PDA

View Full Version : Spellcasting to HP damage



Reinboom
2010-07-06, 01:36 PM
For you spellcasting centric players out there (referring mostly in the D&D sense), I would like to propose a hypothetical and then a question to follow.

Suppose you have a game system where spellcasting is nearly unlimited. All "at-will" in the sense of D&D 4E or Warlock-like in the sense of 3.5E. Do not make any assumptions as to the power level of this, only assume that it is somehow balanced. With this, also assume that one of the balance points was that you deal damage to yourself for spellcasting.
A more direct mechanic would be "When you would start to cast a spell, if you are not currently focusing magic, you must take 3 damage (unpreventable, unmodifiable, cannot be redirected) to start focusing. A magic focus lasts for 10 minutes. After that time, you lose your magic focus and must start a new focus when you decide to cast another spell (causing damage again)."

Now, the actual mechanics of this may be significantly different from this point (it could be 5 damage, or it could be damage per spell), and assume there is a decent plenty amount of HP to handle it. With the original (3 damage for 10 minutes of spellcasting), let's say... 20 HP is available from the start, 100 HP being about the high end, and there is ways to heal yourself each day (but nothing infinite).


To me, this mechanic is flavorful. However, when I started looking for overviews and character building on a system, I was greeted by a friend's mindset of (a friend who plays spellcasters quite a bit):
"If you take damage, you are doing it wrong [as a spellcaster]". I believe they were going for the mindset that "You play a spellcaster in order to avoid damage", however, I could not get a statement out of them that elaborated more.

With that hypothetical system and scenario given, would you as a spellcaster player like the trade off this system offers? That is, taking damage to cast spells.

So, opinions?

Edit in to reiterate want I am asking:
I would like to note that I am not asking for ideas, how to balance this (or what the balance points are), preexisting systems, or similar.

I am simply asking, how do you feel about taking damage as a spellcaster in order to cast spells?

Jorda75
2010-07-06, 02:40 PM
As a player I have played a large number of wizard, sorcerers and so on, specifically in 3.5 D&D, and I can say from this perspective the trade off is not worth it until much higher levels. The easiest way to see where this system fails is at level 1.

Even if I play a dwarven wizard with a 20 constitution and the Toughness feat I will have a grand total of 12 HP at level one. This means that anyone with a greatsword, even with a 10 strength can potentially kill me in one hit. A well placed bolt from a crossbow brings me down to 2 HP and a simple dagger can reduce me to 1/3 HP with no strength modifiers. The idea of taking any additional damage, especially for spellcasting of any kind, seems like a terrible idea to me.

I would suggest a "fatigue" system that deals either subdual damage or perhaps it's own form of damage that leaves the spellcaster "winded" for a number of rounds, with penalties to attacks, Fort saves, movement, ect, depending on the length of casting, power of the spell, ect.

lyko555
2010-07-06, 02:45 PM
Theres a class from a mongoose splat book Called the choas mage that uses spells that dmg your hp rather than take up slots.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-06, 02:47 PM
I don't remember if it's True20, or StarWars d20 that did that, but spellcasting was, roughly, a spellcraft check that caused nonlethal damage.

Spells were few, using a build up not unlike the epic Seeds, and what gave an edge to actual casters is that they have a buffer of temporary hp to lose to spellcasting and an easier cost curve to augment those spells.

Reinboom
2010-07-06, 02:50 PM
Even if I play a dwarven wizard with a 20 constitution and the Toughness feat I will have a grand total of 12 HP at level one.


Now, the actual mechanics of this may be significantly different from this point (it could be 5 damage, or it could be damage per spell), and assume there is a decent plenty amount of HP to handle it. With the original (3 damage for 10 minutes of spellcasting), let's say... 20 HP is available from the start, 100 HP being about the high end, and there is ways to heal yourself each day (but nothing infinite).

:smallconfused:

subject42
2010-07-06, 02:50 PM
Theres a class from a mongoose splat book Called the choas mage that uses spells that dmg your hp rather than take up slots.

I've had a player that used the chaos mage from this book in a game once. It ended very, very poorly at higher levels.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-06, 02:54 PM
I've had a player that used the chaos mage from this book in a game once. It ended very, very poorly at higher levels.
Are we talking Spell-to-Power Erudite poorly or Truenamer poorly?

subject42
2010-07-06, 03:00 PM
Are we talking Spell-to-Power Erudite poorly or Truenamer poorly?

