Load up on the bling! Wade in to victory!
Ha ha ha.
One last thing, if people really don't like the rogue much, and don't take them, then they won't have uncanny dodge to protect them from the ninja sudden strike, unless they are barbarians (damn I like the beta barb). Which is also a non spellcaster class (obviously).
It is like saying, that class is awful, and easily countered. But we all don't like to take the counter...
Remember your tactic was countered by a 2nd level spell. How much do you really expect for it to work? You get SS damage, and like I said before you take a full round attack. If it is a caster or any BBEG that is smart enough to try to found out who is disrupting his plan, which should be any BBEG he will be ready for your tactic. Even the lower level lieutenants should be aware of what you are trying.
From what I've heard, there would be no persistent or bounces in my games (there has been none up to this point in years of gaming). Bounce is from the new oathfinder magic books yes? It is far more powerful than a second spell if it forces three saves for one effect. Made quite strong since wizards only get so many spells overall, and a good save can counter them (damn one my big ones didnt work). Not something I'd want to go into or allow. I would like more info on it, if you all want to provide it.
"Note the fact that only spells cast within the last 8 hours count against the spells you prepare. So if you cast your Rope Trick, and rest for 9 hours, you get all your spells back."
A day is not nine hours. So by your reckoning, the 15 minute day is possible, because you see "spells per day" as spells per rest period. 9 hrs is not a day. Enforce it by the day, and the 15 minute day is not a problem. A sorcerer, cleric or wiz could rest 27 hours if they wanted (9,18,27), it doesn't mean they are getting three lots of spells refresh over that period. That would mean their spells were not spells per day, but per rest, which they are not listed as in the table.
The wizard can only memorise so much over the day, can't just refresh easily with some good napping if it is the same day and not that long ago since they got the fresh batch. The cleric only gets so much from their deity per day, their rest doesn't effect this, but if they miss their appointed worship time, that could cause problems. The sorcerer only has so much magical oomph within them.
If you have the 15 min work day problem, try this daily ruling, as it is listed on the basic class table. They will be a lot more active or they will sit around bored (hardly the acts of heroes).
Got to have the second level memorised or active for it to work. Say you get it up and can see him. A ninja would sensibly back off and look for a way to "ninja in", and sudden strike while you are flat footed, i.e. you can have it on, and it lasts a while, but if the ninja approaches from another direction, one in which your eyes aren't seeing, then it is sudden strike time again. They do have stealth, acrobatics, climb.
Some emphasise the importance of spells, but for me, dnd combat is more about good tactics, out-witting opponents, or doing crazy and brave stuff. If a dm allows called shots, see invisibility could be also countered by an attack to the eyes, blindness causing poison, misdirection, sniping from above or while hidden within 30. See invisible doesn't mean you pass all perceptions, unless I am mistaken.
So why aren't rogues liked on this board? Anyone?
"I do run with a '1 set of spell per 24 hours' rule actually."
Cool bananas my friend.
From what I've heard, there would be no persistent or bounces in my games (there has been none up to this point in years of gaming). Bounce is from the new oathfinder magic books yes? It is far more powerful than a second spell if it forces three saves for one effect. Made quite strong since wizards only get so many spells overall, and a good save can counter them (damn one my big ones didnt work). Not something I'd want to go into or allow. I would like more info on it, if you all want to provide it.
Both of the presistent and bounce metamagic feats are from the APG which has been out for over a year. The persistent feat forces two saves. The bouncing feat makes someone else make the save if the first person passes the saves. Each one by itself is not that bad, but combined can be a headache.
A day is not nine hours. So by your reckoning, the 15 minute day is possible, because you see "spells per day" as spells per rest period. 9 hrs is not a day. Enforce it by the day, and the 15 minute day is not a problem. A sorcerer, cleric or wiz could rest 27 hours if they wanted (9,18,27), it doesn't mean they are getting three lots of spells refresh over that period. That would mean their spells were not spells per day, but per rest, which they are not listed as in the table.
You misunderstood. Here is what he is saying. Let's say I am a wizard and I have the option to cast 25 spells a day. By the rules only the spell I cast count against the daily limit so if I only cast 9 of them I can still get the other 16 after 8 hours of rest. His quote was from the book.
Heroes are the people who save the day. I don't think the commoners will care if you had to rest to do it. At the end of the day the job is to get the job done.
Got to have the second level memorised or active for it to work. Say you get it up and can see him. A ninja would sensibly back off and look for a way to "ninja in", and sudden strike while you are flat footed, i.e. you can have it on, and it lasts a while, but if the ninja approaches from another direction, one in which your eyes aren't seeing, then it is sudden strike time again. They do have stealth, acrobatics, climb.
Some emphasise the importance of spells, but for me, dnd combat is more about good tactics, out-witting opponents, or doing crazy and brave stuff. If a dm allows called shots, see invisibility could be also countered by an attack to the eyes, blindness causing poison, misdirection, sniping from above or while hidden within 30. See invisible doesn't mean you pass all perceptions, unless I am mistaken.
So why aren't rogues liked on this board? Anyone?
How are they going to "ninja in"? D&D/Pathfinder does not have facing. You can't just say it will happen and expect for it to happen, and how would the ninja know if he caster has the spell up? As soon as the ninja breaks cover he is seen.
Called shots are house rules and therefore don't help you since you have to depend on GM Fiat. Actually your multispell rules discourage tactics. I could never have pulled those stunts off without them. As you noticed I did a similar thing just using the chain spell and quicken spell feat. The culprit was the multi-spell rule every time.See invisible does not bypass mundane hiding, but it negates invisibility. There is really no other way for the ninja to get to the caster without him knowing.
Stealth old boy. You can see but do you know, a crucial difference.
It's like a rogue, you could have see invisibility, but if they come upon their opponents from shadow, they can get in. Surprise is something best used, and there are all sorts of situations by which to get it.
I find the idea that pathfinder or dnd, does not have facing to be a funny thing. You have your perception checks, but no sees around them all the time. All round vision is usually specified when in monsters, and humans do not have all round vision (you have a flank for instance, which, hey, that does mean you have a facing position! You also have what is above you, which a character is not looking at unless they say so, same with right below, but the areas around us are being listened to, which rogues and ninja can exploit. Say if it was a paranoid target who was looking over their shoulder, well attack from above or below where possible). If someone approaches a target consciously from behind, out of their normal visual acuity it is a perception check, but something like see invisibility doesn't mean they immediately see them.
Like say you pass a tree, and are going in a direction. Perceptions are not passed to notice the skulker. Now if they step out from the tree behind you, line up and strike with surprise ranged, people don't see out their backs and negate the surprise (unless uncanny and such applies).
