PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] A way to nerf spellcasters?



Cataphract
2010-01-31, 06:18 AM
Ok, in order to prevent any misunderstandings like the previous thread, please read the following:

1) This is just a discussion. I'm not trying to change things here, I'm contemplating possibilities. Don't come in crashing and yelling this is not how things were meant to be, and that this is not D&D.
2) Do not post the same things others have posted before you. Especially if said thing is "play some other game".
2a) Yes, I know about E6 and Iron Heroes. No, they are not the focus of this conversation (though Iron Heroes' Arcanist class might be).

Thank you.

Now, my thoughts:

We all know how spellcasters are imbalanced and how they are off the top etc. Thus, I've been wondering of ways to nerf them without ruining the game balance (which is where you guys who know the game much better than me come in).

I have two ideas, one is simpler, the other more complicated. I'd like your thoughts.

The simple variant
Use the magic points from Unearthed arcana, with wizard preparing spells equating to their "spells known for the day" as usual.

However, spellcasting takes time. All spells requiring a standard or full round action now have a 1-round casting time. Quicken spell is now a feat tree with three feats:

Least Quicken: 1-round becomes full round, +2 levels
Lesser Quicken: 1-round becomes standard action, +3 levels
Greater Quicken: 1-round becomes move action, +6 levels


This one is simpler and keeps more in line with the game itself, with the side effect of slowing casters down- and a slowed down caster is nerfed, no? What other side effects would this have?

The complex variant

Now this is tricky. In this case, spontaneous and prepared is a whole world apart. You cast spontaneous spells like in the simpler variant explained above.

However, prepared spells are a different thing entirely. There is no such thing anymore as preparing spells. Instead, you cast spells off your spellbook as rituals, and each one takes one minute per spell level. The only way to cast spells quickly is through items (e.g. wands), making Craft Item feats very, very important. However in the case of spells that have finite duration and are not offensive (like Shield or Bull's Strength), they benefit from a contingency effect- the recipient spends a full round action invoking the magic to gain its benefits. In the case of offensive spells (melee, ranged, or Aoe, and save or die/save or suck spells), craft items or be a sorcerer.

This is indeed changing a lot of things, and I wonder about the balance, because it changes more parameters than simply time. Your thoughts?

Ashtagon
2010-01-31, 06:42 AM
My immediate impression with variant 1 is that it will discourage blasters, and strongly encourage pre-battle buffers. Perhaps an exception could be made for evocation spells that do hp damage.

Variant 2 shouldn't have random casting times, but rather set according to some average figure. With casting times measured in multiples of minutes, it's too long for the exact time to be significant in most situations, and needless dice rolling in situations where it isn't critical whether you took 3 minutes or 4.

Rithaniel
2010-01-31, 06:55 AM
Okay, well, I can understand people's wish to want to nerf the casters of the game, but, well, I can't help but say that, well, it isn't necessary, and, in some ways, it makes the game less fun.

Yes, at the tip top most powerful end of the Wizards ability, he's going to be strong, very strong, strong enough that nothing can beat them (IotSV and the Wish and the Word come to mind). But, within reasonable optimization, the Wizard is the only class that can actually compete in the game against creatures at all (since a level 4 Wizard is supposed to be a CR 4 creature, he should be able to go 50/50 against a CR 4 creature, and that is what the Wizard can do).

This is proven by the fact that other classes need magic items, potions, and wands, just to have an impact on the game, and be as strong as they should be (read: they have to be Wizards).

Also, with the Wizards more powerful spells, such as color spray and other things, they just make the players have to think harder, and it offers an actual challenge in the game, where-as other times it would boil down to just going into melee and hoping you roll well as you do the same thing over and over and over again.

So, yeah, those variants would probably work in a game, and they are functional, likely, with a few nitpicks, but, the game wouldn't be any fun with them.

Cataphract
2010-01-31, 07:13 AM
My immediate impression with variant 1 is that it will discourage blasters, and strongly encourage pre-battle buffers. Perhaps an exception could be made for evocation spells that do hp damage.

Variant 2 shouldn't have random casting times, but rather set according to some average figure. With casting times measured in multiples of minutes, it's too long for the exact time to be significant in most situations, and needless dice rolling in situations where it isn't critical whether you took 3 minutes or 4.

You're right about the second one, it was swimming around in my head, but I thought to give them a chance to finish it when they really needed to. That, of course, can be implemented as a simple roll or to take 10 if you don't care about time.


Okay, well, I can understand people's wish to want to nerf the casters of the game, but, well, I can't help but say that, well, it isn't necessary, and, in some ways, it makes the game less fun.

So, yeah, those variants would probably work in a game, and they are functional, likely, with a few nitpicks, but, the game wouldn't be any fun with them.

Frankly, fun is not a universal concept. Your game is fun exactly as it is- mine isn't, exactly because of that. Those nitpicks, however, I'd be glad to hear :smallbiggrin:



Yes, at the tip top most powerful end of the Wizards ability, he's going to be strong, very strong, strong enough that nothing can beat them (IotSV and the Wish and the Word come to mind). But, within reasonable optimization, the Wizard is the only class that can actually compete in the game against creatures at all (since a level 4 Wizard is supposed to be a CR 4 creature, he should be able to go 50/50 against a CR 4 creature, and that is what the Wizard can do).

This is proven by the fact that other classes need magic items, potions, and wands, just to have an impact on the game, and be as strong as they should be (read: they have to be Wizards).



Then fight with lower CR creatures. Tailor the challenges to the players- or don't, and let them use their noggin' to resolve the issue. I don't like arms races in RPGs, where there is one uber class and the others strive to compete with him.



Also, with the Wizards more powerful spells, such as color spray and other things, they just make the players have to think harder, and it offers an actual challenge in the game, where-as other times it would boil down to just going into melee and hoping you roll well as you do the same thing over and over and over again.


I agree with you, which is why I like ToB's concept with maneuvers (though I had addressed what I didn't like in another topic). And which is why I'm working on a way to give melee combatants more diversity than a few feats and an attack roll.

Rithaniel
2010-01-31, 07:50 AM
Then fight with lower CR creatures. Tailor the challenges to the players- or don't, and let them use their noggin' to resolve the issue. I don't like arms races in RPGs, where there is one uber class and the others strive to compete with him.

This is the only part of your post that really needs a response, cause, all your other points were valid, I mean, maybe you could think playing it "I hit it again" is fun, maybe not, peoples definition of fun varies (Personally, I have fun, not when I am flipping a coin, but when I'm actually doing something), and yeah, the ToB is good inside combat.

Though, the point I pointed out is highly flawed. If you let the players set the bar, then cater the game towards them, then you hit a massive snag, as then, the player could deoptimize themselves to the point that they can barely stay alive normally, with the weight of their padded armor crushing them, and you would have to change the challenges for them. If you "Tailor the challenges to the players" or "fight with lower CR creatures", the game is not a game anymore, and is just session of co-operative storytelling. Don't set the bar where your players are, set the bar and make your players meet it, cause there is otherwise no challenge.

Cataphract
2010-01-31, 08:44 AM
This is the only part of your post that really needs a response, cause, all your other points were valid, I mean, maybe you could think playing it "I hit it again" is fun, maybe not, peoples definition of fun varies (Personally, I have fun, not when I am flipping a coin, but when I'm actually doing something), and yeah, the ToB is good inside combat.

Which is why I need ToB's variety, flavor, and tactical options. Isn't it unfair that only casters get that kind of variety in combat while those that are actually supposed to do combat in regular basis (i.e. melee classes), are deprived of this fun?


Though, the point I pointed out is highly flawed. If you let the players set the bar, then cater the game towards them, then you hit a massive snag, as then, the player could deoptimize themselves to the point that they can barely stay alive normally, with the weight of their padded armor crushing them, and you would have to change the challenges for them. If you "Tailor the challenges to the players" or "fight with lower CR creatures", the game is not a game anymore, and is just session of co-operative storytelling. Don't set the bar where your players are, set the bar and make your players meet it, cause there is otherwise no challenge.

First of all, since when co-operative storytelling is a problem? I thought that was what an RPG is supposed to be about, with rules used to help quantify problems that the narrative is not as capable at doing so.

That aside, I think this whole optimization quest is pure rubbish. I want people to serve their concept first, and their min/maxing later. There's no reason to throw waves after waves of monsters at your players, with your only measure being their respective ECLs vs CRs. I like catering to my players- I don't like forcing them to play the kind of story I want.

Lapak
2010-01-31, 09:29 AM
I would say that simply bumping ALL spell-casting to a full-round action accomplishes 90% of what you need to do - it leaves the door wide open for attacks to disrupt the spell, it allows possible targets a chance for movement to get clear of line of effect, it prevents the caster from moving themselves, even a five-foot step, on any turn they wish to cast something - those are pretty big nerfs up until you get to mid-to-high levels and a certain degree of optimization, but still lets the caster have a big impact if he manages to get the right set of circumstances. It brings things more in line with the 1e/2e caster, as well.

It definitely makes having warm bodies between him and his enemies a lot more important. Best of all, it requires minimal book-keeping.

So I'd recommend:
- All spells that required a standard action now require a full-round action.
- All spells that were naturally quick (Feather Fall, say) remain so.
- Quickened Spell now reduces casting time to one standard action.

Cataphract
2010-01-31, 09:37 AM
Ι've been thinking of doing it as you say, but I don't know if it's that big a nerf or not. You still fire off one spell per round, anyway. Though the chance that others can actually do something about it is a nice change of pace.

If combined with the second variant (i.e. only sorcerers can do that, wizards can't), then it might make for an interesting variant.

lesser_minion
2010-01-31, 10:13 AM
Yes, at the tip top most powerful end of the Wizards ability, he's going to be strong, very strong, strong enough that nothing can beat them (IotSV and the Wish and the Word come to mind). But, within reasonable optimization, the Wizard is the only class that can actually compete in the game against creatures at all (since a level 4 Wizard is supposed to be a CR 4 creature, he should be able to go 50/50 against a CR 4 creature, and that is what the Wizard can do).

NPCs are vastly overrated.

In general, a CR4 monster should curb-stomp a single level 4 PC. If you actually run the maths, a monster that consumes 20% of the resources of a four-man party is actually the equivalent of about 1.8 party members.

The bar is set by the expected ability of the party, not by a single hopelessly inaccurate sentence in the 3.0 DMG that was inexplicably retained and propagated throughout the 3.5 rulebooks.

If a level 4 wizard is a match for a CR 4 enemy, the level 4 wizard is about twice as powerful as it should be.


As for the OP: An important thing to limit is all-day buffing, which becomes available long before it should be. Having every spell take up an appropriate magic item slot would probably work.

Lapak
2010-01-31, 10:16 AM
Ι've been thinking of doing it as you say, but I don't know if it's that big a nerf or not. You still fire off one spell per round, anyway. Though the chance that others can actually do something about it is a nice change of pace.

If combined with the second variant (i.e. only sorcerers can do that, wizards can't), then it might make for an interesting variant.I'm generally among the first to call out casters for being overpowered in 3.x, but making every spell a multiple-round endeavor pushes it to the point where people aren't going to enjoy playing them at all. It's not about whether it's 'D&D' or not - it's about whether it makes for a good time. Sitting around for three rounds saying 'I keep casting' when your turn comes up is officially Not Fun.

A one-round casting time gives intelligent opponents many options - withdraw around a corner, concentrate missile fire, perform a counterspelling action, establish concealment, spread out over a wide space, blind the caster or otherwise inhibit their ability to deliver the spell on-target - while still letting the caster participate. Being unable to move in combat is a significant handicap - being able to is one of the things that make ToB melee folks a step up from core melee. Having to set yourself up in a way that won't immediately expose you to attack, yet still being placed to deliver the spell when it goes off, is a significant handicap. Completely undercutting the doubled-action of Quickened spells is a significant hit to raw alpha-striking power. I'd give full-round casting a shot before making it any longer than that.

Cataphract
2010-01-31, 10:30 AM
As for the OP: An important thing to limit is all-day buffing, which becomes available long before it should be. Having every spell take up an appropriate magic item slot would probably work.

I was thinking of having the contingency rules effective, since it's a similar effect- no more than one contingent spell per HD. Plus, unless you get the feat at level 12, it's not a free action to activate it (though it doesn't require XP), and by the same token, it's not there forever- just for a day.


I'm generally among the first to call out casters for being overpowered in 3.x, but making every spell a multiple-round endeavor pushes it to the point where people aren't going to enjoy playing them at all. It's not about whether it's 'D&D' or not - it's about whether it makes for a good time. Sitting around for three rounds saying 'I keep casting' when your turn comes up is officially Not Fun.

A one-round casting time gives intelligent opponents many options - withdraw around a corner, concentrate missile fire, perform a counterspelling action, establish concealment, spread out over a wide space, blind the caster or otherwise inhibit their ability to deliver the spell on-target - while still letting the caster participate. Being unable to move in combat is a significant handicap - being able to is one of the things that make ToB melee folks a step up from core melee. Having to set yourself up in a way that won't immediately expose you to attack, yet still being placed to deliver the spell when it goes off, is a significant handicap. Completely undercutting the doubled-action of Quickened spells is a significant hit to raw alpha-striking power. I'd give full-round casting a shot before making it any longer than that.

Scales seem to tip towards it the more I read. I guess that making them a single full-round action, and making quickened spells into standard action (which, if you ask me, should also halve the quickened spell metamagic cost- 2 levels instead of 4), seems to be striking a pretty good balance.

Siosilvar
2010-01-31, 10:37 AM
Scales seem to tip towards it the more I read. I guess that making them a single full-round action, and making quickened spells into standard action (which, if you ask me, should also halve the quickened spell metamagic cost- 2 levels instead of 4), seems to be striking a pretty good balance.

Note the difference between a full-round action and a 1-round casting time, however - the full-round action still goes off on your turn, but a 1-round casting time takes from your turn until the start of your next turn.

+3 metamagic for a move action is something you could do - allow two spells, but require some severe slot investment.

Cataphract
2010-01-31, 10:48 AM
Note the difference between a full-round action and a 1-round casting time, however - the full-round action still goes off on your turn, but a 1-round casting time takes from your turn until the start of your next turn.

+3 metamagic for a move action is something you could do - allow two spells, but require some severe slot investment.

That always bugged me, ugh.

Yes, 1-round casting time is what I meant (and I think what the others meant too). A full-round action is not that much of a change, you just don't move, but the others don't get a chance to do anything.

I think that if you ask me, the quicken feat should have a whole tree of its own, like this:

Least Quicken: 1-round becomes full round, +2 levels
Lesser Quicken: 1-round becomes standard action, +3 levels
Greater Quicken: 1-round becomes move action, +6 levels

The reason it requires at least 2 levels is that there's a world of difference between a full-round action and a 1-round casting time, as you pointed out.

Baron Corm
2010-01-31, 10:53 AM
So, assuming you optimize your skill check high enough, you can still cast in one round. So you can still celerity -> [insert no-save-and-suck spell here].

Assuming you don't optimize skill checks, you're still ending the encounter with a single spell, it's just a occurring a couple of rounds later. So instead of the fighter not doing anything at all, he's whacking the monster a few times, taking a good bit of damage, and then all of his hard work was useless.

IMO fix the spells, not the caster.

Cataphract
2010-01-31, 10:56 AM
So, assuming you optimize your skill check high enough, you can still cast in one round. So you can still celerity -> [insert no-save-and-suck spell here].

Yes, I suppose the first variant sucks. I'll edit appropriately.


Assuming you don't optimize skill checks, you're still ending the encounter with a single spell, it's just a occurring a couple of rounds later. So instead of the fighter not doing anything at all, he's whacking the monster a few times, taking a good bit of damage, and then all of his hard work was useless.

IMO fix the spells, not the caster.

That's also necessary, of course, but don't forget that a spellcaster can now be disrupted or counterspelled much more efficiently.

Oslecamo
2010-01-31, 11:07 AM
This is proven by the fact that other classes need magic items, potions, and wands, just to have an impact on the game, and be as strong as they should be (read: they have to be Wizards).

The wizard also needs magic items. Whitout scroll o'mart, you're better playing a sorceror. And then you need a market system to provide you with the special expensive inks and herbs to craft your shinies.



Also, with the Wizards more powerful spells, such as color spray and other things, they just make the players have to think harder, and it offers an actual challenge in the game, where-as other times it would boil down to just going into melee and hoping you roll well as you do the same thing over and over and over again.

And doesn't throwing a color spray demands you to "hope" that the enemy fails his saves?



So, yeah, those variants would probably work in a game, and they are functional, likely, with a few nitpicks, but, the game wouldn't be any fun with them.

Because attacking in melee is the only thing noncasters can do, yes sir. There's no mundane items, no triping, no grappling, no nets, no ranged weapons, no skills, ect, ect. Geez, one wonders why people play noncasters do you?

Cataphract
2010-01-31, 11:12 AM
The wizard also needs magic items. Whitout scroll o'mart, you're better playing a sorceror. And then you need a market system to provide you with the special expensive inks and herbs to craft your shinies.

I hate the D&D magic market system. Way too money-centered. I liked it when to make a magic sword, you didn't need GP equal to 1000(x^2) its enhancement and XP equal to 2/25 that, but the tears of an unborn child, the strength of the mountain, and the blessing of a fairy born under the moonlight. (Yes, I have AD&D 2nd ed rulebook. No, it's a horrible, horrible game).


And doesn't throwing a color spray demands you to "hope" that the enemy fails his saves?

He's obviously referring to no-save-just-bad-stuff spells.


Because attacking in melee is the only thing noncasters can do, yes sir. There's no mundane items, no triping, no grappling, no nets, no ranged weapons, no skills, ect, ect. Geez, one wonders why people play noncasters do you?

Truth be told, not only are there limited options, nobody bothers with them because A) they require more rules, some of them not well-written, B)why grapple when you can throw a spell at him? it's better, after all.

Satyr
2010-01-31, 12:56 PM
The Serpents and Sewers homebrew use a double approach: Spells usually take a number of standard actions to channel equal to their level, and a move action to actually cast the spell (so, a one level spell can effectively be cast as a full round action), but the caster can still move and bring himself into position even while he prepares a spell. More experienced spellcasters can reduce the the casting times as well.
In addition, succesfully casting a spell requires a concentration check (DC= 10 + Spell level x5) to be cast succesfully. If the skill checks fails with 4 or less point margin, the spell is just not cast, and the caster can try again in the next turn, missing the DC by 5 or more points and the spell fizzles. Metamagic does not increase the casting time, but the difficulty to cast spells (on an open ended scale; in theory, a character can easily cast a level 9 spells + metamagic, if he can beat the DC.

On the other hand, spellcasters can cast as many cantrips as they want, all day long, and have several ways to have additional play around with spells, reduce the DC through rituals, and the like.
The result is a less powerful, but more flexible spellcasting, which is a generally great improvement.

Lysander
2010-01-31, 03:28 PM
Magic isn't really unbalanced until high levels. Why not just cut out spells above level 5, delay how quickly they get higher level spells, and in exchange give wizards a lot more spell slots, metamagic feats, and SLAs as they advance.

frogspawner
2010-01-31, 04:29 PM
Making spells take longer certainly does the job. A friend of mine runs a variant where basically you start casting one round and it won't go off until the next. Much easier for bad guys to get to you and spoil it - nasty. So that approach would probably do it for you.

But how about this way...?
Casting isn't automatic - the mage has to make a roll for the spell to go off (say, Spellcraft? DC whatever?).

Before you reject that out-of-hand as too unpredictable, consider that game systems like BRP have such a mechanism, and casters are still playable.

Personally, though, I'm not keen on that amount of unpredictability. I use a variant where a failed roll doesn't mean the spell fails, but it costs double spell-points.

frogspawner
2010-01-31, 04:51 PM
And another idea, usable with the above or separately...

Rather than spell effects being derived from caster level, they depend on the number of magic points put into them. (Max = caster level, Min = spell level).

Owrtho
2010-01-31, 06:25 PM
Well, haven' read the entire thread due to time constraints, but 1 thought I had on a possible nerf to spellcasters to avoid all the super optimization is to make it so they must always try to learn 2 spells at a time (and attempt to learn twice as many as normal). They then pair up the spells and randomly learn one while the other becomes forever impossible for them to learn or use (even by means of magic items).
The biggest issue with that though is that it could make it much harder to have a character fit the fluff you have for them or the like.

Owrtho

Fiery Diamond
2010-01-31, 06:31 PM
First of all, since when co-operative storytelling is a problem? I thought that was what an RPG is supposed to be about, with rules used to help quantify problems that the narrative is not as capable at doing so.

That aside, I think this whole optimization quest is pure rubbish. I want people to serve their concept first, and their min/maxing later. There's no reason to throw waves after waves of monsters at your players, with your only measure being their respective ECLs vs CRs. I like catering to my players- I don't like forcing them to play the kind of story I want.

This, agreed with a million times over.

Cataphract
2010-01-31, 07:33 PM
The Serpents and Sewers homebrew use a double approach: Spells usually take a number of standard actions to channel equal to their level, and a move action to actually cast the spell (so, a one level spell can effectively be cast as a full round action), but the caster can still move and bring himself into position even while he prepares a spell. More experienced spellcasters can reduce the the casting times as well.
In addition, succesfully casting a spell requires a concentration check (DC= 10 + Spell level x5) to be cast succesfully. If the skill checks fails with 4 or less point margin, the spell is just not cast, and the caster can try again in the next turn, missing the DC by 5 or more points and the spell fizzles. Metamagic does not increase the casting time, but the difficulty to cast spells (on an open ended scale; in theory, a character can easily cast a level 9 spells + metamagic, if he can beat the DC.

On the other hand, spellcasters can cast as many cantrips as they want, all day long, and have several ways to have additional play around with spells, reduce the DC through rituals, and the like.
The result is a less powerful, but more flexible spellcasting, which is a generally great improvement.

This was pretty much my original thought (except not allowing movement and with a different idea for Concentration checks etc), but maybe it's too much book keeping, I don't know. Plus, as it was pointed out, it's not that fun.


Magic isn't really unbalanced until high levels. Why not just cut out spells above level 5, delay how quickly they get higher level spells, and in exchange give wizards a lot more spell slots, metamagic feats, and SLAs as they advance.

SLAs? I get your point, but I believe that is not a point. What I like is not to penalize advancement, but to give reasons to multiclass casters to consider taking caster level hits.


Making spells take longer certainly does the job. A friend of mine runs a variant where basically you start casting one round and it won't go off until the next. Much easier for bad guys to get to you and spoil it - nasty. So that approach would probably do it for you.

But how about this way...?
Casting isn't automatic - the mage has to make a roll for the spell to go off (say, Spellcraft? DC whatever?).

Before you reject that out-of-hand as too unpredictable, consider that game systems like BRP have such a mechanism, and casters are still playable.

Personally, though, I'm not keen on that amount of unpredictability. I use a variant where a failed roll doesn't mean the spell fails, but it costs double spell-points.

No offense, did you read what we said? We came to that very conclusion several posts ago.


And another idea, usable with the above or separately...

Rather than spell effects being derived from caster level, they depend on the number of magic points put into them. (Max = caster level, Min = spell level).

That's the basis of the spell point system in UA that I suggested using... :smallconfused:


Well, haven' read the entire thread due to time constraints, but 1 thought I had on a possible nerf to spellcasters to avoid all the super optimization is to make it so they must always try to learn 2 spells at a time (and attempt to learn twice as many as normal). They then pair up the spells and randomly learn one while the other becomes forever impossible for them to learn or use (even by means of magic items).
The biggest issue with that though is that it could make it much harder to have a character fit the fluff you have for them or the like.

Owrtho

Hmm, I see perfectly no reason to have such a thing. It doesn't fit neither fluff nor mechanics, and while there is some merit for spontaneous casters like sorcerers, prepared classes like wizards are not the best for such an approach.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-01-31, 10:50 PM
I personally would have casting time be a function of spell level; lower-level casters are a bit too fragile to sit there casting the whole battle (as 1e and 2e have taught us), and being able to fire off three or four spells in succession isn't too much of a problem until higher level when you have plenty of spells. Thus, making it something like 1st-3rd level spells are 1 action, 4th-6th are 1 round, and 7th-9th are 2 rounds (or whatever other scheme fits) would leave lower-level casters as they are and only bring down the power curve when casters really start outpacing everyone else.

frogspawner
2010-02-01, 03:14 AM
Personally, though, I'm not keen on that amount of unpredictability. ...
No offense, did you read what we said? We came to that very conclusion several posts ago.
No offence, but did you read mine? Satyr's S&S system is more complex than my suggestion, and you apparently missed this most significant part, which preserves the spell-casting reliability:

... I use a variant where a failed roll doesn't mean the spell fails, but it costs double spell-points.
(...and hence doesn't kill the caster with a failed Feather Fall, frex).


