This is an idea I had to make magic more interesting, but also to balance magic against martials in a different way, making it riskier and more challenging to accomplish and with more ability score involvement. Basically make it so casters need to balance a lot a factors, and the more powerful the more risky and costly. Martials get to be rather simple and reliable in comparison. That said, casters in this homebrew don't have the same per day limits, which means failure doesn't cost some limited resource from the whole day, but just a cost to action economy (and the character's ego :).
# Intelligence modifier sets maximum spell level the caster can cast.
# Charisma modifier modifies caster level of spell for things like duration, area, range, number of targets, etc (basically, the things at the top of the spell description that all spells have when applicable), but not the core effects like number of dmg dice. Also modifies the spell DC.
# Constitution caps spell slots. Spells up to a spell level equal to the con modifier can be cast be cast up to once per round.
The caster must wait a number of rounds equal to the level of a spell minus the con modifier since the last spell cast in order to cast again.
Put another way, casting a spell exhausts spell energy to 0+con modifier, and the caster must recharge one spell level of energy per round amd can only cast a spell if they have enough.
Spell slots however, bypass this recharge sequence, allowing more spells of higher level to be cast within a limited time frame. Constitution is the ability score that determines bonus spell slots.
A negative con modifier multiplies the time to recharge each spell level of energy, multiplying the time before casting another spell without using a slot. A -1 is x2 the time, a -2 is x3, a -3 is x4, and a -4 is x5. A -5 means the character does not recharge without sleeping and must rely on slots.
Spell slots are recharged with 15 minutes of meditation per spell level. A special dream trance can be entered to refresh all slots at once and provide the benefits of sleep, but must be intentional (getting knocked unconscious or passing out doesn't count), but takes four times as long. Slots do not recharge on their own.
# Casting a spell requires a skill check with a DC = 5 + (5*spell level). Metamagic modifies this cast DC but still counts as the normal spell level otherwise (except heithen which is entirely about raising Spell DC and other advantages keyed to spell level).
There is a skill for each individual spell, all count as subskills of spellcraft, so any bonuses to spellcraft apply.
Casting classes, upon receiving a level of spellcasting, gain skillpoints that can only be spent on spell skills, general spellcraft, or k arcana. Full casters get 6 points, medium casters get 4, and low casters get 2.
Regular skillpoints may be spent on these skills even by those with no class levels in casting classes, and be able to cast spells, though they lack slots.
[Alternative: I love this thematically, as a mage can have different levels of proficiency for different spells and get better at particular spells over time, or the hilarity of being terrible at particular spells. But it hogs skillpoints way too much to be used without some alteration to gaining skillpoints. However, if you want to avoid the skillpoint complications, you can instead just have a subskill for each school of magic, or just spellcraft, but if you do, then only spells chosen by the spell mastery feat can be cast spontaneously (of those explicitly allowed, such as clerics with cure/inflict spells.)]
If the casting check fails, the spell fizzles. If it fails by 5 or more, something goes wrong, a magical mishap of some sort.
If the check succeeds, the spell is cast at CL 1.
However, for every 5 points by which the DC is exceeded, the CL for the core effect increases. For example, a fireball spell is DC 5+(5*3)=20, so if the caster gets a 25 on the check to cast the fireball, it gets deals 2d6 dmg, or if the check result was 30, it'd be 3d6 dmg.
# Prepared vs Spontaneous. All casters can cast spontaneously what spells they have ranks in (or know via spell mastery feat).
However, a caster can prepare a spell ahead of time, allowing them to take 10 on the casting check, but also must make nearly all the choices ahead of time (such as protection from energy, which energy is chosen at casting time, or how many targets for a multiple target spell, etc). It takes 10 times the listed casting time, minimum 5 minutes. It takes an hour per spell level to take 20 on the casting check.
A prepared spell can be cast as a standard action regardless of the normal casting time, though a handful of spells can be cast faster, such feather fall or those modified by the quicken spell metamagic.
A prepared is unstable and has a 5% * spell level squared, minimum 5%, per day (24 hours), and each hour spent unconscious, of fading beyond usability and fizzling if attempted to be cast.
Spells can only be prepared in slots.
# learning spells,
Your class spell list establishes which spells are class skills and get the +3 class skill bonus. Off list spells are cross-class and don't get the bonus. Non-casting classes that spend skillpoints to learn casting treat all spells as off-list spells. Off-list spells must be researched and studied to learn initially, costing 50gp * spell level squared in resources and time spent (determine time cost like the crafting time for crafting items).
# Placing spells
Selecting targets within close range needs no check unless some penalty to perception applies preventing pinpointing the target.
To place a spell that doesn't hit or select a target creature/object, you must hit the square with a ranged touch attack unless it emanates from the caster and remains within close range (like burning hands).
Placing a spell has a range increment of 15' plus 5'* int mod. Failing to hit the target square drifts 1d4 * 5' per range increment to targeted square. Roll a d12 to determine direction of drift, favoring the spaces towards/away from the caster (not to the sides). Or whatever grenade drift scheme you are familiar with.
This applies to conjuration and short range teleports.
The ranged touch for some spells, like fireball, will be rolled like any other, as it involves some projectile reaching target area, and can benefit from things like true strike. Others, like conjuring in a summoned creature, use int instead of dex, and can't benefit from effects/bonuses intended to improve aim with projectiles.
# Balance
Yes, this results in smaller dmg numbers, but since they are no longer limited to slots per day, they can keep casting every round, thus the dmg needs to be scaled back enough to be suitable for blaster casters, yet not outshine martial characters. The dmg output should be not far behind a martial, the greater investment paying for the advantages of energy type and versatility, but the martial should still outshine a caster in raw dmg output.
Magic is ultimately versatile but takes a broader base of support to work, depending on multiple ability scores and requiring a skill check to cast in addition to any checks required to hit.
Ok people, tear it up. Break it. Have fun with it. Tell me what you think.
|
First thing that springs out is you make casters now need 3 stats at high level to cast which is an issue moving them from a single ability class to multi ability dependant without touching the physical stats where they'd also want dex at a minimum.
Second I think you require a spell skill level per skill which is going to really hurt a caster as even if your giving 6 points per level for that will pretty much invalidate wizards as a class since the whole point of them over sorcerers is versatility.
Ranged spells requiring drift + an attack roll is also going to hurt casters a lot as they don't have a good attack meaning they have a higher chance to not hit at all.
