[3.5 Magic System] The Codices of Spellshaping

[DonQuixote]

I was thinking more along the lines of a few formulae with no prerequisites. Weaker, to make up for it, but it gives people access without feeling bad for taking first level maneuvers at 10th/15th level.

It also makes dipping spellshaping more of an option. (As stands, you've made dipping out of spellshaping a decent option, but not dipping into.)

Formula known prerequisites are here, and they're here to stay. Every 2nd- or 3rd-level formula requires that you know at least one other formula from the circle, every 4th- or 5th-level formula requires that you know at least two such formulae, every 6th- or 7th-level formula requires that you know three such formulae, every 8th-level formula requires four formulae, and every 9th-level formula requires five formulae. There will be no exceptions, and no material will allow one to ignore these prerequisites.

As I've said, I'll toy with the idea of letting anchorites replace previously-known formulae with formulae from the new circle of the same level or lower. But they'll still need to meet any prerequisites.

I'm not sure how dipping into spellshaping is less attractive than dipping out. Most classes give you enough formulae known at 1st level to end up with at least one formula of the highest level that you'd be able to shape.

[vasharanpaladin]

I'm still boggling at the idea of an anchorite/darkened one. :smalltongue:

[DonQuixote]

I'm still boggling at the idea of an anchorite/darkened one. :smalltongue:

Embrace the darkness. Darkness eternal!

The darkened one revisions are going to be fun. I haven't decided exactly what I'm doing, but I know it'll be fun.


In unrelated news, apparently The-Mage-King moved The Sentai (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264677), which can sometimes use spellshaping material. In news related to this unrelated news, I apparently don't have a section for "Materials Using Spellshaping" in the main post of this thread. I'll figure that out when I have time.

[zhdarkstar]

In unrelated news, apparently The-Mage-King moved The Sentai (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264677), which can sometimes use spellshaping material. In news related to this unrelated news, I apparently don't have a section for "Materials Using Spellshaping" in the main post of this thread. I'll figure that out when I have time.

Related to your unrelated news, TMK and I are working on a PrC archetype for The Sentai, mixing the Magician's spellshaping with the Prism Ranger's ability to change elements; essentially allowing for a temporary swapping of circles and formulae known. I have run into one little snag in the design for it though. There are multiple Fire/Cold circles but only one circle each for Acid/Shock. This could be an issue in cases where both of the Magician's circles are matched to the element being changed.

My solution is to come up with at least one half-damage circle for Acid and Shock, and possibly some more hybrid circles besides Astral Essence. I've got a couple ideas in mind, but I wanted your advice for thematic design purposes. I don't just want to come up with something that works for my solution. I want to make sure the new circles fit in with any other application of spellshaping. These are the current themes I had in mind for the hybrid circles:

Shock/Untyped = Electromagnetism
Acid/Untyped = Poison or rust
Cold/Shock = Blizzacane (think Sandy)
Fire/Acid = Chemical Burn
Shock/Fire = Plasma Burn
Acid/Shock = Electrolytic conversion (aka D&D battery acid)
Cold/Acid = ???

[chaos_redefined]

I think the current circles need some expanding before you start making new ones...

Also, Don Quixote... Is there any reason why Heighten Formulae is written to not improve the damage of most first level formulae? I haven't noticed any higher level formulae that use a spellshape with no extra damage, so only first level formulae remain unaffected by the clause. (There may be some I missed)

[zhdarkstar]

I think the current circles need some expanding before you start making new ones...

Trust me when I say this. The design issue I ran into while building the PrC is going to require new circles to overcome it. Regardless of whether or not I create them or someone else does, I'm going to need at least the first two I listed (the half-untyped hybrids) as a minimum solution. I've been cross-checking what I'm designing against what currently exists (original format and revised) to make sure I'm not stepping on toes.

I appreciate your honesty in the matter. However, I'm still going to move forward with it as I'm going to need these in a couple months. I came here mostly to get thematic advice to make sure the concept for each new circle makes sense within the realm of spellshaping.

EX1: The Electromagnetism themed circle would be half-shock/half-untyped in terms of damage and have bonus effects against metallic objects, like stun, knockback, disarm, to name a few I had in mind. It would be exceedingly effective against a paladin or other heavily armored targets. On the flip side, it would have no added benefit if used against a druid or monsters bearing no metal.

EX2: For half-acid/half-untyped, I'm now leaning in the direction of a Rot theme of sorts. Its bonus effects would be against organic matter, functionally opposite of Electromagnetism in terms of what it does and doesn't affect. Druids, unarmored, and natural armor are the ideal targets, and those with metal armor would be resistant.

[chaos_redefined]

By the sounds of it, they could be combined with the already existing electricity and acid circles, respectively.

Also, it may just be my playgroup, but I can't remember the last time I saw a heavily armored opponent, other than the occasional construct. A lot of the time, enemies are chosen from the monster manuals. I don't know how common that is. But it makes electromag kinda useless.

[The-Mage-King]

Shock/Untyped = Electromagnetism
Acid/Untyped = Poison or rust
Cold/Shock = Blizzacane (think Sandy)
Fire/Acid = Chemical Burn
Shock/Fire = Plasma Burn
Acid/Shock = Electrolytic conversion (aka D&D battery acid)
Cold/Acid = ???

For that, I'd suggest more of a Storm theme. Just the lighting part. Perhaps initial electric damage, plus fire damage in later turns for formulae?

[DonQuixote]

Incidentally, MinMax is back up. I'm not going to change the first post quite yet, in case it goes down again, but--for those of you who prefer using the material online--the links are all good again.

zhdarkstar:

Related to your unrelated news, TMK and I are working on a PrC archetype for The Sentai, mixing the Magician's spellshaping with the Prism Ranger's ability to change elements; essentially allowing for a temporary swapping of circles and formulae known. I have run into one little snag in the design for it though. There are multiple Fire/Cold circles but only one circle each for Acid/Shock. This could be an issue in cases where both of the Magician's circles are matched to the element being changed.

My solution is to come up with at least one half-damage circle for Acid and Shock, and possibly some more hybrid circles besides Astral Essence. I've got a couple ideas in mind, but I wanted your advice for thematic design purposes. I don't just want to come up with something that works for my solution. I want to make sure the new circles fit in with any other application of spellshaping. These are the current themes I had in mind for the hybrid circles:

Shock/Untyped = Electromagnetism
Acid/Untyped = Poison or rust
Cold/Shock = Blizzacane (think Sandy)
Fire/Acid = Chemical Burn
Shock/Fire = Plasma Burn
Acid/Shock = Electrolytic conversion (aka D&D battery acid)
Cold/Acid = ???


Trust me when I say this. The design issue I ran into while building the PrC is going to require new circles to overcome it. Regardless of whether or not I create them or someone else does, I'm going to need at least the first two I listed (the half-untyped hybrids) as a minimum solution. I've been cross-checking what I'm designing against what currently exists (original format and revised) to make sure I'm not stepping on toes.

I appreciate your honesty in the matter. However, I'm still going to move forward with it as I'm going to need these in a couple months. I came here mostly to get thematic advice to make sure the concept for each new circle makes sense within the realm of spellshaping.

