The Forty-Five (EDIT: Seventy-Five) Theses on the Design and Brokenness of Spells [Archive]

Vadskye

2013-08-04, 05:56 PM

D&D's spell system is one of the most unique things about the game. It allows the game to encompass a great variety of magical phenomena, and it it can make being a magic user uniquely enjoyable, in the right circumstances.

It is also poorly designed and incredibly broken.

Here I present the most important problems with the spell system as currently written. Soon, I will present my proposed Spell Reformation, where I attempt to address all of these problems.

Spells Are Complex, Unintuitive, and Hard to Use

Spells vary wildly in power and utility, even at the same level.Sleep is vastly superior to Cause Fear. Daylight does not deserve to be at the same level as Fireball. Crushing Despair is trivial compared to Fear or Slow. Placing Haste at the same level as Rage is ludicrous. There is no shortage of similar examples.
Spell damage scaling makes no sense.How much damage does a 5th level spell do at caster level 10 (chosen for easy math)? That depends. Let's take a look. First, AOE spells:

4d6: Mass Inflict Light Wounds
10d6: Cone of Cold, Twinned Burning Hands
15d6: Empowered Fireball

Now single-target spells:

7d6: Maximized Inflict Moderate Wounds
9d6: Maximized Acid Arrow
10d6: Twinned Magic Missile, Empowered Inflict Serious Wounds, Empowered Searing Light
14d6: Maximized Scorching Ray
This is absolutely terrible.
Many spells are too trivial to be worth including.Does Helping Hand really need to be a spell? Has anyone actually needed Animal Trance, Calm Animals, Charm Animal, or Hide from Animals?
Spells are used where class features belong.What separates a spell from a class feature is that a spell is an optional choice, while a class feature is an inherent part of a class. All of the various "animal control" spells are not strong or useful enough to exist as spells; in order for them to be lowered in level to the point that they would be chosen, they would be overpowered. Instead, they should be redesigned into class features for the druid so that the druid's spells can be interesting and useful.
Many spells are poorly worded, making it difficult to understand their purpose.What does Magic Jar do anyway?
Many spells have overly detailed mechanics, requiring excessive amounts of text to clarify their usage. Consider the text of Knock:
The knock spell opens stuck, barred, locked, held, or arcane locked doors. It opens secret doors, as well as locked or trick-opening boxes or chests. It also loosens welds, shackles, or chains (provided they serve to hold closures shut). If used to open a arcane locked door, the spell does not remove the arcane lock but simply suspends its functioning for 10 minutes. In all other cases, the door does not relock itself or become stuck again on its own. Knock does not raise barred gates or similar impediments (such as a portcullis), nor does it affect ropes, vines, and the like. The effect is limited by the area. Each spell can undo as many as two means of preventing egress.

Consider the following rewording:

The knock spell opens a locked or otherwise forcibly closed door or container within the area. The spell can undo up to two obstacles on the same object per casting. If used on an arcane locked door, the arcane lock is suppressed for 10 minutes.
The reworded spell is identical, but far clearer, in 95% of all situations. It gained the ability to open gates and portcullises. Is that minor detail worth adding so much complexity to the spell? I would argue absolutely not. There are many spells like this which would benefit from a rewording and clarification.
Many spells have trivial effects which are not worth the time investment to track.The attack bonus from Aid, the miscellanous +1 bonuses from Haste, and so on are trivial. It is unlikely that they will make any difference, but they force players to recalculate attack bonuses and other attributes anyway. This is particularly bad if the bonus is typed, since it forces the player to ensure that he does not have any other bonuses of that specific type - an unnecessarily large amount of mental investment for a +1 bonus.
There are too many bonus types.Using such a wide variety of bonus types is unnecessary and makes it much more difficult to keep track of whether a particular effect will apply at full strength or not. Compressing the number of bonus types would make buffing spells much simpler.
Buffing before combat is time-consuming and unnecessarily complicated.Tracking durations for a variety of spells and making sure that bonus types match up properly is obnoxious. This slows down the game. The more time you spend buffing before combat, the less time you spend actually enjoying the combat.
1 round/level durations scale strangely.1 round/level durations are terribly inconvenient. They are unusable at low levels (Touch of Fatigue and Summon Monster I being the worst offenders), and not worth the significant bookkeeping to keep track of precise spell durations at any level after about 8th, when they tend to last for a full encounter. Combat duration doesn't get longer as level increases, so why should duration?
Level-scaling ranges and durations increase complexity substantially for little gain.Keeping track of precise ranges and durations is time-consuming. In the vast majority of cases, it does not substantially change outcomes or increase enjoyment in any way, but it is still technically necessary. Flat durations and ranges are much easier to use.
Some spells are terribly designed.Scare is just a 2nd-level Cause Fear when first acquired. By the time it can affect multiple creatures, any creatures worth affecting are already immune to its effect.
Spell casting times and components are confusingly formatted.Including "Casting Time: 1 standard action" and "Components: V, S" on 95% of all spells just makes it difficult to notice when the casting time or components are different from the norm.
Spell ranges are confusingly formatted on area spells.Does "Range" refer to the distance away from you that a spell can be cast, or the distance from you that the spell's area extends? It depends! A spell like Bless is fairly specific; it indicates that the area originates from the caster. Bane, however, is completely ambiguous. The area is "All enemies within 50 ft". Within 50 feet of what? Is this a burst, a spread, or something different? The only spells to use a similar format are Circle of Death / Undeath to Death, which affect "Several living creatures within a 40 ft. radius burst". From context - primarily by comparison to Bless - we can determine that Bane is intended to affect a 50 ft. burst centered on the caster, while Circle of Death is intended to affect a burst within the range. However, this is unnecessarily ambiguous. A reasonable and intelligent person might easily read Bane and conclude that it affects a 50 ft. radius centered on a point within the (50 ft.) range.
Area spells affect arbitrarily chosen and difficult to remember areas.Quick - how large of an area do Chaos Hammer, Confusion, and Sound Burst affect? If you guessed 20 ft., 15 ft., and 10 ft, congratulations - you're really good at memorizing random numbers. Spells that hit a radius can range from anywhere from a 5 ft. radius to an 80 ft. radius, with no particular patterns. Cones extend out either 15 ft., 30 ft., or 60 ft. from you. Wouldn't spells be so much easier to use if their areas were predictable and easy to remember?
Spells which affect multiple targets have inconsistent limitations.Why do most multiple target spells, like Mass Bull's Strength, affect creatures "no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart", while others, like Holy Aura, affect creatures "within a 20 ft. radius"? Come to think of it, why do any spells use the "no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart" wording? I don't see any way for that to be easier to work with than "within a 15 ft. radius". Which, of course, raises the question of why we are working with a 15 ft. radius, which is one of the least used values for spell radii.
Spells which affect cylinders can pass through walls.A cylinder-shaped spell is explicitly stated to "ignore any obstructions within its area", PHB p. 175.
Spell descriptions are inconsistently formatted.Too many cases to list here. Just trust me - they are.
1-round casting time spells are terribly designed.I can't count how many times my players have gotten this particular mechanic wrong. The distinction between a "full-round action" and a "1-round action" is absolutely terribly worded, and makes little sense even when you know which one you are talking about. It feels like getting no actions on the turn you do the casting and two actions on the next turn, and it is incredibly easy to disrupt. There is nothing that a "1-round action" casting time contributes to fluff and enjoyment that couldn't be done better with "Full-round action" casting time.
Spell schools and subschools are poorly and inconsistently defined.For more on this, see this entertaining thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=291683). And by "entertaining" I mean "incredibly long and complicated". Though I enjoy it...
EDIT: Radius spells cast at the limit of their range have very odd and unintuitive shapes.
EDIT: Line spells are confusing. How many squares does a 50 ft. line spell affect? That depends - if you aim it in any of the four cardinal directions, it affects 20 squares. If you aim it very slightly to the left or right of that, it affects about 10 squares. This is, frankly, stupid.
EDIT: Calculating saving throw DC individually for every level of spells adds an unnecessary level of complexity to the game.
EDIT: Effects which improve spellcasting by only improving DCs arbitrarily help some kinds of spellcasters substantially while providing no benefit to others.
EDIT: Most effects which improve spellcasting improve only DCs, contributing to the imbalance between damage spells and nondamaging spells.
EDIT: Not enough effects improve spellcasting in interesting and consistent ways.
EDIT: It takes too long for a creature to lower its own spell resistance.
EDIT: Metamagic level reduction effects are generally broken.This is a completely noncore issue, so I'm not inclined to get into this too much, but poorly worded and badly designed effects like Arcane Thesis do terrible harm to perfectly reasonable metamagic designs.

Combat Spells are Broken
Low-level spellcasters have two modes: "useless" and "broken".A single Sleep or Color Spray spell can end an encounter instantly. However, a low-level spellcaster has only a very small number of those spells, forcing her to do various non-magical tasks like pointlessly firing a crossbow in any situation that does not involve an serious threat. This is not a healthy game dynamic.
Moderately optimized D&D quickly devolves into "rocket tag"."Rocket tag" refers to the way high-level D&D characters can essentially all kill each other instantly. For example, a wizard would die if the fighter got a single full attack (or with some builds, a single charge attack), but the fighter would usually die or be rendered irrelevant if the wizard succesfully affected the fighter with a single spell.
The "rocket tag" phenomenon is severely detrimental to the game.When everyone is perpetually one bad roll or poor decision away from death, combat has to be fast, efficient, and brutal. There is no room for finesse or subtlety. This promotes highly technical, tactical play and discourages role-playing.
Spells can end combat far too quickly, promoting rocket tag.This is caused by a small army of problems. I will let the subproblems speak for themselves.
Spells can kill opponents instantly.Save or die spells prevent any sort of sane combat from taking place. Since these effects start at 1st level, with Color Spray and Sleep, this is a problem throughout the game.
Spells can render opponents irrelevant instantly.Total action denial spells like Hold Person and Confusion perform the same function and have the same effect as save-or-die spells.
Spells do too much damage relative to HP.Scorching Ray dals roughly 1d6 damage per level. Wizards have a d4 hit die. It is trivially easy for a spellcaster to kill another spellcaster with a single spell. (See point 1.) When you take into account Empower and Maximize, a single spell can take down a cleric or even a fighter.
Buffing before combat yields massive swings in party capability.A party that chooses to buff before a combat can easily go up multiple ECLs relative to an unbuffed party. This makes it extremely difficult for a DM to plan party-appropriate combat encounters. If the party goes in unbuffed against a monster designed for a buffed party, they can easily be killed or routed. If they go in buffed against a monster designed for an unbuffed party, the encounter will often be trivially easy. Limiting the power and usefulness of precombat buffs would significantly even out gameplay.
Many buffs are just too good.Haste is the biggest offender here as a mass spell that gives everyone significant bonuses for a mere 3rd level spell. Enlarge Person is also amazingly strong for a 1st level spell.
Some buffs can render entire encounters irrelevant.A dire bear's grappling abilities are nearly unbeatable - unless the fighter has Freedom of Movement, in which case the fight will be a breeze. A vampire can be a terrifying foe - but against a party with Death Ward and Magic Circle against Evil, a vampire is just a pale human without a Con score. (Okay, not literally.) The problem is not merely that these spells exist, but rather that they have such a long duration. This means that it is easy to cast the spell on everyone in the party that might need it, and infeasible for an enemy to wait for the spells to expire.
Spells can make the subjects effectively invincible to non-spellcasters.Flight effects and Greater Invisibility are the most prominent offenders here.
Many multiple target spells that lack single-target versions are vastly more powerful than they should be relative to single-target spells.What level would Haste or Slow be as a single-target spell? What about Confusion or Fear? These spells have effects that would be roughly level-appropriate as single-target spells, but they affect multiple creatures. This makes them significantly better than they should be.
Area of effect spells affect too large of an area.At 5th level, when first aquired, Fireball can deal anywhere from 5d6 to 250d6 damage, depending on how many targets are in the 20 ft. radius. An Empowered Fireball from a 10th level caster can deal anywhere from 15d6 to 750d6 damage. A 20 ft. radius is huge.
Area of effect and multiple target spells are too powerful relative to single-target spells.If area spells do equivalent damage to single-target spells, why would I use a single-target spell? Just so that I don't hit my allies? But the large radius of area spells is itself a problem. If that problem is fixed, the supremacy of area spells over targeted spells becomes assured. Buff and debuff spells are (usually) significantly penalized for affecting multiple targets - why shouldn't damage spells be the same?
Polymorph.Does this really need explanation? Also, Polymorph any Object and Shapechange.
EDIT: High-level casters can cast spells at unnecessarily long ranges.
EDIT: Any low-level spells which depend on a saving throw are useless at mid to high levels.
EDIT: Low-level spells that do not depend on saving throws are very powerful at mid to high levels, thanks to metamagic.
EDIT: This dichotomy is unnecessary and harmful to game balance.
EDIT: As has been said many times, Quicken Spell breaks the action economy like crazy.
EDIT: Casters should generally be limited to one major action per round, just like everyone else in the game.
EDIT: Quickening is essentially useless (without metamagic level reduction abuse) until very high levels, at which point it is overpowered.
EDIT: Quicken Spell should scale more appropriately with level, being useless at many levels but never becoming game-breaking.

Noncombat Spells Are Also Broken
Spells can make make social interactions trivially easy.Glibness, Charm Person, and Suggestion can all turn a challenging social encounter into a cakewalk. The problem is not that those spells exist, but that they are so easily accessible.
Spells can make dungeon delving trivially easy.Find Traps, Knock, and Summon Monster can all deal with traps and obstacles easily. These are particularly problematic because they are generally non-interactive. Disabling a trap or opening a door can be tricky, particularly if there is a battle ongoing. These spells do it faster, better, and more consistently than any mundane alternatives.
Spells can make stealth and detection irrelevant easily.Invisibility and Silence are nearly unbeatable together.
Spellcasters can perform any of these feats with too little investment.The problem with the above examples is not that magic is theoretically capable of performing these feats. It is magic, after all! That is what magic is for. The problem is that every single example above is done with 3rd level or lower spells. In fact, everything except Suggestion and Glibness can be accomplished by 3rd level!
Given time to prepare, a spellcaster can perform all of these feats.It would be bad enough if a spellcaster was capable of overriding a single other area of the game at 3rd level. However, because prepared casters can change spells daily, they can actually override any and all other aspects of the game.
Spells can exert control over the game world that nothing else can compete with.A well-placed Dominate Person or Suggestion can turn a city on its head. Scrying and Teleport can dramatically rewrite the whole concept of adventuring and travel when acquired. Spells give almost DM-level control of the game to players - but only to some players. That is not a good system.
Free, permanent duration spells are easily abusable.Explosive Runes is the archetypal example here, but any multiday spell can cause these sorts of problems. Any spell which lasts for multiple days should impose some sort of cost beyond the initial spell slot, since that will be recovered by the time the spell is actually relevant - thus making the spell effectively free.
EDIT: Some spells have effects that are not worth a spell slot of their level, yet are difficult to reduce in level. Consider a spell like Consecrate. Is it a magical effect? Absolutely. However, its effects are fairly minor - notable only for their duration. I have a hard time justifying spending a 2nd or 3rd level spell slot on this effect; it's just not worth it.

With that said, it doesn't seem fair to let a 1st level caster Consecrate an area, either. This is a significant magical effect - it's just not a useful one.

As a further example, consider Remove Disease. It's an effect that a an archetypal cleric should be able to create, provided that she is sufficiently powerful. However, it's hard to justify spending a 3rd level spell slot on an effect like that. It's even worse if you look at it from the perspective of spending a whole spell known just to get the ability to remove diseases. Spellcasters who have specific lists of spells known (Favored Souls in vanilla, or a variety of homebrew classes) should be able to remove diseases without having to lose spells known.
EDIT: Some spells can are fine in small doses, but can dramatically alter the nature of the world when they are freely usable without permanent cost.Do you know the easiest way to get through the Tomb of Horrors? Just cast Clairaudience/Clairvoyance every day for weeks until you've mapped out the entire area. Need to get information on an enemy? Just cast Scrying ad infinitum until they fail a save. Then cast Scrying on every single person you see in the first Scrying. Most campaigns don't run into these issues for for one of two reasons: either the players and the DM have a gentleman's agreement not to actually use the spell system as written, or they haven't thought of it yet. I have yet to see any campaign actually run in the Tippyverse. However, I think we deserve a spell system that isn't painfully abusable.
EDIT: Some spells provide benefits to the entire party, yet extract resources from only the caster.Divination, Restoration, Scrying, and Teleport are all important effects that everyone in the party benefits from. However, they all require the caster to expend spell slots (and even more painfully, spells known, in systems that use spells known) to get these results. This amounts to a hidden tax on the caster's capacity, forcing them to choose between having personal power and contributing necessary effects. Now, casters have historically been so powerful that this is not a serious detriment to their utility. However, if casters were balanced against the other classes, this tax would be a problem. It would be better if party gain came from party resources.

Other Comments
Spell resistance is crude and noninteractive.The default SR for a CR-appropriate monster is designed such that a spellcaster will fail 50% of the time. Futhermore, caster level is one of the statistics that a typical spellcaster is least able to modify, and changes comparatively little over a caster's career. This means that spell resistance, when it applies, simply acts like a flat chance of failure. That is not a healthy balancing mechanism. That's like taking a fully optimized Ubercharger build and calling it "balanced" by slapping a 50% chance to miss onto all of its attacks. Spell resistance should be interactive and more sensitive to character development.
Spellcasters are unnecessarily penalized for devoting their resources into spells which the whole party requires.Divine Power and Wall of Stone are a lot more fun to cast - and often more appropriate for a character - then Restoration or Teleport. However, the latter spells can be essential in certain circumstances, so the spellcaster is obligated to spend personal resources to memorize and cast these utility spells.
Broken spells affect everyone, not just spellcasters.Magic items are constructed based on spells, and virtually every character has magic items. Poorly designed spells yield poorly designed magic items. In addition, NPCs use spells and monster abilities are often based on spells. If spells are broken, so too is the D&D world as a whole.

EDIT: Now with 20% more theses! Some are listed in new categories here; others belong to categories discussed above, and it would be confusing to separate them here, so they are added where they belong with a big "EDIT:" in front.
Interactivity
Many spells are unconditional, allowing little opportunity for resistance or interaction.A level 100 fighter with infinite saves and SR can still be trapped in a Solid Fog just as easily as a commoner. (Credit to eggynack for the example and problem description)
Non-interactive spells are bad for the game - both for casters and for noncasters.Interactivity - the interplay of attack and defense, and the adjustment to various circumstances - is the core of a game like D&D. Spells which ignore defenses just skip right past that, and it makes the game less fun. Noncasters get screwed over by spells they can do nothing about, and casters don't have to make tactical decision and adapt to circumstances - they can just do the same things every encounter.
Magic can interact freely with both magical and mundane effects, but mundane effects can generally only interact with other mundane effects.
Noncasters should have more opportunity to interact with magic.This is edging into some of my class rewrites for Rise, so I'll leave this mostly alone for now. This thread is already overly broad.

Design Goals
An ideal spell rewrite will decrease the overall power level of spells and spellcasters.
It is possible to reduce the power level of spellcasters while actually making them more fun to play.
An ideal spell rewrite will be as modular as possible, allowing changes to be applied individually.It is unreasonable to think that one system perfectly fits everyone's game. Everyone has different ideas of what makes D&D fun. I would hate to see someone throw the 95% of the revisions that they like because the other 5% changes something that they regard as essential.
The problem with magic in D&D lies with the spells, and not with the casting system itself.This is not to say that I endorse the Vancian prepared casting sytem. I personally think the "spells known and spell slots" method that the sorcerer uses is the best casting system, followed by the "spells known and power points" method, and finally followed by prepared casting. However, the casting system used isn't the problem by itself. Whether mages use prepared casting, power points, or spell slots, they are still broken if the spells they cast are broken.
An ideal spell rewrite would work regardless of which casting system is used.All of the changes here are designed to be system-agnostic, and compatible with whatever your favorite method of casting is. Note that this also means changing some spells that only work under a Vancian prepared casting system. See the Rituals section for more detail.
While perfection is impossible, it should still be the goal.Some problems with the spell system are game-breaking. Some problems are trivial - but they are still problems. The Spell Reformation strives for perfection, rewriting or removing every single spell in the game. Insane? Perhaps. But I think that the outcome is better for it.
Players must never be forced to choose between the interesting and the powerful.

EDIT: Parts I and II of the Spell Reformation (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=296817) has been posted. They describe how I change spells to correct these problems.

Cheiromancer

2013-08-04, 06:16 PM

I'm very excited about this thread! I have no idea how you can fix all these things without publishing your own game system, but I am eager to see the attempt.

Good luck!

Jormengand

2013-08-04, 06:33 PM

I'm very excited about this thread! I have no idea how you can fix all these things without publishing your own game system, but I am eager to see the attempt.

Good luck!

Rewrite most of the spells, while removing a lot of them. Ban Irresistible Spell. Restrict numbers of high level spells per day.

Grinner

2013-08-04, 06:35 PM

Wow. That is...quite thorough.

Have an internet.

From a non-mechanical perspective, one thing I dislike about the Vancian casting system is that there's mounds and mounds of spells that all do the same thing. It's strange that the spell responsible for a fireball can't be scaled back to light campfires.

Also, point #6 under "Noncombat Spells Are Also Broken" illustrates something very important. I think D&D is built on the assumption that the game world is a fairly mundane land of castles and kings. Then, it drops people with posthuman sci-fi abilities into the middle with no regard for the consequences.

TuggyNE

2013-08-05, 02:52 AM

I love the title reference.

Spell durations and schools are things I'd already marked down on my mental list of "should come up with a sane and fairly complete houserule idea some time", but hadn't gotten around to yet.

I would disagree on one of your points, though; very few spells actually do "too much" damage, unless you're assuming that enemies have average or low Con scores essentially all the time, rather than accepting that they will probably not dump Con much. Sure, a d4 hit die scales slower than d6/level, but if the target has at least 12 Con, suddenly they scale at the same speed, and if they have 14 Con or more, the target is at an advantage. Now consider that there are enemies with d12 HD, more HD than CR, and high racial Con scores (the only monsters that fit all of those are the dragons, but quite a few fit one or two of them, such as Barbarians).

Generally speaking, blastomancy is workable only by action economy/multi-target (ab)use (such as fireball, which hits multiple targets for mediocre damage), truly substantial optimization effort going into raw damage (i.e., the mailman), or both.

Other than that, this seems quite correct, and fairly comprehensive.

Eldan

2013-08-05, 06:10 AM

Technically, different spells dealing different amounts of damage is not a problem. Or I don't see it as one. Because they deal damage of different kinds, that affects different kinds of creatures, damage with additional effects, damage in different areas, to more or less targets, etc. The pure damage is not the only metric.

And can I just say that rocket tag is my favourite form of combat? I don't like drawn out battles. They are boring. I like battles where everyone is one bad tactical decision away from destruction. You plan, you execute your plan, you win or you lose. No boring slog where you have probably already won but first have to wear down the enemy for eight rounds of combat and two hours in real life. "Fast, efficient and brutal" is everything I want from a combat system. Because slow combat is just not interesting.

Also, 1-round casting time spells are fantastic. Why? Because they are easy to interrupt. Spellcasting in general should be easier to interrupt. It gives the mundanes a chance to rush in and ram a sword through the wizard's chest before he loosens his demons on them.

eggynack

2013-08-05, 07:09 AM

I would disagree on one of your points, though; very few spells actually do "too much" damage, unless you're assuming that enemies have average or low Con scores essentially all the time, rather than accepting that they will probably not dump Con much. Sure, a d4 hit die scales slower than d6/level, but if the target has at least 12 Con, suddenly they scale at the same speed, and if they have 14 Con or more, the target is at an advantage. Now consider that there are enemies with d12 HD, more HD than CR, and high racial Con scores (the only monsters that fit all of those are the dragons, but quite a few fit one or two of them, such as Barbarians).

Generally speaking, blastomancy is workable only by action economy/multi-target (ab)use (such as fireball, which hits multiple targets for mediocre damage), truly substantial optimization effort going into raw damage (i.e., the mailman), or both.
I agree with this a lot. For the most part, a spell that only deals damage can be put in the unbroken category. I'd advise removing any claims that involve them, because they're just not nearly as good as you're making them out to be. Also, you're missing one of the points that I think is most important. This point is how unconditional many spells are. Like, you're walking around with infinite saves and infinite SR, and the wizard casts a solid fog at you, and those defenses are absolutely meaningless. You send a golem who's surrounded by a permanent antimagic field, and the wizard shoots an orb of fire your way, and the golem might as well be any other enemy. You use a character with perfect defenses, all of the ones I listed before, as well as infinite touch AC, and the wizard creates a wall of stone, and you've just got nothing. You mentioned that SR is basically a flat failure chance, but to a wizard who knows his stuff, that is completely untrue.

The problem is mostly with conjuration, because of how many instantaneous effects it has (as well as summoning type spells, which just don't care that you're a golem), and transmutation spells, because they target the wizard and his allies, rather than the enemies. You can't defend against a buff. Wizard spells just shouldn't be this unconditional. With a fighter, basically anything you do is a defense. With a wizard, basically nothing you do is a defense. Wizards also get all the best defenses, so if any character is going to have the freedom of movement necessary to make the unconditional solid fog a bit less unconditional, it's going to be the wizard.

Yitzi

2013-08-05, 07:14 AM

Ban Irresistible Spell.

As an unofficial source, I believe it is banned by default unless explicitly permitted (something no sane DM should do).

Jormengand

2013-08-05, 08:18 AM

As an unofficial source, I believe it is banned by default unless explicitly permitted (something no sane DM should do).

Ban Irresistible spell, burn all references to it and feed its creator to a few wolves.

Eldan

2013-08-05, 08:27 AM

Is that the one which removes the save from spells or the one that removes spell resistance? Probably the first, from the reactions. **** that.

sreservoir

2013-08-05, 09:03 AM

Spells which affect multiple targets have inconsistent limitations.Why do most multiple target spells, like Mass Bull's Strength, affect creatures "no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart", while others, like Holy Aura, affect creatures "within a 20 ft. radius"? Come to think of it, why do any spells use the "no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart" wording? I don't see any way for that to be easier to work with than "within a 15 ft. radius". Which, of course, raises the question of why we are working with a 15 ft. radius, which is one of the least used values for spell radii.

the two are not equivalent. consider that we can place four creatures on the vertices of a regular tetrahedron with side lengths 30 ft..

(it's still silly, though.)

Jormengand

2013-08-05, 11:21 AM

Is that the one which removes the save from spells or the one that removes spell resistance? Probably the first, from the reactions. **** that.

It removes the save. Penetrating Spell gives you a crazy bonus to SR penetration checks, though.

Carl

2013-08-05, 12:17 PM

Hanuman

2013-08-05, 12:47 PM

I'd start a thread like this by asking questions, if the question is resolved with the consensus that the mechanic is broken, suggest a fix, and start compiling, mail to Paizo in a big hardcopy book and wait for pathfinder2.

4d6: Mass Inflict Light Wounds
10d6: Cone of Cold, Twinned Burning Hands
15d6: Empowered Fireball

-Inflict wounds is a divine spell, it's not supposed to be a blaster. It also does negative energy damage, which puts it in a "special damage" category. The reason it's scaled to 1d8+1/lvl is because it's classified as a healing spell as well, because negative energy heals undead.
-Twin and Empower are feats, that's why they have damage increases, and it's more about how powerful the feat is than the spell at that point. Exotic had a damage die increase due to the feat investment, ect.
-Cone and Fireball do 1d6/level elemental damage, seems pretty standard.

Fix:
I'd tweak metamagic feats, they break the system quite a bit actually and need some additional downsides, like how wilders have wild surge.

eggynack

2013-08-05, 12:48 PM

Eldan

2013-08-05, 01:04 PM

eggynack

2013-08-05, 01:12 PM

You say a wizard worth his slots has 14 con, but, well. Look at the DMg sometime. It recommends point buy 25 for a normal campaign. I know a lot of people around here prefer 32, but that's technically not what the game accounts for.

If you want your 18 Int and 14 con, you don't get any other ability modifiers. No wisdom for will saves, no dexterity for initiative. If you roll, it becomes even harder.
That generally sounds fine. A wizard can do perfectly well with nothing but intelligence and constitution. He doesn't need dexterity, even if it's nice, and he doesn't even really want the other stats. A wizard needs constitution, and it has nothing to do with the damage dealt by a scorching ray. There are so many things in the game that deal absurd damage, and there are so many things that just plink away at your HP resources, that not pumping your constitution at all isn't really something that wizards do. Hell, I'd probably dump intelligence below an 18 before I'd drop constitution below a 14. 16 intelligence, 14 constitution, 14 dexterity, and then pumping the other stats by three points seems like a perfectly viable stat assignment to me.

Siosilvar

2013-08-05, 01:20 PM

The DMG recommends 25 points because that's what the Elite Array is. The Elite Array, however, is the rounded down average character. Realistically a character's stats run closer to 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9 (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/dnd/abilities.html) which is 29 points by itself.

Vadskye

2013-08-05, 02:55 PM

First some individual responses (I care about what you all think!) and then I'll address the issue of damage spells.
Cheiromancer:

I'm very excited about this thread! I have no idea how you can fix all these things without publishing your own game system, but I am eager to see the attempt.

Good luck!
Thank you. I koff actually am planning on publishing my own game system, but the Spell Reformation is designed to be 100% compatible with 3.5/PF.
Jormengand:

Rewrite most of the spells, while removing a lot of them. Ban Irresistible Spell. Restrict numbers of high level spells per day.That's essentially the plan. Though I actually don't plan on changing much about high level spells per day - of everything I change, that's something I'm fine with. I'd rather change the high level spells themselves.
Grinner:

Wow. That is...quuite thorough.

Have an internet.
Thank you. (My first Internet! Yay!)

From a non-mechanical perspective, one thing I dislike about the Vancian casting system is that there's mounds and mounds of spells that all do the same thing. It's strange that the spell responsible for a fireball can't be scaled back to light campfires.
Actually... I didn't think about it from that perspective. If I added a simple rule that said that you can arbitrarily decrease the area of a spell (within the normal parameters of the spell - making Fireball a 5' radius is okay, but making it a hemisphere is not), that would solve that problem rather nicely. I'll just have to think about whether it would cause unintended consequences. Thanks for the idea.

Also, point #6 under "Noncombat Spells Are Also Broken" illustrates something very important. I think D&D is built on the assumption that the game world is a fairly mundane land of castles and kings. Then, it drops people with posthuman sci-fi abilities into the middle with no regard for the consequences.
Absolutely true (though some campaign settings, like Eberron, give magic due credence). Hence the Tippyverse.
Tuggy:

I love the title reference.
Glad someone got it. :smallsmile:

Spell durations and schools are things I'd already marked down on my mental list of "should come up with a sane and fairly complete houserule idea some time", but hadn't gotten around to yet.
Even if you end up disliking parts of the Spell Reformation, I hope you like the duration and school changes.
Eldan:

And can I just say that rocket tag is my favourite form of combat? I don't like drawn out battles. They are boring. I like battles where everyone is one bad tactical decision away from destruction. You plan, you execute your plan, you win or you lose. No boring slog where you have probably already won but first have to wear down the enemy for eight rounds of combat and two hours in real life. "Fast, efficient and brutal" is everything I want from a combat system. Because slow combat is just not interesting.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting that I prefer 4e-style slogs. You should always feel like you are in danger, and that your decisions matter. Even after my changes (which are coming soon), it is possible to 1-round an opponent - if the whole party works together. That's a huge difference between giving "I win" buttons to every caster. Right now, rocket tag D&D isn't so much about tactics as it is about winning initiative and not failing saves (if you're lucky enough to get one).

Also, 1-round casting time spells are fantastic. Why? Because they are easy to interrupt. Spellcasting in general should be easier to interrupt. It gives the mundanes a chance to rush in and ram a sword through the wizard's chest before he loosens his demons on them.
If spells should be more disruptible, then this idea should be applied broadly, not just to a handful of spells through a confusing mechanic. I actually have a lot of sympathy for the "disrupting spells" idea, and there are a lot of interesting ways that it can be done. However, using "1-round action" spells interspersed more or less arbitrarily into the existing spell system is the wrong way to achieve that goal.
Eggynack:

Also, you're missing one of the points that I think is most important. This point is how unconditional many spells are. Like, you're walking around with infinite saves and infinite SR, and the wizard casts a solid fog at you, and those defenses are absolutely meaningless. You send a golem who's surrounded by a permanent antimagic field, and the wizard shoots an orb of fire your way, and the golem might as well be any other enemy. You use a character with perfect defenses, all of the ones I listed before, as well as infinite touch AC, and the wizard creates a wall of stone, and you've just got nothing. You mentioned that SR is basically a flat failure chance, but to a wizard who knows his stuff, that is completely untrue.