Stealthing clear out in the open is a good way to get seen, but one does not see all around at all time, unless one is some type of all round vision abberation, everyone has a posture, and a direction. This is basic stuff. If a melee is facing one direction with their polearm up and ready, they have a back, they have a flank. Same with a spellcaster, although they may think of themselves as perceptive spell turrets, it comes down to skill checks. Or did I get this wrong?
To BigJohn,Yes, a spellcaster with good bab could cast and cut in a round, or trip and ray, or sunder and shatter, or bestow curse and kick. You can see why this is a really nice source of combos. Perhaps it makes it more like some fighting game, but I want the combat to be cool and satisfying. One new player recently who came in at level 12 wiz/marshal mix. Yeah he was facing off against two denizens of Leng. They backed him into a corner, out came the spells, broke through the SR, caused some havoc. Burnt through some of his high level spells, killed one, incapacitated another. Then closed in for the coup de grace with his longsword. It was...
So, a 6th level fighter can attack twice a round (+6/+1). At 7th level, they take a level of Sorcerer, taking True Strike as one of their first level spells.
Round 1: Fighter casts True Strike, moves into position.
Round 2: Fighter uses Full Attack action to hit (with a +20 to strike!), then casts True Strike again, if it's still alive.
Round 3: Repeat Round 2.
Round 4: Repeat Round 3.
Round 5: IF your enemy is still alive (after taking three attacks that are at LEAST +26 to hit, at 7th level), and IF the fighter has only an 11 CHA, then you're back to making +6/+1 full attacks.
That's not a combo, that's broken. I don't say broken as in "I don't like it", I say broken as in "That's not how the d20 ruleset works."
"Like pretty much everyone else on here has said, if it works for your game, great! It's not Pathfinder. It's not 3.5. It's not 3.0. It's not Shadowrun, GURPS, Palladium, White-Wolf, or Paper-Rock-Scissors either. It's your own game. Good for you!"Oh not this idea again. I'll put it this way then, if I am using the majority of a rule-set, say 94%, what is the game i am playing? If one ever uses a homebrew interpretation or adds on their own rules, are you saying they are never playing dnd? They cannot be playing dnd? What about the rest that they do use? Does one small change mean you cannot even suggest you are not playing dnd in any variety? What if I remove something, like say its pathfinder, but I'm removing a few feats I don't like and think which could be abused? Sounds like a lawful alignment to me, but not a very accurate assertion.
I might have my modified rules up in a document sometime soon. There is a few more homebrew things added to it, but the core mechanics are 3.5 with some pathfinder classes. As you can tell, it is still mostly dnd.
At some point, a product is sufficiently diverged from the original that you have to call it something different. That's why systems like D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, Star Wars d20, True d20, Mutants & Masterminds, d20 Modern, and a plethora of other options exist.
They're not all the same game. They're fairly interchangable, and someone who is proficient in one system should be able to pick the others up fairly easily, but there are quirks and nuances that make them each their own, separate product.
Like I said, release your own "flavor" of a d20-based game, and I'll try it. If I like it, I'll keep using it. But to come into a Pathfinder message board, and then ask why Pathfinder doesn't work like your customized game (because you misunderstood the originally written rules) strikes me a quite a bit of hubris.
My favorite d20-based game was a D&D/Star Wars mash-up, using 3.5 as the basic framework, and building from there. It was a great game, and a lot of fun. But it wasn't a 3.5 game, because the rules were too divergent. It wasn't a Star Wars game, because the rules were too different. It was it's own, separate beast.
Your ruleset sounds like it would be a lot of fun for an all-spellcaster game... and like I said, I just might try using it for that. But I'm not calling it Pathfinder at that point, because it just isn't.
It's closer to a 3.5 derivative.
And onto one of the older points, held actions actually do allow you to interrupt another's actions. It can get a bit messy, but the simplest is, I hold my actions and make a full attack (or sudden strike or whatever) when they start casting their (see invisibility or offensive spell). Or you move up and hold your standard for spellcasting, etc etc.
This is one of the ways you shut casters down. Get in there, mage killer or hold actions. Then you cause injury why they are casting, and then they try not to lose the spell while bleeding for Crom.
Or does no one else use good initiative and held actions this way?
Or for the pacifists, I hold my actions and sunder his weapon if he goes to attack. Or I hold and will attack with nonlethal if they go hostile, interrupting the attack of the opponent (because of the possession of the higher initiative).
Stealth old boy. You can see but do you know, a crucial difference.
It's like a rogue, you could have see invisibility, but if they come upon their opponents from shadow, they can get in. Surprise is something best used, and there are all sorts of situations by which to get it.
Give me an example.
If someone approaches a target consciously from behind, out of their normal visual acuity it is a perception check, but something like see invisibility doesn't mean they immediately see them.
If they don't have cover of concealment they are immediately seen.
Like say you pass a tree, and are going in a direction. Perceptions are not passed to notice the skulker. Now if they step out from the tree behind you, line up and strike with surprise ranged, people don't see out their backs and negate the surprise (unless uncanny and such applies).
As soon as you step out from behind that tree you have broken cover. Many GM's let it go, and allow you to be hidden just long enough to get the first attack off, but some do not.
Stealthing clear out in the open is a good way to get seen, but one does not see all around at all time, unless one is some type of all round vision abberation, everyone has a posture, and a direction. This is basic stuff. If a melee is facing one direction with their polearm up and ready, they have a back, they have a flank. Same with a spellcaster, although they may think of themselves as perceptive spell turrets, it comes down to skill checks. Or did I get this wrong?
In the game, by the rules you don't face. You see everywhere at once. I think 3.0 had facing rules, but by 3.5 they were gone. No matter which direction that mini is turned on the battlemap you see anyone who is not hiding.
It's closer to a 3.5 derivative.
And onto one of the older points, held actions actually do allow you to interrupt another's actions. It can get a bit messy, but the simplest is, I hold my actions and make a full attack (or sudden strike or whatever) when they start casting their (see invisibility or offensive spell). Or you move up and hold your standard for spellcasting, etc etc.
This is one of the ways you shut casters down. Get in there, mage killer or hold actions. Then you cause injury why they are casting, and then they try not to lose the spell while bleeding for Crom.
Or does no one else use good initiative and held actions this way?
Or for the pacifists, I hold my actions and sunder his weapon if he goes to attack. Or I hold and will attack with nonlethal if they go hostile, interrupting the attack of the opponent (because of the possession of the higher initiative).
What you call a 'held action' is 'readying an action'. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, a readied action is described as 'If/when the target does this, I do this'. Your description above is easily rephrased from 'I hold my action and full attack when they start casting' to 'if he starts to cast, I attack'. The problem is you're only allowed to ready a standard action. Holding is actually delaying your initiative and doesn't come with an ability to interrupt someone else; that's reserved for readied actions and attacks of opportunity.
"If they don't have cover of concealment they are immediately seen."