Generally speaking, he was absurdly overpowered because he had the versatility of a wizard combined with the flexibility of a spontaneous caster.

On top of that, there was some poor editing on the part of the publisher that resulted in him being a no-save stunlock machine.

The main problem, though, was that he existed in a state of binary usefulness. Either he was an UNSTOPPABLE MURDER MACHINE, or he would fail his caster check for the spell and be out of the fight.

On top of that, it really slowed down combat for him to calculate spell effect check DCs on the fly.

mabriss lethe
2010-07-06, 03:03 PM
"The character's soul goes screaming into oblivion" poorly. That's usually the way it goes for a chaos mage at high levels.

But aside from the unfortunate path of chaos mechanic (your character is doomed to a horrid demise the instant he starts to use chaos magic), Chaos Mage is a good place to start from.

Have a peek. (http://grandwiki.wikidot.com/qcmg)

Reinboom
2010-07-06, 03:06 PM
I would like to note that I am not asking for ideas, how to balance this (or what the balance points are), preexisting systems, or similar.

I am simply asking, how do you feel about taking damage as a spellcaster in order to cast spells?

Snake-Aes
2010-07-06, 03:07 PM
it can work.

mabriss lethe
2010-07-06, 03:09 PM
Generally speaking, he was absurdly overpowered because he had the versatility of a wizard combined with the flexibility of a spontaneous caster.

On top of that, there was some poor editing on the part of the publisher that resulted in him being a no-save stunlock machine.

The main problem, though, was that he existed in a state of binary usefulness. Either he was an UNSTOPPABLE MURDER MACHINE, or he would fail his caster check for the spell and be out of the fight.

On top of that, it really slowed down combat for him to calculate spell effect check DCs on the fly.

When I DM a player who wants to use Chaos Mage, I insist upon him having a list of premade chaos spells with precalculated DC and a cheat sheet for modifiers.

It's not difficult to come up with some nasty mid level spells with DCs that you only fail on a 1 or 2, so the own/suck switch shouldn't be a problem (unless the player either doesn't understand how to tweak the system or doesn't care if he knocks himself out of the fight half the time by over extending himself.)

Chaos Mage should really be left to more experienced players.

Jorda75
2010-07-06, 03:09 PM
Oh, uhh, it can work if you're high enough level and have enough hit points to support it and combat damage. Seems pretty obvious to me :P I think it's been done before in a few systems and in fantasy literature many many times over.

Reinboom
2010-07-06, 03:10 PM
it can work.

I'm also not asking if it "will work" or not. I know it can work.

So you would have no issue playing such a spellcaster? :smalltongue:
This is more a... psychological question than a game balance question.


Oh, uhh, it can work if you're high enough level and have enough hit points to support it and combat damage. Seems pretty obvious to me :P I think it's been done before in a few systems and in fantasy literature many many times over.

I would like to note that at no time did I specify this was D&D 3.5 and specifically emphasized the requirements for such an idea in to a hypothetical system.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-06, 03:10 PM
I'm also not asking if it "will work" or not. I know it can work.

So you would have no issue playing such a spellcaster? :smalltongue:
This is more a... psychological question than a game balance question.

no, not really. it's a common theme.

subject42
2010-07-06, 03:11 PM
I am simply asking, how do you feel about taking damage as a spellcaster in order to cast spells?

I feel that it will end poorly for everyone else at the table. I would like to explain more, but you don't want that.

Reinboom
2010-07-06, 03:12 PM
I feel that it will end poorly for everyone else at the table. I would like to explain more, but you don't want that.

Why would it end poorly?

Jorda75
2010-07-06, 03:16 PM
I'm not saying it has to be D&D, or any system in particular, I'm saying it's not a new idea and since this forum is about role playing games and not hypothetical meta-game questions one should expect a reaction like the one I and several others gave.

