PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Balance Check on House Rule



Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 04:57 PM
Alright, to get straight to the point, I've been fiddling around with alot of the rules so that they coincide with my campaign setting. The relevent rule here was that all Clerics get Turn Undead, regardless of diety. I decided to change this, on account of the fact that most of the dieties in my setting have nothing to do with the undead.

So what I did is take the Knight of the Chalice's (CW) Censure Demons ability, and replaced the Turn Undead of both Paladins and Celestially-allied Clerics with it. I did the same thing with Fiend-allied Clerics, only using "Censure Angels," which is exactly the same thing except for the fact that every mention of "demons" is replaced with "angels."

While BASED on the Knight of the Chalice's Censure Demons ability, I've changed enough aspects to it to actually warrant posting it in full:

Censure Enemy of Faith: When a Cleric uses this ability, any fiends or celestials within 30 ft. must succeed on a Will Save (DC 10 + Cleric's Class Level + Cleric's WIS Modifier) or be censured.
A censured fiend or celestial whose Hit Dice are equal to or greater than twice the Cleric's Class Level takes (1d6/2 Cleric Levels) damage and is stunned by the Cleric's power for 1 round. On a successful save, the fiend or celestial takes half damage and is not stunned.
If the censured fiend or celestial has fewer Hit Dice than twice the Cleric's Class Level, it takes (1d6/2 Cleric Levels) damage and is stunned and must succeed on a second Will Save (same DC) or be sent back to its home plane as if it had been the subject of a dismissal spell.
If the censured fiend or celestial is native to the plane the Cleric is on, it instead flees for 10 rounds. If they cannot flee, they cower (giving any attack rolls towards them a +2 bonus). If the Cleric approaches within 10 ft. of them, however, they overcome being censured and act normally.
Only one fiend or celestial may be dismissed in this way by any single Censure Enemy of Faith attempt; if more than one fiend or celestial is required to make this second Will Save, check for the fiend or celestial with the lowest HD first.
A Cleric may attempt to Censure Enemy of Faith once per day for every two Class Levels they posess.

Clerics of death gods Censure Undead and Fae instead of Fiends and Celestials. Paladins have CHA-based saves instead of WIS-based saves.

So my question here is, does this hurt the altered classes, or does it matter?

Ilmryn
2010-08-30, 05:08 PM
Assuming turn demon/turn angel attempts can still be used to power divine feats and the like, this should not be any significant balance change. However, this depends on whether undead or outsiders are more common in your campaign.

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 05:13 PM
Assuming turn demon/turn angel attempts can still be used to power divine feats and the like, this should not be any significant balance change. However, this depends on whether undead or outsiders are more common in your campaign.

Well, due to a houserule I have standing that says any time you cast a divine spell there's a chance a demon will show up and punch you in the face for it, I'd say demons are fairly common.

The actual PLOT is undead-based, however.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-30, 05:23 PM
Well, due to a houserule I have standing that says any time you cast a divine spell there's a chance a demon will show up and punch you in the face for it, I'd say demons are fairly common.

The actual PLOT is undead-based, however.

It SEEMED reasonable up until this point. Then I just went buhhh? :smallconfused:

So, does this affect the clerics or pallies of any PCs currently in your campaign, or is this strictly an NPC/flavor thing?

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 05:29 PM
It SEEMED reasonable up until this point. Then I just went buhhh? :smallconfused:

So, does this affect the clerics or pallies of any PCs currently in your campaign, or is this strictly an NPC/flavor thing?

There are no clerics or pallies currently in the party (unfortunately for them). So at the moment it's just an NPC flavor thing. But yeah, every time you cast a divine spell, you have to make a Will Save vs Divine Retribution. Fail, and a level-appropriate outsider of the opposing pantheon appears and attacks you.

Paladin's needn't worry, since I'm using the martial variant from CW.

Greyfeld
2010-08-30, 05:33 PM
wait... if every time you cast a divine spell, there's a chance of an outsider popping into existence to kill you.... it sounds to me like it's a fantastic idea for the PCs to stay as far away from divine spellcasting classes as humanly possible.

A Fighter with Power Attack can kill a zombie just as easily as a Cleric with Turn Undead. (easier probably)

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 05:36 PM
wait... if every time you cast a divine spell, there's a chance of an outsider popping into existence to kill you.... it sounds to me like it's a fantastic idea for the PCs to stay as far away from divine spellcasting classes as humanly possible.

First level divine spells don't apply (couldn't find enough decent CR 1-2 outsiders) and the ability to heal without three week's R&R is kinda nice.

And some higher-level spells are worth the risk.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-30, 05:38 PM
Nah. I'd just play an arcanist of some sort. Wizard, most likely. I'd hang around temples, and hire myself out to deal with their demon problem. Sounds like a great way to get giant piles of xp.

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 05:41 PM
Nah. I'd just play an arcanist of some sort. Wizard, most likely. I'd hang around temples, and hire myself out to deal with their demon problem. Sounds like a great way to get giant piles of xp.

No dice. Arcane spellcasters get Cthulhu instead, and it's random chance instead of Will Save.

Greyfeld
2010-08-30, 05:45 PM
so long story short, you're punishing anybody who wants to play a caster

The Glyphstone
2010-08-30, 05:45 PM
I'm wondering how the players manage healing, or for that matter, how anyone in the world does outside of the aforementiond 3 weeks of R&R. If even a Cure Moderate has a decent chance of summoning a CR3 demon to eat your face, it seems like you'd be likely to end up losing more HP from the fight than you gain from the magic.


On the actual question at hand for the houserule - I'd agree with the above, and depending on the frequency of outsiders, I'd say it might even make the Turn ability a bit better. One of the reasons Turn Undead is miserable as it exists is because undead scale in HD much faster than they do CR. Outsiders, not so much.


so long story short, you're punishing anybody who wants to play a caster

Which is a perfectly valid campaign world, if the players understand and know about this beforehand. Low-magic doesn't just mean "+1 swords are artifacts" - a world like the one being described would be pretty close to actual medieval history, since the risk inherent in magic is for the most part far greater than any benefits.

Gnomo
2010-08-30, 05:47 PM
Well, Undead is one the monsters that gets +1 CR for every 4 extra HD, this means that taking a low CR undead monster and improving it to meet the party's challenge level will make it a big bag of hit points, also Improved Thoughness becomes a good feat for this monsters.

This means that Turn Undead is not really that useful as you advance in levels, on the other hand Outsiders get +1 CR for every 2 extra HD, so "turning" demons and angels has a better chance to work.

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 05:49 PM
so long story short, you're punishing anybody who wants to play a caster

Given that those who can rearrange the cosmos to their whims are vastly more powerful than those who can't, yes. I enjoy taking them down a peg.

And again, sometimes casting the spell is WORTH fighting a horror from beyond. I'm basically just forcing them to weigh the cost.


I'm wondering how the players manage healing, or for that matter, how anyone in the world does outside of the aforementiond 3 weeks of R&R. If even a Cure Moderate has a decent chance of summoning a CR3 demon to eat your face, it seems like you'd be likely to end up losing more HP from the fight than you gain from the magic.

Most people do it by not getting into fights. Or for people like Paladins, who do it for a living, they head to the local church and have several low-level clerics spam Cure Light Wounds, which hasn't the risk.


On the actual question at hand for the houserule - I'd agree with the above, and depending on the frequency of outsiders, I'd say it might even make the Turn ability a bit better. One of the reasons Turn Undead is miserable as it exists is because undead scale in HD much faster than they do CR. Outsiders, not so much.

