Let's talk about prospective house rules to facilitate more magicy magic users. While I have great respect for Jack Vance, I'm sure I don't need him invading all my games with his magic system. And I don't want spell points either, if I wanted those I'd be playing some sort of video game so I didn't have to track them. Let's resolve to make wizards more wizardy by changing the way the magic system works.
Firstly, some sort of numerical constraint is inevitable. And that huge chart in the core handbook has got to have some use. Let's try a little tweaking first, then put the engine block into this baby later.
I don't want to change the spells, near a third of the book is devoted to them, but I don't want my wizards studying every day. An hour a day to remember something you've been researching for years is quite a stretch, eh? But obviously I don't want my wizards firing off spells willy nilly like some kind of warlock. Spells should have some manner of limiter built in, and that limiter should be reset by a nice long sleep. As such, since the possibility to keep using magic exists, bonus spells will not be required.
Spellcraft, now there's a good starting point. Spellcraft can be a way to prevent the casters from firing off their more powerful magic by producing harder and harder results. In this case, spellcraft will have to be divided into having, instead of Int, the ability score of each caster as its resource. In order to avoid every casting class having to pay a skill tax, this spellcraft will be considered the spellcaster's attack bonus against the DC of his spell. Think of it like a concentration check, except it is required all the time.
A spellcaster knows the same number of spells on his list. However, the number next to each level is the number he can use each day with comfort. Sorcerors and Bards can assign these on the fly, but the wizard, cleric and druid can do something special with theirs. The number they have is the maximum they can memorize of that level. Think of the spells being on scrolls, and each scroll only has so much room. Now they can assign as many of those slots as they wish to a given spell. The slots make it easier to work their magic. If a wizard prepares hypnotism, magic missile and shield, but applies all three slots to magic missile, he can cast those without much effort, only needing a regular check at a +5 bonus to cast. However, he can still work the spells he needs with no slots left! The problem is, each successful attempt takes him further and further into dark territory. And they become more difficult each time.
The mechanic: Any time a spellcaster wishes to cast a spell, he must make a spellcrafting check to shape the magic correctly. He rolls a d20 plus his total caster level plus his casting modifier, plus 5 if he expends a spell slot for that spell against a DC of 15 plus the spell's level. Meaning a first level spellcaster casting a spell he has prepared with a modest 16 in his casting score will have a +9 against 16 (or a 70% chance of success!) to shape the spell correctly. On a failure, the spell fizzles, provided it was not cast into dark territory. Casting into dark territory adds the spell's level again to the check, and does not provide the +5 bonus for expending the spell. This meaning that same caster, upon attempting to cast his spell again, finds himself with a mere +4 bonus against a DC 17! (a 40% chance of success!) If he is successful, for that day the DC to cast the spell again increases by the level once more. This can repeat ad infinitum, but the roll always succeeds on a natural 20.
This test means that spells don't always work, spontaneous casters can cast longer but without as much variety as a prepared caster, and that prepared casters can make sure to stock plenty of one spell while maintaining some flexibility. The downside is that trying to keep casting such spells will likely have some effect, but a chart is out of the question to facilitate speed of play (Since this is an extra roll already). Some sort of backlash would be good, but damage is also unfair to the poor wizard or sorcerer, and a mere trifle to the cleric as he'd just heal it with a lucky roll or channel anyway.
Turning the spell back on the caster if it was offensive could make the rules do weird things, but it could be a usable effect. Perhaps if the caster fails by 15 or more, the spell is redirected towards them if it was offensive, has the opposite effect if beneficial, and if it creates something it does it incorrectly or to malady against its caster. In addition, the DC to cast that spell again that day is increased by its level. Failing the check by ten expends a slot of the same level to stabilize the magic if possible, and if none are to be found, it gives the caster a hell of a headache, sickening them for one round. Should he fail by five or less, the spells' ruined energy is simply reabsorbed, although his turn is still wasted. Should a spell be failed by twenty or more, surely the misdirected energies will twist the magician in some fashion, this decision being left up to the GM.
In addition, to make wizard's duels more fun, they can attempt to counter a spell they know and have prepared while casting into dark territory. The use of dispel magic (Provided it isn't to counter dispel magic) should still work normally. New spells keeping in line with this new style should be produced.
Anyone willing to critique my wall of text?
While I don't feel I'm in any position to judge the balancing of it I do really like your concept I've been playing around with the potentially horrible idea that spells are physically taxing (hence their limit) so perhaps some how work the CON rating into their spells per day basically. the tougher you are the more your body can resist the stress of casting, maybe have them have the fatigued condition when out of or low on spells.
|
Anyone willing to critique my wall of text?