That's the basis of the spell point system in UA that I suggested using... :smallconfused:
I'll explain: I haven't read UA. If they've independently invented a spell-points system similar to mine, and you like it, well - kudos to you both.

Ashtagon
2010-02-01, 04:18 AM
One houserule I use is this...

The total number of spell levels (yes, spell levels, not just "spells") a caster can memorise is equal to his main ability score plus his caster level. Spells are not forgotten when cast, although severe head trauma and certain magical effects can forcibly remove them.

Dropping a spell from this list is a free action; adding one in requires enough "memory" and ten minutes per spell level. The exact activity depends on class; wizards study their books, bards strum their instruments and rehearse songs, clerics study their "prayer books" (another houseruled change I made, keep that as plain old meditation, possibly at restricted times of day, if you prefer).

Sorcerers, being natural casters, are a special case. If they want to restore a spell that was lost through magical assault or head trauma, that takes ten minutes per spell level of practising his technique ("flame on!"). If he wants to swap in an entirely new spell, that takes 1d6 days per spell level. However, rather than being limited to (Charisma + level) spell levels, their limit is based n the "spells known" section in the class entry.

From within that list, spells are cast spontaneously.

The overall effect is that the number of mid-high level spells a caster will keep memorised will be sharply limited. Sorcerers have a much bigger selection of spells in memory at any given time, but don't really have anything like the flexibility of other casters for changing their spell list (although still more than in the core rules). Low-level casters have any more slots than they can cast in a day, which means they no longer have to worry so much about whether the one spell they memorised has any utility at all. It also encourages memorising utility spells that would otherwise be relegated to scrolls only.

Cataphract
2010-02-01, 04:21 AM
No offence, but did you read mine? Satyr's S&S system is more complex than my suggestion, and you apparently missed this most significant part, which preserves the spell-casting reliability:

Actually I did, and all of it (1-round casting time, roll to make the spell work) have already been mentioned. The second was actually part of my initial approach, but people seemed to think it was very complicated and too much book keeping, so I edited it out.


(...and hence doesn't kill the caster with a failed Feather Fall, frex).

Truth be told, I wouldn't mind that :smallamused: I don't like spellcasting being reliable, since it's magic after all, not science. One of the things I never liked in D&D, how spells were almost always bound to work, and only a failed attack roll or a successful save cut them.



I'll explain: I haven't read UA. If they've independently invented a spell-points system similar to mine, and you like it, well - kudos to you both.

Ah, sorry about that. I thought that, by virtue of the same (or, actually, similar) name, we were talking about the same thing. My bad.

frogspawner
2010-02-01, 04:39 AM
Actually I did, and all of it (1-round casting time, roll to make the spell work) have already been mentioned. The second was actually part of my initial approach, but people seemed to think it was very complicated and too much book keeping, so I edited it out.
Thought you might appreciate testimony of a campaign where spells-go-off-next-round actually works. Though I as a caster player don't like it, I have to admit it does!
May I suggest a simpler roll for spell-casting might be acceptably little 'book-keeping? Maybe just Int bonus to make DC10.


Truth be told, I wouldn't mind that :smallamused:...
Well, that's up to you of course. But it's someone's character falling/facing the onrushing nasty/whatever, so I think that's a bit harsh. They ain't gonna survive that many 50-50 (or even 75-25) chances...

Cataphract
2010-02-01, 05:05 AM
I personally would have casting time be a function of spell level; lower-level casters are a bit too fragile to sit there casting the whole battle (as 1e and 2e have taught us), and being able to fire off three or four spells in succession isn't too much of a problem until higher level when you have plenty of spells. Thus, making it something like 1st-3rd level spells are 1 action, 4th-6th are 1 round, and 7th-9th are 2 rounds (or whatever other scheme fits) would leave lower-level casters as they are and only bring down the power curve when casters really start outpacing everyone else.

That's another thought, but it seems like my original method, which I think I'll repost so as to not post it again. Please check the first post again :smallsmile:


One houserule I use is this...

The total number of spell levels (yes, spell levels, not just "spells") a caster can memorise is equal to his main ability score plus his caster level. Spells are not forgotten when cast, although severe head trauma and certain magical effects can forcibly remove them.

Dropping a spell from this list is a free action; adding one in requires enough "memory" and ten minutes per spell level. The exact activity depends on class; wizards study their books, bards strum their instruments and rehearse songs, clerics study their "prayer books" (another houseruled change I made, keep that as plain old meditation, possibly at restricted times of day, if you prefer).

Sorcerers, being natural casters, are a special case. If they want to restore a spell that was lost through magical assault or head trauma, that takes ten minutes per spell level of practising his technique ("flame on!"). If he wants to swap in an entirely new spell, that takes 1d6 days per spell level. However, rather than being limited to (Charisma + level) spell levels, their limit is based n the "spells known" section in the class entry.

From within that list, spells are cast spontaneously.

The overall effect is that the number of mid-high level spells a caster will keep memorised will be sharply limited. Sorcerers have a much bigger selection of spells in memory at any given time, but don't really have anything like the flexibility of other casters for changing their spell list (although still more than in the core rules). Low-level casters have any more slots than they can cast in a day, which means they no longer have to worry so much about whether the one spell they memorised has any utility at all. It also encourages memorising utility spells that would otherwise be relegated to scrolls only.

Kinda confused- You don't mention using spell points, but assuming you say "they are not forgotten when cast", you do? :smallconfused:

Hmm, I get it, but I don't know how balanced or not this is...

Let's do some simple math.
At 1st level with 18 Int, a wizard normally has (1+1)*1=2 spell levels. Under your system, he has 18+1=19 spell levels!

At 5th level with 19 INT, a wizard normally has (3+1)*1+(2+1)*2+(1+1)*3=20 spell levels. Under your system, he has 19+5=24 spell levels, so instead of 2 3rd level, he can memorize 8 of them.

At 10th level with 20 INT, a wizard normally has (4+2)*1+(4+1)*2+(3+1)*3+(3+1)*4+(2+1)*5=59 spell levels. Under your system, he has 20+10=30 spell levels. Instead of 3 5th level, he can memorize 6 of them.

At 15th level with 21 INT, a wizard normally has (4+2)*1+(4+1)*2+(4+1)*3+(4+1)*4+(4+1)*5+3*6+2*7+1* 8=116 spell levels. Under your system, he has 21+15=36 spell levels. Instead of 1 8th level, he can memorize 4 of them.

At 20th level with 23 INT, a wizard normally has (4+2)*1+(4+2)*2+(4+1)*3+(4+1)*4+(4+1)*5+(4+1)*6+4* 7+4*8+4*9=204 spell levels. Under your system, he has 23+20=43 spell levels.Instead of 4 9th level, he can memorize, well, 4 of them.

Maybe I did something wrong with the basic assumption, but under your system, not only are beginning wizards much more powerful, but they actually can memorize more high level spells (leaving little room for other things, of course).

Cataphract
2010-02-01, 05:07 AM
Thought you might appreciate testimony of a campaign where spells-go-off-next-round actually works. Though I as a caster player don't like it, I have to admit it does!
May I suggest a simpler roll for spell-casting might be acceptably little 'book-keeping? Maybe just Int bonus to make DC10.

Nyah, I'm an all-or-nothing guy. If I should actually bother to roll extra dice, I'm going to require a more complicated roll.



Well, that's up to you of course. But it's someone's character falling/facing the onrushing nasty/whatever, so I think that's a bit harsh. They ain't gonna survive that many 50-50 (or even 75-25) chances...

I like harsh stuff :smallamused:

Seriously though, I like it when players know they are not going to make it just because, when there's a chance involved (and even I as a player like it).

justblade
2010-02-01, 05:11 AM
I haven't personally played it, but a friend of mine runs his 3.5 games with the rules as they stand, except that Druid are not allowed Natural Spell. Ever. And Wizards must pick a theme. Not a specialization, but a theme. For example, a fire based wizard must be able to tie in all of his spells with fire. Teleport will work through flames. All energy based spells must do fire damage or resist fire. It limits the versatility of wizards to greatly, while still allowing them to do the things that make them unique.

On a second note, I like the idea of 1 round casting times also. Do whatever fits your campaign best.

Cataphract
2010-02-01, 05:14 AM
I haven't personally played it, but a friend of mine runs his 3.5 games with the rules as they stand, except that Druid are not allowed Natural Spell. Ever. And Wizards must pick a theme. Not a specialization, but a theme. For example, a fire based wizard must be able to tie in all of his spells with fire. Teleport will work through flames. All energy based spells must do fire damage or resist fire. It limits the versatility of wizards to greatly, while still allowing them to do the things that make them unique.

On a second note, I like the idea of 1 round casting times also. Do whatever fits your campaign best.

Ugh, Druids. Somebody was a real tree-hugger back in the R&D, and it shows even to us who like tree-huggers.

The theme thing sounds funny, but I don't like it that much, since it is TOO limiting (though in an elementalist campaign it might be nice). But there's always spell thematics from FR, With a few tweaks it could actually be made into an interesting feat.

Ashtagon
2010-02-01, 05:39 AM
That's another thought, but it seems like my original method, which I think I'll repost so as to not post it again. Please check the first post again :smallsmile:



Kinda confused- You don't mention using spell points, but assuming you say "they are not forgotten when cast", you do? :smallconfused:

Hmm, I get it, but I don't know how balanced or not this is...

Let's do some simple math.
At 1st level with 18 Int, a wizard normally has (1+1)*1=2 spell levels. Under your system, he has 18+1=19 spell levels!

At 5th level with 19 INT, a wizard normally has (3+1)*1+(2+1)*2+(1+1)*3=20 spell levels. Under your system, he has 19+5=24 spell levels, so instead of 2 3rd level, he can memorize 8 of them.

At 10th level with 20 INT, a wizard normally has (4+2)*1+(4+1)*2+(3+1)*3+(3+1)*4+(2+1)*5=59 spell levels. Under your system, he has 20+10=30 spell levels. Instead of 3 5th level, he can memorize 6 of them.

At 15th level with 21 INT, a wizard normally has (4+2)*1+(4+1)*2+(4+1)*3+(4+1)*4+(4+1)*5+3*6+2*7+1* 8=116 spell levels. Under your system, he has 21+15=36 spell levels. Instead of 1 8th level, he can memorize 4 of them.

At 20th level with 23 INT, a wizard normally has (4+2)*1+(4+2)*2+(4+1)*3+(4+1)*4+(4+1)*5+(4+1)*6+4* 7+4*8+4*9=204 spell levels. Under your system, he has 23+20=43 spell levels.Instead of 4 9th level, he can memorize, well, 4 of them.

Maybe I did something wrong with the basic assumption, but under your system, not only are beginning wizards much more powerful, but they actually can memorize more high level spells (leaving little room for other things, of course).

Eeep, I obviously suck at explaining this. Let's try again.

For wizards (other classes discussed later), there are two places a spell can be - in a spell book, or in memory. There can be any number of spells in a spellbook, subject to the normal limits if spellbooks and pages.

A wizard can have up to class level + Intelligence score spell levels in memory. This is intentionally far more than a 1st level wizard can cast in a day, and far less than a 20th level wizard could cast. At 1st level, it is also probably far more than the wizard has in his entire spellbook collection, in which case many of these slots will be left empty.

Spells are not lost from memory when cast, and there is no benefit in having more than one copy of a spell in memory at a time.

The number of spells a wizard can cast is limited by the "spells per day" columns from the class description. These spells are cast spontaneously from the spells that are currently in his memory.

A low level wizard can't memorise a spell that he can't actually cast (based on his spells per day limit). So, our 18 Int 1st level wizard could memorise 19 1st level spells, assuming he had access to books with that many different spells. he could not memorise or cast any 2nd level or higher spells, as they do not appear on his spells per day limit. He would still be limited to casting 2 spells per day (1 from class ability, 1 for having a high Int).

Once this wizard hits 3rd level, he can memorise a total of 21 spell levels, and can also begin memorising 2nd level spells (which take twice as many slots to memorise as a 1st level spell would). Out of those memorised, he could cast any 3 1st level spells, plus any 2 2nd level spells.

He isn't able to memorise a 9th level spell until he becomes a 17th level wizard, at which point 9th level spells appear in his "spells per day" list. By this point, he can memorise a total of 35 spell levels. Picking a mid-high level spell becomes a difficult decision, as those memory spaces don't go anywhere near far enough to cover all bases at this point. Of course, each spell he picks can be cast as many times as his spells per day limit allows.

Two issues can help make use of all the slots in his spells per day limit:

* A low-level spell can be cast with a higher-level spell slot, although this is a little inefficient.
* A low-level spell can be metamagicked up to a higher level, making use of those higher level spell slots. For example, a wizard could meta-magic a fireball to 8th level, cast it with an 8th level spell slot (as many times as he has 8th level spell slots), but only need 3 memory spaces. Once he runs out of 8th level spells per day, he can still use his 3rd level spells per day to carry on fireballing.

Cataphract
2010-02-01, 05:46 AM
Eeep, I obviously suck at explaining this. Let's try again.

For wizards (other classes discussed later), there are two places a spell can be - in a spell book, or in memory. There can be any number of spells in a spellbook, subject to the normal limits if spellbooks and pages.

A wizard can have up to class level + Intelligence score spell levels in memory. This is intentionally far more than a 1st level wizard can cast in a day, and far less than a 20th level wizard could cast. At 1st level, it is also probably far more than the wizard has in his entire spellbook collection, in which case many of these slots will be left empty.

Spells are not lost from memory when cast, and there is no benefit in having more than one copy of a spell in memory at a time.

The number of spells a wizard can cast is limited by the "spells per day" columns from the class description. These spells are cast spontaneously from the spells that are currently in his memory.

A low level wizard can't memorise a spell that he can't actually cast (based on his spells per day limit). So, our 18 Int 1st level wizard could memorise 19 1st level spells, assuming he had access to books with that many different spells. he could not memorise or cast any 2nd level or higher spells, as they do not appear on his spells per day limit. He would still be limited to casting 2 spells per day (1 from class ability, 1 for having a high Int).

Once this wizard hits 3rd level, he can memorise a total of 21 spell levels, and can also begin memorising 2nd level spells (which take twice as many slots to memorise as a 1st level spell would). Out of those memorised, he could cast any 3 1st level spells, plus any 2 2nd level spells.

He isn't able to memorise a 9th level spell until he becomes a 17th level wizard, at which point 9th level spells appear in his "spells per day" list. By this point, he can memorise a total of 35 spell levels. Picking a mid-high level spell becomes a difficult decision, as those memory spaces don't go anywhere near far enough to cover all bases at this point. Of course, each spell he picks can be cast as many times as his spells per day limit allows.

Two issues can help make use of all the slots in his spells per day limit:

* A low-level spell can be cast with a higher-level spell slot, although this is a little inefficient.
* A low-level spell can be metamagicked up to a higher level, making use of those higher level spell slots. For example, a wizard could meta-magic a fireball to 8th level, cast it with an 8th level spell slot (as many times as he has 8th level spell slots), but only need 3 memory spaces. Once he runs out of 8th level spells per day, he can still use his 3rd level spells per day to carry on fireballing.

Now that makes a lot more sense! :smallbiggrin:

That's quite an innovative variant, and might be simpler than spell points (though I still prefer spell-points for the scaling).

//Something that just crossed my mind: Shouldn't said wizard have to prepare both a 3rd level version and an 8th level version? Thus requiring 11 memory spaces? Otherwise you're letting him metamagic on the fly, even better than a sorcerer (who requires a full-round action).

Ashtagon
2010-02-01, 06:31 AM
That's quite an innovative variant, and might be simpler than spell points (though I still prefer spell-points for the scaling).

//Something that just crossed my mind: Shouldn't said wizard have to prepare both a 3rd level version and an 8th level version? Thus requiring 11 memory spaces? Otherwise you're letting him metamagic on the fly, even better than a sorcerer (who requires a full-round action).

The fundamental problem with a spell points based system is that it encourages a caster to burn all his points on the high level spells (which are generally rather disruptive to the task of making other classes feel relevant and useful). My goal here was to make a system that would encourage a caster to concentrate on getting maximum mileage out of his low-level spells.

On the fly meta-magic: I'm torn on this one. Part of me says "on the fly for everyone", and part of me says "just the basic casting time for everyone". I favour the shorter times, as fair compensation for no longer having immediate access to all the high level spells.

Using spell slots more efficiently: A high level caster can choose to study his spellbook in the middle of the day to swap out some of his spells, instead of just relying on what he studied first thing in the morning. However, this takes a significant amount of time for higher level spells, and does require a calm quiet study area.

Some extra rules:

Rangers, paladins, and other half-casters get (level + ability score) / 2 memory spaces.

Items and special abilities that affect caster level also modify your number of memory spaces on a 1:1 basis. If the item or ability (such as the +1 Cl with good spells for the good cleric domain) only applies to a subset of your entire spell list, then the extra memory spaces may only be used for spells from that subset of your spell list.

Clerics always have all spells from their domain spells list in memory, subject to their having a high enough class level to cast them.

Latronis
2010-02-01, 06:37 AM
The fundamental problem with a spell points based system is that it encourages a caster to burn all his points on the high level spells (which are generally rather disruptive to the task of making other classes feel relevant and useful). My goal here was to make a system that would encourage a caster to concentrate on getting maximum mileage out of his low-level spells.

But it doesn't. If anything it'd encourage the big encounter winners followed by buggering off to your own corner of the multiverse for 8hrs.

Cataphract
2010-02-01, 06:38 AM
The fundamental problem with a spell points based system is that it encourages a caster to burn all his points on the high level spells (which are generally rather disruptive to the task of making other classes feel relevant and useful). My goal here was to make a system that would encourage a caster to concentrate on getting maximum mileage out of his low-level spells.

On the fly meta-magic: I'm torn on this one. Part of me says "on the fly for everyone", and part of me says "just the basic casting time for everyone". I favour the shorter times, as fair compensation for no longer having immediate access to all the high level spells.

Using spell slots more efficiently: A high level caster can choose to study his spellbook in the middle of the day to swap out some of his spells, instead of just relying on what he studied first thing in the morning. However, this takes a significant amount of time for higher level spells, and does require a calm quiet study area.

Some extra rules:

Rangers, paladins, and other half-casters get (level + ability score) / 2 memory spaces.

Items and special abilities that affect caster level also modify your number of memory spaces on a 1:1 basis. If the item or ability (such as the +1 Cl with good spells for the good cleric domain) only applies to a subset of your entire spell list, then the extra memory spaces may only be used for spells from that subset of your spell list.

Clerics always have all spells from their domain spells list in memory, subject to their having a high enough class level to cast them.

Ηmm, makes sense. And the metamagic on the fly is decent- after all, you paid the feat, and you don't have that many spell levels anyway.

All in all, solid variant. Have you playtested it?


But it doesn't. If anything it'd encourage the big encounter winners followed by buggering off to your own corner of the multiverse for 8hrs.

This system specifically? Why? :smallconfused:

lesser_minion
2010-02-01, 06:59 AM
Surgo suggested a pretty simple way around the spell points issue, which was to have spells decrease in cost as the caster gained levels, while the caster's total number of spell points available remained basically constant.

Cataphract
2010-02-01, 07:03 AM
Surgo suggested a pretty simple way around the spell points issue, which was to have spells decrease in cost as the caster gained levels, while the caster's total number of spell points available remained basically constant.

What's the difference...?

I mean, the concept is the same pretty much, what are the mechanics?

Latronis
2010-02-01, 07:16 AM
This system specifically? Why? :smallconfused:

Ashtagon's?

Because you are giving out shiny new toys (higher level spells) but using them uses up most of your daily juice. (and lower levels one become more and more suck as your encounters scale up) Instead of using your juice for subpar abilities when you have access to encounter winners you'd be more inclined to spend 2 rounds or so to win an encounter then bugger off to your own private sanctuary\plane\coil of rope etc. It hasn't really addressed any problems only prevented them doing so over the standard 4 daily encounters.

And unlike something like a nova psion it's much harder to force the extra encounters on them

Cataphract
2010-02-01, 07:20 AM
Ashtagon's?

Because you are giving out shiny new toys (higher level spells) but using them uses up most of your daily juice. (and lower levels one become more and more suck as your encounters scale up) Instead of using your juice for subpar abilities when you have access to encounter winners you'd be more inclined to spend 2 rounds or so to win an encounter then bugger off to your own private sanctuary\plane\coil of rope etc. It hasn't really addressed any problems only prevented them doing so over the standard 4 daily encounters.

And unlike something like a nova psion it's much harder to force the extra encounters on them

Ashtagon's actually works fine as far as that is concerned. You don't cast more spells per day, you're just more flexible in your spell selection.

As for the sanctuary-8 hours thingie, ban it. Ban it to hell and back. I hate anybody who would ever do that. I've never encountered it in-game and I'm sure that after the second or third time no DM would put up with that.

Ashtagon
2010-02-01, 07:37 AM
Ashtagon's?

Because you are giving out shiny new toys (higher level spells) but using them uses up most of your daily juice. (and lower levels one become more and more suck as your encounters scale up) Instead of using your juice for subpar abilities when you have access to encounter winners you'd be more inclined to spend 2 rounds or so to win an encounter then bugger off to your own private sanctuary\plane\coil of rope etc. It hasn't really addressed any problems only prevented them doing so over the standard 4 daily encounters.

And unlike something like a nova psion it's much harder to force the extra encounters on them

I think you've misunderstood the system.

Your "daily juice" is the total number of spells you can cast per day. That is exactly the same as it always was.

The key difference is one of flexibility. Let's say you use 6 memory spaces to memorise one of your 6th level spells. You can then cast it as many times as you have 6th or higher spells per day spaces left. The best way to game this system with this is to concentrate on low level (1st-3rd) spells, with a decent mix of utility spells, and have plenty of metamagic feats ready to boost up your battle magic, and then keep one or two high level spells in memory as "big guns". This incidentally encourages casters to have a "signature spell", which is entirely in-keeping with many fantasy tropes.

It's true that lower level spells, even with metamagic, aren't on average as good as the equivalent spell level spell from higher level lists. But then, the whole thread is about "nerfing" the ubermage anyway.

If this system encourages a wizard to win the battle in 2 rounds then go rest for the day, then the RAW system practically forces him to do so. Under RAW, the structure of vancian magic means a character can't flexibly choose to use a spell for combat or for utility, which results in cautious casters using every slot for a combat spell. And because he has an "i-win" spell memorised, he is practically forced to use it or consider it a wasted resource.

lesser_minion
2010-02-01, 07:39 AM
http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Mana-Based_Spellcasting_(3.5e_Variant_Rule)

The main issue is that handing someone 300 spell points and telling them that a 9th-level spell costs 17 of them is a recipe for disaster.

frogspawner
2010-02-01, 07:48 AM
The fundamental problem with a spell points based system is that it encourages a caster to burn all his points on the high level spells...
A problem solved by the "Failed-Casting-Roll-Doubles-Cost" rule I suggested earlier.

When a high-level/high-points spell can cost twice what was expected, sensible mages look very hard for low-level/low-points alternatives. It's quite subtle, so trigger-happy mages might not realize it until they find themselves empty all too soon...

Cataphract
2010-02-01, 07:48 AM
http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Mana-Based_Spellcasting_(3.5e_Variant_Rule))

The main issue is that handing someone 300 spell points and telling them that a 9th-level spell costs 17 of them is a recipe for disaster.

Also, it's obviously stolen from Iron Heroes (published 2005, this variant says 2006).

P.S.: Broken Link, you must add the last ) manually

Cataphract
2010-02-01, 07:50 AM
A problem solved by the "Failed-Casting-Roll-Doubles-Cost" rule I suggested earlier.

When a high-level/high-points spell can cost twice what was expected, sensible mages look very hard for low-level/low-points alternatives. It's quite subtle, so trigger-happy mages might not realize it until they find themselves empty all too soon...

Then again, making the spell fail altogether instead of costing double, also costs double if you want to recast it anyway, and you lose actions too.

frogspawner
2010-02-01, 07:56 AM
Then again, making the spell fail altogether instead of costing double, also costs double if you want to recast it anyway, and you lose actions too.
Yeah, but you might not have any actions 'cos by then you could be dead.

Cataphract
2010-02-01, 08:01 AM
Yeah, but you might not have any actions 'cos by then you could be dead.

As I said, I see little issue in that.

High level spells are, as said before, encounter winners. By letting them be cast in 3,5 seconds with little to none chances of failure (unless specific conditions are engineered) turns this game into chess or Magic: The Gathering, not an RPG.

Ashtagon
2010-02-01, 08:12 AM
A problem solved by the "Failed-Casting-Roll-Doubles-Cost" rule I suggested earlier.

When a high-level/high-points spell can cost twice what was expected, sensible mages look very hard for low-level/low-points alternatives. It's quite subtle, so trigger-happy mages might not realize it until they find themselves empty all too soon...

A 17th level wizard can reasonably have 224 spell points. Under RAW, he'd have one 9th level spell. Even with double cost for casting roll failures and failing every roll, that's 6 1/2 castings.

