PDA

View Full Version : Wizard Redux (3.5; PEACH)



Drolyt
2010-02-24, 06:25 PM
Alright, for those who haven't seen my numerous posts where I've claimed to be working on a new 3.whatever homebrew this is a preview of what the Wizard is going to probably look like. I'm posting the class for now but latter on I'll be adding all the spells, about 99% of which are going to be modified at least slightly, and the metamagic feats, which work considerably different, later. The sad part is that until I get that done this class will be more or less unusable Edit: This isn't technically true. You can use this class with the spells already available, but it will work much better once I get all the spells converted. Oh, before I get started I should point out that this class is designed to be used as is in a (mostly) normal 3.5 game and I won't be making any changes to the actual system until a later date with the following exceptions: 1. Classes now go to level 30 without using epic rules. You can still allow epic feats starting at level 21 if you want. There are a number of good reasons for this change I won't go into here. 2. You don't automatically get extra attacks with a high enough BAB. Some classes (like fighter) get extra attacks as class abilities. These extra attacks don't require a full-round to make; attacking is always a standard action. There are a number of good reasons for this as well, one of them being that it is a good way to fight CoDZilla. You can ignore this change when using this class if you want, but note that this is the reason I don't show extra attacks in the BAB column. 3. Several changes to how spellcasting works. This isn't really a system change since it is all detailed in the class description below and the spell descriptions to come later but you should remember to ignore the PHB chapter on magic (I think it was chapter 9 or 10) if you are using this class because it works quite different. Ok, that's enough intro, here we go:
Wizard
Alignment
Any.
Hit Die
d4.
Class Skills
The wizardís class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Decipher Script (Int), Knowledge (all skills, taken individually) (Int), Profession (Wis), and Spellcraft (Int).
Skill Points at 1st Level
(2 + Int modifier) ◊4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level
2 + Int modifier.
The Wizard
{table=head]Level|Base Attack<br>Bonus|Fort Save|Ref Save|Will Save|Special|Maximum Spell Level Known|Spell Slots Prepared