I'll look into it. Maybe modify Censure Demons to work on undead.


Which is a perfectly valid campaign world, if the players understand and know about this beforehand.

The party Hexblade, who was the only person who had any reason to know this, did.


Low-magic doesn't just mean "+1 swords are artifacts" - a world like the one being described would be pretty close to actual medieval history, since the risk inherent in magic is for the most part far greater than any benefits.

Exactly.

Greyfeld
2010-08-30, 05:50 PM
Which is a perfectly valid campaign world, if the players understand and know about this beforehand. Low-magic doesn't just mean "+1 swords are artifacts" - a world like the one being described would be pretty close to actual medieval history, since the risk inherent in magic is for the most part far greater than any benefits.

I didn't say it was invalid. I was just implying that it doesn't sound particularly fair, or fun.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-30, 05:52 PM
Are you making individual spells more powerful then? I can't think of very many spells in existent 3.5 that are worth adding another enemy of CR=party ECL to the current fight.


I didn't say it was invalid. I was just implying that it doesn't sound particularly fair, or fun.
Sometimes, unfair can be fun. There are people out there who enjoy that sort of environment, for one reason or another - usually a minority opinion, but that's where taste comes in. I imagine, in this world, actual high-level casters aren't just powerful, but feared and respected far beyond even how normal D&D treats them...because they've got toe-to-toe with Cthulhu and survived, possibly multiple times, just to still be alive at that point. It'd be a challenge getting there, but again, some people might jump at the opportunity.

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 05:54 PM
Are you making individual spells more powerful then? I can't think of very many spells in existent 3.5 that are worth adding another enemy of CR=party ECL to the current fight.

No, the enemy is CR = Spell Level x2. Could be an issue in the middle of combat when the meatshield can't always leap to your defense, but shouldn't be a probelm if the party's prepared to react to it.


I imagine, in this world, actual high-level casters aren't just powerful, but feared and respected far beyond even how normal D&D treats them...because they've got toe-to-toe with Cthulhu and survived, possibly multiple times, just to still be alive at that point.

Oh, so very much so. There's a reason the local theocracy keeps all the arcanists in a guild.

Robert Blackletter
2010-08-30, 05:57 PM
I didn't say it was invalid. I was just implying that it doesn't sound particularly fair, or fun.

To you, his player might love it and depending on how the will save scales and the demon enters I would enjoy the extra flavour, though how dose this work with warlocks?

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 05:59 PM
To you, his player might love it and depending on how the will save scales and the demon enters I would enjoy the extra flavour, though how dose this work with warlocks?

I have a strict "if I don't own the book in meatspace, I won't use it" rule, and none of my books contain Warlocks. However, with Hexblades and Paladins, I've been counting their supernatural abilities as spells, the level being determined on a case-by-case basis.

The Will Save is, I believe, 10 + Spell Level. Low enough that it won't be too much of a bother, but high enough that a bad roll can still screw you over.

Outsider enters however the DM felt would be thematically appropriate at the time. Generally very theatrically.

Greyfeld
2010-08-30, 06:00 PM
To you, his player might love it and depending on how the will save scales and the demon enters I would enjoy the extra flavour, though how dose this work with warlocks?

No duh "to me." I wasn't aware that I had to preface every sentence with "IMO" for other people to realize that I wasn't attempting to force my opinion upon everybody else.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-30, 06:01 PM
No dice. Arcane spellcasters get Cthulhu instead, and it's random chance instead of Will Save.

Cthulu just randomly appears if you cast a spell. Wow.

Im going to advise that if anyone wants to play a caster, you scream "IT PLAYS THE MELEE OR IT GETS THE HOSE AGAIN", while holding a bottle of lotion. It'll be less annoying for all concerned.

Edit: It really mostly screws over unoptimized casters. It's horribly exploitable if it follows any rules the players are told about beforehand, and if not, it's a giant pile of fiat that anyone who wants to play a caster just gets slammed with. They'll likely feel a bit cheated.

KillianHawkeye
2010-08-30, 06:03 PM
I have a question: How is the Will save calculated? Is it also based on the level of the spell cast? That would make it easier for high level casters to cast a lot of low level spells without too much risk.

Nevermind, OP preemtively answered me. :smallsigh:

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 06:04 PM
Cthulu just randomly appears if you cast a spell. Wow.

Well, Cthulhu is really only for the big boys. Newbies get Cthulhu's younger, less competant brother. Who will still eat your sanity for breakfast.


Im going to advise that if anyone wants to play a caster, you scream "IT PLAYS THE MELEE OR IT GETS THE HOSE AGAIN", while holding a bottle of lotion. It'll be less annoying for all concerned.

Hey, I told my players exactly what was in store for them if they played a caster. One took a casting class anyway.


Edit: It really mostly screws over unoptimized casters. It's horribly exploitable if it follows any rules the players are told about beforehand, and if not, it's a giant pile of fiat that anyone who wants to play a caster just gets slammed with. They'll likely feel a bit cheated.

They're informed before they make the sheet if they decide to play a caster. I leave those who aren't playing the caster in the dark for shock value. :smalltongue:

As for "exploiting it," unlikely. There's also a long list of barred spells (most of which involve any sort of interaction with the undead or the planes), which means attempting to get your own pet Cthulhu is pretty much out of the question.

Curmudgeon
2010-08-30, 07:10 PM
But yeah, every time you cast a divine spell, you have to make a Will Save vs Divine Retribution. Fail, and a level-appropriate outsider of the opposing pantheon appears and attacks you.
This messes with a lot of things. Rangers cast divine spells, but don't have to be associated with any deity or pantheon. Favored Souls exist because they're the chosen instruments of particular divinities, so how would it make sense for them to be randomly calling in opposed powers?

This looks like you're just screwing over divine casters for the heck of it. So what are you doing to bash Wizards? They certainly need thwarting as much or more than divine spellcasters.

Eurus
2010-08-30, 07:15 PM
This messes with a lot of things. Rangers cast divine spells, but don't have to be associated with any deity or pantheon. Favored Souls exist because they're the chosen instruments of particular divinities, so how would it make sense for them to be randomly calling in opposed powers?

This looks like you're just screwing over divine casters for the heck of it. So what are you doing to bash Wizards? They certainly need thwarting as much or more than divine spellcasters.

That'd be the aforementioned Cthulhu thing, I assume.

Anyway. That's not the rule being critiqued here, so this entire discussion is irrelevant. The only thing the OP asked for input on was the fiend/celestial censuring.

It certainly makes more sense, for one thing. In my experience, Turn Undead doesn't get used for actually turning undead very much once clerics start to prestige class out, so I agree with the person who said that it should be a low-impact but flavorful change provided that they still power divine feats. Obviously it'll hurt them if it's an undead-heavy campaign, but it'll help if it's an outsider-heavy campaign, so it's kind of a wash in that regard.

HunterOfJello
2010-08-30, 07:19 PM
In the game that I DM, I implemented Pathfinder's system of Channel Energy in place of Turn/Rebuke Undead.


Clerics get a Channel Energy ability instead of Turn Undead that increases their effectiveness at healing and damaging undead. Evil clerics can channel negative energy which can heal undead or hurt the living. They can also take a feat to gain access to Turn Undead.

erikun
2010-08-30, 07:22 PM
Good clerics get demons, bad clerics get angels, and wizards get abbreviations. Interesting.

First, I'd recommend changing Censure Demons to Censure Fiends, to apply just as well to devils. (Censure Angels would be Censure Celestials, if it matters.) It obviously makes the classes less useful in an undead-heavy campaign, which I assume is the point.