The stealth specialist sneaking up behind a party member is immediately seen?!>!? Yeah if there is someone facing that direction, being the rear-guard, but if he stealths up with no one observing him and no one none the wiser.
Perhaps I play too many stealth games, or loved hide and seek too much as a child (I once set up a damn good snare that got a running kid, but I digress). I've always seen stealth run with realism though, and players sitting about not saying how they are playing attention through their characters, are not watching every nook and cranny. If you want to look all around you, declare it, you will slow as you make the perception checks, which are moves. Every action has a consequence. If you are not slowing down and taking the checks, you aren't looking all around you.
"In the game, by the rules you don't face. You see everywhere at once. I think 3.0 had facing rules, but by 3.5 they were gone. No matter which direction that mini is turned on the battlemap you see anyone who is not hiding."
That's completely wrong, it was in 3.5 and everyone does have a flank, a rear and a front. See the facing and movement rules. All models if we are getting into models, have a facing direction. If something stealths behind them, they can have their throat cut in the seconds they break cover and stealth and as the stealth sudden or sneak is made.
But I can see why a spellcaster player would not want to add realism to stealth. It is a way to catch low perception players unawares, see invisibility or not.
Good dms should also describe what a players see, if they want more info they concentrate their attention, e.g. I look up into the trees (there might be a ninja up there). No one gets to see stealth characters for free as they close in to stab you.
To Lathiira,
We can get a little too caught up in terminology. I want the players to describe what they want to achieve and make the rolls accordingly. That you can't hold a full round sounds way off. If it gets to the enemies initiative and they do a full round (and even the last person in initiative gets a full round) how is it not possible to interrupt that lower initiative and take your full round. It seems simple. high initiative, means you are quicker, which gives you more potentially frustrating, options at your disposal.
It's closer to a 3.5 derivative.
And onto one of the older points, held actions actually do allow you to interrupt another's actions. It can get a bit messy, but the simplest is, I hold my actions and make a full attack (or sudden strike or whatever) when they start casting their (see invisibility or offensive spell). Or you move up and hold your standard for spellcasting, etc etc.
This is one of the ways you shut casters down. Get in there, mage killer or hold actions. Then you cause injury why they are casting, and then they try not to lose the spell while bleeding for Crom.
Or does no one else use good initiative and held actions this way?
Or for the pacifists, I hold my actions and sunder his weapon if he goes to attack. Or I hold and will attack with nonlethal if they go hostile, interrupting the attack of the opponent (because of the possession of the higher initiative).
People are confusing two different rules: Delay (which is often referred to as "Holding Initiative") and Ready.
By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point.You never get back the time you spend waiting to see what's going to happen. You also can't interrupt anyone else's action (as you can with a readied action).
Initiative Consequences of Delaying: Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the delayed action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed an action, you don't get to take a delayed action (though you can delay again).
If you take a delayed action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.
The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun. Readying is a standard action. It does not provoke an attack of opportunity (though the action that you ready might do so).Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round.
Initiative Consequences of Readying: Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the readied action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed your readied action, you don't get to take the readied action (though you can ready the same action again). If you take your readied action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.
Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell.” If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Spellcraft check result).
Readying to Counterspell: You may ready a counterspell against a spellcaster (often with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell”). In this case, when the spellcaster starts a spell, you get a chance to identify it with a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level). If you do, and if you can cast that same spell (and are able to cast it and have it prepared, if you prepare spells), you can cast the spell as a counterspell and automatically ruin the other spellcaster's spell. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine and the other arcane.
A spellcaster can use dispel magic to counterspell another spellcaster, but it doesn't always work.
Readying a Weapon against a Charge: You can ready weapons with the brace feature, setting them to receive charges. A readied weapon of this type deals double damage if you score a hit with it against a charging character.
This post is mostly for clarity. It seems like everyone but 3.5L is thinking of "Delay" when he discusses "Holding" an action. I believe 3.5L means to say "Ready".
Cheers.
Yeah I made a high initiative dispeller once. It was risky, but it seemed to work.
That's completely wrong, it was in 3.5 and everyone does have a flank, a rear and a front. See the facing and movement rules. All models if we are getting into models, have a facing direction. If something stealths behind them, they can have their throat cut in the seconds they break cover and stealth and as the stealth sudden or sneak is made.
Facing is a house rule that was introduced in Unearthed Arcana. It was never part of the core 3.X ruleset.
If you're confused why people are not accepting your rule as a good idea, it's because you've done the equivalent of posting '1 + 1 = 3' on a math forum and then gotten upset when corrected.
"It's like a rogue, you could have see invisibility, but if they come upon their opponents from shadow, they can get in. Surprise is something best used, and there are all sorts of situations by which to get it. Give me an example."
an example was already given. Stealth checks opposed by perception checks Perception check < stealth check = no idea whats going on.
"If someone approaches a target consciously from behind, out of their normal visual acuity it is a perception check, but something like see invisibility doesn't mean they immediately see them.
If they don't have cover of concealment they are immediately seen. "
Once again, this isn't the case. If you were in a crowd of 100 people and a jobber was making his way towards you sneakily with a dagger, you do not autmatically notice him or every single person in that crowd.
"Like say you pass a tree, and are going in a direction. Perceptions are not passed to notice the skulker. Now if they step out from the tree behind you, line up and strike with surprise ranged, people don't see out their backs and negate the surprise (unless uncanny and such applies).
As soon as you step out from behind that tree you have broken cover. Many GM's let it go, and allow you to be hidden just long enough to get the first attack off, but some do not."
But stepping out from a tree should not necessarily allow one to be seen. If they have their back turned or are not looking in that direction when you step out, surprise should still be yours unless they passed their listen checks.
"In the game, by the rules you don't face. You see everywhere at once. I think 3.0 had facing rules, but by 3.5 they were gone. No matter which direction that mini is turned on the battlemap you see anyone who is not hiding."
Look in the 3.5 players handbook, there is a section on flanking. Why would there be flanking if it was already gotten rid of? You don't automatically notice anyone not hiding unless they are making enough noise to be heard or you are looking in the appropriate direction when they step forward.
3.5 L, facing rules existed in 3.5 (oh, the puns to be made!), you're right. They are listed as an optional rule in the d20srd. Here's the relevant link:
In Pathfinder, however, no such rules exist in RAW. Maybe I'm forgetting there's an optional rule set for them? Solutions in Pathfinder, however, include letting your familiar watch your back as well as use of such spells as arcane eye. Also, the difference between the ninja or rogue's Stealth skill and any other character's Perception is likely no more than the trained class bonus (+3), which might be offset with a trait, and a few points of difference between the ninja/rogue's Dexterity bonus and the target's Wisdom bonus. You can crank that up quite a bit, but gone are the days when a cross-class skill was nigh-useless due to the disparity in skill modifiers.