EX1: The Electromagnetism themed circle would be half-shock/half-untyped in terms of damage and have bonus effects against metallic objects, like stun, knockback, disarm, to name a few I had in mind. It would be exceedingly effective against a paladin or other heavily armored targets. On the flip side, it would have no added benefit if used against a druid or monsters bearing no metal.

EX2: For half-acid/half-untyped, I'm now leaning in the direction of a Rot theme of sorts. Its bonus effects would be against organic matter, functionally opposite of Electromagnetism in terms of what it does and doesn't affect. Druids, unarmored, and natural armor are the ideal targets, and those with metal armor would be resistant.

Well, the first thing to bear in mind is that the "hybrid" circles aren't actually conceived of as such. The only half-damage circle that is at all related to its damage type is Brilliant Dawn, since Bauglir pointed out at some point that fire gives off light. For the most part, though, the half-damage circles came about because I ran out of damage types. Glimmering Moon, for instance, is entirely unrelated to Perfect Freeze. Astral Essence ended up being fire/cold because I put stars conceptually between the sun and the moon, and it tidied things up. The official stance is that these circles are no more related to the "pure" damage circles than they are to any other circle.

I honestly don't know what to tell you in terms of thematic advice. I tend towards conceptual simplicity as much as possible, so there's that. I also wouldn't lean too heavily on the damage type for the theme--Glimmering Moon deals cold damage, yet I cannot say I associate low temperatures with insanity. I generally reach for generic fantasy settings with circles, so things that rely on specific levels of scientific knowledge don't tend to get in.

The major piece of advice I'd offer is that a circle should know what it is and it does, not just what sort of damage it deals. In addition to actual formulae, a circle has a buffing aura and three out-of-combat spell-like abilities, roughly as powerful as 1st-, 4th-, and 6th-level spells. Make sure you have conceptual space for these. Formulae seem like the easy part, until you realize that you need exactly twenty-one combat effects, hopefully balanced against the formulae of the other circles, that don't directly duplicate any existing formula.

Again, though, half-damage is something I only resorted to because I ran out of damage types. Circle creation is driven by a combination of both conceptual and mechanical space. One is not enough. For example, there was conceptual space for a shapeshifting circle, but it ended up being a mechanical nightmare due to the structure of spellshaping. You seem to have definite mechanical space you want to fill--the damage types--but I'm not seeing the conceptual holes you're going for.

I will note that electromagnetism effects are a part of Shocking Current, poison effects are a part of Devouring Shadow and Natural Balance, and rust effects are a part of Deteriorating Corrosion. Of those, only Natural Balance has been revised thus far. Reaching for effects that are related to a damage type is probably going to end up giving you ideas that fit into that damage type's primary circle, since that's what I do. Instead, look for concepts that you can then--somewhat arbitrarily--connect to damage types. Acid/Fire, for instance, could be a demonic circle, with Electricity/Fire as angelic. (Note that I tend to avoid alignment-specific circles. These are just examples.)



chaos_redefined:

I think the current circles need some expanding before you start making new ones...

Also, Don Quixote... Is there any reason why Heighten Formulae is written to not improve the damage of most first level formulae? I haven't noticed any higher level formulae that use a spellshape with no extra damage, so only first level formulae remain unaffected by the clause. (There may be some I missed)

Well, I have absolutely no plans to expand circles, though I do plan to continue my revisions when I adjust to my new schedule. The rule is one numen, three incantations, and twenty-one formulae. With sixteen circles, that's sixteen numena, forty-eight incantations, and three hundred thirty-six formulae. I think that's enough support, all things considered.

The Heighten Formula issue is, however, an oversight. It used to be that 1st-level formulae all added a single die of damage, but that ended up making 1st-level spellshapers much more powerful than other 1st-level characters, so that damage was removed. It shall be fixed!

[zhdarkstar]

Thanks for the input. I think I have a better idea of what directions to take. Three of them I'll do as different disciplines for arcane scientists.

The reason I went with Plasma Burn for Fire/Shock is because of the two ways gas is converted into plasma: high heat and high voltage. Fluff basis of the spellshape attack would be conjuring a ball of reactive gas and then administering both heat and electricity to the gas, creating an energy release in reaction. The ball would contained by a thin magical barrier and acts like a splash weapon. Formulae would give it an expandable blast radius, for example.

Another arcane scientist themed circle would be the Acid/Shock. Spellshape attack would be two conjured jets of chemical compounds that release electrical energy when they combine on contact with the target. One idea for a formula would be a one-round buff to an ally's melee weapon that runs the risk of the chemicals hurting your ally if they miss with their attack.

The third arcane scientist is Acid/Fire. Same idea as Acid/Shock but the chemicals combust instead of creating a shock. Formula can change it from a jet into a grenadelike weapon. I was also thinking of having the Acid/Fire be a touch attack against organic material and a regular ranged attack against metallic objects. The opposite would apply to the Acid/Shock.

[chaos_redefined]

My main issue in terms of needing to expand is at first level, where you are typically presented with more formulae than you have circle access, so you are typically choosing 2 of the 3 formulae for a given circle. Furthermore, the minor formulae usually affect the major formulae, so if you have 2 minor and a major, then you are definitely picking that major, making at least one option locked in place. Alternatively, you could venture out to other circles, but then you are only learning one formulae from them, meaning you probably can't use their minor formulae.

The two solutions to this would be to add more formulae or to make minor formulae that don't require the spellshape to work. For example, fleeting image could get a formulae along the lines of this:


Illusionary Copy
Fleeting Image (Minor)
Level: Spellshaper 1
Shaping Time: 1 swift action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 round
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
An illusionary copy of yourself appears, confusing your opponents. Whenever an attack is made against you, it has a 50% chance of affecting your illusionary copy instead. If it does, and the attack hits, the illusion disappears, ending the effect. The copy has the same AC as you.


A few formulae like that allow a first level spellshaper to take options outside of his chosen circles if he is able to, and just have a few low-level formulae that he isn't glued into. (Feel free to use that idea, it's the same basic idea as the illusion power from PHB2's wizard alternate class features).

[DonQuixote]

Thanks for the input. I think I have a better idea of what directions to take. Three of them I'll do as different disciplines for arcane scientists.

The reason I went with Plasma Burn for Fire/Shock is because of the two ways gas is converted into plasma: high heat and high voltage. Fluff basis of the spellshape attack would be conjuring a ball of reactive gas and then administering both heat and electricity to the gas, creating an energy release in reaction. The ball would contained by a thin magical barrier and acts like a splash weapon. Formulae would give it an expandable blast radius, for example.

Another arcane scientist themed circle would be the Acid/Shock. Spellshape attack would be two conjured jets of chemical compounds that release electrical energy when they combine on contact with the target. One idea for a formula would be a one-round buff to an ally's melee weapon that runs the risk of the chemicals hurting your ally if they miss with their attack.

The third arcane scientist is Acid/Fire. Same idea as Acid/Shock but the chemicals combust instead of creating a shock. Formula can change it from a jet into a grenadelike weapon. I was also thinking of having the Acid/Fire be a touch attack against organic material and a regular ranged attack against metallic objects. The opposite would apply to the Acid/Shock.

Well, as I said, "science" isn't exactly within the core spellshaping fluff, so I wouldn't really consider them to fit within general spellshaping.

That said, neither does sentai, so do what you want.