Yeah it CAN work, I could make a magic system where magic requires eating grapes before casting or blowing up bunny rabbits in order to cast spells. Just because it can work doesn't mean it should be implemented. I'm not sure what kind of response you want here, yeah it can work, duh :smallyuk:

Makiru
2010-07-06, 03:17 PM
Your proposed magic system is actually very similar to that in the Slayers D20 book. I recommend checking that out if you haven't already.

subject42
2010-07-06, 03:18 PM
Why would it end poorly?

Balancing casting on HP ends poorly because it's a binary state. Either you're fully alert, conscious, and capable of raining down EXPLOSIVE FIERY CATACLYSMS, or you're unconscious and unable to do anything at all.

Since out-of-combat healing is cheap and easy, there's no in-game reason not to go completely nova in every single fight in order to remove the threat as quickly as possible. It's basic good sense and it's immediately gratifying to do so. The only downside is it keeps other players out of the spotlight.

On the other hand, if you burn your HP, you're out of the fight. Since you have to plan encounter difficulty based on the strength of your total party, every other PC is now in a very bad place. Also, the HP spellcaster's player is likely to get bored and wander off to get a soda and some cheetos or something, so you'll have to break game flow to find him once the other players revive his PC.

If you have very careful, mature players, it can work, but I would be very leery of it.

subject42
2010-07-06, 03:19 PM
Yeah it CAN work, I could make a magic system where magic requires eating grapes before casting or blowing up bunny rabbits in order to cast spells.

I also had a player try that system. I banned it after the first session due to complaints from my neighbors.

Thinker
2010-07-06, 03:19 PM
@SweetRein:
I would probably play about as many spell-casters as I do now. Assuming it is balanced, I don't know why anyone would have a problem having whatever limit is placed on whatever archetype/class.


Balancing casting on HP ends poorly because it's a binary state. Either you're fully alert, conscious, and capable of raining down EXPLOSIVE FIERY CATACLYSMS, or you're unconscious and unable to do anything at all.

Since out-of-combat healing is cheap and easy, there's no in-game reason not to go completely nova in every single fight in order to remove the threat as quickly as possible. It's basic good sense and it's immediately gratifying to do so. The only downside is it keeps other players out of the spotlight.

On the other hand, if you burn your HP, you're out of the fight. Since you have to plan encounter difficulty based on the strength of your total party, every other PC is now in a very bad place. Also, the HP spellcaster's player is likely to get bored and wander off to get a soda and some cheetos or something, so you'll have to break game flow to find him once the other players revive his PC.

If you have very careful, mature players, it can work, but I would be very leery of it.

The OP did say that in this scenario things would be balanced. She was simply asking if you felt in a fully balanced system (where it was already accounted for that HP was taken so that you can cast), if you would play a spell-caster.

It's not that hard of a concept.

arrowhen
2010-07-06, 03:24 PM
In Microlite20 you spend HP to cast spells.

I think it's a good idea, offering players a tactical decision between effectiveness and survivability. I'd like to see it extended to non-spellcaster classes too.

Reinboom
2010-07-06, 03:26 PM
I'm not saying it has to be D&D, or any system in particular, I'm saying it's not a new idea and since this forum is about role playing games and not hypothetical meta-game questions one should expect a reaction like the one I and several others gave.

Yeah it CAN work, I could make a magic system where magic requires eating grapes before casting or blowing up bunny rabbits in order to cast spells. Just because it can work doesn't mean it should be implemented. I'm not sure what kind of response you want here, yeah it can work, duh :smallyuk:

And I would have an issue with those magic systems because they do not invoke a very telling feel or style (or atleast, one I would be unwilling to play). I would question the reason why grapes or rabbits have any particular thing to do with magic and what the author was trying to accomplish. They do not refer to any written work that I am aware of, and they surely do not provoke a significant base line for new work (or give a compelling reason to).

I, once again, am NOT asking for the mechanical implications that such a system would have behind it. These points I can handle just fine. These points are what sets the condition of "can it work?" or not. Once again, not what I am asking.

I am asking, if there is any general mindset that would cause a player not to want to play such a caster on the simple grounds of "I do not want to take damage", and requesting the commonality or viewpoints on this mindset as I portrayed within the original post. Is this too difficult to understand?

In a forum about role-playing games, asking about the mindset that may be evoked out of mechanics of a role-playing game does not seem very off topic (read: at all) and doesn't lead me to believe I should get a storm of posters who neglect to read a post in its entirety. Of course, as this (the forum) is a group of people utilizing a web application that is built on the premise that others would indeed read and then write responses based on such reading and the grounds for topic given by that reading, I should definitely not expect people to read.