The problem is mostly with conjuration, because of how many instantaneous effects it has (as well as summoning type spells, which just don't care that you're a golem), and transmutation spells, because they target the wizard and his allies, rather than the enemies. You can't defend against a buff. Wizard spells just shouldn't be this unconditional. With a fighter, basically anything you do is a defense. With a wizard, basically nothing you do is a defense. Wizards also get all the best defenses, so if any character is going to have the freedom of movement necessary to make the unconditional solid fog a bit less unconditional, it's going to be the wizard.
Absolutely true. I would just add two things. First, the problem of spell unconditionality is not actually something I didn't think about - it just didn't make it onto the list. Not even 45 was enough, it seems. :smalltongue: Second, I decided to simplify the point about SR by not considering SR: No spells, since the existince of spells that ignore SR doesn't change the fact that SR uses a bad mechanic. However, it is completely true that SR does not seriously inhibit a well-built caster.

Mind if I edit your points about spell unconditionality and add them the list in the original post?
sreservoir:

the two are not equivalent. consider that we can place four creatures on the vertices of a regular tetrahedron with side lengths 30 ft..

(it's still silly, though.)Haha. I didn't even think of that. I did some math - that would require a slightly greater than 18 ft. radius to affect the same area. Geometry is weird.

Now to address concerns about damage (or rather, concerns about my concerns about damage). I think this boils down to a key problem: spells don't do excessive amounts of damage relative to monster HP, but do massive amounts of damage relative to PC HP. To see the difference, let's consider the following table of average monster HP relative to CR. We'll use a 14 Con fighter of the same level for comparison, assuming average rolls at each level.

{table=head]CR|Monster HP|Character HP|Character HP As a % of Monster HP
3|26|27|104%
4|46|34.5|75%
5|55|42|76%
6|66|49.5|75%
7|87|57|66%
8|96|64.5|67%
9|131|72|55%
10|129|79.5|62%
11|165|87|53%
12|184|94.5|51%
13|166|102|61%
14|174|109.5|63%
15|214|117|55%
16|218|124.5|57%
17|248|132|53%
18|319|139.5|44%
19|392|147|38%
20|442|154.5|35%
21|444|162|36%[/table]

See how character HP drops off precipitously? Those are the numbers I'm looking at. When I note that a Maximized Scorching Ray deals 72 damage, I notice that that's about three quarters of a fighter's HP at that level. It outright kills from full health any rogues and wizards except the most impressively dwarven - and even clerics foolish enough to have 12 Con. I think that's too much damage. The real kicker, of course, is that it's extremely difficult to avoid this damage; the wizard doesn't have to get into melee range, doesn't have to hit full AC, and you don't get a save.

You're all saying that it's actually not that bad when compared to a monster's HP - and you're absolutely right. 40% of a level-appropriate monster's HP with no save is significant, but not exactly game-breaking when it costs a 6th level slot. (This is pre-optimization, of course.)

This brings us to a broader question. Should damage spells be designed so that they are designed for humanoid creatures or for monsters? On the one hand, in a typical campaign setting, humanoid characters comprise the vast majority of creatures in the world. Thus, it makes sense to balance the system for them. On the other hand, in many campaigns the majority of combats take place against monsters rather than humanoid creatures - while humanoids may be more common, they are not more common in combat, and the latter can be considered more important.

I suppose this is where we run into the limits of trying to fix one aspect of a system in isolation. I think that humanoid creatures should be the center of the balance of the system for philosophical reasons; therefore, I create spells for that balance point, and I plan on reducing monster HP and HD when I get around to it.

However, I appreciate that not everyone feels that way, and this is an issue which is somewhat tangential to my overall goals with the Spell Reformation: I want to make a spell fix that everyone can use, not just one which fits my personal ideal system. Therefore, when I introduce my proposed changes, I will make it clear what I expect from damage, and I will include a very simple variant rule to make blasting monsters easier - though that will, naturally, make those spells too good against humanoid opponents. Does that seem fair?

Note that I continue to feel strongly that AOE damage spells like Fireball are too powerful relative to single target spells; that's not something that changes based on which scaling system is used.

Lastly, some damage-related individual comments. Tuggy:

Now consider that there are enemies with d12 HD, more HD than CR, and high racial Con scores (the only monsters that fit all of those are the dragons, but quite a few fit one or two of them, such as Barbarians).
I think that it's perfectly acceptable - even desirable - if blasting is a poor decision when fighting those monsters. Spells should not be universally useful; that's one of the key problems with the original spell system. You shouldn't Finger of Death a giant, you shouldn't Suggestion a mind flayer, you shouldn't Fireball a monk, and you shouldn't blast a troll unless you've got a fighters hacking away at it too. That's the way things should work.
Eldan:

Technically, different spells dealing different amounts of damage is not a problem. Or I don't see it as one. Because they deal damage of different kinds, that affects different kinds of creatures, damage with additional effects, damage in different areas, to more or less targets, etc. The pure damage is not the only metric.
Absolutely true. My problem is not that different spells have different damage in the abstract - it's that the differences in damage are arbitrary and not connected to a spell's power level.

Hanuman

2013-08-05, 03:35 PM

The damage scaling issue is named "rocket-tag", where enemies and players cast save-or-die spells, damage is just one way to accomplish that.

Monsters with ridiculous HP to CR ratio have it because they aren't player characters and likely are not intelligent. They are a big chunk of meat that smacks the party around, and are designed to tank FOUR player classes, and even then the PC's are still designed to beat them about 2-6 times before exhausting their resources and needing to rest and re-supply.

The HP is so high because the whole party needs to contribute, not just the one caster. In a PvP scenario, yes, first one to lose their head loses, but players need to fight hydras :smallsmile:

eggynack

2013-08-05, 04:16 PM

Eggynack:

Absolutely true. I would just add two things. First, the problem of spell unconditionality is not actually something I didn't think about - it just didn't make it onto the list. Not even 45 was enough, it seems. :smalltongue: Second, I decided to simplify the point about SR by not considering SR: No spells, since the existince of spells that ignore SR doesn't change the fact that SR uses a bad mechanic. However, it is completely true that SR does not seriously inhibit a well-built caster.

Mind if I edit your points about spell unconditionality and add them the list in the original post?
Go ahead. It's a pretty important chunk of the problem with spell design. Folks think that there's any kind of real defense against a wizard, and there really isn't one.

On the damage issue, I really don't think it is one. We shouldn't compare the damage of a fireball to the HP of a given PC. We should compare the damage of a fireball to the damage of a melee guy that's trying to deal damage. The damage levels aren't really comparable. A barbarian that's giving it his all is insurmountable by all but the most damage focused wizard builds. Blasting is really the last thing that should be reined in. I mean, warmages are mages that are built particularly for damage, and they're at tier four. On single target versus AoE, I have to disagree with the evaluation that AoE is significantly better, or even better at all. If I'm picking up a blasting spell, it's going to be something unconditional and high power like an orb of fire. It's significantly more important to fully kill one guy than to half kill a group of guys, because half killing someone doesn't actually change the way an encounter looks. As is the usual truism, the only HP that matters is the last one.

TuggyNE

2013-08-05, 07:05 PM

You do al realise that the whole argument "con makes blasty not so silly as he makes out" is a logical fallacy.

I mean surely your not all so dumb as to not see the inherent issue in con being an impossible to dump stat and how that affects possible character customisation. Particularly for attempts to create classes that heavily focus 2 stats instead of one when one of those stats isn't Con?

I don't realize that at all, actually. Con is never a dump stat*, and it wouldn't be a dump stat even if the most highly damaging spells were 1d4/2 levels. What with Fort saves, natural weapons, regular weapons, traps, and enemy blasting spells, you need a lot of HP to survive. Sure, this is a bit of a system problem, but arguably the problem is found mostly in classes that need more than one key ability besides Con (or, if that's your thing, classes that need more than two besides Con).

*Unless you're playing an undead or construct PC, of course.

The DMG recommends 25 points because that's what the Elite Array is. The Elite Array, however, is the rounded down average character. Realistically a character's stats run closer to 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9 (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/dnd/abilities.html) which is 29 points by itself.

Yeah. I'd like to note that that is a perfect example of terrible math on the part of WotC; applying "D&D math" (i.e., always round down) to real-world numbers like roll distributions is a grave and unjustifiable error.

Gonna go through various responses, even if not addressed to me, because that's how I roll.

Actually... I didn't think about it from that perspective. If I added a simple rule that said that you can arbitrarily decrease the area of a spell (within the normal parameters of the spell - making Fireball a 5' radius is okay, but making it a hemisphere is not), that would solve that problem rather nicely. I'll just have to think about whether it would cause unintended consequences. Thanks for the idea.

There are a few cases where it would be nice (to avoid friendly fire, for example) and probably a few outlier spells that have bizarre results, but for the most part it should be acceptable.

Glad someone got it. :smallsmile:

Heh, yeah.

Even if you end up disliking parts of the Spell Reformation, I hope you like the duration and school changes.

Well, we'll see! :smallsmile:

Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting that I prefer 4e-style slogs. You should always feel like you are in danger, and that your decisions matter. Even after my changes (which are coming soon), it is possible to 1-round an opponent - if the whole party works together. That's a huge difference between giving "I win" buttons to every caster. Right now, rocket tag D&D isn't so much about tactics as it is about winning initiative and not failing saves (if you're lucky enough to get one).

Yeah, making casters less independent and forcing them to cooperate to get things done is one of the most fundamental goals here, I think; 4e's solution seems to have been to key essentially everything to HP (and then inflate HP to give longer fights), but there are other possibilities, such as my prototype of Will Points. SoDs and SoLs don't foster cooperation at all by their nature, so should be greatly reduced or reworked; save-or-gimps and flat debuffs work rather better, and blasting is relatively well-behaved. And, of course, buffs are nicely cooperative for the most part, as long as they're not self-only or capable of replacing baseline stats.

If spells should be more disruptible, then this idea should be applied broadly, not just to a handful of spells through a confusing mechanic. I actually have a lot of sympathy for the "disrupting spells" idea, and there are a lot of interesting ways that it can be done. However, using "1-round action" spells interspersed more or less arbitrarily into the existing spell system is the wrong way to achieve that goal.

Agreed. I tried making Concentration treat all damage taken during a round as ongoing damage, Melf's acid arrow-style, but I'm not sure that was the best approach.

Now to address concerns about damage (or rather, concerns about my concerns about damage). I think this boils down to a key problem: spells don't do excessive amounts of damage relative to monster HP, but do massive amounts of damage relative to PC HP. To see the difference, let's consider the following table of average monster HP relative to CR. We'll use a 14 Con fighter of the same level for comparison, assuming average rolls at each level.

14 Con straight, with no enhancement bonuses, inherent bonuses, or even level-up bonuses? Just 14 Con at 20th level? I think that's a dubious assumption; at the very least, picking up an amulet of health +2 by level 8 should be an obvious choice, increasing that to +4 by level 12 at the latest, and +6 by level 16. (Probably considerably earlier.)

This changes the table as follows:{table=head]CR|Monster HP|Character HP|Character HP As a % of Monster HP|Character Con modifier
3|26|27|104%|+2
4|46|34.5|75%|+2
5|55|42|76%|+2
6|66|49.5|75%|+2
7|87|57|66%|+2
8|96|72.5|76%|+3
9|131|81|62%|+3
10|129|89.5|69%|+3
11|165|98|59%|+3
12|184|118.5|64%|+4
13|166|128|77%|+4
14|174|137.5|79%|+4
15|214|147|69%|+4
16|218|172.5|79%|+5
17|248|183|74%|+5
18|319|193.5|61%|+5
19|392|204|52%|+5
20|442|234.5|53%|+6
21|444|246|55%|+6[/table]

See how character HP drops off precipitously? Those are the numbers I'm looking at. When I note that a Maximized Scorching Ray deals 72 damage, I notice that that's about three quarters of a fighter's HP at that level. It outright kills from full health any rogues and wizards except the most impressively dwarven - and even clerics foolish enough to have 12 Con. I think that's too much damage. The real kicker, of course, is that it's extremely difficult to avoid this damage; the wizard doesn't have to get into melee range, doesn't have to hit full AC, and you don't get a save.

PCs do often have better touch ACs than monsters (sometimes much better, such as a defense-oriented Monk or PsyWar, sometimes only somewhat), and are more likely to have fire resistance, but other than that, note that the updated figures leave the Fighter at better than 25% health, leaves Rogues alive (albeit by a whisker) and only kills Wizards — and that's only if all those rays hit, there's no fire resistance, and so forth.

Let's consider touch AC for a moment; a Rogue is quite likely to want high Dex, so probably at least +4 by this time, and should have a ring of protection +1 or better by this time. The enemy Wizard might have +2 Dex (ray caster, after all) and +5 BAB, so makes three +7 attacks against 15 AC. Counting crits, the odds of doing at least 48 damage are pretty good (73%), but the odds of doing 72 or more are kind of abysmal at 32%. (The odds of killing the Rogue outright with at least one crit and all rays hitting are a scant 4%.) If you add Weapon Focus and a Dex-boosting item to that for a total of +9, the odds shift to 85%/46%/6% respectively. OTOH, if you boost the Rogue's defense by assuming +2 deflection, +1 luck/insight/dodge (from any of a number of sources like haste or ioun stones), and +5 or +6 Dex (at level 11, most Rogues are going to pump it pretty well), things get a lot nicer, with only a 45% chance of soaking 48 damage and a 12% chance of being knocked down to 2 HP (not to mention a 17% chance of taking no damage at all).

I suppose this is where we run into the limits of trying to fix one aspect of a system in isolation. I think that humanoid creatures should be the center of the balance of the system for philosophical reasons; therefore, I create spells for that balance point, and I plan on reducing monster HP and HD when I get around to it.

I'd agree that this is the sticking point; note, though, that for this to be a minimal-intervention fix, the implications of high-, mid-, and low-optimization damage outputs from melee, archery, and other characters should also be considered. Spell damage isn't necessarily the benchmark, after all! (If anything, monster HP are only a problem for very-low-op THF and low- to mid-op TWF/archery/warlock/natural weapon attackers. Reducing it might have … unpleasant … side effects.)

However, I appreciate that not everyone feels that way, and this is an issue which is somewhat tangential to my overall goals with the Spell Reformation: I want to make a spell fix that everyone can use, not just one which fits my personal ideal system. Therefore, when I introduce my proposed changes, I will make it clear what I expect from damage, and I will include a very simple variant rule to make blasting monsters easier - though that will, naturally, make those spells too good against humanoid opponents. Does that seem fair?

I'd suggest also considering some other possibilities, including making touch AC a bit more effective as a defense (for monsters, but mostly for PCs) while hopefully containing the excesses of high-op touch AC optimization where possible.

Note that I continue to feel strongly that AOE damage spells like Fireball are too powerful relative to single target spells; that's not something that changes based on which scaling system is used.

You've already gotten some disagreements on this, but actually I'm inclined to agree here; area-based damage is inherently almost strictly superior to single-target damage, although damage type, friendly fire, defense type (Reflex, Will, Fort, touch, none), SR, and so on muddle the issue somewhat.

I think that it's perfectly acceptable - even desirable - if blasting is a poor decision when fighting those monsters. Spells should not be universally useful; that's one of the key problems with the original spell system. You shouldn't Finger of Death a giant, you shouldn't Suggestion a mind flayer, you shouldn't Fireball a monk, and you shouldn't blast a troll unless you've got a fighters hacking away at it too. That's the way things should work.

Well, trolls though… how else are you going to get enough acid/fire damage on them? Torches? +1d6/hit from flaming weapons? Burning them on a pyre? Flask rogue? (OK that last would actually work quite nicely.)

Otherwise yeah, I suppose there are always foes that blasting should work poorly on.

Absolutely true. My problem is not that different spells have different damage in the abstract - it's that the differences in damage are arbitrary and not connected to a spell's power level.

Hmm, yeah, there's something of an unnecessary inconsistency there.

Random thought: what if negative/positive energy spells did less than their listed damage when used to heal? That would fix scaling for them, so you could actually use cure X wounds against undead without being laughed off the planet, and vice versa. In other words, take something like cure critical wounds and specify that it does, I dunno, 4d8+1d8/2 levels (max 11d8) against undead, but only 4d8+1d8/3 levels healing (max 9d8), the idea being that it's easier to just sort of shoot a stream of raw energy at something antithetical to it than to guide precise restoration. (You might need to tweak bolt of glory and one or two others to get it right.)

Averages for crude proposal:
{table=head]CL|CCW (current)|CCW (heal)|CCW (blast)|Bolt of Glory
7|25|27|31.5|24.5
8|26|27|36|28
9|27|31.5|36|31.5
10|28|31.5|40.5|35
11|29|31.5|40.5|38.5
12|30|36|45|42
13|31|36|45|45.5
14|32|36|49.5|49
15|33|40.5|49.5|52.5[/table]

Go ahead. It's a pretty important chunk of the problem with spell design. Folks think that there's any kind of real defense against a wizard, and there really isn't one.

At equal optimization, not really, but for a PC against an NPC wizard, there arguably is. (See the notes above for how a fairly low-op Rogue can avoid a fair chunk of the damage from a similarly low-op NPC Wizard as an example.)

On the damage issue, I really don't think it is one. We shouldn't compare the damage of a fireball to the HP of a given PC. We should compare the damage of a fireball to the damage of a melee guy that's trying to deal damage. The damage levels aren't really comparable. A barbarian that's giving it his all is insurmountable by all but the most damage focused wizard builds. Blasting is really the last thing that should be reined in. I mean, warmages are mages that are built particularly for damage, and they're at tier four.

I'd mostly agree, except that for system changes, you really need to consider all sides, even if some comparisons are less significant than others; if any single matching gives you weird results, that's a signal that the system is not as good as it could be.

On single target versus AoE, I have to disagree with the evaluation that AoE is significantly better, or even better at all. If I'm picking up a blasting spell, it's going to be something unconditional and high power like an orb of fire. It's significantly more important to fully kill one guy than to half kill a group of guys, because half killing someone doesn't actually change the way an encounter looks. As is the usual truism, the only HP that matters is the last one.

This is partly true, but consider: if casters are to play nicely with groups, it's crucial that they leave jobs partially finished in a way that lets others contribute. Whether this be by half-killing all the mooks to reduce the time each takes to kill by 1 or 2 rounds, or by pegging one enemy at a time all the way to dead, is mostly a matter of choice; if nothing else, simply dropping the same spell next round will half-kill them again, which means they'll mostly all be dead. But demanding that the caster be able to solve all the problems in a single round is a very bad idea indeed.

Put another way, the truism is wrong; HP is a gradual defense, not a binary one, and chipping away at a gradual defense is a useful contribution. Or would you say that a natural weapon attacker with 12 attacks/round, skirmish, and pounce is useless because no single one of their attacks can ever one-shot an enemy?

eggynack

2013-08-05, 09:00 PM

At equal optimization, not really, but for a PC against an NPC wizard, there arguably is. (See the notes above for how a fairly low-op Rogue can avoid a fair chunk of the damage from a similarly low-op NPC Wizard as an example.)
Yeah, I think I had a short note about this majig somewhere. The main point I'm trying to make is that there are all of these neat defenses that look like they just completely stop wizards in their tracks. People talk about antimagic field like it automatically wins the game against wizards, and it's not a true thing. Wizards definitely have some defenses against wizards, but to some extent those don't even count. It largely perpetuates the entire issue when you need magic to beat magic.

I'd mostly agree, except that for system changes, you really need to consider all sides, even if some comparisons are less significant than others; if any single matching gives you weird results, that's a signal that the system is not as good as it could be.
Sure, but the major implication there was that these spells are dealing far too much damage. It's just not a thing that I think is true. If we got rid of everything that doesn't have damage as its key component, wizards just wouldn't be all that powerful.

This is partly true, but consider: if casters are to play nicely with groups, it's crucial that they leave jobs partially finished in a way that lets others contribute. Whether this be by half-killing all the mooks to reduce the time each takes to kill by 1 or 2 rounds, or by pegging one enemy at a time all the way to dead, is mostly a matter of choice; if nothing else, simply dropping the same spell next round will half-kill them again, which means they'll mostly all be dead. But demanding that the caster be able to solve all the problems in a single round is a very bad idea indeed.

Put another way, the truism is wrong; HP is a gradual defense, not a binary one, and chipping away at a gradual defense is a useful contribution. Or would you say that a natural weapon attacker with 12 attacks/round, skirmish, and pounce is useless because no single one of their attacks can ever one-shot an enemy?
The thing you're saying here seems kinda like the exact opposite of what he was saying. Your main claim is that AoE spells that deal less damage have a positive impact on the game, because they make it so that other guys can finish the job. Ultimately, you're saying that AoE's being less effective is a good thing. However, the OP was claiming that AoE's are aberrantly more effective, to the point where they need fixing. That seems very much untrue to me.

Anyways, dealing half damage to a bunch of enemies isn't pointless, because it means that the next half will kill them all. However, I'd rather deal full damage to one enemy than deal half damage to three enemies, because killing an enemy is more than an offensive measure to close out the fight faster. It's a defensive measure that cuts down on the enemy's action economy, which is all kindsa important. AoE's are good (well, they're really not, because they're basically a less effective version of a less effective wizard technique), but single target damage spells are probably better for the most part, and that's the conclusion I'm presenting.

Glimbur

2013-08-05, 09:05 PM

You have mentioned this already, but part of the problem is that there are too many spells. Even one of your examples, Helping Hand, is useful in the rare case that someone is hiding nearby and sniping at you; and you know what they look like. The hand goes to them and gestures for a round. And it's an Evocation, so immunity to Divination does not help.

That's just an example of how even niche spells can add new options and abilities. And prepared casters can pick the right options and abilities for a given day. At high levels, you are not likely to need your 1-3 level spells so you can throw situational things in the slots. Easy fix? Favored Soul (maybe with some buffs), Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage exist. Wizard, Sorc, Cleric, Wu Jen, Druid, Spirit Shaman, etc. do not. This is approximately the same as throwing out all the spells and only including acceptable spells.

Con is good. At low to medium levels, on a modest point buy I would skip an 18 in the casting stat to get Con and Dex. Maybe even some Wis, depending on the exact values.

erikun

2013-08-05, 09:56 PM

I'd argue against a couple of points you've made.

First, I'd like to point out that I've used quite a number of trivial spells over my character's lifetimes. Calm Animals and Talk with Animals are quite handy for the druid who wants to know what is happening during animal attacks, and doesn't want to go around stabbing them immediately. Hide from Undead was quite nice for a cleric, especially if the undead have seen him once before and are trying to hide from his lethal turning ability. I agree that several spells are unbalanced, either on the wrong spell level or too specialized, but that's a fair bit different from becoming class abilities. I don't think an unlimited Charm Animal would be very fair on a druid, for example.

Damage is kind of wonky for all characters, and it extends well beyond damage done by spells. Scorching Ray could immediately take out an opposing wizard, or it could deal a trivial amount compared to HP, or it could miss entirely (Mirror Image). The entire combat system is all kinds of awkward, and I doubt that simply changing the damage spells deal will be truely fixing anything about it.

Some of the worst buffs (meaning the strongest) are self-buffs, which means that the caster is strongly discouraged from sharing spells with other party members. As if Clerics didn't beat out Fighters badly enough already...

The problem with Fly (and to a lesser extent Invisibility) isn't that they make the caster immune to mundane; it's that mundane ranged attacks are so globally terrible that the caster might as well be immune to them. Even ignoring the full immunity from Wind Wall, we're talking about 1d8+1d6+10 as your best damage without heavy optimization towards archery.

eggynack

2013-08-05, 10:08 PM

The problem with Fly (and to a lesser extent Invisibility) isn't that they make the caster immune to mundane; it's that mundane ranged attacks are so globally terrible that the caster might as well be immune to them. Even ignoring the full immunity from Wind Wall, we're talking about 1d8+1d6+10 as your best damage without heavy optimization towards archery.
Huh. This is actually kinda interesting. What if archery were really good against magic? Like, it'd be much easier to get archery AoO's, and it'd be far harder to avoid them as a wizard. It'd also be harder to make concentration checks. If you make it hard enough to defend against, you could get a neat rock paper scissors thing going. Like, fighters can close rapidly with archers while being difficult to hit, and archers can shoot wizards which interrupts their spells, and wizards can easily keep out of range of fighters and shut them down. Basically, I'm saying that the onus of making casters weaker could be on non-casters. Spells are insanely reliable, primarily because there are basically no absolute defenses. Wizards can pull off something, but that's more like a dot than a triangle. If they weren't insanely reliable, because methods of interruption were more reliable and effective, tanks could actually be an important component of a party's makeup. Just a thought I had.

Deepbluediver

2013-08-05, 10:53 PM

I've only skimmed the titles and read a few of these in detail, but for the most part I see nothing I disagree with.

These are many of the same issues I was looking to fix in my own magic-system. You probably already knew that from our other recent talks on magic-design, though. :smallbiggrin:
I'll respond in more detail to some of them specifically when I get the chance.

One thing I wanted to mention, though, since you brought up how confusing varying casting times, ranges, and AOEs could be, was my personal pet peeve: different spells per day and spells known for virtually every caster.
In the PHB, the only 2 casters with the same chart are the Ranger and the Paladin. The splatbooks aren't much better. The Favored Soul uses a Sorcerer's chart, but the Shugenja goes off and does his own thing with a weird curve that starts out slow but then give him 9th level spells by level 16. It's not a problem limited to traditional casters; the Duskblade uses a chart found nowhere else, AFAIK, and the Shadowcaster is just crippled at low levels with his single mystery once per day.

One of things I hope to do is standardize, at least to some degree, what every caster gets. The basic premise is assembled in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=281765), though it definitely needs revision and polish. If you are aiming for a simplified version of things, you might want to consider something like it.

Yitzi

2013-08-06, 12:42 AM

Even ignoring the full immunity from Wind Wall, we're talking about 1d8+1d6+10 as your best damage without heavy optimization towards archery.

Yeah...noncaster damage scaling really needs to be improved. (Melee too; Power Attack helps somewhat, but only against low-AC enemies.) It shouldn't scale quite as fast as hit points (and neither should caster damage), but maybe as the square root of level, with hit points being proportional to level.

Amridell

2013-08-06, 01:01 AM

I'm actually working on a pair of classes to address some of the issues you brought up, namely the arbitrary system and the useless/broken thing at low levels. Hopefully it will come out as nice as I planned.

Perhaps we could collaborate at some point? I'd be interested in some feedback.

eggynack

2013-08-06, 01:02 AM

Yeah...noncaster damage scaling really needs to be improved. (Melee too; Power Attack helps somewhat, but only against low-AC enemies.) It shouldn't scale quite as fast as hit points (and neither should caster damage), but maybe as the square root of level, with hit points being proportional to level.
Well, power attack is dependent on low AC enemies, unless you're running a chargebarian with shock trooper. I'm not saying that all melee guys are like that, but a decent number are, and they generally deal plenty of damage. Actually, I'd say that melee damage scaling works reasonably well. Archery could use a real pick me up, but two handing gets good returns if you know what you're doing. The real problem is that melee combat is incredibly linear. You only deal damage, and only to enemies that you can reach, and with very few ways to overcome defenses.

Finding parity by fixing damage numbers just seems kinda pointless and impossible to me. You could make every wizard spell that deals damage only deal one to each target hit, and make every fighter attack deal infinite damage, and wizards would still be at tier one, and fighters would hit tier four. It's just not going to do much good. We want as many wizards as possible to be casting fireball, because as long as they're casting fireball, the game is basically balanced. You can play a game with a warmage in a party of mundane guys, and the warmage won't even necessarily be the most powerful party member. Maybe there are some odd magic damage issues, and that might connect to the design aspect of casting (Which I actually like. Having all of your spells be really different is kinda cool to me. Your mileage may vary), but a discussion of wizard brokeness can't really be a discussion of blasting spells. It's just so distant from the problem.

Carl

2013-08-06, 03:04 AM

eggynack

2013-08-06, 03:37 AM

Eggynack: It's a logical fallacy becuase it rests on a false assumption:

"No one will dump con"

First it's a valid player choice at character creation. not recommended, but totally possible.

Second it can as noted by others be forced on the player by bad dice rolls or other character creation actions outside the player control.

Con as a stat is designed so it can be dumped and some players will dump it voluntarily or not.

It's an important part of game design that you ensure every set of circumstances be balanced. Otherwise you end up with unintended consequences of players attempting to avoid or achieve the underpowered or overpowered situations.

Your right of course that blasting spells aren't the only source of this, there are problems with most forms of damage in this regard. Hell if you dump con even Archery can get into actually nasty damage numbers.But thats just a sign of the problem with con.

Now weather reducing damage is the answer to fixing all this is another issue, but it doesn't mean it isn't an option.
It's not a fallacy to state that people will take good options. There may be some corner cases where you'd have lower than average constitution, but corner cases is all they are. The fact of the matter is, for all of your talk, constitution is just better than many of the other stats. It increases your HP, which is how you stay alive, and it increases your fortitude save, which makes it strictly better than wisdom in most ways. It doesn't enhance skills much, but that's honestly far less important than HP. Basically every class in the entire frigging game benefits a great deal from having high constitution, to the point where it can be considered a universal secondary stat (unless it's a primary stat, which is rare but existent).

If you have the points to spend, and you're building your character in any kind of optimal way, you're going to have a reasonable constitution, if not a good one. When we discuss things, we discuss them based on average situations that can be measured reasonably. If you want to put forth situations where you think dumping constitution is a viable option, go right ahead, but there really aren't many of them, and they largely rely on scores that are abnormally low. Not every character is going to have good constitution, but most of them will. This means that any argument based on HP that doesn't take constitution into account is ignoring a massive facet of the game to reach its conclusion. This is doubly true for wizards, for whom a high constitution is nearly as important as a high intelligence. My premise isn't that no one will dump constitution ever in a million years. My premise is that most people won't dump constitution most of the time, and the number of people that will decreases significantly when we're talking about optimal builds based on the circumstances.

Finally, blasting spells don't deal all that much damage, and they're not very good. Compare them to something like a shock trooper barbarian, and most wizard builds are going to pale in comparison. The game obviously doesn't favor pure damage dealing, which is why barbarians hang out at tier four while the wizards hang out at tier one. Do you really think we're talking about fireball when we talk about wizard optimization? We're not. Maybe someone will mention orb of fire, because that spell is really consistent, but I don't think that fireball ever even comes up. It's a pittance in comparison to a wizard's true capabilities. Discussing a wizard's blasting ability is ignoring the actual problems with the game, which are many. Hell, I'm pretty sure that the designers built the game under the assumption that most folks were going to blast enemies. It's just not a topic that's worthy of extensive discussion.

TuggyNE

2013-08-06, 03:38 AM

Yeah, I think I had a short note about this majig somewhere. The main point I'm trying to make is that there are all of these neat defenses that look like they just completely stop wizards in their tracks. People talk about antimagic field like it automatically wins the game against wizards, and it's not a true thing. Wizards definitely have some defenses against wizards, but to some extent those don't even count. It largely perpetuates the entire issue when you need magic to beat magic.

Fair enough. There are no absolute defenses, despite there being some defenses that can be moderately effective with sufficient effort.

The thing you're saying here seems kinda like the exact opposite of what he was saying. Your main claim is that AoE spells that deal less damage have a positive impact on the game, because they make it so that other guys can finish the job. Ultimately, you're saying that AoE's being less effective is a good thing. However, the OP was claiming that AoE's are aberrantly more effective, to the point where they need fixing. That seems very much untrue to me.

Well, I do disagree that they need nerfing, but I also disagree that they need buffing; they are not weaker than other blasting, just of different use.

Anyways, dealing half damage to a bunch of enemies isn't pointless, because it means that the next half will kill them all. However, I'd rather deal full damage to one enemy than deal half damage to three enemies, because killing an enemy is more than an offensive measure to close out the fight faster. It's a defensive measure that cuts down on the enemy's action economy, which is all kindsa important. AoE's are good (well, they're really not, because they're basically a less effective version of a less effective wizard technique), but single target damage spells are probably better for the most part, and that's the conclusion I'm presenting.

Thing is, though, much of the time the same amount of optimization, or very nearly, will get you a 60+% chance of killing several enemies (with good DCs and lots of damage rolled) as you can get to a 95% chance of killing one enemy (with good attack rolls and lots of damage rolled). At that point you have to ask yourself how much reliability is worth it, if there's a moderate chance of cutting the fight shorter by one or two rounds, and a low chance of making it go longer.

Well, power attack is dependent on low AC enemies, unless you're running a chargebarian with shock trooper.

Or wraithstrike, or Deep Impact.

Eggynack: It's a logical fallacy becuase it rests on a false assumption:

"No one will dump con"

First it's a valid player choice at character creation. not recommended, but totally possible.