How does the Sun domain work under these rules? What about the Radiant Servant prestige class, assuming you would allow it?

Jack_Simth
2010-08-30, 07:32 PM
To the OP:

Well, without anyone who actually has the ability in your group, it doesn't much matter.

In isolation, it's mostly a wash.

With your existing house-rules regarding consequences of Clerics casting spells, it's fairly useful, and is a slight power-boost for Clerics relative to your situation prior to this specific house-rule.

Oh yes, and make sure to ban the Tome of Battle - there's a Diamond Mind maneuver to replace a Will save with a Concentration check, which can be garnered for any class by way of the Martial Study feat - which means out of combat spells become perfectly safe (as well as one 'battle spell' per encounter).

Malakar
2010-08-30, 07:50 PM
Jack Smith. It's a Cleric making a will save, it's already perfectly safe.

Level 1 Cleric has save of +7 against DC 11. Level 6 Cleric has will save +13 vs DC 13. And that's apparently spells that don't cause enemies to pop up. By the time you cast a spell that does, you are already batting 95%.

DragonOfUndeath
2010-08-30, 07:53 PM
Wizards get abbreviations. Interesting.


wait what?

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 08:00 PM
This messes with a lot of things. Rangers cast divine spells, but don't have to be associated with any deity or pantheon.

Martial Ranger variant from CW. No spells.


Favored Souls exist because they're the chosen instruments of particular divinities, so how would it make sense for them to be randomly calling in opposed powers?

Favoured Souls aren't in any of my books, so I don't use 'em.


This looks like you're just screwing over divine casters for the heck of it. So what are you doing to bash Wizards? They certainly need thwarting as much or more than divine spellcasters.

What am I doing to bash Wizards? Cthulhu for starters. Frequent hallucinations that get worse as the Wizard gets more powerful, just to top it off.


Good clerics get demons, bad clerics get angels, and wizards get abbreviations abberations. Interesting.

"Riftspawn," actually. Campaign specific type. Includes elementals.


First, I'd recommend changing Censure Demons to Censure Fiends, to apply just as well to devils. (Censure Angels would be Censure Celestials, if it matters.) It obviously makes the classes less useful in an undead-heavy campaign, which I assume is the point.

Good idea.

The point is actually just thematic sensibility. Gods with no association with the undead have no business giving their followers the ability to turn them.


How does the Sun domain work under these rules? What about the Radiant Servant prestige class, assuming you would allow it?

No Radiant Servants, but for the Sun Domain, hm... *grabs PHB* ...probably I'd say that fiends that would normally be able to resist being banished would still have to make the save.


To the OP:

Well, without anyone who actually has the ability in your group, it doesn't much matter.

Given the number of clerical factions in the campaign, I'd argue differently.


Oh yes, and make sure to ban the Tome of Battle - there's a Diamond Mind maneuver to replace a Will save with a Concentration check, which can be garnered for any class by way of the Martial Study feat - which means out of combat spells become perfectly safe (as well as one 'battle spell' per encounter).

Don't own ToB, so it's banned by default.

FMArthur
2010-08-30, 08:06 PM
So now Charm Monster is an end itself. Charm your enemy on turn one, Charm a big bad outsider on turn two...

Or, hell, just summon a monster while invisible, and a second shows up for free! Leave unnoticed while your scheduled encounter attempts to deal with your unscheduled one. :smallcool:

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 08:13 PM
So now Charm Monster is an end itself. Charm your enemy on turn one, Charm a big bad outsider on turn two...

Could work. Assuming the monster shows up at all. And you have Charm Monster prepared at all. And that it fails it's Will Save. And that the second Charm Monster doesn't just summon another one.


Or, hell, just summon a monster while invisible, and a second shows up for free! Leave unnoticed while your scheduled encounter attempts to deal with your unscheduled one. :smallcool:

Summon Monster is on my banned spell list.

Jack_Simth
2010-08-30, 08:24 PM
Jack Smith. It's a Cleric making a will save, it's already perfectly safe.

Level 1 Cleric has save of +7 against DC 11. Level 6 Cleric has will save +13 vs DC 13. And that's apparently spells that don't cause enemies to pop up. By the time you cast a spell that does, you are already batting 95%.
... Are you figuring in Iron Will, a funny race, growing Old, or some such? Otherwise, how are you getting a +7 Will save at level 1? Also, what's your equipment expectation?

If you have, say, a +1 Cloak of Resistance at level 3 (WBL: 2,700 - no Periapt of Wisdom+2 at this level), with a 16 base score in Wis and a 'normal' base race, you're looking at a Will save of +7 vs. DC 12 (need a 5, 80% odds of no Outsider).

If you have a +1 Cloak of Resistance AND a +2 Periapt of Wisdom at level 5 (WBL: 9k; that's 5k spent on this; could go with a +2 Cloak, potentially), with a base Wis of 16, putting the 4th level boost into Wis (doesn't matter, mind), you're looking at a +9 Will save vs. DC 13; need a 4, for an 85% chance of no outsider.

If you have a +2 Cloak of Resistance and a +2 Periapt of Wisdom at level 7 (WBL of 19k; that's 8,000 spent; a +4 Periapt would be 16k, over 50%; could have a +3 Cloak, potentially, though), with a base Wis of 16, you're looking at a +11 Will save vs. DC 14; need a 3, for a 90% chance of no outsider.

If you have a +2 Cloak of Resistance and a +4 Periapt of Wisdom at level 9 (WBL 36k; could go a +3 or +4 Cloak and still have the +4 Periapt, potentially), with a base Wis of 16, putting 4th and 8th level boosts into Wis, you're looking at a +13 Will save vs. DC 15; need a 2 (fail only on a 1) for a 95% chance of no outsider.

Probability analysis:
The base Will save scales linearly with the save DC for casting your highest-level spell - if it's up to the base save only, a Cleric-17 casting a 9th level spell (his highest) has the same chance of accidentally summoning an opposed Outsider as the Cleric-3 casting a 2nd level spell (his highest), with the proviso that the Cleric has a better chance of beating the save on even-numbered levels than odd-numbered levels, due to spell progression going on odd levels while save progression goes on even levels.

Equipment (Wisdom boosters, save boosters) and the level-based boosts going into Wisdom mitigate this heavily, to the point where if you get useful equipment at anything close to wealth-by-level, you're in nat-1 territory by mid-game, assuming little-to-no optimization of equipment to specifically game this aspect of your character.

The Pride domain is inordinately useful at low levels (dropping you from a 20% chance of an Outsider at 3rd to a 16% chance at 3rd with my assumptions above; 10.75% at 5th; 5.5% at 7th; 0.25% at 9th or above), and continues to be useful at high-levels.

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 08:32 PM
Even a 5% chance is still more than enough.

The Wizards get this thing called a "Rift Score", which is basically a buildup of arcane energy any time a Rift ISN'T opened by a spell. Any time a Riftspawn doesn't turn up as a result of their spell, their Rift Score increases by the spell level, and decreases each night by their class level. So with any given cast, the probability of a Rift opening is (Spell Level + Rift Score)%. Which at low levels is extremely unlikely.

But, after being unexpectedly strangled nearly to death a few times, the fear'll probably kick in.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-30, 08:48 PM
You can use pathfinder's core turning, maybe? It's free at their srd.
(basically: you don't TURN. You can channel energy for damage or healing, and feats buy you the turning/rebuking/whatever).

Alternatively, Just change "turn undead" to "turn enemy of faith", and have it work as turning against whatever your god/philosophy considers anathema.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-30, 09:00 PM
Even a 5% chance is still more than enough.