First could you use the quote tags. It makes things easier to read. I am not being mean, just trying to separate your writing from mine. :)
That's completely wrong, it was in 3.5 and everyone does have a flank, a rear and a front. See the facing and movement rules. All models if we are getting into models, have a facing direction. If something stealths behind them, they can have their throat cut in the seconds they break cover and stealth and as the stealth sudden or sneak is made.
In 3.5 you can be flanked if people are on opposite sides, but there is no facing.
If I can draw a straight line from my character to the "hider" and there is no cover/concealment then he can't hide. That is in the combat chapter.
But I can see why a spellcaster player would not want to add realism to stealth. It is a way to catch low perception players unawares, see invisibility or not.
Actually it benefits everyone. You don't have to deal with the below examples:
"I was looking that way, or I would have a field of vision that is X squares wide so he could not have done that", and so on. Most people also travel in groups so even if there was facing another party member would just yell out that someone was coming. Rather they go through all that the game was simplified to have no facing.
Good dms should also describe what a players see, if they want more info they concentrate their attention, e.g. I look up into the trees (there might be a ninja up there). No one gets to see stealth characters for free as they close in to stab you.
Actually a good GM can work within the rules IMHO, but "good GMing" is subjective. If the ninja is in the trees it is perfectly reasonable to say the leaves provide cover.
We can get a little too caught up in terminology. I want the players to describe what they want to achieve and make the rolls accordingly. That you can't hold a full round sounds way off. If it gets to the enemies initiative and they do a full round (and even the last person in initiative gets a full round) how is it not possible to interrupt that lower initiative and take your full round. It seems simple. high initiative, means you are quicker, which gives you more potentially frustrating, options at your disposal.
That is not how the rules work. On your turn you can take your turn, ready an action(very specific), or hold your action. What you can't do is hold your action, and treat it like a readied action. That might be why your casters are not giving you a lot of trouble since you play with houserules, but if you played by the book* sneaking up on them would not happen a lot, and they would decimate a party or at least have the party in a very bad position 90% of the time or more.
*with the only exception being that they could still cast multiple spells
wrong stuff
The game is an abstraction, not a simulation. Flanking gets you a +2 to attack because you are trying to defend on opposite side. If flanking was simulated the bonus would most likely be higher than a +2, and as I said the rules for who you see are clear, and in the combat chapter.
All it really boils down to is cover or concealment. Either you have it or you don't.
just read 222 posts on this. why I really do not know some sort of self, maybe better than burning my self with a cig.
I play by RAW. Me and my Players are given a book we know how I can play and I know how they can play. It is like a contract. If I make a mistake they full grounds to call me up on it. After the game I will research the rules and if there right than damn I was wrong. We move on.
Something as freaking insane as BAB as number of spells per round is CRAZY to me. Every one would of diped into some sort of magic class when they started getting three attacks per round I am sure. I mean it is so broken, you should be able to tell right away your doing something wrong.
My last comment than I will fly away. COMBAT is an abstraction. We do not facing, we do not have target bodies being hit, like rune quest or warhammer. Are combat is a abstraction a very simple one. It works. It moves at a decent clip and we can have a lot of fun in it. But there is no one getting a concussion or losing a hand. Which I am fine with.
You are looking at a screen, reading a forum. Right now, can you see what is behind you, what is behind your left and right ears? If your ears didn't pick up that there is someone moving up behind you, then you are flat footed and did not see anyone behind you.
You can have a look back, over your shoulder once in a while. If someone says they do that it is almost a luck roll whether that coincides with the jobber's advance.
Dnd combat is a simulation. We have all sorts of rules for special abilities and spells, but stealth is at heart a very simple thing and humans only can see or even hear so much. Elves and specialists have better senses, but that doesn't mean they immediately see rogues behind them either.
Equalizer used the example of the crowd. The crowd can be cover, the crowd is in the light of day, but people don't immediately know with no successful checks, that they have been pick-pocketed in the light of day either.
It can be a bright sunny day, a clear road, and you can still be jobbed by the person in the bushes if you turn your back to them, or they wait till you and your party sets off in a direction away from the bush (unless you are walking backwards or some weird beast, you do in indeed face the direction of your advance) and step out and attack your rear quietly.
You can be flat-footed, attacked from behind, you can be flanked through someone else's attack line, but everyone also has a flank, even armies have flanks, I am not very good at blocking my right shoulder blade or right kidney from attack unawares either. This is common sense and if we are talking about people movement and stealth, everyone has a flank, and areas they are not taking account of, unless! They are spending moves and perception checks, circling their eyes around and watching their entire surroundings. Most people aren't that dedicated except when really startled.
Nice name spacemonkey, but not everyone in my groups that use this, do go spellcasting, as I've said. It is not as powerful as you think.
A standard, a quickened rod and a move left over is still better. But, we don't have many rods in our low-magic neck of the woods.
If combat does not account for where people are facing, if it does not allow stealth characters to sneak up out of hiding places and make attacks, it isn't working well. The abstraction is failing to bring across stealth attacks into the game, and there are supposedly stealth classes! It is really penalising anyone who ever breaks cover. It is really restricting surprise. Sneak attack is getting a kicking. You can't step out and slit a throat, that sounds a very sad state of affairs to me.
C'mon some of you guys must have sneaked up to someone from behind, or even on a flank. I've disappeared from my seat at tables and people in conversation have not noticed. "Where did you go? I didn't see you leave" It is easy to do to most people, because people do not look everywhere at once. And I am not a level 5 rogue.
Even better example. Magician hand and misdirection tricks. People see the magician, he is on a stage, he is right in front of you, and you still don't see all that he does. While you were watching the magician you also were not watching behind you either. Someone reading a book or drawing a potion is also not watching their flanks (unless they say they are).
|
Pathfinder handles it by the Perception skill, which encompasses hearing and sight. Thus facing is not needed, because if you make your check, you hear them and turn around. If you do not, you do not detect them. Unfortunately, once the Stealthing character is in the open, he cannot make a check.
Magicians use Sleight of Hand anyway, not Stealth.
If you don't like the 3rd Edition and Pathfinder rules, that's fine -- houserule away. But don't argue that your houserules are 3rd Edition or Pathfinder rules.
Played RAW, neither has facing, and neither allows multiple spells on a full attack.
You are looking at a screen, reading a forum. Right now, can you see what is behind you, what is behind your left and right ears? If your ears didn't pick up that there is someone moving up behind you, then you are flat footed and did not see anyone behind you.
You can have a look back, over your shoulder once in a while. If someone says they do that it is almost a luck roll whether that coincides with the jobber's advance.
Dnd combat is a simulation. We have all sorts of rules for special abilities and spells, but stealth is at heart a very simple thing and humans only can see or even hear so much. Elves and specialists have better senses, but that doesn't mean they immediately see rogues behind them either.
