|
Wrote .... interesting stuff.Well, the big problem is that those of us on the "let's try something different" side are trying to limit magic more from the story/utility side. Making magic more "magical" vs. Magic-Marts-R-Us (seeming default by standard rules now).
Don't get me wrong, I do see the issue where magic becomes too predictable and it's something I've always thought about during my years of fantasy gaming. I guess I'm being a little Devil's advocate here because I have spellcaster players who might start getting irritated if I decided to introduce rules to limit spellcaster abilities.
So, if your premise is that casters have studied more, and so have already 'tamed' magic, it's not going to work for us - at all. It's the diametric opposite of what we're gunning for - follow? Magic "can't be safe" - EVER is more where we're aiming.
Well I'm not actually saying that spell casters have "tamed" magic per se, but rather that the current published spells have been tried and tested over a long time, and no longer produce side effects.
But I'm not dismissing the arguments you are making out of hand, I'm just wondering how much of a rewrite of core 3.5/Pathfinder concepts would be required to achieve this danger factor. I find my spell caster players complain regularly that they spend most of their low level gaming being ornamental objects rather than contributing PCs, especially during combat, and that the powers they gain at high levels are a reward for their restrictions at lower levels. Now if the people in this thread could come up with some alternate rules that include your premises and yet don't put players off playing spell casters then I would be the first to applaud it.
Alternatively we could further empower non spell casting characters at higher levels to offset the power of magic, but I have a feeling that this would result in a kind of "arms race", where the spell caster PCs are bemoaning once again that the non-spell casters are more powerful than they should be and in return the spell caster should be further empowered too... and so on.
I'm not sure I'm speaking for everyone on the "moderate magic" side, but I'd bet most of us look at it in these terms to some degree. Magic, currently, is FAR more powerful than everything else, with little to restrict it, and nothing to flesh it out game-mechanically with anything really interesting (ie: rareness/uniqueness/PC exceptionality in pursuing it and mastering it, etc). It's too "clean" and "perfect" right now, and we're looking for a way to add some mystery, mystique and flavor into it mechanically.
I certainly agree that magic has to a greater or lesser degree become mundane, and I do feel that it is a little too "clean" and "perfect", and this has been an issue since ed. 1 of the rules, where spells are listed.
Instead of using the pre-published spell-listings of the core rules we could allow spell-casters to define their own spell based on their understanding of the forces that allow magic to be cast. In other words magic is designed by the player based on spell school, spell level knowledge(arcana), spellcraft and other skills, and maybe feats too. When he casts a spell of his/her own devising then there should be the chance of catastrophic spell failure causing major negative effects, misfire causing minor negative effects or a fizzle (where the spell simply fails). Negative results caused by such failure would be linked to the spell school (e.g. A high level necromancy spell kills a random party member, or enemy, a transmutaion spell might cause an unintended polymorph. In fact as I remember teleport spells in earlier versions of the great game had errors built in. This would, however, result in a big rules change
So, instead, maybe we could add to spell listings error casting conditions based on a set of rules, and that every time any spell is cast the caster must make a spellcraft check DC10 + spell level to see if the failed spell causes major, minor or fizzle backfire.
For example: A failed spellcraft check OR an AoO that successfully disrupts the spell caster's concentration could result in a percentile roll:
01-50 Spell Fails (fizzles)
51-90 Spell causes minor random unintended and/or detrimental effect
91-00 Spell causes major random unintended and/or detrimental effect
So the upshot of this is that the use of magic would then be linked to skill levels and feats and would no longer be as predictable as it currently is. It would still require a considerable rewrite of spell usage and spell descriptions but it would certainly make spell casting a little less predictable and dangerous. But most of all it wouldn't break the current rule system, because it could be used optionally by the GM.
And everyone stops playing Wizards.You sure?
Let's see. The proposal is "The sorcerer can casts spells normally just like now and the Wizard might go stark raving mad when casting spells." Yeah, 100% sure. Especially with the changes to how Concentration works in Pathfinder compared to 3.5.