Having an entire battle hinge on a single die roll also removes a lot of the drama from the conflict, as well as lampshades the difference in power levels between wizards and everyone else.

deuxhero
2010-02-01, 08:22 AM
Ban the tier 1/2 specialists and replace them with specialist casters (Dread Necro an co), buff warmage. Done

frogspawner
2010-02-01, 08:56 AM
A 17th level wizard can reasonably have 224 spell points. Under RAW, he'd have one 9th level spell. Even with double cost for casting roll failures and failing every roll, that's 6 1/2 castings.

Having an entire battle hinge on a single die roll also removes a lot of the drama from the conflict, as well as lampshades the difference in power levels between wizards and everyone else.
Really? I must have a meaner way to calculate spell-points than UA. I make it 130 spell-levels for a RAW 17th-level Wizard, and I'd probably use a formula to reduce that by about half, to make up for the flexibility. So about 65, enough for just 3 (and a 1/2) double-cost castings. But then he'd be totally empty.

I see your point, though. However your mechanism doesn't entirely eliminate that anti-climactic one-die-roll problem either (and it means there is only one such roll...)

Ashtagon
2010-02-01, 09:20 AM
Really? I must have a meaner way to calculate spell-points than UA. I make it 130 spell-levels for a RAW 17th-level Wizard, and I'd probably use a formula to reduce that by about half, to make up for the flexibility. So about 65, enough for just 3 (and a 1/2) double-cost castings. But then he'd be totally empty.

I see your point, though. However your mechanism doesn't entirely eliminate that anti-climactic one-die-roll problem either (and it means there is only one such roll...)

224 for a 17th level wizard is what the SRD and UA says a 22 Int wizard would have.

lesser_minion
2010-02-01, 09:31 AM
Before we continue, maybe we should try to come up with an idea of exactly what we want from a variant.

For example, here is what I would like to see:


A limitation on the character's per-encounter output. Not something as weak as actions, but something real.
Whatever limit we impose, the caster should be able to cope with different size encounters.
It should also be possible for the casters to run out of juice and be forced to retreat because of that.


The first two points aren't difficult to handle. The third isn't so easy to do without people whining.

Cataphract
2010-02-01, 09:32 AM
A 17th level wizard can reasonably have 224 spell points. Under RAW, he'd have one 9th level spell. Even with double cost for casting roll failures and failing every roll, that's 6 1/2 castings.

Having an entire battle hinge on a single die roll also removes a lot of the drama from the conflict, as well as lampshades the difference in power levels between wizards and everyone else.

True that, true that... As for the single battle hinging on a die roll, if you cast at least one round, there's plenty of die rolls involved... mainly concentration checks to keep the spell from failing!

That's why I'm rethinking about the whole Concentration issue. You want fast spells? Cast lower-level ones/ones with few spell-points. You want high-level spells? It takes more time, you're

The issue that is indeed is that optimizing Concentration pretty much yields standard results, but I'll still have to do the math for that. I'll do it in a subsequent post.


Ban the tier 1/2 specialists and replace them with specialist casters (Dread Necro an co), buff warmage. Done

That's a variant my friend, Dictuum Mortuum, suggested, and something worth trying. Also, I keep hearing about tier 1/2/3 etc. Even though I get the concept, I don't know the specifics. And since we're at it, what does PEACH stand for? :p


Really? I must have a meaner way to calculate spell-points than UA. I make it 130 spell-levels for a RAW 17th-level Wizard, and I'd probably use a formula to reduce that by about half, to make up for the flexibility. So about 65, enough for just 3 (and a 1/2) double-cost castings. But then he'd be totally empty.

I see your point, though. However your mechanism doesn't entirely eliminate that anti-climactic one-die-roll problem either (and it means there is only one such roll...)

Still, 3 castings is some badass stuff instead of 1. As for the anti-climactic one-die-roll, I think I need to rework on my Concentration check idea.

Roderick_BR
2010-02-01, 09:34 AM
If you'll use the spell points, get rid of the stupid increased cost for blasting. It gives spellcasters the sorcerer's versatility, at the cost of reducing the ammount of times they cast lower level spells, that already is not much, as they usually cast a handful of their highest level spells anyway. And increasing costs for blasting makes blasters suck even more.

Increasing spellcasting time makes it go back to AD&D, when you couldn't tear a new one on reality in a few seconds. I like :smallsmile:
And just to be interesting, let all the direct attack spells stay their normal speed.

I mentioned it a few times, but you could add a Fort saving throw to any Save-or-Die spell or Save-or-Suck, even if they already have a normal save. The character needs to fail both saves to be affected. It'll be a huge nerf on "Win-button" spells, since there'll now have a failure chance. Maybe add an effect if he pass the fort but fails the original save, according to spell.

Yes, now you can still put a bunch of orcs to sleep at once, or paralyse that huge monster... but it takes a bit more time than before, and it may fail if they have the resistance. And quickly casting a fireball becomes an option.

frogspawner
2010-02-01, 09:56 AM
224 for a 17th level wizard is what the SRD and UA says a 22 Int wizard would have.
OK, I had forgotten Int bonuses. But by my calculation (even with 22 Int!) that still only gives +24, i.e. 154 spell-levels. Rather than halving that for spell-points, to balance the gained flexibility, UA's formula seems to nearly double it!

Cataphract
2010-02-01, 10:09 AM
Ok, here's the bare bones. First of all, I'm assuming we're using the UA spell-point variant.

Whenever you want to cast a spell, you start a multi-round action. At the beginning of each of your turns (essentially when you've completed a full round, not a full-round action, ugh, damn terminology), you roll a Concentration check. Roll 1, you lose everything (an exception to the "1 is not autofailure" in skill rolls). For every 10 points (round down) in the check result, you successfully amass 1 magic point. Alternatively, substitute "Will save" for Concentration check, and count it for every 5 points starting from a DC of 10 (10-14 is 1, 15-19 is 2 etc).

After this roll, you may choose to let the spell go off; if you have less than the minimum SP (like , <5 for a 3rd level spell) then it fizzles. If you have more, it works appropriately. As always, you cannot amass more than your CL, but you can keep holding it with a simple Concentration check (DC equal to 10+2xspell level, +10 if moving, +20 if fighting etc), a swift action every round.

Now, let's do some math. We'll assume a slightly optimized wizard, with a starting Con or Wis of 14 and Int of 18, and putting everything on Int from that level on (which means, since nothing relies on Int as far as this part of the rules is concerned, we don't bother with it). It also means we'll assume skill emphasis at least, since it's so important a skill now, or if using Will, the Iron Will feat. Also, magic items will appear accordingly (+2 from level 5, +4 from level 10, +6 from level 15). and at level 20 at least a +2 inherent bonus.

1st level:
--Concentration +9= 4 (ranks) + 2 (Con) +3 (Skill Emphasis)
An average of 19 and a max of 29 means that the wizard will amass 1-2 spell points, and will fail only on a 1. Since it only goes up from here, only an 1 will normally fail a Concentration check, hence I won't repeat it. So he casts everything he can in one round.

--Will Save +6= +2 (Base) +2 (Wis) +2 (Iron Will)

Average of 16 and max of 26 actually means this character will either gain 2-4 spell points. However, he fails on a roll of 1-3 from now on, but this is easily going to become just 1 in a few levels.

5th level:
--Concentration +14= 8 (ranks) + 3 (Con) +3 (Skill Emphasis)

Average of 24 and max of 34 means that this character amasses about 2-3 spell points per round. This means that he can cast a 1st level spell in one round, most 2nd level spells in two rounds or one if lucky, and a 3rd level spell in at least two rounds, usually three.

--Will Save +9= +4 (Base) +3 (Wis) +2 (Iron Will)

Average of 19 and Max of 29 means about 2-4 spell points, as before, but it's more reliable. He can cast a 1st level spell easily, 2nd level spells about 50% of the time in one round, and 3rd level spells in two rounds most of the time.

10th level:
--Concentration +20= 13 (ranks) + 4 (Con) +3 (Skill Emphasis)

Average of 30 and max of 40 means about 3-4 spell points. He can cast 1st and 2nd level spells instantly, 3rd level spells in a couple of rounds, 4th level spells in 2 or 3 rounds, and 5th level spells in 3-4 rounds.

--Will Save +13= +7 (Base) +4 (Wis) +2 (Iron Will)

Average of 23 and max of 33 means 3-5 spell points. Same thing as above, pretty much, except that the occasional 3rd level spell can be fired off in round, 4th level in two rounds usually, and fifth level in three rounds (or maybe two with a little luck).


15th level:
--Concentration +26= 18 (ranks) + 5 (Con) +3 (Skill Emphasis)

Average of 36 and max of 46 means 3-4 spell points- essentially the same as before, just more reliable. Thus, as before pretty much, with 6th level spells requiring 3-4 rounds, 7th level spells requiring 4-5 rounds, and 8th level spells 4-5 rounds.

--Will Save +16= +9 (Base) +5 (Wis) +2 (Iron Will)

Average of 26 and max 36 means 4-6 spell points. Any 1st or 2nd level spell goes off in 1 round, 3rd level spells in one or two rounds, 4th level spells in two rounds, 5th and 6th level spells in 2-3 rounds, 7th level spells in 3-4 rounds, 8th level spells in 3-4 rounds.


20th level:
--Concentration +32= 23 (ranks) + 6 (Con) +3 (Skill Emphasis)

Average of 42 and max of 52 means 4-5 spell points. 1st or 2nd level go off in one round, 3rd and 4th level in 2 rounds, 5th level in 2-3 rounds, 6th level in 3 rounds, 7th and 8th level in 3-4 rounds, 9th level in 4-5 rounds.

--Will Save +20= +12 (Base) +6 (Wis) +2 (Iron Will)

Average of 30 and max of 40 means 5-7 spell points. 1st, 2nd or 3rd level spells go off in one round, 4th level spells go off in 1-2 rounds, 5th level spells go off in two rounds, 6th and 7th level spells go off in 2-3 rounds, 8th level spells go off in 3 rounds, and 9th level spells go off in 3-4 rounds.

///Ack have to run, I'll finish it later.

lesser_minion
2010-02-01, 11:00 AM
I guess one option is to use spell points/reserve points - for example:

A caster gains X spell points per caster level. If her casting pool isn't full, she may transfer up to one spell point to the casting pool each round, as long as she does not cast any spells, or permit her spell points reserve to drop below zero.

Additionally, a caster has a casting pool, with a total size equal to 3/4 Caster Level + Casting Attribute Modifier.

This doesn't fix the "I can cast nine 9th level spells per day" issue - at least, not totally - but it stops that from causing a problem. It also makes utility spells more worthwhile (even if the caster forgets them after casting).

Tyndmyr
2010-02-01, 12:08 PM
OK, I had forgotten Int bonuses. But by my calculation (even with 22 Int!) that still only gives +24, i.e. 154 spell-levels. Rather than halving that for spell-points, to balance the gained flexibility, UA's formula seems to nearly double it!

And who has only 22 int at level 17? My level 10 wizard has a +28, thanks to 18+2 racial+2 level ups+6 enhancement. By 17, you have more from levels, probable inherent bonuses, and a possible age bonus.

Basing MORE stuff off int isn't likely to cure wizards.

Neither is any nerf that fails to address exponential caster progression while non caster profession remains linear.

Rithaniel
2010-02-01, 12:43 PM
Tsk tsk, gotta explain everything, don't I?


Which is why I need ToB's variety, flavor, and tactical options. Isn't it unfair that only casters get that kind of variety in combat while those that are actually supposed to do combat in regular basis (i.e. melee classes), are deprived of this fun?

You read my line too much, I said that ToB was good inside combat. Think about outside of combat as well.


First of all, since when co-operative storytelling is a problem? I thought that was what an RPG is supposed to be about, with rules used to help quantify problems that the narrative is not as capable at doing so.

That aside, I think this whole optimization quest is pure rubbish. I want people to serve their concept first, and their min/maxing later. There's no reason to throw waves after waves of monsters at your players, with your only measure being their respective ECLs vs CRs. I like catering to my players- I don't like forcing them to play the kind of story I want.

No one ever said that co-operative storytelling was bad. Of course, if that's all your doing, then, you don't need a system, and you don't need D&D, and you're on the wrong website, as a player can roleplay anything, and you, catering the challenges to them, will never kill them, or even try.

People will always serve their concept if they play D&D, they play D&D to make a character, if you never liked roleplaying, then, you would not play D&D, as you can't go deeper if you don't. Though, as I said above, D&D is just a system to go on top of roleplaying, so, without attempting to use the system to make yourself strong, you're back down to just roleplaying. Also, as for the waves after waves of monster thing, that's actually a foolish idea. I recommended challenging the players, not boring them (challenging them can be done with something like having a pit with a force wall across it, meaning that, if you try and jump it, you hit the wall, and fall, and that players have to think and be creative about how to get around it (and, if the wizard just dispels it, you can have another trick, such as there being a second wall, or that the force wall was the only thing holding up the ceiling)).


NPCs are vastly overrated.

In general, a CR4 monster should curb-stomp a single level 4 PC. If you actually run the maths, a monster that consumes 20% of the resources of a four-man party is actually the equivalent of about 1.8 party members.

The bar is set by the expected ability of the party, not by a single hopelessly inaccurate sentence in the 3.0 DMG that was inexplicably retained and propagated throughout the 3.5 rulebooks.

If a level 4 wizard is a match for a CR 4 enemy, the level 4 wizard is about twice as powerful as it should be.

I'll just trump you, then, and prove that ECL was always intended to be CR, and was never anything else:

The SGT is a design specification that only applies to 3.x Dungeons and Dragons. It attempts to tell us when a particular class is well above or below it's intended power level. The intended power level of a class is defined in an unlikely place:


“ Challenge Ratings for NPCs: An NPC with a PC class has a Challenge Rating equal to the NPC’s level. ”

—Dungeon Master's Guide, page 37

“ A single monster of a specific Challenge Rating when faced by itself has an Encounter Level about equal to its Challenge Rating. ”

—Table 3-1, Dungeon Master's Guide, page 49

Since the only difference between an NPC human with nothing but fighter levels and a PC human with nothing but fighter levels is the person playing them, we will go ahead and assume that the statement holds true for PCs as well. So, a PC of level X can be treated as having a CR of X and an EL of X.

Back to the books for some more definitions...


“ Challenge Rating: This shows the average level of a party of adventurers for which one creature would make an encounter of moderate difficulty. Assume a party of four fresh characters (full hit points, full spells, and equipment appropriate to their levels). Given reasonable luck, the party should be able to win the encounter with some damage but no casualties. ”

—Monster Manual, page 7

“ In general, if a creature's Challenge Rating is two lower than a given Encounter Level, then two creatures of that kind equal an encounter of that Encounter Level. . . . The progression holds of doubling the number of creatures for each drop of two places in their individual CR, so that four CR 7 creatures are an EL 11 encounter, [etc]. ”

—Dungeon Master's Guide, page 48

“ The average adventuring group should be able to handle four challenging encounters [of an Encounter Level equal to the party level] before they run low on spells, hit points, and other resources. ”

—Dungeon Master's Guide, page 50

“ Overpowering: The PCs should run. If they don't they will almost certainly lose. The Encounter Level is five or more levels higher than the party level. ”

—Dungeon Master's Guide, page 50

We need to do some work with these before we can get to what the SGT represents. If you have a group of four adventures of level X, they are an EL X+4 encounter. They are supposed to get into a total of four EL X encounters before they start running low on abilities and supplies, and when players start running low on abilities and supplies they start dying. But four of EL X encounters are equal to one EL X+4 encounter, which also happens to be the same EL as the party is. So an encounter of the same EL as the party is supposed to push them towards running low on spells, hit points, and other resources. When that happens, people start dying, and they may die before the monsters do. We can't actually go any higher than this (EL X+5) without the party being supposed to die and lose, so this EL+4 point is as close to 50/50 win/loss as we can get in the rules. What we get from this is that an EL X+4 group against an EL X+4 group should result in a 50/50 fight.

We take that and, since it works backwards too, conclude that an EL X vs EL X fight should be 50/50. If you are a PC of level X you should be able to fight an encounter of your EL and, on average, have a 50/50 success rate. This is the basis of the SGT, and it's also an important point in 3.x DnD. Level is supposed to equal CR, but just like there are specializations and roles for monsters to play, so there are for PCs.

The important bit there is the average. You can not do an SGT for a single encounter and learn anything useful from it. Encounters are different and they play to different strengths and weaknesses. So the SGT attempts to represent different styles of encounters so that you get a range of results. You can very easily have "sure win" results in the SGT, just as you can very easily have "sure loss" results. You can also have "likely win/loss" or "toss up" results. You could even make it more detailed if you wanted to, but since it's largely a thought experiment I don't think you gain anything from it. Then you bundle all of your results up, and if you have an approximately 50% win rate, congratulations, you have passed the SGT! Your level is balanced against challenges of your level, as defined in the DMG.

That's what SGT tells us. Using DMG definitions and monsters at their published CRs it gives you encounters that are supposed to kill you 50% of the time, on average, and sees how you stack up against a varied set of them. It's not a bad thing to be able to hand a hill giant his head every time, as long as it is balanced out in other places with losing yours. Passing the SGT isn't good or bad on it's own, it just means that you can probably use the monsters in the monster manual that are appropriate for your CR and that you play nicely with other classes that pass the SGT. These are nice things, but they are not the only nice things in the game, and they're not even something you should necessarily strive for. There are lots of ways to play the game, this tool just helps you minimize hidden class based balance issues by picking a point and playing your game to it.

If you wanna see the SGT, I'll post it as well, later.


The wizard also needs magic items. Whitout scroll o'mart, you're better playing a sorceror. And then you need a market system to provide you with the special expensive inks and herbs to craft your shinies.

No, you're most assuredly not. I could go into extreme detail as to why the Wizard is so many thousand times better than the sorcerer, but, people have hammered that nail enough already, I don't feel I need to explain it past "There is no limit to the number of spells a Wizard can know, and so, in effect, he knows his entire list". Also, as for the magic items, you don't need them as a wizard, as you already the spells that the items would be simulating.


And doesn't throwing a color spray demands you to "hope" that the enemy fails his saves?

See, that's early level, but, even then, if you're a smart human being, then your wizard's save DC is high enough that they will need a 17+ to succeed. After that level, though, you start getting things where the wizard doesn't need to worry about creatures with high saves, as they will just pull out spells that don't grant saves (read: solid fog and cloudkill).


Because attacking in melee is the only thing noncasters can do, yes sir. There's no mundane items, no triping, no grappling, no nets, no ranged weapons, no skills, ect, ect. Geez, one wonders why people play noncasters do you?

Wow, cause those things are actually interesting, huh?

Please refrain from flaming, and please, know what you're talking about before you mock another person.

--------------------

All in all, I was merely attempting to help this endeavor by making sure that people realized the actual facts, but, apparently the facts are being purposefully ignored, so, I will retract myself from this particular thread, and wish you guys the best.

lesser_minion
2010-02-01, 01:47 PM
Slight problem: you're still wrong. Totally wrong.

Firstly, your quote is in fact horribly inaccurate. You aren't convincing anyone that a 4th level NPC is a serious threat to a 4th-level party.

Secondly, ECL actually is completely different to CR. Read any monster entry and compare them. Ogres for example. ECL 6. CR 3. Character level equivalence for cohorts is different again, IIRC.

Thirdly, a single APL+4 encounter is a completely different beast to four separate encounters that would have been APL+4 if they were all put together. That shouldn't have needed stating.

Fourth, let's run some real maths. Some simple maths as well.

Let's take some purple units, and some green units. They're identical in every respect, except they're painted different colours.

Let's take a battlefield which is completely flat, and featureless.

And let's run some tests.


A purple unit meets a green unit on the battlefield. They pretty much tear each other to pieces most of the time. Neither side has a viable force remaining after the battle. The purple forces basically expended 100% of their resources.
Two purples meet a green. Faced with twice as much firepower, the green dies twice as fast, so it does half as much damage (50% of a unit). There were two units, so this battle had the purples expend 25% of their resources.
Three purples meet a green. The green only has the chance to do a third its normal damage, so the purples used 11% of their resources in the battle.
Four purples meet a green. Long story short, they used up about 6% of their resources.


Working from this, the cost of an encounter in defensive resources is in the region of:

d = e2/n2

(where d is the cost in defensive resources, e is the approximate strength of the enemy in terms of PCs and n is the number of PCs)

That puts a monster that will wipe out about 20% of the party's hitpoints, defensive spells, and healing capability at the equivalent of 1.8 PCs.

Attacking resources are basically all over the place - most characters do not expend significant amounts of juice aggressively.

It does get smaller the more significant a concern attacking resources are, which shouldn't really come as a surprise - attacking resources follow the formula a = e/kn, after all (where k is the number of PCs a single PC can kill without running out of attack juice.)

Oslecamo
2010-02-01, 02:41 PM
Wow, cause those things are actually interesting, huh?

Actualy, very interesting. In the groups I usualy play, even the wizard starts with his skills when presented with a problem.




Please refrain from flaming, and please, know what you're talking about before you mock another person.

--------------------

All in all, I was merely attempting to help this endeavor by making sure that people realized the actual facts, but, apparently the facts are being purposefully ignored, so, I will retract myself from this particular thread, and wish you guys the best.

Meh, what can I say? You think everybody has your concept of (un)fun. You ignore all the utility maneuvers from ToB. You ignore that problems can be solved whitout magic. You ignore how wizards must learn spells(hint:you need scrolls. Wich are magic items. So you can ignore magic items if you have magic items...Hmm, doesn't sound very right...). You ignore the NPC creation rules. You ignore that monsters have special abilities of their own. You ignore that walls of force cannot be dispeled. So good day sir!

Draz74
2010-02-01, 02:45 PM
Sorry, I haven't read through this whole thread, but ...


I personally would have casting time be a function of spell level; lower-level casters are a bit too fragile to sit there casting the whole battle (as 1e and 2e have taught us), and being able to fire off three or four spells in succession isn't too much of a problem until higher level when you have plenty of spells. Thus, making it something like 1st-3rd level spells are 1 action, 4th-6th are 1 round, and 7th-9th are 2 rounds (or whatever other scheme fits) would leave lower-level casters as they are and only bring down the power curve when casters really start outpacing everyone else.

Did anyone else even see this post? It's simple and elegant, and seems to be pretty nicely in line with what the OP wanted.

Of course there are individual spells here and there that would have to be looked at - low-level spells that scale too well, or high-level spells that would be completely useless if they were so slow to cast. (Or where it would just ruin their fluff and traditional coolness - in 2e the main point of Finger of Death and the Power Words was how fast they were to cast!) But in general, I think this could help the game a bit!

Iferus
2010-02-01, 04:28 PM
That's a variant my friend, Dictuum Mortuum, suggested, and something worth trying. Also, I keep hearing about tier 1/2/3 etc. Even though I get the concept, I don't know the specifics. And since we're at it, what does PEACH stand for? :p

PEACH stands for Please Evaluate and Critique Honestly.
About the tiers: this (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0)is an extensive post about the tiers of power.

Cataphract
2010-02-01, 05:08 PM
Tsk tsk, gotta explain everything, don't I?

If you don't make sense, yes.




You read my line too much, I said that ToB was good inside combat. Think about outside of combat as well.

Noone doubts wizards have plenty of utility. That was an intended point in game design (or at least so the fluff tells us).



No one ever said that co-operative storytelling was bad. Of course, if that's all your doing, then, you don't need a system, and you don't need D&D, and you're on the wrong website, as a player can roleplay anything, and you, catering the challenges to them, will never kill them, or even try.

People will always serve their concept if they play D&D, they play D&D to make a character, if you never liked roleplaying, then, you would not play D&D, as you can't go deeper if you don't. Though, as I said above, D&D is just a system to go on top of roleplaying, so, without attempting to use the system to make yourself strong, you're back down to just roleplaying. Also, as for the waves after waves of monster thing, that's actually a foolish idea. I recommended challenging the players, not boring them (challenging them can be done with something like having a pit with a force wall across it, meaning that, if you try and jump it, you hit the wall, and fall, and that players have to think and be creative about how to get around it (and, if the wizard just dispels it, you can have another trick, such as there being a second wall, or that the force wall was the only thing holding up the ceiling)).

Catering to them does not mean providing them with things they can run over. It means not putting stuff that would kill them outright just because the rules said so.


No, you're most assuredly not. I could go into extreme detail as to why the Wizard is so many thousand times better than the sorcerer, but, people have hammered that nail enough already, I don't feel I need to explain it past "There is no limit to the number of spells a Wizard can know, and so, in effect, he knows his entire list". Also, as for the magic items, you don't need them as a wizard, as you already the spells that the items would be simulating.

Then who needs to play a sorcerer? And for that matter, who needs to play anything else?


Wow, cause those things are actually interesting, huh?