Equalizer used the example of the crowd. The crowd can be cover, the crowd is in the light of day, but people don't immediately know with no successful checks, that they have been pick-pocketed in the light of day either.
It can be a bright sunny day, a clear road, and you can still be jobbed by the person in the bushes if you turn your back to them, or they wait till you and your party sets off in a direction away from the bush (unless you are walking backwards or some weird beast, you do in indeed face the direction of your advance) and step out and attack your rear quietly.
You can be flat-footed, attacked from behind, you can be flanked through someone else's attack line, but everyone also has a flank, even armies have flanks, I am not very good at blocking my right shoulder blade or right kidney from attack unawares either. This is common sense and if we are talking about people movement and stealth, everyone has a flank, and areas they are not taking account of, unless! They are spending moves and perception checks, circling their eyes around and watching their entire surroundings. Most people aren't that dedicated except when really startled.
You are trying to use real-life logic, but the rules don't do that. You asked why multiple spells is an issue if people follow the books rules. I have given examples why. If you play by the rules as intended, while still allowing multiple spells per round casters own the game. If you ever get into PFS(where you must follow offical rules) then you could argue with the GM until you are blue in the face, but there will be no facing. If there is no cover or concealment and he steps out into the open he is seen. I understand that you don't like it, but that is how the rules work.
Nice name spacemonkey, but not everyone in my groups that use this, do go spellcasting, as I've said. It is not as powerful as you think.
A standard, a quickened rod and a move left over is still better. But, we don't have many rods in our low-magic neck of the woods.
If combat does not account for where people are facing, if it does not allow stealth characters to sneak up out of hiding places and make attacks, it isn't working well. The abstraction is failing to bring across stealth attacks into the game, and there are supposedly stealth classes! It is really penalising anyone who ever breaks cover. It is really restricting surprise. Sneak attack is getting a kicking. You can't step out and slit a throat, that sounds a very sad state of affairs to me.
C'mon some of you guys must have sneaked up to someone from behind, or even on a flank. I've disappeared from my seat at tables and people in conversation have not noticed. "Where did you go? I didn't see you leave" It is easy to do to most people, because people do not look everywhere at once. And I am not a level 5 rogue.
Even better example. Magician hand and misdirection tricks. People see the magician, he is on a stage, he is right in front of you, and you still don't see all that he does. While you were watching the magician you also were not watching behind you either. Someone reading a book or drawing a potion is also not watching their flanks (unless they say they are).
The stealth rules do get a lot of criticism. I can't argue with that, but they are what they are.
With that aside do you know why casters are hard to kill with your rule of multicasting in place, assuming you follow the books other rules?3.5 has more powerful combos than pathfinder. If I go back to 3.5 with multispell casting and I get to use every book I can then there is a way to always go first. You really don't want to allow the rule with 3.5 timestop and gate assuming you play to that high of a level. The caster will summon a few pitfiends or worse and teleport away. He then comes back at his leisure to pick the party off.
I am just envisioning 3.5loyalists evil scary wizard killing Rogue:
Round 1:
Evil scary Rogue sneaks around the party in the shadows, unseen like a snake, whoa!
Meanwhile Party Wizard melts the faces of everyone in the general vicinity using about 10% of his daily spells in one round.
Round 2:
Evil scary Rogue sneaks into position behind Party Wizard and opens with a Sneak Attack - only to discover that Party Wizard has a Stoneskin running and also a Displacement, reducing his damage to almost nothing.
Party Wizard slowly turns, smiles, takes a 5' step backwards, casts Hold Person, if that fails, casts Hold Person, if that fails casts Hold Person if that fails casts a quickened Dimension Door behind the Party Barbarian who is frustrated like living hell because everything melted before he could get towards it.
As a free action Party Wizards speaks to Party Barbarian "hey little one, see that evil scary Rogue? Please be a nice pet and go kill him for me."
Round 3:
Barbarian thinks "Finally, kill!", charges and kills Rogue in one round.
I just saw the rod and low magic comment. What do you do when players take crafting feats?
I don't think they take them, and his groups view taking time to craft as boring and unheroic uses of game time, considering his comments on item crafting and accounting.
I just saw the rod and low magic comment. What do you do when players take crafting feats?
I guess I should have asked what he would do if I was a new player and I wanted to craft a rod or 2 or 3 or 4. :)
Oh no they can craft if they want, some do. They might need the unknown questionable feats to craft the unknown rods though. They can also get left behind at times as they spend days a crafting when there is adventures to be had.
No one has said anything against crafting or how it really changes the game, makes it about loot and crafting and accounting. I think there is a lot behind the lack of commentary.
Micman, that situation has never happened. Stoneskin can also be noticed as can displacement (the wizard looks weird). I love it how the wizard beat the rest of the party single-handed and no one had a chance (no spellcasters to send any spells back?), saved against any spell (no monks or paladins?), beat the wizard on initiative (no rogues or high initiative swordsmen?), dispelled any of his protections (no wizards), grappled him or tripped him (no active melee). Oh and the rogue sneak attack was not poisoned. He just fearlessly walked in and all died before him. This is fantasy.
Don't worry chaps, I'll get more of my house rules up soon. You are sure to guffaw.
"You really don't want to allow the rule with 3.5 timestop and gate assuming you play to that high of a level"
We don't play at that level. But I stick by the claim that yes, a 17-20th level spellcaster should be up to more than one spell a round.
Oh no they can craft if they want, some do. They might need the unknown questionable feats to craft the unknown rods though. They can also get left behind at times as they spend days a crafting when there is adventures to be had.
No one has said anything against crafting or how it really changes the game, makes it about loot and crafting and accounting. I think there is a lot behind the lack of commentary.
Don't worry chaps, I'll get more of my house rules up soon. You are sure to guffaw.
"You really don't want to allow the rule with 3.5 timestop and gate assuming you play to that high of a level"
We don't play at that level. But I stick by the claim that yes, a 17-20th level spellcaster should be up to more than one spell a round.
By the rules you can craft while adventuring so they won't get left behind.
As for high levels it only gets worse with more spells. It works in your game because of the house rules, but if you follow the book for everything else people will be sad. Whether it is the GM or players depends on who wins initiative.
Sure wraithstrike we can do that now.
Okay so you all know eachother, been a group a while, you are at a decent level. These are the quests, these are some of the rumours. This is the general feel.
Oh what's that? You want to stay in the settlement and craft. Okay that'll take how many days and how much? Okay got it. Got the requirements? Good.
Over to the rest.
Okay the rest of you set off for adventure, to get loot, to fight great foes, to finish quests. Now there is this curious rumour you've heard...
Back to you.
...
Yep you keep crafting. Those are some expensive wands so they are going to take a while and a lot of work.
Back to the main party.
3 hours pass of great gaming as they do their thing over many days, while the spellcaster is crafting.
Back to you.