Second it can as noted by others be forced on the player by bad dice rolls or other character creation actions outside the player control.

Con as a stat is designed so it can be dumped and some players will dump it voluntarily or not.

It's an important part of game design that you ensure every set of circumstances be balanced. Otherwise you end up with unintended consequences of players attempting to avoid or achieve the underpowered or overpowered situations.

Your right of course that blasting spells aren't the only source of this, there are problems with most forms of damage in this regard. Hell if you dump con even Archery can get into actually nasty damage numbers.But thats just a sign of the problem with con.

Now weather reducing damage is the answer to fixing all this is another issue, but it doesn't mean it isn't an option.

From a practical standpoint, designing for anti-optimization (which is basically what dumping Con usually is) is unwise, because it distorts your solutions to account for something that is trivial to solve otherwise. Just accept that yes, there are some truly brain-dead options someone can pick that will completely ruin their character, carefully minimize the likelihood that they'll pick them, and warn them away from such things, and then let it go.

Put another way, someone choosing to dump Con is, in general, making an invalid choice; the system simply does not expect that. "Garbage in, garbage out." It might be nice to recalibrate the character creation process to more thoroughly validate entries (in data entry parlance), but changing all the internals of the system is too big an overhaul.

From a fix design standpoint, extending the scope of a fix from "the magic system" to "the magic system, and all damage, ever, and also a lot of monsters, and also a lot of other things like classes and basic magic items" is ludicrously over-ambitious; the thing is far too large to be accomplished in any kind of reasonable timeframe. It was already rather daring, in fact.

Edit: Forgot to mention that, while PC Con is theoretically variable, monster Con isn't really, and is also one of the more significant benchmarks. If you distort everything to account for PCs making stupid choices, leaving out the fact that NPCs and monsters and sane PCs will not (or cannot) make those choices, well, it's even worse.

Eldan

2013-08-06, 03:42 AM

It may be anti-optimized. The problem is, new players may not see it that way. Ten-ish years ago, now, when I built my first elven wizard, I tried to make him strong. My thought process was "Well, if anything hits me, I'm dead anyway, so I can safely dump con. Better take dex instead so nothing hits me". And so began the adventures of Istari Shadowwood (Yes, really, I was a dumb teenager), the 18 dex elf and his mighty longbow.

eggynack

2013-08-06, 03:51 AM

Well, I do disagree that they need nerfing, but I also disagree that they need buffing; they are not weaker than other blasting, just of different use.
Yeah, I can get behind that. However, the ultimate conclusion of all of this is that fireball is fine the way it is. It can just sit there, in its little island of relative balance, uninjured by the changing tide of buffs and nerfs. I'd say the same for all blasting spells, actually. It just doesn't seem like a ripe area for making changes.

Thing is, though, much of the time the same amount of optimization, or very nearly, will get you a 60+% chance of killing several enemies (with good DCs and lots of damage rolled) as you can get to a 95% chance of killing one enemy (with good attack rolls and lots of damage rolled). At that point you have to ask yourself how much reliability is worth it, if there's a moderate chance of cutting the fight shorter by one or two rounds, and a low chance of making it go longer.
Well, there's more than one type of reliability. If I'm preparing a blasting spell, it's going to be something like orb of fire, because the nigh infinite reliability that that spell provides is crazy. There's just something about shooting golems in an antimagic field that gets to me. I haven't really assessed the numbers related to AoE versus single target, but they seem to be reasonably balanced against each other, if not perfectly so. It's just that single target blasting spells definitely don't need to be buffed to hit some higher level that AoE is at. It's just more support to my conclusion that damage spells can probably be left out of any systemic overhauls. I mean, if we're changing the whole system on a fundamental level, direct damage shouldn't get left behind, but if we're just doing stuff like splitting polymorph or banning ice assassin, maybe we can just let these spells sit this one out.

From a practical standpoint, designing for anti-optimization (which is basically what dumping Con usually is) is unwise, because it distorts your solutions to account for something that is trivial to solve otherwise. Just accept that yes, there are some truly brain-dead options someone can pick that will completely ruin their character, carefully minimize the likelihood that they'll pick them, and warn them away from such things, and then let it go.

Put another way, someone choosing to dump Con is, in general, making an invalid choice; the system simply does not expect that. "Garbage in, garbage out." It might be nice to recalibrate the character creation process to more thoroughly validate entries (in data entry parlance), but changing all the internals of the system is too big an overhaul.

From a fix design standpoint, extending the scope of a fix from "the magic system" to "the magic system, and all damage, ever, and also a lot of monsters, and also a lot of other things like classes and basic magic items" is ludicrously over-ambitious; the thing is far too large to be accomplished in any kind of reasonable timeframe. It was already rather daring, in fact.
Just seconding this stuff, or firsting it I guess. It's just, ya know, a reasonable way of putting the whole thing.

Eldan

2013-08-06, 04:05 AM

eggynack

2013-08-06, 04:08 AM

Actually, if I could, I'd pretty much kick out all the spells that just do damage in various forms. Stick some riders on them, people. It makes them so much more interesting. Make fireballs explosive. Let Burning hands set things on fire. Cone of Cold should freeze people.
That does sound pretty cool. Still, I'm a little wary of giving wizards any kind of additional power without giving serious thought to the ramifications. I've gotta assume that you just mean generally new spells, such that they're balanced despite the addition of rider effects.

Eldan

2013-08-06, 04:37 AM

It's not about power. It's about not being boring. Blasting powers are pretty boring compared to other powers. I mean, you could reduce the damage in exchange.

Carl

2013-08-06, 07:37 AM

Eggy: look up logical fallacy please. You seem to not understand it very well. If it's an option it's not a hard fact, ergo you cannot make hard fact claims from it. Which is what you've been doing.

From a practical standpoint, designing for anti-optimization (which is basically what dumping Con usually is) is unwise

Your missing the point. In a properly designed and balanced system there are no optimised or non-optimised choices to begin with. Players after they learn the system won't make non-optimised choices normally so it's bad for customisation, player options, or verity in the game-play for there to ever be such thing as optimal or sub-optimal choices. They need to be all even. Sometimes it's a question of adjusting things to make an option either non-suboptimal or non-optimal, (as the case may be), other times you just have to outright ban the action.

If, (to continue using con as a discussion), therefore you have two choices at design time. Design the system so that it is balanced and equally optimal with emphasised or dumped con and leave character generation unchanged. Or design the system around the assumption that con will not be dumped and then make it impossible to dump it.

eggynack

2013-08-06, 08:10 AM

Eggy: look up logical fallacy please. You seem to not understand it very well. If it's an option it's not a hard fact, ergo you cannot make hard fact claims from it. Which is what you've been doing.
I know what a logical fallacy is. Further, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop acting in such a condescending manner towards me. We base our understanding of the game on the way it's played. I suppose I could run a thread over on the 3.5 board, asking folks for statistics on their character's ability scores, and use that to determine what constitution we should be using as the basis for this argument. It seems like a bit of a hassle though. At the very least, it's ridiculous to assert that we should just assume a constitution of ten, as was the premise being used by the OP. I mean, assuming the elite array, if you assign stats randomly to characters, you'll end up with a median constitution of around 12.5. That's basically the minimum I'd be willing to work with, because you're usually looking at numbers that are different from that

Your missing the point. In a properly designed and balanced system there are no optimised or non-optimised choices to begin with. Players after they learn the system won't make non-optimised choices normally so it's bad for customisation, player options, or verity in the game-play for there to ever be such thing as optimal or sub-optimal choices. They need to be all even. Sometimes it's a question of adjusting things to make an option either non-suboptimal or non-optimal, (as the case may be), other times you just have to outright ban the action.

If, (to continue using con as a discussion), therefore you have two choices at design time. Design the system so that it is balanced and equally optimal with emphasised or dumped con and leave character generation unchanged. Or design the system around the assumption that con will not be dumped and then make it impossible to dump it.
Now it is you who is using fallacious logic. In essence your claim is that in a perfect game, all options must have equal validity, so therefore all options in this game must have equal validity, so in conclusion constitution must be of equal value to every other stat for every character. That argument seems completely mistaken on every conceivable level. A perfect game isn't one where all options are equally optimal, because otherwise there's no game there. I could do literally anything, ignoring all logic or reason in my character generation, and I'd come out equally as powerful as someone who has spent years perfecting a single character. I honestly can't think of a role playing game that's like this, at least not one as rules heavy as this one is. Maybe system mastery shouldn't be the end all and be all of gaming, but it plays a role.

That brings me onto your next two premises, which tie together, and are also illogical. The first is that D&D 3.5 is a perfect game. It is not. Seriously. Even if the perfect game were one where character build options meant nothing, this is not it. If you're building a wizard, it's better to assign your stats to intelligence. If you're building a fighter, it's better to assign your stats to strength. If you're building a character, it's better to assign at least some portion of your stats to constitution. Do you really think that a wizard with ten intelligence is perfectly equal to one with eighteen? Or, better yet, do you really think that a cleric that takes dodge, toughness, and endurance will be equal to one who takes extend spell, persistent spell, and DMM: persist? If you do, you are just absolutely flat out wrong. This brings the argument to the second part of this premise. Not all options in this game possess equal validity. We can try to make this less true, which is in fact part of the point of this thread, but it's true right now.

Thus, we hit the conclusion. This conclusion is that constitution is equal to every other stat. Even if constitution could have been equally optimal, it isn't, because we play a game that exists, rather than a game which only exists in theorycraft. Constitution has different value than the other stats. A wizard is going to take intelligence over everything, as long as it doesn't dip their con below fourteen or so, and then put remaining points into dexterity. That is the optimal stat assignment for a wizard, whether you wish that to be the case or not. There is some deviation from this norm, especially when you look at the variety of stat assignment methods, but that's usually how it's going to work.

Just about every class in the game has an optimal stat assignment like this, or they have several different stat assignments that lead them to different paths. For example, a barbarian is going to prize strength to a ridiculous degree, and then raise their constitution, and then they're going to raise stats for a variety of other purposes. A good example of one of these purposes is boosting charisma in order to put together an intimidation build. Barbarians have the option to put together an intimidation build, but something like a ranger doesn't, and so a ranger is less likely to put points into charisma. In fact, apart from handle animal, a ranger has basically zero reason to put points into charisma at all, at least without some outside incentive that I'm unaware of.

So, I've been saying a lot of stuff, but the ultimate conclusion is that you're wrong. You're wrong to a pretty high degree, though I'd be lying if I said that I've never seen someone more wrong than you on these boards. You should take solace in this fact. It's possible that you're arguing something different than what basically everyone else is, in which case you should probably try to gain a better understanding of what's going on. We're talking about D&D 3.5, so comments should be based on that, rather than on some theoretical game where all options are perfectly equal all the time. If you have some actual argument that shows that constitution is not as good as it's often claimed to be, I'd be glad to hear it, but you haven't really made such an argument thus far. Ideally, you should use actual examples of situations where it'd be wise to dump constitution, but I'm not making your argument for you, so I shall leave you to your own devices.

Cheiromancer

2013-08-06, 08:35 AM

I don't think accusations of fallacious reasoning will advance the discussion much. A more helpful question might be: if a reformation of the spell system led to Con being less important, would that be a good thing?

Clearly in the existing system it is very unwise to use Con as a dump stat (a few builds excepted: if you are going necropolitan, say). Part of the reason is that spells do a lot of damage, which results in other numbers in the game becoming inflated (monster hp, damage, other class abilities...). I suspect it is too late to fix the problem, but I don't know.

What bothers me even more is whether there is a realistic alternative to rocket tag. Rocket tag is undesirable, but grind is even worse. How do you have fast combats at high level without playing rocket tag?

And the availability of game-changing powers. Like flight, teleportation, plane shifting, etc.. Adventures are designed with the expectation that these powers are available. How are they going to be available unless a spell caster is around to provide them? But the ability of a caster to trump a non-caster is one of the problems that needs fixing. Again, it seems like an unfixable problem.

Grod_The_Giant

2013-08-06, 10:01 AM

I'm going to chime in on the "design damage around monsters, not NPCs" side of things. Other characters, between class abilities and gear, tend to have way more defensive options than Hill Giant #3.

And given that we're talking about a system as complex and optimization-sensitive as D&D... I think it's safe to assume at least a modicum of skill on the part of potential players. "HP is good" is not a hard thing to understand.

What bothers me even more is whether there is a realistic alternative to rocket tag. Rocket tag is undesirable, but grind is even worse. How do you have fast combats at high level without playing rocket tag?
While SoD spells aren't good, I personally enjoy when full attacks, high-level spells, maneuvers and the like can 2- or 3-shot a level-appropriate threat. It keeps things feeling fast dangerous, and is part of the D&D experience, in my mind.

One way to reduce it, though, might be to import Star Wars Saga Edition's condition track, or something similar. As you start taking damage, you wind up with increasing penalties to everything, which leads to you taking more damage, which leads to bigger penalties... and then you're dead. It gets around the HP slog by turning it into a more dynamic process.

Deepbluediver

2013-08-06, 10:29 AM

So apparently there's this huge argument going on over character creation and stats (specifically Con); I'mma stay out of that for the moment, at least until I can spare an hour to decipher it and see which side I want to join.

Also, I spoiler'd the entire rest of my reply, because I was going almost point-by-point, and it got really long.

It is also poorly designed and incredibly broken.
Understatement of the year.

I prefer "bjorked beyond all comprehension". :smallbiggrin:

Spells vary wildly in power and utility, even at the same level.
Granted, this is true, but the damaging-ones are the easiest to address. Problems crop up when you need to start comparing things like Enlarge Person, Fly, & Haste, all of which vary by situation. Personally, I don't mind loading down the first few levels with spells, and then letting the absolute numbers trail off at high levels. As I said last time, so long as a 3rd level spell is still useful, only learning it at level 12 wouldn't be a waste. You don't need to have 4 or 5 different spells at every level just to fill space, IMO.

Many spells are too trivial to be worth including.
Do we need Helping Hand? No. Ditto for Open/Close, and probably a few others.
I would agree that we probably don't need ALL those different animal-related spells; but I also don't really like spells that only target one specific type of creature. There's Charm Humanoid, and then the next step up is Charm <Everything>. I would rather have just one Charm Creature, or base it off of super-type (similar creature-types).

The following list came out of a discussion about Mind-control, and I think each grouping includes creatures with a fair number of similar characteristics.

Humanoids, Monstrous Humanoids, Giants
Dragons, Magical Beasts
Elementals, Outsiders, Fey
Plants, Animals, Vermin
Constructs, Undead
Abberations, Oozes

Beyond that, combining overly-situation spells is the way to go here, IMO. Transmute Rock and Mud don't need to be separate spells, and maybe they should in fact be part of Stone Shape.

Many spells have trivial effects which are not worth the time investment to track.
Would better scaling help? A +1 bonus theoretically has the same benefit to a d20 roll at max level as it does at first, but it frequently gets lost in the crush.

There are too many bonus types.
What would be a good number to have then? 4? I like four.

Also, what types could we have that would encompass every type of spell that exists? Enhancement is a nice, bland, generic sound. There could also be Perfection bonuses for anything divinely related. Competency bonuses, which would also include Circumstance stuff. And maybe Luck.
Where would we put the stacking dodge bonuses?

Also, one of my personal hates is for untyped damage. I would like EVERY damage to have some type applied to it, if only so it can be defended against, should the need arise.

This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267700) has (I think) all the damage types people where able to suggest, but my personal preference is to limit it to the following: Physical, Fire, Cold, Electric, Acid, Force, Sonic, Radiant, Negative, & Positive.

For anything that doesn't fit those categories, I'd be willing to explore dual typed damage, like Fire+Negative Energy for a Warlock's Eldritch Blast.

1 round/level durations scale strangely.
I don't think their inherently unusable, I just think they shouldn't be on first and maybe second level spells. I already mentioned that I'd prefer Summon Monster should be 1 minute/level. I could see many of the buffs being similar; at low levels they last 1 entire encounter, at higher levels its easy enough for a DM to string battles back-to-back, or delay you long enough for things to wear off, depending on what they want.

Level-scaling ranges and durations increase complexity substantially for little gain.
Not sure I entirely agree with this one. I think the complexity issue could be addressed by standardizing some of the AOEs and rate of increase, and by having any given spell only increase by 1 factor. It other hits a larger area OR does more damage OR lasts longer, but not all 3.

Spell casting times and components are confusingly formatted.

1-round casting time spells are terribly designed.
I recently discovered I've been doing the "1 Round" casting time wrong for years; my groups always just read it as "1 Full-round action". I could easily see doing away with it, since AFAIK its a mechanic used nowhere else.
Also, are there actually "Full-round spells"? I couldn't find any, though I didn't look very hard. Everything seemed to be either 1 standard or 1 round.

I'd rather have a standard system like all casting times are: 1 Swift action (rare), 1 Standard action, 1 Full-round action, 1 minute, 10 minutes, 1 hour (rare). Quicken spell (feat) reduces the casting time by one step.

Spell ranges are confusingly formatted on area spells.
Agreed, but for the sake of sanity I would probably choose to say that the range of a spell a spell is determined as it's epicenter, and if that give someone a little extra edge to lob AOEs, so be it.

But I want to do two things: standardize AOE scaling, and reduce the overall range of spells. For Short, Medium, & Long I prefer 25 +5 ft/2 levels, 50 ft +5 ft/level, and 100 ft. +10 ft/level. Combat very frequently takes places at much less than medium range anyway, but this helps rein in high-level casters (who can hurl spells nearly a quarter mile, making in practically un-counterable, even with archery).

For AOE, I would like to have maybe a small and large version for each of the circle (sphere), cylinder, and cone, although you might be able to convince me that even that is too much. Do you think having just one of each is better? And is there any shape I'm missing?

Spells which affect cylinders can pass through walls.
Hmm; that certainly seems like an oversight, albeit an easily fixable one. I think it was intended to not let things like trees or short obstacles to get in the way, but obviously it can be read as passing through walls.

What about phrasing it like "A cylinder will affect everything in it's area, except for spaces from which it is excluded by a solid wall or other barrier."?

Spell schools and subschools are poorly and inconsistently defined.
Yes...lets not rehash that debate here.

Low-level spellcasters have two modes: "useless" and "broken".
For the low spells per day, I'm a little OCD about this, but if you check any of my class fixes you'll see all the casters follow a very specific pattern. This means they don't have great numbers at low levels, but one fix for that is better bonus spells. The following revision works out decently, I think.

{table=head] Score |0th|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|...

10-11|1|—|—|—|—|—

12-13|2|1|—|—|—|—

14-15|2|2|1|—|—|—

16-17|3|2|2|1|—|—

18-19|3|3|2|2|1|—

20-21|3|3|3|2|2|1

22-23|4|3|3|3|2|2

24-25|4|4|3|3|2|2

...[/table]

If the pattern isn't obvious to anyone, let me know. With this pattern, and unoptimized Wizard with 16 Int would have 5 0th level spells and 3 1st level spells at first level. Not great, but probably enough to let him use 1 each round for 2 encounters (and better than the core RAW wizard, which has half that number).

Moderately optimized D&D quickly devolves into "rocket tag".

The "rocket tag" phenomenon is severely detrimental to the game.

Spells can end combat far too quickly, promoting rocket tag.

Spells can kill opponents instantly.

Spells can render opponents irrelevant instantly.
All of these seem to be part of one problem. I'm not sure there is any one change you can make to fix it, but there might be lots of little things you can do to alleviate the worst of it. For example, making it easier to defend against SoD (or SoS), by requiring 2 saves instead of just one for the full effect; lowering a casters ability or incentive to SAD-stack their casting attribute; give non-casters more caster-counters, etc.

Beyond that though, you start needing to fundamentally alter the game mechanics. Not that I object to that; it's ultimately what I did for a spell-fix. Just wanted to make sure you where aware.

Spells do too much damage relative to HP.
And yet blasters are on the weaker side of casters. Personally, I think that 1d6 per levelisn't a bad metric, at least for levels 1-8-ish. It doesn't have weapon or Str damage, but casters are more versatile and can AOE much easier anyway.
For higher level spells, a bigger dice every couple of levels wouldn't hurt, I think.

Buffing before combat yields massive swings in party capability.
You might be able to accomplish this largely by toning down the number of different types of buffs you can stack, like you mentioned earlier. But beyond that, I want there to be the ability for players to expand their skill at the game.
The DM needs to have a certain amount of flexibility, like having his BBEG throw the party in a cell to "deal with later" rather than TPK, or to have the noise of battle suddenly attract twice as many goblins through an entrance the party didn't notice.

Some of the specific spells you mentioned are definitely mis-leveled though.

Some buffs can render entire encounters irrelevant.
One thing to remember is that just because a spell exists, doesn't mean everyone will have it known or prepared all the time. If there where a few more defenses against the scrying half of scry-and-die, then I think it would be easy for the DM to set up a situation where the party Wizard doesn't have 8 hours to spare, or to much down time between adventures.

On top of that, converting immunities into resistances can keep spells situationally useful, without being encounter-breaking, I think.

Spells can make the subjects effectively invincible to non-spellcasters.
Without just cutting huge chunks of the caster's list, I think these need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. I'd scrap Fly, maybe turn Levitate and Floating-Disk into a concentration-based spells, make Overland Flight a cleric-travel-domain only spell and have flight-with-wings (Polymorph, etc) harder to use, at least while in combat.
Also, turning down the duration from hours to minutes helps keep them useful without allowing a caster to hover all day.

I'm not quite sure how to address G. Invisibility except by making it higher level; most of the complaints I've seen are that it makes the Rogue's skill-set useless, not that it was overwhelming in combat. Maybe just make the penalties/benefits against and for invisibility less powerful.
Like rather than being completely 100% invisibility, you shimmer slightly, so it only grants a bonus to Stealth or some one can find you with a spot check.

Many multiple target spells that lack single-target versions are vastly more powerful than they should be relative to single-target spells.
For a lot of the encounter ending stuff, I've said before I think it should be single target, and then Mass-able via metamagic. That at least pushes the problem back a few levels.

Area of effect spells affect too large of an area.

Area of effect and multiple target spells are too powerful relative to single-target spells.
Yeah, because of the squaring(2) rule (and bad circle-to-grid conversion) adding 5 ft of radius can just about double the area affected in many cases. What do you think a better value would be? This is part of the reason I wanted to keep a small and large version for each, so you can limit the area of something like Firestorm, and still have Sleet Storm affect a decent space.

Polymorph. Does this really need explanation?
You forgot Alter Self. :smallbiggrin:
Polymorph Any Object is just stupid (stupidly broken, too, but mostly just stupid).

I'd probably put Polymorph as a 9th level spell, with the caveat that each version known/prepared only allows you to turn into one creature.

Shapechange would be a new medium-level spell that allowed you to grow wings, extra limbs or gain other helpful Extraordinary abilities, but in no way resembled it's current form.

Spells can make make social interactions trivially easy.
Shorter durations and bigger penalties (or just any penalty at all) for screwing up could also make them less of a "why NOT use it?" type of thing, I think.
For example, failing your attempt to Charm some one might make them go from Nuetral to Hostile.

Spells can make dungeon delving trivially easy.
I think there's a fine line here. If the party has a rogue, then the wizard shouldn't need to sacrifice a summoned critter to get through a trapped doorway. But if the party DOESN'T have a rogue, then enough flexibility in the other characters to pick up the slack makes for a more enjoyable game than forcing people into certain roles, I think.

Find Traps should be a range of Touch, not Personal, so it can be used to boost the Rogue (or other trap-finder) rather than replace them. Knock shouldn't be 100% successful. I'd say much the same about a lot of other spells.

Spellcasters can perform any of these feats with too little investment.

Given time to prepare, a spellcaster can perform all of these feats.
Yes, but again there is a difference between what a Wizard is ultimately capable of and what he (or she) is capable of RIGHT THIS MOMENT.
If the DM doesn't allow a wizard time to research extra spells, or simply houserules it that he can't, then he ends up in about the same place as the sorcerer.

Spells can exert control over the game world that nothing else can compete with.
Agreed, but I think that these sorts of things need to be addressed one by one.

You could make Wall of Force damageble by melee weapons (or at least magic melee weapons).
For the Mind-Control aspect, I would make charm long-lasting but very limited. A high-level spell like Dominate should not last for days, but rounds, with the creature fighting you every step of the way. They are your meat-puppet, but only so long as you can pass Spellcraft checks or they keep failing their saves.

There's a spell in Complete Arcane, I think, that is like a more limited AMF; I would make it anti-single spell, but then have it cover a large area, so any smart government (or BBEG) could put up a radar-shield.

Teleport needs to have its range dragged out back and shot through the knees. 1 mile per level, and make it more like Word of Recall in that you can only get to places you've been to before, or marked somehow.

Explosive Runes (and nearly all permenant spells, I'd argue) need limited durations. There exists a Permanency spell for a reason. I'd also alter that spell (Permanence) to consume spell slots instead of XP, which can be replaced. Make enough permanent-Light spells, and you run out of 0th level spell slots to use on other things.

More generally, making UMD more freely available would help non-magic using classes compete when all else failed.

Spell resistance is crude and noninteractive.
To fix that, though, I think you need to start fundamentally altering how magic works. One of the biggest issues, I think, is that it's always successful.
That is, in the absence of damage or SR, I don't need to roll ANYTHING to cast ANY spell. I can alter the very fabric of existence on a whim. Casting is therefor passive, while the defense against it (Saves) is active; this is complete the opposite of attack rolls, combat maneuvers, and skill checks (where the default is failure). It might work in a system where all players where non-casters because it gives the players more dice to roll against casting enemies, but handing that same power over to the PC's just doesn't work.

I believe, that like pretty much every single other action in the game, spellcasting needs a roll of some kind associated with it. In my original writeup of a magic fix, there are two options for spells. For those targeting specific creatures, the caster rolls against SR+Spell level (and every creature has a base and scaling SR, like AC). For non-targeting spells, it's 10+twice spell level.

And all characters get a boost to Spellcraft rolls based on level, that is the inverse progression of their BAB. For more details, see this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=228876), but be aware that some of that is now WAY out of date and needs revision.

Spellcasters are unnecessarily penalized for devoting their resources into spells which the whole party requires.
I'm not quite sure I entirely agree with that; most people find being useful to the party as fun. While I hate to promote magic-mart systems, if you have a limited number of spells its not unreasonable to find a wand or potions for spells-on-a-stick.

A better crafting and skill system (allowing non-casters to craft magic items, allowing the Heal skill to replace healing spells) would help.

Broken spells affect everyone, not just spellcasters.
Yes, that's true, but the more commonly cited problem is that non-casters require magic items just to play on the same field as full-casters. The only non-caster I can think of who functions as well naked as fully clothed is the Monk, and that's mostly because are objectively terrible to start with.

The equivalent would be a caster needing a wand or magic staff to cast (ala Harry Potter), and while that's not necessarily a good idea, it could be one way to go about it. I think a better method would be to design all classes to function at least minimally with very little gear, and then improve as you add resources.

Grod_The_Giant

2013-08-06, 11:13 AM

Here's another thought: how many of the issues go away when we compare spellcasters to actually well-designed non-casters? Things like ToB, Incarnum, or good homebrew?

Fly is a problem when only casters can fly and archery is weak even after massive investment, but what about when melee types get jumpy-powers, or archery is decent if you just pick up a bow? Invisibility can bypass encounters if it's only resisted by DC 40 Spot checks, but what about when mundanes can pick up scent or blindsight?

Speaking personally, I'd rather rewrite a dozen base classes than a thousand spells.

Eldan

2013-08-06, 11:22 AM

I think spells should be situational. In fact, many of the more broken spells would be much better if they were more limited.

Limiting the effects of spells is essential for the Vancian system. The entire idea behind prepared spells is that the wizard should think ahead and prepare what he thinks he will need for a certain situation. Spells that are too versatile undermine that. Give the versatile powers to psionics, or another one of the more boring, less limited systems.

erikun

2013-08-06, 11:24 AM

One big difference between role-playing games and video games/board games is that the goal typically isn't to win. A lot of people find the goal to roleplay their character properly, or to do something other than optimizing the system. The problem this runs into is when you have various non-choices in the system, especially in conflict with something directly tied to character concept. The player has the "choice" to either play to the character concept or be a functional member of the party, but few to no options that will allow both.

And then the system has the audacity to insist players come up with reasonings for making such a "choice".

A non-choice is something that appears to be a choice, but really isn't. It's a choice where one of the options is always going to be the wrong option. CON is a non-choice because (despite how the AC system appears) it is not a question of when a character will be hit but how frequently, and so it is manditory for a character to have the HP to survive. INT is a non-choice because it determine the number of skills a character has available. While it is possible to create a low-CON, low-INT character, such a character could not get into combat without dying in a single round of being attacked and cannot participate in any meaningful way with anything to do with skills.

Frail but agile character, leaping and avoiding opponent attacks? Nope, not going to happen. Dumb character who have a few surprising talents most people don't realize? Not in this system.

It's a problem because the system presents these options as supposedly valid. This isn't Dungeons & Healthy Smart Superheroes & Dragons - I wouldn't have a problem with playing against type if this was the case. But the system is Dungeons & Dragons, and markets itself as capable of playing your favorite fantasy character. But when half the fantasy characters you could create end up unusually penalized by the way the system works, then yes, there is a big problem with the system.

Here's another thought: how many of the issues go away when we compare spellcasters to actually well-designed non-casters? Things like ToB, Incarnum, or good homebrew?
All of them, because your ToB class still has problems with skills not behaving properly, and your Factotum still has problems with melee combat not working.

You might be able to patch over everything enough that you don't see the problems; maybe with some archery-focused ToB school, and some modified multiclassing rules towards the skill monkeys, you could avoid running into the base system that much. However, I think you'd still run into some characters, like the Zen Archery Druid, who unfortunately finds out that the base system still has a major problem with it.

Eldan

2013-08-06, 11:30 AM

It's a bit counterintuitive, but the dodgy kind of character usually comes from miss chances.

Dark.Revenant

2013-08-06, 11:40 AM

It's remarkable how many of these theses are solved by using psionics in lieu of magic.

Vadskye

2013-08-06, 11:40 AM

Thank you for your input. I'm going to write a ludicrously long reply that should address a lot of the points that I see, but that will take time, and this thread is moving quickly, so I want to briefly put forth some points.

First, let me be clear about what I mean when I say that damage is too high. In my fix, Scorching Ray is a 2nd level spell that deals 4d6 damage when cast by a 4th level caster (and you can split the damage into multiple rays), and Polar Ray is an 8th level spell that deals 16d6 damage when cast by an 16th level caster (and slows the struck target for 5 rounds with no save). That's a level of damage that I am comfortable with - I'm not planning on rewriting all the damage spells so they are useless. The key difference is that I dramatically change how the spells scale with level, making it easier to use (no caster level caps) and more consistent (no longer will Empowered Fireball be vastly stronger than Cone of Cold). I'll go over the full details when I post my changes, but I wanted to clarify that I'm not planning on nerfing damage spells out of existence. Blasting is fun - and plays well with friends, allowing the rest of the party to contribute as well.

Second, my fundamental assumption for AOE damage spells is that they should be less powerful on a single target and more powerful on multiple targets. In other words, if you use a AOE spell to hit a single target, you're wasting it. If you use an AOE spell to hit two targets, you're getting a little more damage, but the fact that dealing damage to one creature is better than splitting the damage means this is perfectly find. If you use an AOE spell to hit three or more targets, you're going to get major damage improvements.

This translates into a system that assumes that a single target spell should do roughly 1.5x the damage of an AOE spell. (It was originally 2x, but based on some of the arguments made in this thread, I may have been overly harsh in my original conception.) Yes, that's a power decrease. But I have a hard time believing anyone who says that they would stop casting Fireball just because of that.

Third, I'd rather not let the arguments about damage overwhelm the other 43 or so arguments I made. :smalltongue:

Carl

2013-08-06, 12:06 PM

@Eggy: I don't have the time for pointless arguments so i'm not going to get involved in them. That said i think we've been talking at cross purposes.

1. No system is perfect, that's why you've never seen a system like that. That doesn't mean it'd not a design goal. It's easiest to see this at work in computer based RPG's since they get patch cycles. You'll see overused skills or abilities, (or ability combinations), reviving nerfs whilst underused skills and skill combinations get buffed. There's always a working goal of getting everything equally valuable. Pen and paper games don't tend to show it much unless they get updated often because flaws take time and effort to find and fix, and there's a limit to both on "in house" parts of the project. As a result they tend to be full of over optimised options alongside badly optimised ones. Doesn't mean that's desirable.