And everyone stops playing Wizards.You sure? Build a Wizard with lots of low-level spells. You can mage-armor the party, invisible everyone, etc, all day long without ever running out of spells.Lovely, you just turned the Wizard into a primary buffer - like the Bard.
Remind me, how popular is the Bard class now compared to other core classes?
I think if you take any random group of 100 people and ask them "would you rather play a Wizard or a Bard?", you'll see more people wanting to play a Wizard. Your idea of turning the Wizard into a Bard isn't going to win you a lot of converts.
One who can cast fireball, lightning bolt, plenty of walls, and lots of other spells at will...
Okay, a 2e Bard. It still wasn't highly played....
One who can cast fireball, lightning bolt, plenty of walls, and lots of other spells at will...
Most high level casters I see rarely cast spells higher than 3rd or 4th level unless they want a really grandeos effect. I don't think it would change how most players play high level characters significantly, and know many people who would still play a caster with those restrictions.
And what about low level and med-level casters?Most high level casters I see rarely cast spells higher than 3rd or 4th level unless they want a really grandeos effect. I don't think it would change how most players play high level characters significantly, and know many people who would still play a caster with those restrictions.Okay, a 2e Bard. It still wasn't highly played....
One who can cast fireball, lightning bolt, plenty of walls, and lots of other spells at will...
Your highest spell level is very powerful, no matter what level you are talking about. And at 2-4 spells per day, it doesn't do you nearly as much as your lower level spells. I see this as an increase in overall utility at a decrease in my max power, and have no problem with that trade off.
And to your ninja edits:
How is casting lots of low level spells game breaking. You can pretty much do it with magic items that are cheap by the time you are talking. Wands of Magic Missile replace actually memorizing it. Flooding low level spells wont change the dynamic that much, since the players can already do it.
Someone mentioned Shadowrun in which spellcasters always have to roll for casting (in which they may fail) and drain (they take drain no matter what even if it's one point). Even though these rules were in place, many people still wanted to play casters even if they would pass out after a particularly impressive spell. Check it out!!
Does anyone use the GameMastery critical hit and fumble decks? Both have a Magic section on each card for crits and fumbles. So my question then became "Then what is a caster rolling to cast a (any) spell?" Since magic works the way it does in the core rules the answer was nothing but Game Mastery still has it on their cards.
I decided to do the 10+ spellcraft vs. 10 +spell level+ 1/2 caster level
just to make it work and it does. Peeps love rolling crits w/ magic 'cause the cards give awesome crit options. On the other hand I get to laugh maniacally when they roll a 1.
Also, throw in a Mord'Sith from Terry Goodkind's [i]The Sword of Truth[i] series into the mix every once and awhile, that'll rattle them. Mwooo hah ha ha ha
Most high level casters I see rarely cast spells higher than 3rd or 4th level unless they want a really grandeos effect. I don't think it would change how most players play high level characters significantly, and know many people who would still play a caster with those restrictions.Okay, a 2e Bard. It still wasn't highly played....
One who can cast fireball, lightning bolt, plenty of walls, and lots of other spells at will...This. And if you want blasting, look at the following spells at-will:
Magic Missile
Burning Hands
Ray of Enfeeblement
Scorching Ray
Acid ArrowFIREBALL! AT FREAKING WILL!!
I really fail to see the problem. I can give the entire party Cat's Grace, Mage Armor, and STILL cast Magic Missile and Scorching Ray all day. Yes, there is a risk (so you don't actually want to do it frivilously), but you still get to cast as many Summon Monster spells as you like.
And the 2nd Ed Bard with 3.x spont casting and abilities would be great. OP, in fact. Anyone who took Wizard instead of the Bard has an unnatural aversion to the class, and should take sensativity classes.
There is another problem as well.
With your setup, a party with a Wizard is going to be vastly more powerful than a party without a Wizard of the same level.