To plenty of people, yes. More so than spells. The sheer fact, however, that spells are usually so much better does not render them less interesting, merely disadvantageous to such a degree there's no point on picking them up.


Please refrain from flaming, and please, know what you're talking about before you mock another person.

If you want people to refrain from flaming, you should first of all be civil yourself. Basic prerequisite. In this instance, you're being rude and then you ask others to behave themselves, like the little kid that hits his classmate and says it's not right to hit people.


All in all, I was merely attempting to help this endeavor by making sure that people realized the actual facts, but, apparently the facts are being purposefully ignored, so, I will retract myself from this particular thread, and wish you guys the best.

First of all, your facts are not laws, because laws are immutable (well, short of the innards of a black hole). That wizards are better is a fact, but it's hardly something that needs a black hole to be changed, and this is what we're doing. To "help" us by pointing the obvious is not something we consider help, really. You just came in here, pointed the obvious by saying wizards are so awesome, offered some trivial insight on how the game is not fun if you nerf them, and that's it. And then you commented on how casters are still so much better than boring martial types (wow, more obvious. Thank you, Captain Obvious!) while arguing how the game should be played, which not only was not what I asked, but also one of the basic laws of any RPG- you play it the way you want it, and you alter the mechanics to fit that kind of play. And now you're spooling off useless math about how the game should play, at the same time that anything can possibly happen.

Retracting yourself is probably the biggest contribution you've made in this thread.


Sorry, I haven't read through this whole thread, but ...



Did anyone else even see this post? It's simple and elegant, and seems to be pretty nicely in line with what the OP wanted.

Of course there are individual spells here and there that would have to be looked at - low-level spells that scale too well, or high-level spells that would be completely useless if they were so slow to cast. (Or where it would just ruin their fluff and traditional coolness - in 2e the main point of Finger of Death and the Power Words was how fast they were to cast!) But in general, I think this could help the game a bit!

I did, I'm still thinking on it- the previous page had my thoughts on a system based on amassing spell points to cast the spells through rolls. Thanks for digging it out, though!


PEACH stands for Please Evaluate and Critique Honestly.
About the tiers: this (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0)is an extensive post about the tiers of power.

Thank you very, very much, kind sir.

Iferus
2010-02-01, 05:59 PM
Always there to help.

Having read this thread, I have decided I want to encourage tier 3 casters. I have banned Archivist, Artificer and Erudite, since they aren't central gameplay anyway. Other casters experience fluff effects that are in essence some of the measures mentioned here.


Clerics, Wizards and Druids will experience drag in their spellcasting. Most spells will take longer to cast; all spells that required a standard action now require a turn(as summoning spells). All spells that were naturally quick (Swift actions, immediate actions, or badly-defined ones like Feather Fall) remain so, but Quickened Spell now reduces casting time to one standard action. This drag-effect is not experienced by spontaneous casters and casters with a Divine Rank. Note that the duration of magic item activation is not changed.
Sorcerers and Favoured Souls will notice that spellcasting is straining. To cast a spell, they have to roll a concentration check DC 5 + 3 * Spell Level +2 * Sum of Spell Levels of all spells cast since the beginning of last round.

How does this do for balance? Note that I use Mr Burlew's Polymorphing rules as well.

Cataphract
2010-02-01, 06:18 PM
Always there to help.

Having read this thread, I have decided I want to encourage tier 3 casters. I have banned Archivist, Artificer and Erudite, since they aren't central gameplay anyway. Other casters experience fluff effects that are in essence some of the measures mentioned here.


Clerics, Wizards and Druids will experience drag in their spellcasting. Most spells will take longer to cast; all spells that required a standard action now require a turn(as summoning spells). All spells that were naturally quick (Swift actions, immediate actions, or badly-defined ones like Feather Fall) remain so, but Quickened Spell now reduces casting time to one standard action. This drag-effect is not experienced by spontaneous casters and casters with a Divine Rank. Note that the duration of magic item activation is not changed.
Sorcerers and Favoured Souls will notice that spellcasting is straining. To cast a spell, they have to roll a concentration check DC 5 + 3 * Spell Level +2 * Sum of Spell Levels of all spells cast since the beginning of last round.

How does this do for balance? Note that I use Mr Burlew's Polymorphing rules as well.

Sounds pretty much what we were saying, though I like the strain part. I'll have to see how that goes statistically, but I leave that for tomorrow. Nice idea, though.

Dante & Vergil
2010-02-02, 03:01 PM
I actually like some of the things said here, and that says something because I was all, "If you nerf casters the way most people think is good, then no one will play one."
The problem spells people seem to have Barney with is the Celerity line among others, and I think they wouldn't be so bad if they just lost an additional turn on top of it, or it required another Initiative check against the person they are interrupting.

Cataphract
2010-02-02, 03:10 PM
Celerity, Ugh.

Those spells need to be banned or reworked outright.

Or maybe not- after all, if you cast celerity, you need to fire off a spell in a single round, which is mighty difficult in this variant. So in the end, there's little point, except for actually performing non-spell-stuff.

Tinydwarfman
2010-02-02, 06:43 PM
My quite simple, but not nearly comprehensive adjustment is that casters get new spell levels every three levels instead of 2, and naturally cap at 7th. I am also in the process of converting Dragoon Wraith's Mana system to appropriate values for my system, and of course, most uber broken spells are banned.

Cataphract
2010-02-03, 06:31 AM
My quite simple, but not nearly comprehensive adjustment is that casters get new spell levels every three levels instead of 2, and naturally cap at 7th. I am also in the process of converting Dragoon Wraith's Mana system to appropriate values for my system, and of course, most uber broken spells are banned.

That's a solution, though I think that getting such spells at 15th level and 18th level is a little bit too much.

For that I have two ideas: Encourage hit levels to casters. Make higher level spells extremely costly, time-consuming etc to warrant their use only in special circumstances. Having every wizard spell cost at least some XP really limits them.

A good formula would be 2*(spell level)^2, and giving or taking a few xp to get a good rounded number to speed upl play

That gives us the following costs (in parentheses the scroll costs for said levels, min costs)
Level 1, 2 xp => 2 xp (1 xp)
Level 2, 8 xp => 10 xp (6 xp)
Level 3, 18 xp => 20 xp (15 xp)
Level 4, 32 xp => 35 xp (28 xp)
Level 5, 50 xp => 50 xp (45 xp)
Level 6, 72 xp => 75 xp (66 xp)
Level 7, 98 xp => 100 xp (91 xp)
Level 8, 128 xp => 130 xp (120 xp)
Level 9, 162 xp => 160 xp (162 xp)

Hmm, thus said formula is more expensive than scrolls. I don't like it.

Another good formula would simply be using the scroll costs: spell level x caster level. They just don't cost money- scrolls do, but they offer you casting any time you want (with just a standard action).

The other idea is to have a non-linear progression of spell levels. Essentially, you get 1st level spells at level 1, 2nd level spells at 4, 3rd level spells at 7, 4th level spells at 10th, 5th level spells at 12th, 6th level spells at 14th, 7th level spells at 16th, 8th level spells at 18th and 9th level spells at 20th.

Tinydwarfman
2010-02-03, 08:30 AM
No, what the system needs is a working skill based magic system (that is to say, a non d20 one). It would make magic less efficient, making casters waste turns if they don't make the casting. Since everyone except casters also has to roll to-hit or make some kind of roll to do something, it would also be balanced.

Cataphract
2010-02-03, 08:46 AM
No, what the system needs is a working skill based magic system (that is to say, a non d20 one). It would make magic less efficient, making casters waste turns if they don't make the casting. Since everyone except casters also has to roll to-hit or make some kind of roll to do something, it would also be balanced.

I'd like to keep things simple otherwise it's too much trouble- there are far better games out there for that kind of stuff.

What we can do is model it simplistically, using skill DCs. I'll think of a nice simple system incorporating all the above variants tonight and post it.

Tinydwarfman
2010-02-03, 08:58 AM
Much to my surprise, I am very much liking the base system for a fix to Iron Heroes magic I found a few days ago. It incorporates a static rising power level for your skill (d20 + Mod + mastery(sort of like BaB for spells)). And you can set what you want the DC to be, depending on what effects you want, and how powerful you want it to be.

Cataphract
2010-02-03, 09:43 AM
Much to my surprise, I am very much liking the base system for a fix to Iron Heroes magic I found a few days ago. It incorporates a static rising power level for your skill (d20 + Mod + mastery(sort of like BaB for spells)). And you can set what you want the DC to be, depending on what effects you want, and how powerful you want it to be.

Hmm, I didn't get what you mean. Iron Heroes to fix this, or something else to fix Iron Heroes.

Skills are also pretty much linear (level+3). You could simply have a spell-casting skill or substitute spellcraft.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-03, 01:46 PM
Skill based casting just does not work. See also, the Truenamer.

Rith actually convinced me that the original intent was for a CR X encounter to be roughly equal to an ECL X character. As we all know, the CR system is wonky, and thus, this doesn't always bear out in practice, but it does make an interesting historical benchmark.

Tavar
2010-02-03, 01:57 PM
It does work if you put some thought into it. See Kellus's Truenamer, or Kyeudo's version.

Cataphract
2010-02-03, 02:28 PM
I don't see why it shouldn't, really.

What's the problem with it?

Tinydwarfman
2010-02-03, 04:46 PM
Hmm, I didn't get what you mean. Iron Heroes to fix this, or something else to fix Iron Heroes.

Skills are also pretty much linear (level+3). You could simply have a spell-casting skill or substitute spellcraft.

It is intended as a fix for Iron Heroes magic, but the author really created an incredible base magic system. The reason it is not skill based is because skills are too easy to boost artificially, and the only way to boost this version is to increase your stat. Basically you select the spell you want to use (we shall use energy drain), and the way you want it to work. It is cheaper to use the spell as a touch spell for example, and most expensive to have it auto hit from 30 feet away. Then you select the spells base power for 4 points per dice/damage. Add it all up and you have the DC you need to hit to cast the spell.
Example Energy Drain:
(4 ranged touch attack, 4 points for d6 hp per point drained, and 2 points to drain STR.) + (4 points per point of ability damage) = DC of spell
to drain 4 points of STR Damage and gain 4d6 temp hit points as a ranged touch, it would be a DC 26 spell, which a 4th level wizzy could make w/ some difficulty, but an 8th level could make easily. I probably didn't explain it very well, so Here (http://soulmagesihfixes.pbworks.com/)is the link to it.

Cataphract
2010-02-03, 09:28 PM
I'll read that at some point.

At the moment here's what I'm thinking so far. Please make note that this is way too big a nerf and is not intended for most D&D games unless you like your magic being a different animal.

Prepared Spellcasters
These guys get the biggest nerf.

In order to cast a spell, aside from the material components and all, you have the following base times, calculated as 5*(spell level)^2

1st level: 5 minutes (5 minutes)
2nd level: 20 minutes (10 minutes)
3rd level: 45 minutes (15 minutes)
4th level: 80 minutes (20 minutes)
5th level: 125 minutes (25 minutes)
6th level: 180 minutes (30 minutes)
7th level: 245 minutes (35 minutes)
8th level: 320 minutes (40 minutes)
9th level: 405 minutes (45 minutes)

The first is the total amount taken to cast the spell; the number in parentheses is the interval between checks (i.e. in a 3rd level spell you make a check after every 15 minutes). Taking twice as much time reduces your DC by 10; Taking half as much time, increase the DC by two plus twice the spell level again (i.e. 14+4*spell level).

To calculate the DC of the spell you cast, start with a base value of 12, and add twice the level of the spell you want to cast. Roll a d20 and add your caster level and Int modifier (I'll do calculations at the end of the post). If taking your time, decrease by ten; if rushing, the DC is 14+4*spell level).

Obviously, this kind of magic has limitations. Offensive spells have no meaning as rituals, and buffs that last rounds or even minutes are worthless. That's why aside from crafting items, there's a few feats that are going to help:

Craft Least Contingent Spell
Prerequisites: Caster level 1st
Benefit: You can make contingent any spell that you know. Crafting a least contingent spell takes one minute for each 10 gp in its base price (spell level × caster level x 1 gp). To craft a contingent spell, you must spend 1/25 of this base price in XP and use up raw materials costing one-half the base price. Some spells incur extra costs in material components or XP
(as noted in their descriptions), which must be paid when the contingent spell is created.
Your contingent spells require a standard action to activate and can remain untriggered for one full day.

Craft Lesser Contingent Spell
Prerequisites: Caster level 6th
Benefit: You can make contingent any spell that you know. Crafting a least contingent spell takes one hour for each 100 gp in its base price (spell level × caster level x 10 gp). To craft a contingent spell, you must spend 1/25 of this base price in XP and use up raw materials costing one-half the base price. Some spells incur extra costs in material components or XP
(as noted in their descriptions), which must be paid when the contingent spell is created.
Your contingent spells require a move action to activate and can remain untriggered for one full week.

Craft Greater Contingent Spell
Prerequisites: Caster level 12th
Benefit: You can make contingent any spell that you know. Crafting a least contingent spell takes eight hours for each 1000 gp in its base price (spell level × caster level x 100 gp). To craft a contingent spell, you must spend 1/25 of this base price in XP and use up raw materials costing one-half the base price. Some spells incur extra costs in material components or XP
(as noted in their descriptions), which must be paid when the contingent spell is created.
Your contingent spells require a free action to activate and can remain untriggered forever.


As with contingent spells, each user may have a number equal to his HD active on him at any time, regardless of type (least, lesser or greater). Also, the time that it takes to make a spell contingent is in addition to the time the spell is cast through the ritual, and you also have to succeed as if you were casting it (if you fail, however, nothing is wasted but your time).
You can work a maximum of eight hours per day, or sixteen with a successful DC 20 Fort save (if you fail, you don't get the extra 8 hours, but you don't lose previous work), and the ritual time counts against it.

Contingent spells can be cast on anybody regardless of spellcasting capacity, as long as he is present in the ritual and he does not already a number of contingent spells on him equal to or higher than his HD. The character that received the contingent spell is the only one who can activate it (not the caster, unless the caster is the original target) with the appropriate action (standard, move or free). The spell, once triggered, targets the activator and him only, even if it is an AoE spell or can target more than one target.

Contingent spells can be dispelled (but not triggered) by a dispel magic as if they were ongoing spells. If successful, the contingent spell is dispelled; if not, it is not triggered but stays as it is.


The only way for a wizard to cast much faster than that is through spell completion and spell trigger items; mainly, scrolls, wands, staves etc. Metamagic obviously requires the Metamagic trigger feat, BUT in this variant, a caster may create a metamagicked version of an item, if possible, (e.g. he can create an empowered scorching ray, but not an empowered fireball, since that increases the spell's level to 5 and wands only hold up to 4th level).



Spontaneous Spellcasters
Now these are not as nerfed, but they still are as following:
Every spell has a casting time in rounds equal to half the spell's level, round down. At the end of each round, you must roll a CL check exactly as prepared spellcasters do, except your DC class is 13+3*spell level and you add your Wisdom to the roll. If you fail at any round of casting, you lose the spell. While casting, aside from losing the spell, you can also be counterspelled; see below. To be fair, however, metamagic does NOT increase casting time- but it does increase a spell's level, so it might take more time... The only way to reduce casting time is to use the Quicken Feat spell as described below:

Quicken Spell
Benefit: After calculating a spell's final level (including any other metamagic feats), you may decide to quicken it. In that case, for every level higher than it already is, you may reduce the casting time by one round. If it already is at 1 round, raising it an additional level will make it a full-round action; raising it two additional levels will make it a standard action; three, a move action; and four, a swift action. Note that if a spell's level is raised by Quicken Spell, it does not raise its casting time as well by virtue of being a higher level spell, merely the slot that it requires to be cast. If a spell is rushed, then start applying quicken to the modified time, but calculate the final spell level for the DC after quicken is applied.


You may also take your time (double the time) to reduce the DC by 10, and you can rush it as well (halving time, round down; a 1 round casting time becomes a full-round action) and increase the DC to 16+6*spell level.

The difference is that spells requiring swift/immediate actions are considered rushed anyway (thus the DC is 16+6*spell level). You may take a standard action to perform such a spell if you want to, which counts as "taking your time". They can't be further rushed or quickened, of course.

For ease of use, there are no spellpoints- Sorcerers use their normal spell slots etc.

As for counterspelling, there are three ways; With the same spell (or one that specifically counters it); with a spell of the same school and equal or higher level (With Improved Counterspell); or with dispel magic/greater dispel magic. In the first two cases (but NOT the third), casting time is halved, since you're not trying to cast the spell yourself, but to undo your opponent's work (it's like free rushing). If your spellcasting has a casting time of 1 round, then it is a standard action etc. You may quicken your dispelling attempts as well if you have the feat; consider your base time is half the time required to cast the spell, and then apply the quickening modifiers to time.

Sorcerers, however, CANNOT use magic items like wizards do, whether they have the spells or not (this is to avoid making them more powerful). However, Use Magic Device is now a class skill to them.

Glimbur
2010-02-03, 09:38 PM
That's... brutal.

I would take a party without spellcasters, and simply pay NPC's to put contingent spells on us. Or did you not intend that to work?

Cataphract
2010-02-03, 10:03 PM
Ok, here comes the math I promised, broken down to the 10 important wizard levels. Each spell DC is twice the time/normal/half the time.

1st level wizard
Available Spells: 1st (DC 4/14/16)

This wizard will pretty much be able to cast a 1st level spell in normal time about 40% of the time. If he takes twice as much time, however, he can almost certainly succeed at 85%. However, rushing reduces his chances to 30%.

3rd level wizard
Available Spells: 1st (DC 4/14/16), 2nd (DC 6/16/20)

1st level spells succeed 50% of the time, while 2nd level spells 40%. If he takes his time it's 95% and 90% respectively, but rushing reduces them to 40% and 20%.

5th level wizard
Available Spells: 1st (DC 4/14/16), 2nd (DC 6/16/20), 3rd (DC 8/18/24)

Now it's 60%, 50% and 40% respectively. Taking his time, we can see it's 95%, 95% and 90%. Rushing reduces them to 50%, 30% and 10%.

7th level wizard
Available Spells: 1st (DC 4/14/16), 2nd (DC 6/16/20), 3rd (DC 8/18/24), 4th (DC 10/20/28)

Percentages now are 70%, 60%, 50% and 40%. Taking his time, it's 95% for the first three and 90% for the 4th. However, rushing makes them 60%, 40% and 20%, and there's no way to rush 4th level spells.

9th level wizard
Available Spells: 1st (DC 4/14/16), 2nd (DC 6/16/20), 3rd (DC 8/18/24), 4th (DC 10/20/28), 5th (DC 12/22/32)

1st and 2nd level spells are reliable at 80% and 70%, while 3rd, 4th and 5th level are somewhat reliable at 60%, 50% and 40%. Taking your time makes everything up to 4th level certain at 95%, and at 5th level it's 90%. Rushing results in 70%, 50%, 30% and 10% but you can't rush 5th level spells.

11th level wizard
Available Spells: 1st (DC 4/14/16), 2nd (DC 6/16/20), 3rd (DC 8/18/24), 4th (DC 10/20/28), 5th (DC 12/22/32), 6th (DC 14/24/36)

Percentages are 90-40% with 10% increments. Taking your time results in the first five levels requiring 95% to cast, and the final 90%. Rushing now is 80%, 60%, 40% and 20% but you still can't rush 5th level spells, nor 6th.

13th level wizard
Available Spells: 1st (DC 4/14/16), 2nd (DC 6/16/20), 3rd (DC 8/18/24), 4th (DC 10/20/28), 5th (DC 12/22/32), 6th (DC 14/24/36), 7th (DC 16/26/40)

1st level spells are now at 95%. 2nd to 7th are 90%-40% with 10% increments. Twice the time means up to 6th level is 95%, and 7th level is 90%. Rushing is 90%-10% at 20% increments from 1st level to 5th, but you can't rush 6th or 7th level.

15th level wizard
Available Spells: 1st (DC 4/14/16), 2nd (DC 6/16/20), 3rd (DC 8/18/24), 4th (DC 10/20/28), 5th (DC 12/22/32), 6th (DC 14/24/36), 7th (DC 16/26/40), 8th (DC 18/28/44)

Now both 1st and 2nd level spells are at 95%. 3rd to 8th are 90%-40% at 10% increments. Twice the time now means up to 7th is 95% and 8th is 90%. Rushing is now 95% for 1st level, and 80%-20% with 20% increments from 2nd to 5th. You still can't rush 6th and above.

17th level wizard
Available Spells: 1st (DC 4/14/16), 2nd (DC 6/16/20), 3rd (DC 8/18/24), 4th (DC 10/20/28), 5th (DC 12/22/32), 6th (DC 14/24/36), 7th (DC 16/26/40), 8th (DC 18/28/44), 9th (DC 20/30/48)

1st, 2nd and 3rd levels are at 95%. 4th to 9th is 90%-40% with 10% intervals. Everything is at 95% if taking your time, except 9th which is 90%. Rushing 1st level is 95%, 2nd to 6th is 90%-10% with 20% intervals and you can't rush 7th and higher.

20th level wizard
Available Spells: 1st (DC 4/14/16), 2nd (DC 6/16/20), 3rd (DC 8/18/24), 4th (DC 10/20/28), 5th (DC 12/22/32), 6th (DC 14/24/36), 7th (DC 16/26/40), 8th (DC 18/28/44), 9th (DC 20/30/48)

It's 95% up to 5th level, 85% for 6th level, 75% for 7th level, 65% for 8th level and 55% for 9th level. Taking your time now is always 95%. Rushing anything 1st or 2nd level is 95%, rushing 3rd to 7th is 85%-5% with 20% intervals.


So far it seems pretty nice. Taking your time almost guarantees success, while rushing is only advised for higher level wizards attempting low-level spells.

//Ugh, too bored to change the fact wizards can now add Int to their spells. Considering most wizards have an int around +4 to +6, then simply improve above percentages by 20-30%, to a maximum of 95%, and you can now rush spells of the maximum level you can cast at 15-5% chance usually.

Also, I'm too bored to calculate sorcerers too; Simply add the same modifier, plus usually some 5% more since they get their spell levels one level later.

Cataphract
2010-02-03, 10:06 PM
That's... brutal.

I would take a party without spellcasters, and simply pay NPC's to put contingent spells on us. Or did you not intend that to work?

Brutal, yes, no doubt. It's supposed to nerf tier 1 and tier 2 classes to tier 3 at least.

NPCs are the easiest commodity to regulate. You want your party to have access to such services? Charge them. You don't? They can't find said NPCs.

Wizards still maintain plenty of their versatility if given enough time to craft stuff, and sorcerers are still limited by their choice of spells.

Glimbur
2010-02-03, 10:15 PM
Wizards are no longer viable; if crafted items are the only* way to cast things in combat I'd rather be an artificer. *Those contingent feats are too expensive; it's like paying XP and GP to prepare spells every day and if you don't use them they vanish anyway after a time. Sorcerers are closer to viable, but a significant failure chance on level-appropriate spells means I would rather not play one. This doesn't bring Tier 1 and 2 (besides psionic characters and artificers) to Tier 3, it makes them Tier No Way Jose.

This will make magic rare and expensive, so if that's what you're going for then congratulations. It also makes ability drain, death and curses, among other conditions, much more difficult to fix because the party is unlikely to have a cleric.

tl;dr I don't like it.

Stompy
2010-02-03, 10:22 PM
No blaster mage is going to take 5 minutes to cast a spell. Hell, the times make it so that the wizard as a hell of a time doing anything in combat.

You do have the feats, which can allow for normal casting, but that essentially is a feat tax to get wizards to partake in combat, in a (imo) combat based game. Also, the crafting requires a lot of bookkeeping on top of the bookkeeping needed to be a wizard (pun!).

If my DM implemented this I would go for warlock, for far less headaches.

EDIT: Also, your base times neglect spells that are swift or immediate actions. Hopefully swift fly doesn't take minutes (or else I want my money back).

Hyooz
2010-02-03, 10:26 PM
If my DM implemented this instead of talking to his players to work a gentleman's agreement not to screw the hell out of the game I would walk away.

Cataphract
2010-02-03, 10:34 PM
[QUOTE]Wizards are no longer viable; if crafted items are the only* way to cast things in combat I'd rather be an artificer.

Artificers will be dealt later on, probably. Thanks for reminding me.


*Those contingent feats are too expensive; it's like paying XP and GP to prepare spells every day and if you don't use them they vanish anyway after a time.

Most wizards are intended to use the first contingent feat. If you'll notice, the first feat which does have limited time does not cost significant gp or ANY XP for a total CL x Spell level <25. That means anything up any CL 1st level spells, 2nd level spells up to 10 CL and 3rd level up to 8 CL cost no XP.

Lesser is more expensive, of course. Ten times as much price and XP. The only way to get a free lesser contingent spell is a 1st level at CL 2. But the ability to use it as a move equivalent action, and the weekly duration, make up for it.