---


My main issue in terms of needing to expand is at first level, where you are typically presented with more formulae than you have circle access, so you are typically choosing 2 of the 3 formulae for a given circle. Furthermore, the minor formulae usually affect the major formulae, so if you have 2 minor and a major, then you are definitely picking that major, making at least one option locked in place. Alternatively, you could venture out to other circles, but then you are only learning one formulae from them, meaning you probably can't use their minor formulae.

Anchorite: Three formulae known, two circles
Elemental adept: Six formulae known, four circles
Impulse mage: Six formulae known, five circles
Savant: Six formulae known, four circles
Spellsage: Six formulae known, seven circles
Spellshape champion: Three formulae known, three circles

Only the elemental adept and the savant will need to have two or more formulae from more than one of their chosen circles. Anchorite and impulse mage only need to double up once. Spellsage and spellshape champion can choose to start with only one formula per circle.


The two solutions to this would be to add more formulae or to make minor formulae that don't require the spellshape to work. For example, fleeting image could get a formulae along the lines of this:


A few formulae like that allow a first level spellshaper to take options outside of his chosen circles if he is able to, and just have a few low-level formulae that he isn't glued into. (Feel free to use that idea, it's the same basic idea as the illusion power from PHB2's wizard alternate class features).

What about the rule that you must know a circle's spellshape attack in order to learn formulae from that circle (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=848.msg5254#msg5254)? A rule that I very intentionally included and will not be changing, I'll point out.

A 1st-level spellshaper already has a lot of customization potential, far more than a lot of classes. Even if you had to take every 1st-level formula from your chosen circles, without any choice between them, you're still choosing a combination of three to seven circles from sixteen options.

[DonQuixote]

Roaring Tide (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=870.0) has been revised. Please inform me of every mistake that was made in the process of the revision.


Many formulae have been renamed
Surging jet now deals bludgeoning damage
Water Pulse detached from surging jet
Billowing Fog detached from surging jet
Rainstorm replaced with Refresh
Siphon Life's Water replaced with Fluid Barrier
Tidal Burst transformed into Roaring Geyser
Drain Fluids replaced with Tidal Ebb
Fist of the Geyser replaced with Binding Currents

MinMax is also back up, so I've updated the first post with links and the link. Keeping the .docx available, just in case people like it. I haven't ported Roaring Tide in yet, but I'll get on that shortly.

Also, we're now at eight of sixteen circles revised. Hopefully, it'll take less than a month for the next one--Crushing Stone, if you're wondering. Either way, we're halfway through the circles!

[vasharanpaladin]

Finally got some feedback for you! Our dragonheart adept's not doing too hot in "Essence of Evil," but he kinda ignored my warnings about aligned damage, so I'mma say that's his fault (I ruled for transparency, so he ended up creating a few black cysts).

Anyway, I haven't checked on this yet, but the totem aura ability of the dragonheart adept, at least when we checked it during chargen, referred to "spellshape aura," which the anchorite no longer has? We're assuming it's switched to the numen at the moment...

[DonQuixote]

Yeah, I haven't done the revision pass on the non-standard base classes. Anything that refers to spellshape auras refers to numena--part of the reason that I made the change is that so many non-anchorite things used the auras that it was silly to pretend that it was the anchorite's thing.

[DonQuixote]

Also, Don Quixote... Is there any reason why Heighten Formulae is written to not improve the damage of most first level formulae? I haven't noticed any higher level formulae that use a spellshape with no extra damage, so only first level formulae remain unaffected by the clause. (There may be some I missed)

This has now been fixed. The relevant sentence has been replaced with: "In addition, a major formula that modifies a spellshape attack adds an extra two dice of damage to the spellshape attack for each level by which you heighten the formula."


As I've said, I'll toy with the idea of letting anchorites replace previously-known formulae with formulae from the new circle of the same level or lower. But they'll still need to meet any prerequisites.

Apparently, anchorites could actually already do this and nobody told me. "Whenever you gain a new chosen circle, you may choose to learn up to two new formulae from that circle in place of ones you already know, losing the old formulae in exchange for the new ones." Doesn't even specify "same level or lower," so...yeah.

[chaos_redefined]

I've found what my problem was with options at first level. Some of the options really suck in comparison to others. For example, while most major formulae are "spellshape with first level spell tacked on", there are these random formulae that are actually "spellshape with cantrip tacked on"... and in comparison, cantrips are pretty weak in comparison to first level spells.

This includes pretty much any first level formulae which gives a straight penalty to strength or attacks. Most of them are comparable to the cantrip Touch of Fatigue. (Sure, Touch of Fatigue is a touch spell, but the effect is still a cantrip effect). These aren't options. This is made worse for Roaring Tide, who gets a cantrip effect and a really situational effect that a lot of players won't see (I don't see enemies wearing armor all that often), so players choosing Roaring Tide only have one useful option. These options need to be made stronger. (Admittedly, roaring tide's strength penalty effect lasts for 2 rounds instead of 1, but it only covers strength, while other ones affect dex as well)

While I may just be being picky, I do note that when I look at Devouring Shadow, I can make the enemy frightened, but Fleeting Image makes them fatigued for a round, both with the same circumstances (mind-affecting, will save), I kinda feel that one of those got jipped.

[DonQuixote]

The thing is that you're doing this in addition to damage. Given that 1d6 points of damage is the most you're doing with a 1st-level spell at 1st-level...you're already getting decent mileage. The 1st-level options are...well, they're for 1st level. You know, that level where everyone is at their weakest and least interesting.

My design philosophy places 1st level at the lowest priority. That's where you start, you're only there for one level, and it's never seen as a goal to be reached. Indeed, a decent number of games begin at higher levels, meaning that 1st-level options become completely superfluous.

It's also worth noting that only half of the circles have currently been revised. That Devouring Shadow formula is actually one of the ones that's going to be getting the axe. So, grain of salt and all that.

Out of curiosity, which 1st-level formulae would you consider equivalent to "attack plus 1st-level spell" and which would you consider equivalent to "attack plus cantrip"?

[chaos_redefined]

Some of these are just measuring power level, not actually looking for cantrips that are comparable. So, take with a grain of salt. Unless stated, most of these aren't top-tier first level spells. They are still usable, but they are outclassed by ray of enfeeblement, ray of clumsiness, net of shadows, etc...

Flattening Gust - Currently a cantrip, but only because the bonus is so low. Use the spellshaper's shaping stat and it goes to being equivalent to a first level spell.
Windlock - It's two cantrips combined. The penalty on attacks and reflex saves seems like a cantrip, and the lowered speed is about there as well. Plus damage, of course. I don't think the two cantrips together amount to a first level spell, but they are stronger than a cantrip. Level 0.5?
Illuminating Blast - First level spell (faerie fire) + attack
Stonefall - First level spell + attack (but there are stronger first level spells)
Armor-eating Acid - First level spell + attack.
Hand of Clinging Shadow - Weakened first level spell. Single-target net of shadows.
Vitality Drain - First level spell. Cure Light Wounds.
Moonlight Blast - Situational first level spell? Really situational.
Shadow of the new moon - Bonus first level spell. It's essentially a second ranged touch attack 1d6 damage.
Wild Growth - Entangle. Very solid first level spell.
Brain Freeze - Against a solo enemy, this is actually stronger than a 3rd level maneuver (white raven tactics), if you set the initiatives up right and they fail the save. Against multiple enemies... it gets messy. I'd say first is reasonable.
Ice Glaze - Grease. Very solid first level spell.
Patina of Rust - Situational first level spell, amped up. Problem is situational.
Ignite - First level blast.
Smoke Cloud - Second level spell... except there's an additional save (and the ranged touch attack). So, solid first level spell. You could put it at second level if you removed the reflex save to negate.
Jolting Lightning - Weak first level spell. Didn't even realize it existed till I was playing pathfinder though.
Manipulate Weapon - First level spell.
Vision of Failure - Strong cantrip (due to duration)
Deceleration - I'm going with strong cantrip, but an argument could be made for weak first level spell.
Dotage - Cantrip
Warp Words - First level, situational. The situation appears more often at higher levels, in my experience.
Phantom Fatigue - Cantrip.