That's going to be hell to GM.
People already claim that now. Its no real change. And all those abilities are available to non-wizards, just not necesarily at will. I don't see how this would change it significantly.
If you're going to grind the wizard down to the point where he is no longer able to cast, it's worth keeping in mind that, as he's sliding down this hole, he's also making the spells he'll cast later (in combat) easier and easier to save against.
You argued earlier that you weren't pushing for the Wizard becoming just a buffer. But this most recent line of reasoning you've given us suggests otherwise.Not really. First of all, my DM always makes the save. Always. I look for spells with NO saves. Magic Missile and Scorching Ray are both no-save. I consider those staple Wiz blasting spells.
And concentration DC 28 for a 17 lvl caster is...still easy. Especially since you can count in their +8 INT (reasonable, I think). +25 to a DC 28 roll is easy, just not automatic.
Run the numbers. Take a look. At all spots along the way, the DC is NEVER as hard as it is at 1st lvl under RAW. It just never becomes trivial, like it DOES under RAW.
The fact that you restrict yourself to spells with no saves is irrelevant unless you are arguing that, in this system you are proposing, only spells without saves should be retained on the Wizard list.
Now, you've reversed your argument again to saying that wizards can cast those buffs (invis, bulls strength, etc.) all day long - which will create a huge swings in the power level of the group - which will make it hard to GM.
In my experience the only thing currently preenting them from casting those spells now is time. Not memorization. There are so many ways to get more spells per day its silly, especially for the spells you use frequently. I don't forsee that big a change.
Yes, it is. Because we're not talking about one incidental TPK. We're talking about putting the party in a situation where, over an extended period of time, they run a much higher risk of a TPK. It's really not the same thing at all.A Wiz with a 16 INT could suffer the loss of 5 1st lvl spells before they were unable to cast. With a Cleric (who would also run a risk), a Lesser Restoration cures 1d4 stat damage.
I just don't see this being an issue after 3rd lvl.
Oh, I can cast Shield 5 times, Wow I am awesome!
Your system is ridiculous and ridiculously unbalanced; let's move on to the next silly proposition.
Your system is ridiculous and ridiculously unbalanced; let's move on to the next silly proposition.Care to offer a reason why? A detailed reason, not an off-the-cuff insult?
I propose that Sorcerers have NO failure/fumble chance
That, which I pointed out twice.
Never mind the fact that raises the question of why and how Clerics would fumble.
In my experience the only thing currently preenting them from casting those spells now is time. Not memorization. There are so many ways to get more spells per day its silly, especially for the spells you use frequently. I don't forsee that big a change.If you're going to grind the wizard down to the point where he is no longer able to cast, it's worth keeping in mind that, as he's sliding down this hole, he's also making the spells he'll cast later (in combat) easier and easier to save against.
You argued earlier that you weren't pushing for the Wizard becoming just a buffer. But this most recent line of reasoning you've given us suggests otherwise.Not really. First of all, my DM always makes the save. Always. I look for spells with NO saves. Magic Missile and Scorching Ray are both no-save. I consider those staple Wiz blasting spells.
And concentration DC 28 for a 17 lvl caster is...still easy. Especially since you can count in their +8 INT (reasonable, I think). +25 to a DC 28 roll is easy, just not automatic.
Run the numbers. Take a look. At all spots along the way, the DC is NEVER as hard as it is at 1st lvl under RAW. It just never becomes trivial, like it DOES under RAW.
The fact that you restrict yourself to spells with no saves is irrelevant unless you are arguing that, in this system you are proposing, only spells without saves should be retained on the Wizard list.
Now, you've reversed your argument again to saying that wizards can cast those buffs (invis, bulls strength, etc.) all day long - which will create a huge swings in the power level of the group - which will make it hard to GM.
Time is important considering these spells have a limited duration.
As for other ways, I know of none which don't impact the amount of other magic items the character can carry.
Pearls of power, scrolls, and wands of lvl 1-3 spells are all cheap. They barely show up as a blip on high level mages character wealth.