The Wizards get this thing called a "Rift Score", which is basically a buildup of arcane energy any time a Rift ISN'T opened by a spell. Any time a Riftspawn doesn't turn up as a result of their spell, their Rift Score increases by the spell level, and decreases each night by their class level. So with any given cast, the probability of a Rift opening is (Spell Level + Rift Score)%. Which at low levels is extremely unlikely.

But, after being unexpectedly strangled nearly to death a few times, the fear'll probably kick in.

Do you have a setting-story reason for why some powerful wizard hasn't decided to turn this 'random phenomenon' into a means of perfecting his destructive arts and proving mastery over the Riftspawn dimension (I.e., In-character XP farming)? If none of your players think of it (at which point you smack them down by 'misreading' the CR of an epic-level abomination), there's still the extremely high chance that one of the high-Int NPCs would have, unless you create a reason for them not to.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-30, 09:04 PM
Odds are nothing stops them from actually trying. First thing that comes to mind is the emotional wrecking load that comes with fighting eldritch abominations and risking your life more often than you'd like to. The more cautious casters will probably avoid casting their best spells as much as they can.

Another interesting side effect is that partial casters like duskblades and hexblades would be in a constant struggle with weaker monsters, which while less deadly, is far more tiresome. I can see slow spell progressing classes flourishing in such environments.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-30, 09:12 PM
That'd be the aforementioned Cthulhu thing, I assume.

Anyway. That's not the rule being critiqued here, so this entire discussion is irrelevant. The only thing the OP asked for input on was the fiend/celestial censuring.

It certainly makes more sense, for one thing. In my experience, Turn Undead doesn't get used for actually turning undead very much once clerics start to prestige class out, so I agree with the person who said that it should be a low-impact but flavorful change provided that they still power divine feats. Obviously it'll hurt them if it's an undead-heavy campaign, but it'll help if it's an outsider-heavy campaign, so it's kind of a wash in that regard.

In isolation, it's not actually that bad of a change. Especially if tying it to your deity gives you choice.

However, I am puzzled by the idea of someone who tosses in random cthulu and demon summoning en masse, but is concerned about the balance implications of a minor turning tweak without players who actually use it.

As for exploiting, I would like to point out exibit A, caster will saves. Exibit B, the luck trick to count a 1 on a save as a nat 20.

Jack_Simth
2010-08-30, 09:15 PM
Given the number of clerical factions in the campaign, I'd argue differently.
*shrug*.

With no Clerics in the party, a change to Turn Undead is:

1) Of no particular help to the PC's (they don't have access to it anyway)
2) Of no particular hindrance to the PC's (it can't hurt them, unless they are undead/outsiders)

For the Paladin, it's likely a wash, unless your campaign is themed one way or the other.

As things that happen off-screen are almost always hand-waved anyway, the only way the change to turning actually affects play is if you have an NPC Cleric tagging along. It has no impact on game balance if it doesn't affect how the game is actually played. Sure, it makes some differences in the backdrop world and in how you build adventures, but it doesn't affect game balance.


Don't own ToB, so it's banned by default.Cool.


Oh, also:
With Neutral clerics, do you align it based on their healing/inflicting, as normal? Because I can totally see two Lawful-Neutral clerics, one of which heals, the other of which Inflicts, taking turns 'accidentally' summoning low-level Outsiders, and having the other Command them to have small squads of minions on-hand.

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 09:16 PM
Do you have a setting-story reason for why some powerful wizard hasn't decided to turn this 'random phenomenon' into a means of perfecting his destructive arts and proving mastery over the Riftspawn dimension (I.e., In-character XP farming)? If none of your players think of it (at which point you smack them down by 'misreading' the CR of an epic-level abomination), there's still the extremely high chance that one of the high-Int NPCs would have, unless you create a reason for them not to.

Actually, there's a very good reason: As much as magi like being powerful, they're absolutely terrified of going insane. And with magi, the two go hand in hand. ALL magi are at least mildly insane (given that what they do is essentially exploiting glitches in the universe, it tends to mess with their heads), and the more arcane power flowing through you, the more the madness affects you. And if you aren't careful, it'll consume you.

Some magi think it's worth the risk, but most try to find the balance between power and sanity that they're comfortable with. And to many, that comes around the time when they've cast their first fireball.


Oh, also:
With Neutral clerics, do you align it based on their healing/inflicting, as normal? Because I can totally see two Lawful-Neutral clerics, one of which heals, the other of which Inflicts, taking turns 'accidentally' summoning low-level Outsiders, and having the other Command them to have small squads of minions on-hand.

It based on diety of choice. And no, you aren't allowed to do that "Cleric for a cause" bull****.

Mr.Moron
2010-08-30, 09:18 PM
Question: Do you still get exp for killing the dudes that your spell pop into existence?

Second Question: Is there a limit on the number of the dudes my spells can summon in a day?

Third Question: Does the rule about being able to willingly fail saves apply to dude-summoning?

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 09:24 PM
Question: Do you still get exp for killing the dudes that your spell pop into existence?

Do you get xp for killing monsters popped into existance by summon monster?


Second Question: Is there a limit on the number of the dudes my spells can summon in a day?

The only limit is your spells per day.


Third Question: Does the rule about being able to willingly fail saves apply to dude-summoning?

Yes. You're actively resisting its attempts to pop in. So the option does exist to simply not resist.

Which makes me think I should make it be based on random chance + energy buildup, like the Wizards.


However, I am puzzled by the idea of someone who tosses in random cthulu and demon summoning en masse, but is concerned about the balance implications of a minor turning tweak without players who actually use it.

"The straw that broke the camel's back" was the thought process. As for "en masse," I wouldn't consider a 1% chance per spell level en masse.


As for exploiting, I would like to point out exibit A, caster will saves. Exibit B, the luck trick to count a 1 on a save as a nat 20.

1- There are exactly two dieties in my setting's pantheon with the Luck Domain, and I'd lose no sleep removing it from either of them.
2- I'm considering the random chance + energy buildup route, anyway.


Alternatively, Just change "turn undead" to "turn enemy of faith", and have it work as turning against whatever your god/philosophy considers anathema.

This was actually my original idea. I'm still on the fence as to which one is better.

Jack_Simth
2010-08-30, 09:32 PM
It based on diety of choice. And no, you aren't allowed to do that "Cleric for a cause" bull****.Cause clerics are unnecessary to the setup. A LN cleric of a LG deity and a LN cleric of a LE deity, works just fine (I'm sure there will be several other setups, but unless you publish your chosen outsider alignments along with the altered rules, I can't use specifics). Their deities might not get along, but the Clerics can achieve mutual benefit by working together for a very short length of time ... assuming, that is, that you don't remove the Command/Destroy aspect (which would be a downgrade).

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 09:34 PM
Cause clerics are unnecessary to the setup. A LN cleric of a LG deity and a LN cleric of a LE deity, works just fine. Their deities might not get along, but the Clerics can achieve mutual benefit by working together for a very short length of time ... assuming, that is, that you don't remove the Command/Destroy aspect.

Ah, right, that. Well in that case, no it wouldn't work. Censure Demons/Angels doesn't work that way. Indeed, it's only functions are either "Stun for 1 Round" if the target's HD is twice your class level or more, or "Stun for 1 Round + Second Will Save vs Dismissal" if not.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-30, 09:36 PM
Sounds like a lot of "I hadn't thought of it, but I can ban that too".

Well, of course you can. You can ban everything. However, doing these sorts of continual ad hoc bannings is generally a sign that you haven't really thought out the implications of the change beforehand.

