Discussion: Toning Down Spellcasters - "Phase I" to a feasible game overhaul.

[nonsi]

When I say "feasible game overhaul", I mean without reinventing the fundamental game mechanics of 3.5 (BAB, HP, saves, conditions, feats, skills, Ex/Su/Sp...)

So, this is "Phase I":
==================================================
Magic doesn't grant class features.
Magic doesn't grant feats.
Magic doesn't grant skill ranks/bonuses. Magic doesn't even emulate skills (e.g. Knock, Detect Secret Doors, etc).
Magic doesn't boost mental stats.
Magic doesn't boost BAB.
Magic doesn't boost/grant dodge AC.
Magical effects don't make decisions (e.g. I Alarm, Contingency, Explosive Runes... out the window)
[ OTHER SUGGESTIONS MIGHT ALSO GO IN HERE ]

EVER!

Basically, magical effects don't have a mind of their own. They don't make decisions. They're indiscriminant (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14930166&postcount=23).


From there on, one can start handling spells on a one-by-one basis.
==================================================



This, of course, raises the question: "How the heck is a high-level group supposed to cope with dragons, pitfiends, titans and the other legendary monstrosities?"

My answer would be: "With decent and balanced base classes and by tweaking the existing rules".

PODL's suggested classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14914651&postcount=35) would be "Pase II"



Once we have the above two phases nailed, we can start discussing rule tweaks.



Does this at all sound practical ?



EDIT: for mystical buffs, one might consider making room for a tweaked Bard class, but only via class features, not spells.

[Super_slash2]

Doesn't sound fun.

The entire point of magic is to circumvent stuff. It is really nice to know that the limits of your character is truly your imagination and your ability to rise to the challenge. It is basicly what every nerd would dream of - if I study hard enough and apply my critical reasoning skills, I too can beat up my flame-breathing bullies.

One of the things these reworks have consistently failed to sell me on is how they will remain fun. I can pick a wizard and say with conviction, okay the dream of my wizard is to learn every spell in the game (because this, if I was capable enough and it existed irl, would be my dream too). And then go and do it. The feeling of being able to say "Ah you sure would've caught me out there dear boy but I've already prepared for that so - DENIED" is an incredible one. Hopefully you'd have a system that challenges you to use your spells in creative and interesting manners.

But motions to gut magic at its core just seems like a waste of time. You would make a more balanced game but would it be a game worth playing? I don't know.

That's my rant about these threads on the forums, sorry.

[Wargamer]

Doesn't sound fun.
This is pretty much the reaction to every non-caster when the wizard is talking.

Seriously, you're going to complain that toning down magic somehow negates creativity? My players dedicated thirty minutes to working out how to build shrapnel bombs out of easily obtainable alchemical ingredients! If anything, magic takes away creativity; why bother coming up with clever ways of sneaking up on an enemy when they can have a magical alarm to warn of your approach? Why invent a flying machine to soar over a castle wall when Fly or Teleport is so readily available? Why bother even turning up at all when the Wizard is just going to turn your character into a walking club he uses on anything he doesn't feel worth a spell?

[Amechra]

I actually disagree about getting rid of bonuses to skills; it can be done in a more or less balanced way that helps out actual skillmonkeys more than just some random spellcaster.

One suggestion was getting effective non-stacking ranks equal to half your CL (rounded down), and getting half your CL (rounded up) as an Insight bonus to the check.

Oh, and you are missing out on an important pair of nerfs:

1. Caster level is equal to your character level. It can't be raised or lowered from respects to that.

2. Contingencies and the like do not exist. At all. They need to die in a fire.

[Yora]

Repeat the class balance mantra:

"Spellcasters are not broken. What is broken are the spells."

Touching the classes and leaving the spells as they are accomplishes nothing. If you change the spells, the classes do not need any adjustment.
Thankfully, this first blurb seems to be heading in that direction.

[Super_slash2]

This is pretty much the reaction to every non-caster when the wizard is talking.

Seriously, you're going to complain that toning down magic somehow negates creativity? My players dedicated thirty minutes to working out how to build shrapnel bombs out of easily obtainable alchemical ingredients! If anything, magic takes away creativity; why bother coming up with clever ways of sneaking up on an enemy when they can have a magical alarm to warn of your approach? Why invent a flying machine to soar over a castle wall when Fly or Teleport is so readily available? Why bother even turning up at all when the Wizard is just going to turn your character into a walking club he uses on anything he doesn't feel worth a spell?

I did NOT say don't tone down magic. I specifically said that what he had written on the front page did not sound like it would leave a game worth playing.

The point of Magic is that it gives more options to puzzles. The problem with Magic as-s is :

a) Non-casters don't get many options to puzzles that confound Mages.
b) Mages get too many I-Win options to puzzles that confound Non-Mages.
c) DMs have too much trouble coming up with puzzles that Magic cannot deal with directly.

These are all true because of how Magic works. But what you said is not - "let's make puzzles more intricate" OR "let's make puzzles that are diverse in the skillset required to meet them", it is "let's make it so that there are fewer options afford to solving puzzles".