I've only included major formulae that include a spellshape attack. There are plenty of minor formulae that modify a spellshape for this turn, but you asked for major and I'm lazy and supposed to be working.

In my opinion, power-wise, the following formulae are spot on: Illuminating Blast (faerie fire), stonefall (prone), armor-eating acid (-4 AC for a round), hand of clinging shadow (20% miss chance), vitality drain (cure light wounds), shadow of the new moon (second attack), ignite (set them on fire) and manipulate weapon (backbiter). These are all first level spells that don't see a lot of play, typically because another first level spell does the same job and better, or has another use. The exception being Vitality Drain, but if this is replacing spellcasting, you need some healing ability.

Ice Glaze and Wild Growth replicate powerful first level spells that wizards and druids memorize regularly, respectively.

Flatting Gust, Windlock, Jolting Lightning, Vision of Failure, Deceleration, Dotage and Phantom Fatigue need a power-up.

Moonlight blast, Patina of Rust and Warp Words are tricky: They are either really really powerful, or really really underpowered, depending on the circumstances.

I'm unsure on Brain Freeze and Smoking Cloud, and would have to see them in play before I could comment further.

[DonQuixote]

I think part of the problem is that we're approaching the power level issue from different angles. I see a standard action to deal 1d8 damage and impose a -2 penalty to Strength for two rounds as a valid decision at 1st level.

To give you an idea of my approach, the following 1st-level major formulae were already on my chopping block:
Animated Stone
Terrorize
Light of the Moon
Moonlight Blast
Shadow of the New Moon
Rumbling Thunder
Manipulate Weapon

I'm honestly much more likely to replace Ice Glaze and Wild Growth with weaker effects than I am to push other things up. Situational effects are fine with me: again, at 1st level, characters haven't really come into their own. Just so long as the situational nature falls off after 5th level or so, it's all kosher.

I don't really see any serious power level concerns at 1st level. There are some choices that are better than others, yes. That is always going to be true. Unless I make all formulae distressingly similar in effect, there are always going to be some strictly better options. So long as there's nothing that blows everything else out of the water--and not just at 1st level, but at higher levels as well--I'm having a hard time seeing a dire need for reform at 1st level. Sure, you can min/max for 1st level...but doing so locks you into certain circle selections, and I hope you're still happy with those at 5th level. If you are, more power to you, but 1st level really is the most unimportant span of the game to me.

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

To clear up one minor point:


if this is replacing spellcasting

Spellshaping isn't meant to replace spellcasting. Some people have talked about using it for that purpose, and I wish them all the best, but I'm not so naïve as to think that the subsystem can support every spellcaster trope that people might want to play. You can't actually play a necromancer, for instance. No way to create undead minions. Thus, in every setting I've run since first drafting a codex, spellshaping has existed alongside spellcasting.

Balance-wise, spellshaping is intended to be much closer to the Tome of Battle than, say, sorcerer or wizard casting. In the original draft, something like half the formulae were re-skinned maneuvers. Some of those still exist. There are also formulae that are re-skinned spells. In those cases, I've tried very hard to avoid grabbing any of the ridiculously powerful spells--a task made significantly more difficult by the fact that I've never actually played a spellcaster and have no idea how to do so. Spell slots scared me from the very beginning, and I wanted nothing to do with them...so much so that the solution became "write new magic." A decision, incidentally, that my roommate would later arrive at herself (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?board=136.0). (Go on, click it. You know you want to.)

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

Apologies if any of this makes me come across as arrogant or mean-spirited. I have a lot of non-homebrew--and therefore non-fun--work on my plate at the moment, and precisely calibrating half of the 1st-level effects is...not terribly inviting at the moment. Especially given that I still have half of the circles left to revise, followed by the prestige classes, followed by writing monsters, followed by the appendices. (Followed by a possible Kickstarter campaign for commissioning art? Who can tell!)

I do appreciate the amount of thought you're putting into this, but I'm not seeing what makes 1st level so valuable. In fact, only the first campaign I played in actually started at 1st level. Admittedly, I've only been playing D&D for two and a half years--having spent all but the first four months working on spellshaping--but it does seem to be a trend to start somewhere between 3rd level and 5th level.

I'm also incredibly sleepy at the moment, with a lot of reading to do before the morning, so there's also that. It just feels like, at a certain level, you might


just be being picky

I can still give some of them a look over the course of the revision, but it's going to be much lower priority than fixing the things that are actually broken or don't fit the template.

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

Ramble ramble ramble.

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

Sections are fun.

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

...maybe I should start those readings.

[chaos_redefined]

OK... Several things.

First, your first level formulae stick with you until 4th, minimum. All spellshaping classes don't have enough formulae of higher levels to completely avoid first level ones until 5th or higher. So, while it is true that a lot of campaigns start at levels higher than first, how many start at 3rd? Even at 5th level, a savant still has a couple of readied first level formulae, simply because he doesn't know enough higher level ones. And for the ones I labelled as a good level of power, it's better to use those instead of spending an action refreshing. Especially with your upgrade to heighten formulae.

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

Second off, there is a huge discrepency between the powers. Not to the point of "sure, some things are better than others", but to the point of "I feel bad taking some of these, knowing better options were available". A -2 penalty to strength for 2 rounds on a failed save is a lot worse than, say, armor-eating acid, which gives a -4 penalty to AC, no save, for one round. Even if the save was on the acid rather than the strength penalty, it's still better to hit with the -4 to AC, just because the effect is so much more noteworthy. (And it appears you've taken Armor-Eating Acid from the White Raven maneuver, Leading the Charge, so the acid should be pretty well balanced.)

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

Third, at first level, a warblade can use Sapphire Nightmare Blade to deal an extra d6 of damage... which you seem to believe is too powerful (indicated by removing shadow of the new moon). Similarly, a warblade can use Wolf Fang Strike or Steel Wind to get two attacks. Or Leading the Attack to give his allies +4 to hit. A wizard at this level can cast sleep or color spray, effectively save or dies. He can cast grease, knocking multiple enemies prone and leaving them flat-footed. A rogue is hitting for 2d6 per hit, and possibly dual-wielding.

At first level, the people who are dealing damage are doing enough to down level-appropriate creatures. The people who aren't are seriously aiding in that attempt, or are plain removing them from combat. 1d8 and a -2 penalty to strength is underpowered, drastically, compared to what the rest of the table is doing. At a level when PC's hit points <= enemy crit damage most of the time, you want to kill them fast enough so that they can't crit anyone.