:edit:

@SweetRein:
I would probably play about as many spell-casters as I do now. Assuming it is balanced, I don't know why anyone would have a problem having whatever limit is placed on whatever archetype/class.

The OP did say that in this scenario things would be balanced. She was simply asking if you felt in a fully balanced system (where it was already accounted for that HP was taken so that you can cast), if you would play a spell-caster.

It's not that hard of a concept.

Thank you. For both a clear response and to fill in an answer there, I sort of felt like I was standing alone.

Jorda75
2010-07-06, 03:35 PM
{Scrubbed}

Eldariel
2010-07-06, 03:37 PM
I love paying for spells with health; it's very flavorful and allows for a logical "conversion of energies". Though I feel one must have the ability to also fuel magic with environmental or alternative power sources for this to truly work.

I actually like to allow casting spells with Constitution Burn in D&D; I feel it's not a terribly large boost but a very flavorful "Oh ****!" button. Works much better with Psionics and in general, point-based systems though.

dextercorvia
2010-07-06, 03:41 PM
I love paying for spells with health; it's very flavorful and allows for a logical "conversion of energies". Though I feel one must have the ability to also fuel magic with environmental or alternative power sources for this to truly work.

Indeed, playing a spellcaster that fuels spells with his own health, it would be natural to wonder, "Is there a way around this?" leading eventually to, "Can I get someone else to pay the cost?"

Dogmantra
2010-07-06, 03:44 PM
I think I would play a spellcaster as much as I do already, although I might be a little reluctant at first. It would obviously depend on the mechanics, but I think there'd be a sense of futility - the fighter can manage to avoid taking damage by either dodging, getting better armour, good positioning or any other mechanic that's part of the system and allows avoidance of damage, whereas the spellcaster can't avoid the damage. However, I also think that as long as it's well-balanced, that feeling wouldn't crop up very often.

arrowhen
2010-07-06, 03:48 PM
It would help to think of HP less as "damage" and more as "a resource I can spend to stay in the fight and do cool stuff."

subject42
2010-07-06, 03:49 PM
Now that you've edited your post a bit and it makes more sense on a second reading, I'll answer on more hypothetical, character-centric terms.

Please note that these arguments fall apart if you are using more than one tracking system for physical/spiritual damage.

If spellcasting does damage to your body, as represented by abstract hit points, it means that the best arcanists will be those people who are physically tough.

In the vast majority of cases, people are physically tough due to extensive training and exercise. They are generally stronger, larger, and better conditioned than normal people due to this constant training. Achieving such a state is time-consuming and fairly taxing, and you must maintain it, lest you atrophy back to a normal state.

Please note that this may be negated if a meaningful portion of the population is inherently very tough, in which case the rest of my argument is invalid.

While there is no real-world analogue, arcane mastery is almost universally portrayed in fiction and myth as a mental or spiritual pursuit. It is difficult to master and generally requires a considerable amount of time and effort to achieve any form of meaningful control.

Please note that this may be negated if all arcanists have an inherent, instinctive control of their abilities, in which case the rest of my argument is invalid.

If that is true, then most people in a game world are unlikely to have the time to achieve and maintain a state of physical toughness while simultaneously spending the time necessary to master the arcane arts.

Since simply casting a spell does HP damage, it may kill you outright. If that is true, then there is an implication that you must be fairly sound of body before you may even simply begin studying to be a mage.

Since building physical toughness tends to lend itself, even if only marginally, to pugilistic capability, it seems unlikely that someone who has worked themselves up into a superb specimen of physical might would be willing to give all of that up to figure out how to light a candle with their brain.

It seems a little immersion-breaking.

prufock
2010-07-06, 04:00 PM
Star Wars d20 had a system where using the Force cost vitality points, essentially the same as HP. However, keep in mind:
Jedi got d8 hit die
Jedi had plenty of other things they could do besides use the Force
The damage system was slightly different (you have vitality points and wound points; at 0 wound points, you roll a save to avoid death. Wound points are equal to your con score, and you take wound damage when all your VP are gone or someone scores a crit).