As for the reason it's a design goal? Simple. There are plenty of ways that don't involve RPG game-play mechanics to fulfil a need to roleplay, or to have fun with a tabletop game of some kind or to do miniatures painting, e.t.c. What sets something like D&D 3.5 apart from the rest is that you not only get to customise the background and roleplaying and appearance of the "side/piece/whatever analogy you want to use", but you also get to customise his or her game mechanics to suit personal preference in some way. They give you a lot of choice over how your character plays, not just what their story is or how they look or the like. If a system has only a few optimised options though, a lot of unoptimised one, and a few badly optimised ones you end up with a situation where unless everyone agrees to some house rules there's only a few actual options which are valid to pick unless you want to leave yourself gimped beyond belief. That's why wizards and their spells are such a huge issue in the first place. In a game where everyone's a wizard, it's relatively trivial, for a sufficiently creative DM to challenge the group, (short of abuses like retreat to self created plane and write 50,000 explosive runes anyway). But if you put a lower tier class, (especially a T3 or below), in the group with them you end up with that class, (or classes as appropriate), being heavily devalued. The player controlling the character can presumably roleplay and paint and whatever as well as the wizard guys/gals regardless of the mechanics. But the mechanics mean they're going to be virtually useless mechanically speaking.

EDIT: Erikun made my point far better i think. But i'll leave point 1's text here anyway.

2. Where did you get the idea that i was saying Con is equally valuable? I outright stated early on that it's the one stat every class values. The point is this itself is a huge balance issue and going around acting like blasty spells as they are being ok because of that isn't going to fix the issue.

Now i'm no fool, even if blasty spells where the games one and only damage source, nerfing their damage wouldn't fix the con issue. Hit Die are so pitiful in the amounts they give compared to what even a 10 con score can give in most cases, (with magical gear thrown on), that it's too big a negative to dump it.

But so long as blasty spells are damaging enough, even a heavily nerfed set of downsides to a neg con score won't get people to dump it.

Now like i said earlier, if your wanting to build the system around the assumption that con will never be dumped, that's fine. But if you do it's bad game design to allow a newbie with no idea of what's optimal dump it, and it's a bad idea to force players to pay for it, (since this costs character creation resources that could have been used to build a more varied character for them). That said banning it in that fashion impacts point 1 so you have to consider weather balancing it out is a better idea. (I fall into the category that does btw).

Grod_The_Giant

2013-08-06, 12:51 PM

All of them, because your ToB class still has problems with skills not behaving properly, and your Factotum still has problems with melee combat not working.

You might be able to patch over everything enough that you don't see the problems; maybe with some archery-focused ToB school, and some modified multiclassing rules towards the skill monkeys, you could avoid running into the base system that much. However, I think you'd still run into some characters, like the Zen Archery Druid, who unfortunately finds out that the base system still has a major problem with it.
I meant the problems with magic dominance, as outlined here.

(And a lot of the basic chassis issues are easier to fix than magic, simply because they're smaller rulesets. Pathfinder-style skill purchasing, a rewritten diplomacy, and reasonable limits on modifier stacking solve most skill issues; melee combat gets better if you make iterative part of the normal attack and remove the feat tax on combat maneuvers, and so on.)

Cheiromancer

2013-08-06, 01:18 PM

Score|0th|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|...
10-11|1|—|—|—|—|—
12-13|2|1|—|—|—|—
14-15|2|2|—|—|—|—
16-17|3|2|1|—|—|—
18-19|3|3|2|1|—|—
20-21|3|3|2|2|1|—
22-23|4|3|3|2|2|—
24-25|4|4|3|3|2|1
...

If the pattern isn't obvious to anyone, let me know.
*raises hand sheepishly*

I find it easy to remember that you get a bonus spell of a level equal to your ability bonus. For example, a bonus 4th level spell with Int 18 and a +4 bonus. Your progression seems wobbly. From Int 10 you need 2 more points to get a bonus spell from a higher level, then 4 more, then only 2 more, then 2 more, then 4... sorry, I don't understand how to extrapolate that.

And in a column am I right that it is one 1, two 2's, three 3's, four 4's, etc.?

Deepbluediver

2013-08-06, 01:29 PM

It's remarkable how many of these theses are solved by using psionics in lieu of magic.

Some people actually like Vancian casting, as hard as that might be to believe. I've only ever played one game where the two where run side-by-side, but I think they make for a very interesting dynamic. I don't want Magic and Psionics to be the same; I'm happy with the options they give as two different systems.

That being said, there may be parts of Psionics we could take for inspiration.

And a lot of the basic chassis issues are easier to fix than magic, simply because they're smaller rulesets. Pathfinder-style skill purchasing, a rewritten diplomacy, and reasonable limits on modifier stacking solve most skill issues; melee combat gets better if you make iterative part of the normal attack and remove the feat tax on combat maneuvers, and so on.

Agreed. It can be very difficult to fix the entire system, since you kind of need to know how everything will fit together at the end. Fixing existing problems without considering how the pieces of a new system will interact with each other is just going to lead back to the 3.5 situation all over again.

*raises hand sheepishly*

...in a column am I right that it is one 1, two 2's, three 3's, four 4's, etc.?

This is my fault; the chart is wrong, sorry.

It has nothing to do with rows, as unusual as that might seem; it's supposed to be entirely in the columns. But when I was typing I missed a few points; I'll correct it then post an updated version here as well.

Edit: This is the full chart, done out to the level in the SRD.
{table=head] Score |Modifier|0th|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|6th|7th|8th|9th

1|-5|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—

2-3|-4|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—

4-5|-3|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—

6-7|-2|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—

8-9|-1|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—

10-11|0|1|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—

12-13|+1|2|1|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—

14-15|+2|2|2|1|—|—|—|—|—|—|—

16-17|+3|3|2|2|1|—|—|—|—|—|—

18-19|+4|3|3|2|2|1|—|—|—|—|—

20-21|+5|3|3|3|2|2|1|—|—|—|—

22-23|+6|4|3|3|3|2|2|1|—|—|—

24-25|+7|4|4|3|3|3|2|2|1|—|—

26-27|+8|4|4|4|3|3|3|2|2|1|—

28-29|+9|4|4|4|4|3|3|3|2|2|1

30-31|+10|5|4|4|4|4|3|3|3|2|2

32-33|+11|5|5|4|4|4|4|3|3|3|2

34-35|+12|5|5|5|4|4|4|4|3|3|3

36-37|+13|5|5|5|5|4|4|4|4|3|3

38-39|+14|5|5|5|5|5|4|4|4|4|3

40-41|+15|6|5|5|5|5|5|4|4|4|4

42-43|+16|6|6|5|5|5|5|5|4|4|4

44-45|+17|6|6|6|5|5|5|5|5|4|4

etc...|...|...|...|...|...|...|...|...|...|...|...[/table]

eggynack

2013-08-06, 01:59 PM

This translates into a system that assumes that a single target spell should do roughly 1.5x the damage of an AOE spell. (It was originally 2x, but based on some of the arguments made in this thread, I may have been overly harsh in my original conception.) Yes, that's a power decrease. But I have a hard time believing anyone who says that they would stop casting Fireball just because of that.
I really don't think you're right about this one. I don't cast fireball based on how it is now, though I guess that technically means that I'd be physically incapable of stopping. It just seems like a mediocre way to go about things. I don't think that you should necessarily buff fireball on this basis, but a nerf is far from necessary.

@Carl: So, constitution is more powerful. Thus, most characters are going to have reasonably high constitution. Thus, it makes sense to give characters a higher constitution than ten in a damage versus HP calculation. None of these things seem like false assumptions to me. It's not necessary for every single character to increase constitution for us to analyze based upon higher constitution. That'd be ridiculous. We analyze based on what we expect the average player to do, what the average character looks like, and what the most optimal construct for a character is. We can't base analysis on characters that are significantly worse than average, or that are highly suboptimal, because that delivers aberrant results.

TuggyNE

2013-08-06, 06:25 PM

Game design philosophy and Con:
Eggy: look up logical fallacy please. You seem to not understand it very well. If it's an option it's not a hard fact, ergo you cannot make hard fact claims from it. Which is what you've been doing.

I think what you mean here is "a system must consider absolutely every possibility", which I sympathize with but ultimately disagree on, and then tacking on "with equal weight", which I don't agree with at all.

Sure, "in a perfect world", maybe we could afford to consider all the myriads of millions of weird possibilities and carefully design a way to handle each of them sensibly. In practice, no one ever does that in a system as large as 3.x, whether it be game design, law, computer programming, or urban planning. It's simply impractical beyond all hope of accomplishment.

Now, if you designed a new game system from scratch, you could attempt to set it up to minimize the out-of-control combinatorics, and if you did a really good job regulating things, you might be able to get far, far closer with general rules and moderate attention paid to details. Unfortunately, I don't think we have that luxury here; backward compatibility is a harsh mistress, but mindshare and network effects are harsher.

Your missing the point. In a properly designed and balanced system there are no optimised or non-optimised choices to begin with. Players after they learn the system won't make non-optimised choices normally so it's bad for customisation, player options, or verity in the game-play for there to ever be such thing as optimal or sub-optimal choices. They need to be all even. Sometimes it's a question of adjusting things to make an option either non-suboptimal or non-optimal, (as the case may be), other times you just have to outright ban the action.

Again, I sympathize with this, but I consider it too far; reducing the mechanical effect of choices, all choices, to 0 is a terrible idea, because it removes all the mechanical meaning; everything is the same!

No, what you want instead is rough equality/like power levels; choices you make in character building or in play should be meaningful, but should not overwhelm other choices. Rather, no choice should be strictly good or bad, no choice strictly superior to another, or even much more often superior than others. Situational is the name of the game.

If, (to continue using con as a discussion), therefore you have two choices at design time. Design the system so that it is balanced and equally optimal with emphasised or dumped con and leave character generation unchanged. Or design the system around the assumption that con will not be dumped and then make it impossible to dump it.

The thing you're missing is that that ship has sailed; the system is already designed around the second assumption (well, it's not impossible, just a terrible idea), and it is far too late to attempt to change that.

if a reformation of the spell system led to Con being less important, would that be a good thing?

Also, could reforming the spell system, on its own, substantially change the importance of Con?

I don't think it could; spell damage, while often significant, is by no means the only or even the largest source of damage, and unless you cut spell damage to 0 and removed all Fort saves, Con's importance would not decrease much. Even then, there's still a lot of other sources of damage, and even Fort saves, that would make it important.

What bothers me even more is whether there is a realistic alternative to rocket tag. Rocket tag is undesirable, but grind is even worse. How do you have fast combats at high level without playing rocket tag?

Simplify the moving parts? Bonuses or penalties are harder to track than binary conditions, as long as those are kept fairly straightforward; for example, Battle for Wesnoth has an extremely simplified combat backbone (damage is fixed per unit, number of attacks is fixed per unit, chance of hitting is determined by the defender and terrain, spells and marksmanship can override that to give fixed [minimum] chance to hit, charging does double damage, poison always has the same effect, and so on and so forth), but the tactics in the game are quite rich and the metagame on the multiplayer servers is still evolving after nearly 10 years. Any given unit movement is pretty easy to understand and calculate the odds, but units in combination, plus a rather decent AI (or a human opponent), make for a deep game.

And the availability of game-changing powers. Like flight, teleportation, plane shifting, etc.. Adventures are designed with the expectation that these powers are available. How are they going to be available unless a spell caster is around to provide them? But the ability of a caster to trump a non-caster is one of the problems that needs fixing. Again, it seems like an unfixable problem.

Well, you could go the UA/4e route and have rituals, as long as you actually designed them properly this time around.

And given that we're talking about a system as complex and optimization-sensitive as D&D... I think it's safe to assume at least a modicum of skill on the part of potential players. "HP is good" is not a hard thing to understand.

Yeah, as someone else mentioned, it's like having high Int on a Wizard: duh? That's just … how it works.

While SoD spells aren't good, I personally enjoy when full attacks, high-level spells, maneuvers and the like can 2- or 3-shot a level-appropriate threat. It keeps things feeling fast dangerous, and is part of the D&D experience, in my mind.

One way to reduce it, though, might be to import Star Wars Saga Edition's condition track, or something similar. As you start taking damage, you wind up with increasing penalties to everything, which leads to you taking more damage, which leads to bigger penalties... and then you're dead. It gets around the HP slog by turning it into a more dynamic process.

Fundamentally, big important things you do (like high-level spells) should substantially change the nature of the fight, but shouldn't auto-win or lock up the fight on their own; if, after casting a spell, everyone else says "good job all, let's clean these guys up and move on", something probably went seriously wrong. (Unless the fight was already substantially slanted that way, of course.)

So apparently there's this huge argument going on over character creation and stats (specifically Con); I'mma stay out of that for the moment, at least until I can spare an hour to decipher it and see which side I want to join.

The right one, of course. :smallwink:

What would be a good number to have then? 4? I like four.

Also, what types could we have that would encompass every type of spell that exists? Enhancement is a nice, bland, generic sound. There could also be Perfection bonuses for anything divinely related. Competency bonuses, which would also include Circumstance stuff. And maybe Luck.
Where would we put the stacking dodge bonuses?

That seems atrociously condensed, honestly; it's especially weird with stacking rules, because apparently a bard encouraging a thief while disabling a trap doesn't help anything if the thief has good tools already?

Here's my suggestion:

Enhancement: Magic that directly improves the end result; includes former morale and most competence, and may have [mind-affecting] tagged on when appropriate
Insight: A magical, supernatural, or extraordinary ability to know what actions to take and how; includes some former competence; always [mind-affecting]
Divine: Supernatural or lucky protection; generally stacks; includes former luck, dodge, profane, sacred
Inherent: Second nature to you; includes former natural armor
Circumstance: Situational bonuses arising from the environment; generally stacks

There are a few quirks here, mostly the stacking of divine (which I'm not entirely happy with), the comparative emptiness of circumstance, and the lack of provision for e.g. perfection bonuses or other weirdos.

This thread has (I think) all the damage types people where able to suggest, but my personal preference is to limit it to the following: Physical, Fire, Cold, Electric, Acid, Force, Sonic, Radiant, Negative, & Positive.

Forgot the link?

I don't think their inherently unusable, I just think they shouldn't be on first and maybe second level spells. I already mentioned that I'd prefer Summon Monster should be 1 minute/level. I could see many of the buffs being similar; at low levels they last 1 entire encounter, at higher levels its easy enough for a DM to string battles back-to-back, or delay you long enough for things to wear off, depending on what they want.

They're not unusable, but they are weird; what's the rationale for them scaling, anyway? Not, mind you, "how do you explain it", but "why is it impossible for them not to scale, lorewise".

Basically, if casters had any sense they would design their spells with fixed durations wherever possible, so if that's not the case, either the system is misrepresenting something through carelessness, or there's some crucial reason why it's impossible.

Also, are there actually "Full-round spells"? I couldn't find any, though I didn't look very hard. Everything seemed to be either 1 standard or 1 round.

Spontaneous metamagic.

For AOE, I would like to have maybe a small and large version for each of the circle (sphere), cylinder, and cone, although you might be able to convince me that even that is too much. Do you think having just one of each is better? And is there any shape I'm missing?

Small and large is probably fine.

Keep in mind, though, that there will probably still be a few spells with weird areas like hallow unless you really crack down hard.

On top of that, converting immunities into resistances can keep spells situationally useful, without being encounter-breaking, I think.

This can be useful, within reason; immunities are handy to keep track of because they're so simple, which is nice, but they are also hard to keep to a consistent power level without making them more complex, by either reducing them to resistances or putting conditions/exceptions on their use. (The epic problem of "but they're immune to everything!" "just shoot them with an epic spell of 'cuts through immunities'!" "but they have immunity to that too!" "oh snap" is only the logical extension of this.)

Like rather than being completely 100% invisibility, you shimmer slightly, so it only grants a bonus to Stealth or some one can find you with a spot check.

You mean … like it already does?

There's a spell in Complete Arcane, I think, that is like a more limited AMF; I would make it anti-single spell, but then have it cover a large area, so any smart government (or BBEG) could put up a radar-shield.

Otiluke's suppressing sphere is what you're talking about, I believe; it works on spell schools at present in a small area, but making it a higher-level spell and work on single spells in a larger area should be fine.

Teleport needs to have its range dragged out back and shot through the knees. 1 mile per level, and make it more like Word of Recall in that you can only get to places you've been to before, or marked somehow.

Alternatively, take a page from Wheel of Time and require attunement to the area you're starting from. :smallwink: (Just make sure to disallow Rand's cheesy stunt near Far Madding. Teleporting to an area does not count as attunement!)

Explosive Runes (and nearly all permenant spells, I'd argue) need limited durations. There exists a Permanency spell for a reason. I'd also alter that spell (Permanence) to consume spell slots instead of XP, which can be replaced. Make enough permanent-Light spells, and you run out of 0th level spell slots to use on other things.

Maybe also set up permanency to be more generally applicable, or scale to splatbooks better in general, while you're at it.

INT is a non-choice because it determine the number of skills a character has available. While it is possible to create a low-CON, low-INT character, such a character could not get into combat without dying in a single round of being attacked and cannot participate in any meaningful way with anything to do with skills.

I mostly agree on Con, but Int? I've never seen or heard of low-Int characters being fundamentally unplayable; there are a fair number of character concepts that aren't good at much outside combat besides idle chatting, and while I consider they should be tweaked to be more suitable, it's not an absolute barrier. There's also classes, like Ranger, where you can get lots of skills at 6 Int.

Frail but agile character, leaping and avoiding opponent attacks? Nope, not going to happen. Dumb character who have a few surprising talents most people don't realize? Not in this system.

Both of them are possible, just varying degrees of difficult. If you want a frail but agile character, a Swiftblade gish is probably where it's at, and there's likely one or two other broad possibilities at least; if you want a dumb character with some tricks, you can go PsyWar or Ranger or Rogue or Barbarian or Warblade, or just take certain feats that give you options, or simply invest your single skill point per level all in one skill, like Intimidate.

The key difference is that I dramatically change how the spells scale with level, making it easier to use (no caster level caps) and more consistent (no longer will Empowered Fireball be vastly stronger than Cone of Cold). I'll go over the full details when I post my changes, but I wanted to clarify that I'm not planning on nerfing damage spells out of existence.

Fair enough.

Second, my fundamental assumption for AOE damage spells is that they should be less powerful on a single target and more powerful on multiple targets. In other words, if you use a AOE spell to hit a single target, you're wasting it. If you use an AOE spell to hit two targets, you're getting a little more damage, but the fact that dealing damage to one creature is better than splitting the damage means this is perfectly find. If you use an AOE spell to hit three or more targets, you're going to get major damage improvements.

OK, I can buy that, more or less.

There's always a working goal of getting everything equally valuable.

I agree with this goal, but not some of the other goals you consider synonymous. That's because "'like' and 'equal' are not the same!" to borrow from A Wrinkle In Time. Sure, everything should have roughly similar value when used well, and only moderately less value if used poorly. But that's not the same as saying that any option is a drop-in replacement for any other option, that no matter what you do you'll have precisely the same mechanical effectiveness in all situations as anyone else, and so on.

Now i'm no fool, even if blasty spells where the games one and only damage source, nerfing their damage wouldn't fix the con issue. Hit Die are so pitiful in the amounts they give compared to what even a 10 con score can give in most cases, (with magical gear thrown on), that it's too big a negative to dump it.

But so long as blasty spells are damaging enough, even a heavily nerfed set of downsides to a neg con score won't get people to dump it.

So, you're saying that despite blasting being basically last on the list of reasons for characters to want Con, and despite monsters having fixed Con scores, blasting should be nerfed as a high priority, and then maybe everything else shifted too?

No, this sort of idealism is unwise. Keep pragmatic solutions and constraints in mind. There are always more problems than you can fix, so prioritize the time you have to fix the biggest problems first. And "everyone needs Con 14" is not the biggest problem; neither is "blasting spells can often almost one-shot a character under nearly ideal circumstances".

Eldan

2013-08-06, 06:29 PM

What the hell is radiant damage? :smallconfused: Another form of fire? Holy damage? Pure light? Ionizing radiation?

Deepbluediver

2013-08-06, 06:44 PM

What the hell is radiant damage? :smallconfused: Another form of fire? Holy damage? Pure light? Ionizing radiation?

Lasers, obviously. :smallcool:

I think it first showed up in the Book of Exalted Deeds, and it's most frequently associated with goodly deities and their servants, but it's basically just another type of elemental damage, like Fire (and it doesn't have to be "good" either). I use it because I think it's better than leaving something like Searing Light untyped. I'm pretty sure there is at least one Dragon with a radiant breath weapon as well.

You could also houserule it to do things like full-damage to incorporeal creatures or double damage to things vulnerable to sunlight (like vampires).

Edit:
RE: Game design philosophy and Con
...
The right one, of course. :smallwink:
Yes, thank you for being absolutely not-helpful in the slightest. :smallamused:

All I'm going to say on the matter is this: in MY ideal world, every stat would be somewhat valuable to every class. Certain classes and builds would favor some stats over others, but nothing would be entirely pointless. Now, thus far I haven't quite managed perfection, but I think I'm getting close. I would probably divvy up the stats as follows-

Con: HP and Fort saves
Str: Melee attack rolls, all melee damage rolls (including ranged), and carrying capacity
Dex: AC, ranged attack rolls, reflex saves
Int: Skill points, bonus spells (for all casters)
Wis: Spellcraft rolls (for most casters), Initiative checks
Cha: Spellcraft rolls (for some casters), Will saves

It's hard to comment in a vacuum, so some of this might seem a little odd. For example, I'd do away with as many of the portable holes, handy haversacks, and bags of holding as I could, so that the ability to carry your own weight in gear and/or treasure was actually valuable to the party.
By the same token, I'd revise Initiative checks so they weren't just straight ability checks; you'd get a bonus based on class. The reason it's Wisdom and not Dexterity is that (in addition to balance) a quick reaction is not necessarily a good reaction. A high wisdom score lets your observe your surroundings and move when it is most advantageous for you to do so.

Here's my suggestion:

Enhancement: Magic that directly improves the end result; includes former morale and most competence, and may have [mind-affecting] tagged on when appropriate
Insight: A magical, supernatural, or extraordinary ability to know what actions to take and how; includes some former competence; always [mind-affecting]
Divine: Supernatural or lucky protection; generally stacks; includes former luck, dodge, profane, sacred
Inherent: Second nature to you; includes former natural armor
Circumstance: Situational bonuses arising from the environment; generally stacks

There are a few quirks here, mostly the stacking of divine (which I'm not entirely happy with), the comparative emptiness of circumstance, and the lack of provision for e.g. perfection bonuses or other weirdos.
That works, too. The only thing I would probably change is to make dexterity and dodge bonuses Inherent instead of Divine.

Forgot the link?
Damn, I could have sworn I put it in there. They can be such slippery little buggers.

Let's try that again. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267700)

They're not unusable, but they are weird; what's the rationale for them scaling, anyway? Not, mind you, "how do you explain it", but "why is it impossible for them not to scale, lorewise".

Basically, if casters had any sense they would design their spells with fixed durations wherever possible, so if that's not the case, either the system is misrepresenting something through carelessness, or there's some crucial reason why it's impossible.
Imagine you have two Wizards; the first is Timmy the apprentice, who wears a floppy hat with stars on it and robe two sizes to large. His primary duties include sweeping the floor and NOT TOUCHING ANYTHING!
The second Wizard is Tim The Archmage. He has wrestled with angels and demons, stared into the abyss to divine knowledge man was not meant to know, and regularly rewrites the laws of physics before breakfast.

If these two magic users both cast the same spell, whether it's Light or Haste or Web or Summon Creature or anything, pretty much, then it feels weird to me that the guy who's one step short of godhood can't get his to last any longer than the one who's lucky if he doesn't explode his own nose more than once a week.

Now, I admit that some of the durations should be tweeked; leveling up should not move the same spell from useless to functional to broken. But it makes sense that the spell might be slightly more useful, or easier to deal with, or you would need to recast it less often. I think that's doable.

Spontaneous metamagic.
The rules for which, suck ass btw. (maybe that's just my opinion, I'm sure some one will disagree with me)

Frankly, is there any good reason why spontaneous casters can't apply metamagic on the fly without it increasing the time? The difference between a standard action and a full action is relatively minimal in most cases, but it seems like a pointless penalty when spontaneous casters tend to be ranked below the prepareds anyway.

Small and large is probably fine.

Keep in mind, though, that there will probably still be a few spells with weird areas like hallow unless you really crack down hard.
I'd have to go through the list one by one, but so long as most of the "big" radius are less directly combat oriented, then I don't really see it being too much of a problem.

Cones could probably have a single scaling formula, given that most of them are Instantaneous in effect and without duration.

This can be useful, within reason; immunities are handy to keep track of because they're so simple, which is nice, but they are also hard to keep to a consistent power level without making them more complex, by either reducing them to resistances or putting conditions/exceptions on their use. (The epic problem of "but they're immune to everything!" "just shoot them with an epic spell of 'cuts through immunities'!" "but they have immunity to that too!" "oh snap" is only the logical extension of this.)
Personally, I'm willing to put the extra effort into tracking resistances if it solves the issue of immunities being boring and/or gamebreaking.

Also, I totally agree with the second half of that paragraph. I recall some one posting a gamelog not to long ago about playtesting a homebrewed system, in which the high level characters where all immune to everything. So, these uber-powerful supposedly game-changing plot-driving NPCs all just sat in their home base issuing orders because if two of them ever met, they wouldn't be able to do anything to each other.

You mean … like it already does?
Yeah, ok, I didn't phrase that very well.
If I get the opportunity to nail down some actual, possibly workable mechanic I'll come back to this.

Otiluke's suppressing sphere is what you're talking about, I believe; it works on spell schools at present in a small area, but making it a higher-level spell and work on single spells in a larger area should be fine.
See, now what's funny about your next coment, is that I didn't know about the Suppressing Sphere when I was reading WoT, and I took my inspiration from the Dream Spike; that artifact that dis-allowed teleportation. In a D&D world, its really the only thing that would stop a Tippyverse-like scenario, other than a total absence of mid-level arcane casters. Any ruler or mage should be researching or investing in something like that since it becomes every bit as important of a defensive measure as stone walls and soldiers.

Maybe also set up permanency to be more generally applicable, or scale to splatbooks better in general, while you're at it.
Again, this is one of those things that needs fine-tuning, but I would like to have a situation where I can say: any spell that has a duration can be made permanent. It consumes a spell-slot from the original caster (so long as the spell is permanent, anyways) based on it's normal duration-level.
{table]Duration|Spell Slot
round/level|2 higher
minute/level|1 higher
10 minutes/level|same
hour/level|1 lower
day/level|2 lower[/table]

At the same time, I'd probably remove the auto-permanency from as many spells as possible, like Wall of Iron.

Grod_The_Giant

2013-08-06, 09:14 PM

What the hell is radiant damage? :smallconfused: Another form of fire? Holy damage? Pure light? Ionizing radiation?
I first saw it in 4e; I think it's holy damage. (Necessarily distinguished from positive energy, which heals most targets)

Vadskye

2013-08-06, 09:57 PM

On Con and HP:
A good system wouldn't require that essentially every character have a 14 Con. However, that's where we are, so I'm designing the spell system under that assumption. If HP changes, it should be very easy to tweak the scaling such that spell damage stays in sync.
I'm replying to posts in chronological order because I think that is the only way this has any hope of making sense.

Eggynack:

On the damage issue, I really don't think it is one. We shouldn't compare the damage of a fireball to the HP of a given PC. We should compare the damage of a fireball to the damage of a melee guy that's trying to deal damage. The damage levels aren't really comparable. A barbarian that's giving it his all is insurmountable by all but the most damage focused wizard builds.
Yes, we should compare it to noncaster damage. However, I believe that noncaster damage is also broken, at least at mid to high optimization levels. That is far beyond the scope of this change, of course. However, it means that merely saying "an optimized barbarian can do more damage" is not sufficient for me to be happy with the spell system. I will design spell damage based on what I think a hypothetically balanced system would use, and tell ubercharger barbarians to go stuff themselves for the time being. That's a separate fix.
Tuggy:

There are a few cases where it would be nice (to avoid friendly fire, for example) and probably a few outlier spells that have bizarre results, but for the most part it should be acceptable.
If you think of any, let me know!

Yeah, making casters less independent and forcing them to cooperate to get things done is one of the most fundamental goals here, I think; 4e's solution seems to have been to key essentially everything to HP (and then inflate HP to give longer fights), but there are other possibilities, such as my prototype of Will Points.
I have used a new system specifically for this purpose for the past year, and I love the way it plays. It is possible!

14 Con straight, with no enhancement bonuses, inherent bonuses, or even level-up bonuses? Just 14 Con at 20th level? I think that's a dubious assumption; at the very least, picking up an amulet of health +2 by level 8 should be an obvious choice, increasing that to +4 by level 12 at the latest, and +6 by level 16. (Probably considerably earlier.)
Yes, it is an inaccurate assumption, and I appreciate that you put in the effort to generate a revised chart. However, it doesn't significantly change my point - PC HP is still significantly behind monster HP, even with a moderately significant investment (the primary cost being the body slot slot, not the GP; Con is found only in particularly valuable areas).

PCs do often have better touch ACs than monsters (sometimes much better, such as a defense-oriented Monk or PsyWar, sometimes only somewhat), and are more likely to have fire resistance, but other than that, note that the updated figures leave the Fighter at better than 25% health, leaves Rogues alive (albeit by a whisker) and only kills Wizards — and that's only if all those rays hit, there's no fire resistance, and so forth.

Math math math.
I don't disagree that using Scorching Ray specifically on a rogue is a poor idea. Perhaps I should have left that example out.

I'd agree that this is the sticking point; note, though, that for this to be a minimal-intervention fix, the implications of high-, mid-, and low-optimization damage outputs from melee, archery, and other characters should also be considered. Spell damage isn't necessarily the benchmark, after all! (If anything, monster HP are only a problem for very-low-op THF and low- to mid-op TWF/archery/warlock/natural weapon attackers. Reducing it might have … unpleasant … side effects.)
Monster HP would only be reduced as part of a ridiculously comprehensive system rewrite which I may or may not have spent the last year writing (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=290111). :smalltongue: Suffice to say that I agree that it is outside the scope of this specific change.

I'd suggest also considering some other possibilities, including making touch AC a bit more effective as a defense (for monsters, but mostly for PCs) while hopefully containing the excesses of high-op touch AC optimization where possible.
Rise does this; shields give bonuses to touch AC, and 1/2 BAB is applied to AC, including touch AC. Monsters are still in development, though. The Spell Reformation won't touch those issues, of course.

Well, trolls though… how else are you going to get enough acid/fire damage on them? Torches? +1d6/hit from flaming weapons? Burning them on a pyre? Flask rogue? (OK that last would actually work quite nicely.)

Otherwise yeah, I suppose there are always foes that blasting should work poorly on.
Typically my players deal most of the damage with nonlethal damage and then coup de grace with fire - in which case, you don't need a full Scorching Ray/Fireball. YMMV, of course.

Random thought: what if negative/positive energy spells did less than their listed damage when used to heal? That would fix scaling for them, so you could actually use cure X wounds against undead without being laughed off the planet, and vice versa. In other words, take something like cure critical wounds and specify that it does, I dunno, 4d8+1d8/2 levels (max 11d8) against undead, but only 4d8+1d8/3 levels healing (max 9d8), the idea being that it's easier to just sort of shoot a stream of raw energy at something antithetical to it than to guide precise restoration. (You might need to tweak bolt of glory and one or two others to get it right.)

Not a bad idea. I took a completely approach, and said that Mass Cure/Inflict Light Wounds deal/heal the same damage as Cone of Cold (and the same damage that any other 5th level AOE save half spell would do).

At equal optimization, not really, but for a PC against an NPC wizard, there arguably is. (See the notes above for how a fairly low-op Rogue can avoid a fair chunk of the damage from a similarly low-op NPC Wizard as an example.)
If the NPC wizard is played sufficiently poorly/obviously, yes. Otherwise, not really - spells are basically impossible without magic, and even then it's iffy.

This is partly true, but consider: if casters are to play nicely with groups, it's crucial that they leave jobs partially finished in a way that lets others contribute...

Put another way, the truism is wrong; HP is a gradual defense, not a binary one, and chipping away at a gradual defense is a useful contribution. Or would you say that a natural weapon attacker with 12 attacks/round, skirmish, and pounce is useless because no single one of their attacks can ever one-shot an enemy?
Exactly true.
Eggynack:

Yeah, I think I had a short note about this majig somewhere. The main point I'm trying to make is that there are all of these neat defenses that look like they just completely stop wizards in their tracks. People talk about antimagic field like it automatically wins the game against wizards, and it's not a true thing. Wizards definitely have some defenses against wizards, but to some extent those don't even count. It largely perpetuates the entire issue when you need magic to beat magic.
Exactly.