1st|
+0|
+0|
+0|
+2|Metamagic, Spellcasting, Summon Familiar|1st|1

2nd|
+1|
+0|
+0|
+3||1st|2

3rd|
+1|
+1|
+1|
+3||1st|3

4th|
+2|
+1|
+1|
+4||2nd|4

5th|
+2|
+1|
+1|
+4|Metamagic|2nd|5

6th|
+3|
+2|
+2|
+5||2nd|6

7th|
+3|
+2|
+2|
+5||3rd|7

8th|
+4|
+2|
+2|
+6||3rd|8

9th|
+4|
+3|
+3|
+6||3rd|9

10th|
+5|
+3|
+3|
+7|Metamagic|4th|10

11th|
+5|
+3|
+3|
+7||4th|11

12th|
+6|
+4|
+4|
+8||4th|12

13th|
+6|
+4|
+4|
+8||5th|13

14th|
+7|
+4|
+4|
+9||5th|14

15th|
+7|
+5|
+5|
+9|Metamagic|5th|15

16th|
+8|
+5|
+5|
+10||6th|16

17th|
+8|
+5|
+5|
+10||6th|17

18th|
+9|
+6|
+6|
+11||6th|18

19th|
+9|
+6|
+6|
+11||7th|19

20th|
+10|
+6|
+6|
+12|Metamagic|7th|20

21st|
+10|
+7|
+7|
+12||7th|21

22nd|
+11|
+7|
+7|
+13||8th|22

23rd|
+11|
+7|
+7|
+13||8th|23

24th|
+12|
+8|
+8|
+14||8th|24

25th|
+12|
+8|
+8|
+14|Metamagic|9th|25

26th|
+13|
+8|
+8|
+15||9th|26

27th|
+13|
+9|
+9|
+15||9th|27

28th|
+14|
+9|
+9|
+16||10th|28

29th|
+14|
+9|
+9|
+16||10th|29

30th|
+15|
+10|
+10|
+17|Metamagic|10th|30[/table]
Class Features
All of the following are class features of the wizard.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency
Wizards are proficient with the club, dagger, heavy crossbow, light crossbow, and quarterstaff, but not with any type of armor or shield. Armor of any type interferes with a wizardís movements, which can cause her spells with somatic components to fail.
Spells
A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the wizard spell list (see below). To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a wizardís spell is 1d20 + 1/2 Caster Level (Caster Level is equal to the wizard's class level plus his class level in all other spellcasting classes) + the wizard's Intelligence Modifier; this is calculated every time a wizard casts a spell. A wizard may cast any spell she knows at any time. However, because of the arcane rituals involved in casting a spell most spells (all those above 0th level) take far too long to cast to be of any use in combat. To avoid this problem certain spells (all those with casting times of 1 round or less of 1st level or higher) must be "prepared". Preparing a spell is essentially casting the spell ahead of time so that it takes very little time to use in combat, however because a wizard has to store the potent arcane energies within herself the number of spells she can prepare this way is inherently limited. By spending 1 hour (or 10 minutes if she has a spell book with the spells transcribed) she may prepare a number of spells whose total spell levels number no more than her Intelligence Modifier + the number listed under Spell Slots Prepared on Table: The Wizard. For example a 1st level wizard with a 15 Intelligence (Modifier +2) could prepare 3 1st level spells (2 from her Intelligence and 1 because she is 1st level), while a 10th level wizard with an Intelligence of 20 (Modifier +5) could prepare 2 4th level spells and a 2nd level spell, 5 2nd level spells, or any other combination of spells she likes. Once prepared a spell may be cast as a standard action, expending that spell until it is prepared again. A wizard may choose to prepare less then her maximum number of spells (for example if she didn't use all her spells in an encounter), in this case she takes a proportional amount of time to prepare those spells. Spells that have longer casting times do not need to be prepared; preparing a spell is essentially the actual casting. If a wizard is damaged or distracted while casting a spell with long casting time that spell fizzles out and the wizard must start over. This does not apply if the wizard is damaged while casting a prepared spell, since they are only releasing the magical energies, not actually casting the spell. 0th level spells always take one round to cast and do not need to be prepared. A wizard never runs out of 0th level spells. These represent the simplest spells any wizard knows. A wizard may know any number of spells. In most campaigns wizards are assumed to know every spell on the wizard spell list below, though there may be rare or customized spells she does not know.
Bonus Languages
A wizard may substitute Draconic for one of the bonus languages available to the character because of her race.
Summon Familiar
Wizard's gain this feat as a bonus feat at 1st level.
Metamagic
At 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th, 25th, and 30th level, a wizard gains a bonus feat, which must be a metamagic feat. These feats are in addition to the feats that a character of any class gets from advancing levels; the wizard need not select metamagic feats when choosing those feats.
Spellbooks
In order to cast spells most efficiently a wizard needs a spellbook as a study aid. A wizard does not need her spellbook to cast spells, but it makes it easier (see spellcasting above). Spellbooks are not inherently magical, but simple ink and paper describing in detail the arcane rituals needed to cast a spell. In most campaigns a wizard is assumed to start the game with a spellbook detailing all the spells she knows and the wizard is assumed to add to her spellbook whenever she learns new spells. To make a new spellbook a wizard must purchase the binding, ink, and paper for 10 Gold Pieces and transcribe all the spells she knows, which takes at least a day. Spellbooks do not usually sell for large sums of money unless they contain rare or customized spells or other valuable information not commonly available; spellbooks containing extremely powerful spells or important ancient lore are known to sell for more than the worth of small kingdoms, but such are rare.
Specialization
All wizards choose a specialization (such as a school of magic) that represents the type of spell they are most familiar with. Depending on her specialization a wizard may know certain spells not normally on the wizards spell list (wizards may take feats to learn any spell even if it is not normally on their list, so even if you do not choose the specialization that has the spell you want you may be able to learn it). [specializations to come later, once I start actually adding spells].
Arcane Spell Failure Chance
There is no such thing.

Drolyt
2010-02-24, 06:26 PM
This post will detail the wizard's spell list and all the spells on that list. Spells will be organized by level and school. Core spells first, but I won't stop there. I'm also converting many psionic powers to spells (the power/spell divide is being nixed). Note: All spells now have verbal and somatic components but no other components, so that line is getting nixed.
Wizard Spell List (all wizards know these spells):

0th:AbjurationResistanceConjurationAcid Splash, Create Water, Cure Minor Wounds, GuidanceDivinationDetect Poison, Detect Magic, Read MagicEnchantmentDazeEvocationDancing Lights, Flare, Light, Ray of FrostNecromancyDisrupt Undead, Inflict Minor Wounds, Touch of FatigueTransmutationMage Hand, Mending, Message, Open/Close, Purify Food and Drink, VirtueUniversalArcane Mark, Prestidigitation1st:2nd:3rd:4th:5th:6th:7th:8th:9t h:10th:

Drolyt
2010-02-24, 06:28 PM
Reserved for future use.