Last year I spent some time messing around on paper with some ideas similar to this.
A few notes:
* You have based the spellcasting check, which is the core mechanic of a spellcaster, on a skill bonus. By comparison, the martial attack mechanic is based on a nonskill bonus (Base Attack Bonus). My personal opinion is that if you are attempting to introduce a success/failure check for spellcasting, that it should be a similar nonskill bonus (Base Spellcasting Bonus), or else justify why Spellcraft should be the Gotta Max skill for all spellcasters (including the ones that don't ordinarily rely on Int), and Magical Aptitude becomes a Gotta Have feat.
* Offensive spells generally have an existing (RAW) success/failure mechanic -- either a saving throw or a touch attack roll. (The notable exception is magic missile which, for historical reasons, is auto-hit unless the target is magically protected or under cover.) Consider also the Spell Resistance mechanic; how do you want the spellcasting check mechanic to interact with these other rolls? If you leave the saves, resistances and touch attack rolls as written, then casting an offensive spell such as scorching ray now has two possible points of failure instead of one, and a successful attack requires two successful rolls, slowing down the action in combat (to determine bonuses/penalties, roll, determine success/failure).
* Also, inversely, you have introduced a failure mechanic for nonoffensive spells that used to function automatically (ie, invisibility). You might want to consider introducing a bonus for spells cast upon yourself.
Anyone willing to critique my wall of text?
Well just from a quick read through, (I'll provide more in depth critique shortly, after I run some numbers) I'd say it's a bit overly complex, and I can see a few areas that are too easy to abuse.
My single biggest issue is in using Spellcraft as the mechanic for casting spells, something more like concentration checks (Caster Level + Casting stat + D20) seems much more appropriate.
It all seems like it's trying a bit too hard to be different for the sake of being different, which is never a good design decision.
I do like the basic idea, I just think it needs a bit of work. (And after I've had a few minutes to drink a cup of coffee and think about it, I'll try and provide some suggestions.)
|
I know... But I like to instigate alternate spell casting systems. I love Pact Magic and thought the chug/sandestin concept made for an interesting alternative fluff layer - maybe even for the Summoner.
For just an alter spell system, I strongly recommend Spellweaver
This is gonna take awhile.
Firstly, let me clarify the rules, since through the BLESSED power of these forums I can't edit my horrible wall of text.
1. Casting is based on CL+Casting Mod versus the DC 15+spell level x2 check. Me typing all that stuff about spellcraft was thinking on paper out loud and it has nothing to do with anything. SPELLCRAFT, THE SKILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. My apologies.
2. In order to fail at casting a spell badly enough you have to have cast beyond your limit multiple times, except when getting exceptionally unlucky with powerful spells. A 17th level caster with Time Stop prepared can still cast it as normal (Rolling around a 28-30 against a DC 33, which is actually kinda lame...), but after casting it a few times they'll get bad things to happen to them.
3. It does discourage metamagic a little, but why shouldn't it? The metamagic feats from a game design perspective are too valuable to not have. You can apply them to a huge selection of options, and use spells when you normally wouldn't be able to in some situations. That means you're actually worse off for taking feats that increase your DCs than just ignoring them for empowered spells.
4. Casters having the ability to fail while casting a spell is in pretty much all non D&D fiction, save LOtR (Since that wasn't "arcane magic", it was more like godlike powers). This gives the spellcaster a good reason to stick to using low level spells in the game though some of them might not be as powerful, they'd be more reliable. Compare to a 3.5 fighter NOT pouring all his BAB into Power attack.
Will double post with actual responses to people's posts.
Anyone willing to critique my wall of text?Last year I spent some time messing around on paper with some ideas similar to this.
A few notes:
* You have based the spellcasting check, which is the core mechanic of a spellcaster, on a skill bonus. By comparison, the martial attack mechanic is based on a nonskill bonus (Base Attack Bonus). My personal opinion is that if you are attempting to introduce a success/failure check for spellcasting, that it should be a similar nonskill bonus (Base Spellcasting Bonus), or else justify why Spellcraft should be the Gotta Max skill for all spellcasters (including the ones that don't ordinarily rely on Int), and Magical Aptitude becomes a Gotta Have feat.
* Offensive spells generally have an existing (RAW) success/failure mechanic -- either a saving throw or a touch attack roll. (The notable exception is magic missile which, for historical reasons, is auto-hit unless the target is magically protected or under cover.) Consider also the Spell Resistance mechanic; how do you want the spellcasting check mechanic to interact with these other rolls? If you leave the saves, resistances and touch attack rolls as written, then casting an offensive spell such as scorching ray now has two possible points of failure instead of one, and a successful attack requires two successful rolls, slowing down the action in combat (to determine bonuses/penalties, roll, determine success/failure).
