| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing Pathfinder for quite some time. Just decided to recently get back into it. Up until recently I hadn't bothered purchasing anything digitally. Since I had decided to pick it back up I decided to go grab all the digital copies of everything I thought I would need.
I've been GMing for a long time. From the original Dungeons and Dragons Red Box through Pathfinder.
One thing I have always disliked was the Vancian Magic System. It just didn't feel thematic to me.
So to that end I created a very simple risk vs reward system. I'm sure I'm not the first person to conceive of this concept. But it works well for myself and my group, so I thought I would share it.
Risk v Reward Spell Casting for Pathfinder
*Edit: I forgot to add that any criticism or critiques are more than welcome!
This stuff is OP and easily gamed, man. Regeneration or a good source of healing (familiar with wand) means infinite spells. If it has to be nonlethal damage then you gotta push it to the limit.
It has to be like 1d10 per spell level so a 9th level spell can actually knock you the f@%* out. I also say drop the will save entirely. Not every caster has a good will save necessarily and it essentially forces all casters to be wisdom casters.
If you are going to go this route then the check made to cast spells needs to be in line with the casting stat. Maybe the check should just be caster level+casting stat modifier. If you fail you take the big nonlethal or you succeed and the spell just goes. This is still game-able, though.
What probably needs to happen is that this nonlethal damage needs to be from a special category. Perhaps this particular kind of effectively nonlethal damage (magic expense damage?) can only be healed by taking a 20 minute rest or something. Or perhaps even better: can only heal at a rate of your caster level per hour (that way casters are still limited in their amount of casting over the course of the day). If this later model is taken then the "nonlethal" damage probably only needs to be like 1d6 a caster level. Or something like the caster takes nonlethal damage per spell level equal to their hit die (so druids are not suddenly a better font of magic than wizards as they can eat more nonlethal damage from a higher HD)
Hey Excaliburproxy! Thanks for checking it out. I definitely appreciate the critique.
This stuff is OP and easily gamed, man. Regeneration or a good source of healing (familiar with wand) means infinite spells. If it has to be nonlethal damage then you gotta push it to the limit.
I had considered this a couple of times. This system really hasn't been play tested pass 6th level. I tend to be conservative with handing out magic gear as well. I don't usually allow the purchase of magic equipment either, so wands and potions are both things most of my players consider to be items reserved for emergency use only.
On the other hand I totally get what you are saying. Since I really haven't tested the system at higher levels though, I hadn't given much consideration to the system breaking at that point.
It has to be like 1d10 per spell level so a 9th level spell can actually knock you the f%%@ out. I also say drop the will save entirely. Not every caster has a good will save necessarily and it essentially forces all casters to be wisdom casters.
I can certainly see your point with the higher damage at higher levels. To be honest, I'm not really sure what the HP pool for a high level caster looks like in Pathfinder. I only ever played a high level caster once, and the guy running the campaign had some extremely terrible rules ideas. In fact we didn't even get to create our own characters, they were pre-created by him. The other part that was terrible about it was the fact that he didn't really let us act out the characters the way he wanted, and quite often forced our characters to act the way he wanted them to act. It really felt like the dude really just wanted to have a bunch of people sit around and listen to him tell a story.
Anyway, that's a long tale just to point out that I don't really play casters much, and so my experience with them is minimal from a player point of view. From the GM perspective, just because I have an NPC that CAN do something, doesn't mean that I should have that NPC do that. Especially if it's terribly OP or gamey.
But that's why I posted here in the first place. For this kind of feedback! So thank you!
I had previously gone through a large list of caster classes and it appeared to me that most have a good Will save. Off the top of my head I know that Rangers are an exception, however they don't gain the ability to cast spells right away so in my head this kind of balanced itself out.
As for the Wisdom portion, I'm not so certain that encouraging casters to diversify their stats is a bad thing. I understand that Wizards want to pump their Int as high as possible. On the other hand, the melee classes gain benefits from increasing stats like Constitution and Dexterity due to the system. My goal was to create an element in the casting system that would encourage that Wizard to at least decide that he couldn't completely ignore his Wisdom. I hope that makes sense?