The issue I have with this is that it :

i) removes what puzzles you can have now that Magic is gone, unless your solution is to substitute Magic A with Magic B.
ii) it removes one of the key enjoyable points of Magic, to me, the fact that you are limited only by your creative use of your spells.

You can circumvent the need to fly with a Fly spell and thus the entire subplot of [Get mode of aerial transportation] is ruined. But it also allows you to do more stuff. What if the Wizard finds his Magic does not work. What if he finds that he can only take himself and not his party and thus dies alone when he does fly over? What if there is someone watching, a cult of anti-magic assassins hanging by and sensing the casting of Magic here by non-approved villains allow them to track him down? These are not issues that affect just the Wizard, it affects the whole party.

If you want to make bombs relevant, then you can limit the magic level used in your game. The issue here is that what nonsi is trying to do is limit ALL MAGIC in the ENTIRE game. He is affecting the UPPER cap on Magic, not the lower cap.

One of the major issues is that fundamentally Magic can rise to any challenge and THAT should be limited. But he has not done that - that is not even in the starting list (although I'm sure he knows that's a problem). His starting post is :


So, this is "Phase I":
==================================================
Magic doesn't grant class features.
Magic doesn't grant feats.
Magic doesn't grant skill ranks/bonuses. Magic doesn't even emulate skills (e.g. Knock, Detect Secret Doors, etc).
Magic doesn't boost stats.
[ OTHER SUGGESTIONS MIGHT ALSO GO IN HERE ]

EVER!

From there on, one can start handling spells on a one-by-one basis.
==================================================

That is not a game worth playing, to me, because such a response doesn't care about making Magic still fun or making creative problem-solving through spells interesting. It simply wants to remove Magic's influence over the game. But there is no justification for these things given, there is no fundamental issue solved. And you can't. The people who keep quoting someone saying that The Fighter cannot work in DnD 3.5 as-is should know why - Magic is fundamentally too strong to be restrained by simple tweaks or just barring certain actions.

To keep it in 3.5 as-is, you will have to gut all of Magic or you will have to change the system.

Gutting all of Magic is what I said was not fun.

EDIT : Apparently I got carried away and all my carefully thought-of planning was kinda betrayed by me getting emotional. I don't mean that changing spell lists and leaving the system the same is the equivalent of gutting Magic. My point was that without fixing what the role of Magic is in the game, you will ultimately have to gut spells. You can tweak spells with the context of creating/limiting options and you will work out fine, I think (but cannot prove right now). But if you do not work without some idea of what you want from the end product, you will just wind up slashing everything across the board. And nonsi's post did not seem like it had a clearcut goal in mind apart from : burn the witch.

[celtois]

" But if you do not work without some idea of what you want from the end product, you will just wind up slashing everything across the board. And nonsi's post did not seem like it had a clearcut goal in mind apart from : burn the witch."

My impression was that there was a clear goal (at least in terms of what he was cutting). In that he is trying to cut spells that allow mages to take the gists of other classes. Because it makes what everyone else does, less special.

Frankly that leaves a lot of ground for magic.
-Most Illusion effects
-Most Conjuration effects
-Most Destruction effects
-Most Conjuration effects
-Most Abjuration effects
-Most Enchantment effects
-Most Necromancy effects

It's really only cutting out the subset of magic, that gives the mage specialized ways to bypass the other classes.

Personally I think it leaves magic in D&D by and large too untouched. Time Stop still exists, etc. But I hate magic in D&D....so. Yeah.

[nonsi]

I actually disagree about getting rid of bonuses to skills; it can be done in a more or less balanced way that helps out actual skillmonkeys more than just some random spellcaster.

One suggestion was getting effective non-stacking ranks equal to half your CL (rounded down), and getting half your CL (rounded up) as an Insight bonus to the check.

Oh, and you are missing out on an important pair of nerfs:

1. Caster level is equal to your character level. It can't be raised or lowered from respects to that.

2. Contingencies and the like do not exist. At all. They need to die in a fire.


The point was to take away from casters all the tools that let them step on everyone's toes.
A mage can still burn down that wooden door that blocks his way and can still use Passwall at higher levels. He just won't have access at low levels to effects that will let him accomplish subtle tasks like a rogue would be able to do.
Same goes for features. You're not gonna get Evasion without levels in a class that has it.
Same goes for feats.
No more free meals.


I also totally agree about Alarm and Contingency, as well as any other spell that "makes decisions" such as Explosive Runes (how in the world does a spell effect "know" that its emitted light has been intercepted by a biological optical device (i.e. eyes) for pete's sake?)
This also promotes the notion (only a notion for now) that artificial intelligence or even pseudo intelligence should be limited to divine magic (under the assumption that mortal comprehension alone cannot crack that one and it can only be done via divine aid).

[Amechra]

Well the idea with the skill boosters is that it would be more efficient to cast them on the party skill-monkey.

Another thing to do is make magic really, really obvious.

Like have Knock literally just frag the lock, or something.

So you could go in, all guns a blazin', or you could have the Rogue get you in, which would give you a higher rate of survival.

[Carl]

The OP misses the problem with magic entirely IMO.