Ah it seems it is finally done. Good. How will you find them? Well do you have track? No? Errrr, you could try and follow the tales of their exploits? Damn, it seems they are deep into dungeons, forests, hidden areas.
Some time later, the crafter finds the party, they have new kit, more confidence, more levels and look on him and his time-wasting with a bit of scorn. He has a new flashy wand. Yaaaaaay. So he hasn't got better, he hasn't helped the party, he has a new wand.
...
D&D is about a lot more than crafting magic items and cramming dodgy feats into said items. You should have been adventuring and finding good kit, earning it, not just crafting it. When this is what time is really spent on, I shudder at...
THE ACCOUNTING CHRONICLES OF EVER-CRAFTING!
(I've read the 3.5 rules on crafting and it seems to require a lot of work and focus, and time, and money etc etc. Now pathfinder may have made it easier, and you can do it in a few rounds here and there, and that is absolutely ridiculous for a powerful thing like a rod. You should be earning that rod, seeking it out. Making it? You might as well look for a gaming group that is just about crafting and selling in a tiny little magic shop)
I am not trying to discount your houserules, but I saw your original as asking why things don't work by the way you play, and I was just explaining why. As long as you have a counterbalance to them it won't be an issue. Part of that counterbalance is your group's playstyle also.
Sure wraithstrike we can do that now.
Okay so you all know eachother, been a group a while, you are at a decent level. These are the quests, these are some of the rumours. This is the general feel.
Oh what's that? You want to stay in the settlement and craft. Okay that'll take how many days and how much? Okay got it. Got the requirements? Good.
Over to the rest.
Okay the rest of you set off for adventure, to get loot, to fight great foes, to finish quests. Now there is this curious rumour you've heard...Back to you.
...
Yep you keep crafting. Those are some expensive wands so they are going to take a while and a lot of work.Back to the main party.
3 hours pass of great gaming as they do their thing over many days, while the spellcaster is crafting.Back to you.
Ah it seems it is finally done. Good. How will you find them? Well do you have track? No? Errrr, you could try and follow the tales of their exploits? Damn, it seems they are deep into dungeons, forests, hidden areas.Some time later, the crafter finds the party, they have new kit, more confidence, more levels and look on him and his time-wasting with a bit of scorn. He has a new flashy wand. Yaaaaaay. So he hasn't got better, he hasn't helped the party, he has a new wand.
...
D&D is about a lot more than crafting magic items and cramming dodgy feats into said items. You should have been adventuring and finding good kit, earning it, not just crafting it. When this is what time is really spent on, I shudder at...
THE ACCOUNTING CHRONICLES OF EVER-CRAFTING!
Now you are introducing more houserules to keep the casters in check though, which I touched on in my previous post.
Yeah, if everyone is trying to cheat, or make the game un-fun, or hurt each other's experience or just sit there and craft...
Wow that sounds like a bad game.
I must make it my holy quest to avoid this!
Yeah, if everyone is trying to cheat, or make the game un-fun, or hurt each other's experience or just sit there and craft...
Wow that sounds like a bad game.
I must make it my holy quest to avoid this!
I looked at it like this. The caster just got a big power increase. The goal of the caster, whether he is an PC or NPC, is not to die. In order to do that he must make sure other people die. There is no logical reason to not spam spells(multiple times a round) if he can do it, and as a caster since I can craft and travel I really don't care if the game world is low magic. That just means I have a big advantage over everyone else.
If you introduce any new players you might want to give them a heads up on your group's playing style before they even sit down or you will be writing a lot of houserules which will ultimately just annoy the new player anyway.
I don't see any of my tactics as cheating though. It is just not what your group would like to see, and I would understand them being annoyed if I took over all the big fights and they never got to act, and those things would take place in actual games if that was a real mechanic.
Yeah I'm throwing together a house rule document. Which has helped me realise what I am doing that is house rule, and which is from the basic 3.5 system (I know I'm such a laggard behind the times).
Yeah, if everyone is trying to cheat, or make the game un-fun, or hurt each other's experience or just sit there and craft...
Wow that sounds like a bad game.
I must make it my holy quest to avoid this!
Regarding Crafting Rods
One Feat. Prereqs for this feat? Caster Level 3.
A Third Level Character can know how to make a rod. This is not "high-level" magic we're talking about here.
Regarding Other Requirements
Requires Spellcraft Skill, OR a Craft skill.
The creator also needs a fairly quiet, comfortable, and well-lit place in which to work. Any place suitable for preparing spells is suitable for making items. Creating an item requires 8 hours of work per 1,000 gp in the item's base price (or fraction thereof), with a minimum of at least 8 hours. Potions and scrolls are an exception to this rule; they can take as little as 2 hours to create (if their base price is 250 gp or less). Scrolls and potions whose base price is more than 250 gp, but less than 1,000 gp, take 8 hours to create, just like any other magic item. The character must spend the gold at the beginning of the construction process. Regardless of the time needed for construction, a caster can create no more than one magic item per day. This process can be accelerated to 4 hours of work per 1,000 gp in the item's base price (or fraction thereof) by increasing the DC to create the item by +5.
The caster can work for up to 8 hours each day. He cannot rush the process by working longer each day, but the days need not be consecutive, and the caster can use the rest of his time as he sees fit. If the caster is out adventuring, he can devote 4 hours each day to item creation, although he nets only 2 hours' worth of work. This time is not spent in one continuous period, but rather during lunch, morning preparation, and during watches at night. If time is dedicated to creation, it must be spent in uninterrupted 4-hour blocks. This work is generally done in a controlled environment, where distractions are at a minimum, such as a laboratory or shrine. Work that is performed in a distracting or dangerous environment nets only half the amount of progress (just as with the adventuring caster).
A character can work on only one item at a time. If a character starts work on a new item, all materials used on the under-construction item are wasted.
I spoilered the last one because it was lengthy, but needed quoting.
The bolded parts are what's really important here. According to Pathfinder Rules (which, remember... that's the forum you're on), a crafter CAN go out adventuring with the rest of their party, and so long as it's understood that they're crafting in their down time (say, while the fighter takes off his plate-mail, so he can use the privy), the crafter gets 2 hours of work a day, in his spare time, effectively as a hobby.
All that's needed is a place peaceful enough to where a priest could pray, or a wizard study his spellbook.
Now, regarding the Dreaded Metamagic Rod of Lesser Quicken. It costs 35,000 to purchase. The Crafter needs to:
- Be a 3rd Level Spellcaster
- Have Craft Rod
- Have 17,500 to spend on materials
- Have Quicken Spell feat
While traveling and adventuring, it will take a DC 22 check to create a rod, after 17.5 days.
17.5 days. That's nothing to an adventurer engaging in overland travel. The crafter can shorten this further by adding +5 to the DC (making it DC 27) to craft the rod in half the time... Making the crafting time 8.75 days.