* Also, inversely, you have introduced a failure mechanic for nonoffensive spells that used to function automatically (ie, invisibility). You might want to consider introducing a bonus for spells cast upon yourself.
On slowing down combat: You make an excellent point. One possibility would be to have the monster roll while the caster is rolling. Another possibility would be to increase the saves on the spells to 10+highest level spell able to cast+Casting Mod. This would actually give heighten spell a good purpose instead of a bullcrap one (Bad high level spells as opposed to good low level ones).
On non-offensive spells: Maybe a small bonus for personal spells might be in order, but they are still spells. Maybe a new feat giving a +4 to the check? It still seems exploitable because a lucky roller can pump out another personal spell of that level more often than his buddies.
I disagree. The intended result seems to be "punitive" to spellcasters, ie msgic is mysterious and unpredictable. Especially the part about failed rolls turning the magic against the caster...
It already has enough potential threat...concentration checks, SR, antimagic fields, ...
If you don't want spellcasters make a low magic campaign and let everyone know it is one...
I guess the question is does a con check and SR and all that build into your system or are they seperate?
Aside from your rather rude little snipe you do make an excellent point. What to do about SR and concentration checks (Which the proposed system is a lot like)?
I don't think being a caster has ANY potential threat. If I cast Cure light wounds I cast cure light wounds, no variance on that fact aside from the amount of damage healed. If I try to cast CLW and don't, that's the same idea as the fighter swinging his sword and hitting nothing.
That and only really mean DMs and PCs use antimagic fields. They're a hairbrained mechanic and would definitely have no place since casters have a chance to fail anyway.
In conclusion: I will think about it. Mechanics pending.
your idea is interesting and to be honest how to go about this is highly dependent on your goal. according to your title your goal is to overhaul the current magic system. Why?
To give spellcasters more options when prepping spells and to introduce a failure mechanic into spellcasting that explains why it "just doesn't work" sometimes. In short: A lot of different things, because I haven't read Vance and can understand a more generic spell system better.
Other things that have me wondering just by the wording you used in your block of info are as follows.
1. you mentioned the dark, now then I guess you mean when you run out of spell slots or is this for each time you cast the same spell, is this for each time you cast in general that it starts to cost more, while it seems to lean towards the same spell it would be best to get this rectified if you would not mind.
It's only for when you cast into dark territory (meaning without spell slots) that the spell's to-cast DC increases.
In addition I think I implied that casting a spell without burning a spell slot when you have them is optional, it shouldn't be an option if you can burn the slot. Burning more than one slot could also be an option.
2. how do you plan to deal with the saving throw mechanic, and touch spells, as well as SR, and spell failure from armor?
it seems to me that you are trying to build this one step at a time so you do not need to make a complete plan for dealing with the other ways to stop spells, but from my experience making systems and worlds it is best to start with a skeleton, you need to know why you are building this what is your end goal, what are the things you will need to change and a base idea of how you are going to make that change so that when you get there you have something to start with rather than sit around for a week trying to come up with an answer.
Spell failure from armor could be reduced to just a penalty to this check, and penalties to concentration checks could be transplanted onto this as well. As far as saves and SR I'm still thinking on it. SR could raise the DC of the spell to work, but how is the question.
My main goal is to get casters to have a chance to fail at casting spells, to be able to cast more spells even if they're devoid of spell slots, and to punish casters who try to use the same spell when without the spell slots to back themselves up to prevent overuse of the same solution to a problem or a powerful spell.
I'm not sure what universe's magic this is based off of, but basically the goal is to give casters more stuff to do with their spells than cast it once and then not have the option to even try again available. I know I've been frustrated when playing a caster when my one big bad spell for the day doesn't stick, it would be so nice if I could get one more crack at it.
Have you taken a look at Incantations, from Unearthed Arcana?
It's sort of my go-to for nontraditional ritual magic in D20.
2nd level caster
Int 20 (doable under generious pt system)Cast 1st level spell. Check mod is 2(caster level) + 5(int mod) + 5(spell slot) = 12 vs DC 15 + 2 = 17.
Failure chance is 20% per spell. With 5 spells (class+int+specialist), you have at least 1 spell failing on average.
4th lvl caster
Int 20Cast 1st level spell. Failure chance now at 10%. Cast 2nd level spell. Failure chance 20%.
5th level caster
Int 201st lvl failure chance 5% (nat 1). 2nd lvl failure chance 15%. 3rd lvl failure chance 25%.