If you are going to go this route then the check made to cast spells needs to be in line with the casting stat. Maybe the check should just be caster level+casting stat modifier. If you fail you take the big nonlethal or you succeed and the spell just goes. This is still game-able, though.
I do actually like this idea. I'm a bit torn though. As I stated above I like the idea of giving players a reason to try and diversify their stats. I feel like choosing an ability to increment should never be a no-brainer decision.
On the other hand your proposal would certainly be a less complicated way, and I'm all for simplicity.
What probably needs to happen is that this nonlethal damage needs to be from a special category. Perhaps this particular kind of effectively nonlethal damage (magic expense damage?) can only be healed by taking a 20 minute rest or something. Or perhaps even better: can only heal at a rate of your caster level per hour (that way casters are still limited in their amount of casting over the course of the day). If this later model is taken then the "nonlethal" damage probably only needs to be like 1d6 a caster level. Or something like the caster takes nonlethal damage per spell level equal to their hit die (so druids are not suddenly a better font of magic than wizards as they can eat more nonlethal damage from a higher HD)
Now this is golden! A different kind of damage all together, that couldn't be easily healed except with time. Call it something catchy like... "Spell Drain"? I guess the name is pretty irrelevant at this point, but if anyone has any suggestions I'm all ears.
I really think this is the way to go. So again thanks a ton Excaliburproxy! If you have any more suggestions or advice I am all ears!
Well, on the topic of the will saves:
Most people agree that Clerics and Druids are the most powerful and versatile classes in the game and the will save system actually makes them even more powerful relative to other casters as they have a reason to have a high wisdom bonus anyways. However, if you want to force some kind of multiple ability dependence on casters then you could enforce some kind of secondary stat for all casters.
Like: though saves for int casters are still based on int, they must make a caster level+wis mod check to get the spell off.
Meanwhile: Wis casters need to do caster level+cha and cha casters need to do caster level+int.
This still makes the clerics beasts though (they need charisma anyways) so you can "reverse the direction" if you want:
Int: needs a cha check
Cha: needs a wis check
Wis: needs an int check
Do whatever round robin makes you feel comfortable, I guess.
Well, on the topic of the will saves:
Most people agree that Clerics and Druids are the most powerful and versatile classes in the game and the will save system actually makes them even more powerful relative to other casters as they have a reason to have a high wisdom bonus anyways. However, if you want to force some kind of multiple ability dependence on casters then you could enforce some kind of secondary stat for all casters.
Like: though saves for int casters are still based on int, they must make a caster level+wis mod check to get the spell off.
Meanwhile: Wis casters need to do caster level+cha and cha casters need to do caster level+int.
This still makes the clerics beasts though (they need charisma anyways) so you can "reverse the direction" if you want:
Int: needs a cha check
Cha: needs a wis check
Wis: needs an int checkDo whatever round robin makes you feel comfortable, I guess.
I see your point. That's a tricky one. While the round robin idea of saves would fix that issue, it's starting to approach the realm of more complexity. In that case dropping the save actually seems like a better option.
So with your feedback, I think the best case is to instead go with your idea in regards to the caster check. Caster level + Ability Mod. Succeeding at the check allows the spell to go off. Failure results in the spell doing nothing. I also think a separate form of 'damage' which can't be healed except through time is also the way to go.
Do you think a successful cast should prevent the caster from suffering any kind of damage? Obviously failure should result in some. I almost want to say that with it moving to an alternate damage, it should probably result in something even if it is small. I really just need to nail down the amount of this alternate damage a caster should take for a successful cast and a failed cast.
I think one point per spell level might be reasonable om a success?
Then the big hit (1 hit die of the casting class in damage per spell level still makes sense).
Maybe if the caster beats the check by 5 or more then half the damage and 10 means no damage? That way the low level spells are still attractive longer.
I think one point per spell level might be reasonable om a success?
Then the big hit (1 hit die of the casting class in damage per spell level still makes sense).