And Greater is extremely powerful anyway, if you ask me. Free action (I won't make it into swift since it's quite expensive anyway- if you went into enough trouble to have several, let them all fire up at once if you want).


Sorcerers are closer to viable, but a significant failure chance on level-appropriate spells means I would rather not play one. This doesn't bring Tier 1 and 2 (besides psionic characters and artificers) to Tier 3, it makes them Tier No Way Jose.


Well, now it's CL+Cha vs 13+3*spell level. That, at level appropriate level, gives us, for a slightly optimized sorcerer (+4 beginning cha, piling everything into cha, and level appropriate items at 5/10/15/20 giving enhancement and inherent bonusus).

1st level: +5 vs DC 16, 50% (CL 1, Cha +4)
3rd level: +7 vs DC 19, 45% (CL 3, Cha +4)
6th level: +11 vs DC 22, 50% (CL 6, Cha +5)
8th level: +14 vs DC 25, 45% (CL 8, Cha +6)
10th level: +17 vs DC 28, 50% (CL 10, Cha +7)
12th level: +19 vs DC 31, 45% (CL 12, Cha +7)
14th level: +21 vs DC 34, 40% (CL 14, Cha +7)
16th level: +25 vs DC 37, 45%, (CL 16, Cha +9)
18th level: +27 vs DC 40, 40% (CL 18, Cha +9)
20th level: +30 vs DC 40, 55% (CL 20, Cha +10)

As you can see, it's always around 40-50%. I think it's a fair trade for being able to effectively cast spells for free.


This will make magic rare and expensive, so if that's what you're going for then congratulations. It also makes ability drain, death and curses, among other conditions, much more difficult to fix because the party is unlikely to have a cleric.

Indeed, that was my goal. Thank you. And of course I never liked clerics, did I mention that?


tl;dr I don't like it.

tl;dr as in this is your summary of the above post, or tl;dr as in you didn't actually read all of it?

Cataphract
2010-02-03, 10:46 PM
No blaster mage is going to take 5 minutes to cast a spell. Hell, the times make it so that the wizard as a hell of a time doing anything in combat.

You do have the feats, which can allow for normal casting, but that essentially is a feat tax to get wizards to partake in combat, in a (imo) combat based game. Also, the crafting requires a lot of bookkeeping on top of the bookkeeping needed to be a wizard (pun!).

If my DM implemented this I would go for warlock, for far less headaches.

EDIT: Also, your base times neglect spells that are swift or immediate actions. Hopefully swift fly doesn't take minutes (or else I want my money back).

Wizards are already uber anyway. Requiring them to take feats to be effective and even then taxing them for their level of power is indeed nerfing, but that was what I intended. If they don't want to bother with combat, then they can go ahead- they're always useful, if you'll notice. But if they want to be good in combat, they had better be ready to make their stuff.

As for book-keeping, I think it's like a reverse Bellady's anomaly (ugh, too much Operation Systems studying). It will actually reduce book-keeping, because most of it is inside combat- and if your actions are limited to the spells you have managed to scribe or the wands/staves you have crafted, instead of dozens of memorized spells (not to mention how long it took you to choose which to memorize), you actually need more time. You want to cast a spell you know? How much time do you have, is the question.

And thanks for reminding me about swift/immediate actions.


If my DM implemented this instead of talking to his players to work a gentleman's agreement not to screw the hell out of the game I would walk away.

I'm afraid the above does not constitute "Constructive Criticism". It isn't even funny.

Glimbur
2010-02-03, 10:56 PM
tl;dr as in this is your summary of the above post, or tl;dr as in you didn't actually read all of it?

Sorry this part was unclear, I try to summarize my long posts with a tl;dr at the end of them. This was a summary of my post.

An interesting quirk is that it's faster to prepare a first level spell via Least Contingent Spell and use it that way than to cast it via a ritual.

A first level, CL one spell is free. That means a wizard could cast a rather silly amount of very low level spells. This isn't so useful as Magic Missiles, but Grease every round can be irksome to monsters. Color Spray or Sleep every round of every combat means that wizards can still avoid doing hp damage and win encounters. Fist of Stone makes Wizard an interesting dip for a melee class. Ray of Clumsiness is a useful debuff. Etc, etc, etc. This plan is vulnerable to spell resistant monsters, but Grease and many buffs would still be ok.

Spells don't cost XP until you get past third level spells, provided you're ok with using them as a standard action. Haste is nice. Entice Gift is funny. Snake's Swiftness and the mass version are handy. Healing Touch in unlimited amounts can make HP damage obsolete.

Looking at this more, it's actually more broken than the default system because now wizards can have all the spells they want ready to use. They just won't cast spells via rituals but instead via Contingent Spells, and the XP cost isn't that significant. GP cost is a little painful, but on the other hand when you can fight above your weight class it will be be taken care of. Worst of all, if the PC's really want a fight won yesterday quickly the wizard could eat the XP and GP cost and cast N spells as a free action to win the fight v a dragon or a balor or whatever. I'd suggest Hail of Stone, but enough save or dies in one round would also take care of the problem.

As a plus side, you did make Wraithstrike much less appealing, so that's worth something.

Hyooz
2010-02-03, 11:01 PM
I'm sorry you don't appreciate it. It was never meant to be funny.

A DM willing to so thoroughly strip the fun out of an entire genre of classes because some people on the internet told them they were way too powerful before we even started playing, I'm gone. Somebody starts taking over the game with super-optimized wizard? Sure, deal with that problem. Ask him to bring it back to a level where he isn't ruining the game for everyone else.

But to assume from the get-go that your players need to be restrained to this level just to keep from making Pun-Pun or eliminating all the other characters and taking over the world is ridiculous. The rules work. Sure, they leave open some holes for abuse, but that doesn't mean something like this is necessary. Just sit down for two minutes with your players and say "Look, I'm after a power level around X. Let's try not to take over the game, and let's make sure everyone has a chance to shine and have fun."

I guess that's too hard, though.

Stompy
2010-02-03, 11:10 PM
As for book-keeping, I think it's like a reverse Bellady's anomaly (ugh, too much Operation Systems studying). It will actually reduce book-keeping, because most of it is inside combat- and if your actions are limited to the spells you have managed to scribe or the wands/staves you have crafted, instead of dozens of memorized spells (not to mention how long it took you to choose which to memorize), you actually need more time. You want to cast a spell you know? How much time do you have, is the question.

In combat, 6 seconds. However, I don't see craft lesser contingent being a fun fix for a wizard, you are basically charging the wizard to prepare combat spells (and the spells he/she regularly casts will slow down the party). He/she will have to assess the situation in the morning, and will go "what spells do I want to spend money to prepare?" In this effect I do not see a big difference between the regular wizard and the contingent wizard you're proposing when preparing spells for the day.

Listen. I understand wizard in an optimizer's hands is super omega uber. However, not everyone who plays wizards (and sorcs and other full casters) are optimizers. I do not want a player of mine to be a blaster wizard (not Tier 1), only to learn that everything he/she wants to do in combat costs money to prepare as well. (Same argument with sorc, I don't want to tell that player the formula to see if their spell does or doesn't work.)

I'm saying that this fix is silly, has too many annoying rules, and would discourage learning spellcasters from the game.

Cataphract
2010-02-03, 11:31 PM
Sorry this part was unclear, I try to summarize my long posts with a tl;dr at the end of them. This was a summary of my post.

An interesting quirk is that it's faster to prepare a first level spell via Least Contingent Spell and use it that way than to cast it via a ritual.

A first level, CL one spell is free. That means a wizard could cast a rather silly amount of very low level spells. This isn't so useful as Magic Missiles, but Grease every round can be irksome to monsters. Color Spray or Sleep every round of every combat means that wizards can still avoid doing hp damage and win encounters. Fist of Stone makes Wizard an interesting dip for a melee class. Ray of Clumsiness is a useful debuff. Etc, etc, etc. This plan is vulnerable to spell resistant monsters, but Grease and many buffs would still be ok.

Spells don't cost XP until you get past third level spells, provided you're ok with using them as a standard action. Haste is nice. Entice Gift is funny. Snake's Swiftness and the mass version are handy. Healing Touch in unlimited amounts can make HP damage obsolete.

Looking at this more, it's actually more broken than the default system because now wizards can have all the spells they want ready to use. They just won't cast spells via rituals but instead via Contingent Spells, and the XP cost isn't that significant. GP cost is a little painful, but on the other hand when you can fight above your weight class it will be be taken care of. Worst of all, if the PC's really want a fight won yesterday quickly the wizard could eat the XP and GP cost and cast N spells as a free action to win the fight v a dragon or a balor or whatever. I'd suggest Hail of Stone, but enough save or dies in one round would also take care of the problem.

As a plus side, you did make Wraithstrike much less appealing, so that's worth something.

Oh crap- I forgot to mention that the duration of making a spell contingent is IN ADDITION to the normal ritual (except in the case of greater contingency which takes a day anyway). Silly me.

Also, if you read contingent spells from CA, you'll notice that they either target the user, or the area the user is in. So they can't really be used offensively unless you intend to blast yourself as well. And a side not would be so that Sculpt spell cannot ignore that part (so you can't exclude everything but yourself in the self-targeted fireball).

Now I hope it makes much more sense.


I'm sorry you don't appreciate it. It was never meant to be funny.

A DM willing to so thoroughly strip the fun out of an entire genre of classes because some people on the internet told them they were way too powerful before we even started playing, I'm gone. Somebody starts taking over the game with super-optimized wizard? Sure, deal with that problem. Ask him to bring it back to a level where he isn't ruining the game for everyone else.

But to assume from the get-go that your players need to be restrained to this level just to keep from making Pun-Pun or eliminating all the other characters and taking over the world is ridiculous. The rules work. Sure, they leave open some holes for abuse, but that doesn't mean something like this is necessary. Just sit down for two minutes with your players and say "Look, I'm after a power level around X. Let's try not to take over the game, and let's make sure everyone has a chance to shine and have fun."

I guess that's too hard, though.

In case you didn't get it, this is not only a simple nerf to keep the same game at a different power level. It's meant as something totally different, an attempt to turn wizards into wizards (i.e. no spontaneous casting, literally) and sorcerers into sorcerers, the way I envision it. If I simply wanted to nerf everybody, I'd just use the DC system without the rituals anyway.

Also, your definition of fun is different than my definition of fun.

Now that I explained myself, I ask you this little favor: Either point out holes in the system like the others (gods know there's plenty of them), or don't bother. Thanks.


In combat, 6 seconds. However, I don't see craft lesser contingent being a fun fix for a wizard, you are basically charging the wizard to prepare combat spells (and the spells he/she regularly casts will slow down the party). He/she will have to assess the situation in the morning, and will go "what spells do I want to spend money to prepare?" In this effect I do not see a big difference between the regular wizard and the contingent wizard you're proposing when preparing spells for the day.

Listen. I understand wizard in an optimizer's hands is super omega uber. However, not everyone who plays wizards (and sorcs and other full casters) are optimizers. I do not want a player of mine to be a blaster wizard (not Tier 1), only to learn that everything he/she wants to do in combat costs money to prepare as well. (Same argument with sorc, I don't want to tell that player the formula to see if their spell does or doesn't work.)

I'm saying that this fix is silly and has too many annoying rules.

Again, my bad for not clarifying the obvious (you can't use anything that doesn't target yourself as a contingent spell) and the not really obvious (that the contingent spell's prep time is in addition to the ritual's).

And again, the main way to cast spells in combat is through items (i.e. scrolls, wands, staves). Contingent spells let you prepare buffs for the party beforehand (you cast the contingent spell on your buff target before combat and let him activate it himself whenever he wants), and they also extend the duration of a spell you might need later (if you want to cast fly, but you don't know when you'll need it and won't have time for the ritual, then get it ready beforehand).

Annoying rules? As in they limit your fun, or that they require book keeping/are counterintuitive? I don't really care about the first (as I said, definitions of fun vary), but I do care for the second.

P.S.: And could you people please stop acting as if I'm trying to shove this down your throats and blackmail your DM's into using it? I posted it to hear your opinion and criticism. Go ahead and call it stupid/silly/awful/retarded whatever, provided you can explain why you find it so mechanically, because that's what I want to hear- where the holes are so I can patch them up. But just posting that it's not fun and you wouldn't play it- sorry, don't care.

Hyooz
2010-02-03, 11:41 PM
Please define for us what you consider fun then, and how this plays into that. That'll help us all.

Cataphract
2010-02-03, 11:48 PM
Please define for us what you consider fun then, and how this plays into that. That'll help us all.

Fun for me is a world where the fluff plays an important role, and where the mechanics support said fluff.

The way I see it is thus:

Wizards are men and women who have tapped into arcane and eldritch knowledge without having an inkling of magic in their blood. They use arcane formulas, long rituals and magic items to achieve their goals.

Sorcerers are men and women who have an intuitive, instinctive grasp of magic because it flows in their blood. Their spells are not rituals but quick weavings of power through sheer force of will and rote.

Thus, fun for me is to see wizards and sorcerers do that. While sorcerers can (though not very well. Charisma??), wizards are nothing like that. Firing off a number of spells in 3,5 seconds each, spells that you memorized in 1 hour (whether you memorized 1 or 100 makes no difference), and yet not being able to do anything like effectively counter a spell or cast rituals... that's not fun for me, and thus I seek to change it.

I hope that covers it in a few words.

P.S. Thanks for prodding me to clarify that- from now on I think Sorcerers should use Wisdom instead of Charisma.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-02-03, 11:55 PM
*snip*

I hear GURPS has the answer, but that is almost always true.

Hyooz
2010-02-03, 11:59 PM
Yeah, you're in the wrong system if that's what you want, man.

And pardon me for misunderstanding what you wanted in a thread titled 'A way to nerf spellcasters?' instead of a thread called 'I'm looking for a way to make wizards and sorcerers function like this'

Stompy
2010-02-04, 12:19 AM
Spontaneous Spellcasters

Now these are not as nerfed, but they still are as following:
Every spell has a casting time in rounds equal to half the spell's level, round down. At the end of each round, you must roll a CL check exactly as prepared spellcasters do, except your DC class is 13+3*spell level and you add your Wisdom to the roll. If you fail at any round of casting, you lose the spell.

I'm going to assume that cantrips and 1st level spells still take 1 round to cast. :smallwink:

So if you use the table from the example sorc, you had about a 50% chance to pass the DC. However, due to the text, you have to make this DC every round, meaning that if I want to get 4th level or higher spells off the ground, the probability is now 25% or lower (because I have to succeed twice). (also: 6-7th spells = 12.5% 8-9th spells = 6.25%) Was this lower probability of succeeding with the longer casting times part of your plan?

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 12:30 AM
I hear GURPS has the answer, but that is almost always true.

GURPS is too much hype. I've read it and I find it surprisingly inferior to plenty of other games, chiefly Alternity. Too complicated for no reason at all (and I am a rules junkie).


Yeah, you're in the wrong system if that's what you want, man.

And pardon me for misunderstanding what you wanted in a thread titled 'A way to nerf spellcasters?' instead of a thread called 'I'm looking for a way to make wizards and sorcerers function like this'

First of all, had you read all of the thread in the first place, you'd have noticed that was the intention of this thread. One of the variants proposed to nerf them was this, which evolved into something different.

And yeah, I might be in the wrong system, but so far my approach to rectify the issue in this system seems to be working as I keep fixing the holes.

BSPiotr
2010-02-04, 12:32 AM
I see one big problem with the fact that you can stack so many spells at once at greater contingency.

Psion 1/Wizard 12
UPD: 4 ranks, +10 item, +6 to int = +20
Dorje of Mind over Energy (49,600)
Contingency Fireball/Iceball/OtherAOO x whatever
Start winning against everything you ever go up against? (Its not hard to make that much money by the time this is viable.)

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 12:33 AM
I'm going to assume that cantrips and 1st level spells still take 1 round to cast. :smallwink:

Cantrips would probably be standard actions, thanks for reminding me to address that!


So if you use the table from the example sorc, you had about a 50% chance to pass the DC. However, due to the text, you have to make this DC every round, meaning that if I want to get 4th level or higher spells off the ground, the probability is now 25% or lower (because I have to succeed twice). (also: 6-7th spells = 12.5% 8-9th spells = 6.25%) Was this lower probability of succeeding with the longer casting times part of your plan?

For your level appropriate spells, that is. The ones that are creating most of the trouble at your estimated ECL. The ones at lower levels can be cast much, much more reliably.

If you want your spells to succeed, then take your time. If you can't, too bad.

So yes, it was part of my plan to limit the effectiveness of high-level spells without dampening their power overall (barring banning broken bits).

Hyooz
2010-02-04, 12:39 AM
Brutal, yes, no doubt. It's supposed to nerf tier 1 and tier 2 classes to tier 3 at least.

NPCs are the easiest commodity to regulate. You want your party to have access to such services? Charge them. You don't? They can't find said NPCs.

Wizards still maintain plenty of their versatility if given enough time to craft stuff, and sorcerers are still limited by their choice of spells.

Sorry, I must have gotten confused about the intentions of this by what you said the purpose of it was.

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 12:40 AM
I see one big problem with the fact that you can stack so many spells at once at greater contingency.

Psion 1/Wizard 12
UPD: 4 ranks, +10 item, +6 to int = +20
Dorje of Mind over Energy (49,600)
Contingency Fireball/Iceball/OtherAOO x whatever
Start winning against everything you ever go up against? (Its not hard to make that much money by the time this is viable.)

Greater Contingency is exactly the same as Craft Contingent spells, so it could be thus abused as well.

It would be a cheap shot to say that this variant is not intended to be used with psionics, but even then this doesn't prevent other spells from doing the same thing.

I was thinking of adding that anything with a duration of instaneous can't be made contingent, but that's barring A LOT of useful spells.

Instead, I'll use what a spellsword does to his spells and turn it the other way round- any contingent spell cast affects you and only you, even if it originally had an area.

Problem solved, thanks for pointing it out :D

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 12:43 AM
Sorry, I must have gotten confused about the intentions of this by what you said the purpose of it was.

Not my fault. This thread contains a lot of variants with the intention of nerfing tier 1s and 2s, one of which is the aforementioned. Had I suddenly the urge to change this thread to dedicate it to this variant solely, I'd edit the title and the main post.

And I fail to see the reason of your incessant, non-contributing posting. This is the last time I'll reply to a post of yours in this thread that is not even at least taking a shot at what I presented. Have fun.

Stompy
2010-02-04, 12:56 AM
If you want your spells to succeed, then take your time. If you can't, too bad.

I missed that part for the sorcerer. My bad.

Another question: Is a roll of a natural 1 on any of these CL checks an auto-failure?



Quicken Spell
Benefit: After calculating a spell's final level (including any other metamagic feats), you may decide to quicken it. In that case, for every level higher than it already is, you may reduce the casting time by one round. If it already is at 1 round, raising it an additional level will make it a full-round action; raising it two additional levels will make it a standard action; three, a move action; and four, a swift action. Note that if a spell's level is raised by Quicken Spell, it does not raise its casting time as well by virtue of being a higher level spell, merely the slot that it requires to be cast. If a spell is rushed, then start applying quicken to the modified time, but calculate the final spell level for the DC after quicken is applied.


If I use this metamagic to make the spell a swift action, is the sorc considered rushed (and thus the DC becomes monsterous)?

Also, funny story, due to the "multiple round multiple save" system going on, quickening a spell can not only reduce the time it takes to cast but also can increase the chance of that spell going off.

Let's take the 50% chance sorc again (for a 5th level spell). He would like to cast Black Tenticles on some bad guys. If he did it in the normal time, 4th level spell, it would take 2 rounds and two succeeds at 60% (up 10% because of 4th level spell.) so in total 36% chance of success.

If he quickens it, it takes one action, 5th level spell, and the chance is now 50% (because there is only one round and one check).

I may do some math behind this, but one last question, can I take my time and quicken a spell? (My intuition tells me no.) EDIT: This trick can lower the DCs of lower level spells (by using higher slots).

lesser_minion
2010-02-04, 12:59 AM
I don't see why it shouldn't, really.

What's the problem with it?

Implementing a skill check as a balance just tells the players to invest in that skill. It doesn't actually limit anything, because it's always possible to get a skill modifier of "+ enough".

It also doesn't achieve anything else - or at least, nothing that cannot be done far better using a different method.

A failure chance is cool. Even tying things to a character's skill ranks is cool. But using a traditional skill check is not.*

* Virtually every attempt at skill-based casting since the Truenamer uses a 'special check'

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 01:01 AM
I missed that part for the sorcerer. My bad.

Another question: Is a roll of a natural 1 on any of these CL checks an auto-failure?


Yes, hence the 95% chance. I like it when magic is never too predictable, even if it's just 1 in 20.




If I use this metamagic to make the spell a swift action, is the sorc considered rushed (and thus the DC becomes monsterous)?

No, the improved spell level from the quicken would be enough, I think.


Also, funny story, due to the "multiple round multiple save" system going on, quickening a spell can not only reduce the time it takes to cast but also can increase the chance of that spell going off.

Let's take the 50% chance sorc again (for a 5th level spell). He would like to cast Black Tenticles on some bad guys. If he did it in the normal time, 4th level spell, it would take 2 rounds and two succeeds at 60% (up 10% because of 4th level spell.) so in total 36% chance of success.


If he quickens it, it takes one action, 5th level spell, and the chance is now 50% (because there is only one round and one check).

I may do some math behind this, but one last question, can I take my time and quicken a spell? (My intuition tells me no.) EDIT: This trick can lower the DCs of lower level spells (by using higher slots).

Now that's a nice loop I just got myself into. Thanks, I'll need to look into that very thoroughly. Something off the top of my head tells me that the guy should still roll the same amount of checks since he's quickening it, but I need to make this as smooth as possible.


Implementing a skill check as a balance just tells the players to invest in that skill. It doesn't actually limit anything, because it's always possible to get a skill modifier of "+ enough".

It also doesn't achieve anything else - or at least, nothing that cannot be done far better using a different method.

A failure chance is cool. Even tying things to a character's skill ranks is cool. But using a traditional skill check is not.*

* Virtually every attempt at skill-based casting since the Truenamer uses a 'special check'

Yes, you're absolutely right. The system I propose now is a CL+casting stat roll. Effectively only higher CLs or stuff that modify CLs are important. Like Reserve feats, which now give more reliable effects (though they do need to be reworked a little bit.

Stompy
2010-02-04, 01:10 AM
Now that's a nice loop I just got myself into. Thanks, I'll need to look into that very thoroughly. Something off the top of my head tells me that the guy should still roll the same amount of checks since he's quickening it, but I need to make this as smooth as possible.

I screwed up the math, that sorc casts a 4th level spell with a 65% chance per round, making it 42.25% The idea still holds though.

I should probably explain my last line of thought too. Let's take a fireball (or any one round spell) and say I have a 50% chance of it succeeding. If I take my time, 2 rounds, 95% chance (technically 100% but don't roll a one) If I then bump it up to 4th level via quicken, the chance goes down 15% to 85%, with the same full-round action to cast.

In other words, 1 round spell + take time + quickened bump by 1 level = +35% of succeeding.

EDIT: (You are bumping it up one level higher though. I don't know it this was intended. You could write a metamagic feat that basically says bump a spell up X levels to get a 2*x (or 3*X) bonus to your CL checks for that spell. You could call it Focused Spell or something like that.)

Hyooz
2010-02-04, 01:13 AM
Whatever, man. Ignoring people who disagree with you is always an effective tactic to not having to rethink things.

But hey, keep insisting your purpose for these reworks was to fit the flavor that wasn't presented until the fourth page of discussion. Keep contradicting three pages of your own posts just so you don't have to sit back and think "y'know, maybe this wouldn't be all that fun to play." Oh but wait, your version of fun means a 3rd level wizard has to sit for 20 minutes to cast Acid Arrow, or prepare it hours ahead of time and be forced to cast it on himself. A much simpler nerf would be "No one can play wizards" and then any prepared casters are NPCs who sit in towers and don't use any of the wizard's spell list since spells are designed with sane casting times in mind.

Just play White Wolf or Scion or Mage or something that has the idea of magic you want built in. Trying to fit the square peg of DnD into this round hole vision of magic just isn't pretty.

But you'll ignore this so whatever. Balloons.

BSPiotr
2010-02-04, 01:20 AM
Greater Contingency is exactly the same as Craft Contingent spells, so it could be thus abused as well.

It would be a cheap shot to say that this variant is not intended to be used with psionics, but even then this doesn't prevent other spells from doing the same thing.

I was thinking of adding that anything with a duration of instaneous can't be made contingent, but that's barring A LOT of useful spells.

Instead, I'll use what a spellsword does to his spells and turn it the other way round- any contingent spell cast affects you and only you, even if it originally had an area.

