I really love most of the options in Unchained. I'm interested in simplified magic, but I feel there's something "wrong" with it. When a character goes to lvl 7, he suddenly can cast *less* level 1 spells. Anyone else is concerned by this? It feels unorganic.
I understand that the idea of the system is giving less low level spells, and trade versatility for sheer spellcasting power. But the drop is HUGE. Instead of 5 lvl 1 spells, you cast ONE (plus INT bonuses). It's specially concerning for some classes that use a lot of lower level spells (like Magus with shocking grasp), but it affect everyone (suddenly, your daily cast of mage armor forbids you to use protection from evil or charm person).
What solutions would you use, if you find this not desirable? I'm thinking about using the table, plus INT bonus (instead of INT bonus/4).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I flavoured it as you can't suddenly memorize ridiculously more magic when you level up, so the spells your preparing in your memory as you level is staying about the same, your just able to now use that storage on more powerful spells. All the while your spell pool represents the fact that even though you haven't prepared any low level spells, you have used them often enough or that they are simple enough that you can use them from memory properly without preparation.
I was also not a fan of the simplified magic system and agree that the number of spells you lose is too large to justify any benefit.
Just want to say, I think that's part of the point.
Eh, my group liked the fact that it meant our 17th level caster didn't need to spend a week each time he wanted to prepare and change his spells.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
On the other hand, you truly are Schrödinger's wizard with those low level slots. Don't even need a minute to fill them, just cast on the fly from all your spells. Looks like it would be really nice for clerics and druids to spontaneously cast from their whole list.
I agree that it would certainly change the dynamic of lower level spellcasting. It would be less worth it to give out low level buffs and such, like the aforementioned mage armor. Though if you are really concerned about using up your pool with everyday spells just prepare them in higher level slots. This rule changes your lower-level slots from "workhorse" spells to things you barely use anymore. I guess once your wizard hits level 11 you're supposed to have "outgrown" haste.
Maybe look up spell points from 3.5 and see how that works for ya
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was also not a fan of the simplified magic system and agree that the number of spells you lose is too large to justify any benefit.Just want to say, I think that's part of the point.
Milo is correct. It not only makes the game faster, it also weakens casters like wizards at high levels by taking away their nearly unlimited reserves of low-level spells. I know the common wisdom is that we're supposed to only publish things to weaken martials and strengthen casters, though ;)
Or they can just buy scrolls and wands and staves that are dirt cheap and cast those spells that way. A 1st level spell costs what, 12g with Scribe Scroll? I was also concerned by how many spells a caster loses when going into pool territory, but then I started keeping track of the spells prepared and used at my table for my 8th-level party. The shaman and druid rarely went into their 1st level spells, if at all, and if they did it was to throw out a token CLW to stabilize someone. So while they do lose a lot, I'm not totally sure they lose as much as it seems.
This is just my opinion and my observations, though.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Or they can just buy scrolls and wands and staves that are dirt cheap and cast those spells that way. A 1st level spell costs what, 12g with Scribe Scroll? I was also concerned by how many spells a caster loses when going into pool territory, but then I started keeping track of the spells prepared and used at my table for my 8th-level party. The shaman and druid rarely went into their 1st level spells, if at all, and if they did it was to throw out a token CLW to stabilize someone. So while they do lose a lot, I'm not totally sure they lose as much as it seems.
This is just my opinion and my observations, though.
As a counterexample, I'm currently playing a level 10 witch in a Skull&Shackles game, and I routinely cast these 1st and 2nd level spells:
mage armor
ill omen
cure light wounds
unseen servant
glitterdust
false life
see invisibility
...so basically a lot of utility/defense spells. I'm not sure how I would cope being restricted to something like 3 1st/2nd level spells a day. Some of them could be replaced with wands but I hesitate at buying wands to do things I currently just do with spell slots.
True enough!
Though, that said, it is a nerf to spellcasting, if not explicitly then it's implied. It's not something I would throw into an existing game, certainly, but I think going in to the rule set there has to be a mentality of weakening higher level spellcasters' versatility.
If you wanted to replicate the system but maintain power, I would say that instead of tracking extra spells using the Bonus Spells Per Day table, you could take the number given and add your salient modifier to it. So a 10th-level witch with a 22 Int would get to cast 8 1st and 2nd level spells spontaneously from the same pool. If you give too many spontaneous spells then you're just handing yourself more and more power; there's a reason sorcerers have limited pools of spells.