Looking at the SRD there are very few, though some, (hello wind wall), spells that i see as totally broken in effect. Though i agree that some need magnitude toning down or level raising. The real issue is the ability to stack spell after spell after spell after spell. Part of this is the low levels of many good spells at work, and part is just the fact that you can stack so many spells.

here's m idea of a simple rule that would help a lot, (assuming some spell adjustment and spell level adjustment went on).




Sympathetic Magic: Magic responds to magic, an age old saying and an age old truth. Such responses can interfere with the casting of a mage.

If a Spell caster wishes to cast a harmless spell upon another spellcaster, (including self), who's duration is not instantaneous the target must be below the targets interference threshold, and the spell must not place them over it. Their interference threshold is equal to double the targets maximum spell level, (note the number of spells they can cast at that maximum spell level has no effect however). Each spell adds an amount to the interference total equal to it's spell level, (not including increases due to using a higher spell slot to store it or due to metamagic).

Divine magic does not interfere with arcane and vice versa.



I'm, sure there are exceptions that would need to be made, (Bards, Paladins and Rangers are quite limited as spell casters anyway so may need a higher interference threshold), and I'm betting the various splatbooks and the like would make a mockery of it even more. But it gives you a general idea.

I mean under this using SRD levels this would result in wind wall+fly+stoneskin+ mirror image needing the ability to cast 6th level spells and that would max out your self buffing ability. Its still not exactly balance, (woo broken wind wall). But it's better.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a wizard being able to replicate the abilities of another class or give out huge buffs. They just shouldn't be able to do that and still rain down all kinds of destruction while they're at it.

[Amechra]

Wind Wall should die in a fire.

Why did anyone think that completely negating an entire combat style was a good idea?

[Wargamer]

...I think Fighter is trying to tell us the answer...

At 1st level, a Caster gets all her 0 level spells.
At 2nd level, and every even level thereafter, the Caster gets a new spell. The level of this spell cannot exceed 1/2 the Caster's class level (so a 6th level Caster gains access to 3rd level spells).

Each spell may only be cast once per day.

This solution gives Casters a vastly more limited scope of casting potential, meaning those 'game breaking' spells are now only available as one shot abilities.

Since this would definitely take the class too far into the underpowered regions, Casters (especially wizards and sorcerers) would get some spell-like abilities to back them up. For example, a 1st level Sorcerer might be able to cast Magic Missile as a standard action once per round, and gain other abilities at higher levels.

Wizards would of course be awkward to work around, which is why they should be put in cages and laughed at instead of being given abilities that work. :P

[Grod_The_Giant]

At 1st level, a Caster gets all her 0 level spells.
At 2nd level, and every even level thereafter, the Caster gets a new spell. The level of this spell cannot exceed 1/2 the Caster's class level (so a 6th level Caster gains access to 3rd level spells).

Each spell may only be cast once per day.

Gross. I wouldn't want to play a class like that at all. Worse-- and I regard this as a fundamental principle of magic nerfs-- the more your restrict access to magic, the more you encourage players to only pick the broken spells. Because if you can cast three spells a day, wouldn't you want them to be polymorph, black tentacles, and dominate person?

Step 1, I would say, is to axe all prepared casters. Anything with a theoretically unlimited list of spells known, boom! Gone! Replace them with something more thematic-- clerics casting from their deity's domain, wizards who can modify their spells known on the fly, whatever, doesn't matter. That way you have a well-defined role in the party based on the spells you choose, rather than being able to change day-to-day and step on everyone's toes.

Step 2 is to alter the spells that completely take over someone else's role, or completely shut it down. Wind Wall is a good example of this sort of thing. Bull's strength is not, because while it helps the cleric kick butt, it's arguably more dangerous when cast on the barbarian.

Step 3 would be to deal with the binary nature of save-or-X spells and abilities, but that requires a somewhat substantial change.

[Zelkon]

Any game without Explosive Runes is no game of mine! Why take out the best spell in the game?

[Super_slash2]

The point was to take away from casters all the tools that let them step on everyone's toes.

How will you do this?

Fly lets you fly, restricting what other classes can do. What will you do? Remove Fly?

I agree that you should remove garbage like Knock and Wind Wall, that sort of stuff should not exist or should come with some sort of drawback to them that makes up for the fact you are destroying entire characters with it.

But such an operation requires care. Perhaps if you remove Wind Wall and improve Archery, Fly is less of a problem.

But you sound like you're just picking up an axe and hacking your way through what should require some degree of care.

[Amechra]

Make Fly affect more people?

The real problem is that the love isn't being spread around.

What is the "ideal", in my mind, would be for the different buffs and spells, while they would work, would be way more effective if you cast them on someone else.

Polymorph should work more like the Shapeshift ACF anyway; that means that it would be more effective to cast it on the Fighter (he gets +Str, Flight, and it would synergize with his pre-existing combat expertise) than it would be for the caster to target themselves.

Too many of the best buffs are self-only; this is a bad thing.

[Grinner]

What is the "ideal", in my mind, would be for the different buffs and spells, while they would work, would be way more effective if you cast them on someone else.

So, Bull's Strength works better on someone with a high Strength score?

[Grod_The_Giant]

So, Bull's Strength works better on someone with a high Strength score?

Sure. Say it grants a +4 or a 50% bonus, whichever is higher.