Maybe if the caster beats the check by 5 or more then half the damage and 10 means no damage? That way the low level spells are still attractive longer.
I like it. I can't thank you enough for your help on this Excalibur.
This conversation with you has really gotten me brainstorming. I think, instead of just making the damage from spells a type of non-lethal damage with a separate name, it may be better to have a separate "hit point pool". For instance, I am considering having a mirror stat of the current character's hit points, called essence.
So essentially, casting spells actually uses (or in the case of failure tears at) the character's essence. Essence represents the other half of the physical. A character's life force or the metaphysical glue holding them together. A character's essence can never exceed their current hit point total. If a character takes physical damage, they reduce both hit points and essence. If the character takes straight essence damage (from casting for instance) the reverse is not true. Essence damage heals at the rate of 1 essence per character level/HD per hour.
Like hit points, falling to negative Con score in essence will result in death, although you would leave behind a pretty corpse... assuming you were never physically wounded.
An alternative to dying might be you instead suffer a point of ability damage to Int, Wis and Cha. Pretty harsh, but I suppose it beats death. Extend yourself too far enough times and you could literally turn yourself into a drooling vegetable.
I think a separate "hit point pool", like essence, could allow for some pretty cool feats or the like. For instance a feat that would let someone leech essence from another character or creature (obviously an evil act), or temporarily boost their essence, similar to how a barbarian boosts hit points with Rage. A character would fall unconscious at 0 essence just like with hit points.
There is however the possibility in these cases of the caster making the ultimate sacrifice in order to save their party. Down to a few points of essence, but they decide to cast that big spell anyway in order to save their comrades. Now that is the thematic casting I've been wanting!
I have to concur with the assessment that the damage from failed casts should be "immune" to magical healing effects.
But be very careful with amount of damage dealt Make the die too high and regardless of caster level the spells will remain unattractive.
Also I think the DCs for success seem a tad low... a 19 for a L9 spell earliest a wizard can cast L9 is L17 By that time Spellcraft would be at minimum 17 ranks + 3 as a class skill for a total of +20
Add in skill focus and this jumps to a +26. (No wizard should ever fail to cast with this system.)
I have to concur with the assessment that the damage from failed casts should be "immune" to magical healing effects.
But be very careful with amount of damage dealt Make the die too high and regardless of caster level the spells will remain unattractive.
Also I think the DCs for success seem a tad low... a 19 for a L9 spell earliest a wizard can cast L9 is L17 By that time Spellcraft would be at minimum 17 ranks + 3 as a class skill for a total of +20
Add in skill focus and this jumps to a +26. (No wizard should ever fail to cast with this system.)
Yeah. The caster level checks pretty much need to be like: 10+2*spell level.
Though I am proposing a caster level check so skill focus is not the issue.
I think one point per spell level might be reasonable om a success?
Then the big hit (1 hit die of the casting class in damage per spell level still makes sense).
Maybe if the caster beats the check by 5 or more then half the damage and 10 means no damage? That way the low level spells are still attractive longer.
I like it. I can't thank you enough for your help on this Excalibur.
This conversation with you has really gotten me brainstorming. I think, instead of just making the damage from spells a type of non-lethal damage with a separate name, it may be better to have a separate "hit point pool". For instance, I am considering having a mirror stat of the current character's hit points, called essence.
So essentially, casting spells actually uses (or in the case of failure tears at) the character's essence. Essence represents the other half of the physical. A character's life force or the metaphysical glue holding them together. A character's essence can never exceed their current hit point total. If a character takes physical damage, they reduce both hit points and essence. If the character takes straight essence damage (from casting for instance) the reverse is not true. Essence damage heals at the rate of 1 essence per character level/HD per hour.
Like hit points, falling to negative Con score in essence will result in death, although you would leave behind a pretty corpse... assuming you were never physically wounded.
An alternative to dying might be you instead suffer a point of ability damage to Int, Wis and Cha. Pretty harsh, but I suppose it beats death. Extend yourself too far enough times and you could literally turn yourself into a drooling vegetable.