Sure, but the major implication there was that these spells are dealing far too much damage. It's just not a thing that I think is true. If we got rid of everything that doesn't have damage as its key component, wizards just wouldn't be all that powerful.
Do you mean does have damage as its key component? If not, I'm confused. In any case, yes - I was unclear about my complaints about damage spells, and I apologize. My issue is not with Scorching Ray by itself. My issue is with Empowered Maximized Scorching Ray. The scaling is all screwed up - Empower and Maximize need to go.

Anyways, dealing half damage to a bunch of enemies isn't pointless, because it means that the next half will kill them all. However, I'd rather deal full damage to one enemy than deal half damage to three enemies, because killing an enemy is more than an offensive measure to close out the fight faster.
That's a reasonable statement. However, that's a reflection of personal choice, not a universally true thing - I can think of many situations where doing more raw damage is better. Also, with the current system, you can get nearly the same damage as an AOE as you can with a single-target spell, so there's no real choice involved anyway. That's a problem.
erikun:

I'd argue against a couple of points you've made.

First, I'd like to point out that I've used quite a number of trivial spells over my character's lifetimes. Calm Animals and Talk with Animals are quite handy for the druid who wants to know what is happening during animal attacks, and doesn't want to go around stabbing them immediately. Hide from Undead was quite nice for a cleric, especially if the undead have seen him once before and are trying to hide from his lethal turning ability. I agree that several spells are unbalanced, either on the wrong spell level or too specialized, but that's a fair bit different from becoming class abilities. I don't think an unlimited Charm Animal would be very fair on a druid, for example.
It is true that Calm Animals can be situationally useful. (I once had a player save the party with Hold Portal, of all things.) However, just because a spell can be useful in a very specific circumstance does not mean that it actually deserves to be a spell.

Also, why would class abilities be inherently unlimited? Giving druids automatic Speak with Animals X times per day, and later Calm Animals or what have you, strikes me as being perfectly appropriate.

Damage is kind of wonky for all characters, and it extends well beyond damage done by spells. Scorching Ray could immediately take out an opposing wizard, or it could deal a trivial amount compared to HP, or it could miss entirely (Mirror Image). The entire combat system is all kinds of awkward, and I doubt that simply changing the damage spells deal will be truely fixing anything about it.

The problem with Fly (and to a lesser extent Invisibility) isn't that they make the caster immune to mundane; it's that mundane ranged attacks are so globally terrible that the caster might as well be immune to them. Even ignoring the full immunity from Wind Wall, we're talking about 1d8+1d6+10 as your best damage without heavy optimization towards archery.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't solve the problem by itself. Many, many creatures and PCs would be incapable of effective ranged combat even if the rules were changed so fighters were great at it.
Deepbluediver pt. 2:

These are many of the same issues I was looking to fix in my own magic-system. You probably already knew that from our other recent talks on magic-design, though. :smallbiggrin:
I had an inkling, yes. :smallwink:

One thing I wanted to mention, though, since you brought up how confusing varying casting times, ranges, and AOEs could be, was my personal pet peeve: different spells per day and spells known for virtually every caster.
Rise uses the same spells per day for every caster except paladins, and the same spells known for every caster except paladins and clerics (though specialist wizards can get extra spells known). However, I won't be altering the spells per day and spells known with this particular fix; I'm trying to focus solely on spells and spell mechanics.
Amridell:

I'm actually working on a pair of classes to address some of the issues you brought up, namely the arbitrary system and the useless/broken thing at low levels. Hopefully it will come out as nice as I planned.

Perhaps we could collaborate at some point? I'd be interested in some feedback.
I'm generally more interested in rewriting core mechanics than introducing new classes, but I can definitely take a look at what you have. If it's better than what I have, I would probably want to incorporate it into my fix; I love good ideas, and I'm not finicky about making sure they're all mine.
Eggynack pt. 2:

Finding parity by fixing damage numbers just seems kinda pointless and impossible to me. You could make every wizard spell that deals damage only deal one to each target hit, and make every fighter attack deal infinite damage, and wizards would still be at tier one, and fighters would hit tier four.
100% true.

Maybe there are some odd magic damage issues, and that might connect to the design aspect of casting (Which I actually like. Having all of your spells be really different is kinda cool to me. Your mileage may vary), but a discussion of wizard brokeness can't really be a discussion of blasting spells. It's just so distant from the problem.
I agree that damaging spells are much less of a problem than nondamaging spells. However, we're talking about it a lot because that's what people are taking the most issue with on this list. shrug Also, just because damage spells are much more balanced than other spells doesn't mean that they are actually balanced. They are just more balanced. And given that I'm rewriting or removing literally every spell in the game, damage spells are getting some rewrites too.
Tuggy pt. 3:

From a practical standpoint, designing for anti-optimization (which is basically what dumping Con usually is) is unwise, because it distorts your solutions to account for something that is trivial to solve otherwise. Just accept that yes, there are some truly brain-dead options someone can pick that will completely ruin their character, carefully minimize the likelihood that they'll pick them, and warn them away from such things, and then let it go.

Put another way, someone choosing to dump Con is, in general, making an invalid choice; the system simply does not expect that. "Garbage in, garbage out." It might be nice to recalibrate the character creation process to more thoroughly validate entries (in data entry parlance), but changing all the internals of the system is too big an overhaul.
Agreed.

From a fix design standpoint, extending the scope of a fix from "the magic system" to "the magic system, and all damage, ever, and also a lot of monsters, and also a lot of other things like classes and basic magic items" is ludicrously over-ambitious; the thing is far too large to be accomplished in any kind of reasonable timeframe. It was already rather daring, in fact.
I am nothing if not ludicrously overambitious! But yes, the scope of this particular discussion should be restricted to spells and the spell system. If I could go back and rewrite the thesis about damage, I would clarify that I have two main problems: the way damage scales, and AOE damage. Scorching Ray itself not too bad as written, as long as you ignore Empower and Maximize. (I'll still be making it slightly less powerful, but only at high levels, not when first acquired.)
Eldan:

It may be anti-optimized. The problem is, new players may not see it that way. Ten-ish years ago, now, when I built my first elven wizard, I tried to make him strong. My thought process was "Well, if anything hits me, I'm dead anyway, so I can safely dump con. Better take dex instead so nothing hits me". And so began the adventures of Istari Shadowwood (Yes, really, I was a dumb teenager), the 18 dex elf and his mighty longbow.
that's adorable :3
I agree that Con isn't very well-designed, though I admit that I still haven't figured out how to solve that. It's a topic for a different day, though.
Eggynack pt. 3:

Yeah, I can get behind that. However, the ultimate conclusion of all of this is that fireball is fine the way it is. It can just sit there, in its little island of relative balance, uninjured by the changing tide of buffs and nerfs. I'd say the same for all blasting spells, actually. It just doesn't seem like a ripe area for making changes.
I disagree with the idea that Fireball is balanced in the first place. Consider a party of four level 5 adventurers who are attacked by a reasonably large group of monsters (it doesn't matter what kind, but let's say orcs for convenience). If they have a wizard, he just casts Fireball, and the whole encounter is basically over; that's 5d6 damage per enemy. If the wizard is some sort of fighter instead, then the monsters get to actually fight, and the party will almost certainly take substantial damage - and if any of them is isolated, that member can easily risk dying.

Now, things change if one of the fighters is a spiked chain/combat reflexes/maybe whirlwind attack build that specializes in group combat. In that case, the party can do pretty well. But in that case, that's his entire build. The wizard needs to change one spell, and he can nuke the encounter. Fireball is too good as written; it's just overshadowed by all of the worse nonsense that infests the spell system.

I mean, if we're changing the whole system on a fundamental level, direct damage shouldn't get left behind, but if we're just doing stuff like splitting polymorph or banning ice assassin, maybe we can just let these spells sit this one out.
I completely agree. Damage spells are not The Thing That Makes Spells Broken. Heck, they aren't even in the top 5. But they're still better than they should be. I wrote 45 arguments about everything wrong with spells - does it seem like we're just talking about banning Polymorph and Ice Assassin? :smalltongue:
Eldan pt. 2:

Actually, if I could, I'd pretty much kick out all the spells that just do damage in various forms. Stick some riders on them, people. It makes them so much more interesting. Make fireballs explosive. Let Burning hands set things on fire. Cone of Cold should freeze people.
I agree, mostly. Yes, damage spells should have riders. However, low-level damage spells should primarily just do damage, and the riders should slowly develop over time. If low-level damage spells have riders that are too good, it's difficult for nondamaging spells to compete; either nondamaging spells have to be overly powerful to compensate, or we end up in a quasi-4th game where most spells are "deal damage and do X". Plus, having simple spells at low levels helps ease players into the magic system. So I think Burning Hands should just deal fire damage - but Cone of Cold should definitely have a rider (fatigue in my system), and Polar Ray (as mentioned previously) should have a major rider effect.
Eggynack pt. 4:

That does sound pretty cool. Still, I'm a little wary of giving wizards any kind of additional power without giving serious thought to the ramifications. I've gotta assume that you just mean generally new spells, such that they're balanced despite the addition of rider effects.
I'd rather decrease the damage of damage spells (slightly!) and let them all be more interesting and flavorful. Because spells that just do damage are, as Eldan said, boring.
Deepbluediver pt. 2: (oh my goodness so long)

Granted, this is true, but the damaging-ones are the easiest to address. Problems crop up when you need to start comparing things like Enlarge Person, Fly, & Haste, all of which vary by situation. Personally, I don't mind loading down the first few levels with spells, and then letting the absolute numbers trail off at high levels. As I said last time, so long as a 3rd level spell is still useful, only learning it at level 12 wouldn't be a waste. You don't need to have 4 or 5 different spells at every level just to fill space, IMO.
I agree that the number of spells can trail off as you reach high levels, but I wouldn't want to push that too far. Spells are complex, and I'd rather not overload people with options.

I would agree that we probably don't need ALL those different animal-related spells; but I also don't really like spells that only target one specific type of creature. There's Charm Humanoid, and then the next step up is Charm <Everything>. I would rather have just one Charm Creature, or base it off of super-type (similar creature-types).
I am not sure that I mind the Charm Humanoid / Charm Everything divide, actually. I think that the less that I force players to pay attention to exact creature type, the better. For that reason, I don't want Charm or other spells to be creature-type based when possible. However, for balance and fluff reasons, I think it should be easier to charm a typical NPC than it is to charm a monster. It is a bit odd, but I think that the current split is actually a reasonable solution to the problem.

Would better scaling help? A +1 bonus theoretically has the same benefit to a d20 roll at max level as it does at first, but it frequently gets lost in the crush.
Yes and no. Yes, some things should scale that currently don't. However, no temporary bonus should start at +1. Temporary bonuses should start at +2. Also, people often lose track of why exactly things scale. The only things that should automatically scale with level are the things that would otherwise become irrelevant. Thus, damage should automatically scale with level, since HP automatically increases with level. A +2 circumstance bonus should not scale with level, since that remains equally useful at all levels - it never becomes obsolete. A +2 bonus on a type that doesn't stack, such as enhancement, should scale with level - otherwise, it would become irrelevant, since you can have many ways of getting that type.

What would be a good number to have then? 4? I like four.

Also, what types could we have that would encompass every type of spell that exists? Enhancement is a nice, bland, generic sound. There could also be Perfection bonuses for anything divinely related. Competency bonuses, which would also include Circumstance stuff. And maybe Luck.
Where would we put the stacking dodge bonuses?
I use three main bonus types (Competence, Enhancement, and Circumstance), plus one quasi-type that is only used indirectly (Inherent). I'll explain my full reasoning and mechanics for that when I introduce the Spell Reformation.

Also, one of my personal hates is for untyped damage. I would like EVERY damage to have some type applied to it, if only so it can be defended against, should the need arise.

This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267700) has (I think) all the damage types people where able to suggest, but my personal preference is to limit it to the following: Physical, Fire, Cold, Electric, Acid, Force, Sonic, Radiant, Negative, & Positive.

For anything that doesn't fit those categories, I'd be willing to explore dual typed damage, like Fire+Negative Energy for a Warlock's Eldritch Blast.
Good point - I would love for all damage to be typed. However, I have yet to find a way to actually implement this without making it feel tacked on and arbitrary. What kind of damage does Chaos Hammer or Unholy Blight do? "Radiant" definitely feels wrong for that. If I see a simple system that assigns damage types to every spell, I'll be happy to incorporate it.

I don't think their inherently unusable, I just think they shouldn't be on first and maybe second level spells. I already mentioned that I'd prefer Summon Monster should be 1 minute/level. I could see many of the buffs being similar; at low levels they last 1 entire encounter, at higher levels its easy enough for a DM to string battles back-to-back, or delay you long enough for things to wear off, depending on what they want.
If it can't be used for some levels of spells, I don't think it should be used at all. Also, if Summon Monster was minute/level, it would be easy to summon a ton of monsters at once and then walk into combat surrounded by a miniature army.

Not sure I entirely agree with this one. I think the complexity issue could be addressed by standardizing some of the AOEs and rate of increase, and by having any given spell only increase by 1 factor. It other hits a larger area OR does more damage OR lasts longer, but not all 3.
Assigning scaling individually to each spell sounds like it would be arbitrary and really hard to remember. I'd rather just let casters use Enlarge Spell/Widen Spell/etc., rewriting and tweaking as necessary to make it work right.

I recently discovered I've been doing the "1 Round" casting time wrong for years; my groups always just read it as "1 Full-round action". I could easily see doing away with it, since AFAIK its a mechanic used nowhere else.
Also, are there actually "Full-round spells"? I couldn't find any, though I didn't look very hard. Everything seemed to be either 1 standard or 1 round.
As someone said below, metamagicked spells are full-round actions.

I'd rather have a standard system like all casting times are: 1 Swift action (rare), 1 Standard action, 1 Full-round action, 1 minute, 10 minutes, 1 hour (rare). Quicken spell (feat) reduces the casting time by one step.
Turning a full-round action into a standard action is nowhere near as good as turning a standard action into a swift action.

Agreed, but for the sake of sanity I would probably choose to say that the range of a spell a spell is determined as it's epicenter, and if that give someone a little extra edge to lob AOEs, so be it.
Thus making it impossible to have spells centered on the caster? :smallconfused: Much better to just get rid of the "range" line and keep the originally intended mechanics.

But I want to do two things: standardize AOE scaling, and reduce the overall range of spells. For Short, Medium, & Long I prefer 25 +5 ft/2 levels, 50 ft +5 ft/level, and 100 ft. +10 ft/level. Combat very frequently takes places at much less than medium range anyway, but this helps rein in high-level casters (who can hurl spells nearly a quarter mile, making in practically un-counterable, even with archery).
I still don't like scaling the range with level. What is the point of that, exactly?

For AOE, I would like to have maybe a small and large version for each of the circle (sphere), cylinder, and cone, although you might be able to convince me that even that is too much. Do you think having just one of each is better? And is there any shape I'm missing?
I considered this, but decided against it. If you define "small" and "large" separately for each type of area, you actually increase complexity, not decrease it. Instead, I propose using three area sizes that are shape-independent: Small (10 ft.), Medium (20 ft.), and Large (50 ft.). Then you can just say "Burning Hands is a medium cone" and "Cone of Cold is a large cone" and everyone will know what you mean, without having to check whether "large" in the context of a cone was larger or smaller than "large" in the context of a line.

Hmm; that certainly seems like an oversight, albeit an easily fixable one. I think it was intended to not let things like trees or short obstacles to get in the way, but obviously it can be read as passing through walls.

What about phrasing it like "A cylinder will affect everything in it's area, except for spaces from which it is excluded by a solid wall or other barrier."?
I went simpler and just said "vertical obstacles" instead of "obstacles".

For the low spells per day, I'm a little OCD about this, but if you check any of my class fixes you'll see all the casters follow a very specific pattern. This means they don't have great numbers at low levels, but one fix for that is better bonus spells. The following revision works out decently, I think.

table table table

If the pattern isn't obvious to anyone, let me know. With this pattern, and unoptimized Wizard with 16 Int would have 5 0th level spells and 3 1st level spells at first level. Not great, but probably enough to let him use 1 each round for 2 encounters (and better than the core RAW wizard, which has half that number).
The problem won't be solved just by changing the number of spells slightly; whether they have 3 1st level spells or 5 1st level spells, that still only means 3 or 5 rounds each day where they are allowed to act like a proper magic user. Mages need at-will combat abilities that are less powerful than spells, but which fulfill the fluff role of "I'm a mage and I do magic stuff."

All of these seem to be part of one problem. I'm not sure there is any one change you can make to fix it, but there might be lots of little things you can do to alleviate the worst of it. For example, making it easier to defend against SoD (or SoS), by requiring 2 saves instead of just one for the full effect; lowering a casters ability or incentive to SAD-stack their casting attribute; give non-casters more caster-counters, etc.

Beyond that though, you start needing to fundamentally alter the game mechanics. Not that I object to that; it's ultimately what I did for a spell-fix. Just wanted to make sure you where aware.
I completely agree that the game mechanics need to be fundamentally altered. However, "fundamental" need not mean "complicated". That's the goal, at least.

And yet blasters are on the weaker side of casters. Personally, I think that 1d6 per levelisn't a bad metric, at least for levels 1-8-ish. It doesn't have weapon or Str damage, but casters are more versatile and can AOE much easier anyway.
For higher level spells, a bigger dice every couple of levels wouldn't hurt, I think.
1d6/level is perfectly fine for "save half" spells. I think it would be better to give higher level spells riders instead of just increasing raw damage; they still increase in utility, but it is both less boring and less game-breaking.

You might be able to accomplish this largely by toning down the number of different types of buffs you can stack, like you mentioned earlier. But beyond that, I want there to be the ability for players to expand their skill at the game.
The DM needs to have a certain amount of flexibility, like having his BBEG throw the party in a cell to "deal with later" rather than TPK, or to have the noise of battle suddenly attract twice as many goblins through an entrance the party didn't notice.
Expand skill, absolutely. I think buffs should still have a role. But I want to limit it to maybe a 1 or 2 ECL swing rather than a "autowin/autolose" swing.

One thing to remember is that just because a spell exists, doesn't mean everyone will have it known or prepared all the time. If there where a few more defenses against the scrying half of scry-and-die, then I think it would be easy for the DM to set up a situation where the party Wizard doesn't have 8 hours to spare, or to much down time between adventures.

On top of that, converting immunities into resistances can keep spells situationally useful, without being encounter-breaking, I think.
Yes, there are ways to limit the wizard/cleric. I've spent years trying to think of subtle and clever ways not to let party casters overpower my games through sheer force of "Oh, I have a spell that does that". But I think it is better if you don't have to.

Without just cutting huge chunks of the caster's list, I think these need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. I'd scrap Fly, maybe turn Levitate and Floating-Disk into a concentration-based spells, make Overland Flight a cleric-travel-domain only spell and have flight-with-wings (Polymorph, etc) harder to use, at least while in combat.

Also, turning down the duration from hours to minutes helps keep them useful without allowing a caster to hover all day.
I used different changes, but you have the right idea - it's not the mere ability to fly (or, in general, buff) that is the problem - it's the duration. Duration is everything.

I'm not quite sure how to address G. Invisibility except by making it higher level; most of the complaints I've seen are that it makes the Rogue's skill-set useless, not that it was overwhelming in combat. Maybe just make the penalties/benefits against and for invisibility less powerful.

Like rather than being completely 100% invisibility, you shimmer slightly, so it only grants a bonus to Stealth or some one can find you with a spot check.
Invisibility should be just as powerful as it is; otherwise, it's lame. Invisibility has an iconic role in fantasy, and magic should be able to fulfill that role. But the duration can change.

As for Greater Invisibility, I'm actually rather proud of what I came up with for that. The new wording is "This spell functions like Invisibility, except that the subject becomes invisible again at the start of each of its turns, even if it attacked a creature during its previous turn."

In other words, it's still an Invisibility that lets you attack while invisible. But you can't full-round attack with it, and you're vulnerable if you do use it to attack. Way more balanced - but still a fun and useful spell!

For a lot of the encounter ending stuff, I've said before I think it should be single target, and then Mass-able via metamagic. That at least pushes the problem back a few levels.

Yeah, because of the squaring(2) rule (and bad circle-to-grid conversion) adding 5 ft of radius can just about double the area affected in many cases. What do you think a better value would be? This is part of the reason I wanted to keep a small and large version for each, so you can limit the area of something like Firestorm, and still have Sleet Storm affect a decent space.
The default spell area is a Small radius or a Medium cone or line; all of those affect about 10 squares. From there, +1 level gets you a Large line (20 squares). +2 gets you a Medium radius (50 squares), and +3 gets you a Large cone (75 squares). +5 gets you a Large radius (300 squares). Fireball should affect a Small (10 ft.) radius. I'll get into the full calculations for how you determine spell area when I present the full Spell Reformation.

You forgot Alter Self. :smallbiggrin:
Polymorph Any Object is just stupid (stupidly broken, too, but mostly just stupid).

I'd probably put Polymorph as a 9th level spell, with the caveat that each version known/prepared only allows you to turn into one creature.

Shapechange would be a new medium-level spell that allowed you to grow wings, extra limbs or gain other helpful Extraordinary abilities, but in no way resembled it's current form.
At some point I'll fix those stupid spells. For now, I'm inclined to just throw my hands up and concede defeat. Even ignoring the balance issues, they are just so bloody complicated. I'm really trying hard to make the spell system simpler to use, and not just more balanced.

Shorter durations and bigger penalties (or just any penalty at all) for screwing up could also make them less of a "why NOT use it?" type of thing, I think.
For example, failing your attempt to Charm some one might make them go from Nuetral to Hostile.
Not a bad idea. I increased the level and added a 24-hour immunity on a successful save, but if my playtesting shows that it is still more powerful than I would prefer, I'll consider something like that.

I think there's a fine line here. If the party has a rogue, then the wizard shouldn't need to sacrifice a summoned critter to get through a trapped doorway. But if the party DOESN'T have a rogue, then enough flexibility in the other characters to pick up the slack makes for a more enjoyable game than forcing people into certain roles, I think.

Find Traps should be a range of Touch, not Personal, so it can be used to boost the Rogue (or other trap-finder) rather than replace them. Knock shouldn't be 100% successful. I'd say much the same about a lot of other spells.
I agree that it is helpful to not require a rogue just to make it through a dungeon. Rogues should be cool for reasons other than trap detection and door opening. Making Find Traps touch range is actually a great idea - I'll add that in.

Yes, but again there is a difference between what a Wizard is ultimately capable of and what he (or she) is capable of RIGHT THIS MOMENT.
If the DM doesn't allow a wizard time to research extra spells, or simply houserules it that he can't, then he ends up in about the same place as the sorcerer.
If...

Agreed, but I think that these sorts of things need to be addressed one by one.

You could make Wall of Force damageble by melee weapons (or at least magic melee weapons).
For the Mind-Control aspect, I would make charm long-lasting but very limited. A high-level spell like Dominate should not last for days, but rounds, with the creature fighting you every step of the way. They are your meat-puppet, but only so long as you can pass Spellcraft checks or they keep failing their saves.

There's a spell in Complete Arcane, I think, that is like a more limited AMF; I would make it anti-single spell, but then have it cover a large area, so any smart government (or BBEG) could put up a radar-shield.

Teleport needs to have its range dragged out back and shot through the knees. 1 mile per level, and make it more like Word of Recall in that you can only get to places you've been to before, or marked somehow.

Explosive Runes (and nearly all permenant spells, I'd argue) need limited durations. There exists a Permanency spell for a reason. I'd also alter that spell (Permanence) to consume spell slots instead of XP, which can be replaced. Make enough permanent-Light spells, and you run out of 0th level spell slots to use on other things.

More generally, making UMD more freely available would help non-magic using classes compete when all else failed.
For the sake of my sanity, I'll avoid commenting indivudally on these, but basically - you have the right idea. Also, I had completely forgotten to limit Teleport's range. That's a great idea, thanks.

To fix that, though, I think you need to start fundamentally altering how magic works. One of the biggest issues, I think, is that it's always successful.

system system system
I don't like "roll to cast" systems. The reason that works for attacks is that you're rolling against some other creature, so it's interactive. Roll to cast systems roll against "the universe"; it's non-interactive, and feels more like a flat chance of failure. Which is lame.

My approach to SR is to actually increase its interactivity, not decrease it. What if a creature's SR was like an automatic "take X" on a saving throw, and you have to roll your DC to overcome the SR? It's more interactive and allows the caster to have a chance against SR enemies that doesn't involve just flat-out ignoring the SR.

I'm not quite sure I entirely agree with that; most people find being useful to the party as fun. While I hate to promote magic-mart systems, if you have a limited number of spells its not unreasonable to find a wand or potions for spells-on-a-stick.

A better crafting and skill system (allowing non-casters to craft magic items, allowing the Heal skill to replace healing spells) would help.
Being useful to the party is fun. But I don't like the idea of choosing between doing interesting things in combat and being the party mule (admittedly, a teleporting mule). This can be solved by not making spells like that require spells known or spell slots. Of course, that involves other issues - but it's basically a ritual system.

Yes, that's true, but the more commonly cited problem is that non-casters require magic items just to play on the same field as full-casters. The only non-caster I can think of who functions as well naked as fully clothed is the Monk, and that's mostly because are objectively terrible to start with.

The equivalent would be a caster needing a wand or magic staff to cast (ala Harry Potter), and while that's not necessarily a good idea, it could be one way to go about it. I think a better method would be to design all classes to function at least minimally with very little gear, and then improve as you add resources.
Magc items are weird. I think I'll just leave it at that for now; I have ideas on that too, but it's a story for another day.
Grod_The_Giant:

Here's another thought: how many of the issues go away when we compare spellcasters to actually well-designed non-casters? Things like ToB, Incarnum, or good homebrew?

Fly is a problem when only casters can fly and archery is weak even after massive investment, but what about when melee types get jumpy-powers, or archery is decent if you just pick up a bow? Invisibility can bypass encounters if it's only resisted by DC 40 Spot checks, but what about when mundanes can pick up scent or blindsight?
I'd question the idea that ToB is actually all that well-designed as a whole, but it definitely does help address the difference. With that said, even ToB characaters are still limited. Even if they hypothetically had complete dominion over combat (which they most certainly don't), the ability of casters to have their way with the world as a whole would still need to be addressed. And all the problems with spell formatting, spells being unintuitive and overly complex, and so on would all still exist.

Speaking personally, I'd rather rewrite a dozen base classes than a thousand spells.
That's why there are hundreds of new base classes and prestige classes running around these boards, and very few attempts to rewrite the entire spell system. Doesn't mean that the spell system doesn't need a rewrite. :smalltongue:
Dark.Revenant:

It's remarkable how many of these theses are solved by using psionics in lieu of magic.
Some are, yes. I'm particularly a fan of killing prepared casting. However, the core problems remain, and the spell point system opens up a whole new can of worms that I'd rather not get into right now.
Tuggy pt. 3:

Well, you could go the UA/4e route and have rituals, as long as you actually designed them properly this time around.
That's actually the plan!

Fundamentally, big important things you do (like high-level spells) should substantially change the nature of the fight, but shouldn't auto-win or lock up the fight on their own; if, after casting a spell, everyone else says "good job all, let's clean these guys up and move on", something probably went seriously wrong. (Unless the fight was already substantially slanted that way, of course.)
Completely agree.

That seems atrociously condensed, honestly; it's especially weird with stacking rules, because apparently a bard encouraging a thief while disabling a trap doesn't help anything if the thief has good tools already?

Here's my suggestion:

suggestion suggestion suggestion
I fully endorse atrociously condensed stacking. I like three types: Competence (constantly active feats and class features), Enhancement (spells and magic items), and Circumstance (circumstantial... stuff. This is the only one that stacks.). Stacking is bloody complicated and the single fastest way to making things broken. As far as your specific example goes, tools should be a circumstance bonus and bardsong should be an enhancement bonus - so they would stack together, but not with Heroism or Guidance. There is only so much that magic can do.

Forgot the link?

Small and large is probably fine.

Keep in mind, though, that there will probably still be a few spells with weird areas like hallow unless you really crack down hard.
See my reply to Deepbluediver's post for my thoughts on AOE sizes. Sorry for not reproducing it here; long post is already long.

Alternatively, take a page from Wheel of Time and require attunement to the area you're starting from. :smallwink: (Just make sure to disallow Rand's cheesy stunt near Far Madding. Teleporting to an area does not count as attunement!)
Attunement to the area you're starting from, not teleporting to? Interesting...

Maybe also set up permanency to be more generally applicable, or scale to splatbooks better in general, while you're at it.
What if Permanency was the result of applying Extend Spell (or a retooled feat) repeatedly?

No, this sort of idealism is unwise. Keep pragmatic solutions and constraints in mind. There are always more problems than you can fix, so prioritize the time you have to fix the biggest problems first. And "everyone needs Con 14" is not the biggest problem; neither is "blasting spells can often almost one-shot a character under nearly ideal circumstances".
I reject the idea of "constraints" and pragmatism! (I think the length of this post shows that...) Blasting is not the biggest problem. Not even close. But I want to fix every problem - and blasting is a problem, so it's going to get fixed.

...27,000 characters later, not counting quoted text, I'm done. Can I just say that I love these forums? You're all great.

The Tygre

2013-08-06, 11:52 PM

Noted and watching eagerly. So where's the part where we get Martin Luther to nail this to Monte Cook's door?

TuggyNE

2013-08-07, 01:25 AM

Yes, thank you for being absolutely not-helpful in the slightest. :smallamused:

Well, I am not sure I can fairly represent the opposing position in a few short lines, so lacking that I won't try to influence you either way.

Imagine you have two Wizards; the first is Timmy the apprentice, who wears a floppy hat with stars on it and robe two sizes to large. His primary duties include sweeping the floor and NOT TOUCHING ANYTHING!
The second Wizard is Tim The Archmage. He has wrestled with angels and demons, stared into the abyss to divine knowledge man was not meant to know, and regularly rewrites the laws of physics before breakfast.

It feels weird to me that if these two magic users both cast the same spell, whether it's Light or Haste or Web or Summon Creature or anything, pretty much, then it feels weird to me that the guy who's one step short of godhood can't get his to last any longer than the one who's lucky if he doesn't explode his own nose more than once a week.

If the primary way the spell improves is by duration (mage armor, for example), then maybe so. But if it's something where duration is mostly irrelevant, or where the spell scales chiefly by something else, then that seems like a bad idea. Acid fog lasting a variable length of time based on the caster (but always far longer than most encounters will run) is bad design, and web should probably only scale in DC and perhaps strand hardness.

Frankly, is there any good reason why spontaneous casters can't apply metamagic on the fly without it increasing the time? The difference between a standard action and a full action is relatively minimal in most cases, but it seems like a pointless penalty when spontaneous casters tend to be ranked below the prepareds anyway.

Not really sure. There is one situation where it's a major advantage, though, and that's in precision damage.

Personally, I'm willing to put the extra effort into tracking resistances if it solves the issue of immunities being boring and/or gamebreaking.

For the big stuff, like [mind-affecting], that's probably OK, but I (unlike Turbine *coughDDOcough*) don't think poison immunity or sleep immunity need to be broken down any further.

At the same time, I'd probably remove the auto-permanency from as many spells as possible, like Wall of Iron.

That would be a good idea.

I don't disagree that using Scorching Ray specifically on a rogue is a poor idea. Perhaps I should have left that example out.

Rogues aren't even the best touch AC PCs (which are probably Monks, certain gishes, or one of a few others), they're more middle of the road.

Typically my players deal most of the damage with nonlethal damage and then coup de grace with fire - in which case, you don't need a full Scorching Ray/Fireball. YMMV, of course.

Hmm. Well, that takes significantly longer, but eh.

If the NPC wizard is played sufficiently poorly/obviously, yes. Otherwise, not really - spells are basically impossible without magic, and even then it's iffy.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. If you have a really competent NPC Wizard, they should probably be going up against really competent players, who will likely use their PCly WBL and book-diving abilities to manage fairly decent defense that would actually prove challenging. (Touch AC in the 40s, maybe, or lots of miss chances and dispels to remove true seeing, or readied Manyshots, or some combination of those or others.)

(I once had a player save the party with Hold Portal, of all things.)

Well, it did happen in LotR, after all.

Also, why would class abilities be inherently unlimited? Giving druids automatic Speak with Animals X times per day, and later Calm Animals or what have you, strikes me as being perfectly appropriate.

FWIW, that's basically what DDO did with Wild Empathy. It's a 3+Cha/day charm animal effect, later upgraded to dominate animal.

If low-level damage spells have riders that are too good, it's difficult for nondamaging spells to compete; either nondamaging spells have to be overly powerful to compensate, or we end up in a quasi-4th game where most spells are "deal damage and do X".

This, in particular, must be avoided. Having a dominate effect that's "take 2d8 psychic damage and be dominated" is just terrible in ways I can hardly articulate. Basically, non-damaging spells should be effective, but not brokenly good either.