[Wargamer]

Gross. I wouldn't want to play a class like that at all. Worse-- and I regard this as a fundamental principle of magic nerfs-- the more your restrict access to magic, the more you encourage players to only pick the broken spells. Because if you can cast three spells a day, wouldn't you want them to be polymorph, black tentacles, and dominate person?
I'd personally want them to be Fireball, Fireball and Fireball myself, but then I've always seen magic in a very specific way...

As I've said before though, I think my Runecaster idea reflects how I feel magic should work - it's a direct damage (via supernatural ability) class with some de-buffing spells and the party's emergency teleport. That should be the Wizard's role, just as the Cleric is a walking med-kit, the Fighter does all the heavy lifting, and the Thief steals the credit.

[Amechra]

Well, actually, Bull's Strength is just fine as is, given that it is better to go from a Str 16 to a Str 20 than from a Str of 8 to a Str of 12.

Though theoretically, you could have it grant the target either a +4 or +their Strength modifier as an enhancement bonus to strength.

This means that Ulthar Strong-Arm, with his base Strength of 24, gets a +7 from Bull's Strength instead of a +4.

[Carl]

Fly wouldn'tr be as broken if flying via that spell (i.e. if you don't want to just fall to the ground), required a standard action, or otherwise restricted the list of spells you could cast and if it couldn't be combined so easily with tricks that totally neuter another class, (woo wind wall). That would still make casters of races that can fly innately a bit insane still, but that's a lot less common, (especially as a PC), than the land bound varieties.

[Just to Browse]

A bonus to BAB is a bonus to hit plus bonus attacks. A cleric who uses haste and gets +1/4 lvl to-hit and damage basically has full BAB. Stat boosts work similarly--a spell that gives you +1 to damage and greater carrying capacity is basically a boost to strength. It's better to grant a dodge bonus to AC than a sacred, profane, or deflection bonus because it at least gets taken off when you're flat-footed.

Also, magic that doesn't emulate skills is kind of boring.

[nonsi]

A bonus to BAB is a bonus to hit plus bonus attacks. A cleric who uses haste and gets +1/4 lvl to-hit and damage basically has full BAB. Stat boosts work similarly--a spell that gives you +1 to damage and greater carrying capacity is basically a boost to strength.

To most of us, that's an obvious.
I'm not sure what you're claiming here.



It's better to grant a dodge bonus to AC than a sacred, profane, or deflection bonus because it at least gets taken off when you're flat-footed.

The OP says basically one thing: Magical effects don't have a mind of their own. They don't make decisions. They're indiscriminant.
That's why Armor/Shield/Deflection/Sacred boosts work while Dodge doesn't. The former are just reinforcements & barriers, while the latter is a bestowed knowledge and practice.
That's why Alarm can't work when you're in the AoE. You set it off yourself (you can still use it effectively on unoccupied rooms and corridors though)
That's why spells like Explosive Runes need to have their triggers redefined.
That's why Scry should target a location, not a creature (no more Scry&Die).
That's why they can't boost mental stats or grant BAB/saves/features/feats/skills.
That's why they cant intelligently unlock a door (unless the caster can actually see the mechanism).
That's why Prismatic Wall/Sphere shouldn't let its caster pass unharmed.
Once this notion is clear, it's pretty easy to decide if a spell needs to be nixed/change/left untouched.

All the above say nothing about low magic campaigns or spellcasters not having access to 9th level spells, but this one decision simply means that spellcasters can no longer steal the thunder from melees & skillmonkeys. And it actually makes a lot of sense.




Also, magic that doesn't emulate skills is kind of boring.

So, unless a wizard can eyeball a rogue and CoDZilla can eyeball a warrior, both sneering "in your face", then magic is boring ?
Even with my suggested change, spellcasters are still more attractive than noncasters (it just means that they're not gonna beat them at their own game), so I don't see how you figured that conclusion.

[Just to Browse]

To most of us, that's an obvious.
I'm not sure what you're claiming here.The point was that you're ruling out things which can be emulated in roundabout ways, so why rule those things out in the first place? Why not just evaluate their balance placement?


The OP says basically one thing: Magical effects don't have a mind of their own. They don't make decisions. They're indiscriminant.
That's why Armor/Shield/Deflection/Sacred boosts work while Dodge doesn't. The former are just reinforcements & barriers, while the latter is a bestowed knowledge and practice.
That's why Alarm can't work when you're in the AoE. You set it off yourself (you can still use it effectively on unoccupied rooms and corridors though)
That's why spells like Explosive Runes need to have their triggers redefined.
That's why Scry should target a location, not a creature (no more Scry&Die).
That's why they can't boost mental stats or grant BAB/saves/features/feats/skills.
That's why they cant intelligently unlock a door (unless the caster can actually see the mechanism).
That's why Prismatic Wall/Sphere shouldn't let its caster pass unharmed.
Once this notion is clear, it's pretty easy to decide if a spell needs to be nixed/change/left untouched.OK, if that's you're reasoning then it makes sense, but I really don't like it. I reaaaallly don't.