I don't see any free casting option at all if your trying to balance against martials it should go both ways a fighter can attack with a sword all day long but a caster only has so many spells. If your going to be slowing down casting speed and increasing the odds of failure (spell check, range drift, attack roll all for one spell) then they should have options they can use all day long.
Don't have time to look into it too indepth over lunch.
First, thanks for giving feedback. Never can get enough of that.
Second, I forgot the paragraph about wizards and sorcerers. Though with pathfinder, there is plenty to differentiate the two with schools and bloodlines.
Still, one can prepare a spell from a book without having the specific skill. One must still decipher it as if they were going to copy it into their own spellbook, unless it is their own work. This is basically an untrained skill check when done.
Wizards get to add their level to these checks for prepping spells from their spellbook (not stacking with their skill bonus in a spell). That's their advantage to versatility and preparation.
Sorcerers get a +1 to their caster level for effects which increases by 1 per 5 sorcerer levels.
Third, I personally think people put too much expectation on ability scores, considering a 10 or 11 as a dump stat value. I think people have gotten so wrapped up in getting high numbers, they no longer see value in the numbers beyond how difficult it is to get them high. Getting an 18 in a stat is being an Einstein in that stat.
People also forget what the rules mean for normal folks. With these rules I've written, anyone of average intellect or above can cast cantrips, but only the above average people can cast a 1st level spell. This matches much closer with the expectations laid out for everyone else in the world.
About 1 in 3 normal people can cast 1st level spells, the limit of what most normal folks will see often. 1 in 6 can cast 2nd level spells, the limit of what normal people will see on rare occasions, like carnivals, festivals, or other special occasions. 1 in 20 are smart enough to cast 3rd level spells. That leaves 3rd level spells in the purview of the military, merchants, and nobles. This is actually more magic than generally presumed by 3.5 rules.
Certainly, higher stats are better, but even 14s for all three stats makes one a truly special character. Saying that someone needs higher than that to be viable is a screwed up expectation, that is sadly far too common as it is, and I have no desire to perpetuate such expectations further.
Ranged spells
Well, 1, that is only beyond short range. Upto short range, there is no roll, and 2, it is only one roll to hit (because to hit a specific character is not an area), and the drift is only on a miss.
I'm thinking mainly the long distance stuff. It seems crazy to me that you can sit 150 yards off and hit the exact mark you want. Soldiers have to train extensively to achieve that with highly accurate weapons which are particularly good at being aimed at where you want (consider how much easier it is for untrained folks to hit with a rifle than a pistol).
But then magic that you need to somehow use the length of your finger, comparable to a pistol, and yet be more accurate than rifle, and that's only when you are firing a bead or similar. Just designating an area needs you to estimate the correct range and angle, and characters don't get to see the magical grid that gives the player perfect ranging info.
Now keep in mind also, I'm considering old school, like when encounters started at 6d6*10 feet away, not the 20 or 30 feet that fits onto these silly encounter maps they are using these days. Most of the time, modern players of popular style won't ever need it, and when they do, it'll be a real tense moment, which is a good thing.
Mostly, old school players will use it, and probably have an actual appreciation for it that modern players won't because modern players aren't playing the same game, even if they are using the same rules.
Freecasting
It's there. You don't need slots to cast. Lower level spells can be cast freely, higher level ones have a bit of recharge, only a few rounds. The slots are only used to bypass that recharge (providing a way around the limit which is still basically freecasting compared to per day limits), or for prepared spells (limiting the advantage of take 10 and especially take 20, or in some cases, longer cast times that normally prevent casting a spell in combat).
|
|
Average person stats are fine until you start limiting a core concept e.g. spells to a stat. A caster HAS to have 19 to cast all spell levels even if they never get to lvl 17 to actually do so. Its like saying you need a 13 to wield a longsword, a 15 str ot wield a bastard sword, a 17 str to wield a battle axe and a 19 str to wield a longsword. Then saying stats don't matter and a fighter's fine with 14 or 15 strength as the average person has 10 even if they want to wield a 2 handed claymore. Here it looks like you've got 3 stats the caster will want as high as possible just to cast 9th level spells + the skills to cast them.
I think you really miss the mark with your expectations.
You say I'm limiting core concepts. But how deeply have you really thought about them? How deep have you logically delved into what you are dealing with?
You say I'm limiting core concepts. I say I'm promoting them.
So let me explain a bit.
A real world human statted up will never be over lvl 5. Most olympic athletes are merely lvl 4. Most people have never met a lvl 3.
A level 17 character is akin to Sauron from Lord of the Rings, a being of such great power as to shape the world and history over thousands of years, to build and destroy entire kingdoms with wars that make fighting nazi germany look like a 3rd grade schoolyard tussle.
A level 17 is so far beyond human, they are more demi-god than human.
So why the hell should a mere human be naturally gifted with enough intelligence to cast spells that such a demi-god status being has barely learned to cast?
Now I'll grant, these are fantasy stories where super powered are in actual existence, but that doesn't mean such characters should be cheapened by blurring the line so much that you can't clearly see that a demi-god is a demi-god.
It's one reason why I absolutely hate the infectious idea that encounters should be approximately the same level as the players. Maybe, if the players had to deal with uppity level 1s and 2s on a regular basis, naybe they'd get a better feeling of just how f-ing powerful they are.
My goodness, a king commanding a level 12 to go investigate a problem? Hell no. Kings politely request the super-powered force of ultimate destruction to go deal with the other, less friendly, super-powered force of ultimate destruction. Unless that king is themselves a super-powered force of ultimate destruction, hence them having taken the crown in the first place.
I've seen players get scores of 30 before, appropriate to high level characters, and thus appropriate for 9th level spells to require a mere 28.
I'll also grant that paizo looked at 3.5's expectations and said "f- that!" and didn't chamge itm but didn't bother stucking to it either.
This is an idea I had to make magic more interesting, but also to balance magic against martials in a different way, making it riskier and more challenging to accomplish and with more ability score involvement. Basically make it so casters need to balance a lot a factors, and the more powerful the more risky and costly.