Just over a week.
For what it's worth, a wizard can easily have a spellcraft modifier of +11(20 INT, 3 Ranks, +3 for Class Skill), and this is without things like "Skill Focus" feat (which adds another +3), or the use of traits (for an additional +2). Adding those in, a dedicated crafting wizard could craft a Dreaded Metamagic Rod of Lesser Quicken with a roll of 6+ on a d20.
Not hard to do, and not requiring any real effort on the player's part. Heck, the hardest part of this is getting access to 17,500 gold by level 3!
In addition to getting 250 gp of progress per day while adventuring, any day that the party spends in town shopping, recovering, drinking, etc. (which is quite a few days in my campaigns, where town stuff is generally fun and engaging for players) is another 1,000 gp of progress.
Remember that the caster only has to spend 8 hours per day crafting. Assuming 9 hours of sleep and spell preparation, that still leaves 7 hours for shopping, socializing, etc. while in town. Basically it's the same as having a day job while in town (which many of my players also choose to do with a profession skill).
As I understand it, old school D&D usually had weeks or months between adventures. That seems to have mostly gone by the wayside, but that really is just a matter of playstyle. There's nothing wrong with a campaign where characters spend a few weeks adventuring followed by a few months enjoying the spoils of their adventures and getting on with more regular lives.
I take it very few of your characters are married with families or have long-term careers or other responsibilities? Again, this is a difference in playstyle.
Many of our characters are people first, and adventurers second.
I do like that, when characters have professions, do something other than the adventuring norm, contribute to a community, even build one from the ground up (e.g. Greenbelt). This is participation in the gaming world, role-playing their character, being good at something other than just fighting or raiding or spellcasting. Diplomacy in down-time is another good one, get to know all the important folks, get them working together, coordinated.
Time spent magic item crafting takes away from all of this. I've seen others get a lot done over the days in game, while the crafter locks themselves away making some new item for another body slot. Magic item crafting does not further the character, it is used to beef stats (moar headbands of intellect please) or fill out what they didn't quite grab in the last delving. It is greedy, it is mechanical, it ignores other things that could be done. And then as they spend all their wealth making a small hoard of items, and emerge kitted up, they will still claim to be good character with the interests of others at heart. Magic item crafting leads so often to selfishness and isolation from the world dms try to create. The crafting chronicles. Sigh.
If they took a non magical form of crafting, say weapons, armour, wood carving, they could use it easily for others, for a wider settlement, contribute to the settlements main crafts. Magic item crafting is for self first, party second, profit third and damn the rest! A weird sort of elitism that drains other useful actions, but gets you customised items.
Time spent magic item crafting takes away from all of this. I've seen others get a lot done over the days in game, while the crafter locks themselves away making some new item for another body slot.
Again, a crafter can't spend any more time on crafting than anyone else can on a normal 9-to-5 job. Do you feel a normal bank employee is "locking herself away" from the rest of the world because she spends significant time at a job?
Magic item crafting leads so often to selfishness and isolation from the world dms try to create.
Do you feel the same way about shopping? Because I personally prefer the flavor of crafting over the flavor of shopping any day.
I really don't understand this attitude toward crafting. Magic items, expecially custom-made ones, are neat. They're fun. And many people enjoy being able to make them themselves. It adds flavor and a personal touch to your gear.
Also, from a flavor perspective -- isn't the wizard supposed to lock themselves away and involve themselves in long, obsessive arcane projects to arrive at some new twist of reality? Isn't that what wizards do?
Time spent magic item crafting takes away from all of this. I've seen others get a lot done over the days in game, while the crafter locks themselves away making some new item for another body slot. Magic item crafting does not further the character, it is used to beef stats (moar headbands of intellect please) or fill out what they didn't quite grab in the last delving. It is greedy, it is mechanical, it ignores other things that could be done. And then as they spend all their wealth making a small hoard of items, and emerge kitted up, they will still claim to be good character with the interests of others at heart. Magic item crafting leads so often to selfishness and isolation from the world dms try to create. The crafting chronicles. Sigh.
Please look back to My Last Post in this thread. If you don't mind taking your time to get where you're going, Item Crafting doesn't have to be a drain on resources, but a hobby that your character does in their spare time. A hobby that has a direct mechanical benefit for the party, true... but a hobby nonetheless.
If they took a non magical form of crafting, say weapons, armour, wood carving, they could use it easily for others, for a wider settlement, contribute to the settlements main crafts. Magic item crafting is for self first, party second, profit third and damn the rest! A weird sort of elitism that drains other useful actions, but gets you customised items.
So you're okay with characters taking weeks-upon-weeks to craft non-magical chainmail, but not okay with that character buying masterwork chainmail and spending 1-2 days to make that armor a magical +1?
You don't seem to like magical crafting. That's fine. Discuss banning magical item creation with your players. Not a big deal, especially if you're going to have magic shops that people can buy gear from. But don't leave people thinking this is going to be a viable character option.
I know that, if I was playing a crafting based character, and my GM told me that I wouldn't be able to go on adventures, and would fall behind the other characters in XP, something completely contrary to the rules, as illustrated in the earlier link, I'd be rather annoyed with the wasted character concept and feats taken.
Multiple casting as full round action could work. I'd do it like iterative attacks though. Casters would be based of Caster level. Where their caster level equals the spell level they can cast. So it's CL, CL -5, CL -10, and CL -15.
So 6th Wizard could cast one spell at 6th level Wizard allowing for either 1st, 2nd or 3rd level spell with a CL of 6. They could also cast another spell as full round action, assuming the casting time of spell is not a full round action, and the second spell is not a full round action to cast. This second spell would cast just as though the wizard was 1st level again so it could only be a 1st level spell and the CL for that spell is 1.
To balance this change I'd add something to melee characters. Since melee doesn't scale the same as spell levels melee needs a bit of boost. Fighters with no casting ability would get a bonus at every odd level for the same progression as Wizard/Cleric spell casting. Full BAB with casting ability would get as per the sorcerer in the same way. 3/4 BAB no casting would get as 3/4 BAB Caster. 3/4 with casting would get it as Ranger/Paladins casting.
Fighter, Cavalier, Barbarian, Samurai, Gunslinger gets a bonus at 3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17
Ranger, Paladin gets a bonus at 4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18 and Full Round Spell Casting
Rogue, Monk, Ninja gets a bonus at 4,7,10,13,16
Bard, Inquisitor, Summoner, Magus, Alchemist, gets a bonus at 5,8,11,14 and Full Round Spell Casting
Wizard, Sorcerer, Oracle, Druid, Witch get Full Round Spell Casting
Now the bonus that can be chosen:
+1 to hit (+3 max)
+1 to Damage (+5 max)
+1 to AC (+3 Max)
+2 to fortitude saves (+4 max)
+2 to Reflex saves (+4 max)
+2 to Willpower saves (+4 max)
+1 hp per level (1 time only)
+1 skill point per level (2 times only)
DR/- (one time only)
+1 Resistance (5 max choose only 1 resistance)
1 feat (one time only must meat prerequisites)
34 possible choices and the at best 8 could be chosen. Still I think casters come out ahead here but this helps a bit.