In that system, it works all right.

I'm not really liking the whole "magic focus" thing, though, and I'm not even really sure why except that it seems kind of pointless.

Ormagoden
2010-07-06, 04:06 PM
Mechanical suggestion.

... I really can't believe no one mentioned this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/spellPoints.htm#spellPointVariantVitalizing).




And I would have an issue with those magic systems because they do not invoke a very telling feel or style (or atleast, one I would be unwilling to play). I would question the reason why grapes or rabbits have any particular thing to do with magic and what the author was trying to accomplish. They do not refer to any written work that I am aware of, and they surely do not provoke a significant base line for new work (or give a compelling reason to).

I, once again, am NOT asking for the mechanical implications that such a system would have behind it. These points I can handle just fine. These points are what sets the condition of "can it work?" or not. Once again, not what I am asking.

I am asking, if there is any general mindset that would cause a player not to want to play such a caster on the simple grounds of "I do not want to take damage", and requesting the commonality or viewpoints on this mindset as I portrayed within the original post. Is this too difficult to understand?

In a forum about role-playing games, asking about the mindset that may be evoked out of mechanics of a role-playing game does not seem very off topic (read: at all) and doesn't lead me to believe I should get a storm of posters who neglect to read a post in its entirety. Of course, as this (the forum) is a group of people utilizing a web application that is built on the premise that others would indeed read and then write responses based on such reading and the grounds for topic given by that reading, I should definitely not expect people to read.

:edit:


Thank you. For both a clear response and to fill in an answer there, I sort of felt like I was standing alone.

After reading this I think I understand what you're getting at.

I for one would not play this character unless it was balanced well with the other available classes.

A fighter doesn't lose HP to swing his sword.
A ranger doesn't lose HP to shoot an arrow.

So my knee jerk reaction to your suggestion is No, I would not play this type of wizard.

However, if it was balanced well and comparable to other classes in damage output and survivability I might consider it.

The Rose Dragon
2010-07-06, 04:23 PM
Balancing casting on HP ends poorly because it's a binary state. Either you're fully alert, conscious, and capable of raining down EXPLOSIVE FIERY CATACLYSMS, or you're unconscious and unable to do anything at all.

Since out-of-combat healing is cheap and easy, there's no in-game reason not to go completely nova in every single fight in order to remove the threat as quickly as possible. It's basic good sense and it's immediately gratifying to do so. The only downside is it keeps other players out of the spotlight.

On the other hand, if you burn your HP, you're out of the fight. Since you have to plan encounter difficulty based on the strength of your total party, every other PC is now in a very bad place. Also, the HP spellcaster's player is likely to get bored and wander off to get a soda and some cheetos or something, so you'll have to break game flow to find him once the other players revive his PC.

If you have very careful, mature players, it can work, but I would be very leery of it.

If it helps SweetRein's point, you can feel free to assume another system than D&D, where hit points are more gradual in giving penalties and healing is less reliable.

And I already do play similar systems (though they usually have better health systems than D&D), so I have no problems with what you propose.

Totally Guy
2010-07-06, 04:23 PM
I like it. It's a cost at least, if only healing weren't so cheap too...

In Burning Wheel the wizard makes the equivalent of a fort save for each spell. Success means he's fine, failure taxes his "fort save" by the amount you failed by.

So failing makes it more likely that you'll fail next time. Dropping the fort value down to nothing knocks the mage out. And dropping beneath it causes wound from the power wildly flowing through his body.

Optimystik
2010-07-06, 04:24 PM
Since HP are points rather than slots, I would be in favor of this, simply because I prefer points-based systems.

It would be like Blood Magic a la Dragon Age.

NecroRebel
2010-07-06, 04:29 PM
Such systems are very much doable, and I myself tend to enjoy playing mages no matter what the system (unless they're totally ineffectual, of course), so I would probably play a caster in such a game at least some of the time.



I wonder about a variant of this sort of thing, where you don't actually cast from hit points but rather use magic points for defense as well as attack. For instance, you might have a character with pathetically low health that can be taken out in 1 blow, but you've got a force field or somesuch that takes magic points to soak damage so your health proper rarely gets hit. In such a system, when you do cast a spell, you essentially are spending your "hit points" since it reduces the power of your defenses and brings you closer to death in just the same manner as casting direct from hp, but I think many people would, psychologically, be more willing to pay that price since that second meter is "reserved for magic," as it were.