I can appreciate what you are trying to do, but this is too complicated and time consuming. PF/DnD combat does not need more rolls.
|
|
Ah I see the problem you have a different idea of what levels mean. You work on the concept that lvl 5 is peak mortal and 17 is demigod whereas I work on the idea average mortal is level 1-10. The peak of mortal power is is usually level 20. Mythic is Mortal + which is still mortal but they have an extra something pushing them beyond what is normally possible e.g. child of a god, dipped in dragons blood at birth, etc. Then you step beyond mortal to quasi dieities, demigods and gods. Players might be able to achieve quasi diety status with the right mythic choices and a story telling boost from the GM hovering on that dividing line between mortal and power. Demi-gods are a power that still has limits so mortals can defeat them in combat working together or in unique circumstances but will generally be more powerful than even a mythic lvl 20/10 character can beat in 1 vs 1 combat. Gods are powers with no limits and no mortal or even demigod has a chance against them in direct conflict.
Different tastes and different expectations I'll need to keep your views in mind when I have a closer look at it. I was judging it from the general expectation a mortal (PC) should be viewed as potentially being able to achieve lvl 20 even if its unlikely. All those abilites, spells, etc are things a mortal can do. Demigods usually have unique abilities or powers that mortals can't duplicate and gods have the cheat codes to life. To give an example a mortal can create a demi-plane and change it with spells, A demi-god works on the same general rules but doesn't have the size restrictions and can just reshape that demiplane by will without needing spells. A god can create an entire world or reshape it in the mateiral plane not just their own realm and are only checked by other gods and ancient pacts to avoid destroying reality. For me Sauron would be a demigod in rank for pathfinder.
First, there is a difference between mortal and human. Werewolves are mortal, but far more powerful than humans, yet also nowhere near demigod status.
Second, as I said above, Paizo didn't follow through on the 3.5 expectations, but didn't change them either. Given conversations I've had, I believe that Paizo neither understands nor cares.
Third, the problem is not subjective, but rather that subjective viewpoints of many players are biased to contradict the objective mechanics. I blame poor writing, which is a big issue with 3.5.
The 3.5 rules, and thus the foundation that pathfinder is built upon, is designed as a casual simulation. They don't need to explicitly say real world humans cap at level 5, because the inherent capabilities of the mechanics allow superhuman results at level 6.
If you recall, DC 40 is called out as reaching impossible difficulty.
A level 5 can specialize in something and nearly hit DC 40.
A level 10 can easily beat DC 40 in multiple areas.
Now, do please bear in mind, the "casual" part of casual simulation. It is simplified, but to compare to pictures, we can see an 8-bit sprite and recognize it as a depiction of a human amd we don't say it's not showing a human because of all the lost detail. Likewise, a casual simulation is low resolution, and it is easy to find corner cases that don't match up, much like how the eyes on an 8 bit character tend to be disproportionately large. That is no reason to dismiss the entire concept of the simulation.
The Alexandrian article (link below), goes into better detail and explanations, but simply speaking, if you actually look at the numbers and mechanics, they give a good result that says level 5 is max of real world humans, which is then backed up nicely by the demographics in the DMG, accounting for the fact that the basic assumptions of the system are that characters can and do exist that greatly exceed normal human capacity.
[https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2]
I personally suspect people took a superficial look and went "Oh, levels go from 1-20, therefore, the great literary heroes like Tarzan, Conan, and Aragorn must be level 20," despite this being contrary to the mechanics. Then, as that idea pervades the community, the idea gets spread to newbies before they can even attempt to form their own opinions, and viola, you get an entirely incorrect expectation that reinforces itself and infects new players.
Then paizo comes along, and whether they realize it or not, they keep the mechanics that say "real world humans peak at level 5" but then create new stuff and add fluff that totally contradicts the mechanics in this regard, leading to pathfinder material that self-contradictory and perpetuates the incorrect expectations.
In retrospect, I got off topic a bit too much I think. It's something I feel strongly about and is frustrates me immensely, and so I'm prone to expound a bit too much on the it. Sorry about that.
|
|
As I said different views of what Golarion is like. You work on a 90% is a direct match to the real world whereas I view it as a high fantasy world where you have many heroes like Conan the Barbarian or Red Sonja. Where you have multiple high level as in 17+ spellcasters. Nothing wrong with either but it results in very different worlds. For example spellcasting would be very different in yours and I don't mean the system in this thread I mean availability. If the majority are 5th level or lower it changes what level is available. The settlement tables say you have 3rd level (5th level character) casting available in a village of 60-100 people which is fine even if it does mean every village has a "max" level person in it. From there it breaks down as any metropolis of 20k+ has someone able to sell 8th level spells or 15ish characters. Whereas in your world that's a shaping of worlds level and you'd only have 1 every couple of generations if that. Which then means monsters and other threats would be far more prevalent as no one's around to stop them. This is without modififiers like magical leadership. If you include them your 200 person village can have a max spell casting level available of 7 or 13th level characters and even a thorpe of less than 20 people can have 3rd level spellcasting availalble.
That kind of difference is not about mechanics though. You just described two worlds. 3.5 in the way I described can handle representing both of them, without breaking anything I said about it. The more fantastical world has higher level, superhuman (compared to the real world, they wouldn't consider themselves super) characters, or for the more contemporary world, you lower the available level. On both worlds, a level 5 is the same, but in one they are common, in the other, rare.
No need to have both worlds represented using a whole 1 through 20 set of levels.
This is actually more magic than generally presumed by 3.5 rules.
No it isn’t, because the presumption of 3.5 rules is that you use their existing and less restrictive magic system.
First, the comment is referencing the in-world assumptions, in which the default is that only about 1 in 100 people are casters of any sort.
Second, since my system removes the per day limits and even allows non-casting classes to dabble in magic, in what way is my system more restrictive?
My version allows non-casters to dabble in magic. My version suggests that an average or above individual can cast cantrips and 1 in 3 people can actually cast 1st level spells.
The default assumption of unaltered 3.x rules assumes only 1 in 100 people become casters.
This is why I said mu version has higher magic than the default.
First, the comment is referencing the in-world assumptions, in which the default is that only about 1 in 100 people are casters of any sort.
Got a page number for the claim of that specific rarity of casters in the Forgotten Realms per 3.5?
I'll try to find itm but it's been some years since I was actively investigating the game's assumed demographics.
Pretty sure some of it came from interviews and other context of designer intent though. I.E. the Ironman principal isn't explicitly mentioned in the rules themselves, but they were still designed around the concept.
Also, fearun is not the default setting for 3.x.