Problem solved, thanks for pointing it out :D

Wait... so we're going by the round mechanic and not by the minute mechanic, right?

If so, contingency celerity Time stop x whatever it takes.

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 01:22 AM
Whatever, man. Ignoring people who disagree with you is always an effective tactic to not having to rethink things.

Rethink things as to what? It seems fun to me at the moment, and since it's intended for personal use, I'll keep it. If it doesn't seem so fun after playing it, then I'll change it or dump it. Am I supposed to change or dump it beforehand just because you say it's not fun?


But hey, keep insisting your purpose for these reworks was to fit the flavor that wasn't presented until the fourth page of discussion.

My purpose is to find a way to nerf spellcasters. This is ONE of the variants that I'm working on. Other, much simpler ones were presented in the previous pages.


Keep contradicting three pages of your own posts just so you don't have to sit back and think "y'know, maybe this wouldn't be all that fun to play."

How am I contradicting myself by elaborating on a variant that I actually proposed in the first page?


Oh but wait, your version of fun means a 3rd level wizard has to sit for 20 minutes to cast Acid Arrow, or prepare it hours ahead of time and be forced to cast it on himself. A much simpler nerf would be "No one can play wizards" and then any prepared casters are NPCs who sit in towers and don't use any of the wizard's spell list since spells are designed with sane casting times in mind.

And how exactly does my version of fun bother you? Is there supposed to be some "orthodox" way that people should have fun? "Sane casting times"...? As in "able to fight in combat" casting times? I don't really care about that. Wizards are not supposed to be combat freaks, even if the same-name company miraculously turned them into such marvels of might.


Just play White Wolf or Scion or Mage or something that has the idea of magic you want built in. Trying to fit the square peg of DnD into this round hole vision of magic just isn't pretty.

Then don't look at it, nobody forces you to.


But you'll ignore this so whatever. Balloons.

Surprise! As it seems, I keep contradicting myself.

Seriously, are you just going to keep whining how this isn't fun for you? Guess what, I'm not making it for you! Sorry if I burst your bubble, but it's the hard truth.

Hyooz
2010-02-04, 01:28 AM
Let me write a quick variant for you.

"In my world, magic is pretty limited to items and extended rituals, basically never used in combat outside of wands or rods. Wizards spend most of their time in towers working for nobles or whatever, performing elaborate rituals for various reasons. Sorcerors are similar, but less organized. Basically, no casting PCs, magic users exist, they're just useless to PCs."

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 01:28 AM
Wait... so we're going by the round mechanic and not by the minute mechanic, right?

If so, contingency celerity Time stop x whatever it takes.

That would only require a Time Stop which is a 9th level spell, which even if you were a sorcerer that casts in rounds (instead of a wizard casting in minutes)

Celerity gives you, at best, a full-round action. So you need a quickened spell, and Time Stop is 9th so it can't be quickened, and it needs 5 rounds to be cast anyway, unless you use a scroll.

So yeah, if you can get a Time stop scroll at level 17th, which costs around 4.000 gp, 150 xp and takes 4 days to scribe (and it's a standard action so no celerity needed), go ahead and have 1d4+1 rounds to yourself. Your fastest spell is a level 1 that can be cast in 2,5 minutes.

Or you can just contingency time stop for less than that, which is still just about useless as far as spellcasting for wizard goes.

If you're a sorcerer with Time Stop, that's another thing- you might have time to fully cast a good spell, with luck.

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 01:31 AM
Let me write a quick variant for you.

"In my world, magic is pretty limited to items and extended rituals, basically never used in combat outside of wands or rods. Wizards spend most of their time in towers working for nobles or whatever, performing elaborate rituals for various reasons. Sorcerors are similar, but less organized. Basically, no casting PCs, magic users exist, they're just useless to PCs."

Because even in that variant of yours, no PC has to spare a day or two for such useless spells like divinations, or such stupid activities as enchanting items, and it's utterly useless to do anything outside of combat even if that anything is providing intel on pretty much your heart's content, or to manipulate people magically, or or or...

...you're not serious, are you?

BSPiotr
2010-02-04, 01:38 AM
That would only require a Time Stop which is a 9th level spell, which even if you were a sorcerer that casts in rounds (instead of a wizard casting in minutes)

Celerity gives you, at best, a full-round action. So you need a quickened spell, and Time Stop is 9th so it can't be quickened, and it needs 5 rounds to be cast anyway, unless you use a scroll.

So yeah, if you can get a Time stop scroll at level 17th, which costs around 4.000 gp, 150 xp and takes 4 days to scribe (and it's a standard action so no celerity needed), go ahead and have 1d4+1 rounds to yourself. Your fastest spell is a level 1 that can be cast in 2,5 minutes.

Or you can just contingency time stop for less than that, which is still just about useless as far as spellcasting for wizard goes.

If you're a sorcerer with Time Stop, that's another thing- you might have time to fully cast a good spell, with luck.

You misunderstood (perhaps because math is hard to write here)
You can blow more than one contingency at such high level, and each celerity is an extra action. As such, you can blow multiple contingencies to get celerity and timestop (or either, really), thus having both either an instantaneous, or round-based effect. Being dazed for X rounds is nothing if you have enough firepower to destroy a creature before then.

Also, timestop is useful if combined.

Along the lines of "limit of castings/day" you can just keep on adding contingencies. At the level where it takes a long time to cast in battle, I would gladly take several weeks, even months, to have enough contingencies to take over any other creature, and gain enough levels to rush lower level casting.

also, contingency "Summon Monster" becomes scary good.

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 02:01 AM
I screwed up the math, that sorc casts a 4th level spell with a 65% chance per round, making it 42.25% The idea still holds though.

I should probably explain my last line of thought too. Let's take a fireball (or any one round spell) and say I have a 50% chance of it succeeding. If I take my time, 2 rounds, 95% chance (technically 100% but don't roll a one) If I then bump it up to 4th level via quicken, the chance goes down 15% to 85%, with the same full-round action to cast.

In other words, 1 round spell + take time + quickened bump by 1 level = +35% of succeeding.

EDIT: (You are bumping it up one level higher though. I don't know it this was intended. You could write a metamagic feat that basically says bump a spell up X levels to get a 2*x (or 3*X) bonus to your CL checks for that spell. You could call it Focused Spell or something like that.)

I should write down that you can't both take your time and quicken, but you can rush and quicken if you need to (though the chances of succeeding are almost always nonexistent.

That solves the problem :D

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 02:03 AM
You misunderstood (perhaps because math is hard to write here)
You can blow more than one contingency at such high level, and each celerity is an extra action. As such, you can blow multiple contingencies to get celerity and timestop (or either, really), thus having both either an instantaneous, or round-based effect. Being dazed for X rounds is nothing if you have enough firepower to destroy a creature before then.

Also, timestop is useful if combined.

Along the lines of "limit of castings/day" you can just keep on adding contingencies. At the level where it takes a long time to cast in battle, I would gladly take several weeks, even months, to have enough contingencies to take over any other creature, and gain enough levels to rush lower level casting.

also, contingency "Summon Monster" becomes scary good.

True, but only a sorcerer has meaning here since a wizard needs hours for his spells, and you need wizards for contingencies (I should update the feat to say "wizard levels" instead of "Caster levels").

Also, don't forget you can't attack anything while in time stop. But given enough scrolls, yeah, you could pull the old timestop with a wizard, it'd just be very, very costly.

But as I said, nothing that can't be done without the RAW contingency.

BSPiotr
2010-02-04, 02:17 AM
True, but only a sorcerer has meaning here since a wizard needs hours for his spells, and you need wizards for contingencies (I should update the feat to say "wizard levels" instead of "Caster levels").

Also, don't forget you can't attack anything while in time stop. But given enough scrolls, yeah, you could pull the old timestop with a wizard, it'd just be very, very costly.

But as I said, nothing that can't be done without the RAW contingency.

Fair, I'm simply pointing out holes in the path towards finding ways to stop spellcasters.

Btw you just can't attack anything directly in timestop, which limits its use unless you have other ideas...

Of course, the more holes you close the less people play wizards, sorcs, druids, clerics, etc. I dont know whether you want to correlate the two.

Ashtagon
2010-02-04, 02:30 AM
That's too big a nerf on wizards.

The feat tax is a horrible idea. No other class *requires* a feat to function better than a 1st level commoner in combat, but this is exactly what a wizard is reduced to in combat.

Hyooz
2010-02-04, 02:32 AM
Because even in that variant of yours, no PC has to spare a day or two for such useless spells like divinations, or such stupid activities as enchanting items, and it's utterly useless to do anything outside of combat even if that anything is providing intel on pretty much your heart's content, or to manipulate people magically, or or or...

...you're not serious, are you?

Yeah, I'm serious. It's going to be just as easy to pay an NPC wizard to do a divination or enchant something or whatever. If you really want to play the role that is usually handled by an NPC shopkeeper, then hey, more power to you. But since you've posted this here, allegedly for general comments, you're going to get a general consensus that playing the magic mart isn't generally fun.

More balloons.

Stompy
2010-02-04, 02:44 AM
That's too big a nerf on wizards.

The feat tax is a horrible idea. No other class *requires* a feat to function better than a 1st level commoner in combat, but this is exactly what a wizard is reduced to in combat.

You could always make magic items! At level 1! wait.....

Someone tell me what wizards from 1st-5th level do with this wizard nerf system? (buff-o-tron?)

EDIT: Dear Cataphract, I think the whole "leaving the wizard out of combat" is a bad move period. I know we have had differing ideas of what is fun, so I propose you make a quick 5th level wizard (if you need a reference, 28 point buy, 9000gp wealth), and we'll see if I (or anyone else frequenting this thread) would find it fun or unfun, and why. I have a sneaking suspicion that Hyooz may be right about "playing the magic mart".

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 02:55 AM
Ok, let's do some math for the sorcerers here. We'll take the typical 10 levels approach; one at each new level of spells, and at 20th level. And we'll start quickening from the 3rd level onwards to see what the system currently does.

For our tests, we'll assume a decently optimized character with a +4 base casting stat. At levels 6, 8, 10, 12, 16 and 20 due to items/points to stats there'll be a cumulative +1 increase, to a max of +10.

1st level Sorcerer
Casting: +5=1 CL + 4 Cha
1st level spells:
Normal: DC of 16. Takes one round. Chance of success: 50%
Taking your time: DC of 6. Takes two rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95%=90,25%
Rushing: DC of 22. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 20%
Quicken: Not available


3rd level Sorcerer
Casting: +7=3 CL + 4 Cha
1st level spells:
Normal: DC of 16. Takes one round. Chance of success: 60%
Taking your time: DC of 6. Takes two rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% = 90,25%
Rushing: DC of 22. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 30%
Quicken: To a 2nd level slot: DC of 19. Takes a full-round action. Chance of Success: 45%


2nd level spells:
Normal: DC of 19. Takes one round. Chance of success: 45%
Taking your time: DC of 9. Takes two rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% = 90,25%
Rushing: DC of 28. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken: Not Available


6th level Sorcerer
Casting: +11=6 CL + 5 Cha
1st level spells:
Normal: DC of 16. Takes one round. Chance of success: 80%
Taking your time: DC of 6. Takes two rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% = 90,25%
Rushing: DC of 22. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 50%
Quicken: To a 2nd level slot: DC of 19. Takes a full round action. Chance of success: 65%
To a 3rd level slot: DC of 22. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 50%



2nd level spells:
Normal: DC of 19. Takes one round. Chance of success: 65%
Taking your time: DC of 9. Takes two rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% = 90,25%
Rushing: DC of 28. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 20%
Quicken:
To a 3rd level slot: DC of 22. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 50%


3rd level spells:
Normal: DC of 22. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 50%*50%=25%
Taking your time: DC of 12. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 81,45%
Rushing: DC of 34. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken: Not Available


8th level Sorcerer
Casting: +14=8 CL + 6 Cha

1st level spells:
Normal: DC of 16. Takes one round. Chance of success: 95%
Taking your time: DC of 6. Takes two rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% = 90,25%
Rushing: DC of 22. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 65%
Quicken: To a 2nd level slot: DC of 19. Takes a full round action. Chance of success: 80%
To a 3rd level slot: DC of 22. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 65%
To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes a move action. Chance of success: 50%



2nd level spells:
Normal: DC of 19. Takes one round. Chance of success: 80%
Taking your time: DC of 9. Takes two rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% = 90,25%
Rushing: DC of 28. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 35%
Quicken:
To a 3rd level slot: DC of 22. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 65%
To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 50%


3rd level spells:
Normal: DC of 22. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 65%*65%=42,25%
Taking your time: DC of 12. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 81,45%
Rushing: DC of 34. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 5%
Quicken: To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 50%


4th level spells:
Normal: DC of 25. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 50%*50%=25%
Taking your time: DC of 15. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 81,45%
Rushing: DC of 40. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken: Not Available


10th level Sorcerer
Casting: +17=10 CL + 7 Cha

1st level spells:
Normal: DC of 16. Takes one round. Chance of success: 95%
Taking your time: DC of 6. Takes two rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% = 90,25%
Rushing: DC of 22. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 80%
Quicken: To a 2nd level slot: DC of 19. Takes a full round action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 3rd level slot: DC of 22. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 80%
To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes a move action. Chance of success: 65%
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes a swift action. Chance of success: 50%



2nd level spells:
Normal: DC of 19. Takes one round. Chance of success: 95%
Taking your time: DC of 9. Takes two rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% = 90,25%
Rushing: DC of 28. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 50%
Quicken:
To a 3rd level slot: DC of 22. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 80%
To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 65%
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes a move action. Chance of success: 50%


3rd level spells:
Normal: DC of 22. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 80%*80%=64%
Taking your time: DC of 12. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 81,45%
Rushing: DC of 34. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 20%
Quicken: To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 65%
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 50%


4th level spells:
Normal: DC of 25. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 65%*65%=42,25%
Taking your time: DC of 15. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 81,45%
Rushing: DC of 40. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken: To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 50%


5th level spells:
Normal: DC of 28. Takes 3 rounds. Chance of success: 50%*50%*50%=12,5%
Taking your time: DC of 18. Takes 6 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 73,5%
Rushing: DC of 46. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken: Not Available


12th level Sorcerer
Casting: +20=12 CL + 8 Cha

1st level spells:
Normal: DC of 16. Takes one round. Chance of success: 95%
Taking your time: DC of 6. Takes two rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% = 90,25%
Rushing: DC of 22. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 95%
Quicken: To a 2nd level slot: DC of 19. Takes a full round action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 3rd level slot: DC of 22. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes a move action. Chance of success: 80%
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes a swift action. Chance of success: 65%



2nd level spells:
Normal: DC of 19. Takes one round. Chance of success: 95%
Taking your time: DC of 9. Takes two rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% = 90,25%
Rushing: DC of 28. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 65%
Quicken:
To a 3rd level slot: DC of 22. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 80%
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes a move action. Chance of success: 65%
To a 6th level slot: DC of 31. Takes a swift action. Chance of success: 50%


3rd level spells:
Normal: DC of 22. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 95%*95%=90,25%
Taking your time: DC of 12. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 81,45%
Rushing: DC of 34. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 35%
Quicken:
To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 80%
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 65%
To a 6th level slot: DC of 31. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 50%


4th level spells:
Normal: DC of 25. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 80%*80%=64%
Taking your time: DC of 15. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 81,45%
Rushing: DC of 40. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 5%
Quicken:
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 65%
To a 6th level slot: DC of 31. Takes a full round action. Chance of success: 50%



5th level spells:
Normal: DC of 28. Takes 3 rounds. Chance of success: 65%*65%*65%=27,46%
Taking your time: DC of 18. Takes 6 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 73,5%
Rushing: DC of 46. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken:
To a 6th level slot: DC of 31. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 50%*50%=25%


6th level spells:
Normal: DC of 31. Takes 3 rounds. Chance of success: 50%*50%*50%=12,5%
Taking your time: DC of 21. Takes 6 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 73,5%
Rushing: DC of 52. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken: Not Available


14th level Sorcerer
Casting: +22=14 CL + 8 Cha

1st level spells:
Normal: DC of 16. Takes one round. Chance of success: 95%
Taking your time: DC of 6. Takes two rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% = 90,25%
Rushing: DC of 22. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 95%
Quicken: To a 2nd level slot: DC of 19. Takes a full round action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 3rd level slot: DC of 22. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes a move action. Chance of success: 90%
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes a swift action. Chance of success: 75%



2nd level spells:
Normal: DC of 19. Takes one round. Chance of success: 95%
Taking your time: DC of 9. Takes two rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% = 90,25%
Rushing: DC of 28. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 75%
Quicken:
To a 3rd level slot: DC of 22. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 90%
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes a move action. Chance of success: 75%
To a 6th level slot: DC of 31. Takes a swift action. Chance of success: 60%


3rd level spells:
Normal: DC of 22. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 95%*95%=90,25%
Taking your time: DC of 12. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 81,45%
Rushing: DC of 34. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 45%
Quicken:
To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 90%
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 75%
To a 6th level slot: DC of 31. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 60%
To a 7th level slot: DC of 34. Takes a move action. Chance of success: 45%


4th level spells:
Normal: DC of 25. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 90%*90%=81%
Taking your time: DC of 15. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 81,45%
Rushing: DC of 40. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 15%
Quicken:
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 75%
To a 6th level slot: DC of 31. Takes a full round action. Chance of success: 60%
To a 7th level slot: DC of 34. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 45%



5th level spells:
Normal: DC of 28. Takes 3 rounds. Chance of success: 75%*75%*75%=42,18%
Taking your time: DC of 18. Takes 6 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 73,5%
Rushing: DC of 46. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken:
To a 6th level slot: DC of 31. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 60%*60%=36%
To a 7th level slot: DC of 34. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 45%


6th level spells:
Normal: DC of 31. Takes 3 rounds. Chance of success: 60%*60%*60%=21,6%
Taking your time: DC of 21. Takes 6 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 73,5%
Rushing: DC of 52. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken:
To a 7th level slot: DC of 34. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 45%*45%=20,25%


7th level spells:
Normal: DC of 34. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 45%*45%*45%*45%=4,10%
Taking your time: DC of 24. Takes 8 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 66,33%
Rushing: DC of 60. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken: Not Available


16th level Sorcerer
Casting: +25=16 CL + 9 Cha

1st level spells:
Normal: DC of 16. Takes one round. Chance of success: 95%
Taking your time: DC of 6. Takes two rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% = 90,25%
Rushing: DC of 22. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 95%
Quicken: To a 2nd level slot: DC of 19. Takes a full round action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 3rd level slot: DC of 22. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes a move action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes a swift action. Chance of success: 90%



2nd level spells:
Normal: DC of 19. Takes one round. Chance of success: 95%
Taking your time: DC of 9. Takes two rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% = 90,25%
Rushing: DC of 28. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 90%
Quicken:
To a 3rd level slot: DC of 22. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes a move action. Chance of success: 90%
To a 6th level slot: DC of 31. Takes a swift action. Chance of success: 75%


3rd level spells:
Normal: DC of 22. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 95%*95%=90,25%
Taking your time: DC of 12. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 81,45%
Rushing: DC of 34. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 60%
Quicken:
To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 95%
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 90%
To a 6th level slot: DC of 31. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 75%
To a 7th level slot: DC of 34. Takes a move action. Chance of success: 60%
To an 8th level slot: DC of 37. Takes a swift action. Chance of success: 45%


4th level spells:
Normal: DC of 25. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 95%*95%=90,25%
Taking your time: DC of 15. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 81,45%
Rushing: DC of 40. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 30%
Quicken:
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 90%
To a 6th level slot: DC of 31. Takes a full round action. Chance of success: 75%
To a 7th level slot: DC of 34. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 60%
To an 8th level slot: DC of 37. Takes a move action. Chance of success: 45%



5th level spells:
Normal: DC of 28. Takes 3 rounds. Chance of success: 90%*90%*90%=72,9%
Taking your time: DC of 18. Takes 6 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 73,5%
Rushing: DC of 46. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken:
To a 6th level slot: DC of 31. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 75%*75%=56,25%
To a 7th level slot: DC of 34. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 60%
To an 8th level slot: DC of 37. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 45%


6th level spells:
Normal: DC of 31. Takes 3 rounds. Chance of success: 75%*75%*75%=42,18%
Taking your time: DC of 21. Takes 6 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 73,5%
Rushing: DC of 52. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken:
To a 7th level slot: DC of 34. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 60%*60%=36%
To an 8th level slot: DC of 37. Takes 1 rounds. Chance of success: 45%


7th level spells:
Normal: DC of 34. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 60%*60%*60%*60%=12,96%
Taking your time: DC of 24. Takes 8 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 66,33%
Rushing: DC of 58. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken:
To an 8th level slot: DC of 37. Takes 3 rounds. Chance of success: 45%*45%*45% = 9,11%



8th level spells:
Normal: DC of 37. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 45%*45%*45%*45%=4,10%
Taking your time: DC of 27. Takes 8 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 66,33%
Rushing: DC of 64. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken: Not Available


18th level Sorcerer
Casting: +27=18 CL + 9 Cha

1st level spells:
Normal: DC of 16. Takes one round. Chance of success: 95%
Taking your time: DC of 6. Takes two rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% = 90,25%
Rushing: DC of 22. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 95%
Quicken: To a 2nd level slot: DC of 19. Takes a full round action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 3rd level slot: DC of 22. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes a move action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes a swift action. Chance of success: 95%



2nd level spells:
Normal: DC of 19. Takes one round. Chance of success: 95%
Taking your time: DC of 9. Takes two rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% = 90,25%
Rushing: DC of 28. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 95%
Quicken:
To a 3rd level slot: DC of 22. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes a move action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 6th level slot: DC of 31. Takes a swift action. Chance of success: 85%


3rd level spells:
Normal: DC of 22. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 95%*95%=90,25%
Taking your time: DC of 12. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 81,45%
Rushing: DC of 34. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 70%
Quicken:
To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 95%
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 6th level slot: DC of 31. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 85%
To a 7th level slot: DC of 34. Takes a move action. Chance of success: 70%
To an 8th level slot: DC of 37. Takes a swift action. Chance of success: 55%


4th level spells:
Normal: DC of 25. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 95%*95%=90,25%
Taking your time: DC of 15. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 81,45%
Rushing: DC of 40. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 40%
Quicken:
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 95%
To a 6th level slot: DC of 31. Takes a full round action. Chance of success: 85%
To a 7th level slot: DC of 34. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 70%
To an 8th level slot: DC of 37. Takes a move action. Chance of success: 55%
To a 9th level slot: DC of 40. Takes a swift action. Chance of success: 40%



5th level spells:
Normal: DC of 28. Takes 3 rounds. Chance of success: 95%*95%*95%=85,73%
Taking your time: DC of 18. Takes 6 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 73,5%
Rushing: DC of 46. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 10%
Quicken:
To a 6th level slot: DC of 31. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 85%*85%=72,25%
To a 7th level slot: DC of 34. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 70%
To an 8th level slot: DC of 37. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 55%
To a 9th level slot: DC of 40. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 40%


6th level spells:
Normal: DC of 31. Takes 3 rounds. Chance of success: 85%*85%*85%=61,41%
Taking your time: DC of 21. Takes 6 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 73,5%
Rushing: DC of 52. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken:
To a 7th level slot: DC of 34. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 70%*70%=49%
To an 8th level slot: DC of 37. Takes 1 rounds. Chance of success: 55%
To a 9th level slot: DC of 40. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 40%


7th level spells:
Normal: DC of 34. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 70%*70%*70%*70%=24,01%
Taking your time: DC of 24. Takes 8 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 66,33%
Rushing: DC of 58. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken:
To an 8th level slot: DC of 37. Takes 3 rounds. Chance of success: 55%*55%*55% = 16,63%
To a 9th level slot: DC of 40. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 40%*40=16%



8th level spells:
Normal: DC of 37. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 55%*55%*55%*55%=9,14%
Taking your time: DC of 27. Takes 8 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 66,33%
Rushing: DC of 64. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken:
To a 9th level slot: DC of 40. Takes 3 rounds. Chance of success: 40%*40%*40%= 6,4%


9th level spells:
Normal: DC of 40. Takes 5 rounds. Chance of success: 40%*40%*40%*40%*40%= 1,02%
Taking your time: DC of 30. Takes 10 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 59,86%
Rushing: DC of 70. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken: Not Available


20th level Sorcerer
Casting: +30=20 CL + 10 Cha

1st level spells:
Normal: DC of 16. Takes one round. Chance of success: 95%
Taking your time: DC of 6. Takes two rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% = 90,25%
Rushing: DC of 22. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 95%
Quicken: To a 2nd level slot: DC of 19. Takes a full round action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 3rd level slot: DC of 22. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes a move action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes a swift action. Chance of success: 95%



2nd level spells:
Normal: DC of 19. Takes one round. Chance of success: 95%
Taking your time: DC of 9. Takes two rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% = 90,25%
Rushing: DC of 28. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 95%
Quicken:
To a 3rd level slot: DC of 22. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes a move action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 6th level slot: DC of 31. Takes a swift action. Chance of success: 95%


3rd level spells:
Normal: DC of 22. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 95%*95%=90,25%
Taking your time: DC of 12. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 81,45%
Rushing: DC of 34. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 85%
Quicken:
To a 4th level slot: DC of 25. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 95%
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 6th level slot: DC of 31. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 7th level slot: DC of 34. Takes a move action. Chance of success: 85%
To an 8th level slot: DC of 37. Takes a swift action. Chance of success: 70%


4th level spells:
Normal: DC of 25. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 95%*95%=90,25%
Taking your time: DC of 15. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 81,45%
Rushing: DC of 40. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 55%
Quicken:
To a 5th level slot: DC of 28. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 95%
To a 6th level slot: DC of 31. Takes a full round action. Chance of success: 95%
To a 7th level slot: DC of 34. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 85%
To an 8th level slot: DC of 37. Takes a move action. Chance of success: 70%
To a 9th level slot: DC of 40. Takes a swift action. Chance of success: 55%



5th level spells:
Normal: DC of 28. Takes 3 rounds. Chance of success: 95%*95%*95%=85,73%
Taking your time: DC of 18. Takes 6 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 73,5%
Rushing: DC of 46. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 25%
Quicken:
To a 6th level slot: DC of 31. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 95%*95%=90,25%
To a 7th level slot: DC of 34. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 85%
To an 8th level slot: DC of 37. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 70%
To a 9th level slot: DC of 40. Takes a standard action. Chance of success: 55%


6th level spells:
Normal: DC of 31. Takes 3 rounds. Chance of success: 95%*95%*95%=85,73%
Taking your time: DC of 21. Takes 6 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 73,5%
Rushing: DC of 52. Takes 1 round. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken:
To a 7th level slot: DC of 34. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 85%*85%=72,25%
To an 8th level slot: DC of 37. Takes 1 rounds. Chance of success: 70%
To a 9th level slot: DC of 40. Takes a full-round action. Chance of success: 55%


7th level spells:
Normal: DC of 34. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 85%*85%*85%*85%=52,2%
Taking your time: DC of 24. Takes 8 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 66,33%
Rushing: DC of 58. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken:
To an 8th level slot: DC of 37. Takes 3 rounds. Chance of success: 70%*70%*70% = 34,3%
To a 9th level slot: DC of 40. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 55%*55=30,25%



8th level spells:
Normal: DC of 37. Takes 4 rounds. Chance of success: 70%*70%*70%*70% = 24,01%
Taking your time: DC of 27. Takes 8 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 66,33%
Rushing: DC of 64. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken:
To a 9th level slot: DC of 40. Takes 3 rounds. Chance of success: 55%*55%*55=16,63%


9th level spells:
Normal: DC of 40. Takes 5 rounds. Chance of success: 55%*55%*55%*55%*55%=4,10%
Taking your time: DC of 30. Takes 10 rounds. Chance of success: 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% * 95% = 59,86%
Rushing: DC of 70. Takes 2 rounds. Chance of success: 0%
Quicken: Not Available

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 03:01 AM
You could always make magic items! At level 1! wait.....