However, no temporary bonus should start at +1. Temporary bonuses should start at +2. Also, people often lose track of why exactly things scale. The only things that should automatically scale with level are the things that would otherwise become irrelevant. Thus, damage should automatically scale with level, since HP automatically increases with level. A +2 circumstance bonus should not scale with level, since that remains equally useful at all levels - it never becomes obsolete. A +2 bonus on a type that doesn't stack, such as enhancement, should scale with level - otherwise, it would become irrelevant, since you can have many ways of getting that type.

Thoroughly agreed.

I use three main bonus types (Competence, Enhancement, and Circumstance), plus one quasi-type that is only used indirectly (Inherent). I'll explain my full reasoning and mechanics for that when I introduce the Spell Reformation.

That seems overly minimal, but only time will tell.

I considered this, but decided against it. If you define "small" and "large" separately for each type of area, you actually increase complexity, not decrease it. Instead, I propose using three area sizes that are shape-independent: Small (10 ft.), Medium (20 ft.), and Large (50 ft.). Then you can just say "Burning Hands is a medium cone" and "Cone of Cold is a large cone" and everyone will know what you mean, without having to check whether "large" in the context of a cone was larger or smaller than "large" in the context of a line.

By the way, "line" was previously neglected in the list of spell shapes.

For a lot of the encounter ending stuff, I've said before I think it should be single target, and then Mass-able via metamagic. That at least pushes the problem back a few levels.

Isn't the closest current thing to a single-target haste basically snake's swiftness, at Drd 2? That seems about right.

As far as your specific example goes, tools should be a circumstance bonus and bardsong should be an enhancement bonus - so they would stack together, but not with Heroism or Guidance. There is only so much that magic can do.

Hmm. I feel like there are still some weird cases, but none are cropping up immediately, so I guess that's a good thing.

What if Permanency was the result of applying Extend Spell (or a retooled feat) repeatedly?

That … might be a little odd, and you would of course have to ban Arcane Thesis into the oblivion beyond the abyss, but it might make things more elegant.

I reject the idea of "constraints" and pragmatism! (I think the length of this post shows that...)

Hah. Quite so! :smallamused:

Noted and watching eagerly. So where's the part where we get Martin Luther to nail this to Monte Cook's door?

Oho, so I'm not the only one that got this.

eggynack

2013-08-07, 01:47 AM

Isn't the closest current thing to a single-target haste basically snake's swiftness, at Drd 2? That seems about right.
Actually, snake's swiftness is at druid 1. Mass snake's swiftness is druid 2. They're not quite haste either, because they each only give one attack to the relevant creature(s) as their entire effect. The regular version is kinda meh, because you're just giving your action to an ally, but the mass version is pretty cool, because it can act as a force multiplier.

Anyway, on direct damage spells, I don't think I made my position clear enough. My argument isn't that fireball is more balanced than web. It is, but what I'm saying is far broader. It is my opinion that fireball is just balanced. Like, it's balanced overall, with barbarians, and fighters, and all their little chummy pals. You see, warmages, who are basically just fireball slingers, are tier four. That puts them on the same exact level as a barbarian, despite the fact that the fire they sling is of a high quality. In a party with a warmage, I'd be comfortable playing a barbarian, and the inverse is also true. If blasting spells deal a bunch of damage, that's just because the game is very offensively oriented, but the end result is that direct damage spells are basically balanced against direct damage swords.

It makes sense, when you think about it. People, myself included, often talk about how the balancing factors on wizards are illusory in nature. They aren't really any less defensively powerful than a fighter, because spells can do all that armor and HP do and more. They have plenty of spell slots, because each individual spell goes a long way. They don't need meat shields, because they have entire spells devoted to summoning meat shields. None of this is true for a warmage. They don't have the crazy wizard defense spells, and their spells are all one and done, and they have no means of acquiring meat shields. They actually are what a wizard was intended to be, which is the glass cannon that sits behind the meat shield, and fires artillery bursts.

So, I'm saying that direct damage spells do not need to be nerfed, at all, ever. They are basically the single weakest aspect of the entire wizard class, so nerfing them makes no sense unless you're changing the whole system to be more defensively minded. If you've nerfed basically every single other spell in the game, maybe the time may come when fireball needs to be cut down to size, but that's so far away from where we are that it's not worth having it as part of any initial systemic overhaul.

Deepbluediver

2013-08-07, 10:23 AM

Deepbluediver pt. 2: (oh my goodness so long)
Since that long post I've got two more sets of comments up that you need to review and evaluate. They wheren't directed at you, specifically, but it's your thread so I expect you to take responsibility.
Let's go, chop chop. Quit slacking. :smalltongue:

But seriously, you made a long, involved post that obviously had a lot of effort behind it, so I felt it deserved a suitable response. I'll try to limit the stuff that's merely encouragement or that we obviously agree about, and focus on the sticking points.

I am not sure that I mind the Charm Humanoid / Charm Everything divide, actually. I think that the less that I force players to pay attention to exact creature type, the better. For that reason, I don't want Charm or other spells to be creature-type based when possible.
Just keep in mind that humanoids can be enemies every bit as dangerous and important to the story as monsters.

The reason I decided to split it up was that, as another poster pointed out to me in a different thread, a mind-controlling spell in combat can have the effect of a Disintegrate+Summon Monster all in one. That's not even getting into the trouble a player can cause with a puppet NPC in a town or city.
Charm might not be an issue, given it's relatively lower power, but for something like Dominate or the (homebrewed) mid-level equivalent, I think something that can effect every creature type is always going to be useful AND powerful, and therefor is difficult to balance.

I use three main bonus types (Competence, Enhancement, and Circumstance), plus one quasi-type that is only used indirectly (Inherent). I'll explain my full reasoning and mechanics for that when I introduce the Spell Reformation.
I kind of liked TuggyNE's suggestion for five. That's fairly easy to keep track of (count off one on each finger) and as appropriate a value as three-and-a-half might be, I have a feeling that we might struggle to cram everything into an appropriate category.

I also checked your other reply to this issue, and now I'm wondering what if NONE of them stacked? Do we really need it? With 5 separate types of bonuses available, if a player wanted to go the "sky-high-AC-so-nothing-can-touch-me" route then they still probably could, it would just be a little tougher.

Good point - I would love for all damage to be typed. However, I have yet to find a way to actually implement this without making it feel tacked on and arbitrary. What kind of damage does Chaos Hammer or Unholy Blight do? "Radiant" definitely feels wrong for that. If I see a simple system that assigns damage types to every spell, I'll be happy to incorporate it.
Force damage is my go-to type for a number of things, like Disintegrate; I think it would work for Chaos Hammer as well. Now that the link to the other thread is working, you can see there are already Vile and Holy subtypes of damage. You could probably also brew up some elemental-like Axiomatic and Anarchic damage which wouldn't give you any points for originiality, but it would get the job done.

Although honestly, I'm not really a fan of that.
What I prefer is having double or even triple damage types. I know this sounds confusing, but let me explain.
Basically, the spell deals a set amount of damage, and it deals 100% of whichever type of energy would be the most effective. The only resistance that applies is the one that's least effective.
So, for example, a spell like LightFirening Boltball could deal 8d6 electric and fire damage. If the target has no protection, they take 8d6 damage. If they have resistance to fire, they still take 8d6 damage because of the electric component. If they have immunity to fire and resistance (say, half) to electric, then they take 4d6 damage, because they are still vulnerable to electricity.

I'd probably give Unholy Blight Negative/Acid damage, and with the energy types I listed, there's roughly ~35 different double-combos to pick from (some one check my math).

I don't think it's terribly confusing, but I also have a strong distaste for untyped damage, so I'm willing to do just about anything to avoid it. I recognize, though, that you may consider it overly burdensome, especially since one of your goals is to simplify things. Alternatively, you could go the reverse route and say that if there isn't an appropriate damage type for it, then something isn't a very good spell.

I'll keep brainstorming.

If it can't be used for some levels of spells, I don't think it should be used at all.
I'm not quite sure I understand the rationale there. :smallconfused:
Spells are many and varied, and the power curve is long and wonky. I'll use whatever is appropriate for a given level, which in this case just means there won't be many round/level 1st and 2nd level spells.

Also, if Summon Monster was minute/level, it would be easy to summon a ton of monsters at once and then walk into combat surrounded by a miniature army.
I don't have a real issue with that, so long as there is a constraint that keeps the player from also using a weapon or casting OTHER spells while controlling their summoned minions.

As I think I've mentioned, I'd probably rule that summoned monsters can't function autonomously, and so in combat they need constant input from the caster.

Turning a full-round action into a standard action is nowhere near as good as turning a standard action into a swift action.
Yes, we discussed that before. I haven't come up with a good solution yet; I keep hoping some one will suggest something, or at least give me inspiration.

One thing I'm curious to see is in your spell-system, if you kept Full-round/One Round casting times (in comparison to standard action casting) how you determined what spells fit in each category.

Given that melee classes can full-attack, I think that Full-round casting has a place, I'm just not sure how to determine what should go where.

Thus making it impossible to have spells centered on the caster? :smallconfused:
No, I think we're talking past each other.
All I meant was that if a fireball has a range of long (100 ft.), and a radius of 20 ft., it can deal damage out to 120 ft. if you put it in the right spot. I wouldn't object to that since I think it would be rare and relatively innocuous.
If we cut down on the size of the radius, then it won't add much to overall distance, and I'd allow it as clever gameplay.

I still don't like scaling the range with level. What is the point of that, exactly?
First, I like things that scale, and secondly it makes sense to me that a powerful caster can accomplish things easier than a less powerful one, just be virtue of being more experienced, and without needing to expend additional resources.
One thing I would do though is probably base most or all of the scaling off HD/ECL instead of "caster level", so a Wizard 20 and Fighter 19/Wizard 1 would have the same range. I think that sort of thing makes it easier to build multiclass characters or gishes and the like, and keeps players in relatively the same ballpark, magic-wise.

I considered this, but decided against it. If you define "small" and "large" separately for each type of area, you actually increase complexity, not decrease it. Instead, I propose using three area sizes that are shape-independent...
That would work too, I guess, though it seems fairly limiting. Frankly, so long as there is SOME standard, players will learn it eventually, and they will still need to reference the book, I think, for any spell they don't use regularly.
That being said, I acknowledge that a fixed area for a spell could work as well.

Right now I'm thinking about having just one area or progression for cones and cylinders, and a separate small/large formula only for circles/spheres anyhow.

The problem won't be solved just by changing the number of spells slightly; whether they have 3 1st level spells or 5 1st level spells, that still only means 3 or 5 rounds each day where they are allowed to act like a proper magic user. Mages need at-will combat abilities that are less powerful than spells, but which fulfill the fluff role of "I'm a mage and I do magic stuff."
Honestly, giving them a wand of <random evocation> so they can prepare utility or other spells in their slots and I think you'll cover 95% of the situations before level 3.

Expand skill, absolutely. I think buffs should still have a role. But I want to limit it to maybe a 1 or 2 ECL swing rather than a "autowin/autolose" swing.
One thing that I'm trying to do is give more non-caster classes always-on aura type buffs, so that you don't necessarily need to stop and take a break before battle to get them rolling.

Yes, there are ways to limit the wizard/cleric. I've spent years trying to think of subtle and clever ways not to let party casters overpower my games through sheer force of "Oh, I have a spell that does that". But I think it is better if you don't have to.
One thing that my standardization for spells/day and spells known tried to do was force the classes that formerly got "their entire spell list" (aka clerics, druids, etc) to actually pick and choose to learn spells like a sorcerer. If you are only using Core, then I can understand about giving them the entire list. But once you start adding in splatbooks, it just gets out of control.

As for Greater Invisibility, I'm actually rather proud of what I came up with for that. The new wording is "This spell functions like Invisibility, except that the subject becomes invisible again at the start of each of its turns, even if it attacked a creature during its previous turn."

In other words, it's still an Invisibility that lets you attack while invisible. But you can't full-round attack with it, and you're vulnerable if you do use it to attack. Way more balanced - but still a fun and useful spell!
Hmm...that does sound fun and workable.

/pillage

I don't like "roll to cast" systems. The reason that works for attacks is that you're rolling against some other creature, so it's interactive. Roll to cast systems roll against "the universe"; it's non-interactive, and feels more like a flat chance of failure. Which is lame.
I'm not quite sure I understand your feeling about how casting is "Lame"; it's similar to how many spells work.

Also, the goal of my system would be to have you roll against the targets SR for some spells, like you roll against a targets AC for an attack.

My approach to SR is to actually increase its interactivity, not decrease it. What if a creature's SR was like an automatic "take X" on a saving throw, and you have to roll your DC to overcome the SR? It's more interactive and allows the caster to have a chance against SR enemies that doesn't involve just flat-out ignoring the SR.
I must be misunderstanding something; how is this not a "roll to cast" system? :smallconfused:

Anyhow, I've recently decided that I need to re-evaluate my own version of SR, how it scales, how it interacts with spells, and how casting DCs are determined.

Replies to Tuggy

If the primary way the spell improves is by duration (mage armor, for example), then maybe so. But if it's something where duration is mostly irrelevant, or where the spell scales chiefly by something else, then that seems like a bad idea. Acid fog lasting a variable length of time based on the caster (but always far longer than most encounters will run) is bad design, and web should probably only scale in DC and perhaps strand hardness.

It depends on the spell. Some things, like single-target damage spells, need to scale their damage to stay relevant. Something like an AOE I think is more ambiguous; is the AOE portion more important than the damage? If the spell just gets bigger, can it still stay usefull? If the damage scalles, too, can it do so at a slower rate than for the single-target spells?

For short duration spells (things measured in rounds per level or by concentration) you probably just wouldn't see a lot of them before spell-level 3rd (player level 5) so that they could last for an entire encounter.

Not really sure. There is one situation where it's a major advantage, though, and that's in precision damage.
Hmm...yes, that's true.
Maybe I need to tweak the precision-damage rules, or at least clarify how it would work with spells.

Alternative, maybe all metamagic should increase casting time; that's not really what I think of as fun, but at least it doesn't screw over one group unfairly.

For the big stuff, like [mind-affecting], that's probably OK, but I (unlike Turbine *coughDDOcough*) don't think poison immunity or sleep immunity need to be broken down any further.
For Sleep, I would probably agree with you, though I just don't like racial sleep immunities/resistances in the first place. That whole rest-but-not-sleep-instead-trance thing always felt weird to me, especially with how it interacts with various spells and abilities. Chances are I'd scrap it and save myself the headache.

For Poison....poison needs to work differently. Once I nail down the mechanics of that, I'll re-evaluate the debate between resistance and immunity. Chances are I'll make it so you can still be poisoned, you just get more bonuses on your Fort save to resist the effects.

Edit: I've been thinking more about the various ways to split bonus types; I think I'd be happy with 4 (or 5, even 3 could be workable).
If I had a choice though, here's the way I would do it atm (going by the SRD list, plus a few extra)-

{table]Circumstance|Alchemical, Morale, Luck, Shield
Competence|Deflection, Exalted, Perfection, Synergy (skills)
Enhancement|Divine, Insight, Profane, Resistance, Sacred
Inherent|Racial, Dodge, Natural Armor, Size[/table]

The first column includes anything previously named that type, and only Inherent bonuses stack. This also doesn't include Epic, or something like it for really high-level play.
And obviously, they can be rearranged depending on what we decide are good things to stack.

Edit: regular Armor bonuses should be included in Enhancement for now.
Edit2: The above chart is out of date, please see below for an updated version.

Dark.Revenant

2013-08-07, 04:21 PM

Dark.Revenant:
Some are, yes. I'm particularly a fan of killing prepared casting. However, the core problems remain, and the spell point system opens up a whole new can of worms that I'd rather not get into right now.

Which core problems? Access to psionics and the inherent strength of psionics? Psionics isweaker than magic, and access is very easy (hell, there is a suggested option to give Unlocked Talent as a bonus feat in place of Psionic Talent to all the psionic races (or anyone who takes a racial feature for it), effectively giving everybody a first-level power).

The only remaining problems are either the problems inherent to D&D itself (Rocket Tag works the same for casters and martial characters and can only be fixed via creative use of houserules) or simple annoyance issues that can be easily patched out (such as durations/ranges; you can just assume that everybody is caster level 10 for the purpose of such things).

You cite many problems with worldbuilding, campaign construction, encounter design, etc. but all of these things are made easier with psionics because the characters have a limited pool of powers known (meaning you know, absolutely, what the players' capabilities are) and the overall pool of powers available is much smaller (making it easier to learn what they do).

There are issues beyond this, of course, so you can certainly argue that psionics isn't perfect and it doesn't solve enough; I agree with that. But it certainly provides a noticeable improvement across the board.

Also I'm curious as to why you dislike spell points/power points/psi/mana/od/energy/whatever. It makes bookkeeping easier, the math is very simple arithmetic, and it makes more logical sense. The power point costs don't have to be kept track of because they are all standardized (the cost is equal to the Psion level that can first cast them), and many of the augments have standard costs (like +1 power point for +1 damage die, +2 power points for +1 save DC). Then there's the matter of much better pacing; a level 1 psion lasts much longer than a level 1 wizard (the difference between 3 spells per day and 6 per day), solving the early game grind. Similarly, a high-leveled psion falls (significantly) behind a wizard in longevity because of the way the wizard's spell slots accumulate. A wizard, past level 10, can cast all day without worrying about running out of something to throw at an encounter, while a psion has longevity as an issue throughout his life. Trust me; I did the math for this, thoroughly.

Note: This assumes you're using the Dreamscarred interpretation of psionics; they tend to focus on balance more than most publishers.

TuggyNE

2013-08-07, 05:41 PM

It depends on the spell. Some things, like single-target damage spells, need to scale their damage to stay relevant. Something like an AOE I think is more ambiguous; is the AOE portion more important than the damage? If the spell just gets bigger, can it still stay usefull? If the damage scalles, too, can it do so at a slower rate than for the single-target spells?

Either way, although I'm mostly not a fan of having "oh, you have a higher CL? ALL YOUR SPELL NUMBERS GO UP." Scaling should be cut back to what matters for that spell, whether it be two, three, or four things, or only one. There are always going to be one or two CL-dependent things, mostly dispel resistance, but I don't count those.

{table]Circumstance|Alchemical, Morale, Luck, Shield
Competence|Deflection, Exalted, Perfection, Synergy (skills)
Enhancement|Divine, Insight, Profane, Resistance, Sacred
Inherent|Racial, Dodge, Natural Armor, Size[/table]

And it's only now that I realized that not one of the proposals so far has mentioned armor bonuses. In mine, you could get away with shoving it in Circumstance, but that seems rather lame. Maybe Circumstance should be renamed, though.

OK, updated suggestion with full list of conversions:
Enhancement: Magic that directly improves the end result; includes former resistance, most competence, and some dodge bonuses
Insight: Rational, subconscious, or emotional ability to know what to do and how; includes former morale, some deflection, and some competence bonuses; always [mind-affecting]
Divine: Supernatural favor or unusual luck; generally stacks; includes former luck, profane, sacred, perfection, exalted, most deflection, and most dodge bonuses
Inherent: Second nature to you; includes former natural armor, racial, synergy, and some dodge bonuses
Circumstance: Environment or mundane equipment; generally stacks; includes former alchemical, size, shield, and armor bonuses
Incidentally, I realized upon going over this again that the types I propose are basically one each for arcane-, divine-, and psionics-unique bonuses, and one each for mundane environment and nearly-mundane self. I … actually kind of like that a lot. (Of course, when appropriate, arcane or divine magic would use insight bonuses, and so on, but the thematic link is still there.)

At present, divine is pretty overcrowded. Not sure what to do about that. At least I fixed the tedious "sometimes enhancement is mind-affecting *coughmoralecough*" problem.

Mage armor and shield should probably be reworked to make them closer to "magic makes armor and shield for you" than their current state of "well it's basically just magic"; maybe allowing the spell effects to be damaged by certain things that can damage force effects (and extending those to most force effects).

Eldan

2013-08-07, 06:13 PM

Dark.Revenant

2013-08-07, 06:46 PM

Deepbluediver

2013-08-07, 06:57 PM

Either way, although I'm mostly not a fan of having "oh, you have a higher CL? ALL YOUR SPELL NUMBERS GO UP." Scaling should be cut back to what matters for that spell, whether it be two, three, or four things, or only one. There are always going to be one or two CL-dependent things, mostly dispel resistance, but I don't count those.
I'm a fan of having numbers go up with character level, but I'd pretty much erase the idea of a separate "caster-level". Everything would be based on HD or ECL, so that while you might lose spells/day or spell-levels, half-casters and gishes won't be so crippled with DCs and the rest.

it's only now that I realized that not one of the proposals so far has mentioned armor bonuses. In mine, you could get away with shoving it in Circumstance, but that seems rather lame. Maybe Circumstance should be renamed, though.
....
Mage armor and shield should probably be reworked to make them closer to "magic makes armor and shield for you" than their current state of "well it's basically just magic"; maybe allowing the spell effects to be damaged by certain things that can damage force effects (and extending those to most force effects).

Putting shield and armour in the same category won't work. It would mean that people who wear armour won't also use shields, since there's no benefit.

If you let them stack despite having the same name, you lose the entire point of having named bonuses in the first place.

Hmm, good point. I'd probably put regular armor bonuses in the "Enhancement" category, with most of the rest of the magical stuff. That way I've got "Shield" in Circumstance and "Natural Armor" in Inherent, and they can all stack. It means regular armor can't stack with something like Mage Armor, but that's probably not a bad idea anyway.

Alternatively, I could just have Inherent include all armor bonuses, natural or otherwise, since I said that those could stack with themselves.

At present, divine is pretty overcrowded. Not sure what to do about that. At least I fixed the tedious "sometimes enhancement is mind-affecting *coughmoralecough*" problem.
I put everything magic under one heading, basically, whether it's Psionic, Arcane, Divine, Incarnum, SU ToB, or whatever else. The idea is to separate bonuses by type, not by source (at least for me).

It's fairly realistic, though. Typically, people who wore heavy plate armor would not bother with shields unless they were jousting or some other corner cases. Shields are far more useful for people who couldn't afford or otherwise didn't want large amounts of armor. If you're wearing all that armor, you really need both hands free for maneuvering, grappling, and swinging.
D&D has an...interesting* relationship with "realism".

I think that would require reworking the armor and shield rules and stats to a significant degree, which might be doable, even helpful, but it would need to be considered, with all it's ramifications, alongside everything else.
Also, from what little I know of armor, some one in plate might not carry a shield, but it was often used in combination with lighter armor. Might be a good question for the Real World Weapons & Armor thread.

*alternating mostly between neglectful and abusive

Meeky

2013-08-07, 10:46 PM

I just want to say, this whole thread has been a very interesting read. If you ever decide to playtest your new Magic system rules via the forums or another online medium, I'd love to see how they play out. I love magic users as it is (especially Bards and Wizards), but I always feel like I'm cheating when I play one ever since learning there's more to a wizard than "Magic Missile" and "Fireball."

tarkisflux

2013-08-08, 02:06 AM

This thread is long and full of terrors comments, but a couple of things that Deepbluediver and TuggyNE have mentioned stood out that I felt like discussing further.

Scaling all aspects of a spell with caster level or HD is BAD and needs to stop. Letting spells of <max level -2> to be as relevant as spells of <max level> means you're getting a crap load more relevant spells as your level increases, which in turn increases the amount you can afford to drop on any given encounter, and leads to people complaining about how casters can solo encounters. I'd much rather have fixed effects based on spell level scaling and allow lower level spells to sink down into situational use or be replaced by utility effects (that you didn't want to carry around when you needed that slot for combat).

Which isn't to say that I'm against all scaling, as I'm pretty for scaling spell DCs with caster level. It reduces DC tracking when all of your spells have the same DC (and functions more like BAB, and allows you to flip the die rolling around so casters roll against fixed save DCs for their enemies, but those are preference things on my part). But more importantly, it retains the spell obsolescence that I think should actually be a part of the system. It's easier to balance a fixed effect 3-missile auto-hit* magic missile or a fixed effect 4d4 damage burning hands with DC level/2 + int mod for your 1st level slot than to juggle lots of scaling options, and neither are particularly relevant outside of specific situations when you could instead cast an 8d6 fireball with the same DC in your 3rd level slot. These spells are also much easier to write up, as you can omit all of the scaling text that no longer applies.

If you're using these spells in an actual game and are 5th level, you'll may want the 1st level slots to clean things up instead of relying on the martial classes or prefer to use the slots for utility effects, but you'll probably save the substantially harder hitting 3rd level fireball for when it's tactically appropriate because you can't fall back on your lower level slots even though they're just as likely to hit. Or some other 3rd level spell that is similarly effective. And that's a setup I'm pretty happy with, even though that 3rd level spell will eventually not be as useful as your larger area and more damage 5th level spell. Planned obsolescence all the way, as long as it's a good plan with lots of utility effects to fill in the older slots (since you don't get utility class features or skills as a full caster).

Scaling damage and range and area and targets and everything else leads to more complicated spells while also diminishing the difference between spell levels, and that makes me sad (for other reasons that I can go into upon request, when it isn't so late).

*Except when it doesn't, because spell or item or shenanigans

Vadskye

2013-08-08, 02:10 AM

As per normal, I will write an excessively long reply to the things that I see directed to me when I can. However, I want to take this opportunity to note that Part I of the Spell Reformation (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=296817) has been posted. So if you're curious what I propose we actually do about all these problems, check it out! (And it uses caster level for DC, tarkisflux! For basically all of the reasons you described!)

TuggyNE

2013-08-08, 03:18 AM

Putting shield and armour in the same category won't work. It would mean that people who wear armour won't also use shields, since there's no benefit.

If you let them stack despite having the same name, you lose the entire point of having named bonuses in the first place.

Not so, but far otherwise; "these bonuses stack, except if they're from essentially the same source" is a useful trick from 3.x stacking I don't want to get rid of, since in a number of cases that's the only thing that makes sense. If you're wearing armor and holding a shield, those stack, because they're from different sources. Similarly, if you're really really lucky, and you also have a deity watching out for you, those stack as well; why wouldn't they?

It should, I believe, be fairly difficult to get any spells-based stacking abuse going, or really any at all, but if you have a specific counter-example feel free to mention it.

Hmm, good point. I'd probably put regular armor bonuses in the "Enhancement" category, with most of the rest of the magical stuff. That way I've got "Shield" in Circumstance and "Natural Armor" in Inherent, and they can all stack. It means regular armor can't stack with something like Mage Armor, but that's probably not a bad idea anyway.

I was planning to rejigger mage armor to justify making it Circumstance for that reason. But "enhancement" for something non-magical seems bizarre, especially if you can then get an enhancement bonus to that. (And if you can't, we have other problems.)

I put everything magic under one heading, basically, whether it's Psionic, Arcane, Divine, Incarnum, SU ToB, or whatever else. The idea is to separate bonuses by type, not by source (at least for me).

I'm not specifically separating by source, but there is a neat little parallelism.

I'm still unhappy with the placement of deflection, though.

Lord Raziere

2013-08-08, 04:57 AM

rocket tag…

pffff…..

*laughs uproariously*

sorry….sorry…

that was just funny to me for reasons completely unrelated to this, all I will say is that it proves to me that some RPG's aren't as different as I thought. :smallbiggrin:

have a cookie. and nice system eval, I think I have my own idea to fix combat spells at least now...

Deepbluediver

2013-08-08, 10:25 AM

This is @ Vadskye as well, since he apparently agrees.

Scaling all aspects of a spell with caster level or HD is BAD and needs to stop. Letting spells of <max level -2> to be as relevant as spells of <max level> means you're getting a crap load more relevant spells as your level increases, which in turn increases the amount you can afford to drop on any given encounter, and leads to people complaining about how casters can solo encounters. I'd much rather have fixed effects based on spell level scaling and allow lower level spells to sink down into situational use or be replaced by utility effects (that you didn't want to carry around when you needed that slot for combat).

As I've said before, altering the spells-per-day is the easiest part of this whole shebang, if you feel casters are getting to many. You could even do something like this to limit the absolute numbers:
{table=head]Level|0th|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|6th|7th|8th|9th
1st|2|1|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—
2nd|2|2|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—
3rd|2|2|1|—|—|—|—|—|—|—
4th|3|2|2|—|—|—|—|—|—|—
5th|3|2|2|1|—|—|—|—|—|—
6th|3|3|2|2|—|—|—|—|—|—
7th|3|3|2|2|1|—|—|—|—|—
8th|4|3|3|2|2|—|—|—|—|—
9th|4|3|3|2|2|1|—|—|—|—
10th|3|4|3|3|2|2|—|—|—|—
11th|3|4|3|3|2|2|1|—|—|—
12th|3|3|4|3|3|2|2|—|—|—
13th|3|3|4|3|3|2|2|1|—|—
14th|2|3|3|4|3|3|2|2|—|—
15th|2|3|3|4|3|3|2|2|1|—
16th|2|2|3|3|4|3|3|2|2|—
17th|2|2|3|3|4|3|3|2|2|1
18th|1|2|2|3|3|4|3|3|2|2
19th|1|2|2|3|3|4|3|3|2|2
20th|0|1|2|2|3|3|4|3|3|2[/table]
The formula needs tweaking or modification for levels 19 and 20, but it keeps the low-level slots from growing out of control (if you choose to critique, please keep in mind I rattled this off in about 5 minutes)

But, one thing I'm trying to do is making it less frustrating for casters to run out of effective spell-slots (or to make it harder to run out; 6 in one, half dozen in the other). If only your top 3 levels of spells are useful in combat, then you need to constantly be careful you aren't wasting a single resource just to get by (we'll ignore the imbalances in spell power ftm, because I plan on fixing that). Some people can deal with that, but for a lot of players that's not fun.

If we can tune down the power of individual broken spells, the it won't be as critical to limit how often casters can use whats left as a method of balance. (being able to use a nuke once per day versus a handgun an unlimited number of times is a really poor design plan, IMO).

Which isn't to say that I'm against all scaling, as I'm pretty for scaling spell DCs with caster level. It reduces DC tracking when all of your spells have the same DC (and functions more like BAB, and allows you to flip the die rolling around so casters roll against fixed save DCs for their enemies, but those are preference things on my part). But more importantly, it retains the spell obsolescence that I think should actually be a part of the system. It's easier to balance a fixed effect 3-missile auto-hit* magic missile or a fixed effect 4d4 damage burning hands with DC level/2 + int mod for your 1st level slot than to juggle lots of scaling options, and neither are particularly relevant outside of specific situations when you could instead cast an 8d6 fireball with the same DC in your 3rd level slot. These spells are also much easier to write up, as you can omit all of the scaling text that no longer applies.

Here's the issue that I see, though. Some spells scale very easily (like evocations) and need to be scaled to stay relevant, while there are plenty of spells that don't scale and remain every bit as potent at level 15 as they where at level 5. Stuff like Grease or Polymorph doesn't need to change its numbers to still be powerful. Even under the current system its easy to fill your list with stuff that never "scales" and still lets you abuse the crap out of low level spell slots.

So basically, I'm left with 2 choices. Either I go around and break a bunch of the existing spells that don't need to scale, and then write out what is basically version of them that says "the same, but for creatures with more HD", or I rework the existing spells to all scale so they stay relevant. Either way its going to involve going through the spell-list one by one and making a lot of changes.

Now, there are hints at the first option is something the original planners tried to do (Scare and its counterpart Cause Fear, for example) but there's only a handful of this that I've found. Overall, there wasn't really a unifying mechanic to the magic list. I prefer having every spell be unique, and allowing players to get more options as they level up, rather than just forcing them to retake the same spell over and over again.
There's also some things that do obsolesce, like all the SoDs and SOSs limited by HD and HP, but those usually make the broken list, and I don't like what they imply. Why can Tim the god-mage never improve his Cloudkill in any way?

As to DC's specifically, making them scale at different rates for different casters is, I think, going to be very difficult to balance. Non-primary casters are already more MAD than caster-only-classes (are you going to fix that as well? It's kind of off topic but I didn't see a mention of it in the 45-list) and have trouble using their more limited spell-slots effectively.

What, precisely, is the issue with scaling DCs based on HD instead? What would be the problem with my hypothetical Fighter 19/Wizard 1 being able to use Light or Ray of Frost as effectively as a Wizard 20?
Or if HD gets to high for NPCs (another problem that needs fixing), why can't we go by ECL and CR?

If you're using these spells in an actual game and are 5th level, you'll may want the 1st level slots to clean things up instead of relying on the martial classes or prefer to use the slots for utility effects, but you'll probably save the substantially harder hitting 3rd level fireball for when it's tactically appropriate because you can't fall back on your lower level slots even though they're just as likely to hit. Or some other 3rd level spell that is similarly effective. And that's a setup I'm pretty happy with, even though that 3rd level spell will eventually not be as useful as your larger area and more damage 5th level spell. Planned obsolescence all the way, as long as it's a good plan with lots of utility effects to fill in the older slots (since you don't get utility class features or skills as a full caster).