Drolyt
2010-02-24, 06:29 PM
Reserved for future use.

Sir_Chivalry
2010-02-24, 06:57 PM
Now I'm not a player of spellcasters, I like warriors. That being said.

I like this so far. I seems to be streamlined, and I've alway HATED arcane spell failure.

Only question I have for now (I will have more), is why good Fort but bad Will?

Drolyt
2010-02-24, 07:01 PM
Now I'm not a player of spellcasters, I like warriors. That being said.

I like this so far. I seems to be streamlined, and I've alway HATED arcane spell failure.

Only question I have for now (I will have more), is why good Fort but bad Will?

That table was a pain to make. I was bound to make some mistakes somewhere. It should be good will bad fort.
Edit: Okay I fixed that problem.

Glimbur
2010-02-24, 07:17 PM
What does a wizard get for levels between 29 and 300?

Nit-picking aside, this is interesting. It seems to make wizards run on a per-encounter system, provided you can get 10 minutes of downtime between encounters. You also have to choose between more lower level spells and fewer higher level ones. A 30th level wizard could probably have ~40 spell levels prepared, so they have to choose between four ninth level spells and a Black Tentacles, or more sixth and seventh level spells than will probably be needed in one fight. You might have slight balance concerns because the opportunity cost of a spell increases linearly with its level but spell power tends to increase faster than a linear progression. This encourages wizards to use higher level spells when they can, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

How long does it take to cast a spell you haven't prepared ahead of time? You say "too long for in-combat", but I didn't find an exact value. A minute per spell level seems workable to me, ten minutes per spell level makes Knock et al pretty questionable.

Drolyt
2010-02-24, 07:23 PM
What does a wizard get for levels between 29 and 300?

Nit-picking aside, this is interesting. It seems to make wizards run on a per-encounter system, provided you can get 10 minutes of downtime between encounters. You also have to choose between more lower level spells and fewer higher level ones. A 30th level wizard could probably have ~40 spell levels prepared, so they have to choose between four ninth level spells and a Black Tentacles, or more sixth and seventh level spells than will probably be needed in one fight. You might have slight balance concerns because the opportunity cost of a spell increases linearly with its level but spell power tends to increase faster than a linear progression. This encourages wizards to use higher level spells when they can, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

How long does it take to cast a spell you haven't prepared ahead of time? You say "too long for in-combat", but I didn't find an exact value. A minute per spell level seems workable to me, ten minutes per spell level makes Knock et al pretty questionable.

Fixed the level 300 thing. :smallsmile: Yeah, more or less per encounter. This avoids the problems with the 10 minute adventuring day and the fact that spellcasters are stronger the less encounters there are and makes the class much easier to balance. As a side note the 1/level spell slot thing isn't final, I'm not sure how many would be "balanced" yet. At the moment you can cast ~4 of your top level spells with a good int but nothing else. Also I just remembered that I need to be more clear on how 0th level spells work. As for casting a spell that is normally prepared unprepared, I'm not sure yet. I'm still working on it. I'm thinking that maybe under casting time spells will have a line like: x rounds/minutes/hours/whatever or prepared, with the or prepared being omitted if they can't be prepared.
Edit: Alright I added a line specifying that 0th level spells can always be cast as a standard action and don't need to be prepared.

Fortuna
2010-02-24, 11:30 PM
Interesting...

I'll need to see the revised spells to make a call on balance, but for now I will say that I really like this idea. I would suggest, though, that you increase the opportunity cost for preparing a higher level spell, possibly by increasing the spell level cost but possibly also by adding unpredictability to the process, or by making carrying such power around dangerous or debilitating.

Drolyt
2010-02-24, 11:39 PM
Interesting...

I'll need to see the revised spells to make a call on balance, but for now I will say that I really like this idea. I would suggest, though, that you increase the opportunity cost for preparing a higher level spell, possibly by increasing the spell level cost but possibly also by adding unpredictability to the process, or by making carrying such power around dangerous or debilitating.