Is there an actual mechanic being used for the insanity? And again, does immune to mind affecting solve that?

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 09:40 PM
Sounds like a lot of "I hadn't thought of it, but I can ban that too".

Well, of course you can. You can ban everything. However, doing these sorts of continual ad hoc bannings is generally a sign that you haven't really thought out the implications of the change beforehand.

Well, as has been pointed out, without any clerics in the party I simply haven't needed to think about it. It's all just been thought experiments so far.


Is there an actual mechanic being used for the insanity? And again, does immune to mind affecting solve that?

No. It's strictly ad hoc, with a very loose guideline. And no, immune to mind affecting doesn't work. It's a diefic-level effect, and overrides any rules that apply to mortals.

Jack_Simth
2010-08-30, 09:40 PM
Sounds like a lot of "I hadn't thought of it, but I can ban that too".

Well, of course you can. You can ban everything. However, doing these sorts of continual ad hoc bannings is generally a sign that you haven't really thought out the implications of the change beforehand.

To be fair, he's not doing this at the table. He's taking some time not at the table, likely not even on a day he's gaming, and going to a place where he's more likely to find people skilled at finding loopholes in rules, and checking to see what loopholes are in place. If he does that kind of thing at the table, it's a different story... but here, as a DM seeking advice on implications of a change? Not so much of a problem.

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 09:42 PM
To be fair, he's not doing this at the table. He's taking some time not at the table, likely not even on a day he's gaming, and going to a place where he's more likely to find people skilled at finding loopholes in rules, and checking to see what loopholes are in place. If he does that kind of thing at the table, it's a different story... but here, as a DM seeking advice on implications of a change? Not so much of a problem.

It's certaintly preferable to having one of the players trip on one of these loopholes and blue screening the campaign. :smalltongue:

Tyndmyr
2010-08-30, 09:51 PM
To be fair, he's not doing this at the table. He's taking some time not at the table, likely not even on a day he's gaming, and going to a place where he's more likely to find people skilled at finding loopholes in rules, and checking to see what loopholes are in place. If he does that kind of thing at the table, it's a different story... but here, as a DM seeking advice on implications of a change? Not so much of a problem.

Ah, but he's seeking the advice regarding a minor change to a turning mechanic none of his players have. He's ignoring the advice regarding a change to all casting, and he has a player with a caster.

The significance difference between those two scenarios should be an eyebrow raiser.

Also, mind blank specifically trumps epic spells too. Immunity to mind effecting is something that works extremely well, and deities don't just overrule it by virtue of being deities. They are, however, also immune to mind affecting.

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 09:59 PM
Ah, but he's seeking the advice regarding a minor change to a turning mechanic none of his players have. He's ignoring the advice regarding a change to all casting, and he has a player with a caster.

The significance difference between those two scenarios should be an eyebrow raiser.

The player with a caster is an ARCANE caster, which I've not discussed altering in this thread, and he's a PARTIAL caster, meaning the closest thing to a spell he's got right now is Hexblade's Curse. Fiddling around with mechanics that have no chance of effecting him isn't heinous in my book.


Also, mind blank specifically trumps epic spells too. Immunity to mind effecting is something that works extremely well, and deities don't just overrule it by virtue of being deities. They are, however, also immune to mind affecting.

In my campaign, they do. Dieties are literally omnipotent entities here. The only entity more powerful than them is me, the DM.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-30, 10:02 PM
Actually, there's a very good reason: As much as magi like being powerful, they're absolutely terrified of going insane. And with magi, the two go hand in hand. ALL magi are at least mildly insane (given that what they do is essentially exploiting glitches in the universe, it tends to mess with their heads), and the more arcane power flowing through you, the more the madness affects you. And if you aren't careful, it'll consume you.

Some magi think it's worth the risk, but most try to find the balance between power and sanity that they're comfortable with. And to many, that comes around the time when they've cast their first fireball.



I smell a BBEG in the making - a magi who's thrown caution and sanity to the winds, actively preying on the crazy monsters (or making a deal with them or something) for UNLIMITED POWAH!!!

Tyndmyr
2010-08-30, 10:02 PM
Meh, not worth arguing about. Fiat away.

In general, though, house rules regarding attacks that don't target your party and are not used by them isn't worth worrying about. Save for your attention for the things that get screen time.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-30, 10:05 PM
to: Guys that keep trying to counter the summons of doom.
Do not expect to be secure from it because that is contrary to the setting's intent. Your minds WILL be violated by arcane magic. Think Call of Cthulhu there, with added firepower.
Make an intellectual exercise of it. See what possibilities can sprout from it. See to figure out what happens to those who tried and failed. That kind of stuff. His world is already defined to rape casters with cthulhu and demons. Our role is to make the most fun we can from it :D

Jack_Simth
2010-08-30, 10:06 PM
Ah, right, that. Well in that case, no it wouldn't work. Censure Demons/Angels doesn't work that way. Indeed, it's only functions are either "Stun for 1 Round" if the target's HD is twice your class level or more, or "Stun for 1 Round + Second Will Save vs Dismissal" if not.
Ah... so... you've got from ten rounds of the undead running away screaming, or just going poof (Turn Undead), to it causing one kind of critter to shudder for a while, and go away if they're sufficiently weak?

That would be a downgrade, except this post seriously changed the mechanic - "target's HD is twice your class level or more" - so a 10th level Cleric can stop a 30-HD outsider in it's tracks for a round? Ah.... yeah, that's an upgrade.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-30, 10:08 PM
Meh, not worth arguing about. Fiat away.

In general, though, house rules regarding attacks that don't target your party and are not used by them isn't worth worrying about. Save for your attention for the things that get screen time.

What if a later player to the game decides to play a cleric, or one of the existing players dies and wants to re-roll as one? Better to have this stuff hammered out beforehand.

Drakevarg
2010-08-30, 10:14 PM
That would be a downgrade, except this post seriously changed the mechanic - "target's HD is twice your class level or more" - so a 10th level Cleric can stop a 30-HD outsider in it's tracks for a round? Ah.... yeah, that's an upgrade.

Well, it must be considered that instead of the Cleric doing a Censure check, the target makes a Will Save. So while yes, theoretically, you can stop a Pit Fiend in its tracks for one round, chances are it'll make the Will Save. Say it's a 10th Level Cleric with a CHA of 16. For example. That's Will DC 23 Negates. Statistical probability of Pit Fiend failing that?


What if a later player to the game decides to play a cleric, or one of the existing players dies and wants to re-roll as one? Better to have this stuff hammered out beforehand.

Agreed. Hence the thought exercises.


I smell a BBEG in the making - a magi who's thrown caution and sanity to the winds, actively preying on the crazy monsters (or making a deal with them or something) for UNLIMITED POWAH!!!

I've actually got something like that in mind. Of the Sealed Evil in a Can (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SealedEvilInACan) variety.

Jack_Simth
2010-08-31, 06:43 AM
Well, it must be considered that instead of the Cleric doing a Censure check, the target makes a Will Save. So while yes, theoretically, you can stop a Pit Fiend in its tracks for one round, chances are it'll make the Will Save. Say it's a 10th Level Cleric with a CHA of 16. For example. That's Will DC 23 Negates. Statistical probability of Pit Fiend failing that?
That drops it back down to pretty close to useless, then - Wisdom is a Cleric's main stat, so the Charisma won't be very high; Outsiders have good Will saves, so even against a lower-CR outsider, it has little chance of doing anything.