I'd rather players have more, effective choices of spells whenever they want to take them, rather than relegating all utility to only spell slots you no longer need for combat.

Plus, Vadskye mentioned he is trying to give caster-classes abilities that apparently make them feel like magic users aren't spells-per-day anyway.

Scaling damage and range and area and targets and everything else leads to more complicated spells while also diminishing the difference between spell levels, and that makes me sad (for other reasons that I can go into upon request, when it isn't so late).

As I've said, ideally most spells would scale only along one axis, so you don't need to recalculate dozens of different factors. Also, I've mentioned this to Vadskye, but I think that any spell with specific targets (mainly buffs like Haste, not including things like Magic Missile) should be single-target, and "Mass" should be a metamagic effect.
For damaging spells, I plan to ramp up the damage-dice (slightly) as you increase spell level, so there will be that as well.

Please do explain the "makes me sad" part. My estimation of the differences between spell-levels in the original was that they go from useful, to powerful, to overwhelming, to game-breaking, so yeah, that's something I want to avoid. Plus, melee-classes mostly follow the model of "more of the same, but better" so it makes things attractive from a balance perspective, I think.

It should, I believe, be fairly difficult to get any spells-based stacking abuse going, or really any at all, but if you have a specific counter-example feel free to mention it.

Depends on what you mean by "abuse". This chart (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20050328a) includes a bunch of Arcane and Divine spells to improve AC. Plus, once you start including splatbooks there are pretty much spells and powers to grant bonuses to everything. I think the situation we wanted to avoid was one where the Wizard buffs, then the Cleric buffs, then the Wilder buffs, and after 5 minutes we're ready to enter combat, and our ability to fight effectively has doubled or more. That's why I stuck all the magic into one category.

I was planning to rejigger mage armor to justify making it Circumstance for that reason. But "enhancement" for something non-magical seems bizarre, especially if you can then get an enhancement bonus to that. (And if you can't, we have other problems.)
Yes, it's not perfect....back to the drawing board I guess.

Maybe we're trying to jump to far in a single step here. There are about 20 types of bonuses on that list, plus some other untyped stuff that's probably not mentioned. Even cutting it down to a range of 6-8 types with nothing left untyped would be a big improvement, and wouldn't force us to cram things into weird categories that don't really fit.

Also, it would help with the stacking issue if not every type of bonus had the ability to provide buffs to every form of stat. For example, if we had an "AC" category, you wouldn't need to look for ways to get an "AC Bonus" to your attack roll, because they wouldn't exist.

Edit: In light of the above, here is my revised suggestions for Bonus Types. Also, why the feck are my posts so damn long? I swear I try to be as concise as possible and it still ends up with a wall of text to rival China.

Bonus Types
Enhancement- mostly everything magical, including Divine, Profane, Sacred, as well as Deflection (which only boosts AC) and Resistance (which only boosts Saves)
Competence- things that you practice to get better at; includes Perfection and Skill-synergy bonuses
Circumstance- things based on the environment, positioning, and occasionally other creatures; includes former Morale bonuses as well as Shield bonuses with the explanation that shields are effectively a movable obstacle (and because we want it to stack)
Inherent- bonuses you get for being what you are, without improvement or effort; anything from an ability score counts as this, as well as Natural Armor, Size, & Racial
Luck- self explanatory; gets its own category because it doesn't fit very well anywhere else, except maybe circumstance
Gear- also self explanatory; mostly weapons and armor, though items that aid skill checks should also go here
Alchemical- I want the Craft-alchemy skill to be more like mad science rather than magic-in-a-bottle, so it gets it's own category, again to stack with everything else. If this proves troublesome, it'll probably end up in Enchancement as well though.

Inherent bonuses are the only kind that stack with themselves. Exalted bonuses will probably need to be spread around case-by-case, since they come from really different sources and do a large variety of things.

This might seem like a lot, but most of the pre-combat buffs should fall into one category, limiting how much prep-time you need or ECL-swing you get. The rest are either always on, or need to be activated over the course of an encounter.

A spell like Mage Armor can be made an Enhancement bonus if you want it to stack with other armor, or a Gear bonus if you want it to replace armor.

tarkisflux

2013-08-08, 01:02 PM

As I've said before, altering the spells-per-day is the easiest part of this whole shebang, if you feel casters are getting to many. You could even do something like this to limit the absolute numbers:
{table=head]Level|0th|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|6th|7th|8th|9th
1st|2|1|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—
2nd|2|2|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—
3rd|2|2|1|—|—|—|—|—|—|—
4th|3|2|2|—|—|—|—|—|—|—
5th|3|2|2|1|—|—|—|—|—|—
6th|3|3|2|2|—|—|—|—|—|—
7th|3|3|2|2|1|—|—|—|—|—
8th|4|3|3|2|2|—|—|—|—|—
9th|4|3|3|2|2|1|—|—|—|—
10th|3|4|3|3|2|2|—|—|—|—
11th|3|4|3|3|2|2|1|—|—|—
12th|3|3|4|3|3|2|2|—|—|—
13th|3|3|4|3|3|2|2|1|—|—
14th|2|3|3|4|3|3|2|2|—|—
15th|2|3|3|4|3|3|2|2|1|—
16th|2|2|3|3|4|3|3|2|2|—
17th|2|2|3|3|4|3|3|2|2|1
18th|1|2|2|3|3|4|3|3|2|2
19th|1|2|2|3|3|4|3|3|2|2
20th|0|1|2|2|3|3|4|3|3|2[/table]
The formula needs tweaking or modification for levels 19 and 20, but it keeps the low-level slots from growing out of control (if you choose to critique, please keep in mind I rattled this off in about 5 minutes)

But, one thing I'm trying to do is making it less frustrating for casters to run out of effective spell-slots (or to make it harder to run out; 6 in one, half dozen in the other). If only your top 3 levels of spells are useful in combat, then you need to constantly be careful you aren't wasting a single resource just to get by (we'll ignore the imbalances in spell power ftm, because I plan on fixing that). Some people can deal with that, but for a lot of players that's not fun.

That looks reasonable actually, if you want a spellcaster to grow significantly in combat useful options and whatever until about level 10 and level off at that point. It may even fit your design goals nicely, I just don't agree with those goals. I happen to like the tactical complexity and concern that comes with playing a glass canon, it makes it distinct from the all day <theoretically level appropriate martial character>. The vary idea of spell slots, as opposed to X/day or X/minute non-fungible effects, lends itself discreet power dumps and tactical resource management.

You're right that it's not a fun class for a lot of people to play, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a fun class for a lot of other people to play. I would therefore advise those who didn't like it to play something else, possibly a fixed version of a warlock or whatever if they wanted to blast things with magic all day so they didn't have to worry about spell slots.

And I agree that changing the spells around is the easiest part of the whole deal. I've done similar work, but gone in precisely the opposite direction. Spoilered for the tangent that it is...
In mine you get 50 points to spend on spells per day, whether you're level 1 or level 20. The cost of your spells decreases as you've had them for a while, eventually becoming free. So while lower level spells are straight up weaker than higher level ones because they don't scale with CL, they are also much less expensive to cast. It's a choice between 4 level 1 spells or 1 level 3 spell (and that ratio persists as you level up), so you get to pick and choose whether any encounter requires something big or lots of somethings little. You can read the full thing here (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Static_Spell_Points_%283.5e_Variant_Rule%29) if you care.

(being able to use a nuke once per day versus a handgun an unlimited number of times is a really poor design plan, IMO).

I disagree that it's a poor design plan. It's one that has led to the very overstated workday complaints, but in any game with a variety of short days, long days, and average days the nuke guys can be made just as effective on average as any of the handgun guys. Yes, Really. Some days they will shine because they can nova, and others they won't because they have to save things up. That sort of spotlight sharing may not be the type that you want, but that doesn't make it unworkable.

Here's the issue that I see, though. Some spells scale very easily (like evocations) and need to be scaled to stay relevant, while there are plenty of spells that don't scale and remain every bit as potent at level 15 as they where at level 5. Stuff like Grease or Polymorph doesn't need to change its numbers to still be powerful. Even under the current system its easy to fill your list with stuff that never "scales" and still lets you abuse the crap out of low level spell slots.

So basically, I'm left with 2 choices. Either I go around and break a bunch of the existing spells that don't need to scale, and then write out what is basically version of them that says "the same, but for creatures with more HD", or I rework the existing spells to all scale so they stay relevant. Either way its going to involve going through the spell-list one by one and making a lot of changes.

Now, there are hints at the first option is something the original planners tried to do (Scare and its counterpart Cause Fear, for example) but there's only a handful of this that I've found. Overall, there wasn't really a unifying mechanic to the magic list. I prefer having every spell be unique, and allowing players to get more options as they level up, rather than just forcing them to retake the same spell over and over again.
There's also some things that do obsolesce, like all the SoDs and SOSs limited by HD and HP, but those usually make the broken list, and I don't like what they imply. Why can Tim the god-mage never improve his Cloudkill in any way?

Grease is actually an example of obsolescence. It's a reflex save or fall prone in a small area that afterwards triggers a non-scaling balance check. When you're level 10 and flying or hovering or can stand from prone as a free action, the first part is irrelevant, and if you're on the ground at that level you may have a bunch of balance ranks to make the second part irrelevant as well. Which relegates it niche or utility use, as I want anyway.

Polymorph is a different beast though, and you're right that you don't want to just ask people to keep selecting the same spell over and over again (I'm looking at you Summon Monster). But while I don't want spell effects to scale with caster level, I'm perfectly happy to scale them by spell slot level. So alter self and polymorph and shapechange all get rolled into one spell that gets more powerful when you put it in a higher spell slot.

Which is giving the spell list a unified mechanic in places. And while you don't want that sort of thing (and I'm really not sure why), I really really do. I want the spell list to make sense and be extensible and not be just a bunch of animist one-offs. Maybe it's the physicist in me, but I want the system to have an internal logic beyond "whatever, it's magic!". It's built into the physics of their world after all.

And your mage god could improve his cloudkill... by putting metamagic on it and casting it out of a higher level slot. Being a better wizard means you have a better chance of hitting people with the same spells (better DCs, because experience) and that you have access to higher power slots, not that you can squeeze more power from a slot than someone else can. Fixed spell effects is an explicit declaration that power comes from slot level, not character level.

What, precisely, is the issue with scaling DCs based on HD instead? What would be the problem with my hypothetical Fighter 19/Wizard 1 being able to use Light or Ray of Frost as effectively as a Wizard 20?
Or if HD gets to high for NPCs (another problem that needs fixing), why can't we go by ECL and CR?

Would you also scale BAB with HD or CR instead? The spell DC boosts the odds that the spell will hit its target, just like BAB boosts the odds that your attack will hit them. I am not opposed to adding half non-caster level to DC in such a setup in the same way that even casting classes get minor BAB boosts, but full HD or CR seems silly to do for spell DC and not BAB.

I'd rather players have more, effective choices of spells whenever they want to take them, rather than relegating all utility to only spell slots you no longer need for combat.

Plus, Vadskye mentioned he is trying to give caster-classes abilities that apparently make them feel like magic users aren't spells-per-day anyway.

I have no problem with backup effects. Ray of frost could be all day so you don't have to drop into crossbow stance when you want to stop using slots and I'd be super happy. The casting classes don't feel 'magic' enough at low levels.

And I get wanting to have more combat choices, I just don't agree with sacrificing the limited use nuke model to get there when you could be doing it as a new thing in addition to the limited use nuke model.

Please do explain the "makes me sad" part. My estimation of the differences between spell-levels in the original was that they go from useful, to powerful, to overwhelming, to game-breaking, so yeah, that's something I want to avoid. Plus, melee-classes mostly follow the model of "more of the same, but better" so it makes things attractive from a balance perspective, I think.

Ok then. Spoilered.
This is based on the following premises:

NPC CR == NPC Level in PC class. Therefore, PCs should have a CR = their level.
CR math tells us that CR X + 2 = 2 * CR X. In conjunction with (1) this means that a character who gains two level should be about twice as strong (in practice items boost PCs a bit more than this, but NPCs don't get as many so it's less pronounced).
Assuming that (a)the vast majority of a spellcasters power comes from their spells and (b)that there is a power relationship between the spell levels, you can show that the CR math indicated power growth occurs when a spell of level X is half as strong as a spell of level X + 1 (using the standard specialist wizard progression; bonus spells do not substantially alter this result. Also, your proposed list also provides this result). Therefore, spells designed to that spell level spec will provide a spellcaster who meets CR math progression determined by (2)
Internal spell scaling based on CL instead of spell slot muddies the slot progression, often making spells of level X ~= level X + 1. This in turn breaks expected progression.

I'm pretty sure that you don't want that sort of growth because martial types don't do that (because they don't get nice things) and you think a 9th level slot that is 256 times as good as a level 1 is overwhelming (even though any number of CR 1 creatures are a non-XP granting threat at CR 17). And that's fine. Personal preference is a thing after all.

But for any progression that you do want, internal spell scaling based on CL in addition to total spell number growth is going to cause you to deviate from that. You need to cut internal scaling or spells readied growth to keep a consistent growth curve. It's easier to cut scaling and rejigger the spells to spell level if you want to maintain the power growth, and easier to cut spells readied and rejigger scaling a bit (complete with CR math do-over) if you prefer a more linear growth. You can't really have both and expect to keep spellcasters on the appropriate page.

Since I prefer power scaling and readied option growth, internal scaling makes me sad. I suspect you'd prefer to cut readied spells (even more than you are already proposing actually) and scale up the internal bits some more instead.

Vadskye

2013-08-08, 03:19 PM

Deepbluediver:

All I'm going to say on the matter is this: in MY ideal world, every stat would be somewhat valuable to every class. Certain classes and builds would favor some stats over others, but nothing would be entirely pointless. Now, thus far I haven't quite managed perfection, but I think I'm getting close. I would probably divvy up the stats as follows-

Con: HP and Fort saves
Str: Melee attack rolls, all melee damage rolls (including ranged), and carrying capacity
Dex: AC, ranged attack rolls, reflex saves
Int: Skill points, bonus spells (for all casters)
Wis: Spellcraft rolls (for most casters), Initiative checks
Cha: Spellcraft rolls (for some casters), Will saves

It's hard to comment in a vacuum, so some of this might seem a little odd. For example, I'd do away with as many of the portable holes, handy haversacks, and bags of holding as I could, so that the ability to carry your own weight in gear and/or treasure was actually valuable to the party.
By the same token, I'd revise Initiative checks so they weren't just straight ability checks; you'd get a bonus based on class. The reason it's Wisdom and not Dexterity is that (in addition to balance) a quick reaction is not necessarily a good reaction. A high wisdom score lets your observe your surroundings and move when it is most advantageous for you to do so.
I agree that ability scores should be more broadly applicable and equally useful; see Chapter 1 of Rise for how I think it should work. (Though I am actively looking for more ways to make mental stats relevant.) It's a bit broader than what I'm trying to address here, though.

Imagine you have two Wizards; the first is Timmy the apprentice, who wears a floppy hat with stars on it and robe two sizes to large. His primary duties include sweeping the floor and NOT TOUCHING ANYTHING!
The second Wizard is Tim The Archmage. He has wrestled with angels and demons, stared into the abyss to divine knowledge man was not meant to know, and regularly rewrites the laws of physics before breakfast.

If these two magic users both cast the same spell, whether it's Light or Haste or Web or Summon Creature or anything, pretty much, then it feels weird to me that the guy who's one step short of godhood can't get his to last any longer than the one who's lucky if he doesn't explode his own nose more than once a week.

Now, I admit that some of the durations should be tweeked; leveling up should not move the same spell from useless to functional to broken. But it makes sense that the spell might be slightly more useful, or easier to deal with, or you would need to recast it less often. I think that's doable.
Automatic scaling should be applied only when the bonus or effect would otherwise become irrelevant with level. Damage should automatically scale; Solid Fog should not. If Tim wants to cast a spell better, he should use metamagic. (And there should be more metamagic effects to encourage this as a viable option. I also like the idea of letting metamagic be repeatedly multiple times, once Empower and Maximize have been nuked.)

The rules for which, suck ass btw. (maybe that's just my opinion, I'm sure some one will disagree with me)

Frankly, is there any good reason why spontaneous casters can't apply metamagic on the fly without it increasing the time? The difference between a standard action and a full action is relatively minimal in most cases, but it seems like a pointless penalty when spontaneous casters tend to be ranked below the prepareds anyway.
A good reason? No, not really. I prefer all casters to be spontaneous and full-round action metamagic, while sorcerers have a class feature to do it quickly. But I'm trying to keep my all-spontaneous bias out of this as much as possible.

Personally, I'm willing to put the extra effort into tracking resistances if it solves the issue of immunities being boring and/or gamebreaking.
I am only willing to do this where there are already existing mechanics for gradual resistance. For spells where no such unified effect exists (Death Ward), I'm willing to let it keep being immunity and nerf it in other ways (short duration, limit the immunity to resist one effect/caster level, etc.)

See, now what's funny about your next coment, is that I didn't know about the Suppressing Sphere when I was reading WoT, and I took my inspiration from the Dream Spike; that artifact that dis-allowed teleportation. In a D&D world, its really the only thing that would stop a Tippyverse-like scenario, other than a total absence of mid-level arcane casters. Any ruler or mage should be researching or investing in something like that since it becomes every bit as important of a defensive measure as stone walls and soldiers.
I think that using ritual mechanics for Teleport - and nuking Teleportation Circle - should avert the Tippyverse. Hopefully.

Again, this is one of those things that needs fine-tuning, but I would like to have a situation where I can say: any spell that has a duration can be made permanent. It consumes a spell-slot from the original caster (so long as the spell is permanent, anyways) based on it's normal duration-level.
{table]Duration|Spell Slot
round/level|2 higher
minute/level|1 higher
10 minutes/level|same
hour/level|1 lower
day/level|2 lower[/table]

At the same time, I'd probably remove the auto-permanency from as many spells as possible, like Wall of Iron.
I like this in principle. Have to think about the exact mechanics for how to implement this, though. I probably wouldn't want any round/level spells except maybe the absolutely lowest level ones to permancy-able.
The Tygre:

Noted and watching eagerly. So where's the part where we get Martin Luther to nail this to Monte Cook's door?

Wait for Part V. :smalltongue:
Tuggy:

Hmm. Well, that takes significantly longer, but eh.
If everyone in the party can deal fire damage easily, that would be quicker. But we have typically had warriors that can't deal fire damage, so the troll is going to regenerate each round anyway - which means there's no point in dealing fire damage until it's down. (Incidentally, this is why I want to rewrite regeneration.)

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. If you have a really competent NPC Wizard, they should probably be going up against really competent players, who will likely use their PCly WBL and book-diving abilities to manage fairly decent defense that would actually prove challenging. (Touch AC in the 40s, maybe, or lots of miss chances and dispels to remove true seeing, or readied Manyshots, or some combination of those or others.)
My point is that if you assume competency on both sides, the spells will almost certainly have their full effects. With sufficient investment (from feats, magic items, etc.) even a nonmagical character can generally manage to make one or two defenses difficult to overcome. But there are far more ways to attack than there are ways to defend, and some effects allow no defense except high-level magic (hi, Solid Fog.)

Well, it did happen in LotR, after all.
I don't remember that... I guess I lose some nerd cred.

FWIW, that's basically what DDO did with Wild Empathy. It's a 3+Cha/day charm animal effect, later upgraded to dominate animal.
Nifty. I start it at Speak with Animals instead of Charm right off the bat, but that's still cool.

This, in particular, must be avoided. Having a dominate effect that's "take 2d8 psychic damage and be dominated" is just terrible in ways I can hardly articulate. Basically, non-damaging spells should be effective, but not brokenly good either.
I can imagine you writing this with barely contained rage and it amuses me. :smallsmile:

By the way, "line" was previously neglected in the list of spell shapes.
Which list? I added a new thesis specifically for line spells.

Isn't the closest current thing to a single-target haste basically snake's swiftness, at Drd 2? That seems about right.
Except for the part where Snake's Swiftness lasts for 1 attack, while Haste lasts for 1 round/level, yes. (Also, it's Druid 1, but Sor/Wiz 2. Make of that what you will.) Anyway, my point is that Haste is perfectly balanced as 3rd or 4th level single-target spell. Mass Haste should be much higher level.

That … might be a little odd, and you would of course have to ban Arcane Thesis into the oblivion beyond the abyss, but it might make things more elegant.
Arcane Thesis is an abomination unto the eyes of the Vadskye and must be purged with fire. Anyway, I'm not actually using that mechanic for permanency right now, but it strikes me as a fruitful area for development.
Eggynack:

So, I'm saying that direct damage spells do not need to be nerfed, at all, ever. They are basically the single weakest aspect of the entire wizard class, so nerfing them makes no sense unless you're changing the whole system to be more defensively minded. If you've nerfed basically every single other spell in the game, maybe the time may come when fireball needs to be cut down to size, but that's so far away from where we are that it's not worth having it as part of any initial systemic overhaul.

Here's the thing: that's exactly where I am at. I've already rewritten literally every spell in the game. I've had the core nerfs to nondamaging spells since last year, and I've been playtesting with them during that time. It is from that perspective - playing with fairly balanced nondamaging spells and unchanged damage spells - that I have learned that damage spells need to be lowered in power. This is just the first time I'm explaining it properly on this forum. So basically, we agree that Fireball shouldn't be the first thing nerfed - or even the twentieth thing nerfed. But I think that literally everything should be changed. I can say with a fair degree of confidence that damage spells are not the weakest part of the new system.
Deepbluediver pt. 2:

Since that long post I've got two more sets of comments up that you need to review and evaluate. They wheren't directed at you, specifically, but it's your thread so I expect you to take responsibility.
Let's go, chop chop. Quit slacking. :smalltongue:
Yes, my master.

Just keep in mind that humanoids can be enemies every bit as dangerous and important to the story as monsters.

The reason I decided to split it up was that, as another poster pointed out to me in a different thread, a mind-controlling spell in combat can have the effect of a Disintegrate+Summon Monster all in one. That's not even getting into the trouble a player can cause with a puppet NPC in a town or city.
Charm might not be an issue, given it's relatively lower power, but for something like Dominate or the (homebrewed) mid-level equivalent, I think something that can effect every creature type is always going to be useful AND powerful, and therefore is difficult to balance.
Limiting by creature type doesn't solve that problem at all, though; it just makes it useless most of the time and overpowered when you can use it. My change to Dominate is different. I'll explain it fully in Part II of the Spell Reformation, but basically, you have to concentrate on the subject for the first hour after dominating it in order to maintain your domination; otherwise, it acts confused. This means that, in combat, you can still take the subject mostly out of the fight - but it's not automatically under your control unless you give up your actions to make it your puppet.

Force damage is my go-to type for a number of things, like Disintegrate; I think it would work for Chaos Hammer as well. Now that the link to the other thread is working, you can see there are already Vile and Holy subtypes of damage. You could probably also brew up some elemental-like Axiomatic and Anarchic damage which wouldn't give you any points for originiality, but it would get the job done.
Force has specific mechanics (damaging incorporeal creatures) and fluff that I wouldn't want to throw around willy-nilly. I'll give this some thought before we reach Part III; I'll probably make everything in the Chaos Hammer line deal "divine" damage and call it a day.

Although honestly, I'm not really a fan of that.
What I prefer is having double or even triple damage types. I know this sounds confusing, but let me explain.

explain explain explain
I've actually been using dual damage types using the mechanics you describe for several things in my system, though I didn't fully apply it to spells. I definitely like it. (And I'm glad to see that Lightfirening Boltball has reared its ugly head once more.) I'll go through the damage spells and assign types to each.

I'm not quite sure I understand the rationale there. :smallconfused:
Spells are many and varied, and the power curve is long and wonky. I'll use whatever is appropriate for a given level, which in this case just means there won't be many round/level 1st and 2nd level spells.
Remember, I'm an idealist who is trying to look for perfection in everything. Round/level has a wonky power curve, so let's make it less wonky!

I don't have a real issue with that, so long as there is a constraint that keeps the player from also using a weapon or casting OTHER spells while controlling their summoned minions.

As I think I've mentioned, I'd probably rule that summoned monsters can't function autonomously, and so in combat they need constant input from the caster.
Minute/level summons can definitely work if you have to take actions to control your summons. I just prefer the Concentration + 5 rounds duration.

Yes, we discussed that before. I haven't come up with a good solution yet; I keep hoping some one will suggest something, or at least give me inspiration.

One thing I'm curious to see is in your spell-system, if you kept Full-round/One Round casting times (in comparison to standard action casting) how you determined what spells fit in each category.

Given that melee classes can full-attack, I think that Full-round casting has a place, I'm just not sure how to determine what should go where.
I nuked all 1-round spells and kept the "full-round action" concept. Right now, it's assigned based on subschool and primarily for fluff; Polymorph and Summoning spells are full-round action, and most other spells (that aren't rituals) are 1 standard action.

No, I think we're talking past each other.
All I meant was that if a fireball has a range of long (100 ft.), and a radius of 20 ft., it can deal damage out to 120 ft. if you put it in the right spot. I wouldn't object to that since I think it would be rare and relatively innocuous.
If we cut down on the size of the radius, then it won't add much to overall distance, and I'd allow it as clever gameplay.
Ah. In that case, I agree, and I use that change.

First, I like things that scale, and secondly it makes sense to me that a powerful caster can accomplish things easier than a less powerful one, just be virtue of being more experienced, and without needing to expend additional resources.
One thing I would do though is probably base most or all of the scaling off HD/ECL instead of "caster level", so a Wizard 20 and Fighter 19/Wizard 1 would have the same range. I think that sort of thing makes it easier to build multiclass characters or gishes and the like, and keeps players in relatively the same ballpark, magic-wise.
Ew. That strikes me as the worst of both worlds; you get the complexity of scaling with level, but not the fluff benefits; Tim the archmage's spells are just as powerful as Bob the 19th level fighter who took a level in wizard that one time while he was drunk.

That would work too, I guess, though it seems fairly limiting. Frankly, so long as there is SOME standard, players will learn it eventually, and they will still need to reference the book, I think, for any spell they don't use regularly.
That being said, I acknowledge that a fixed area for a spell could work as well.
Right now I'm thinking about having just one area or progression for cones and cylinders, and a separate small/large formula only for circles/spheres anyhow.
Eventually, all things can be learned. But this makes it super easy. And on my rewritten character sheet, I can simply list the three area sizes and make it really easy for casters to quick-reference their spells. And I was surpised by how... non-limiting this change feels in practice. Some spells (Lightning Bolt, Storm of Vengeance) will still have unusual area sizes. But very, very few.

Honestly, giving them a wand of <random evocation> so they can prepare utility or other spells in their slots and I think you'll cover 95% of the situations before level 3.
Sure, you could rely on magic items, but I feel like that has weird effect on world continuity. Plus, if they have a wand of a 1st level spell, it seems like that would render their very small number of 1st level spells totally obsolete.

One thing that I'm trying to do is give more non-caster classes always-on aura type buffs, so that you don't necessarily need to stop and take a break before battle to get them rolling.
Makes sense, as long as the bonuses don't stack with actual spells.

One thing that my standardization for spells/day and spells known tried to do was force the classes that formerly got "their entire spell list" (aka clerics, druids, etc) to actually pick and choose to learn spells like a sorcerer. If you are only using Core, then I can understand about giving them the entire list. But once you start adding in splatbooks, it just gets out of control.
I fully endorse forcing everyone to choose a Spells Known list. I hate prepared casting. But I'm trying to make a system compatible with prepared casting.

Hmm...that does sound fun and workable.

/pillage
I love being pillaged from.

I'm not quite sure I understand your feeling about how casting is "Lame"; it's similar to how many spells work.

Also, the goal of my system would be to have you roll against the targets SR for some spells, like you roll against a targets AC for an attack.

I must be misunderstanding something; how is this not a "roll to cast" system? :smallconfused:

Anyhow, I've recently decided that I need to re-evaluate my own version of SR, how it scales, how it interacts with spells, and how casting DCs are determined.
The difference is that the system you described is not interactive. Rolling vs. target defenses (or equivalently, having a DC that the target rolls against) is interactive, because it the chances of success can be highly variable depending on the nature of the target and the nature of the attack. Rolling Spellcraft to not have your spell fail is not interactive at all; it's just rolling vs. the universe.
Dark.Revenant:

Note: This assumes you're using the Dreamscarred interpretation of psionics; they tend to focus on balance more than most publishers.

I'm unfamiliar with the Dreamscarred version of psionics, so it's really hard for me to judge the rest of what you are saying. My experience with WotC psionics is that a power point system dramatically exacerbates the ability of casters to "nova" an encounter by expending all of their daily resources at once. I fully believe that a better system relying on power points could be constructed, and I would probably enjoy playing in such a system.

However, that is not my focus. My explicit intention is to build a system that exists independently of the casting system. As long as you have a group of spells/powers divided into spell/power levels in a balanced and coherent fashion, the casting system can be determined separately.[/quote]
Meeky:

I just want to say, this whole thread has been a very interesting read. If you ever decide to playtest your new Magic system rules via the forums or another online medium, I'd love to see how they play out. I love magic users as it is (especially Bards and Wizards), but I always feel like I'm cheating when I play one ever since learning there's more to a wizard than "Magic Missile" and "Fireball."
Glad you like it! :smallsmile: If I do decide to run an online game, I'll make sure to let you know. I don't plan on it for the time being - I'm about to get very busy for at least the next few weeks - but it's an option I've entertained before.

If I was going to run an online game, though, I'd almost certain run with Rise, my complete system overhaul. It's essentially the same as this, but applied to everything.

Tarkisflux:

Scaling all aspects of a spell with caster level or HD is BAD and needs to stop.
Absolutely.

Letting spells of <max level -2> to be as relevant as spells of <max level> means you're getting a crap load more relevant spells as your level increases, which in turn increases the amount you can afford to drop on any given encounter, and leads to people complaining about how casters can solo encounters. I'd much rather have fixed effects based on spell level scaling and allow lower level spells to sink down into situational use or be replaced by utility effects (that you didn't want to carry around when you needed that slot for combat).
Ironically, I completely disagree here. I don't like forced obsolescence; my goal is to allow higher level spells to supplant lower level spells by sheer virtue of being better, not simply because the lower spells are useless.

Which isn't to say that I'm against all scaling, as I'm pretty for scaling spell DCs with caster level. It reduces DC tracking when all of your spells have the same DC (and functions more like BAB, and allows you to flip the die rolling around so casters roll against fixed save DCs for their enemies, but those are preference things on my part).
Again, I completely agree.

But more importantly, it retains the spell obsolescence that I think should actually be a part of the system. It's easier to balance a fixed effect 3-missile auto-hit* magic missile or a fixed effect 4d4 damage burning hands with DC level/2 + int mod for your 1st level slot than to juggle lots of scaling options, and neither are particularly relevant outside of specific situations when you could instead cast an 8d6 fireball with the same DC in your 3rd level slot. These spells are also much easier to write up, as you can omit all of the scaling text that no longer applies.
And once again, I disagree; I don't like forcing spells to be obsolete. It feels like you're just on an endless treadmill. I'll hold off on a full explanation of this until I go through my theory of damage spells, though.

Scaling damage and range and area and targets and everything else leads to more complicated spells while also diminishing the difference between spell levels, and that makes me sad (for other reasons that I can go into upon request, when it isn't so late).
I agree here, though! Three out of five isn't bad.
Lord Raziere:

rocket tag…
pffff…..
*laughs uproariously*
sorry….sorry…
that was just funny to me for reasons completely unrelated to this, all I will say is that it proves to me that some RPG's aren't as different as I thought. :smallbiggrin:
have a cookie. and nice system eval, I think I have my own idea to fix combat spells at least now...
Yay, cookie! And I assume that a system you've been playing with also is struggling with the rocket tag issue?
Deepbluediver pt. 3:

This is @ Vadskye as well, since he apparently agrees.
Ooh, I get a bolded name now. I feel important.

But, one thing I'm trying to do is making it less frustrating for casters to run out of effective spell-slots (or to make it harder to run out; 6 in one, half dozen in the other). If only your top 3 levels of spells are useful in combat, then you need to constantly be careful you aren't wasting a single resource just to get by (we'll ignore the imbalances in spell power ftm, because I plan on fixing that). Some people can deal with that, but for a lot of players that's not fun.
Agreed. I prefer allowing lower-level spells to be useful and even effective in combat; I just want higher level spells to be slightly more useful. I want to smooth out the curve.

If we can tune down the power of individual broken spells, the it won't be as critical to limit how often casters can use whats left as a method of balance. (being able to use a nuke once per day versus a handgun an unlimited number of times is a really poor design plan, IMO).
Completely agree. Hence the (upcoming) hard nerfs to Sleep and Color Spray and the addition of Arcane Invocations.