The city building web enhancement has about 10% or so spellcaster population at a glance, but that is cities, and cities always have a much higher proportion of the educated and specialized individuals, so the ratio for a nation's whole population will be much lower and the dmg 3.0 says only 10% or less of the nation's population will be in large towns or larger.
I don't have electronic 3.5 so I'll have to check that one later, but it will have more on demographics.
Yeah, not seeing it listed anywhere here in my copy.
Alright, on pages 137 to 139, you see a metropolis is 25,000 or more people.
If we roll max level for highest level figures for all casters, we get around 248 generated casters, and that assumes all casting classes have the 1d6+12 modifier, and in that includes paladins and rangers, the low casters, of whom only the level 4+ can cast.
So 248 of 25,000 is .9...%.
Then the remaining population is said to have .5% adepts.
Adding that together, you get 1.4...% of a metropolis' population as casters.
Pretty sure some of it came from interviews and other context of designer intent though.
Why does it keep happening that you claim something is the specific design of the system and when asked to prove it you claim it’s from an interview or other content piece not included in the text itself?
Then when you DO provide something it’s something you are using out of context. The optional rules presented in the DMG for a quick and easy worldbuilding system =/= to the default assumptions of the game writ large.
What do you mean "followed that rule?"
Also, I said paizo ignores the casual simulationism according to the actual numbers. They fell into the trap of "well the rules go to level 20, therefore, every heroic character in stories must be nearly level 20, for no other reason than that's the max level of the game." Which sounds logical but clearly falls apart when you start running the numbers. That is a very different issue from demographics.
Pretty sure some of it came from interviews and other context of designer intent though.Why does it keep happening that you claim something is the specific design of the system and when asked to prove it you claim it’s from an interview or other content piece not included in the text itself?
Then when you DO provide something it’s something you are using out of context. The optional rules presented in the DMG for a quick and easy worldbuilding system =/= to the default assumptions of the game writ large.
Why do you assume the freedom to deviate equates to a lack of basic assumptions in generating the base guidelines?
These rules detail the kind of world the designers expect in designing their rules, the kind of world they run the numbers in to make sure everything pans out as they intend.
That doesn't mean they expect you to follow these things to the letter.
Why do you assume the freedom to deviate equates to a lack of basic assumptions in generating the base guidelines?
Why do you assume that an optional rule equates to the design assumptions made by developers for cities and towns throughout their other settings.
These rules detail the kind of world the designers expect in designing their rules
No these rules provide a simple framework to allow a DM to create a city swiftly based on certain assumptions to simplify the process. The section does however begin with a whole section about what the framework is built around and how to adjust for different campaigns. It does not however contain a statement that the frameworks assumptions are the design assumptions of Dungeons and Dragons et al.
the kind of world they run the numbers in to make sure everything pans out as they intend.
Then prove that. Compare the canon cities of the main settings of 3.5 to that framework and see if they align. I’ll see you an Elminster and raise you a Mourning that says they don’t.
First, page 139 of the 3.5 dmg,
In addition to the residents you generate using the system described above, you might decide that a community has some sort of special resident, such as the single, out-of-place 15th-level sorcerer who lives just outside a thorp of fifty people, or the secret assassins'guild brimming with high level characters hidden in a small town. Residents such as these that you create "on the fly" do not count against the highest-level characters who are actually part of the community.
Emphasis mine. Your Elminster and any other story character has just been negated.
Second, this is not a court of law where I need to prove anything. Any well designed system has a structure with basic axioms and assumptions that shape the design.
Third, this is about having a good understanding of the system and the results from running the numbers instead of your emotions, to remove personal bias as much as possible. If you have a better theory that explains deepens an understanding of the system, an alternative to axioms I propose, then feel free to share and give reasons.
Dismissing this as worthless, stupid, and to be argued against until indisputably proven is the wrong mindset for a game.
You ask me to prove it, but to what alternative? What am I proving it against?
The idea that it's just a guideline to help GMs is the purpose of the system, not an axiom of the design.
Fourth, you have given no argument suggesting the idea is false. Frankly it feels like your only concern is to prove me wrong, rather than show why some other idea might have more merit. And that would be worthless and despicable.
Fifth,
based on certain assumptions to simplify the process.
Your own words. What do you think the assumptions are? Where do you think the assumptions come from? Do you think that the assumptions for each such section of the book have no relation to each other? What do you think the assumptions are if not the assumptions I've laid out?
Sixth, do you fail to understand the concept of a "guideline?"
Seventh,
Why do you assume that an optional rule equates to the design assumptions made by developers for cities and towns throughout their other settings.
Who said I assume such a thing?
Your Elminster and any other story character has just been negated.
You missed that point completely. The number of high level magic users in each canonical published setting tends to run counter to the 1% you are claiming
Second, this is not a court of law where I need to prove anything.
When you claim that something is THE core assumption of the entire game, then yes you absolutely need to be able to prove that statement to be correct.
Any well designed system has a structure with basic axioms and assumptions that shape the design.
Yes, but we’re discussing D&D 3.X.
Third, this is about having a good understanding of the system and the results from running the numbers instead of your emotions, to remove personal bias as much as possible.
This has absolutely nothing to do with emotion or personal bias. You claimed something was codified in the rules I asked you to prove it. You said you read it in an interview somewhere and then pointed to an optional mechanics to streamline worldbuilding for DM’s who need charts to roll on.
This is a failure on your part to provide evidence to support your initial claim and then glomming onto the nearest similar rule.
If you have a better theory that explains deepens an understanding of the system, an alternative to axioms I propose, then feel free to share and give reasons.
Only reason necessary: The thing you stated before is an explicitly stated fact of the game is not in fact explicitly stated in the game.
The idea that it's just a guideline to help GMs is the purpose of the system, not an axiom of the design.
Exactly it is not an axiom of the design, thank you for agreeing with me. Earlier you had claimed that it was.
Frankly it feels like your only concern is to prove me wrong, rather than show why some other idea might have more merit.
You claimed that IN WORLD ASSUMPTION of the game is that only 1% of the population are casters. I disagreed with that on the basis that in world it is NOT in any published material. You couldn’t provide a quote and said it was in an interview, which you also didn’t provide. Then you pointed to a worldbuilding framework for lazy DM’s. Now I’m the one who needs to show the merit of other ideas? Come on
Your own words.