I think a separate "hit point pool", like essence, could allow for some pretty cool feats or the like. For instance a feat that would let someone leech essence from another character or creature (obviously an evil act), or temporarily boost their essence, similar to how a barbarian boosts...
Well, that almost becomes like an MP system at that point, but maybe that is what you want. Just got to be careful with the power level here. Casters are pretty bad dudes already.
I have to concur with the assessment that the damage from failed casts should be "immune" to magical healing effects.
But be very careful with amount of damage dealt Make the die too high and regardless of caster level the spells will remain unattractive.
Also I think the DCs for success seem a tad low... a 19 for a L9 spell earliest a wizard can cast L9 is L17 By that time Spellcraft would be at minimum 17 ranks + 3 as a class skill for a total of +20
Add in skill focus and this jumps to a +26. (No wizard should ever fail to cast with this system.)Yeah. The caster level checks pretty much need to be like: 10+2*spell level.
Though I am proposing a caster level check so skill focus is not the issue.
I kinda like the idea of the spellcraft skill check. (at least then the skill makes more sense).
The skill focus doesnt bother me as much as the minimum +20 (that is before INT bonus) vs a DC19 at the first available 9th level spell range.
Spellcraft has the side effect of making wizards--relatively--gods because that skill is based off intellegence and everything they do is based off intelligence anyways. It is the identical problem to having a will save run the mechanic as well.
Someone might think that the will save + int skill check mitigates this but that only makes charisma casters god-awful since they would have neither stat be useful.
Using skill checks rather than a segregated mechanic also opens it up to an insane amount of power gaming shenanigans. As you already have noted: it makes skill focus(spellcraft) be essentially a fear tax that everyone who casts a spell must get. On top of that, Pathfinder has a lot of skill buffs like inspire competence and I think there are even a few mechanics that let people reroll skill checks.
Q.E.D. my game design skillz
You guys are both right about the difficulty level. It will have to be higher. As Damian pointed out, a Wizard gets their first 9th level spell at level 17. At this point they would have to have a minimum Int score of 19 in order to cast the spell.
That means if using the caster level check, they would have to roll at least a 3 on a d20. Not really something that inspires fear. It would be even uglier if you were using the spellcraft skill check rule instead. You can assume that the minimum points in spellcraft would be 17, +3 for the skill being a trained class skill, +4 for the Int bonus. So technically we are looking at a minimum of 24, before feats.
To me, it would make sense, if when a caster achieved a new spell level they had a 50% chance of failure when casting a spell of that level, maybe a little lower. If the DC is 10+(spell level x2) then a 0 level spell for a 1st level wizard would be anything on a 9 or higher. A 1st level spell would be anything on an 11 or higher. If we assume that a 1st level Wizard will have an Intelligence score of at least 13, that lowers those target numbers by 1, which is honestly just about right on the money.
Conversely at level 17 casting a 9th level spell would be anything on an 11 or higher as well. If they are casting a 9th level spell though they would have a minimum Int score of 19. Bringing that target number down to a 7. Which is about a 35% chance of failure, and that is only going to go down from there.
Given the above, I almost want to say the DC still needs to be a little higher, although, that would certainly make things harder on the lower level casters.
As for this being a spell point system, I do realize that adding essence makes this essentially a spell point system, however unlike other spell point systems (at least ones I have seen in any case) there are consequences for running out. The only ones I have seen simply prevent you from casting once you are out of spell points.
Sorry for the double post here.
Actually, I think a straight caster level check (without the ability modifier) is the way to go. It makes things more reliable. Besides, just because you are smarter, wiser or smooth talking/better looking doesn't mean you should necessarily be able to cast a spell "better" only that you may be able to cast a better spell. Being better at casting spells should come with experience, and the accumulation of that experience is best represented by the caster level alone I feel.
Well, I think the 0-level spells should still probably be free and without a check.
And I would still have a modifier (as being smarter/wise/having a stronger personality making you better at casting spells is EXACTLY what the original system implies but taking the modifier off is not so bad either. You might have to playtest things for a little while to get the special essence damage right with the % chances of failure you have (or I could run some simulations for you if I find the time), but it should work fine.