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

Regarding Ice Glaze and Wild Growth: I mustn't have been clear, I thought ice glaze and wild growth were too strong, and could use a power-down. The powers I listed as "just right" were the ones I thought should stay as they are. The ones that I listed as just weak (which were all cantrip effects) could use the power-up. Those two were the ones that needed weakening. We disagreed on some of the ones that didn't need anything (you've given 2 of my list the axe). But yeah.

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

Also, considering your concerns for workload, I am willing to help out on this. You've already listed 7 formulae that you wish to replace, so, I'm happy to help find suitable effects for those formulae, and I'm willing to suggest some replacements/alterations for the powers I've said could use some weakening/strengthening. It's your system, of course, so it's up to you whether you use any stuff I write, but the offer is there.

And I apologize if I have come off aggressive or mean-spirited. This looks like a really good system, and I wish to be able to use it in future campaigns. The first step is ensuring that everything is reasonable. As stands, the power discrepency at first level is the main thing standing out to me as unreasonable.

[Regalus]

Hello DonQuixote, I have a question; if you take the Spellshape attack feat are you able to learn formulas from that spellshape attack's circle via normal Formula Known progression.

I.e. If I'm playing an Air focused elemental adept and decide to pick up Sonorous Pulse; would I be able to learn Screeching Roc formula via level up, or would I have expend feats on Formula Study to get any formulas for Sonorous Pulse? That said, when I decide to replace an old formula with a newer one can I replace it with one from Screeching Roc?

[DonQuixote]

First, your first level formulae stick with you until 4th, minimum. All spellshaping classes don't have enough formulae of higher levels to completely avoid first level ones until 5th or higher. So, while it is true that a lot of campaigns start at levels higher than first, how many start at 3rd? Even at 5th level, a savant still has a couple of readied first level formulae, simply because he doesn't know enough higher level ones. And for the ones I labelled as a good level of power, it's better to use those instead of spending an action refreshing. Especially with your upgrade to heighten formulae.


Second off, there is a huge discrepency between the powers. Not to the point of "sure, some things are better than others", but to the point of "I feel bad taking some of these, knowing better options were available". A -2 penalty to strength for 2 rounds on a failed save is a lot worse than, say, armor-eating acid, which gives a -4 penalty to AC, no save, for one round. Even if the save was on the acid rather than the strength penalty, it's still better to hit with the -4 to AC, just because the effect is so much more noteworthy. (And it appears you've taken Armor-Eating Acid from the White Raven maneuver, Leading the Charge, so the acid should be pretty well balanced.)

Well, if it is really that important, I'll do another revision pass on the 1st-level formulae after I finish revising the prestige classes. Just 1st-level formulae, making sure everything lines up. I really want to get the rest of the circles their first revision pass, though, and prestige class tweaking is a lot more relaxing for me, so it will be a nice break before I put my nose back to

It is worth pointing out, though, that I have no idea exactly what my balance point will end up being. While Ice Glaze and Wild Growth will probably have to find new jobs, whether the other formulae will be buffed or nerfed is anyone's guess. (By "anyone's guess," of course, we mean "whichever option involves Searing Flame coming out ahead." What. Don't give me that look. Stop judging me!)


Third, at first level, a warblade can use Sapphire Nightmare Blade to deal an extra d6 of damage... which you seem to believe is too powerful (indicated by removing shadow of the new moon).

Shadow of the New Moon is being removed for synergy and structure concerns, not balance issues. I don't like the way that it functions: it's just too different from other formulae. It's one of those things that makes a lot of a sense as a maneuver--"Hoh, from which direction am I attacking? You do not know! The shadow knows!"--but less sense as a formula--"Hoh, I am blasting you with moonlight! Feel arbitrarily colder depending on how accurate I am!"


A wizard at this level can cast sleep or color spray, effectively save or dies. He can cast grease, knocking multiple enemies prone and leaving them flat-footed.

Spellshapers are supposed to be weaker than spellcasters. Something like sleep or color spray is not showing up in the low-level register. Note the lack of true save-or-dies at any level. And the grease analogue may well be removed in the 1st-level revision.

To give you an idea of where spellshaping is situated in my head, it's supposed to be much more on the Evocation side of things. (Damned Conjuration, coming over here and taking our jobs.)


At first level, the people who are dealing damage are doing enough to down level-appropriate creatures. The people who aren't are seriously aiding in that attempt, or are plain removing them from combat. 1d8 and a -2 penalty to strength is underpowered, drastically, compared to what the rest of the table is doing. At a level when PC's hit points <= enemy crit damage most of the time, you want to kill them fast enough so that they can't crit anyone.

I've never seen warlocks underperforming at our table. They seem pretty competitive, all told. Granted, we're a pretty low-op table. On the other hand, I'm pitching a low-op product.


Regarding Ice Glaze and Wild Growth: I mustn't have been clear, I thought ice glaze and wild growth were too strong, and could use a power-down. The powers I listed as "just right" were the ones I thought should stay as they are. The ones that I listed as just weak (which were all cantrip effects) could use the power-up. Those two were the ones that needed weakening. We disagreed on some of the ones that didn't need anything (you've given 2 of my list the axe). But yeah.

Right, I was saying that I could out-and-out axe those two formulae, then weaken the others. I'm no longer certain whether or not that would be the case.


Also, considering your concerns for workload, I am willing to help out on this. You've already listed 7 formulae that you wish to replace, so, I'm happy to help find suitable effects for those formulae, and I'm willing to suggest some replacements/alterations for the powers I've said could use some weakening/strengthening. It's your system, of course, so it's up to you whether you use any stuff I write, but the offer is there.

Ehh...well, the best way to put this is that I'm neurotic and possessive. Incredibly so. I really want as much of the process to remain in-house as possible, especially given how eclectic my work time is at the moment. Being master of my domain means that I don't have to worry about coordinating with other people or disappointing them by not getting back to them on time. It also lets me throw the schedule for loops and so on.

Really, feedback of the sort that you've given is already plenty helpful. Drawing my attention to issues (and putting up with my slothful attitude towards actually changing things) lets me know what needs to be done. And that means that I can make the system better, which is pretty rewarding for everyone involved.


And I apologize if I have come off aggressive or mean-spirited. This looks like a really good system, and I wish to be able to use it in future campaigns. The first step is ensuring that everything is reasonable. As stands, the power discrepency at first level is the main thing standing out to me as unreasonable.

Oh, no, I didn't think you were being odious in the slightest! I just have a crippling fear of coming off as brusque and ill-tempered, and want to make sure that people don't feel like their feedback isn't welcome. I'm glad to see that you're so interested and invested in the material, and pleased that this is the only point that sticks out as unreasonable.

-----


Hello DonQuixote, I have a question; if you take the Spellshape attack feat are you able to learn formulas from that spellshape attack's circle via normal Formula Known progression.

I.e. If I'm playing an Air focused elemental adept and decide to pick up Sonorous Pulse; would I be able to learn Screeching Roc formula via level up, or would I have expend feats on Formula Study to get any formulas for Sonorous Pulse? That said, when I decide to replace an old formula with a newer one can I replace it with one from Screeching Roc?