I think many people are just reluctant to hurt themselves for power. If you can remove the direct association with physical damage, you solve a lot of the issue people have with such a system, even if the consequences are in truth the same either way.

subject42
2010-07-06, 04:31 PM
If it helps SweetRein's point, you can feel free to assume another system than D&D, where hit points are more gradual in giving penalties and healing is less reliable.

I would still have concerns regarding verisimilitude, as I indicated in a previous post. Unless everyone is a Doc Savage style superman, it creates a weird system where people do counter-intuitive things in order to master their craft.

Of course, if everyone is a Doc Savage style superman, it's kind of an awesome system.

lesser_minion
2010-07-06, 04:34 PM
I'd have no problem with this kind of system if it was done well.

However, my overall impression is that doing this kind of system well is seriously difficult -- you would need to do a truckload of testing to find the sweet spot where players are prepared to cast spells but think twice before doing so, and I think you'll find that that sweet spot varies from player to player as well.

Exalted is the archetypical example of a badly-done 'cast from hitpoints' system -- saving the hitpoints to avoid damage is encouraged, because to all intents and purposes, any hit has a fair shot at weakening or killing you, and as long as you don't cast, no attack can deal a meaningful amount of damage to you.

The Rose Dragon
2010-07-06, 04:36 PM
I would still have concerns regarding verisimilitude, as I indicated in a previous post. Unless everyone is a Doc Savage style superman, it creates a weird system where people do counter-intuitive things in order to master their craft.

Not necessarily. There are systems that don't necessarily equate hit points with physical toughness. For example, Qin: the Warring States has all five main attributes contribute to the Breath of Life. The five attributes are Metal (martial skill), Water (physical skill), Fire (social skill), Wood (mental skill) and Earth (spiritual skill). If your attributes are too far apart from each other, your Breath of Life decreases compared to someone whose attributes are well balanced, due to the imbalance of qi in your body. Water and Metal still allow you to survive better in combat, due to adding to the combat skills.


Exalted is the archetypical example of a badly-done 'cast from hitpoints' system.

Exalted rarely has you lose health levels for using a Charm, and almost never for casting a spell.

Glimbur
2010-07-06, 04:38 PM
Your proposed magic system is actually very similar to that in the Slayers D20 book. I recommend checking that out if you haven't already.

AdvancedD20 has a genericized version of that system. It's... I would recommend that everyone plays a character with at least some casting ability.

Kaje
2010-07-06, 04:39 PM
Dairun Cates' Pirates Vs. Ninjas game over in Homebrew doesn't have any spellcasting, but all the awesome physical abilities cost Life to use. It's a really interesting mechanic.

Ajadea
2010-07-06, 04:40 PM
I had this weird idea for a spontaneous arcane caster using the spell point system who's casting stat was Constitution.

It had d10 hit die and the ability to cast spells even when it's spell points were gone by dealing non-lethal damage to itself. First time inflicts fatigue, when non-lethal damage reaches a certain point, the caster hits exhaustion.

Another class ability gained later would let the mage augment spells (raise save DC's, add metamagic that it didn't have, etc.) by dealing extra lethal damage to itself and sending itself into exhaustion.

The last let it cast spells it shouldn't be able to cast at all by taking Constitution damage. Like a 10th level caster using meteor swarm or maximized shout, and taking X constitution damage to do so.

lesser_minion
2010-07-06, 04:45 PM
Exalted rarely has you lose health levels for using a Charm, and almost never for casting a spell.

The criticism of Exalted that I've heard the most is that in optimised play, nobody ever uses any charms other than perfects and stunted perfects.

That's exactly the same problem that comes up in cast-from-hitpoints systems, just dressed up in different terms.

True20 is another example -- the standard criticism is that nobody ever uses conviction except to re-roll toughness saves.

The Rose Dragon
2010-07-06, 04:49 PM
The criticism of Exalted that I've heard the most is that in optimised play, nobody ever uses any charms other than perfects and stunted perfects.

In optimized play, everyone dies? Cause that's what that scenario will lead to. That, or you have an ST more generous with stunts than I am.