And have never explained. Or given details for. Why do sorcerers NOT having a failure chance make the proposal unbalanced? Wizards gain the ability to cast their prepared spells at will, but may suffer a failure chance. Sorcerers are unchanged.
Because of the "NOT FAILING AT ALL" thing. Oh, and the simple "failure" results in ABILITY DAMAGE. Why play a Wizard when you can play a Sorcerer?
Like I said, let's move on to the next silly proposition already.
Because of the "NOT FAILING AT ALL" thing. Oh, and the simple "failure" results in ABILITY DAMAGE. Why play a Wizard when you can play a Sorcerer?
And have never explained. Or given details for. Why do sorcerers NOT having a failure chance make the proposal unbalanced? Wizards gain the ability to cast their prepared spells at will, but may suffer a failure chance. Sorcerers are unchanged.
Because a Wizard can get more spells per day from a larger list.
Because a Wizard can get more spells per day from a larger list.Because of the "NOT FAILING AT ALL" thing. Oh, and the simple "failure" results in ABILITY DAMAGE. Why play a Wizard when you can play a Sorcerer?
And have never explained. Or given details for. Why do sorcerers NOT having a failure chance make the proposal unbalanced? Wizards gain the ability to cast their prepared spells at will, but may suffer a failure chance. Sorcerers are unchanged.
And who needs "every" spell (every spell being theoretical anyway unless you find spellbooks with spells you want)? Do you all play with every Wizard spell out in front of you so you can change your daily preparations completely every rest?
|
Kinda reminds me of the 2nd edition Sha'ir, able to cast Magic Armor on everyone in the party, over the course of 10 minutes or so, but not likely to be able to cough up a Fireball on demand.
It seemed not at all unbalanced, back then, and even a bit underpowered (since the 'wizard' would get to cast one spell in every fight, if they happened to have one ready that was useful for that fight...). For 3.0, with hours-per-level Bull's Strength, etc. it would be ridiculous, but 3.5 buff spells brought durations back down, so it probably would just be annoying.
But I'd expect that the low level spells would never be completely 'safe,' and always have a 5% chance (natural 1 on the Spellcraft check) of causing some backlash, even if it's only a couple of points of nonlethal damage or a momentary stunned condition, to discourage / limit trying to cast Mage Armor on all 30 of one's Followers. Perhaps the Spellcraft check continues accruing penalties with each casting over a certain 'kinda safe' number,' so that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Mage Armors only botch on a 1, but you get a -1 penalty for each 1st level spell you attempt after the three you get based on your level or something. It gets even harder if you are trying to make the entire party invisible, since you might only have 2 'safe' 2nd level slots a day (assuming a 4th level Wizard here), and a cumulative -2 to the check for each attempt afterwards.
Maybe higher tier spells 'autofail' on numbers other than a natural one. Perhaps 1st to 3rd level spells autofail on a natural 1, 4th to 6th level spells on a 1 or 2, and 7th to 9th level spells on a 1, 2 or 3. A Meteor Swarm, no matter what your level or ability modifiers, always has a 15% chance of failing, and costing you 9 pts of nonlethal damage or stunning you for three rounds or something similar (or some combination of backlash effects).
There's at least a dozen ways to apply limitations, and multiple ways to buff the wizard with the other hand (allowing more slots at greater risk, allowing the use of a spell that hasn't been prepared at a risk, allowing metamagic applications at a risk, etc.).
And who needs "every" spell (every spell being theoretical anyway unless you find spellbooks with spells you want)? Do you all play with every Wizard spell out in front of you so you can change your daily preparations completely every rest?Because a Wizard can get more spells per day from a larger list.Because of the "NOT FAILING AT ALL" thing. Oh, and the simple "failure" results in ABILITY DAMAGE. Why play a Wizard when you can play a Sorcerer?