... you know, with the way you keep putting out the mechanics one crumb at a time, it's useless to attempt commenting on balance. Have a nice day.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-31, 08:28 AM
... you know, with the way you keep putting out the mechanics one crumb at a time, it's useless to attempt commenting on balance. Have a nice day.

Im with Jack on this. Good luck.

FelixG
2010-08-31, 08:41 AM
Do you get xp for killing monsters popped into existance by summon monster?



So...you toss in both insanity AND critters to smack casters because they are too powerful...And on top of that you dont give them XP based on the encounters you throw at them? ~.~

Seems a bit excessive.

But on the original topic you should probably change the save to be whatever the casters primary casting stat is instead of just putting it as a hard stat

Greenish
2010-08-31, 08:52 AM
Given that those who can rearrange the cosmos to their whims are vastly more powerful than those who can't, yes. I enjoy taking them down a peg.I didn't notice anyone pointing this out yet, but not all spellcasters are stronger than the mundane classes.

Hexblade, for example, can hardly be said to be capable of "rearranging the cosmos on it's whims", and most certainly isn't "vastly more powerful" than a rogue or a barbarian.

So while the flavour of your campaign is all up to you, trying to justify this with game balance won't fly.

[Edit]:
In my campaign, they do. Dieties are literally omnipotent entities here. The only entity more powerful than them is me, the DM.So you have several omnipotent beings, some of which (assumedly) oppose each others? :smallconfused:

Tequila Sunrise
2010-08-31, 09:30 AM
Sounds like an interesting house rule.


I didn't say it was invalid. I was just implying that it doesn't sound particularly fair, or fun.
To be fair, Psycho and his group'd be playing the wrong game if they were interested in being fair. (Lame pun intended. :smallbiggrin:)

Person_Man
2010-08-31, 09:45 AM
Wow. So all divine magic has a chance of summoning a demon, and all arcane magic drives you insane? Why would anyone in your game world (PCs or NPCs) even consider devoting their career to either or standing anywhere near someone who does?

Anywho, I'm with Tyndmyr and Jack on this. I can't comment on balance without seeing all of your mechanics and how they work.

But I would say there are several well thought out low-magic worlds out there. Midnight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_%28role-playing_game%29) and Iron Heroes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Heroes) are both excellent options.

I also have a homebrew world where there are only a few dozen magic users in the world, and virtually all of them are super villains, sorcerer kings, cult leaders, etc. (Plot hook, join with a faction of your choice or fight against them to end their tyranny). But mythological/magical creatures which haven't been seen for centuries are starting to appear again, and no one knows why (plot hook, figure out why and stop it, or let magic run rampant and watch the world descend into chaos). It didn't require any changes to the rules, it just required telling the PCs up front that magic is rare and feared/hated/misunderstood by the vast majority of the population. They can use it whenever they want, but if they use it in front of people, they're likely to be chased in mobs (unless they win them over with fear or love...) and/or noticed by other magic users in the world (who generally don't like competition).

liquid150
2010-08-31, 10:24 AM
I would just keep casting as much as possible and seeing how many PC's I could kill, and how many times I could die in the process. The goal would be for me to die the least, and my party mates to die repetitively.

I'd just keep that up until everybody revolted and started throwing their drinks on you. :smallbiggrin:

JBento
2010-08-31, 01:10 PM
How does this work with druids? There's no opposed pantheon for them.

Is there anything to prevent a wizard from, in a hard fight, backfire-summoning a tough fiend and then high-tailing it, waiting for the fiend to kill/weaken the opposition, and then coming back with the party to wipe the rest?

If your gods are omnipotent, why are there clerics at all? Clerics are supposed to be a god's workers in the mortal realm - if they can don everything, they don't need workers :smallconfused:

nightwyrm
2010-08-31, 01:17 PM
If you want to play CoC, shouldn't you play CoC instead?

Drakevarg
2010-08-31, 06:55 PM
That drops it back down to pretty close to useless, then - Wisdom is a Cleric's main stat, so the Charisma won't be very high; Outsiders have good Will saves, so even against a lower-CR outsider, it has little chance of doing anything.

I could change it to be based on WIS Modifiers. As it is, it's ripped verbatim from the Knight of the Chalice ability.


... you know, with the way you keep putting out the mechanics one crumb at a time, it's useless to attempt commenting on balance. Have a nice day.

I would have stated the entire ability in the first post, but I assumed that since most people here seem to have an encyclopedic knowledge of the books, it wasn't nessicary. You can find it in CW.


I didn't notice anyone pointing this out yet, but not all spellcasters are stronger than the mundane classes.

Hexblade, for example, can hardly be said to be capable of "rearranging the cosmos on it's whims", and most certainly isn't "vastly more powerful" than a rogue or a barbarian.

So while the flavour of your campaign is all up to you, trying to justify this with game balance won't fly.

It's flavor. My distaste for CoDzilla and Wizards was just my motivation.


[Edit]: So you have several omnipotent beings, some of which (assumedly) oppose each others? :smallconfused:

Though mortals in this world aren't aware of it, the gods of my setting veiw the cosmos as a really, really, REALLY complicated game of chess. To mortals, it's an eternal life-and-death struggle. To the gods, it's friendly competition.


How does this work with druids? There's no opposed pantheon for them.

In this setting, you can't just worship "nature." You have to worship one of the Gods of Life. Their opposed pantheon is undead. On the other hand, you can't be a Cleric of one of the Gods of Life.


Is there anything to prevent a wizard from, in a hard fight, backfire-summoning a tough fiend and then high-tailing it, waiting for the fiend to kill/weaken the opposition, and then coming back with the party to wipe the rest?

The inability to do it intentionally without spamming first-level spells, for one. The fact that the summoned Riftspawn's first target is ALWAYS the caster, for two.


If your gods are omnipotent, why are there clerics at all? Clerics are supposed to be a god's workers in the mortal realm - if they can don everything, they don't need workers :smallconfused:

Because they think direct intervention is too easy. (It's like chess to them, remember? Directly intevening is like just picking up the other guy's Queen and throwing it off the board.) Clerics serve the purpose of being the instrument with which they influence mortal behavior.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-31, 06:59 PM
Well, if you had ever mentioned Knight of the Chalice specificall, we probably would have. But "Censure Fiend" could have just as easily been a made-up name for your homebrewed Turn Outsider ability.

Drakevarg
2010-08-31, 07:05 PM
Well, if you had ever mentioned Knight of the Chalice specificall, we probably would have. But "Censure Fiend" could have just as easily been a made-up name for your homebrewed Turn Outsider ability.


So what I did is take the Knight of the Chalice's (CW) Censure Demons ability, and replaced the Turn Undead of both Paladins and Celestially-allied Clerics with it.

I did. First post.


If you want to play CoC, shouldn't you play CoC instead?

1- I get the impression CoC is more Victorian-flavored.
2- I don't want to cough up the cash to buy the books.
3- Even if I could find the books online, I wouldn't. I have a strict "no meatspace, no use" rule.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-31, 07:15 PM
I did. First post.



Whoops. My bad.

Gan The Grey
2010-09-01, 12:40 AM
Yeah, I get the feeling that if everyone here would stop trying to attack the OP's campaign layout, his question might get answered sometime this century. If everyone would stop trying to find holes in his logic, that is.

Greyfeld
2010-09-01, 12:46 AM
Yeah, I get the feeling that if everyone here would stop trying to attack the OP's campaign layout, his question might get answered sometime this century. If everyone would stop trying to find holes in his logic, that is.

If the rules didn't make the game sound bad, it probably wouldn't be a problem.