Yes those were my own words that you truncated in order to twist an argument out of them. I said that those were the assumptions of the framework for rolling off towns and cities. I specifically stated that there is no official statement that the assumptions of the framework is the assumption of the games overall design. Your disingenuous reframing of my words omitted that so that you could lecture me about the origin of the assumptions - even though I had clearly stated what I meant.
Who said I assume such a thing?
You did.
First, the comment is referencing the in-world assumptions, in which the default is that only about 1 in 100 people are casters of any sort.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of this seems like a thickly disguised low magic system.
I like the centering the area of effect miss chance.
Your Elminster and any other story character has just been negated.You missed that point completely. The number of high level magic users in each canonical published setting tends to run counter to the 1% you are claiming
Except that it doesn't. Out of many millions of people in each setting, even if every single character the referenced in every book was very high level, it would be merely a tiny fraction of a percent of the population.
Now, I've read only a dozen books in the dnd settings, and not a thing ever indicates this is false.
The stories focus on high level characters, because that is what the stories are about, but nothing at all implies these highly capable individuals are anything but very extraordinary and rare people compared to the normal people of the worlds.
Second, this is not a court of law where I need to prove anything.When you claim that something is THE core assumption of the entire game, then yes you absolutely need to be able to prove that statement to be correct.
Any well designed system has a structure with basic axioms and assumptions that shape the design.Yes, but we’re discussing D&D 3.X.
Yea, we are. Every solid system is built on assumptions. I contend these ideas I present are the assumptions made for 3.x.
You try to assert my ideas as false, but provide no alternative assumptions for 3.x to be built on.
I contend my ideas are the best because my ideas fit whenever I apply them, and no alternatives are provided that do better, nor even half as well.
It's like any other scientific theory, if the theory works really well, and it's the only that works at all, then it taken as true until either proven false, or a reasonable alternative is provided.
Ignoring the foundational assumptions is not a valid alternative. You can certainly play without thinking about how the system works or designed, but it isn't a valid explanation.
And running the numbers on these ideas works, and works a whole lot better than assuming level 20 is attainable by real world people, a concept that falls apart when trying to run the numbers.
Third, this is about having a good understanding of the system and the results from running the numbers instead of your emotions, to remove personal bias as much as possible.This has absolutely nothing to do with emotion or personal bias. You claimed something was codified in the rules I asked you to prove it. You said you read it in an interview somewhere and then pointed to an optional mechanics to streamline worldbuilding for DM’s who need charts to roll on.
The dmg is not "here is some optional stuff." No, what the dmg is, it is "here is some guidelines that fill in the basic structure, adjust from here as needed" mixed with a bit of "here is how to make the game fun."
Ot is like the lines on grid paper. There is no expectation that you'll follow the lines, but they act as a reference grid.
The same applies to the stuff presented in the dmg, it is a system that acts like a reference grid that you can then follow or deviate from as desired, and easily communicate your deviations.
This is a failure on your part to provide evidence to support your initial claim and then glomming onto the nearest similar rule.
I didn't just glom onto the nearest rule. As I said before, ot has been years and not all evidence was directly from the book. I didn't remember exactly where I got the number, so I demonstrated by running the numbers through the system itself. It is directly the rules from the core books that number.
If you have a better theory that explains deepens an understanding of the system, an alternative to axioms I propose, then feel free to share and give reasons.Only reason necessary: The thing you stated before is an explicitly stated fact of the game is not in fact explicitly stated in the game.
I never said the system explicitly stated anything of the sort. In fact, my biggest criticism of the core books is how poorly written and explained they are.
You have people trying to stat up conan as level 20, only to complain that the system can't do conan because the numbers break down, but if you stat up conan as somewhere around level 5, then the numbers suddenly work. That means the system can do conan, and the people who say it can't, simply don't understand the system. They clearly don't understand because they can't get the results they want even though the results are attainable with the system. If they understood the system, they'd be able to ger the results they wanted.
Alignment is another example. Quite simply, if the alignment restrictions do not make sense to you, then objectively speaking, you don't understand alignment, because it absolutely made sense to the designers, therefore, if you understood alignment, then alignment restrictions would make sense, regardless of whether you agreed with them or not.
The books don't explain things explicitly or very well, that doesn't mean the explanations don't/can't exist.
Study the system, figure out how it truly works, then you can work with the system to get the desired results. If someone can attain that, then clearly that someone understands the system. Ignoring the system, or bending over backward to explain otherwise non-sensical results is not understanding the system.
The idea that it's just a guideline to help GMs is the purpose of the system, not an axiom of the design.Exactly it is not an axiom of the design, thank you for agreeing with me. Earlier you had claimed that it was.
No I didn't. I claimed it as the thing my presented axioms result in, and therefore evidence of correctness.
You tried to claim it as lacking any connection, as though it would exist in a vacuum without a foundation, and tried to say that because it is a guideline, therefore my presented axioms are false. This is a logically false statement.
You claimed that IN WORLD ASSUMPTION of the game is that only 1% of the population are casters. I disagreed with that on the basis that in world it is NOT in any published material.
No I didn't. I said it is the fundamental system assumption, the assumption upon which the "reference gridlines" are based. How closely any particular setting follows those guidelines is a different matter entirely.
Also notable however, there is no evidence in any book I read to discount the idea however, and your attempt to claim the mere existence of a handful as evidence is laughable at best.
For comparison, we have 330 million citizens in the US, want to know how many is "1 in a hundred?" It is 3 million people.
Even if there was only 100 million people on the entire planet of fearun, that is still over a million casters. 1% is not as rare as you seem to present it.
You couldn’t provide a quote and said it was in an interview, which you also didn’t provide.
No, I said that I had done research in the past and that some of the research included sources outside the books. Never said what exactly came from the interviews. Quite frankly, it's been so long I don't remember. Hence looking at the materials I have on hand to make my case.
Then you pointed to a worldbuilding framework for lazy DM’s.
The problem here, is that you assume my idea can't be true because it conflicts with what you call a lazy gm's framework.
My contention is that the framework is built on the same foundation and is not separate.
The idea of a gm tool and that tool being built on the same assumptions are perfectly compatible ideas.
The idea that a framework, otherwise known as a tool, is somehow contradictory to the idea I presented solely due to being for "lazy gm's" is a laughable one.
I specifically stated that there is no official statement that the assumptions of the framework is the assumption of the games overall design.
So what? You present this as evidence, except since there no official statement to the contrary, this is nothing more than a lack of a specific kind of evidence, and does not in any way constitute evidence, or even valid reasoning, to believe that my presented idea is false.