Why? Wait, I think I see why. I'm trying to make make the spells progress more linearly. Right now a 9th level spell is about 1000 times better than a 1st level spell, I want it to be about 9 times better at best. The addition of a 10th spell level should help me even it out a bit by pushing up under-leveled spells and the most broken of 9th level spells.

Fortuna
2010-02-25, 12:53 AM
Ah, that makes sense then. In that case saluto te, 'cause that's a monumental task you've got ahead of you.

Bhu
2010-02-26, 04:45 AM
I approve so far.

Nice avatar :smallbiggrin: glad to see there are more cats on the playground

Fortuna
2010-02-26, 05:24 AM
Yeah, I felt that a cat was needed.

Mulletmanalive
2010-02-26, 07:03 AM
I have yet to form an opinion because the spell list is yet to be finished.

The Spells section is currently nigh unreadable. I had to scoop and resize in Word because of the blur effect of a wall'o'text. If i'm reading it right, it actually splits into four paragraphs without too much diffuculty:

Introduction/Fluff
Memorisation
Casting
Other things...

On the spell lists, why did you include healing? And also, why is magic assumed to be so common? Mostly flavour i guess. How about some guidelines for worlds where wizards don't rule the roost? How many spells is reasonable, how many spells can actually fit into a big dictionary? That kind of thing.

Could We trouble you for a "Minutes per spell level" column at the end of the table? It would make the whole recharge cycle much simpler.

Am i right in assuming that a lot of spells are to be moved around, based on your previous comments about 9th level spells currently being 100 times better than 1st level when they should be about 9 times better?

Another flavour point, why no Arcane Failure or limitation for armour? I merely ask because it's traditional. That and it does make a level of sense with the clumsiness of armour around somatic components. It's less than relevant to game balance, given the duration of most "armour" spells, i just thought i'd ask.

Drolyt
2010-02-26, 07:34 AM
I have yet to form an opinion because the spell list is yet to be finished.
Fair enough. It's going to take a while though.


The Spells section is currently nigh unreadable. I had to scoop and resize in Word because of the blur effect of a wall'o'text. If i'm reading it right, it actually splits into four paragraphs without too much diffuculty:

Introduction/Fluff
Memorisation
Casting
Other things...

I'll try to split it up and make it more readable.

On the spell lists, why did you include healing? And also, why is magic assumed to be so common? Mostly flavour i guess. How about some guidelines for worlds where wizards don't rule the roost? How many spells is reasonable, how many spells can actually fit into a big dictionary? That kind of thing.
I'm including healing because it never made sense to me that wizards didn't have it. They had it in BECME, I'm not sure in which edition it was removed. Anyways clerics will still be better at it, unless the wizard specializes in healing in which case they will be about equal. As for campaign settings where magic is uncommon, I'm trying to balance wizards with the assumption they have access to their entire spell list. I'm actually assuming magic is relatively uncommon, especially high level magic, but even so if every wizard has the same spell list a spellbook won't sell for much, after all they are worthless to non wizards.

Could We trouble you for a "Minutes per spell level" column at the end of the table? It would make the whole recharge cycle much simpler
I'm not sure what you mean.

Am i right in assuming that a lot of spells are to be moved around, based on your previous comments about 9th level spells currently being 100 times better than 1st level when they should be about 9 times better
Yes.

Another flavour point, why no Arcane Failure or limitation for armour? I merely ask because it's traditional. That and it does make a level of sense with the clumsiness of armour around somatic components. It's less than relevant to game balance, given the duration of most "armour" spells, i just thought i'd ask.
I wouldn't call it traditional. In previous editions is wasn't so much "armor interferes with spellcasting" as "if you don't have proficiency with armor you are physically incapable of wearing it and wizards don't have proficiency with armor". I might consider adding it back in later, but honestly I just never liked it and it didn't really balance anything.

Mulletmanalive
2010-02-26, 08:26 AM
The "Minutes per level" question is basically asking:

If I can rememorise spells in a "proportional time" if i'm not using all of my spell slots [i.e. a quarter of my total is 15 minutes], how about adding on an extra column that gives a rule of thumb for the number of minutes it will take to memorise each spell level at a given class level?