Drakevarg
2010-09-01, 12:56 AM
Yeah, I get the feeling that if everyone here would stop trying to attack the OP's campaign layout, his question might get answered sometime this century. If everyone would stop trying to find holes in his logic, that is.

I don't have a problem with it, actually. At least they're poking holes in it on the forum instead of at the table, where it could actually cause problems.

Aran Banks
2010-09-01, 01:10 AM
To the OP: Yes, that's balanced. It's totally fine.

However, your magic system is nuts. Under that, there's no such thing as effective magic. But I'm not gonna bother you; your rules are your rules.

2xMachina
2010-09-01, 02:05 AM
Summon Monster is on my banned spell list.

Then all spells are Summon Monster.

Get some invisibility/non-detection, cast some spells, a demon/angel/cthulhu comes to help you kill your enemies

Drakevarg
2010-09-01, 02:44 AM
Then all spells are Summon Monster.

With a 90+% fail rate.


Get some invisibility/non-detection, cast some spells, a demon/angel/cthulhu comes to help you kill your enemies

Or your friends. Or random bystanders. Or you, once the invisibility wears off.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for a wizard to work this to their advantage. I'm just saying it requires extreme caution and Steve Irwin-levels of ballsiness.

Alleine
2010-09-01, 04:13 AM
Looks good to me, though I'll admit I'm no genius at game balance, not having DM'd a single game yet.


Making it Censure (Diety's Enemy) would probably be best, just to make everything make sense. Otherwise ripping the ability almost word for word should work. Since the DC is calculated 10 + class level + cha mod, most clerics should be able to keep pace with CR appropriate enemies with minimal investment in charisma.
Actually thinking about it now, it might be a tad overpowered. Ever outsider they meet is likely to have less HD than twice the cleric, assuming the encounter is CR appropriate. On the other hand outsiders do tend to have good will saves. And if outsiders are not especially plentiful then it might be fine for the cleric to be able to banish several of the few they do encounter.

Off topic: Is there any chance of an arcane caster, say, allying himself with this cthulhuesque force? Not exactly an alliance, seeing as it would be with cthulhu, but as close as one could get. Sort of an "I cast spells to let your stuff into this world and I go mostly crazy while supporting your unknowable cause. In return, you let me keep enough of my sanity to function as a useful tool to you." deal. Focusing less on casting spells for the spell itself, but on casting spells so that the things from Beyond can get through and wreak havoc.

Psyx
2010-09-01, 04:33 AM
I didn't say it was invalid. I was just implying that it doesn't sound particularly fair, or fun.

Seems perfectly fair and fun to me. The OP could be the best darn GM on the planet, for all we know, and these rules essential to his utterly awesome campaign arc...

Everyone is always whining about Tier 1 characters dumping all over the game, yet as soon as anyone so much as mentions a houserule nerf to the way that casters work, they get told how 'unfair' it is by people who have never even played in the campaign. Ridiculous.



However, your magic system is nuts. Under that, there's no such thing as effective magic.

You don't know anything more about his magic system than he's written in about ten sentences, so your basis for saying that is pretty non-existent.
So: You use magic carefully in the game world. How many spells did Gandalf cast, exactly? And he was pretty effective.


But I'm not gonna bother you.

But... you clearly just did.

The Glyphstone
2010-09-01, 05:35 AM
So: You use magic carefully in the game world. How many spells did Gandalf cast, exactly? And he was pretty effective.


Gandalf never actually did anything useful with his magic, remember? He just pwned everything by virtue of being a Solar with DvR 0.:smallwink:

Psyx
2010-09-01, 05:46 AM
He had lots of magic. He just didn't use it because of the downside (It would attract attention to where he/the ring was.

The GM basically said at the start of the game: Sure you can play a DR0 Solar with 20th level casting. You just can't blaze away with it. I'm sure that the character found the entire campaign 'not fun' at all because he got nerfed by a house rule...

The Glyphstone
2010-09-01, 06:00 AM
Serves him right for demanding that he get to play a Solar in a low-magic campaign where everyone else was level 5 or lower. Similar thing, any player that wants to be a mage in this world knows what they're getting into beforehand, and doesn't get to earn special treatment or immunity to the setting's rules because of PCdom. It's a relatively low-magic world, more like Conan than Faerun - magic will be rare, because it's so risky and dangerous to dabble in, but those who do so and survive will be very dangerous opponents both for their magical prowess and their simple survivability.

JBento
2010-09-01, 06:23 AM
Funnily enough, and though i tend to play (highly-unoptimised) fighters, with these campaign rules I would most definetly try to play a wizard :smallbiggrin:

Greenish
2010-09-01, 06:39 AM
So: You use magic carefully in the game world. How many spells did Gandalf cast, exactly? And he was pretty effective.In The Hobbit, he cast Arcane Mark (on Bilbo's door), Fire Seeds* (against the worgs they had escaped to a tree from, DM houseruled it to work with pine cones) and Ghost Sound or Ventriloquism (to trick the trolls about to eat Bilbo).

*Or more likely, Produce Flame.

In Lord of the Rings, he used at least Light (in Moria) and Prestidigitation (to light a fire when the wood was too wet for mundane means). He also tried casting Knock on the gates of Moria, but the DM went "lol no". He might've had Mage Armor or Greater Luminous Armor cast a few times too.


So yeah, his full BAB, three good saves and 8 skillpoints per level helped him a great deal more than his minor spellcasting abilitities.

Drakevarg
2010-09-01, 11:02 AM
Off topic: Is there any chance of an arcane caster, say, allying himself with this cthulhuesque force? Not exactly an alliance, seeing as it would be with cthulhu, but as close as one could get. Sort of an "I cast spells to let your stuff into this world and I go mostly crazy while supporting your unknowable cause. In return, you let me keep enough of my sanity to function as a useful tool to you." deal. Focusing less on casting spells for the spell itself, but on casting spells so that the things from Beyond can get through and wreak havoc.

Were any of the summoned entities sapient, it might work. But the ones actually summoned by Rifts are either mindless predators or view the world with Blue and Orange Morality (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality), depending on how you look at it.

@Glyphstone: What about his Flashlight of Nazgul-B-Gone? Just Turn Undead?

Khatoblepas
2010-09-01, 11:44 AM
1- I get the impression CoC is more Victorian-flavored.
2- I don't want to cough up the cash to buy the books.
3- Even if I could find the books online, I wouldn't. I have a strict "no meatspace, no use" rule.

Call of Cthulhu is anything from 1930s Lovecraft Country, to Robert E. Howard's Conan novels. Really.

http://www.chaosium.com/article.php?story_id=87 The quickstart rules are here. 20 pages.

The problem with what you're doing is that you're twisting D&D hard enough to warp it all out of shape. If you want dangerous magic, it's not good to just nerf the classes that use it - the class system just doesn't support that kind of mechanic without making playing the game excessively unfun for anyone who wants to be the magely scholar. Wizards, Clerics etc have NOTHING except their spells. They won't be able to use their 2+Int skills most of the time, they don't have any combat proficiency to help them, and why the hell would this world have the wizard and cleric class if they get punched in the face every time they used it? It seems rather arbitrary and silly.

In a less class and level based system like Call of Cthulhu, you could have ANYONE capable of learning and using magic, but the risk of being attacked is fair here as magic is an addition to their character, rather than being an intrinsic part of it. They risk learning spells, they risk casting them, but they're never useless because they've got other skills, too. You could have the party's fighter be the one that sacrifices a lot to cast the spell that opens up a gate to escape things, or the rogue the one that uses a spell to unlock a door in a haste to get to the cult's sanctum before it's too late. All party members get a taste of your risk, or none at all, depending on how they roll with it. Nobody gets to feel useless, nobody gets nerfed.