No. Spellshape Study only lets you learn the spellshape attack, it doesn't grant you access to the circle. This can be useful for qualifying for prestige classes--some of which require a certain number of spellshape attacks or suchlike--but doesn't let you learn formulae from other circles from your class levels. You can, however, use the Formula Study feat to learn formulae from any circle, regardless of class access, so long as you know the relevant spellshape attack.

[chaos_redefined]

Well, if it is really that important, I'll do another revision pass on the 1st-level formulae after I finish revising the prestige classes. Just 1st-level formulae, making sure everything lines up. I really want to get the rest of the circles their first revision pass, though, and prestige class tweaking is a lot more relaxing for me, so it will be a nice break before I put my nose back to

That's fine.


It is worth pointing out, though, that I have no idea exactly what my balance point will end up being. While Ice Glaze and Wild Growth will probably have to find new jobs, whether the other formulae will be buffed or nerfed is anyone's guess. (By "anyone's guess," of course, we mean "whichever option involves Searing Flame coming out ahead." What. Don't give me that look. Stop judging me!)

Smoking Flames => Normal blast and fort vs being sickened. (They cough on the flames)
Lingering Flames => Normal blast + faerie fire or -4 penalty to AC. (The flames give your allies an idea of where to attack)

Most of your effects can be shuffled around a bit and still make sense flavour-wise. If you really want Searing Flame to look good, find a couple of the other effects from other circles that you feel are definitely pulling their weight, and carry them over.


Shadow of the New Moon is being removed for synergy and structure concerns, not balance issues. I don't like the way that it functions: it's just too different from other formulae. It's one of those things that makes a lot of a sense as a maneuver--"Hoh, from which direction am I attacking? You do not know! The shadow knows!"--but less sense as a formula--"Hoh, I am blasting you with moonlight! Feel arbitrarily colder depending on how accurate I am!"

Shadow of the New Moon: Make two Moonflare attacks. If the first hits, it deals no fire damage (still half cold damage). If the second hits, it deals no cold damage (still half fire damage).

That cover what you're after? (Also makes a great delivery for your minor formulae)


Spellshapers are supposed to be weaker than spellcasters. Something like sleep or color spray is not showing up in the low-level register. Note the lack of true save-or-dies at any level. And the grease analogue may well be removed in the 1st-level revision.

While there aren't save or dies, I find being dazed for several rounds to be similar :D. In any case, that's why I included warblade first. A greatsword-weilding warblade at first level using punisher's stance and steel wind, flat out kills any two CR1 creatures.


To give you an idea of where spellshaping is situated in my head, it's supposed to be much more on the Evocation side of things. (Damned Conjuration, coming over here and taking our jobs.)

I did notice that the damage was stacking up. I just wrote up a boss as a level 7 character, who could deal a hell of a lot of damage on her most damaging attack. (Mind you, that attack was Degenerative Necrosis, heightened to 4th level. I find that with the way heighten works, low-level powers end up being quite effective sources of damage.)


I've never seen warlocks underperforming at our table. They seem pretty competitive, all told. Granted, we're a pretty low-op table. On the other hand, I'm pitching a low-op product.

My table had someone play a warlock. I felt bad with the damage I was dishing out as a swordsage. He got to do it from across the room, but it wasn't enough to be relevant. In any case, they get to sicken people. That's like half a "Leading the Charge" with the other half being turned into a penalty for the target to attack. And the bonus for everyone attacking him also applying to casting spells on him. Plus something about skill checks being lowered. It even lasts a minute. It really pulls its weight when you stop and think about it.


Right, I was saying that I could out-and-out axe those two formulae, then weaken the others. I'm no longer certain whether or not that would be the case.

While axing might not be the only solution, I wouldn't bat an eyelid if you decided to cut entangle+damage and grease+damage. You could probably replace them with making the area difficult terrain, no save vs entangle, no "make them fall down" effect.


Ehh...well, the best way to put this is that I'm neurotic and possessive. Incredibly so. I really want as much of the process to remain in-house as possible, especially given how eclectic my work time is at the moment. Being master of my domain means that I don't have to worry about coordinating with other people or disappointing them by not getting back to them on time. It also lets me throw the schedule for loops and so on.

Really, feedback of the sort that you've given is already plenty helpful. Drawing my attention to issues (and putting up with my slothful attitude towards actually changing things) lets me know what needs to be done. And that means that I can make the system better, which is pretty rewarding for everyone involved.

Sure. I was offering to write up some formulae to fill gaps. Considering you are reviewing 16 circles, each with 21 formulae (336 formulae total), I could definitely see some cause for concern. Getting back to me, using them, or even reading them is optional, although appreciated. (Reading them would only be optional if you reconsidered the formulae that you originally ditched...)


Oh, no, I didn't think you were being odious in the slightest! I just have a crippling fear of coming off as brusque and ill-tempered, and want to make sure that people don't feel like their feedback isn't welcome. I'm glad to see that you're so interested and invested in the material, and pleased that this is the only point that sticks out as unreasonable.

Awesome. I will admit I have a second concern, but it would have already showed up in playtesting for you if it was a problem. (Essentially, I'm worried about how high the damage can get. But if that was a concern, you'd have already seen it.)

[DonQuixote]

Smoking Flames => Normal blast and fort vs being sickened. (They cough on the flames)
Lingering Flames => Normal blast + faerie fire or -4 penalty to AC. (The flames give your allies an idea of where to attack)

Most of your effects can be shuffled around a bit and still make sense flavour-wise. If you really want Searing Flame to look good, find a couple of the other effects from other circles that you feel are definitely pulling their weight, and carry them over.

Well, it was actually a joke--Searing Flame is my favorite circle--but it does bring up a good point: I'm trying to do this thing without duplication. Moving a formula from another circle into Searing Flame would then require coming up with a new formula for that circle.


Shadow of the New Moon: Make two Moonflare attacks. If the first hits, it deals no fire damage (still half cold damage). If the second hits, it deals no cold damage (still half fire damage).

That cover what you're after? (Also makes a great delivery for your minor formulae)

It's more that there's no mechanical consistency between the way that Shadow of the New Moon works and the way that other formulae work. I'd much rather simply rewrite it to be something more magical, as opposed to just multiple attacks.


While there aren't save or dies, I find being dazed for several rounds to be similar :D. In any case, that's why I included warblade first. A greatsword-weilding warblade at first level using punisher's stance and steel wind, flat out kills any two CR1 creatures.

Then I view that as a problem with greatsword-wielding warblades at first level using punisher's stance and steel wind.


I did notice that the damage was stacking up. I just wrote up a boss as a level 7 character, who could deal a hell of a lot of damage on her most damaging attack. (Mind you, that attack was Degenerative Necrosis, heightened to 4th level. I find that with the way heighten works, low-level powers end up being quite effective sources of damage.)


Awesome. I will admit I have a second concern, but it would have already showed up in playtesting for you if it was a problem. (Essentially, I'm worried about how high the damage can get. But if that was a concern, you'd have already seen it.)

I did some stupid amount of math a while ago, demonstrating that a spellshaper optimized for damage still did less damage than a sorcerer optimized for damage. Since then, I actually removed some of the elements that the optimized spellshaper used. I think that, in general, the damage can be on the high end, but it never breaks through anything. At least, it didn't when I played in a game that ran to level thirty.

Note also that spellshaping is primarily balanced for player character use. I'm much more concerned with how a spellshaping character performs against a group of monsters than against a group of PCs.