Just my thoughts on the topic.
To Lilithsthrall,
Yeah they know about it, it is how we have played for a long time after all. Some go spellcaster and have a lot of fun mixing up spell combos when they get to that level. It is the same for another dm I know, whom runs games at the moment. Also the same for a former dm here.
We seem to be pretty heavy amongst humans, the occasional elf wizard, some go cleric into less common deities. What is most common is still fighters of late, the party always has a fair bit of melee, sometimes an archer and a social character like a bard or someone who concentrates feats and skills that way. A ninja char does sometimes pop up, one of the longest players went for one, as did I when I played in the other dm's game.
Level? We usually start 1, in the game I'm running at present, we started as level 1 commoners, then could level up in a pc or npc class, or trade the level in once they got some xp. Quite an interesting start. This party is mainly melee, one bard, been one druid too. A marshal rogue cavalry character just came in as well. In past games there has been a 6, 8, or 12th level start or when new characters come in. Then spellcasters are a bit more common, but never the entirety of the party (not all the players particularly like spellcasters).
Hello Gendo,
I feel your pain. There is a bit too much rules lawyering coming out, stuff questing, accounting, sad styles of play and dming. One dm I know, he ran things so badly and so hard across multiple games, he just can't get players any more.
Your rules seem unique to me. I've seen worse spell rules to be sure. So a wizard level 1 with 10 con, can cast no spells per day? This is about numbers that can be cast, I've seen some woeful ones that punish spellcasters for casting spells (horrible penalties, can leave you helpless). I don't like spellcasters that much to play (although I do give them more spells per round over time), but wouldn't your system require wizards to have a great con to cast the number of spells as is typical? Where would...
A level one caster wouldn't be completely free of magic with a 10 Con, just restricted to 0th level spells. The secondary stat is a fluff way of showing that there is a COST to tap into the energy necessary for the desired effect. As for how a non-martial character gains the 'buff' stat, it's sort of akin to working out. The whole idea behind working out is to get in shape, get healthier. In doing so, you get stronger, greater endruance, maybe more flexible. It's the same premise, you not only learn how to cast the spell, you develop all muscles NECESSARY to unleash the desired spell effect.
In anycase, here are my full houserules for spellcasters and manifestors. What I posted before was the pre-developed and fleshed out set-up.
Arcane Casters: Intelligence or Charisma (Bard/Sorceror) determines the maximum level spell one may cast, while Constitution determines the maximum number of spells one may cast each day.
Divine Casters: Wisdom determines the max level spell one may cast, while Charisma determines the max number of spells one may cast each day.
Manifestors: The attribute associated with your primary discipline determines the maximum level power that can be manifest, while Wisdom determines the max number of powers that may be manifest each day.
Casters may cast a number of 0th level spells equal to 1 plus their class level each day. These do not count against the daily limit for other spells.
Casters and manifestors may exceed their maximum daily limit of spells by succeeding at an attribute check, dependent upon caster type: CON check for Arcane casters, CHA check for Divine casters, WIS check for Psionic manifestors. It's DC20 plus spell/power level plus two per previous spell/power cast/manifest beyond normal daily limit. Succeed and you cast the spell, but move one step down the condition track for the rest of the day. Fail and your spell fizzles, causing you move two steps down the condition track for the rest of the day and you are unable to cast ANY spells for the remainder of the day. I ported in the condition track and associated mechnics from Star Wars Saga. If one has moved down the condition track due to pushing their metaphysical limits with spell casting, you move back up the condition track at the rate of one step per day. It is possible to cast yourself into unconsciousness.
Casters are able to use their spell slots to cast spells however they wish. All 1st level spells, a combination fo multiple spell levels.
Meta-magic feats, things like maximize and twin spell, are set-up to function so as to allow so many uses each day instead of needing to be able to cast a spell so many levels higher. This is a Monte Cook importation as well.
I ported in Laden spells from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved...however, I set it up to function the way heightened spells function in Arcana Evolved.
My set-up for Laden Spells - use two spell slots to boost the spell being cast, say by having a Fireball deal 1d8 per caster level, instead of 1d6.
I have a feat called Metaphysical Endurance, granting one additional spell/power each day. This may be taken no more than 3 times.
"I know that, if I was playing a crafting based character, and my GM told me that I wouldn't be able to go on adventures, and would fall behind the other characters in XP, something completely contrary to the rules, as illustrated in the earlier link, I'd be rather annoyed with the wasted character concept and feats taken."
If you were playing a magic item crafting based character, you should not be playing a game of excitement and adventure, because those types of characters may be, the most boring characters of all. What do they do? Well they have put their feats and specialties to making magic stuff. So why are they adventuring apart from getting more loot to turn into more magic items? Why don't they just set up a shop, never leave a settlement and give discounts to the other active players to make their stuff for them.
I tell you, some of the doors opened by certain feats and directions, make the game duller. I've had other players complain about crafters and hagglers and magic item shoppers. The time wasted, so they can get or make a new item. Their utter selfishness and meta-gaming at times (I want to find this item! I want to make this item I have never encountered before!) drags me, not into anger, but into such a pit of loathing and sadness at what one crafting (or shopping focused character) can do to a game.
I haven't done this yet, but I have been really tempted to put a little change in place. If someone spends so much time shopping, or crafting, they don't level up next in a heroic class, no, they level up in expert (craftsman) or expert (shopper). If they have been putting a lot of time to this, if this is their major contribution in multiple games, they shouldn't be levelling in wizard, or rogue or cleric. No, they should be levelling in their chosen specialisation. And a wizard who focuses on crafting, not getting out their and testing his spellcasting, should be a craftsman, become an npc and be out of the party. I've seen some serious stuff-shoppers and crafters, that veer far away from being adventurers.
To the recent two, I like the ideas, don't like too much new complication though. New rules should be snappy and not add so much more text, or players will have to spend a lot of time trying to get it, learn how to use it.
On other crafts, on jobs, on professions, these type of things keep you in the game world. You can be commissioned to make items for npcs, have conversations, do a good job, become renowned. Making magic items for yourself, especially attribute boosting items is really questionable. Oh so you made an item that boosts the DCs of all your spells. And you made it easily, and didn't seek it out, turn it into a quest. Well, should it have been that easy? Wouldn't it make sense for all spellcasters to go into crafting? With wealth they can just buff buff buff, who wouldn't? There is something bland and quite sickening here. The opposite of heroism "I got better at no risk, yaaaay!"