First, the comment is referencing the in-world assumptions, in which the default is that only about 1 in 100 people are casters of any sort.
This is not claiming anything about specific settings. This is a claim about the default assumptions upon which the guidelines are built. As guidelines, it is only natural that individual settings will deviate.
That said, I've seen no evidence to believe that the major dnd settings, notably fearun since you brought up that one, deviate in the way I'm discussing.
Granted, this is the only thing where you tried to present actual evidence, except your evidence wasn't evidence. Your so-called evidence is comparable to making claims that women are rare because you walked into a men's clothing store and found only men. It is so weak of an argument that it can't honestly be taken seriously.
Now I’m the one who needs to show the merit of other ideas?
Yea, because you present laughable and illogical reasoning to claim my ideas are false. If you simply disagreed, you wouldn't need to show merit, as that's just an opinion.
However, to claim my idea as false, does require some merit.
You are not passively remaining unconvinced, rather, you are actively claiming I'm incorrect, yet you provide no evidence, just laughable and illogical and irrelevant statements about how bad my ideas are, this is not a lack of merit on my part, but it is a lack of merit on yours.
I present my evidence for believing it true. If you want to claim it false, you must provide at least some comparable evidence either to show it false, or to present an incompatible alternative.
Otherwise your assertion boils down to claiming a lack of evidence as a reason to disbelieve something even when there is neither evidence to the contrary nor viable alternative.
You present yourself as stating truth, with the implication that I'm objectively wrong. It is abso-f-ing-lutely justified to require meritorious justification from you, especially in a thread created by me, in which this view I present is in explanation of the assumptions I am explicitly making in my design.
Most of this seems like a thickly disguised low magic system.
I like the centering the area of effect miss chance.
Thanks. :)
I'm glad you found something you liked about it. I hope you find it useful in the future.
I generally go with the idea that how much magic is in a setting depends on how many supernatural people exist. If a demi-god comes along once a thousand generations, you get low magic, but if you get demi-gods once every thousand births, then you have high magic.
Simply scale how common the super-awesome people are to scale how magical the world ism and everything else falls into place.
Now, I've read only a dozen books in the dnd settings, and not a thing ever indicates this is false.
Not a thing ever indicates that it is true either, yet you claimed it to be canonically stated as such IN WORLD. So where can I find the evidence that proves this statement of yours to be true? Burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.
The stories focus on high level characters, because that is what the stories are about
Modules present Magic users of multiple stripes across a multitude of levels, because that is what modules do. But as you said, you’ve only read a dozen or so. Funny how you often paint yourself as an expert and then admit to less experience than previously claimed. Pattern?
Yea, we are. Every solid system is built on assumptions.
We aren’t discussing solid systems, we’re discussing 3.X.
I contend these ideas I present are the assumptions made for 3.x.
Then you should be able to provide evidence that explicitly confirms that or balking that it is my duty to provide evidence if it’s falsehood. If you make a claim, you have to prove it. That is how argument works.
I contend my ideas are the best because my ideas fit whenever I apply them, and no alternatives are provided that do better, nor even half as well.
It's like any other scientific theory, if the theory works really well, and it's the only that works at all, then it taken as true until either proven false, or a reasonable alternative is provided.
Unlike any scientific theory you’ve provided tangential proof in the form of something observed that is not indicative of the whole. I provided a simple challenge to test your theory, to apply it to existing canonical cities and towns in the setting and see if the result continues to align. A scientist would already have done such modeling to confirm their “theory.”
Ignoring the foundational assumptions is not a valid alternative.
You have yet to provide direct evidence that it is a foundational assumption.
running the numbers on these ideas works, and works a whole lot better than assuming level 20 is attainable by real world people, a concept that falls apart when trying to run the numbers.
It’s a fantasy game where floating islands contain magical schools that teach one how to teleport, none of it was ever considered attainable by real people.
No I didn't. I said it is the fundamental system assumption, the assumption upon which the "reference gridlines" are based
No you actually used the words “in world assumption.” Scroll back up if you don’t believe me, or just look to where it was directly quoted in the previous reply.
“In World Assumptions” is a phrase meaning the assumptions of the setting as visible to the characters IN THE SETTING. You were asked to prove that statement to be correct and you couldn’t.
I said that I had done research in the past and that some of the research included sources outside the books. Never said what exactly came from the interviews. Quite frankly, it's been so long I don't remember.
Yes and you presented all that goalpost shifting to a simple question of what page number one could find the reference to casters representing only 1% of the characters in the setting as an in world assumption. There isn’t such an entry, so your “research” is pointless.
My contention is that the framework is built on the same foundation and is not separate.
And that contention is supported by what evidence?
First, the comment is referencing the in-world assumptions, in which the default is that only about 1 in 100 people are casters of any sort.This is not claiming anything about specific settings.
The phrase “in-world” comes from literary criticism and is used when discussing TTRPG’s to indicate the discussion is about the setting rather than the real world that we inhabit.
Yea, because you present laughable and illogical reasoning to claim my ideas are false.
And just how is “it does not explicitly state that in the book” a piece of laughable or illogical reasoning?
You made a statement that something was an explicit assumption, could not prove that, and then moved to a framework that serves a subset purpose and claimed it was indicative of the entire system but somehow the response “it doesn’t claim to be indicative of the entire system” is laughable?
Your whole argument is based on “research” you did “so long ago” that you “can’t remember it” and yet my stating that the book does not explicitly define a connection needs more evidence?
I present my evidence for believing it true.
No you don’t, you just claim that it is.
your assertion boils down to claiming a lack of evidence as a reason to disbelieve something even when there is neither evidence to the contrary nor viable alternative.
When this entire conversation proceeded from my asking you for evidence of a claim, you admittedly not being able to provide it is certainly a logical reason to continue to disbelieve.
“There’s no rule that says it isn’t true” is Air Bud logic.
You don't even try to think at all, do you?
No attempt whatsoever.
I gave evidence, made a link to guy who gives even more excellent evidence, and even addressed your prior comments.
If you actually tried to think about what I said, you might actually learn something.
---
For anyone else who is uncertain,
I will use an unusual symbol as a stand-in for a mathematical operation. The numbers will be the same as normal, just the operation signs are different.
