DM feels bad and guilty, and the other players don't rant to just keep going and have the one (ex)player wait until a good time to bring in the new character.

Granted, that doesn't happen as often as the other not fun things, like ability damage, or sitting there for a real world hour for a 5ish round combat, or being so penalized that you just can't succeed at anything. Those things are more common, but not much more fun.

The real diference is that when the fighter doesn't have a fair will save or the ability to fly/teleport, it is their choice. They opted for high armor and damage rather than pariapt of wis, cloak of resistance, and flying boots, boots of levetation, or teleportation. Or a flying carpet. Spell failure is not something anyone can choose to control. Sure, they can take a feat or so to help, but it is still strictly luck. Nothing they can do about it.

Scrolls and wands are somewhat of a solution, except well they suck. They usually have dismally low saves, so it's rarely anything but the lesser effect with wands. Unlike spells, they do not scale up with your level at all. Staffs do, but are rediculously expensive, and unlike a magic weapon, they run out. They all help a little, but seriously, the argument is to basically make spellcasters class feature use magic device and not spellcasting.

That being said, I suggest to all clerics that you have your party buy you wands for you to use on them. Or rather make them buy themselves those wands and scrolls for you to use on them.


Beckett wrote:


Scrolls and wands are somewhat of a solution, except well they suck. They usually have dismally low saves, so it's rarely anything but the lesser effect with wands. Unlike spells, they do not scale up with your level at all. Staffs do, but are rediculously expensive, and unlike a magic weapon, they run out. They all help a little, but seriously, the argument is to basically make spellcasters class feature use magic device and not spellcasting.

That being said, I suggest to all clerics that you have your party buy you wands for you to use on them. Or rather make them buy themselves those wands and scrolls for you to use on them.

Memorized spells are better than wands/scrolls...unless those items were made by you OR someone you PAID EXTRA to make them at a higher level.

Use magic device IS a class feature of spell casters as they can automatically use scrolls/wands if the spell is on their class spell list with no check needed. Maybe what's needed is to have it listed in the class description.

Either way, you are still ahead of switching to a crossbow and are still using your class features.

Funny you should mention stocking up the cleric with wands. For years now my friends and I have been in the habit of buying cure light wands when our characters could not use them and handing them to the ones who can. Then again, we rarely had a dedicated healbot, even when one of characters in the party was a cleric. Most of our healing took place outside of combat. We would also stock up on potions or items that could be used by anyone that provided healing for emergency stabilizes.


houstonderek wrote:

One funny thing I've noticed in these endless arguments:

People telling the fighter fans to "get over it" always seem to list a zillion magic items fighters should have to compensate for their lack of built in class abilities, but the same people go on about "wasting spell slots".

Let's see. Wizards get an ability, for free, at first level that makes the whole "spell slot" argument moot: Scribe Scroll. If a wizard (or cleric, druid or sorcerer) doesn't have a bunch of scrolls written, boo freaking hoo if they run out of spell slots. For one feat and some gold (xp cost is gone now), spell casters can have the ability to almost never run out of useful spells. If your DM doesn't give you time to scribe in your downtime, maybe you need a new DM.

Let's play the "in MY game" card: In MY game, I've never seen a spell caster without an ample supply of scrolls.

Sheesh, wizards and sorcerers (at least) should have no problem stocking up on scrolls and still have plenty of gold for their other needs, WBL. They don't have to purchase expensive armors and weapons before getting expendables/ability boosters/miscellaneous stuff.

This sort of "balance" assumes that casters have infinite gold.

But they don't. They have the same amount of gold as everyone else. Scribing an Enlarge or a Cure Light Wounds is cheap. Scribing a Gate or a Shapechange or a Miracle is not.

Are you truly suggesting that the game system is balanced as long as the casters put themselves in the poorhouse replenishing expensive magic items?

Or worse, since this thread is born out of "Why do we hate existing spell loss" but rather "Why do we hate adding new spell loss", then maybe you're saying houserules that drive casters into poverty are justified?

DM: The dragon's hoard had 100,000 gp in it. That's 20,000 GP each.
Fighter: Sweet! I've been saving up for a Ring of Regeneration for a while, and now I can get it!
Rogue: Yeah, I'm getting me that vorpal rapier I've been saving for.
Cleric: Well, I might be able to afford a +2 mace. But I have to put alot of this coin aside for scrolls and potions for us all. Maybe I'll just get a +1 mace instead.
Wizard: Nah, not me. I'm paying back that loanshark what I owe him for those last 4 scrolls of Implosion. Those sure saved out butts. But, I'll be penniless after paying him back. I guess I'll ask him for another loan to scribe some more scrolls...

This is balance?