I.e. When i have 20 spell levels, it will take me 5 minutes per level of spell to be rememorised...

Or perhaps a seperate table, if not in the main one. Two columns: Total Spell levels; Minutes per spell level.

Speeds up paperwork and there's nothing to kill a high speed chase better than stopping to calculate whether a wizard could rememorise fireball in the time allowed...

Drolyt
2010-02-26, 08:31 AM
The "Minutes per level" question is basically asking:

If I can rememorise spells in a "proportional time" if i'm not using all of my spell slots [i.e. a quarter of my total is 15 minutes], how about adding on an extra column that gives a rule of thumb for the number of minutes it will take to memorise each spell level at a given class level?

I.e. When i have 20 spell levels, it will take me 5 minutes per level of spell to be rememorised...

Or perhaps a seperate table, if not in the main one. Two columns: Total Spell levels; Minutes per spell level.

Speeds up paperwork and there's nothing to kill a high speed chase better than stopping to calculate whether a wizard could rememorise fireball in the time allowed...

I suppose I could do that. I'll get on it later today.

Zeta Kai
2010-02-26, 08:33 AM
So, the class feature is called Metamagic, & it gives a metamagic bonus feat, but the wizard is not actually bound to take a metamagic feat? How is this an improvement? It implies that a wizard should not be taking item creation feats (which is more their stick than metamagic anyway), but they are actually able to take any old crazy feat they feel like. That seems odd, as well as a gaping hole, by which one could do any number of unbalancing things.

Drolyt
2010-02-26, 08:49 AM
So, the class feature is called Metamagic, & it gives a metamagic bonus feat, but the wizard is not actually bound to take a metamagic feat? How is this an improvement? It implies that a wizard should not be taking item creation feats (which is more their stick than metamagic anyway), but they are actually able to take any old crazy feat they feel like. That seems odd, as well as a gaping hole, by which one could do any number of unbalancing things.

Uh... that's a result of me wording it poorly. It was a carry over from how the SRD has it worded, but it's supposed to mean that you are not limited to metamagic feats when you get your normal feats at levels 1, 3, 6, etc. I'll just remove that line because it is confusing and unnecessary.
Edit: I think the wording is clearer now. You are only allowed to select metamagic feats, although once I get the feats section done it will show that "metamagic" now covers a larger number of feats, such as Spell Focus and Spell Penetration.

Zeta Kai
2010-02-26, 08:53 AM
Uh... that's a result of me wording it poorly. It was a carry over from how the SRD has it worded, but it's supposed to mean that you are not limited to metamagic feats when you get your normal feats at levels 1, 3, 6, etc. I'll just remove that line because it is confusing and unnecessary.

That's much better. But what about item creation feats? Are those to be scrapped? I'd say a wizard with only ICFs is far more balanced & thematically appropriate than a wizard with only metamagic feats. The incantatrix is proof that lots of MMFs = lots of broken.

Drolyt
2010-02-26, 08:58 AM
That's much better. But what about item creation feats? Are those to be scrapped? I'd say a wizard with only ICFs is far more balanced & thematically appropriate than a wizard with only metamagic feats. The incantatrix is proof that lots of MMFs = lots of broken.

Metamagic is being reworked. It will now cover not only feats that directly affect a spell but also feats like spell focus and spell penetration and some other feats I'm working on. It's also going to work differently, and hopefully more balanced. Basically the idea I had is that instead of increasing the level of a spell to use a metamagic feat like Empower Spell or Spell Focus you "give up" some of your spell slots. Basically those slots will be unavailable for use as long as you want your metamagic feat to work. Due to the new way metamagic feats will work there will be no metamagic reducers. Finally I'm not sure yet but I was thinking that item creation would be rolled into the craft skill.

Zeta Kai
2010-02-26, 06:21 PM
Metamagic is being reworked. It will now cover not only feats that directly affect a spell but also feats like spell focus and spell penetration and some other feats I'm working on. It's also going to work differently, and hopefully more balanced. Basically the idea I had is that instead of increasing the level of a spell to use a metamagic feat like Empower Spell or Spell Focus you "give up" some of your spell slots. Basically those slots will be unavailable for use as long as you want your metamagic feat to work. Due to the new way metamagic feats will work there will be no metamagic reducers. Finally I'm not sure yet but I was thinking that item creation would be rolled into the craft skill.