While axing might not be the only solution, I wouldn't bat an eyelid if you decided to cut entangle+damage and grease+damage. You could probably replace them with making the area difficult terrain, no save vs entangle, no "make them fall down" effect.

We'll see when I get there. Axing tends to be my gut reaction when it comes to area effects, since they can also mess up your allies.


Sure. I was offering to write up some formulae to fill gaps. Considering you are reviewing 16 circles, each with 21 formulae (336 formulae total), I could definitely see some cause for concern. Getting back to me, using them, or even reading them is optional, although appreciated. (Reading them would only be optional if you reconsidered the formulae that you originally ditched...)

Again, neurotic. Being the only one who directly writes any of the material lets me do so at my pace, without leaving anyone frustrated because they're getting cut out. It also lets me ruminate on things and throw up certain ideas that have been altered by contact with the rest of everything in my brain.

This is part of why all the spellshaping material that has been written by other homebrewers is being sneakily swept into the Appendices under one excuse or another. It lets me worry about working through the bulk of the material in the ways that are most conducive to my creative process while also ensuring that everything sees the light of day somewhere.

[chaos_redefined]

AoE's are something that require tactical use. I've seen it mess up an ally once, and that was a fireball anyway. Don't axe things just coz they are AoE's. (The ally was told "eh, you had evasion. I thought you'd be fine.")

[vasharanpaladin]

...Okay. Big thing I noticed was that dragonheart adepts can get absurd AC. Suggest removing armor proficiencies. :smalleek:

[DonQuixote]

AoE's are something that require tactical use. I've seen it mess up an ally once, and that was a fireball anyway. Don't axe things just coz they are AoE's. (The ally was told "eh, you had evasion. I thought you'd be fine.")

It's more that, given the format, I figure that the majority of your attacks should not be making area effects. Note that I'm not removing them all--rather, I'm reducing the number of "attack one target, then create something centered on them." Since there were a lot of things that did that for lack of anything better.


...Okay. Big thing I noticed was that dragonheart adepts can get absurd AC. Suggest removing armor proficiencies. :smalleek:

I...thought I fixed that! They only get light armor as is, and lose their Charisma bonus to AC if they ever wear anything heavier than that. Does light armor really make that much of a difference?

[sirpercival]

You can make almost anything into light armor... I don't think it's a problem, I'm just saying.

[DonQuixote]

You can make almost anything into light armor... I don't think it's a problem, I'm just saying.

But...then...why do they even...armor categories...argh.

I do remember having this conversation a while ago, though. I could have sworn I fixed it to the satisfaction of all concerned parties.


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


Crushing Stone (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=860.0) has been revised! On to Devouring Shadow.

[sirpercival]

But...then...why do they even...armor categories...argh.

I do remember having this conversation a while ago, though. I could have sworn I fixed it to the satisfaction of all concerned parties.

I mean, it takes investment. But mithril breastplate is pretty common, for example.

[vasharanpaladin]

Mithral breastplates are light armor.

[NineThePuma]

How much AC are we talking "Absurd"?

[vasharanpaladin]

How much AC are we talking "Absurd"?

+40 hits on 19+.

[chaos_redefined]

So, an AC of 59?

At what level? And how much money has he poured into his AC? Coz that might not be a problem with the class, and more a problem that you are playing at the higher levels, or even epic... Especially if there are creatures with +40 to hit.

[DonQuixote]

+40 hits on 19+.

I'm not quite used to the format you're using for this. Are you saying that a creature with a +40 attack bonus only hits on rolls of 19 or higher?

In that case, yeah, I'm going to have to ask what level the character is. Also, how much has he been focusing on AC over other things? Your last comment had him not doing too well, so what changed?

[vasharanpaladin]

I'm still trying to get hold of the character sheet, but yeah, they were supposed to be level 20 and the only defensive item I was aware of was the maxed-out mithral breatplate. Which probably would've been fine if she didn't also have the most ferocious offense of the party... might just be colored by that one delve, but with three subsystems for class features, and in-built AC and epic weapons by 20th? Something's gotta give, don't you think?

Or, at the very least, it's not the T3 balance point (I hope) you were shooting for...

EDIT: As compared to a harrowed (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188148), Kellus's truenamer (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90961) and a vanilla crusader kitted in Mechanus gear and swinging a minotaur greathammer, mind, so it might just be notable because she's the only one that couldn't be touched. :smallannoyed:

[NineThePuma]

To be fair, the harrowed is being redone due to significant issues.

[DonQuixote]

I'm still trying to get hold of the character sheet, but yeah, they were supposed to be level 20 and the only defensive item I was aware of was the maxed-out mithral breatplate. Which probably would've been fine if she didn't also have the most ferocious offense of the party... might just be colored by that one delve, but with three subsystems for class features, and in-built AC and epic weapons by 20th? Something's gotta give, don't you think?

Epic weapons by 20th? What are you...

...god damn it.

Okay, so, Draconic Empowerment is tweaked to be +1 per 4 levels, capping it at +5 at 20th level. That bit of stupid is fixed.

Then, the Charisma bonus to AC is dropped.

That fix things on your end?


Or, at the very least, it's not the T3 balance point (I hope) you were shooting for...

Yup, that's still the goal. It just gets messy with complicated ones like the dragonheart adept.

[DonQuixote]

Devouring Shadow (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=864.0) has been revised.

Terrorize has been replaced with False Vitality, which gives you a number of temporary hit points equal to your shaper level.
Infect has been switched from actual diseases to disease-like effects, defined in-formula.
Wracking Pain has been replaced with Ward of Retribution, which forces attackers to make Fortitude saves or take damage equal to the damage they inflict upon you.
Petrifying Gaze has been replaced with Pox, which allows you to combine two disease effects from Infect and makes them contagious.


Comments? Criticism? Rituals to bring about my death and unending torment?

[NineThePuma]

Are you going to go through and "rerole" the various circles?

[DonQuixote]

Are you going to go through and "rerole" the various circles?

I'm...not entirely certain what you mean, but I'm going to try to answer anyway! I will be answering as though the question were meant to be interpreted as: "I have noticed that some types of effects are being moved out of some circles, while new formulae seem to focus on different aspects of combat. Are you intentionally skewing circles to fit different combat roles?" If that wasn't what you meant to ask, let me know.

Anyway! The most important part of the refocusing has to do with the fact that, when circles were originally written, other circles didn't exist. For example, Shocking Current is going to be losing a decent number of things to accommodate the new existence of Screeching Roc. That sort of thing. Brilliant Dawn and Glimmering Moon are losing a few things to Fleeting Image, and so on.

At the same time, getting more experience and understanding under my belt has shown me that certain types of effects have...complications. I'm axing anything that renders targets helpless to avoid coup de grace shenanigans. I'm also removing things that seem disproportionate for their level.

In terms of the additions, getting the chance to play a bit more has shown me that not every formula in a circle has to be relevant to every character. In most cases, you won't know every formula from a circle, and you'll almost never have them all prepared. Since it's now the case that one-third of the spellshaping base classes are melee-based, I'm sliding in a few formulae here and there that they might find attractive.