Now, if we want to add permanent reusable magic items, so casters can cast an unlimited number of spells from a staff or ring or whatever, and then we suggest casters should buy these items, then I would say your arguement is valid. Fighters should buy Cloaks of Resistance to provide unlimited help with their Will saves. Casters should buy Rings of Infinite Spell X to provide unlimited help with losing daily spells. That would be even, that would be fair. But that would not be Vancian, and that would not be D&D.

The game system, the Vancian magic, is quite balanced. Perfect? Nah, probably not. But close enough.

But then along come people on the forums discussing houserules to incorporate new and intersting ways to strip spellcasters of their primary class ability. Of the only thing they do that really matters in the game.

Then this is justified by saying "oh, fighters can miss with their swords which is just as bad as blowing a spell for no reason, so this new houserule is balanced."

Hogwash.

And everyone saying that knows it's hogwash.

It would only be remotely true if that fighter had to switch to a smaller weapon every time he spends a round attacking (regardless of whether he hits or misses), and if he can only carry a limited number of weapons, each weapon being worse than the last one, until eventually after enough rounds, he must resort to punching and kicking. Then we'll talk about whether missing an attack is equal to blowing a spell.


DM_Blake wrote:
It would only be remotely true if that fighter had to switch to a smaller weapon every time he spends a round attacking (regardless of whether he hits or misses), and if he can only carry a limited number of weapons, each weapon being worse than the last one, until eventually after enough rounds, he must resort to punching and kicking. Then we'll talk about whether missing an attack is equal to blowing a spell.

So all of the caster's spells need to be equal to their highest level spells.

Fine.

Re-write the magic system to get rid of spell levels.

All spells scale with spell level and start available at 1st.
Spells per day by level all add into one big pool of spells per day.

Problem solved.

[/snark]


Freesword wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
It would only be remotely true if that fighter had to switch to a smaller weapon every time he spends a round attacking (regardless of whether he hits or misses), and if he can only carry a limited number of weapons, each weapon being worse than the last one, until eventually after enough rounds, he must resort to punching and kicking. Then we'll talk about whether missing an attack is equal to blowing a spell.

So all of the caster's spells need to be equal to their highest level spells.

Fine.

Re-write the magic system to get rid of spell levels.

All spells scale with spell level and start available at 1st.
Spells per day by level all add into one big pool of spells per day.

Problem solved.

[/snark]

You got me backward.

I'm not saying it should be like this. I don't think it should or say it should.

But a bunch of people are saying that a caster who blows his spell, probably one of his best available remaining spells (or else why is he casting this resource in this fight?), is losing nothing more than a fighter loses when he misses his enemy.

Their claim that both characters are losing a round, spending their whole round accomplishing nothing, therefor the impact to both characters is the same, is hogwash.

All I said was that for there to be any truth in what those guys are saying, we would need to implement this purely hypothetical and quite nonsensical multiple weapon silliness. If we did, then a fighter who must replace the weapon in his hand with a weaker weapon at the end of the round would really feel the loss if he missed this whole round with this weapon, just like a caster really feels the loss if he misses/loses his spell this round. Then, and only then, would their contention hold any remote resemblance to truth.

On a side note, I like your suggestion. It wouldn't solve the problem that robbing a caster of a spell is far worse than a fighter missing his attacks for a round, but it might be an interesting magic system.


DM_Blake wrote:

You got me backward.

I'm not saying it should be like this. I don't think it should or say it should.

I apologize for any misrepresentation of your intended meaning.

DM_Blake wrote:

But a bunch of people are saying that a caster who blows his spell, probably one of his best available remaining spells (or else why is he casting this resource in this fight?), is losing nothing more than a fighter loses when he misses his enemy.

Their claim that both characters are losing a round, spending their whole round accomplishing nothing, therefor the impact to both characters is the same, is hogwash.

Not the same, but more similar than you may like. The time investment of one round is the same, this is a fact. Both are renewable resources (casters get their spells back the next day). You are correct in that the time cost to renew these resources is radically different (day vs round).

The potential benefit lost with those actions is highly variable and not necessarily equivalent. The potential effect of that spell may be less than, equal to, or greater than the fighters attacks for that round. Averaged out, spells probably have a higher potential effectiveness. That fighter may need to hit multiple times (rounds) to have the same effectiveness as one spell. Want to see them become equal - play 4e.

Unless that spell is the difference between winning and dieing, both are just one action in one combat of an adventuring day. The fact that the spell failing extends the combat also results in an increased drain on party resources for the day. The system is designed to allow for this. Scrolls and wands exist to allow for this (and the caster should not be afraid to ask the rest of the party to contribute, especially if the whole party benefits). Some days you will use more resources, some days less.

If spell loss is causing or near causing party wipes and frequent deaths, then there is a problem. If the result is the party is just a bit worse for the wear but getting by, then I fail to see a problem.