There is one near-unkillable build that doesn't rely on stunts, but it is highly specialized and requires you to be a Twilight Caste (only 1 out of 34 Castes work for the build).

The criticism you've heard is hardly universal and depends on ST fiat.

Reinboom
2010-07-06, 08:28 PM
Thank you for the personal insights, it has given me quite a few ideas.

I would like to expand (I feel like I owe it, sort of) the actual system in question.
The basic idea is that spellcasting is semi unlimited. There are very few factors that restrict it. With many actions (the "instantaneous" ones), this is no problem. I balance on a per action basis. With a few others that spellcasting is expected to perform, the system has a bit of breakdowns - notably distance.
The first restriction I have is one based on distance. Casting a buff leaves a "mark", if you exceed the range of this mark (which is very very very lenient), the buff drops.
The second restriction is one based on interaction and countering. That is, to allow the more mundane characters to interact with the more magical characters. The marks mentioned before? Are destroyable.
The final issue I have had that I was trying to address is that of "unlimited buffs", that is, keep on spamming the buff over and over again to treat it as permanent. This might leave some problems when left unchecked.

Healing is already fairly well restricted. It's available and worthwhile, just not unlimited. Unlimited healing is no issue.
So, taking say, 3 damage (or even 1 damage) for enabling 10 minutes of casting would place a "can't permanently do this" without a "let's punish you for even trying" (I'm not a fan of systems that make it unreasonable for you to ever even want to use your character).

That said...


If spellcasting does damage to your body, as represented by abstract hit points, it means that the best arcanists will be those people who are physically tough.

This point, as well as the rest of this post (and the various other ideas given out), has sparked some different interest. Something else I can tap.

I would like to note, I'm try to avoid using a secondary system (incorporating spirit or spell points). I would like this mechanical construction to be simple and easy to pick up by anyone... and appealing to do! However, I do now see a slightly different way to accomplish this (which I'm still mulling over, so I shall not yet post it...).

For that, thank you.

CubeB
2010-07-06, 08:52 PM
Shadowrun uses something similar.

In Shadowrun, all spells are "at-will", but they don't have levels like D&D spells.

Instead, you select a maximum force (Up to your Magic Rank x2) and roll a check to see how effective it is.

Afterwards, you make a save to resist damage from the spell. Anything below your magic Rank will deal stun damage, but overcasting can deal lethal damage.

Unfortunately, the system hinges on adjustable spell levels.

Personally, I'd just use the Spell Point system for something like this.

Alternatively, you could use the Vitalizing variant.

Because, otherwise, think about it. Unless spells dealt more damage than they healed, a caster with access to Cure (or Repair, if a 'Forged) spell could cast indefinitely.

Reinboom
2010-07-06, 09:02 PM
Personally, I'd just use the Spell Point system for something like this.

Alternatively, you could use the Vitalizing variant.

Because, otherwise, think about it. Unless spells dealt more damage than they healed, a caster with access to Cure (or Repair, if a 'Forged) spell could cast indefinitely.

This isn't 3.5e. :smalltongue:

To your other, I have played Shadowrun 4E and I felt the damage it served was "too much". I didn't mind taking it, but it felt too punishing to me, as though it discouraged me to even think about playing a mage.

Thinker
2010-07-06, 10:12 PM
This isn't 3.5e. :smalltongue:

To your other, I have played Shadowrun 4E and I felt the damage it served was "too much". I didn't mind taking it, but it felt too punishing to me, as though it discouraged me to even think about playing a mage.

I think the spell point variant is the way to go :smalltongue:

Siosilvar
2010-07-06, 10:13 PM
@the OP (I did read the rest of the thread, but didn't find anything to respond to): Under the assumption you laid out that this was balanced with the rest of the system, I do think this would be an interesting mechanic. I've toyed with similar things myself but never come up with anything worthwhile.

It certainly gives a spellcaster an incentive to avoid taking more damage.

Myou
2010-07-07, 05:41 PM
I would like to note that I am not asking for ideas, how to balance this (or what the balance points are), preexisting systems, or similar.

I am simply asking, how do you feel about taking damage as a spellcaster in order to cast spells?

I absolutely hate it. If that was houseruled into a game I'd stop playing casters entirely.