Magic as temptation is a good theme, as is dangerous magic, but you're wielding the dangerous part like a cudgel. You can't just hit people in the face with your danger for casting magic spells. Sure, drain their sanity score a bit, have more powerful spells require a sacrifice. The more powerful the spell, the more the players have to debase themselves to cast it. The risk should be apparent, but insideous. What use does it have for the lower planes just to spawn a demon every time someone casts a spell? What possible plan would they have? It just makes people not cast spells. By having the danger more subtle (by making mages who cast a lot of spells have their sanity drained and more easily subverted by otherwordly beings) it means that the fear of magic is still there... but it's obscure and hidden enough for potential mages to get hubristic and think they're on top of their game, when all they're doing is becoming willing pawns for whatever creatures lie beyond the veil.

Drakevarg
2010-09-01, 12:26 PM
http://www.chaosium.com/article.php?story_id=87 The quickstart rules are here. 20 pages.

I'll take a look at it, but until I get a meatspace version, I'm not going to use it.


Wizards, Clerics etc have NOTHING except their spells. They won't be able to use their 2+Int skills most of the time, they don't have any combat proficiency to help them, and why the hell would this world have the wizard and cleric class if they get punched in the face every time they used it? It seems rather arbitrary and silly.

Every time? (1/Spell Level)% of the time. The point is to make magic a gamble, not an outright punishment.


In a less class and level based system like Call of Cthulhu, you could have ANYONE capable of learning and using magic, but the risk of being attacked is fair here as magic is an addition to their character, rather than being an intrinsic part of it. They risk learning spells, they risk casting them, but they're never useless because they've got other skills, too. You could have the party's fighter be the one that sacrifices a lot to cast the spell that opens up a gate to escape things, or the rogue the one that uses a spell to unlock a door in a haste to get to the cult's sanctum before it's too late. All party members get a taste of your risk, or none at all, depending on how they roll with it. Nobody gets to feel useless, nobody gets nerfed.

There's always cross-classing. I don't give XP penalties for doing that.


Magic as temptation is a good theme, as is dangerous magic, but you're wielding the dangerous part like a cudgel. You can't just hit people in the face with your danger for casting magic spells. Sure, drain their sanity score a bit, have more powerful spells require a sacrifice. The more powerful the spell, the more the players have to debase themselves to cast it. The risk should be apparent, but insideous. What use does it have for the lower planes just to spawn a demon every time someone casts a spell? What possible plan would they have? It just makes people not cast spells. By having the danger more subtle (by making mages who cast a lot of spells have their sanity drained and more easily subverted by otherwordly beings) it means that the fear of magic is still there... but it's obscure and hidden enough for potential mages to get hubristic and think they're on top of their game, when all they're doing is becoming willing pawns for whatever creatures lie beyond the veil.

Why do the Riftspawn come? Because arcane magic tampers with the fabric of the universe, and occasionally it tears enough that one of these things come out. They don't want anything, they were simply dumped here unceremoneously and aren't too happy about it.

Why do the Outsiders come? To lend balance to the influence clerics have. They call upon the power of their god, and as payment must face their opposite from time to time.

2xMachina
2010-09-01, 12:56 PM
Hmm, if I play in the campaign, I'd probably try to focus on legging it. Then I'll just spam spells with impunity. Demon? Bye bye going off. The BBEG can go handle it. Seems kinda fun to me.

Greenish
2010-09-01, 01:25 PM
Hmm, if I play in the campaign, I'd probably try to focus on legging it. Then I'll just spam spells with impunity. Demon? Bye bye going off. The BBEG can go handle it. Seems kinda fun to me.Max bluff ranks and infernal proficiency:
*caster casts a spell*
*a demon appears*
caster [in infernal]: "It was her!"
*caster points to BBEG*
:smallbiggrin:

Drakevarg
2010-09-01, 03:57 PM
While BASED on the Knight of the Chalice's Censure Demons ability, I've changed enough aspects to it to actually warrant posting it in full:

Censure Enemy of Faith: When a Cleric uses this ability, any fiends or celestials within 30 ft. must succeed on a Will Save (DC 10 + Cleric's Class Level + Cleric's WIS Modifier) or be censured.
A censured fiend or celestial whose Hit Dice are equal to or greater than twice the Cleric's Class Level is stunned by the Cleric's power for 1 round.
If the censured fiend or celestial has fewer Hit Dice than twice the Cleric's Class Level, it is stunned and must succeed on a second Will Save (same DC) or be sent back to its home plane as if it had been the subject of a dismissal spell.
If the censured fiend or celestial is native to the plane the Cleric is on, it instead flees for 10 rounds. If they cannot flee, they cower (giving any attack rolls towards them a +2 bonus). If the Cleric approaches within 10 ft. of them, however, they overcome being censured and act normally.
Only one fiend or celestial may be dismissed in this way by any single Censure Enemy of Faith attempt; if more than one fiend or celestial is required to make this second Will Save, check for the fiend or celestial with the lowest HD first.
A Cleric may attempt to Censure Enemy of Faith once per day for every two Class Levels they posess.

Clerics of death gods Censure Undead and Fae instead of Fiends and Celestials. Paladins have CHA-based saves instead of WIS-based saves.

This has also been added to the first post.

Greenish
2010-09-01, 04:01 PM
Do PrCs that progressed Turning now progress Censure? Otherwise that's rather hostile for PrCing, and straight cleric with 19 dead levels is a bit annoying.

Drakevarg
2010-09-01, 04:03 PM
Do PrCs that progressed Turning now progress Censure? Otherwise that's rather hostile for PrCing, and straight cleric with 19 dead levels is a bit annoying.

Correct. Feats and other things (like Turn Resistance) now work off of Censuring as well.

The Glyphstone
2010-09-01, 04:19 PM
As it stands, it does look a little weak. Are you opposed to modifying it, maybe by adding a small damage component? 1d6/cleric level or 1d6/2 cleric levels plus a stun, with the Will save for half damage and no stun, could make it a little more than a somewhat-unreliable and situational SoS.

Drakevarg
2010-09-01, 05:01 PM
As it stands, it does look a little weak. Are you opposed to modifying it, maybe by adding a small damage component? 1d6/cleric level or 1d6/2 cleric levels plus a stun, with the Will save for half damage and no stun, could make it a little more than a somewhat-unreliable and situational SoS.

How about this:

If Enemy HD >= (Dunno how to type "greater than or equal to")2x Cleric's Class Level = 1d6/2 Cleric Levels + Stunned 1 Round. Will Save vs. Half Damage and No Stun.

If Enemy HD < 2x Cleric's Class Level = 1d6/2 Cleric Levels + Stunned 1 Round. First Save vs. Half Damage and No Stun. Second Save vs. Dismissal (or Turning if native to plane.)

Sound good?

The Glyphstone
2010-09-01, 05:50 PM
That looks good.

One of the reasons I dislike save-for-nothing effects when making homebrew. For PCs, if a monster saves and ignores their attack, it can feel like they wasted their turn - adding a secondary effect that always happens, even if it's a weak-to-inconsequential bit of damage, goes a long way to bolster the "I'm contributing!" factor. Especially in this case, where it's the cleric's own darn fault that a big nasty outsider has appeared to eat faces, he should at least be able to help get rid of it reliably.

Drakevarg
2010-09-01, 06:23 PM
Updated the first post.