Someone tell me what wizards from 1st-5th level do with this wizard nerf system? (buff-o-tron?)

Actually, you can. They're called scrolls :smalltongue:

Buff-o-tron and Utility-tron sound nice, no? Until you craft wands of scorching ray and what have you.

Craft a rod of many wands and three wands of scorching ray/magic missile, and you have a flamethrower/machinegun.


Yeah, I'm serious. It's going to be just as easy to pay an NPC wizard to do a divination or enchant something or whatever. If you really want to play the role that is usually handled by an NPC shopkeeper, then hey, more power to you. But since you've posted this here, allegedly for general comments, you're going to get a general consensus that playing the magic mart isn't generally fun.

More balloons.

I know plenty of people that enjoy their wizards out of combat far more than in combat. This way they're still effective in combat but not to the extent they used to.

But hey, maybe it's just me and everybody else wants to do nasty things in combat almost all of the time.


That's too big a nerf on wizards.

The feat tax is a horrible idea. No other class *requires* a feat to function better than a 1st level commoner in combat, but this is exactly what a wizard is reduced to in combat.

Well, they're the strongest class out there, no?

Fluff reason: Of course that's the real power of wizards, and it's not in combat. Besides, at level 1 where he is equal to a 1st level commoner in combat, he is still a squawky apprentice.

Mechanics reason: Yes, but they get plenty of power later on.

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 03:03 AM
You could always make magic items! At level 1! wait.....

Someone tell me what wizards from 1st-5th level do with this wizard nerf system? (buff-o-tron?)

EDIT: Dear Cataphract, I think the whole "leaving the wizard out of combat" is a bad move period. I know we have had differing ideas of what is fun, so I propose you make a quick 5th level wizard (if you need a reference, 28 point buy, 9000gp wealth), and we'll see if I (or anyone else frequenting this thread) would find it fun or unfun, and why. I have a sneaking suspicion that Hyooz may be right about "playing the magic mart".

I'm not leaving him out of combat, I'm limiting his ability to be in one.

If you want a combat wizard, craft craft craft.

If you want to throw spells around easily, get a sorcerer.

Noone said i'm trying to make magic easy here, it's already easy RAW so I try a different approach that might also rectify the tier problem.

Seriously, how would you rank the two classes? I'd say both are about tier 3-4.

Stompy
2010-02-04, 03:18 AM
Actually, you can. They're called scrolls :smalltongue:

1st level scrolls are 25 gp (or crafted 12.5 gp). You don't start with a huge amount of gold at level 1, and you do have to buy utility stuffs, food, water, a spellbook, and a spell component pouch too.

btw, do you need to roll a DC for using a magic item?


Buff-o-tron and Utility-tron sound nice, no? Until you craft wands of scorching ray and what have you.

Most people I know (note: I know) would be bored with those roles, because in this case, the recipient of the buff ritual activates it himself. The wizard in combat, when he is confident he is in no clear danger, either uses a wand or a crossbow. This is now starting to sound like a 4E wizard now, except with less powers known.


Craft a rod of many wands and three wands of scorching ray/magic missile, and you have a flamethrower/machinegun.

Pardon me, but I have never heard of this item. Is it in a WoTC book? And when would it be feasible for a wizard financially to do this?

Your whole wand idea is dandy, but I worry for the wizard when he goes up against creatures with SR, fire resistance/immunity, or both. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm)

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 03:26 AM
1st level scrolls are 25 gp (or crafted 12.5 gp). You don't start with a huge amount of gold at level 1, and you do have to buy utility stuffs, food, water, a spellbook, and a spell component pouch too.

btw, do you need to roll a DC for using a magic item?

I think wizards have enough trouble crafting them, so no. But anybody else needs UMD.




Most people I know (note: I know) would be bored with those roles, because in this case, the recipient of the buff ritual activates it himself. The wizard in combat, when he is confident he is in no clear danger, either uses a wand (or maybe 1 of 2) or a crossbow. This is now starting to sound like a 4E wizard now, except with less powers known.

True. I don't intend to make a wizard more interesting; indeed, I'd rather make him less interesting. This is twofold: So that less people play them (which means that those who do play them are hardcore RPers usually) and so that people who do are encouraged to take caster level hits, which mean lower spell levels, which means more manageable, less wonky parties. I hate it how nobody ever dares take more than 3 CL hits at most, including me (though I'm starting to reconsider, slowly).


Pardon me, but I have never heard of this item. Is it in a WoTC book? And when would it be feasible for a wizard financially to do this?

Complete Mage, p. 128. 27.000 gp base price, 13,500 gp to craft and 1080 XP.

Expensive bugger, but it can be worth it (36d6 damage per round is not bad, even if you need 3 wands and it drains 3 charges each time). Though were I to allow it (and a two-wanded variation), I wouldn't make it lose more than the normal charges used (it might be more balancing, but fluff-wise it's stupid).


Your whole wand idea is dandy, but I worry for the wizard when he goes up against creatures with SR, fire resistance/immunity, or both. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/devil.htm)

Metamagic the scorching ray or any other spell into some other kind of energy.

Or get Orbs.

Ashtagon
2010-02-04, 03:35 AM
Well, they're the strongest class out there, no?


What, wizards? Or commoners?



Fluff reason: Of course that's the real power of wizards, and it's not in combat. Besides, at level 1 where he is equal to a 1st level commoner in combat, he is still a squawky apprentice.


A 1st level wizard is still a squawky apprentice. And a 1st level fighter is still a squawky squire. But under your rules, only one of them is at all functional is the primary raison d'etre of the game.

As written, your wizard either has to burn feats to be functional in combats, or burn xp and feats (through item crafting) to be functional. No other class needs to do this to be functional in combat. And combat is an important enough part of the game that this is a critical design flaw.


Mechanics reason: Yes, but they get plenty of power later on.

This is a very bad idea, and something that 3e tried hard to move away from (and that 4e actually succeeded in leaving behind). The ideal for game balance is that all characters of a given level should be of roughly the same power level. Simply making wizards suck hard at low levels but still be uber at high levels is just going back to the 2e model, which was only (very poorly) balanced by differing xp progression tables.

(fwiw, I calibrate the average "competent" adult to be 3rd level, with an upper end of 6th-8th for most non-adventurers).

Hyooz
2010-02-04, 03:35 AM
True. I don't intend to make a wizard more interesting; indeed, I'd rather make him less interesting. This is twofold: So that less people play them (which means that those who do play them are hardcore RPers usually) and so that people who do are encouraged to take caster level hits, which mean lower spell levels, which means more manageable, less wonky parties. I hate it how nobody ever dares take more than 3 CL hits at most, including me (though I'm starting to reconsider, slowly).

*insert record scratch sound effect here*

So... you actually set out, this is your INTENTION, that you are describing here, in your words, in your post, to drive more people away from playing casters by making it suck to play them on purpose and intentionally.

And no, this won't make people take more caster level hits the way you want them to. This will make them just not take caster levels. Because caster levels turn into lost BAB levels, which in a world where a wizard needs to spend most of his WBL just to live through a normal adventuring day, is much more worthwhile than being able to craft wands of Magic Missile.

Why not just be up front about it, as I have urged time and time again, and just ban casters as PCs? Why punish the poor sap who came into your game with his heart set on playing a caster?

Stompy
2010-02-04, 03:43 AM
True. I don't intend to make a wizard more interesting; indeed, I'd rather make him less interesting. This is twofold: So that less people play them (which means that those who do play them are hardcore RPers usually) and so that people who do are encouraged to take caster level hits, which mean lower spell levels, which means more manageable, less wonky parties. I hate it how nobody ever dares take more than 3 CL hits at most, including me (though I'm starting to reconsider, slowly).

Wha?

The last thing I want to do with this wizard is take CL hits! And don't most people, Heavy RPers or not, stay with wizard (or with Wizard PrCs) till the end?

Party manageability and wonkiness has many factors that you are leaving out. Casters aren't the only things that be twinked. If you do have a heavy optimizer, he might go for something else wonky instead.




Complete Mage, p. 128. 27.000 gp base price, 13,500 gp to craft and 1080 XP.

Expensive bugger, but it can be worth it (36d6 damage per round is not bad, even if you need 3 wands and it drains 3 charges each time). Though were I to allow it (and a two-wanded variation), I wouldn't make it lose more than the normal charges used (it might be more balancing, but fluff-wise it's stupid).

Do note that 3 wards of scorching ray (CL 11) costs 49500 base price, meaning that if you crafted this system, if would cost you ~38.5k. That is a substantial amount of money.

Do also note that the scorching ray flamethrower is close range. :smallwink:



Metamagic the scorching ray or any other spell into some other kind of energy.

Or get Orbs.

You would have to craft it to that energy type, and spend a feat to switch energy types.

Lesser Orb wands are pretty good, one will get you 5d8 damage for a base price of ~8k gp.

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 03:48 AM
What, wizards? Or commoners?

:smallsigh:


A 1st level wizard is still a squawky apprentice. And a 1st level fighter is still a squawky squire. But under your rules, only one of them is at all functional is the primary raison d'etre of the game.

I thought the primary raison d'etre of any RPG was roleplaying. Emphasis on combat as a system or no, it's roleplaying that's supposed to be the main course. I never said my rules catered to any other audience.


This is a very bad idea, and something that 3e tried hard to move away from (and that 4e actually succeeded in leaving behind). The ideal for game balance is that all characters of a given level should be of roughly the same power level. Simply making wizards suck hard at low levels but still be uber at high levels is just going back to the 2e model, which was only (very poorly) balanced by differing xp progression tables.

Ok, let's pick a 1st level wizard and a 1st level fighter RAW.

And put them to fight.

Who wins?

And do it every level thereafter.

Are they equal? No. They can't. Because they deal with combat in different ways.

There's nothing different in this system, either. But I find it outright silly and to most people, annoying, how wizards can do anything better than anybody else. So I thought I'd limit them at what made more sense- combat. Now they're uber useful still outside combat, even more so, and they can still wreak havoc if they have been prepared (and by prepared I don't mean studying a book for 1 hour in the morning).


(fwiw, I calibrate the average "competent" adult to be 3rd level, with an upper end of 6th-8th for most non-adventurers).

From what I hear, level 1 is fine for most anybody in the world, and 5th is the upper limit.


*insert record scratch sound effect here*

So... you actually set out, this is your INTENTION, that you are describing here, in your words, in your post, to drive more people away from playing casters by making it suck to play them on purpose and intentionally.

And no, this won't make people take more caster level hits the way you want them to. This will make them just not take caster levels. Because caster levels turn into lost BAB levels, which in a world where a wizard needs to spend most of his WBL just to live through a normal adventuring day, is much more worthwhile than being able to craft wands of Magic Missile.

Why not just be up front about it, as I have urged time and time again, and just ban casters as PCs? Why punish the poor sap who came into your game with his heart set on playing a caster?

I don't want to make them "suck to play them", I want to nerf them. If this particular nerf makes you or anybody else unwilling to play them, well, that's the way I see it. If it makes my players or party mates not want to play them, then I will reconsider.

Oh and by the way, WBL is one of the crappiest ideas ever. I never did use it as a DM and I never will.

And on and on you keep droning and whining about how not fun it is. Well, I'll say it to you again: I don't care. Don't play it. What are you trying to do, convince me it's not "universally fun"? Since when did such a concept appear?

Have you ever stopped to consider some people are more interested in fluff than mechanics?

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 03:51 AM
Wha?

The last thing I want to do with this wizard is take CL hits! And don't most people, Heavy RPers or not, stay with wizard (or with Wizard PrCs) till the end?

Practiced spellcaster. You can cover at least 4 hits like that. Make it available more than once, stackable, and there you go. Reliable wizards or sorcerers without uber powers.


Party manageability and wonkiness has many factors that you are leaving out. Casters aren't the only things that be twinked. If you do have a heavy optimizer, he might go for something else wonky instead.

Sure, no doubt, but casters are twinked by RAW. They can't do otherwise.




Do note that 3 wards of scorching ray (CL 11) costs 49500 base price, meaning that if you crafted this system, if would cost you ~38.5k. That is a substantial amount of money.

Do also note that the scorching ray flamethrower is close range. :smallwink:


You would have to craft it to that energy type, and spend a feat to switch energy types.

Lesser Orb wands are pretty good, one will get you 5d8 damage for a base price of ~8k gp.

Ah yes, no doubt. Truth be told, I'd rather this system did away with money and base prices (still keep them to calculate XP), but instead have quests to provide you with the necessary material. I hate the "shopping therapy" of D&D.

Stompy
2010-02-04, 03:59 AM
So.... if you're re-mechanizing the arcane casters for fluff and nerf reasons, what happens to the monsters with spell-like abilities? Do they get nerfed too?

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 04:18 AM
So.... if you're re-mechanizing the arcane casters for fluff and nerf reasons, what happens to the monsters with spell-like abilities? Do they get nerfed too?

That would be on a case by case basis. Some would, some would not. That would depend on fluff as well.

E.g. a beholder would stay as-is, but I'd nerf a balor anyway. I mean, "balors are better off as ranged combatants?"

Who was stupid enough to not only think that up but actually write the balor with that in mind?

Hyooz
2010-02-04, 04:19 AM
I don't want to make them "suck to play them", I want to nerf them. If this particular nerf makes you or anybody else unwilling to play them, well, that's the way I see it. If it makes my players or party mates not want to play them, then I will reconsider.

Oh and by the way, WBL is one of the crappiest ideas ever. I never did use it as a DM and I never will.

And on and on you keep droning and whining about how not fun it is. Well, I'll say it to you again: I don't care. Don't play it. What are you trying to do, convince me it's not "universally fun"? Since when did such a concept appear?

Have you ever stopped to consider some people are more interested in fluff than mechanics?

Ok, you can't come out of this saying that you don't want to make them unfun to play or you don't think this will drive anyone but me, the combat crazy mechanic focused nutjob away from your wizard. You said, specifically, that this nerf was to push people away from playing wizards. That is what you said. So start reconsidering right now since driving people away from playing this is the goal of this revision. In case you forgot what you just said again, I'll quote it for you.


True. I don't intend to make a wizard more interesting; indeed, I'd rather make him less interesting. This is twofold: So that less people play them (which means that those who do play them are hardcore RPers usually) and so that people who do are encouraged to take caster level hits, which mean lower spell levels, which means more manageable, less wonky parties. I hate it how nobody ever dares take more than 3 CL hits at most, including me (though I'm starting to reconsider, slowly).


You say you'll reconsider if it makes your playmates reconsider, when you just got done saying that you WANT them to reconsider.

And fine, don't use WBL. You're still forcing wizards to use the huge majority of their money to make it halfway likely they will live through the day, while everyone else gets to spend it on getting better stuff.

And honestly, if you don't care about people's opinion on this, both mechanically (which you later claim you don't care about) and playability wise, why post it here? You're going to get opinions. If you don't care about them, just play it out at home. And this has long since gone past 'not universally fun.' You are in territory of 'I intentionally want to hurt the fun of people who play wizards.'

And please, if you are that much more intersted in fluff over mechanics, why not use one of the fluff solutions to the caster menace I have recommended over and over again instead of fighting with the mechanics? Seriously, are you just sitting there smiling to yourself that I'm treating this like some kind of video game and ignoring the role play aspect entirely? I love roleplaying. I love making characters and not just mechanical constructions of stats. I also like my DM trusting me enough to play the game with him, not against him, and to adapt to various styles of play rather than punishing me with incredibly restrictive mechanics because I thought a person who was a necromancer might be kind of neat to play (which, ironically, is probably one of the more viable character archetypes under this system.)

Ashtagon
2010-02-04, 04:36 AM
Ok, let's pick a 1st level wizard and a 1st level fighter RAW.

And put them to fight.

Who wins?

And do it every level thereafter.

Are they equal? No. They can't. Because they deal with combat in different ways.


Yes, under RAW it is certainly true that fighters are screwed against wizards, unless they manage to achieve a surprise round. Fighters stand a modest chance even without that up to about level 4, after that, all bets are off.

But your nerf pushes things too far in the opposite direction. The ideal would be for either class to be equally viable.

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 04:37 AM
Ok, you can't come out of this saying that you don't want to make them unfun to play or you don't think this will drive anyone but me, the combat crazy mechanic focused nutjob away from your wizard. You said, specifically, that this nerf was to push people away from playing wizards. That is what you said. So start reconsidering right now since driving people away from playing this is the goal of this revision. In case you forgot what you just said again, I'll quote it for you.

Ok, let's make this clear:

I want powerhungry twinks away from wizards. If you like the concept of a wizard, you play a wizard, no matter what. If I didn't want anybody to play, I'd just ban them. What I want to do is to put them in the same level as others, game-wise (not just combat wise).


Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with.

So it's tier 3, or am I wrong?



You say you'll reconsider if it makes your playmates reconsider, when you just got done saying that you WANT them to reconsider.

There are two instances of the word reconsider: One, about me reconsidering the value of trying so hard to maintain caster level in D&D, and the other being that I would reconsider if they don't want to play it. Is it clear now?


And fine, don't use WBL. You're still forcing wizards to use the huge majority of their money to make it halfway likely they will live through the day, while everyone else gets to spend it on getting better stuff.

Which part of "quests to acquire the necessary materials" was so hard to fathom? Who says that in such a game wealth will be freely given and others will be just able to buy stuff like there's a Magic Mall out there? This is obviously not intended as something you just plug into your average D&D, and I did say that in the first place.


And honestly, if you don't care about people's opinion on this, both mechanically (which you later claim you don't care about) and playability wise, why post it here? You're going to get opinions. If you don't care about them, just play it out at home.

When did I claim I don't care about people's mechanical concerns? I specifically asked people to point out the holes I missed so I can patch them up. And several were kind enough to do so.

What I see as useless is people saying "Oh this is not fun anymore" and "This is not D&D". Well, it says variant, doesn't it?


And this has long since gone past 'not universally fun.' You are in territory of 'I intentionally want to hurt the fun of people who play wizards.'

Hmm, and you are a spokesperson for everybody who wants to play wizards?


And please, if you are that much more intersted in fluff over mechanics, why not use one of the fluff solutions to the caster menace I have recommended over and over again instead of fighting with the mechanics?

Because the mechanics should portray the fluff, or at least that's what I believe. To what extent is debatable, but in this case for the kind of game I'd like to run it's important that, in the end, prepared=rituals, spontaneous=magic. Simple?


Seriously, are you just sitting there smiling to yourself that I'm treating this like some kind of video game and ignoring the role play aspect entirely? I love roleplaying. I love making characters and not just mechanical constructions of stats. I also like my DM trusting me enough to play the game with him, not against him, and to adapt to various styles of play rather than punishing me with incredibly restrictive mechanics because I thought a person who was a necromancer might be kind of neat to play (which, ironically, is probably one of the more viable character archetypes under this system.)

No, I'm sitting right here wondering why you keep whining and whining. Again, I'M NOT GOING TO FORCE YOUR DM TO PLAY WITH THIS. Are you feeling safer now?

You keep saying the same thing over and over again when I've made it clear it's a totally subjective matter ("it's not fun" is hardly objective in a game), and then you try to find a hole not in the system but in me for trying to explain said subjectivity.

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 04:38 AM
Yes, under RAW it is certainly true that fighters are screwed against wizards, unless they manage to achieve a surprise round. Fighters stand a modest chance even without that up to about level 4, after that, all bets are off.

But your nerf pushes things too far in the opposite direction. The ideal would be for either class to be equally viable.

Properly prepared, a wizard is almost as effective as he used to be. He has access to all the magic items a wizard has, but not the spells. Are they not enough to overcome pretty much every equal-level fighter?

lesser_minion
2010-02-04, 11:05 AM
WBL isn't actually that bad once you think about it. All it really says is "this is how much equipment a character is likely to have at this level". The thing is, you do need to provide a guideline on how much equipment characters should have if you're going to make any assumptions about it.

I think you really need to give wizards something to do in a fight that isn't dependent on magic items - possibly let them take certain spells to use freely, or even just make some new supernatural and spell-like abilities for them to use. Otherwise, you really do run the risk of having the DM say "go get a cup of coffee and I'll call you if you die".

Glimbur
2010-02-04, 12:12 PM
This makes Warlocks better than wizards, at least at mid to high levels. They can both use magic items to cast spells in combat, but the Warlock has an edge due to using UMD so that he can cast any spell that exists. They can both craft their own gear. The wizard has the advantage of these contingent spells, but the warlock has invocations and eldritch blast. I'd rather have the ability to fly 24 hours a day, for example, rather than have to do a lengthy ritual to get the ability to fly for a while, once. The wizard could have more effects than the warlock, but the inconvenience and expense of actually getting the effects up compared to a warlock walking around seeing invisible, flying, with a 20% miss chance to ranged attacks, and casting Black Tentacles+ as a standard action suggests that the warlock has the edge.

Have you considered a low magic system, rather than trying to turn D&D 3.5 into one? I hear good things about Iron Heroes, for example.

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 01:01 PM
WBL isn't actually that bad once you think about it. All it really says is "this is how much equipment a character is likely to have at this level". The thing is, you do need to provide a guideline on how much equipment characters should have if you're going to make any assumptions about it.

I think you really need to give wizards something to do in a fight that isn't dependent on magic items - possibly let them take certain spells to use freely, or even just make some new supernatural and spell-like abilities for them to use. Otherwise, you really do run the risk of having the DM say "go get a cup of coffee and I'll call you if you die".

As I said, I don't put that much stock in equipment in my campaigns (even if that means having them fight lower CR).

However, that wizards might be able to do something in a fight is indeed an option.

Maybe they can craft invocations that give them spell-like abilities. I'll see to that.

Also, don't forget reserve feats. Combined with contingent spells and a necessary rewording (not to mention the CL boost) they're pretty useful now.