DM_Blake wrote:
On a side note, I like your suggestion. It wouldn't solve the problem that robbing a caster of a spell is far worse than a fighter missing his attacks for a round, but it might be an interesting magic system.

Thanks, I was just brainstorming on how to build an 'all spells are your best spells magic system'. Those were just the elements that came to me when I asked myself "how might such a system work?".


Beckett wrote:

In the spell point system, infinitely better in my opinion, this sort of problem, in fact just about every problem with spellcasting, is solved. There really isn't any case were that one spell you absolutely need is gone, you can just try again next round, just losing a few of your spell points. Unless it is the last fight for that day, you might be low on spell points.

I last used a spell point system when I invented one wholesale for 2nd ed. I'm seriously considering a return. (It's part of why I love psionics, despite their incendiary effect on some people)

Shadow Lodge

They have one in Unearthed Arcana that works perfectly. Eash spell level has a certain cost in points. Whenever you cast a spell, it is at the level that you first got the spell, unless you spend points to augment it, like in psionics. So a 10th level wizard casts fireball. He pays, say 7 points as the base cost, (I don't know off hand how much). A wizard first gets fireball at 5th level, so it deals 5d6, regardless of his caster level. for every point he puts into it, though, he can increase the damage by 1d6, up to his caster level max (10d6). I want to say all cater level bonuses work this way, so range, and whatever else are as a 5th level caster unless they bump it up. Metamagic simply costs the extra points to cast it as if it were a higher level spell originially, and you are restricted to the max you can put into a spell, just like psionics.

I would suggest using Heighten Spell is a free thing any caster can do, as it is a lot less important with spell points, but more costly for what it does. There is one small note. Spells that increase in effect, but not in dice/CL, still increase. So, Cure Light Wounds, that heals/deals 1d8+1/CL, heals +1 at 1st level, +3 at 3rd level, etc. . . just like normal.


Beckett wrote:

They have one in Unearthed Arcana that works perfectly. Eash spell level has a certain cost in points. Whenever you cast a spell, it is at the level that you first got the spell, unless you spend points to augment it, like in psionics. So a 10th level wizard casts fireball. He pays, say 7 points as the base cost, (I don't know off hand how much). A wizard first gets fireball at 5th level, so it deals 5d6, regardless of his caster level. for every point he puts into it, though, he can increase the damage by 1d6, up to his caster level max (10d6). I want to say all cater level bonuses work this way, so range, and whatever else are as a 5th level caster unless they bump it up. Metamagic simply costs the extra points to cast it as if it were a higher level spell originially, and you are restricted to the max you can put into a spell, just like psionics.

I would suggest using Heighten Spell is a free thing any caster can do, as it is a lot less important with spell points, but more costly for what it does. There is one small note. Spells that increase in effect, but not in dice/CL, still increase. So, Cure Light Wounds, that heals/deals 1d8+1/CL, heals +1 at 1st level, +3 at 3rd level, etc. . . just like normal.

Is there any difference between sorcerers and wizards with this?


Quite a bit, but I really don't think it works "perfectly."

Vancian casting is not the enemy.

Shadow Lodge

It works perfectly in the sense that if you lose that one spell you absolutely must have, you can try it again next round. You lose some points, but the spell is still there if you can afford it.

Wizards and sorcerers do have some differences. They actually talk about this in a sidebar. Sorcerers have two primary benefits. More spell points and the fact that their spells are automatically slightly better. Remember were I said all spells default to minimume caster level? Because sorcerers get spells at a slower rate, all their minimume caster levels are higher. So if a 6th wizard and a sorcerer both cast a fireball, unmodified, the wizard deals 5d6, but the sorcerer's deals 6d6. Both cost the same price though.

Wizards, and anyone that prepairs spells, can essentually change their spells known each day.

Clerics and druids get their cure/inflicts/summons automatically known.

The base spell point cost for each level of spells is 1 for first level, and +2 per spell level, so a 9th level spell costs 17 (base).


DocRoc wrote:

Quite a bit, but I really don't think it works "perfectly."

Vancian casting is not the enemy.

Sure it is. It's always been a stupid, cumbersome system. I just don't play casters enough to care, generally. When I want to achieve things without swinging a club around I play psions, because they're like casters that aren't a drag.


Beckett wrote:
Interesting stuffs...

Unearthed Arcana, eh? I needed something to do while I drift off into a nap...


Kuma wrote:
DocRoc wrote:

Quite a bit, but I really don't think it works "perfectly."

Vancian casting is not the enemy.

Sure it is. It's always been a stupid, cumbersome system. I just don't play casters enough to care, generally. When I want to achieve things without swinging a club around I play psions, because they're like casters that aren't a drag.

YAY Psionics!

301 to 322 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Why is applying a Spell Failure Chance unacceptable to the community? All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion (Prerelease)
Druid / Monk?