Assuming that this inquiry was sparked by False Vitality and Ward of Retribution, that's what's going on there. Devouring Shadow had a lot of affliction elements going on, but I needed minor formulae at 1st and 5th. False Vitality struck me as a great way to toy with the back-and-forth between positive and negative energy. After I had that, I figured I might as well put something defensive in the 5th-level slot, so Ward of Retribution came to be. Given the amount of backlash necromancy effects, it seems thematically appropriate--though it might need a new name.

In general, though, I'm not planning to push circles towards specific combat roles. The formulae in a circle are grouped thematically, not cladistically, and I think I want it to stay that way.

[Xerlith]

I have a player that uses a Spellshaping class in my game, specifically the Spellshot Marksman.
At level 3rd and 4th, she (a player who's playing their FIRST real, serious game) outshines completely the rest of the team, being now:
Warblade3/Crusader1, spiked chain tripper, getting close in terms of usefullness
Magus4 (a dwarf who's rarely in combat in time)
Fire-themed Wizard3/Crusader1 (going JPM and atm being a dead weight mostly).

We're playing 3.P.

And as I noticed, I still have some problems wrapping my head around the Command Projectile ability. How exactly is it supposed to work? Can the player declare it's use shooting the arrow and just... Shoot it through 2 targets for example? I mean, her Rapid Shot + Command Projectile means 3 attacks per round (12 CHA), which means that even now she completely outdamages the other party members. Not to say she rarely uses the spellshapes at all...

How do I balance it without completely taking the toys from the player? I've talked to her and she's willing to cooperate, not too bitter with the fact I'll probably slap the character with a nerfhammer.

[DonQuixote]

Command Projectile does not give an extra attack. What it does is allow you to make your subsequent ranged attacks with the same bullet/arrow/what have you, thus not spending ammunition. In addition, you determine range, cover, and other combat modifiers as though you were firing the projectile from any square adjacent to the projectile's most recent target. More useful in situations where terrain obstructs the marksman's line of sight.

Also, note that Rapid Shot requires that you take a full attack option, which means that you cannot channel formulae in a turn in which you use Rapid Shot.

In terms of outshining the party, I'm not sure how spellshot marksman is contributing to the problem if she's rarely using any formulae. Simply channeling the spellshape attack doesn't increase the damage dealt by the weapon--it just changes the damage type. The misreading of Command Projectile is the only thing I can think of. Do note, however, that I know absolutely nothing about the changes made in Pathfinder.

However, it should be noted that a user on MinMax recently performed a Same Game Test on the spellsage, which displayed rather more competence than I would like. As such, I'm contemplating leveling the additional damage from major formulae to something like:

{table]2nd|+1d6
3rd|+2d6
4th|+3d6
5th|+4d6
6th|+5d6
7th|+6d6
8th|+7d6
9th|+8d6[/table]
(With appropriate die sizes for the relevant circles.)

While this may seem like a pretty significant damage nerf, note that the spellshape attacks are continuing to scale up to 5d6. That means that you'll be doing 13d6 damage at level 17, without any feats or other damage increases. With the spellshape focus feats and the relevant lamen, a spellshaper would be able to get up to 16d6 damage, plus the effects of whatever formula was actually being shaped. Which, you know, seems like where we actually should be.

[Xerlith]

Thanks for explaining. I was just assuming the command projectile was an additional attack (which seemed really ridiculous and strange, i must say), what sometimes doubled the damage. Now it seems more sensible (WTF was I thinking, really, additional iterative, full-BAB attacks equal to the CHA bonus? For free? on 4th level? Not very smart of me).
Thanks again, I guess it will bring her to about the warblade's level, which is nice.

One more question, though
Can the commanded arrow be used only in the same round it was fired, given there are any attacks to be made, or in the following one too? Does it remain in flight?

For the damage thing, yes, I do know this, and I was actually wondering if the formulae channeling added the damage to the bow-made shapings as normal. As it stands, I figure it does.

Pathfinder's most significant change building-wise is feats gained every odd (1, 3, 5 etc) level now, i guess.

[DonQuixote]

Command Projectile (Su): When you reach 4th level, you gain the ability to exert your will on projectiles that you fire. As a free action following a ranged attack, you can choose to command your projectile, keeping it aloft and allowing it to follow impossible trajectories.

First paragraph, really just explains what the ability does without getting into nitty-gritty rules. Only mechanical bit here is that the decision is made as a free action that you take after making a ranged attack.


A commanded projectile is not destroyed, even if it hits its target. Instead, it remains in the air under your command. You can make attacks and channel spellshape attacks and formulae through the projectile as though you were firing it normally, except that you determine range, cover, and other combat modifiers as though you were firing the projectile from any square adjacent to the projectile's most recent target.

Here's where the rules stuff starts. Normally, a projectile is destroyed on hitting its target, and has a chance to be destroyed even on a miss. That doesn't happen if you command a projectile--instead, it remains in the air. This allows you to continue using the projectile, meaning you don't consume any more ammunition.

In addition, since you're commanding a projectile that isn't being fired from your position, you get to aim from the projectile's position, rather than your own. There's a bit rock in the way that's obscuring your shot of the enemy caster? Shoot the warrior next to the rock, then shoot the wizard from that position, since the rock's no longer in the way.


You may only command one projectile at a time, and you can only maintain control for a number of rounds equal to your Charisma modifier. Maintaining control of a commanded projectile is a free action. You can abandon a commanded projectile at any time as a free action, destroying the projectile in the process.

In order to avoid shenanigans, you can only command one projectile at once, even if you ask really nicely. You can, technically, shoot another projectile while commanding one, in which case the commanded one just...sort of sits there, feeling awkward. If you choose to command the new projectile, you must first abandon the first, which causes it to disembowel itself in shame.

Assuming you choose to keep commanding the first one, however, it stays in flight--and under your control--for a number of rounds equal to your Charisma modifier. Maintaining control of the thing only takes a free action, but actually taking a shot with it still takes the same action normally required to take the shot in question.

----

To summarize: You take a shot. Upon taking your shot, you decide to use your magic to control the arrow. For a number of rounds equal to your Charisma modifier after taking the original shot, you can continue to make attacks with that arrow, acting as if it was being shot from any square adjacent to its most recent target. Your number of attacks does not change, nor does the action required to make an attack. The primary relevant rules change is that it allows you to make shots from different angles and locations while remaining stock-still in order to gain your Careful Aim bonuses.

Sorry for the late reply, I've been drowning in examinations.

[Xerlith]

Well, first, wanted to say that I'm really grateful to you for your explanations here.

Whew. All good.
In my defense, English is not my main language so I couldn't process the ability description as well as I should.

Also, I ran some playtests against random opponents straight off the appropriate challenge rating chart. It seems the class is sitting on about the crusader power-level, so it's nice and stuff.

Also, with the player having taken the Surging Spirit circle, I have to cope with questions if she can shoot herself in the face... But the ridiculous roleplaying more than makes up for it.


Oh well. I'm happy now. Thanks. Damn, now I might run my players through the Spellplague just to have a reason to make spellshaping the main magic system. ;D

[DonQuixote]

Glad I could help! I'm very happy with how spellshaping has turned out in general, and it's great to hear that it's serving your party well! Shooting yourself in the face for healing benefits is, admittedly, a little weird. I have no clue how I'd handle that one, but I should probably figure it out--my parties tend to be on that side of wacky.

Sorry, again, for the late reply. Exams have been killing me over here.