Thanks Excalibur!
I'm going to be starting up with a new group this weekend. I intend to take them through the RotRL AP. That will most likely give me the chance to play test the system with these revisions! If you do manage to find the time to run some simulations, I would be interested in hearing the outcome.
Thanks again!
Good luck with it...
(I still like the skill check idea but that is just a personal preference thing...)
Good luck with it...
(I still like the skill check idea but that is just a personal preference thing...)
Hey Damian. I honestly really really like the idea as well. In fact having to trade that part out for balance purposes is really the part that hits the hardest. On the other hand, with a new group of players coming in, I'd like to make sure that balance is the primary factor. If I had a group of seasoned roleplayers with a history of not taking advantage of exploitable rules, as I had with the little playtesting I did with the original write up, I'd be using spellcraft since I could count on my player's not to abuse the system.
On the other hand, I intend to update the PDF (actually put some more time and effort into it visually as well) and I'm going to include a lot of things as "variant" rules. Like switching out a spellcraft check for the caster level check, adding saves to reduce damage, etc.
I wasn't only coming to these forums for help with balance and to brainstorm with other people for my own benefit. I fully intend to wrap this up in a cool little package that hopefully anyone could find something in that's worth it to them to use.
Good luck with it...
(I still like the skill check idea but that is just a personal preference thing...)Hey Damian. I honestly really really like the idea as well. In fact having to trade that part out for balance purposes is really the part that hits the hardest. On the other hand, with a new group of players coming in, I'd like to make sure that balance is the primary factor. If I had a group of seasoned roleplayers with a history of not taking advantage of exploitable rules, as I had with the little playtesting I did with the original write up, I'd be using spellcraft since I could count on my player's not to abuse the system.
On the other hand, I intend to update the PDF (actually put some more time and effort into it visually as well) and I'm going to include a lot of things as "variant" rules. Like switching out a spellcraft check for the caster level check, adding saves to reduce damage, etc.
I wasn't only coming to these forums for help with balance and to brainstorm with other people for my own benefit. I fully intend to wrap this up in a cool little package that hopefully anyone could find something in that's worth it to them to use.
Well if you double or even triple the DCs... Then the feats and such are mitigated to a manageable level.
I get the Balance Issue (Not really a issue for me as I do not believe in character balance but that is another debate entirely...) And can see why caster level would be chosen instead.
Well, there are ways to balance the skill checks too (even though it is still probably not as desirable--imo--if only because it forces all spellcasters to take the spellcraft skill to be viable). Since skill focus(spellcraft) would be a feat tax anyways, you could just add a house rule feat like this:
Spellcaster Savant:
Add a +4 feat bonus (or +3 if you want) to spellcraft checks to cast spells. This bonus increases to +7 at level 11. In addition, spellcasters who take this feat may substitute their wisdom or their charisma for intelligence on spellcraft checks used to cast spells.
That would take away my worry about int builds.
And if you were going to do a save too (so that iron will would be a feat tax and rangers would suck at spell-doing) then you could make a very similar feat for the special will saves that would be involved.
Well... Huh.
I had been contemplating revamping casting for a modern-ish game and had thought about making it skill based. It would use Pathfinder numbers as a base, it would require a spellcasting feat to start. Ranks in spellcraft would be your caster level. Each rank in Knowledge (Arcane/Religion/Nature) would give you two spells you could cast freely as a standard action. You could cast any spell from a book but the casting time changes to one minute. Maximum spell level you can cast is your ranks in spellcraft divided by 2. The DC to cast is 10 + (3*level of spell) + (2 per +1 of metamagic adjustment). Failing a check by 5 or more makes you fatigued => exhausted => unconscious. There are no casting classes. A natural 1 causes 1d4 temporary ability damage to 1d6 stat. Exceeding the DC of the check by 5 or more adds +1 to the DC if there is an opposed save.
The problem here is that it makes everything intelligence based (because of skill points AND the skills involved). However anyone could become a caster with some investment, and could have as much or as little casting as they want. It's just a thought at this point.