In that, naming it metamagic when it is nothing like what we currently understand to be is confusing at best. It doesn't increase spell level, it can't be mitigated, & it doesn't necessarily enhance the spell itself, so it's not really metamagic in any way. It's like saying that your new class is a Rogue fix, but it's actually a Charisma-based half-caster. I would rename it, as you have nothing to gain from keeping the name.

Drolyt
2010-02-26, 06:53 PM
In that, naming it metamagic when it is nothing like what we currently understand to be is confusing at best. It doesn't increase spell level, it can't be mitigated, & it doesn't necessarily enhance the spell itself, so it's not really metamagic in any way. It's like saying that your new class is a Rogue fix, but it's actually a Charisma-based half-caster. I would rename it, as you have nothing to gain from keeping the name.

Perhaps you are right, although all the old metamagic feats will fall under the new classification, and will work similar. In case my earlier explanation was confusing it's essentially like how the Archmage uses up spell slots for its abilities. So maybe empower spell would use up 2 slots in order to increase the damage of all your damage dealing spells, and spell focus (evocation) would increase the save DC of evocation spells at the cost of 1 slot. Any suggestions for a more appropriate name?
Edit: The new way metamagic feats (or whatever they end up being called) work will help to balance powerful abilities by creating an oppurtunity cost. It will also help balance prestige classes; even though wizards gain no class abilities it will not be unbalanced to have prestige classes that have full spellcasting and grant abilities at every level as long as those abilities use up spell slots.

Roderick_BR
2010-02-26, 11:00 PM
Lemme understand what you did.
Instead of preparing spells by level (at 3rd level, I prepare three 1st level spells), you have a daily total (at 3rd level, I have 3 + Int mod slots), with high level spells costing more spell slots. It's kinda like Unearthed Arcana's spell point, but keeping using slots in place of spell point to power spells.
Finally, you are using the "semi-casting" idea to allow a caster to cast any spell, as long as you have time, OR use slots to prepare spells in advance. AND ways to recover some slots.

I like. Adds some flexibility (can cast more spells along the day, can prepare them easily), keeps the high level play (you choose if you'll use lots of low level spells, or few high level spells), while keeping some holdbacks (overal less actual slots than a default wizard with the dozens of spell slots through several spell levels).

I'll await for the finished rules. This looks what I'm looking for my homebrew world. :smallsmile:

Btw, about the feats naming, I think Pathfinder separated the general feats into magic feats (spell focus, etc, that is not metamagic/item creation), combat feats (like fighter feats), skill feats (skill focus, etc), and some generic stuff. You could do the same, naming these feats simply as [magic] or something, to avoid confusion from [metamagic] and [item creation]

SaintRidley
2010-02-27, 09:50 PM
By spending 1 hour (or 10 minutes if she has a spell book with the spells transcribed) she may prepare a number of spells whose total spell levels number no more than her Intelligence Modifier + the number listed under Spell Slots Prepared on Table: The Wizard. For example a 1st level wizard with a 15 Intelligence (Modifier +2) could prepare 3 1st level spells (2 from her Intelligence and 1 because she is 1st level), while a 10th level wizard with an Intelligence of 20 (Modifier +5) could prepare 2 4th level spells and a 2nd level spell, 5 2nd level spells, or any other combination of spells she likes.

I think you lost 5 spell levels in there somewhere. 10 + 5 = 15, but 4 + 4 + 2 and 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 both equal 10, not 15.


I'll wait until the spells are in place before I say anything more, but I do like the way this is looking so far.

Drolyt
2010-02-27, 10:11 PM
I think you lost 5 spell levels in there somewhere. 10 + 5 = 15, but 4 + 4 + 2 and 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 both equal 10, not 15.


I'll wait until the spells are in place before I say anything more, but I do like the way this is looking so far.

I, uh, I'm going to guess that I forgot about the Int modifier, not sure. I'm rewriting that whole section to be more readable anyways. Hopefully tomorrow I'll have that rewritten and some spells up.

SaintRidley
2010-02-27, 10:27 PM
I, uh, I'm going to guess that I forgot about the Int modifier, not sure. I'm rewriting that whole section to be more readable anyways. Hopefully tomorrow I'll have that rewritten and some spells up.

It looks like you left out Int.

Other than that, what you have here does look interesting. I'll be keeping an eye on it.