All the above say nothing about low magic campaigns or spellcasters not having access to 9th level spells, but this one decision simply means that spellcasters can no longer steal the thunder from melees & skillmonkeys. And it actually makes a lot of sense.Magic can certainly be intelligent, and there's really no reason to reduce its "intelligence" if you're not actually changing balance with it. This does not stop visage of the deity or haste or fly or fear or anything of the like.


So, unless a wizard can eyeball a rogue and CoDZilla can eyeball a warrior, both sneering "in your face", then magic is boring ?
Even with my suggested change, spellcasters are still more attractive than noncasters (it just means that they're not gonna beat them at their own game), so I don't see how you figured that conclusion.Wat? No.

Unless my wizard can bypass certain skill-requiring tasks (like using jump instead of investing skill points in athletics or invisibility instead of investing skill points in hide), he is a boring wizard out of combat. I don't want my mage to be flinging spells in the thick of things and then see a wall and go "oh crap, there's no such thing as using magic to jump".

There's no reason to give skills total exclusivity over magic, just as there is little reason to give magic exclusivity over skills. Both reduce character options and make the game less interesting.

[nonsi]

The point was that you're ruling out things which can be emulated in roundabout ways, so why rule those things out in the first place? Why not just evaluate their balance placement?

Sure, but BAB stacks, and BAB-derived iteratives also stack, and BAB is one's fundamental battle understanding.
So this both makes sense and serves to tone down spellcasters craziness.




OK, if that's you're reasoning then it makes sense, but I really don't like it. I reaaaallly don't.

Fair enough.




Magic can certainly be intelligent, and there's really no reason to reduce its "intelligence" if you're not actually changing balance with it. This does not stop visage of the deity or haste or fly or fear or anything of the like.

What do you mean "if you're not actually changing balance"?
Stop and think for a moment at how many aspects spellcasters would no longer be able to walk all over noncasters.




Wat? No.

Unless my wizard can bypass certain skill-requiring tasks (like using jump instead of investing skill points in athletics or invisibility instead of investing skill points in hide), he is a boring wizard out of combat. I don't want my mage to be flinging spells in the thick of things and then see a wall and go "oh crap, there's no such thing as using magic to jump".

I see no problem with Jump spell. Magical energies propel the recipient in the direction s/he's taking when disconnecting from the ground (notice that this spell doesn't grant ranks or new knowledge).
Levitation & Fly work as well.
Mental skills - that's an entirely different ballgame. While Intimidate could be boosted, I wouldn't allow boosting Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive or Gather Information.




There's no reason to give skills total exclusivity over magic,

In some cases it would both make sense and help restore balance.



...just as there is little reason to give magic exclusivity over skills.

There are more areas where magic has exclusivity over skills that you would be able to keep track of (Fly, Teleport, Summoning, Transmutation... all applicable exclusively via magic).
That's quite alright, but shouldn't be the case in just about everything.

[Just to Browse]

Sure, but BAB stacks, and BAB-derived iteratives also stack, and BAB is one's fundamental battle understanding.
So this both makes sense and serves to tone down spellcasters craziness.Sure, just like haste and snake's swiftness could stack, or profane and morale bonuses stack.


What do you mean "if you're not actually changing balance"?
Stop and think for a moment at how many aspects spellcasters would no longer be able to walk all over noncasters.Yes, let's also think for a minute how removing all spells would prevent many aspects by which spellcasters walk over noncasters. Perhaps we could also think about buff limitations as well, or maybe 1/minute casting.

The point is that just because your system solves a problem, does not mean it is an ideal solution. What you have done is totally cut intelligent spellcasting, which is an awesome kind of spellcasting, and it only sort of solves your problem while creating a problem of flavor.


I see no problem with Jump spell. Magical energies propel the recipient in the direction s/he's taking when disconnecting from the ground (notice that this spell doesn't grant ranks or new knowledge).
Levitation & Fly work as well.But it circumvents the athletics skill! You have violated one of your own rules!


Mental skills - that's an entirely different ballgame. While Intimidate could be boosted, I wouldn't allow boosting Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive or Gather Information.If I have an ability to notice certain things about other peoples' demeanors, which makes me better at learning things about/from them and throwing them off, that's totally reasonable. If I get that from magic, it's suddenly unreasonable. Why?


In some cases it would both make sense and help restore balance.There are better ways to do this.


There are more areas where magic has exclusivity over skills that you would be able to keep track of (Fly, Teleport, Summoning, Transmutation... all applicable exclusively via magic).
That's quite alright, but shouldn't be the case in just about everything.I disagree. I'll bet I can think up some skills that cover shapeshifting, jumping so fast that you fly, tumbling to teleport, or knowing arcana so well that you can rip holes in space and bring monsters out of them. And I think it's OK for those skills to exist--perhaps no in Eberron, but you should be able to put them into your D&D system without shattering it.

[nonsi]

Sure, just like haste and snake's swiftness could stack, or profane and morale bonuses stack.

Right. All I'm doing is containing the fire by taking a few logs out.




Yes, let's also think for a minute how removing all spells would prevent many aspects by which spellcasters walk over noncasters. Perhaps we could also think about buff limitations as well, or maybe 1/minute casting.

That's not what I was saying or implying.




The point is that just because your system solves a problem, does not mean it is an ideal solution.