1:1}2
2:3}5
4:5}9
9:11}20
Guess what, you know what the symbols mean, you know math I did there. I don't need to explain what the symbols mean, because you can tell.
Same thing with the dnd rules, I don't need the designers to explicitly explain. I just need to understand the system, and the patterns become clear, and I can see it as easily as you can see what math I did above.
That is also the nature of the evidence I gave. I gave examples that show the mechanical relationships.
If you intend the system to be used, I recommend to playtest it. Might be just by yourself, though you'd get some additional input if you get other persons to contribute.
You don't even try to think at all, do you?[/QUOTE
No attempt whatsoever.
I gave evidence, made a link to guy who gives even more excellent evidence, and even addressed your prior comments.
Are you even sure what conversation you are having?
You gave no evidence beyond the city building framework, you provided no link to someone else and their evidence, and only addressed prior comments by saying “no” and then repeating what you claimed in a more condescending tone.
You gave no evidence beyond the city building framework, you provided no link to someone else and their evidence, and only addressed prior comments by saying “no” and then repeating what you claimed in a more condescending tone.
Except that I did.
You have come looking to get one of two very specific phrases, and getting neither, you respond with derision.
I'm not great at dealing with people, but I'm not stupid either.
You don't care about any proof I might present. You have no interest in whether I'm right. I doubt you even care about the topic.
All you want is to continuously block any argument in my favor in hopes that either I'll eventually tell you you're right or I get angry, maybe even cry or pout if you're lucky.
I know this, because you have not presented any reason to believe my ideas are wrong, all your arguments against me are against my presentation and meta data rather than the details themselves, you ignore anything you can't decide how to refute, you claim I didn't say things when I clearly did right in a post you quoted from, and many other methods of attacking me rather than my idea.
If you actually cared about tje topic and answer, you'd work with me towards a shared understanding, you'd get specific about fallacies and help me understand the flaws in my thinking, you'd help guide me in forming logical thought, leading me down chains of thinking till the flaws become noticed. Alternatively, if you cared but were too much of an a-hole to help me as a person, but cared about an admission of error, then you'd actually try proving me wrong instead of just complaining about my arguments.
But you do none of that.
So, either you are too stupid to understand how to have a productive debate, or your entire goal is to produce negative feelings in others to make yourself feel better.
Either way, leave my thread alone till you can behave yourself and be productive.
I know this, because you have not presented any reason to believe my ideas are wrong
I have presented the solitary reason that the book does not state what you claim it did and you’ve been unable prove that any such statement was included in the core text despite claiming it was the default.
As for the other claims - you provided no links in your replies to me nor quoted anything other than the roll on chart mechanics pages so I literally have no clue what you’re talking about.
If you actually cared about tje topic and answer, you'd work with me towards a shared understanding
What shared understanding is there to be found in the difference of you claiming the core game assumptions are something and my saying that such is not stated explicitly in the book
So, either you are too stupid to understand how to have a productive debate, or your entire goal is to produce negative feelings in others to make yourself feel better.
And now you attack me
Either way, leave my thread alone till you can behave yourself and be productive.
You posted it but are not a moderator
My threafd, my topic, I can most certainly ask you to leave when you've out-stayed your welcome.
As for the other points, I don't believe you actually care, but if you actually don't understand, go start a thread asking how to have a productive debate.
There are no forum rules that appoint a threads originator as a moderator or confers upon them any authority over the topic.
Just as there is nothing in the core books of 3.5 that states the default of the system is that only 1% of characters are casters.
Invoking polite society after insulting someone? Doesn’t sound overly polite to me.
Also sounds a tad hypocritical given your behavior in other threads.
I challenged a single assertion and as usual you stage a multi post condescending feet stomping marathon of word salad.
Is there a statement in any 3.5 book that the default assumption in world is that only 1% of the population are casters? It’s literally that simple.
If yes, provide the page #. If no, move on.
Forgotten Realms campaign setting page 92. Explicitly states that in most heartlands, no more than 1 in 100 people will be sorcerers or wizards and about half of them are dabblers.
Most heartland societies are not all heartland societies in Faerun, Wizards and Sorcerors are not the only casters in the game and the entry makes no mention of others, and you yourself pointed out that Faerun was not the core setting of 3.5.
At least this though was an attempt to engage with the question as posed.
It does not however, like the city builder before it, confirm it is the across the board core default assumption as you claimed.
I already addressed that. You could try reading what I wrote. But you won't because, quite predictably, you don't care whether it's true.
|
|
Ok I've had time to do a proper read through and while I'd need to see it play tested I'm not a fan. I know most people feel there's a martial/caster disparity though my own personal experience has tended to be the martials equal or outperform me. Though that may be more due to my selecting things because I like them rather than them being mechanically beneficial. That said (and just saying to clarify where I'm posting from) this seems like it goes way to far in the other direction and would not only add a huge degree of complexity to playing a class that's already mid-level in difficulty for new players to come to grips with but would make several key parts of classes invalid.
As I said earlier archetype abilities aside the big difference betwween wizards and sorcers is versatility vs ease of casting. This negates that to a large extent as everyone can now spontaneously cast the spells they have ranks in. However since there's no elder scrolls type mechanic of a skill getting better as you use it wizards are going to lose a large chunk of that versatility which was core to their concept. You can't pick up dozens of spells because say "Radiation Ward" might be useful one day. Now you have to pick and choose which will result in a lot of fun but niche spells seeing even less use because you can't justify the points in them over say fireball. This is further enhanced by the fact the bonus skill points your giving only define full caster vs partial not wizard vs sorcerer. This would be even more evident at the lower 1-5 levels you seem to prefer where you wouldn't have many skills to put into spells and this would hurt your taking other skills like crafting or knowledge ones.
Similarly this system makes sorcerers muult-ability dependant to much larger extent than most other classes. They now have 3 primary stats they have to raise to improve their casting rather than just one and still have dex/con as fairly important secondary stats. Which means a caster is going to be wanting to raise 5 of 6 stats making strength even more likely to be a dump stat as its the only thing they don't benefit from.