This makes Warlocks better than wizards, at least at mid to high levels. They can both use magic items to cast spells in combat, but the Warlock has an edge due to using UMD so that he can cast any spell that exists. They can both craft their own gear. The wizard has the advantage of these contingent spells, but the warlock has invocations and eldritch blast. I'd rather have the ability to fly 24 hours a day, for example, rather than have to do a lengthy ritual to get the ability to fly for a while, once. The wizard could have more effects than the warlock, but the inconvenience and expense of actually getting the effects up compared to a warlock walking around seeing invisible, flying, with a 20% miss chance to ranged attacks, and casting Black Tentacles+ as a standard action suggests that the warlock has the edge.

Have you considered a low magic system, rather than trying to turn D&D 3.5 into one? I hear good things about Iron Heroes, for example.

Warlocks will also be appropriately nerfed, if available at all, under this variant. Thanks for pointing them out.

Warlocks can craft? I didn't know that.

Iron Heroes is D&D turned into a low magic system, dude. I've read it, and while I find the concepts ok, it's too tiresome with all the tokens and what-not, while not being gritty by account of the even more tons of hit points and small amount of damage.

Glimbur
2010-02-04, 01:08 PM
So you don't want a low magic system, but you do want to drastically limit the power of every spell caster. Correct?

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 01:20 PM
So you don't want a low magic system, but you do want to drastically limit the power of every spell caster. Correct?

Yes, while keeping the flavor of laboratory-bumbling wizards.

Glimbur
2010-02-04, 01:38 PM
This proposed change does drastically limit the power of spellcasters.

Personally, I would simply not play a spellcaster in this system, and the other posters seem to agree. This is a risk you'll have to consider; are you ok with none of the players playing spellcasters and just hiring an NPC when spells are needed?

Ashtagon
2010-02-04, 01:39 PM
It sounds like the level of magic you are after is something like that seen in Games Workshop's Warhammer world (the fantasy roleplay one, not the battle system world; the flavour of the two is a little different, even though they are ostensibly the same place). Am I right?

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 02:29 PM
This proposed change does drastically limit the power of spellcasters.

Personally, I would simply not play a spellcaster in this system, and the other posters seem to agree. This is a risk you'll have to consider; are you ok with none of the players playing spellcasters and just hiring an NPC when spells are needed?

I would be perfectly ok with that, frankly. Aside from being perfectly similar as to most cases of fantasy (how many PCs are wizards, after all?), it's also a variant that I would play a sorcerer in (though not a wizard unless I'm aiming for that kind of character- for reference, I usually play gishes).



It sounds like the level of magic you are after is something like that seen in Games Workshop's Warhammer world (the fantasy roleplay one, not the battle system world; the flavour of the two is a little different, even though they are ostensibly the same place). Am I right?

Unfortunately I know very little of WFRP's system, including magic.

UserShadow7989
2010-02-04, 06:08 PM
The problem isn't with just the Wizard or the spellcasting system. The big thing is the spells themselves. No matter how you retool the magic system, as long as things like Wish and the massive amount of cheese certain spells provide exist, the Wizard and to a lesser extent the Sorcerer will always have an "I win" button they can spam, along with several save-or-die/suck spells they can keep throwing around if that doesn't work. Limiting uses of that only means they'll go one or two encounters in between rests instead of four. You bring the game to a crawl.

Balancing the Wizard requires either mass banning of spells and rule zeroing, or redoing the spell list itself from scratch and carefully avoiding cheese. That's not to say the vancian spellcasting system used by D&D or the Wizard class itself isn't poorly implemented, but they are a pittance compared to the actual spells.

Another problem is that any costs or limits a spell has can be avoided if you're crafty enough. No magic mart? No problem. You still can cast spells that require XP, Somantic, or Verbal components only, and the only one that costs you anything (XP) can be regained later anyhow. Meanwhile, no magic mart means the Fighter can't get Boots of Flight, extra pluses for his sword, or wands or scrolls (except by getting the Wizard to make it). Lack of a magic mart hurts a Fighter more then a Wizard.

Actually, how about the opposite approach? Super magic walmarts. The Wizard wouldn't have any trouble accessing his cheese either way, but with this method non casters can boost their equipment and grab a few wands to keep up. It's probably been way too long since my last game to really call this a solution, but I remember it working out okay.

At the end of the day, the best way to handle this is a gentleman's agreement: no cheese, no breaking the game, and no ending an encounter in one/two rounds or anything that makes the other characters feel useless.

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 06:53 PM
The problem isn't with just the Wizard or the spellcasting system. The big thing is the spells themselves. No matter how you retool the magic system, as long as things like Wish and the massive amount of cheese certain spells provide exist, the Wizard and to a lesser extent the Sorcerer will always have an "I win" button they can spam, along with several save-or-die/suck spells they can keep throwing around if that doesn't work. Limiting uses of that only means they'll go one or two encounters in between rests instead of four. You bring the game to a crawl.

Balancing the Wizard requires either mass banning of spells and rule zeroing, or redoing the spell list itself from scratch and carefully avoiding cheese. That's not to say the vancian spellcasting system used by D&D or the Wizard class itself isn't poorly implemented, but they are a pittance compared to the actual spells.

Another problem is that any costs or limits a spell has can be avoided if you're crafty enough. No magic mart? No problem. You still can cast spells that require XP, Somantic, or Verbal components only, and the only one that costs you anything (XP) can be regained later anyhow. Meanwhile, no magic mart means the Fighter can't get Boots of Flight, extra pluses for his sword, or wands or scrolls (except by getting the Wizard to make it). Lack of a magic mart hurts a Fighter more then a Wizard.

Actually, how about the opposite approach? Super magic walmarts. The Wizard wouldn't have any trouble accessing his cheese either way, but with this method non casters can boost their equipment and grab a few wands to keep up. It's probably been way too long since my last game to really call this a solution, but I remember it working out okay.

At the end of the day, the best way to handle this is a gentleman's agreement: no cheese, no breaking the game, and no ending an encounter in one/two rounds or anything that makes the other characters feel useless.

Ιndeed, spells need to be reworked, but that can be done after laying the ground work (there's no reason to redo wish unless the campaign reaches 17th level at least).

The problem, the way I see it, is that spellcasters still end an encounter in one or two rounds, gentleman agreement or not. If they don't, they'll just sit around bored and use only a fraction of their capabilities. I've seen it in play, and it's not nice. There's no reason to reduce one side's fun so the others can have some.

Laying out limiting mechanics is part of this. Stripping the "big guns" out of mages really makes magic seem silly- it's MAGIC. It should be able to do that. But on the other hand, being able to do that shouldn't be easy, like in RAW, where you just choose your spells just like that. It should be difficult, fraught with danger, and rewarding.

Forcing spellcasters to take time for their spells limits their ability to one-two encounters. Forcing them to take rolls does two things- it limits the effect of higher level spells (which I see little reason to nerf), and it actually keeps them active. They have to keep chanting, to protect themselves beforehand, to reinforce their spells (I'll work on a counterspelling mechanic) and to actually keep concentrating if under fire.

Also, if you do away with the notion of magic mart, then the DM can regulate power much more easily, requiring more than just having the necessary amount of gold to craft powerful items like staves.

As for the fighter etc? Give him maneuvers and other more powerful stuff that depend on what he can do as opposed to what he is holding, and he'll feel much more better. As I said, I'm working on a ToB-like supplement with a slightly different approach.

The thing is, classes that rely too much on their equipment are (at least in my eyes), not fun to play, because you know that in the end, you're nothing without your toys. I know how this can be rebounded back for casters, but there's a difference between limiting one aspect to items, and all of the game.

Spate
2010-02-04, 07:55 PM
So, in reading your system, I would only ever play a caster in the first one. The simple one is fine, spell points are cool, sure, and all the time extension does is severely limit the mobility of spell casters at lower levels.

The second one is just mean and I would never dream of doing something like that to any player. Many people love playing casters, and for a lot of those people it's because of the rush of doing cool magic stuff during combat. Your second system destroys a spell caster in combat. This system would be fine if the PC is never expected to cast more than most of a spell at a monster, since no appropriate level encounter should last a number of minutes equal to the wizards highest spell level. But if the game is just role playing, and almost no combat, then use the second one if you want. Just give the wizard some down time so he can use his class features.

Cataphract
2010-02-04, 08:08 PM
So, in reading your system, I would only ever play a caster in the first one. The simple one is fine, spell points are cool, sure, and all the time extension does is severely limit the mobility of spell casters at lower levels.

The second one is just mean and I would never dream of doing something like that to any player. Many people love playing casters, and for a lot of those people it's because of the rush of doing cool magic stuff during combat. Your second system destroys a spell caster in combat. This system would be fine if the PC is never expected to cast more than most of a spell at a monster, since no appropriate level encounter should last a number of minutes equal to the wizards highest spell level. But if the game is just role playing, and almost no combat, then use the second one if you want. Just give the wizard some down time so he can use his class features.

Yes, I'm a mean guy who's out there to spoil the fun for everybody else. I'm a living, breathing, flesh-and-bones wet blanket.

Seriously :smalltongue:

You know, there's sorcerers too, they're supposed to be the guys doing spontaneous magic, you know?

And it's obvious a wizard with the appropriate items can be every bit as dangerous as a RAW wizard. He just needs to make them in the first place- and that's where the DM steps in to regulate the flow of power.

Spate
2010-02-04, 08:46 PM
Yes, I'm a mean guy who's out there to spoil the fun for everybody else. I'm a living, breathing, flesh-and-bones wet blanket.

I couldn't have said it better. Most of how you defend your system is in that fashion. The other people on this forum however, probably instigated this and then you kept responding as you met their arms race. Good job proving yourself, and it saddens me that I had to say this. I was trying to be nice.

Hyooz
2010-02-04, 08:51 PM
Yes, I'm a mean guy who's out there to spoil the fun for everybody else. I'm a living, breathing, flesh-and-bones wet blanket.

Seriously :smalltongue:

You know, there's sorcerers too, they're supposed to be the guys doing spontaneous magic, you know?

And it's obvious a wizard with the appropriate items can be every bit as dangerous as a RAW wizard. He just needs to make them in the first place- and that's where the DM steps in to regulate the flow of power.

You know sorcerers still aren't all that viable under your system. Mmm... spontaneous casting that takes 5 rounds.

And you're still forcing the wizard into a huge resource sink, whether that be from WBL or forcing his party to carry him to quest for the proper materials until he has enough wands to last him for a few days right?

FlamingKobold
2010-02-04, 09:15 PM
1) This is just a discussion. I'm not trying to change things here, I'm contemplating possibilities. Don't come in crashing and yelling this is not how things were meant to be, and that this is not D&D.
2) Do not post the same things others have posted before you. Especially if said thing is "play some other game".
2a) Yes, I know about E6 and Iron Heroes. No, they are not the focus of this conversation (though Iron Heroes' Arcanist class might be).

Thank you.

...

Your thoughts?

Yes, I read it. So, as you asked for, here are my thoughts on this. (numbered for convenience, and because I number everything.

1. I looked through the thread, and did not find a variant that I thought was worse for the game of Dungeons and Dragons than yours. This is my honest opinion.

2. I love roleplaying. I've played trunamers, fighters with no major theme, CW samurais and straight monks in normal power level games. And yet, I would never use this variant in a game. It doesn't encourage role-playing, it encourages sitting at a table drinking mountain dew and eating chips while your friends do fun things.

Now on to specifics:

3.
I don't intend to make a wizard more interesting; indeed, I'd rather make him less interesting ... So that less people play them

Yeah, this is a problem. Just... no. The concept of magic is prevalent as cool, varied and, above all, interesting. You take a step back from fantasy itself by making magic suck. Making a class suck so much (which is your goal, don't deny it) that no one wants to use it is the worst idea since the Lightning warrior. Actually, I think this might be worse than the lightning warrior. People who want to roleplay it, as you say is your goal, are literally better off taking either warrlock or being a rogue and using items. Yep, you made arcane spellcasters the worst at filling the niche of an arcane spellcaster.

4.
so that people who do are encouraged to take caster level hits,

If someone, for some unknown reason, decided to take this class and try to be a spellcaster, they have to invest a ton of feats to be at all useful at... anything. You don't give that up, RP or not. Further, if someone wants to almost be able to do magic, they need to be taking as many spellcasting levels as possible (unless they go the superior approach to spellcasting and be a rogue)

5.
Oh and by the way, WBL is one of the crappiest ideas ever. I never did use it as a DM and I never will

This isn't at all how the majority of the population plays. Further, how do you play then? If everyone has infinite resources, then sure, this is almost feasible. If you have below WBL, this is even worse. WBL is a grat balancingg point, and is part of the CR system...

6.
So you don't want a low magic system, but you do want to drastically limit the power of every spell caster

This is absolutely ridiculous. Either make it low magic, or make spellcasting possible.

7.
Hmm, and you are a spokesperson for everybody who wants to play wizards?

I'm pretty sure this will be most peoples' opinions, because you actually said you are attempting to make them less interesting to play. He's basically saying what you said.

8.
If this particular nerf makes you or anybody else unwilling to play them, well, that's the way I see it. If it makes my players or party mates not want to play them, then I will reconsider.

Why did you post it? Your players can find holes during play better than we can just looking at it, anyways. What this functionally says is "I don't care if you like it, I just care if about 5 or 6 people like it." If you want our opinions on the variant, post it. If you don't want anyone saying anything bad about your perfect system, then don't.

Those are, as you explicitly asked for, my thoughts. I could probably go on, but I have other things to do.

Stompy
2010-02-04, 09:28 PM
One thought I had today concerning this, I think that you could have this simple line of text instead of your DC contingent shenanigans for a wizard:

Utilitist (Ex): Any spells cast by a wizard that are personal range, or which includes herself or one of her allies as a target has a casting time of one standard action. Other spells have a casting time of ten minutes * spell level. Cantrips are always standard actions.

This preserves your item combat, drastically reduces the amount of dice rolled to see if a spell goes off, keeps the spells prepared per day list, and makes general utility spells like knock still accessible. Would you find this an acceptable substitute for your page 3 rules for wizard?

Cataphract
2010-02-05, 08:54 AM
I couldn't have said it better. Most of how you defend your system is in that fashion. The other people on this forum however, probably instigated this and then you kept responding as you met their arms race. Good job proving yourself, and it saddens me that I had to say this. I was trying to be nice.

What fashion? People come in here and they keep saying "I don't like it, it nerfs me too much". That was the intended purpose. I said in the first place this is a very different magic system for a very different approach. What do you expect me to do, apologize that they don't like it?


You know sorcerers still aren't all that viable under your system. Mmm... spontaneous casting that takes 5 rounds.

And you're still forcing the wizard into a huge resource sink, whether that be from WBL or forcing his party to carry him to quest for the proper materials until he has enough wands to last him for a few days right?

Yes, 9th level spells do take 5 rounds. Except 9th level spells are uber powerful.

The most used-spells (4th and 5th) don't take more than 2-3 rounds. And no, I'm not of the mind that a single combat should last 2-3 rounds. Part of the epic fun of D&D is that unlike realistic combat (which DOES take a very small amount of time), you get to fight and fight and have fun at it.

And yes, it's intended to allow the DM to regulate how much power he wants in his campaign level. He can have the wizard seek a dungeon for every wand, or he could have him find a huge trove of magical trees that will provide him for the rest of his career (I tend towards the latter, really).


Yes, I read it. So, as you asked for, here are my thoughts on this. (numbered for convenience, and because I number everything.

1. I looked through the thread, and did not find a variant that I thought was worse for the game of Dungeons and Dragons than yours. This is my honest opinion.

Thank you. Honestly. I don't mind being told that, especially if it can be proven, because then I get to fix what's wrong, and if everything is wrong, abandon with it altogether.


2. I love roleplaying. I've played trunamers, fighters with no major theme, CW samurais and straight monks in normal power level games. And yet, I would never use this variant in a game. It doesn't encourage role-playing, it encourages sitting at a table drinking mountain dew and eating chips while your friends do fun things.

How come? Because wizards are no longer as usable in combat as they were?


Now on to specifics:

3.

Yeah, this is a problem. Just... no. The concept of magic is prevalent as cool, varied and, above all, interesting. You take a step back from fantasy itself by making magic suck. Making a class suck so much (which is your goal, don't deny it) that no one wants to use it is the worst idea since the Lightning warrior. Actually, I think this might be worse than the lightning warrior. People who want to roleplay it, as you say is your goal, are literally better off taking either warrlock or being a rogue and using items. Yep, you made arcane spellcasters the worst at filling the niche of an arcane spellcaster.


My goal is to change the entire concept of the class. By making it suck, I mean nerfing them in their access to power- or, rather, how easy it is to access said power. I'm not one to deny power to players- I just want them to earn it.

You can't be a rogue and use items because you need somebody to craft them. Same as warlock (I don't know if they can make items or not- if they can, then simply I'd disallow it, if I allowed the warlock at all).

Also, that is the prevalent concept of magic. My preferred concept is dark, gritty, difficult but powerful when done properly. It's more Lovecraftian than D&Dish, true.


4.

If someone, for some unknown reason, decided to take this class and try to be a spellcaster, they have to invest a ton of feats to be at all useful at... anything. You don't give that up, RP or not. Further, if someone wants to almost be able to do magic, they need to be taking as many spellcasting levels as possible (unless they go the superior approach to spellcasting and be a rogue)

Again, rogue is not viable since it can't craft items and this variant is meant for settings without a magicmart. I'm seriously considering removing UMD from rogue and pretty much allowing it only to other, non-wizard spellcasting classes (wizards don't need to roll to use magic items).


5.

This isn't at all how the majority of the population plays. Further, how do you play then? If everyone has infinite resources, then sure, this is almost feasible. If you have below WBL, this is even worse. WBL is a grat balancingg point, and is part of the CR system...


I've played several high-power games, and WBL was never taken into account after the starting level. If anything, we were way behind as far as WBL... which did not prevent us from chopping up much higher CR monsters by virtue of being spellcasters.

6.


This is absolutely ridiculous. Either make it low magic, or make spellcasting possible.


Why? Spellcasting is possible, it's just more difficult. That's the point. I don't like how spellcasting works- it's like pressing a button. I have this spell ready, so I press my button and cast it. In 3 seconds. As I said, I'm Lovecraftian in approach, not D&Dish. But it's not something difficult to modify.


7.

I'm pretty sure this will be most peoples' opinions, because you actually said you are attempting to make them less interesting to play. He's basically saying what you said.


Yes, because most people are used to that concept and like that concept. I know plenty that don't. See the big letters below.


8.

Why did you post it? Your players can find holes during play better than we can just looking at it, anyways. What this functionally says is "I don't care if you like it, I just care if about 5 or 6 people like it." If you want our opinions on the variant, post it. If you don't want anyone saying anything bad about your perfect system, then don't.

I'm not in a group at the moment and I won't be for the next 6 months or so probably since I'm leaving the country for Erasmus. I posted it so people can post what's wrong with it mechanically and what glaring loopholes I missed, so I can correct what can be corrected without playtesting. Do you just unleash your new ideas (especially when they are so radical) to unsuspecting players without even bothering to ask other people to take a look at it?

What I obviously wanted was exactly that. What I didn't want was to have people tell me it wouldn't be fun because it changes the entire concept. Well, guess what, changing the concept WAS intended, and thus people who don't like the concept won't like anything about it. If somebody went up to me and said "Hi, this is my awesome ki-based D&D", I wouldn't bother telling him I don't like it and I wouldn't have fun in his game, because it doesn't offer anything.


Those are, as you explicitly asked for, my thoughts. I could probably go on, but I have other things to do.

What, you did me a favor by saying all of the above? Geez... :smallsigh:


One thought I had today concerning this, I think that you could have this simple line of text instead of your DC contingent shenanigans for a wizard:

Utilitist (Ex): Any spells cast by a wizard that are personal range, or which includes herself or one of her allies as a target has a casting time of one standard action. Other spells have a casting time of ten minutes * spell level. Cantrips are always standard actions.

This preserves your item combat, drastically reduces the amount of dice rolled to see if a spell goes off, keeps the spells prepared per day list, and makes general utility spells like knock still accessible. Would you find this an acceptable substitute for your page 3 rules for wizard?

As I said before, I like my mechanics to represent my fluff. In my fluff, wizards cast the spells, and they attach them to themselves or others, and the target activates them.

Your suggestion not only removes that, but it turns the wizard into a buffotron as far as combat is concerned, because everybody will go like, "You don't do anything at all in combat except buff, so my actions are more important". The original contingent stuff was so that wizards can buff others, but they wouldn't need to spend their actions doing so, leaving them free to do whatever they want (cast spells through items, mainly). Of course, wizards by definition don't do much in combat unless multiclassed- or unless they've buffed themselves, or they've got different tricks up their sleeves, like a White Raven Tactics wizard.

Cataphract
2010-02-05, 11:23 AM
Since everybody is complaining about wizards, let's see what's the issue with this system.
We'll assume variant wizards get the contingency feats.

A RAW 1st level wizard can cast 2 level 1 spells every day. No chance of failure, nada. All they take, almost always, is 1 standard action. After that, he's useless. He can also scribe a scroll or too to keep for emergencies.
A variant 1st level wizard can cast all the level 1 spells he wants, with almost guaranteed success. All he needs is 10 minutes for each. Also, for one additional minute, he can buff each of his friends, paying 5 sp for the materials. In the 1 hour it would take a wizard to memorize his 2 spells, he can buff 6 party members for the next encounter (for 6 additional minutes). He can also scribe a scroll if he needs to fight an opponent and his spells are useful.

A RAW 3rd level wizard can cast 3 1st level and 2 2nd level spells. He can be useful in an encounter or too, throw something like glitterdust or sleep, maybe do some damage. However he's not probably going to memorise non-combat stuff; he has too few slots.
A variant 3rd level wizard can cast even 2nd level spells in 20 minutes or so. For 3 gp, he can effectively give a potion of bull's strength or whatever to any of his comrades. He can easily scribe a scroll to use in preparation of taking down an enemy.

A RAW 5th level wizard is now pretty good. Spells are 4/3/2, he's got space for a buff for party members or (more likely) himself and some good damaging spell.
A variant 5th level wizard can cast any 3rd level spell out of combat in 45 minutes or so. Lengthy. If need be, he can give strong buffs to people for 7,5 gp (still no XP cost), like haste or whatever, given enough time. He can also craft not only scrolls but wands too, so he can blast things into oblivion.


And so on and so on. This is a different approach for wizards. Of course some people don't like it; I do.

Yes, it opens different loopholes.

Stompy
2010-02-05, 12:21 PM
As I said before, I like my mechanics to represent my fluff. In my fluff, wizards cast the spells, and they attach them to themselves or others, and the target activates them.

I didn't think that was part of your fluff behind a wizard. My bad.

Then add this:

Contingent Utilitist (Ex): A wizard may spend 5 minutes to imbue a subject with one of his spells. The subject can then activate it on herself as though you were casting it on them as a standard action. These contingent spells last until used or 24 hours whichever comes first.

There may be limits on that (contingency time, number of contingencies per subject, number of contingencies you can have going).

By the way, what happens with multi-target spells, like haste? Does one person activate for the rest of the group?


Your suggestion not only removes that, but it turns the wizard into a buffotron as far as combat is concerned, because everybody will go like, "You don't do anything at all in combat except buff, so my actions are more important".

Wizard: I shoot wands too... :smallfrown:

This is true, and if you wanted to keep that, make every spell take 5 minutes to cast then. However, I was trying to preserve spell range, for a more tactical game. Sure the party fighter may think his actions are more important, but if the wizard has to wade through melee to get him his Bull's Strength, said wizard may want to reconsider. Said wizard may be unavailable do to so anyway, due to distance, entanglement, grease, etc.


The original contingent stuff was so that wizards can buff others, but they wouldn't need to spend their actions doing so, leaving them free to do whatever they want (cast spells through items, mainly).

And I was trying to simplify mechanics and give the wizard more combat options by doing away with the contingency system. You even admit that the wizard is going to mainly shoot wands with the contingencies. I feel that the contingency system (from gameplay, I'm sure this is going to go down in flames due to fluff reasons) leads to backseat wizardry. I want the wizard to be in the thrill and danger of combat more.

Also, the contingent wizard makes arcane spell failure obsolete (I believe), because all my buffs are going to be cast early, with no armor; I then don armor, and use wands (which I think don't incur ASF, may be wrong on this.)

All in all, I'm trying to take most of your elements of fluff, and make the mechanics behind it simpler. Also, I want to use the spellcasting system that everyone knows, and that's printed in the core books. Hell, I'm trying to keep the ideas of spell range and ACF alive because I like the fluff behind them.

Fluff is good. Fluff with horrible mechanics will steer people away from it unless they are hardset on the fluff. Take the CW Samurai as a simple example. (If you need me to explain why the CW Samurai fails, let me know.)