Life's experience has taught me that IRL, there's never an ideal solution for anything.




What you have done is totally cut intelligent spellcasting, which is an awesome kind of spellcasting, and it only sort of solves your problem while creating a problem of flavor.

This is perhaps a YMMV case, but in my view, intelligent spellcasting is done by players breaking a sweat and using their heads strategically.




But it circumvents the athletics skill! You have violated one of your own rules!

My rules: "Magical effects don't have a mind of their own. They don't make decisions. They're indiscriminant."
How does allowing Jump violate my rules?




If I have an ability to notice certain things about other peoples' demeanors, which makes me better at learning things about/from them and throwing them off, that's totally reasonable.

Yes. It means you're using acquired skills & experience.




If I get that from magic, it's suddenly unreasonable. Why?

Again - stepping on the toes of skillmonkeys.




There are better ways to do this.

I'm sure there are, but I'm researching a specific approach here, and whatever alternative you'd suggest, it'll probably come with its own drawbacks.




I disagree. I'll bet I can think up some skills that cover shapeshifting, jumping so fast that you fly, tumbling to teleport, or knowing arcana so well that you can rip holes in space and bring monsters out of them. And I think it's OK for those skills to exist--perhaps no in Eberron, but you should be able to put them into your D&D system without shattering it.

Well, it seems like you and I have an entirely different set of expectations from the game.
While you wish to up skillmonkeys and melees to a sort of spellcasters, I intentionally don't want magic to solve everything and I want a clear separation between what the party'd Warrior/Rogue/Priest/Mage can accomplish and the means by which they can do so.
Both approaches are legitimate, just different.

[Yitzi]

I would agree with nonsi that phase I needs to be toning down spellcasters, but I would agree with Super_slash2 and Just_to_Browse that the ideas in the OP aren't all the way to go. Taking those ideas one at a time:


Magic doesn't grant class features.

I would half-agree. Magic should be able to grant some class features, but only minor class features and those available at a substantially higher level than those features are available to their actual classes. If a level 10 wizard can pretend to be a level 5 rogue, I don't think that's going to break game balance.
Also, it's perfectly ok if magic grants class features which are now major class features, as long as the class gets enough features to eclipse the ones that casters can imitate.


Magic doesn't grant feats.

Again I'd say that it's ok for it to grant feats, as long as it's at a substantially higher level than the ones where people would be taking those feats.


Magic doesn't grant skill ranks/bonuses. Magic doesn't even emulate skills (e.g. Knock, Detect Secret Doors, etc).

Again, I'd half-agree. Magic should not emulate skills except as an inferior version, but it's perfectly ok for it to grant bonuses as long as the spell isn't personal-only. If the wizard uses Knock on a locked door, that's no fun for the rogue, but if the wizard uses Manipulate Lock to give the rogue a bonus on his check to unlock a particularly tough door, that's good teamwork.


Magic doesn't boost mental stats.

I'd say there's no need for this rule. The only problem dealt with is high save DCs, and there are better ways to deal with that.


Magic doesn't boost BAB.

I'd say this is a good rule; magic should not boost BAB or CL or class level.


Magic doesn't boost/grant dodge AC.

Definitely; more generally, magic should not give any type of stacking bonus, and few types of non-stacking bonus.

[quoteMagical effects don't make decisions (e.g. I Alarm, Contingency, Explosive Runes... out the window)[/quote]

I think this is a bad rule. Such effects are interesting and in general not particularly unbalanced. (If a particular effect is unbalanced, that effect in particular can be nerfed.)

I would add:
-Magic is easier to resist than cast; weak saves should grow as fast as save DCs, and strong saves should grow a lot faster. Any exceptions to this rule should have a minimum of 1 minute casting time.
-All harmful spells allow saves.
-Magic suffers from not using a full-round action the same way that melee attacks do.
-There should be some way to keep a caster from 5' stepping away from someone who threatens them in order to cast.
-Casting defensively should cost more than just a Concentration check which doesn't depend on the level of the person threatening them.

[Alias]

I'm preparing to write a new system taking what I've learned over the years from d20 and other systems. I have a core mechanic that is distinct but untried in a large scale game, but it has worked well in some one shots in a "system" that was skill and ability only - no advancement rules.

Anyway...

The fundamental problem with magic in d20 that none of these posts address is known as the Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard problem. To wit, as a fighter advances his BAB goes up and he gains a feat every other level; as a wizard goes up he gets more spell slots and all those spell slots become more potent.

Imagine a 1st level spell that deals 1d6 / level to one target. A 1st level wizard can deal 1d6 with 1 casting of that spell, at second level he can deal a total of 4d6 damage over two castings - a jump in power of 4x.

At third he picks up a second level slot. Even if he didn't pick up any 2nd level spells his three spells now deal 9d6 over 3 castings. And, presumably, the second level spell is more powerful.

But that doesn't even begin to illustrate the fundamental problem - that spells get more powerful with level. Let's make a set of spells for testing this output..

1st level - deals 1d4 / level
2nd level - deals 1d6 / level
3rd level deals 1d8 / level
4th level deals 1d10 / level
5th level deals 1d12 / level

We'll leave out the fact that real spells get more targets and more area of effect rather than simply up their damage dice. Also, gonna ignore spell caps a moment - these as a class are kludges thrown in during 2nd edition as an attempt to fix the problem that, in reality, is too little too late.