The combination of drift and spell failure also massively increases the odds of a caster simply achieving nothing or making things worse especially since as far as I can tell its just ranged spells not aoe ones that are penalized like this. So a caster attacking with scorching ray could now miss their attack AFTER having rolled a hit something no other class has to deal with. In this system you have usual chance of spell interuption (attacks) + spell failure casting + attack roll miss + ranged drift. That's four different chances for a caster to do or achieve nothing in a round. It also makes area control spells potentially harmful to party members if it drifts onto them especially if you it can override things like selective spell and leaving squares unaffected. Likewise it can move say a pit from blocking an approach the party to a location that achieves nothing except wasting a spell. On top of which you have the delay to recharge your con based spells per round which if I understand it correctly means you could cast a higher level spell then have to sit there for several rounds uselessly attacking with a crossbow you can't hit on till it recharges.
Very much not a fan of non-casters being able to put skill ranks into a spell to be able to cast it. Though that's as much personal taste as anything else I prefer magic to be more of a genetic inherited trait with sorcerers to wizards all having the ability but varying levels of power. That said I'd also feel like my role in the party is being taken away from me if the caster could cast healing or pit spells as well as I can.
Like I said I'd need to see it played as it is pretty complicated but given my current understanding and speaking as someone who likes playing casters this system would be enough to put me off playing them entirely. As I said I personally often feel I'm contributing less than the martials and with this I doubt I'd be having any fun either.
I already addressed that. You could try reading what I wrote. But you won't because, quite predictably, you don't care whether it's true.
You already addressed it by posting two items in the book that are not statements about the default assumptions of the game. Is there a direct statement of such, or not?
Ok I've had time to do a proper read through and while I'd need to see it play tested I'm not a fan.
Thanks for the feedback.
I'd like to make a few corrections (obviously I need to explain them better. It'd be nice if I could the op post, but oh well.)
First, recharge works differently from that. For example, let's say you have a con modifier of 2, then you cast an 8th level spell. You'd immediatly be able to cast up to a 2nd level spell without waiting (such as a swift spell or quickened spell), but if wait till the next round, then you'd be able to cast a 3rd level spell, and if you continue waiting before casting, the level spell you cast goes up a level each round until you hit you full capacity.
This limits spamming top level spells, like wish, every single round. Casting them every minute is bad enough.
The slots however, ignore this recharge entirely and is part of what sets full casters apart from everyone else.
Second, I had to add this in a later post because I forgot it in the op post, but wizards can add their wizard level to skill checks for preparing spells. This means they can prepare spells in their book they don't have any ranks in, and adding just a few ranks makes a big difference on the highest level spells they can prep, and gives a big advantage over needing to rely on skill ranks.
Third, drift does not apply to spells where you make an attack roll, unless you miss. Thus, if you hit, no drift roll, but if you miss, then maybe you hit something. I do this already in an ad-hoc manner with arrows and such. Projectiles don't vanish because you missed the target, neither do many spells.
Fourth, drift happens at a distance. If a character is trying to block off a route with a pitm presumably they are near the pit rather than way off in the distance. In fact, drift would probably only rarely be seen in the modern playstyle since distance encouters are rare in modern gaming.
The things getting affected by drift are things like fireball, which has a 400' +40'/cl range, which is like 600' or 200 yards at 5th level when first learned. Firing a fireball at 200 yards is very different from firing it 30' away.
---
Okay, a few comments.
It is more complicated as a system, but that's partially the point. I want a system to interact with, that has advantages and disadvantages for the choices I make.
Whether it is too much will depend on seeing others play it.
I always liked the older edition idea of spells doing more or less depending on how well they did casting it.
I also disliked the certainty of casting, it undercuts the danger and risk of magic. It also felt too clean, to much like a super perfect tool doing all the work for me.
Before, that was kind of important, especially at lower levels, as with so few slots and nothing to do once they were used, they needed to be reliable.
But since that limitation is no longer applicable, a check means risking a round of no action, rather than risking 1/12 to 1/4 of your daily resources.
Additionally, I have a different goal in mind for magic. Being a magic blaster is inefficient. Heck, it is inefficient in the core rules, workable only when the gm makes the mistake of allowing the 15-minute workday (which undercuts the intended limit of per-day limits, by making that limit no longer matter.) Instead, this encourages the sort of magic I want to see, combat casters in back, most magic in battle being buffs cast before the battle even starts with occasional strategic spells, artillery type use, or commandos using spells to achidve objectives rather than killing enemies. Rolling due to dmg or to avoid an aoo, encourages casters to not cast in combat without cover.
My intended settings also matter. I want magic to be commonly accessible, but risky and unreliable. Magic is not technology and should not feel like a stand in for technology. A fireball is supposed to feel different from a grenade, despite having nominally the same outcome. And a large part of making them feel different, and in particular make magic feel fueled by the caster, is to make them unreliable and require investment.
Also, I agree the martial/caster is overblown, and exists primarily due to poor gming practices, at least at lower levels, but I don't want blaster casters to be viable, at least not in standard battle with soldiers in warfare. Proper setup and/or ambush or similar allowing effective blaster casting for small battles is okay, but I want characters to know that spellcasting will never compete with swords on a proper field of battle, that a spell serves a complementary role to martial skill, not a competitive one.
To me and in my worlds (except my magimon setting) magic is the versatile jack of all trades, can do anything, but is easily outshined by a specialist.
As for ability scores, I'm avoiding two things I strongly dislike, dump stats and single stat focus. I want players to feel a need to balance their stats whatever class they play.
I do admit having forgotten something though. I have been working on the idea that in my system, spells come in chains. So having skill in burning hands, would also carry over to burning ray because burning ray is treated as an advanced version of burning hands. This means that a single skill buys several "spells" though thematically it is just a single spell getting refined at higher levels. And that makes a difference for the skillpoint use.
|
|
I understood the recharge mechanic but generally speaking as you go up in levels you only use the high level spells because the lower level ones aren't that useful with enemy saves/defenses being too high for them to affect them. If you have to wait several rounds after casting a mid-high level spell then you'll switch to something else because your lower level ones especially with a skill check, seperate ability limiting their effectiveness aren't likely to do anything even if they don't fail.
That is an excellent point. Wouldn't it be better to make it so low level spells remain useful though?
I'll admit, this is just one piece of a much larger overhaul of the whole ruleset. Spell saves is already on my overhaul list to get fixed.
That said, any dedicated caster should be using slots strategically to get around that, which is why the slots is an advantage for dedicated casters over non-casters, i.e. a fighter that spent skill ranks in the magic skill.
If you consider how this affects a fighter that spent skill points to dabble in magic, vs a dedicated caster, how would you adjust it so the caster has advantage, without players casting around 2000 wish spells every day?