And have never explained. Or given details for. Why do sorcerers NOT having a failure chance make the proposal unbalanced? Wizards gain the ability to cast their prepared spells at will, but may suffer a failure chance. Sorcerers are unchanged.
Yes, my group does. Many rests result in the casters changing up their spell selection. This would also allow a wizard to never have to memorize more than 1 of a given spell. That is a huge beneifit. Suddenly their spells per day and spells known at any given time are better than the sorcs, and he can change out.
|
First, I felt this could go in the rules section, but I am looking for philosophical discussion as well as potential rules adjustments. That said...
Should magic have consequences/limitations(beyond the numerical)?
I was proofing a friend's book and realized his characters, potent magicians, still cook and clean by hand. Why wouldn't they use magic to quickly prepare their meals, and clean up afterward? Because magic in his world is chaotic and unpredictable, rather than the perfect computer accuracy with which spells are cast in D&D. One can cast a simple spell, lose control, and annihilate an entire college campus.
That got me thinking: There don't seem to be ANY consequences for casting magic in the D&D/Pathfinder construct(excepting certain spells). You point and shoot, with little or no cost. Material components generally get handwaved or Eschewed, and the hour per day of prep is integrated into normal rest time. Level 13+ sucks mostly because magic(though magic items as well) is unrestricted. If Save-or-Die extended to both the caster and the target, would you think twice about Disintegrating an enemy? If a fireball could backfire, would that limit it's use?
Moving forward, how could this be handled from a rules perspective? I'm interested in providing a consequence to spellcasting, partially for balance purposes, but mainly to create a world in which magic is valuable and rare.
You could try D20 Midnight setting. Nobody wants magic in that world because the evil cleric's demon pet can sniff it out. It's like a disturbance in the force. People will sell you out for a crumb of bread if you can cast magic or have magic on you.
|
...the 1e Illusionist - an arcane casting core class separate from the magic-user which had CHA as a prime req.
You sure about that? My dim recollection is that the requirement for a 1e Illusionist was DEX 15 or higher, and they kept the magic-user INT limitations on spell learning. It's been a while since I checked, though.
You could add in extra flavor in regards to high or low magic zones, religious influence of the church, or elemental influences (like cycles of the moon), etc. where casters gain a small benefit, or penalty depending on the situation. You could restrict the levels of spells available in different situations.
Another area you could add to is a ranged system, similar to melee missle weapons, where penalties are added in. This could affect spell areas as well.
There is also combat situations, like getting hit for damage, or moving while casting, that could influence your concentration roll.
The key is to add in simple broad affects in phases, versus re-writing the magic system.
All of this is available in GURPS, where the spell system is skilled based and considers the environment, patheons, range, movement, area of affect, which can all influence the difficulty of casting a spell. On top of that spells take fatigue, which is a limited resource, and you could end up being exhausted after a series of spell castings; which is similar to spells per day.
And one could argue (as it has been argued in at least one D&D book), that the limit on Wizards spell-casting per day is because "certain spells are beyond their grasp" and it is already a safety limit.
|
|
And one could argue (as it has been argued in at least one D&D book), that the limit on Wizards spell-casting per day is because "certain spells are beyond their grasp" and it is already a safety limit.
You hate the idea with the heat of a thousand exploding suns and won't be using anything like it.
We get it, already.
Do you have anything useful to contribute, or are you just here to crap on other people's ideas, instead of offering up some of your own?
The critical and financial success of settings and systems like Midnight, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, the Wheel of Time, Star Wars, Mage: the Ascension, GURPS, etc. indicate that *some people* like the idea of a magic-with-consequences mechanic. You don't. That's cool, too. But you don't need to post a dozen times to repeat your dislike of the idea, as we pretty much got it around the third or fourth time, as we aren't impenetrably thick-skulled.
Just as I have more interesting things to do than post a dozen times to the 'people who love onions' forum to tell everyone how much I loathe onions, I'm sure you have more interesting things to do than repeat your dislike of the ideas being tossed around in this thread.