With the above, here's the average damage output of a wizard - ignoring bonus spells for high ability scores (which make the situation even worse)

1st - 2.5 in one round, 2.5 total output before spells exhausted.
2nd - 5 in one round, 10 total
3rd - 10.5 in one round, 25.5 total
4th - 14 in one round, 58 total
5th - 22.5 in one round, 95 total

After five levels, the wizard is ten times as powerful as 1st.

6th 27 in one round, 162 total
7th 4/3/2/1 38.5 in one round. 245 total
8th 4/3/3/2 44 in one round. 360 total.

And this is getting ridiculous. Caps start taking effect at this point in the real system, but it's too late.

What has to be taken away is the caster level on the power of spells. If you want a more powerful spell, you prepare it at a higher level. My first playtest will give the magic user this progression

{table]Level | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
1st | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | -
2nd | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | -
3rd | 2 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | -
4th | 2 | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | -
5th | 2 | 2 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | -
6th | 2 | 2 | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | -
7th | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | - | - | - | - | -
8th | - | 2 | 2 | 2 | - | - | - | - | -
9th | - | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | - | - | - | -
10th | - | - | 2 | 2 | 2 | - | - | - | -
11th | - | - | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | - | - | -
[/table]

And so on. The power of a spell is set by its cast from level. Magic Missile cast from 5th level deals 5d6. Casters may also apply modifiers to spells freely. A 5th level Magic Missile can have 4 points of modifiers applied to it to increase it's range, make it use d8 damage die, or importantly make it reusable once per encounter or at will (one per round). That last point is important as you can see from the above the wizard only ever gets 6 spells at a time.

Also, this system almost perfectly converts to a spell point system of 3 points / level if you value each slot by its level...

1st: 1
2nd: 2 (+1)
3rd: 4 (+2)
4th: 6 (+2)
5th: 9 (+3)
6th: 12 (+3)
7th: 15 (+3)

Note that at 7th level and above the wizard is losing lower level spell slots as he's gaining higher level slots. The point value of the slots remains consistent in their value - 3 points. 1st - 4th level has a ramp up period, and to balance the class perhaps the wizard gets something else at these early levels that he loses if the players want to use a 'spell points' optional rules.

I'm rambled enough on this. Hope this was useful.

[Yitzi]

I'm preparing to write a new system taking what I've learned over the years from d20 and other systems. I have a core mechanic that is distinct but untried in a large scale game, but it has worked well in some one shots in a "system" that was skill and ability only - no advancement rules.

Anyway...

The fundamental problem with magic in d20 that none of these posts address is known as the Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard problem. To wit, as a fighter advances his BAB goes up and he gains a feat every other level; as a wizard goes up he gets more spell slots and all those spell slots become more potent.

Imagine a 1st level spell that deals 1d6 / level to one target. A 1st level wizard can deal 1d6 with 1 casting of that spell, at second level he can deal a total of 4d6 damage over two castings - a jump in power of 4x.

At third he picks up a second level slot. Even if he didn't pick up any 2nd level spells his three spells now deal 9d6 over 3 castings. And, presumably, the second level spell is more powerful.

But that doesn't even begin to illustrate the fundamental problem - that spells get more powerful with level. Let's make a set of spells for testing this output..

1st level - deals 1d4 / level
2nd level - deals 1d6 / level
3rd level deals 1d8 / level
4th level deals 1d10 / level
5th level deals 1d12 / level

We'll leave out the fact that real spells get more targets and more area of effect rather than simply up their damage dice. Also, gonna ignore spell caps a moment - these as a class are kludges thrown in during 2nd edition as an attempt to fix the problem that, in reality, is too little too late.

With the above, here's the average damage output of a wizard - ignoring bonus spells for high ability scores (which make the situation even worse)

1st - 2.5 in one round, 2.5 total output before spells exhausted.
2nd - 5 in one round, 10 total
3rd - 10.5 in one round, 25.5 total
4th - 14 in one round, 58 total
5th - 22.5 in one round, 95 total

After five levels, the wizard is ten times as powerful as 1st.

6th 27 in one round, 162 total
7th 4/3/2/1 38.5 in one round. 245 total
8th 4/3/3/2 44 in one round. 360 total.

And this is getting ridiculous. Caps start taking effect at this point in the real system, but it's too late.

What has to be taken away is the caster level on the power of spells. If you want a more powerful spell, you prepare it at a higher level. My first playtest will give the magic user this progression

{table]Level | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
1st | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | -
2nd | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | -
3rd | 2 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | -
4th | 2 | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | -
5th | 2 | 2 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | -
6th | 2 | 2 | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | -
7th | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | - | - | - | - | -
8th | - | 2 | 2 | 2 | - | - | - | - | -
9th | - | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | - | - | - | -
10th | - | - | 2 | 2 | 2 | - | - | - | -
11th | - | - | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | - | - | -
[/table]

And so on. The power of a spell is set by its cast from level. Magic Missile cast from 5th level deals 5d6. Casters may also apply modifiers to spells freely. A 5th level Magic Missile can have 4 points of modifiers applied to it to increase it's range, make it use d8 damage die, or importantly make it reusable once per encounter or at will (one per round). That last point is important as you can see from the above the wizard only ever gets 6 spells at a time.

