Just tossing around some ideas here that I could use some feedback on.
I've been thinking about incremental antimagic. In stories we often run into areas where characters find magic difficult, but not impossible. I'd like to find a way to mimic that, but in such a way as it could be adjusted (that is, added or subtracted to or from) incrementally as the story requires.
For example, incremental antimagic rules could be used to make it gradually harder to cast or access magic as the PCs climb into the Forbidden Mountains. Or, as the Wizard Overlord's power progresses over the township, the PCs begin to feel this oppression...and become motivated to stop it.
The obvious method of this (to me) is to begin with upper level spells or magic effects, and then as each "degree" is added, work down from there. But, what about spell-like or supernatural abilities that have no explicit level?
Or, what about instead of removing these abilities entirely (only temporarily) make them "difficult to access." Say, similar to simulating the effects of some entity blocking the ether of magic it just becomes increasingly harder.
Potentially require a concentration check, then up the DC over time?
Just some thoughts, here. Again, these effects wouldn't be intended to be permanent, but something that could be layered on over time, or used briefly, during the course of a storyline as it was required.
How would you do it? Or, are there rules for this already and I'm overlooking them?
Also, I'm still working on the action chart. It is not forgotten. I'm just still thinking over options and have been a touch swamped of late as I swim through other projects.
Third edition's Manual of the Planes offered the Impeded Magic trait, which required a Spellcraft check of 15 + spell level in order to successfully cast a spell. I didn't care for it much since A) almost every serious caster kept Spellcraft maxed and B) the magic wasn't weaker, just unpredictable.
Imposing a caster level penalty is one option; more brutally, you could "invert" the effects of Empower Spell (halve all numeric effects) or Maximize Spell (automatic minimum of all numeric effects), but that still wouldn't impair spells like slow that have no variables.
That could be interesting. I'll think on it, thanks for the thoughts and for dropping by.
Right now I'm leaning towards a concentration check method, for 6 reasons:
- It piggybacks on an existing system
- It isn't an absolute
- DCs can be incremented or lessened, based on PC heroism
- Pass or fail is in the realm of the character; that is, the PC makes the roll--it's their PC's effort
- It can represent a "mental surge" of effort to get past a blockade
- More color to creatures: Creatures may have a "stronger" or "lesser" antimagic field, depending on their theme/story
Typically antimagic fields are "all or nothing." There's no inbetween, and I want more tools than that. :D
If you want to put into effect an incremental system, I advise against use of skill checks or concentration checks, as the are usually overcome easily with skill bloat, etc.
After trying, and failing, to make a wound/penalty system that would affect all classes equally (an idea I gave up on), I was inspired by a comment made by Evil Lincoln which I adapted to an incremental anti-magic zone, effects, etc.
Use a mechanic for arcane spell failure chance (just call it spell-failure, antimagic, or whatever) that applies to all spells and spell-like abilities, and supernatural effects in accordance with the antimagic rules. Any area you designate, for example, would have this attribute based on how frequently you want the caster to fail. My campaign setting, for example, has an entire area that starts off at 5% failure at the outer edges, which increases to 50% at the core.
Hope that helps.
Edited for clarity.
I'd be inclined to use the rules for penetrating spell resistance, because it's also about pushing magic into difficult areas.
Thank you all for the ideas. The percentage system seems the most fair out of the group, and the most straightforward.
I like the SR idea, also, as it has a bit more "personal flavor" to it!
I'll put in some more thought to it. Ideally, I'd like for it to "feel" as though it's the character putting forth a "mental effort" to get through the barrier. That may or may not be possible, but it deserves some thought. Possibly they might be able to expend a specific amount of HP to push the percentage in their favor. Or, they can push it, but would need to make a roll versus fatigue. And so on.
Just thinking on ideas, now.
Thank you all!
Let's deconstruct this a bit. What you've been given are a number of ideas that link into currently accepted systems. All of these have feats and the like that can be taken to enhance a particular caster's ability to break through whatever incremental system you build using it, though I suppose the one with the least in the way of tricks of that nature would be concentration. Additionally, what your suggestions have in common is that they are all-or-nothing. That is, they feel more like a blanketed SR than, say, something that makes casting simply harder to do.
To that end, I suggest that there be an "out" for the spellcaster. If concentration or SR checks appear to be a fair method for you, then try giving the caster an option to burn an additional spell slot of one lower than the original spell to crack off a spell if the concentration or SR check fails. This gives the character the power of choice. Do I let my 3rd level spell fizzle or do I also burn a 2nd level slot to get my fireball to go off? Another added benefit is the fact that 1st level spells are essentially immune to this incremental blight upon the magical prowess of spellcasters, as 0-level spells are freebies. This gives 1st level spells the distinction of being simple, reliable magic in places where more complex incantations can and do frequently go wrong in all but the best hands.
With a concentration system specifically, you get the benefit of making higher level spells scarier by giving a sliding scale DC of X + spell level, where X is 10, 15, 20, 25, etc. depending on how antimagic-y the area, creature, or what have you is.