Doesn't this seem a bit harsh for doing what the character would have done anyway? I would change it so only spont casting suffers this failure chance. Restrict the spont wiz to casting spells he already had prepared OR has access to through Spell Mastery feats. That way, you can take the chance or play it safe.
Basically the prepared caster prepares their spells but doesn't assign slots to them when they prepare. They can prepare a max number of spells each day equal to their spells per day. This balances their lower uses with increased flexibility. Since they have this increased number of spells, they should have a balancer to counteract the extra spells. In other words, if they fail a spell it doesn't matter. They just keep trying to cast their spell next round.
Plus a lot of spells have no save or a made save that does nothing at all to counteract the intent of the spell.
For a fighter, every enemy is going to have a high AC. If the fighter rolls badly, he misses. This is the exact same thing. The fighter can also try again. Now, the cleric can try again.
Magic in popular fantasy doesn't have a limit besides the prowess of the caster and his stamina. That's what I think of when I think of magic, not a wizard forgetting his spells once they're away. I am playing a master of the arcane arts, not a fighter jet.
|
Forgotten Realms had a feat in the old days. Don't recall the exact language or name, but liked the mechanics:
Requirement: Spell Mastery feat
Benefit: You can take this feat multiple times. Each time, choose one spell you have mastered through Spell Mastery feat. You gain the ability to spontaneously cast this spell by dropping a spell of equal or higher level like clerics with "cure" spells.
I actually like the magic system, except for the loss of 2nd edition "casting time." Seemed realistic that casting would take more than half a second. But without altering all actions, imposing a casting time would sign a death warrant for casters.
|
|
Forgotten Realms had a feat in the old days. Don't recall the exact language or name, but liked the mechanics:
Requirement: Spell Mastery feat
Benefit: You can take this feat multiple times. Each time, choose one spell you have mastered through Spell Mastery feat. You gain the ability to spontaneously cast this spell by dropping a spell of equal or higher level like clerics with "cure" spells.
I actually like the magic system, except for the loss of 2nd edition "casting time." Seemed realistic that casting would take more than half a second. But without altering all actions, imposing a casting time would sign a death warrant for casters.
Signature Spell.
Are you saying that the failure to cast the spell in round one does not cost the spell (or spell slot) that the spell does not work in round one has no effect on an attempt to re-cast the spell in round two??
Failing to cast with a spell slot does cost it. However, when you're going into dark territory failing doesn't increase the DC. Keep in mind the cast is with a +5 bonus.
I like that term "stamina"
In that case casters should be con based as well or at least secondarily. How do feats like endurance and diehard work for this new con based caster?
I wouldn't make these casters Con based because they'd get MAD, but for a Con based caster using these rules, Endurance would give them a +4 on concentration checks to keep the spell when taking damage, and Diehard would give a bonus to a spell cast in negative hp, maybe a +1 for every two negative hp?
I've had some time to think, and I do agree that giving the casters a "penalty" to their spells working is pretty bad. So, I propose this:
Spellcasting errata:
...As you increase in caster level, it becomes harder to stifle the effects of your spells. All spells you cast gain a +1 to the save DC for every 3 caster levels you posses, to a maximum of 6 at CL 18.
Basically this give the spell an outright fail chance, but makes "save or" spells viable at high and mid level.
As far as SR goes, some of it is just bull. Did you know the Rakshasa, a CR 10 monster, has a SR 25? I thought it was a misprint, but Pathfinder actually LOWERED it by 2 from the 3.5 Rakshasa! That being said, in order to make SR not interfere with higher level spells, I am doing the following:
SR #: If the total number you roll does not equal this number or higher, the spell does not affect the creature.
A 10th level caster with a +6 mod has to roll a 9 or an 11 in 3.5 to stick the Rakshasa as written. I am considering actually making this number higher if that aspect of play is to be preserved, but to get the same impression it could be raised by the creature's casting stat mod, if any. That might be a bit much since I haven't looked at them but it's an idea. I'd suggest a raise of 6 for high SR creatures like this one, this idea is actually kinda hard to make work with the current creatures. Maybe half it's CR + to SR as a baseline? This gives an adult black dragon (CR 11) a 27 SR, which at level 11 is no cakewalk (A 45% chance to fail!), but it's actually less severe than the old one (A 50% chance to fail)
With creatures like the Rakshasa, the 30 you'd have to roll is still comparable (14 or higher compared to a 15 or higher) to the old SR system in terms of failure. Plus, even with the saves staying where they are, spells get a better chance to stick, balancing out the chance to fail at casting a spell with enhanced save DCs as you level.
As always, P.E.A.C.H.