Also, this system almost perfectly converts to a spell point system of 3 points / level if you value each slot by its level...

1st: 1
2nd: 2 (+1)
3rd: 4 (+2)
4th: 6 (+2)
5th: 9 (+3)
6th: 12 (+3)
7th: 15 (+3)

Note that at 7th level and above the wizard is losing lower level spell slots as he's gaining higher level slots. The point value of the slots remains consistent in their value - 3 points. 1st - 4th level has a ramp up period, and to balance the class perhaps the wizard gets something else at these early levels that he loses if the players want to use a 'spell points' optional rules.

I'm rambled enough on this. Hope this was useful.

So basically the same idea as the psionics "augment" system.

[Just to Browse]

Right. All I'm doing is containing the fire by taking a few logs out.Right, but you're just choosing logs and saying "I think this is a good log to remove" and removing it. There is a better solution, and taking a suboptimal solution is not going to make your game as good as it could be.


That's not what I was saying or implying.

Life's experience has taught me that IRL, there's never an ideal solution for anything.Your argument in support of the changes that I dislike was that it was a way to reign in casters. I offered two different ways, why is your method of blacklisting things you don't like different from my method of hardcapping functionality every 60 seconds?

This goes with what I was saying above. You have a system, and you say it's doing what you want it to do. But there are other systems that you could use instead that do what you want without creating weird restrictions and without limiting creativity.


This is perhaps a YMMV case, but in my view, intelligent spellcasting is done by players breaking a sweat and using their heads strategically."Intelligent spellcasting" was used in this context to mean spells that are reactive based on their targets, not spellcasting that is tactical. I should have been more clear about this.


My rules: "Magical effects don't have a mind of their own. They don't make decisions. They're indiscriminant."
How does allowing Jump violate my rules?

It's in your main point:


Magic doesn't grant skill ranks/bonuses. Magic doesn't even emulate skills (e.g. Knock, Detect Secret Doors, etc).If I can even get a bonus to my athletics check to jump a wall, I am using a spell that is illegal in your system. Hence the point stands.


Yes. It means you're using acquired skills & experience.

Again - stepping on the toes of skillmonkeys.So your argument that I can't get skill bonuses from magic is that people who don't get magic will feel bad? Well then why not make magic and skills entertwined instead of forcefully separating them? If I have a casting class with lots of utility (skill bonus) spells, then I should only get a few skills normally and my spells should be similar in magnitude to what a regular skillmonkey can do. This resolves the problem of spells that should grant skill bonuses or emulate skills and also doesn't involve resigning magic to combat-only stuff.


I'm sure there are, but I'm researching a specific approach here, and whatever alternative you'd suggest, it'll probably come with its own drawbacks.Right, and I am showing you that there are drawbacks to this approach. My approach is that instead of blacklisting abilities from magic, simply make the magic level-appropriate to whatever ability it emulates. A cleric should not be allowed to get full BAB for even 1r/lvl, but if he can grant a creature full BAB for 1 round (including the round he cast it), now he has a potent buff spell that makes the rogue super effective. If that's too strong, you can add rage-style riders, or exhaustion, charge-up times, or other penalties. At least the spell will still exist.


Well, it seems like you and I have an entirely different set of expectations from the game.
While you wish to up skillmonkeys and melees to a sort of spellcasters, I intentionally don't want magic to solve everything and I want a clear separation between what the party'd Warrior/Rogue/Priest/Mage can accomplish and the means by which they can do so.
Both approaches are legitimate, just different.But your solution is that you are completely separating the out-of-combat utility and resigning it to the rogue, while the priest and mage are left with nothing but attacks and maybe some high-level non-skill based utility. Your expectations hurt the adventuring dynamic because now the wizard can't even contribute in a dungeon crawl outside of killing monsters, so he feels like a fighter.

[Super_slash2]

Magic can't grant feats pretty much nixes half a dozen fantasy plot lines you COULD have but now can't because you're just banned it.

Boosting Intimidate but leaving out the other skills is such a gameplay-story segregation, you will have a hard time convincing anyone it is a natural process, I'm sure.

He meant that having Jump steps over a niche that the Acrobatics skill fills.

Also, it makes perfect sense to have spells have autonomity. It's how coding works... you just set your required triggers and let it run through. If the knowledge of the spell is the code, the incantation is the compiling and the casting is runtime, then Magic using triggers makes perfect sense.

[Amechra]

nonsi, an AI of some sort is not required to result in intelligent automated behavior.

You can build a functional "robot" that doesn't have any software at all, just hardwired responses to stimuli. I can't remember the actual term for the type of robot, but you can design an automaton that exhibits behaviors about as complicated as that of an insect with regards to avoiding or approaching proper stimuli.

Heck, you can build a learning "computer" with a few matchboxes and some beans. (http://blog.makezine.com/2009/11/02/mechanical-tic-tac-toe-computer/)

So it is not too unbelievable that spells should react to certain preset stimuli.