Now, as it is, I really like this base concept and I think I can apply some really nice crunch to your fluff here. How, story-speaking, would you like to apply your incremental antimagic? Is it a spell? Is it a property of creatures, magic items? It is all of the above?
Regardless, let me know if you're willing to let me queue up your idea for transformation into a .pdf. I'll hook you up with a free copy.
Oh, hey. :3 First, thank you for the response. I'm flattered someone else out there likes it! We're working on our own version, but would love to see what you come up with. :)
Fluffwise, this could be tied to some antimagic "substance" that has varying strains of purity. That is, the more pure it is, the stronger its antimagic. However, I could see a creature possessing these qualities, too. For example, an outsider whose sense of "magic" didn't mesh with the world it's visiting could create a "flux" or "aura of suppression" around it.
I'd like to offer PCs a chance at heroism and "personal effort"...while maintaining a sense of risk and consequence. I also feel as though there should be a level at 100% where a DM just says "no, this is how it must be for the story" and there you go.
Having a variety of tools is important, as is personal risk and consequence.
Anyhow, if you'd like to run with this idea, please do. I'd ask for the ability to potentially use it in the (not-profit) game I help run, however. That may be a deal-breaker, as it'd require us giving our DMs and players access to it, though we'd certainly give you mechanical credit and I imagine, a graphical link to your store. Which...let me PM you about that and see what your thoughts are.
No problem, and it's always possible to simply have two forms of the mechanic. Two sliding scales, so to speak.
Scale 1: Increasing difficulty.
Scale 2: Increasing pain of failure.
No problem, and it's always possible to simply have two forms of the mechanic. Two sliding scales, so to speak.
Scale 1: Increasing difficulty.
Scale 2: Increasing pain of failure.
Tossing this out here to see what you think:
In my own experience, people play these games for a sense of escape and the chance to do something great. So when faced with a barrier, they'll fight. It's the nature of the adventurer--to want to overcome, and concentration mimics that well. I'm glad you suggested it!
One thing we see in stories as well is the "heroic surge." This may be represented in some other form of the game, such as hero points. If it is, those are not something I'm familiar with, so please consider my ignorance when reading the rest of this...it may already be covered. ...
In fantasy, what comes to mind are the myriad heroes who when faced with a barrier will rail against it. They may succeed, they may not. ...yet, when push comes to shove...somehow the hero gathers enough mental energy to "push" and make a concentrated attempt.
We see this in fantasy stories all the time. While the hero isn't always successful, there's a choice involved, because there's some sacrifice along the way, some sort of mental or physical fatigue that will happen because of it.
To reflect on this experience as a player--the setting made magic difficult, but if you really do need something, you can /try/. ...but you risk getting "hit." Put this way, then, a player feels as though yes, it's difficult...but that they have a chance at personal heroism. ...if they really (strategically) need to.
It's all back to those fantasy stories. :)
What do you think of it?
The DM can always rule, "no, it's impossible in this area," or, "this creature is really strong," but...I like incremental antimagic. I hope others like it, as well. It allows "total antimagic" to stand out all the more in your storyline, and the DM has more tools in his or her toolbox to make that illustration.
Regarding the static, percentage-based system for incremental spell-failure, there have been a few options I've considered trying out, but haven't had the opportunity:
1. Spell Penetration: In addition to its normal effects, this feat also reduces the chance of spell failure in an incremental antimagic zone by -5%.
2. Spell Penetration, Greater: In addition to its normal effects, this feat reduces the chance of spell failure in an incremental antimagic zone by an additional -5% (for a total of -10% chance of spell failure).
3. At 1st level, a spellcaster may reduce the chance of spell failure in an incremental antimagic zone by 5%. At 5th level and every four levels thereafter, the spell failure chance reduced by a spellcaster increases by an additional 5%, to a maximum of 25% at 17th level.
4. By spending 1 Hero point, the character may ignore the chance of spell failure in an incremental antimagic zone until the beginning of his next turn (or reduce by half - haven't really thought much about this option till it was mentioned by another poster).
Now, I rather like that. Spend a hero point to add +5 to your roll, effectively knocking the antimagic down one category.
@Ruggs
Sir, given our chat, you do know I need to strike a careful balance between cooking up something that meshes well with this online setting of yours and something that can be easily implanted into other games. As such, conceptual notions like making magic difficult everywhere simply can't find its way into the ruleset, though I suppose it can be easily fudged by placing a low-level antimagic EVERYWHERE in your setting. Systems are nicely modular like that.
Oh, I understand, and I'm sure these could be adapted to fit most anything.
I didn't mean low magic/difficult everywhere, though. More small pockets when the story calls for it.
Just in case anyone I run for reads this, I'm adding that here. No offense to you, Interjection, I just don't want anyone panicking and my email filling up. :)
Thanks for working on it. :)
I'll finish my latest megaproject and likely hit your stuff late Monday / early Tuesday. Lord knows I could do with a week of making 1,500 - 2,000 word products to give me a content cushion again.
Oi, Ruggs! I'm thinking there needs to be a shoutout to your website in the legal. Let me know how you would like that done.