Now, there are hints at the first option is something the original planners tried to do (Scare and its counterpart Cause Fear, for example) but there's only a handful of this that I've found. Overall, there wasn't really a unifying mechanic to the magic list. I prefer having every spell be unique, and allowing players to get more options as they level up, rather than just forcing them to retake the same spell over and over again.
Exactly. Incidentally, the "there is no unifying mechanic to the magic list" is the single biggest thing that I want to change. I think that 90% of spells (ignoring rituals, which are generally weird and separate) can be represented and calculated through a single, unified system.

There's also some things that do obsolesce, like all the SoDs and SOSs limited by HD and HP, but those usually make the broken list, and I don't like what they imply. Why can Tim the god-mage never improve his Cloudkill in any way?
Metamagic!

As to DC's specifically, making them scale at different rates for different casters is, I think, going to be very difficult to balance. Non-primary casters are already more MAD than caster-only-classes (are you going to fix that as well? It's kind of off topic but I didn't see a mention of it in the 45-list) and have trouble using their more limited spell-slots effectively.
Huh? Making DC based on CL actually increases the DC of full-CL partial casters like the bard, and doesn't significantly affect the DC of quasi-casters like the paladin.

What, precisely, is the issue with scaling DCs based on HD instead? What would be the problem with my hypothetical Fighter 19/Wizard 1 being able to use Light or Ray of Frost as effectively as a Wizard 20?
Or if HD gets to high for NPCs (another problem that needs fixing), why can't we go by ECL and CR?
Why should your skill in magic scale with attributes that have nothing to do with your skill in magic? Why should taking ten barbarian levels make Timmy's spells more awesome?
Tarkisflux pt. 2:

That looks reasonable actually, if you want a spellcaster to grow significantly in combat useful options and whatever until about level 10 and level off at that point. It may even fit your design goals nicely, I just don't agree with those goals. I happen to like the tactical complexity and concern that comes with playing a glass canon, it makes it distinct from the all day <theoretically level appropriate martial character>. The vary idea of spell slots, as opposed to X/day or X/minute non-fungible effects, lends itself discreet power dumps and tactical resource management.

You're right that it's not a fun class for a lot of people to play, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a fun class for a lot of other people to play. I would therefore advise those who didn't like it to play something else, possibly a fixed version of a warlock or whatever if they wanted to blast things with magic all day so they didn't have to worry about spell slots.

And I agree that changing the spells around is the easiest part of the whole deal. I've done similar work, but gone in precisely the opposite direction. Spoilered for the tangent that it is...
In mine you get 50 points to spend on spells per day, whether you're level 1 or level 20. The cost of your spells decreases as you've had them for a while, eventually becoming free. So while lower level spells are straight up weaker than higher level ones because they don't scale with CL, they are also much less expensive to cast. It's a choice between 4 level 1 spells or 1 level 3 spell (and that ratio persists as you level up), so you get to pick and choose whether any encounter requires something big or lots of somethings little. You can read the full thing here (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Static_Spell_Points_%283.5e_Variant_Rule%29) if you care.
I think that a spell system requiring highly tactical resource management is something that people can enjoy. However, it should absolutely not be the default spell system, which is what I'm trying to build. Just like the Warlock is for people who hate resource management in any form, this could be viable as a separate class/system for people who really love it - as long as the rewards are not excessive relative to normal spellcasters.

I want the spell list to make sense and be extensible and not be just a bunch of animist one-offs. Maybe it's the physicist in me, but I want the system to have an internal logic beyond "whatever, it's magic!". It's built into the physics of their world after all.
I hope the physicist in you enjoys the system that I put together to systematically calculate spell levels for almost every spell in the game...

Would you also scale BAB with HD or CR instead? The spell DC boosts the odds that the spell will hit its target, just like BAB boosts the odds that your attack will hit them. I am not opposed to adding half non-caster level to DC in such a setup in the same way that even casting classes get minor BAB boosts, but full HD or CR seems silly to do for spell DC and not BAB.
Agreed.

I have no problem with backup effects. Ray of frost could be all day so you don't have to drop into crossbow stance when you want to stop using slots and I'd be super happy. The casting classes don't feel 'magic' enough at low levels.
Agreed. Again. I do that a lot, it seems.

And I get wanting to have more combat choices, I just don't agree with sacrificing the limited use nuke model to get there when you could be doing it as a new thing in addition to the limited use nuke model.
If it is done strictly in addition to the "nuke" model, wouldn't that make casters ludicrously overpowered?

NPC CR == NPC Level in PC class. Therefore, PCs should have a CR = their level.
CR math tells us that CR X + 2 = 2 * CR X. In conjunction with (1) this means that a character who gains two level should be about twice as strong (in practice items boost PCs a bit more than this, but NPCs don't get as many so it's less pronounced).
Assuming that (a)the vast majority of a spellcasters power comes from their spells and (b)that there is a power relationship between the spell levels, you can show that the CR math indicated power growth occurs when a spell of level X is half as strong as a spell of level X + 1 (using the standard specialist wizard progression; bonus spells do not substantially alter this result. Also, your proposed list also provides this result). Therefore, spells designed to that spell level spec will provide a spellcaster who meets CR math progression determined by (2)
Internal spell scaling based on CL instead of spell slot muddies the slot progression, often making spells of level X ~= level X + 1. This in turn breaks expected progression.

I'm pretty sure that you don't want that sort of growth because martial types don't do that (because they don't get nice things) and you think a 9th level slot that is 256 times as good as a level 1 is overwhelming (even though any number of CR 1 creatures are a non-XP granting threat at CR 17). And that's fine. Personal preference is a thing after all.

But for any progression that you do want, internal spell scaling based on CL in addition to total spell number growth is going to cause you to deviate from that. You need to cut internal scaling or spells readied growth to keep a consistent growth curve. It's easier to cut scaling and rejigger the spells to spell level if you want to maintain the power growth, and easier to cut spells readied and rejigger scaling a bit (complete with CR math do-over) if you prefer a more linear growth. You can't really have both and expect to keep spellcasters on the appropriate page.

Since I prefer power scaling and readied option growth, internal scaling makes me sad. I suspect you'd prefer to cut readied spells (even more than you are already proposing actually) and scale up the internal bits some more instead.
That's actually very interesting math; I hadn't considered it from that perspective. However, it is based on a faulty assumption; the CR system is completely broken when applied to PC classes. PCs do not come close to doubling in power every two levels.
Bonus Types and Stacking Rules
I wasn't planning on getting into this until I discussed buffs, but there has been a lovely discussion on bonus stacking here, so I think this should be addressed now. There's a critical component of how bonus stacking should work that I haven't seen anyone bring up, and which would neatly solve all the problems involved in finding a place for things like deflection bonuses and armor bonuses. It is simply this:

Some "bonus types" are not really bonus types at all. They are the results of bonuses. Let's call them "modifiers".

"Armor" is not a bonus type; it is a modifier to AC. You can have a competence bonus to your armor modifier (say, from the Heavy Armor Optimization feat in Races of Stone) and an enhancement bonus to your armor modifier (from magic armor). These stack with each other. If you also had an enhancement bonus to your deflection modifier (from a Ring of Protection), those would stack with each other, because they're added separately. Full rules for bonus stacking (taken from Rise) follow:
Bonus Types
The value that a character adds to a roll, as when rolling a Fortitude save, or total value for a static attribute, like Armor Class, is the result of a combination of bonuses. Every bonus has a type. Two types of bonuses stack with all other bonuses: inherent bonuses and circumstance bonuses. Two types of bonuses never stack with other bonuses of the same type: competence bonuses and enhancement bonuses. The bonus types are described below.

Inherent These are bonuses which are an inseparable part of the character. They come from base attack bonus, skill ranks, ability modifiers, and other fundamental parts of a character.
Competence These are bonuses which derive from a character's experience and ability. They usually come from feats, racial features, and class features.
Enhancement These are bonuses which derive from magical improvements to a character's abilities. Almost all spells and magic items (except those relating to armor, shields, and weapons) give enhancement bonuses.
Circumstance These are bonuses which derive from specific circumstances. Feats, class features, and magic items which are dependent on circumstances or are extremely temporary in nature can give circumstance bonuses.

Armor Class Modifiers[b]
A character's armor class is a combination of more factors that can be adequately expressed with the simple bonus system. Instead, armor class is the result of a series of separate modifiers, each of which can have bonuses added to it independently from other armor class modifiers. These modifiers are described below.
{table=head]Modifier|Affects
Dodge | Armor class (except flat-footed)
Natural armor | Armor class (except touch)
Deflection | Armor class
Armor1| Armor class (except touch)
Shield1 | Armor class (except flat-footed)
[/table]
1. The base bonus for a set of armor or a shield is considered an inherent bonus. A character wearing multiple suits of armor or wielding multiple shields tracks the total armor and shield bonuses separately for each item, and uses only the highest value.

For example, you can benefit from both a shield of faith spell, which gives a +2 enhancement bonus to your deflection modifier, and a barkskin spell, which gives you a +2 enhancement bonus to your natural armor modifier. However, if you then put on a ring of protection +1, you would gain no benefit since both shield of faith and a ring of protection +1 give enhancement bonuses to your deflection modifier.

[b]Penalties
Unlike bonuses, penalties have no types. Penalties always stack unless they come from the same source. For example, a creature who is sickened by both a ghoul touch spell and an unholy blight spell takes a \minus4 penalty to everything that being sickened penalizes. However, a creature suffering from the crushing despair spell does not take any additional penalties if another crushing despair spell is cast on it - even if the second spell is cast by a different caster.
Also, I updated the list of theses to include the new ones I came up with while writing Part I, plus those inspired by this thread.

Lord Raziere

2013-08-08, 03:38 PM

Yay, cookie! And I assume that a system you've been playing with also is struggling with the rocket tag issue?

haha, yes, yes does it ever. purchase a magical two-handed hammer in it and you can basically kill anything in one hit. and thats before we get to the actual magic, cause all the magic of the hammer does is allow you to wield such a big hammer, cause its ridiculously huge.

the biggest irony here however is that the rpg setting in question was specifically designed to get as far away from DnD-style fantasy as possible while still remaining high fantasy. the fact that they ended up having pretty much the same mechanical problems is freaking hilarious, at least to me.

tarkisflux

2013-08-08, 04:11 PM

Ironically, I completely disagree here. I don't like forced obsolescence; my goal is to allow higher level spells to supplant lower level spells by sheer virtue of being better, not simply because the lower spells are useless.

[...]

And once again, I disagree; I don't like forcing spells to be obsolete. It feels like you're just on an endless treadmill. I'll hold off on a full explanation of this until I go through my theory of damage spells, though.

I wouldn't call them useless, but certainly less useful. And I really don't see the problem with obsolescence. No one complains when a ToB character gets to retrain an old and (dare I say it...) obsolete maneuver with a shiny new one, so why is it a big deal if your magic eventually gets replaced with different stuff? You still have the same number of highest level nukes to fire off in a day as you did before after all, they're just different. And since all of the caster utility stuff is built on the spells per day paradigm, those spells need a place to be prepared. Making the situational utility effects compete with combat effects just pushes the combat effects to the top, and that no one seems to like that plan.

And there's nothing about that setup that I don't like. I get shiny new stuff that is distinct and feels bigger and better than my old stuff, and I get extra slots to use for utility effects I'd like to have around. While web and black tentacles serve a lot of the same functional space, they feel different in power and effect and I don't mind dropping web for some 2nd level utility stuff when I've got it prepared. Making the differences between spell levels more strict by dropping CL scaling just makes that decision even easier and makes the spell differences potentially more exciting.

But if you want to eliminate the spell replacement treadmill you should maybe go through and do it for all of the classes (later I mean, this is a large enough undertaking on its own). At that point you've replaced the replacement treadmill with the same game treadmill though, because nothing ever goes away or changes substantially. And while that's not a game I want to play, your preferences may vary.

That's actually very interesting math; I hadn't considered it from that perspective. However, it is based on a faulty assumption; the CR system is completely broken when applied to PC classes. PCs do not come close to doubling in power every two levels.

Full progression spellcasters sort of do, and everyone pretty much hates them for it. :smallwink:

Joking aside, whether it's true in practice or not is beside the point. That's how it's supposed to be so you build your spells and class features to accommodate that. It's hard to do because the game wants to use linear scaling numbers to represent growth and it grows lots of things at once, but thems the breaks. Else you decide that you really don't like that sort of scaling at the high end and either cap the game at a lower level or adjust the CR math and all of the monsters and do a different scaling.

eggynack

2013-08-08, 05:32 PM

That's exactly where I am at. I've already rewritten literally every spell in the game. I've had the core nerfs to nondamaging spells since last year, and I've been playtesting with them during that time. It is from that perspective - playing with fairly balanced nondamaging spells and unchanged damage spells - that I have learned that damage spells need to be lowered in power. This is just the first time I'm explaining it properly on this forum. So basically, we agree that Fireball shouldn't be the first thing nerfed - or even the twentieth thing nerfed. But I think that literally everything should be changed. I can say with a fair degree of confidence that damage spells are not the weakest part of the new system.
Fair enough then. In that case, I suppose that it's necessary to see the remaining nerfs in order to judge fireball nerfs necessary or not. Still, the only reason a fireball nerf should exist at all is because the wizard has other spells. In other words, it doesn't matter that the wizard can cast fireball unless he can also cast fly.

Dark.Revenant

2013-08-08, 10:23 PM

I'm unfamiliar with the Dreamscarred version of psionics, so it's really hard for me to judge the rest of what you are saying. My experience with WotC psionics is that a power point system dramatically exacerbates the ability of casters to "nova" an encounter by expending all of their daily resources at once. I fully believe that a better system relying on power points could be constructed, and I would probably enjoy playing in such a system.

However, that is not my focus. My explicit intention is to build a system that exists independently of the casting system. As long as you have a group of spells/powers divided into spell/power levels in a balanced and coherent fashion, the casting system can be determined separately.

Just replying to point out that psionics can nova no better than vancian casting due to the manifester level = maximum power points spent on one power rule. A few specific feat combinations and exploits can be used to nova, but the player must deliberately go out of his way to make such a build, which a DM can just say "no" to. A wizard/sorcerer can do the same with his own exploits, and arguably do it better.

Yitzi

2013-08-09, 12:42 AM

Just replying to point out that psionics can nova no better than vancian casting due to the manifester level = maximum power points spent on one power rule. A few specific feat combinations and exploits can be used to nova, but the player must deliberately go out of his way to make such a build, which a DM can just say "no" to. A wizard/sorcerer can do the same with his own exploits, and arguably do it better.

Except that psionics can spend the maximum on every round; wizards and sorcerers will run out of top-level spells fairly quickly.

eggynack

2013-08-09, 12:52 AM

Except that psionics can spend the maximum on every round; wizards and sorcerers will run out of top-level spells fairly quickly.
Except that powers often don't scale as well as spells do without augmentation, so spending the maximum is occasionally something you have to do, rather than something you want to do. In any case, the underlying system is at least partially irrelevant. Spells are just generally better then powers, at least partially as a function of how many spells there are. Also, psions have that powers known thing, which is problematic for matching tier one's.

TuggyNE

2013-08-09, 05:14 AM

Depends on what you mean by "abuse". This chart (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20050328a) includes a bunch of Arcane and Divine spells to improve AC. Plus, once you start including splatbooks there are pretty much spells and powers to grant bonuses to everything. I think the situation we wanted to avoid was one where the Wizard buffs, then the Cleric buffs, then the Wilder buffs, and after 5 minutes we're ready to enter combat, and our ability to fight effectively has doubled or more. That's why I stuck all the magic into one category.

Those are only the simplest ones (armor circumstance, enhancement to armor circumstance, natural armor inherent, enhancement to natural armor inherent, shield circumstance, enhancement to shield circumstance, deflection divine, circumstance), and don't get you anywhere near "abuse" levels of AC (with the possible exception of alter self, which isn't affected much by bonus types). What's more, all of those are things that either didn't stack anyway, or arguably still should.

I was thinking of the various stunts to get 70+ AC at level 20, which mostly involve gishing it up, but I don't recall exactly what bonus types are involved.

Competence- things that you practice to get better at; includes Perfection and Skill-synergy bonuses

I find this peculiar, since nearly all the sources of competence bonuses are from magic.

Circumstance- things based on the environment, positioning, and occasionally other creatures; includes former Morale bonuses as well as Shield bonuses with the explanation that shields are effectively a movable obstacle (and because we want it to stack)

Other than morale, this seems sensible. (Morale is a little weird, since you have to tag [mind-affecting] along with it, or else let Bards and whoever slap undead and constructs, which is strange.)

Gear- also self explanatory; mostly weapons and armor, though items that aid skill checks should also go here

I assume you mean masterwork skill kits and such-like? Yeah, this would make sense.

Inherent bonuses are the only kind that stack with themselves.

Hrm. So, assuming you shove AC bonuses from cover in circumstance, you can't benefit from a buckler and a tree at the same time? I dunno, I feel circumstance should stack.

My point is that if you assume competency on both sides, the spells will almost certainly have their full effects.

I'm not sure of this, though; Reflex half spells are so often avoided because of the (perceived) fairly high chance of the damage being lessened or negated by passing the save. Any given defense can, with modest (<10%) investment, usually be boosted to the point where maybe a third of attack attempts are missing/saved against.

I don't remember that... I guess I lose some nerd cred.

Against the Balrog in Balin's Tomb, Gandalf used hold portal and something else (Power Word: Reinforce?) to delay the enemy long enough to make it to the hall.

I can imagine you writing this with barely contained rage and it amuses me. :smallsmile:

What? You mock my pain?!?

Nah, just kidding. It's mostly just disgust, honestly; one webcomic I mostly find amusing is 4e-based, and that was one of the things they presented quite casually in passing that I … did not think made sense. Not even as a homebrew mechanism with custom fluff.

Which list? I added a new thesis specifically for line spells.

I think it was someone else's upthread.

Except for the part where Snake's Swiftness lasts for 1 attack, while Haste lasts for 1 round/level, yes. (Also, it's Druid 1, but Sor/Wiz 2. Make of that what you will.) Anyway, my point is that Haste is perfectly balanced as 3rd or 4th level single-target spell. Mass Haste should be much higher level.

Yeah, I guess it's not that similar.

My change to Dominate is different. I'll explain it fully in Part II of the Spell Reformation, but basically, you have to concentrate on the subject for the first hour after dominating it in order to maintain your domination; otherwise, it acts confused. This means that, in combat, you can still take the subject mostly out of the fight - but it's not automatically under your control unless you give up your actions to make it your puppet.

[b]Armor Class Modifiers[b]
A character's armor class is a combination of more factors that can be adequately expressed with the simple bonus system. Instead, armor class is the result of a series of separate modifiers, each of which can have bonuses added to it independently from other armor class modifiers. These modifiers are described below.
{table=head]Modifier|Affects
Dodge | Armor class (except flat-footed)
Natural armor | Armor class (except touch)
Deflection | Armor class
Armor1| Armor class (except touch)
Shield1 | Armor class (except flat-footed)
[/table]

I assume you're including size and dex modifiers in there somewhere?

Deepbluediver

2013-08-10, 12:50 PM

I'm on vacation for a couple of days, so while my "free-time" is much greater than normal, my "motivation" has shrunk significantly. :smallbiggrin:
(go swimming in the ocean or sit inside and type; hmm...that's a tough one)
If I don't post or for a couple of days, it's not because I've abandoned the conversation, but because I'm just otherwise occupied...
...wasting away in Margaritaville...

This post isn't really a response, so much as it is just questions. I'll try to give feedback on the other stuff later.

Bonus Types and Stacking Rules
There's a critical component of how bonus stacking should work that I haven't seen anyone bring up, and which would neatly solve all the problems involved in finding a place for things like deflection bonuses and armor bonuses. It is simply this:

Some "bonus types" are not really bonus types at all. They are the results of bonuses. Let's call them "modifiers".

"Armor" is not a bonus type; it is a modifier to AC. You can have a competence bonus to your armor modifier (say, from the Heavy Armor Optimization feat in Races of Stone) and an enhancement bonus to your armor modifier (from magic armor). These stack with each other. If you also had an enhancement bonus to your deflection modifier (from a Ring of Protection), those would stack with each other, because they're added separately.
I'm a little confused by the distinction between bonuses and modifiers. :smallconfused:
Wouldn't it be simpler to just have one classification with one completely encompassing rule?

The SRD describes AC bonuses as follows:

An armor bonus applies to Armor Class and is granted by armor or by a spell or magical effect that mimics armor. Armor bonuses stack with all other bonuses to Armor Class (even with natural armor bonuses) except other armor bonuses. An armor bonus doesn't apply against touch attacks, except for armor bonuses granted by force effects (such as the mage armor spell) which apply against incorporeal touch attacks, such as that of a shadow.

Now I'm uncertain about what can stack under RAW, what can stack under your new system, and what SHOULD or SHOULDN'T stack in an ideal system.

If I said that "modifier" was just a synonym for "bonus", and bonuses of a like-type don't stack (except for Inherent) so for example your Circumstance + Competence + Enhancement + whatever is your "total bonus", are there any major problems gonna pop out of that?

I find this peculiar, since nearly all the sources of competence bonuses are from magic.
Then that will probably change. This chart isn't entirely comprehensive in that I'd retype various types of bonuses; anything that ISN'T explicitly magic I would try and fit in another category besides enhancement.

Other than morale, this seems sensible. (Morale is a little weird, since you have to tag [mind-affecting] along with it, or else let Bards and whoever slap undead and constructs, which is strange.)
Yeah, but I'm not quite sure where else I can put it. I'm open to suggestions. In my defense [mind-affecting] doesn't HAVE to mean magic, I think, and if an Undead or Construct is intelligent I would argue it should be vulnerable to or buffable by those types of effects.

Hrm. So, assuming you shove AC bonuses from cover in circumstance, you can't benefit from a buckler and a tree at the same time? I dunno, I feel circumstance should stack.
Yes, it's not perfect, but since a tree and a buckler are both objects that stop you from being hit by blocking the line-of-attack, it doesn't seem completely unreasonable either, IMO. The other alternative is to put shield in "Gear" and declare that they (Gear bonuses) also stack, along with Inherent, which was an option I had considered at one point.

nonsi

2013-08-11, 06:11 AM

Hey Vadskye.

first of all, I want to congratulate you on taking on this endeavor.

For a long time now countless insights regarding spells run around all over the homebrew forums and you seem to have summed them up better than ever before.

I especially like the effort of keeping low level spells viable at higher level, though this is a real tough one.

You definitely seem to be progressing in the right direction, but there are several issues I wish to address – not just about spells and magic, but also about what’s to come later on.

I agree that Con isn't very well-designed, though I admit that I still haven't figured out how to solve that. It's a topic for a different day, though.
IIRC, Ziegander had suggested using the average of multiple physical ability scores to determine HP, but I also remember you not wanting to touch the ability distribution, so I’m not sure how you’d wanna tackle this one.
You might decide to make Con grant initial HP boost and not being included in the level progression.
This will work, but make things not uniform with everything else in the game.

“You could make every wizard spell that deals damage only deal one to each target hit, and make every fighter attack deal infinite damage, and wizards would still be at tier one, and fighters would hit tier four.”

100% true.

Noncasters can be T3 out of the box.
It’s not easy, but it is doable:
- Warrior (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14982442)
- Rogue (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14897341)
- Monk (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14444342)

I disagree with the idea that Fireball is balanced in the first place. Consider a party of four level 5 adventurers who are attacked by a reasonably large group of monsters (it doesn't matter what kind, but let's say orcs for convenience). If they have a wizard, he just casts Fireball, and the whole encounter is basically over; that's 5d6 damage per enemy. If the wizard is some sort of fighter instead, then the monsters get to actually fight, and the party will almost certainly take substantial damage - and if any of them is isolated, that member can easily risk dying.

Damage spells don’t put spellcasters at T1 (or even T2).
The spells that push spellcasters above T3 are the ones that change the environment, the ones that change the battlefield and the ones that manipulate allies and opponents

Same issue if spells can solve everything.
Knock, for instance, shouldn’t work as it does. It should be much more “stupid”. It should be noisy and leave noticeable evidence. If you wish to elegantly handle a locked door/window/chest – that’s where Disable Device comes.
Rope Trick is another example. It’s a 2nd level spell that can be manipulated to completely shift the balance of power between those that have it and those that don’t.

Now, things change if one of the fighters is a spiked chain/combat reflexes/maybe whirlwind attack build that specializes in group combat. In that case, the party can do pretty well. But in that case, that's his entire build. The wizard needs to changeone spell, and he can nuke the encounter. Fireball is too good as written; it's just overshadowed by all of the worse nonsense that infests the spell system.

Until you adopt my approach to noncasters (at least in principle), you’ll never address the issue that a single spell can completely reposition a spellcaster in the role s/he takes in an adventuring party.

What kind of damage does Chaos Hammer or Unholy Blight do? "Radiant" definitely feels wrong for that. If I see a simple system that assigns damage types to every spell, I'll be happy to incorporate it.

Try ½ force ½ sonic and negative respectively.

if Summon Monster was minute/level, it would be easy to summon a ton of monsters at once and then walk into combat surrounded by a miniature army.

Actually, the greater problem is the ability to apply multiple summons/animate simultaneously.
Kill that one and summon spells automatically become a non-issue.

As someone said below, metamagicked spells are full-round actions.

That’s actually a great idea. This would also automatically make metamagic combos impossible.

I still don't like scaling the range with level. What is the point of that, exactly?

I’m with you on that 100%. Range-by-level brings no added value to the gaming table.

I propose using three area sizes that are shape-independent: Small (10 ft.), Medium (20 ft.), and Large (50 ft.). Then you can just say "Burning Hands is a medium cone" and "Cone of Cold is a large cone" and everyone will know what you mean, without having to check whether "large" in the context of a cone was larger or smaller than "large" in the context of a line.

1. If it is per shape and not per spell, then everyone will soon catch up and you wouldn’t need to go back to the books.
2. What would you do with class features such as Eldritch Spear? Kill the class (or the invocation) just because things don’t fall into your predefined spaces.

the problem won't be solved just by changing the number of spells slightly; whether they have 3 1st level spells or 5 1st level spells, that still only means 3 or 5 rounds each day where they are allowed to act like a proper magic user. Mages need at-will combat abilities that are less powerful than spells, but which fulfill the fluff role of "I'm a mage and I do magic stuff."

Some sort of EB application would cover that one nicely.
That one covers arcane casters, but what about divine casters?

I completely agree that the game mechanics need to be fundamentally altered.

I strongly disagree.
At the fundamental mechanical level, 3.5e provides everything you’ll ever need in an RPG to run an adventure.
There’s no need to get rid of attack rolls, AC, damage, saves, skills, feats, skill-tricks, conditions and the like.
I’d much prefer to see changes within the known parameters rather than reinventing the wheel.

it's not the mere ability to fly (or, in general, buff) that is the problem - it's the duration. Duration is everything.

It’s also about how much action you have to put into flying.

I fully believe that a better system relying on power points could be constructed, and I would probably enjoy playing in such a system.

However, that is not my focus.

When you re-shift your focus, consider this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202011) option as a baseline.
If it’s too radical a change for you, consider a spell-point cost of 0/1/3/6/10/15/21/28/36/45 for SLs 0 – 9 respectively with about 200 – 250 spellpoints at level 20. This should be coupled with some sort of slow hourly spellpoints regain and you’ll have the same effect as my suggestion for NOVA blocking and longer than 15min workday.

Completely agree. Hence the (upcoming) hard nerfs to Sleep and Color Spray and the addition of Arcane Invocations.

If you plan on keeping T3 casters, consider the fact that this would be a devastating blow to the Beguiler at low levels.
That’s basically their entire 1st level offense repertoire (Whelm just ain't worth it).

Deepbluediver

2013-08-15, 09:56 AM

Automatic scaling should be applied only when the bonus or effect would otherwise become irrelevant with level. Damage should automatically scale; Solid Fog should not. If Tim wants to cast a spell better, he should use metamagic.
If it's going to be for something really game-changing, I don't think I'd have a problem with that, but what exactly is the issue with Solid Fog lasting 12 minutes instead of 7? (or any other similar spell). Honestly, it's probably not going to make the that much of a difference except in the hands of a really clever player, but I think it helps players feel like they are improving and growing more powerful. Also, for many cirumstances, it becomes easier to use even if that doesn't change it's balance much.

And there should be more metamagic effects to encourage this as a viable option. I also like the idea of letting metamagic be repeatedly multiple times, once Empower and Maximize have been nuked.
As I've mentioned, balancing meta-magic is a pain in the arse, mainly because of reducers. Now, I actually really like the fact that they exist, and some of the inventive combos that people come up with are quite amusing. But the way the rules work they are also completely unbalanced.

The problem is that you can't really determine how it SHOULD work until you know how magic works, and you need to fix magic while under the assumption that Meta-magic might be in use. It's an Escher's staircase of imbalance.

A good reason? No, not really. I prefer all casters to be spontaneous and full-round action metamagic, while sorcerers have a class feature to do it quickly. But I'm trying to keep my all-spontaneous bias out of this as much as possible.
....
I fully endorse forcing everyone to choose a Spells Known list. I hate prepared casting. But I'm trying to make a system compatible with prepared casting.
Personally, don't dislike prepared casting, and it's kind of necessary if you want any class to have the wizard-like potential to research additional spells. But I really dislike the amount of accounting necessary to make such a thing work.

I would support almost any sort of change that kept a difference between 2 types of casters, but made them less difficult to play (whether it's in the tracking of spells cast or the use of the meta-magic or whatever).

I like this in principle. Have to think about the exact mechanics for how to implement this, though. I probably wouldn't want any round/level spells except maybe the absolutely lowest level ones to permancy-able.
Yeah, you'd need a few blanket rules for some types of spells, and I'm sure there are weird combinations I haven't considered. Permanent Summoned Monster or Project Image, for example. To some degree, I'm willing to let players and GMs work this out for themselves with minimal guidance.

Also, high level spells with round/level durations would be sucking up those valuable higher level spell-slots. If anyone can suggest game-breaking combos; please let me know so I can get a headstart on figuring out ways to prevent them.

Limiting by creature type doesn't solve that problem at all, though; it just makes it useless most of the time and overpowered when you can use it. My change to Dominate is different. I'll explain it fully in Part II of the Spell Reformation, but basically, you have to concentrate on the subject for the first hour after dominating it in order to maintain your domination; otherwise, it acts confused. This means that, in combat, you can still take the subject mostly out of the fight - but it's not automatically under your control unless you give up your actions to make it your puppet.

Rather than doing it by single-creature type, I'd have groupings of similar types so it wasn't useless quite as often. Something like:
Humanoids, Monstrous Humanoids, Giants
Dragons, Magical Beasts
Elementals, Outsiders, Fey
Plants, Animals, Vermin
Constructs, Undead
Abberations, Oozes
The mechanics would be changed to (hopefully) be less overpowering. Dominate Whatever, for example, would likely be rounds/level or Concentration instead of days/level (seriously, who the feck thought that was balanced in ANY way?!?) and require constant checks or saves to maintain control and/or the use of actions to direct the creature.

I've actually been using dual damage types using the mechanics you describe for several things in my system, though I didn't fully apply it to spells. I definitely like it.
Well...good then. See, I'm never sure what people will like or hate when it comes to homebrewing.

Round/level has a wonky power curve, so let's make it less wonky!
I think it's only wonky when it transitions from lasting less than a single encounter to a full encounter/pre-fight-buff-plus-encounter. As I mentioned, I'd probably just not have any 1st and 2nd level spells with that duration.

Sure, you could rely on magic items, but I feel like that has weird effect on world continuity. Plus, if they have a wand of a 1st level spell, it seems like that would render their very small number of 1st level spells totally obsolete.
It depends on the spell, I guess; an evocation-based wand is really just the magical version of the crossbow. Ideally, they'd use their spell slots for things OTHER than what the wand did.

The difference is that the system you described is not interactive. Rolling vs. target defenses (or equivalently, having a DC that the target rolls against) is interactive, because it the chances of success can be highly variable depending on the nature of the target and the nature of the attack. Rolling Spellcraft to not have your spell fail is not interactive at all; it's just rolling vs. the universe.
Skills frequently roll vs. the universe, and I don't really have a problem with that; to me what you are rolling against doesn't change the nature of the roll.
A smart player would evaluate the situation round-by-round and determine what type of spell would be the most effective.

Ooh, I get a bolded name now. I feel important.
Dammit! :smallfurious:
I made the mistake of not being critical enough. Now he'll develop self-esteem and "opinions" and crap; gotta figure out some way to rebreak his spirit....

Seriously though, I usually just try to bold anyone's name in a reply, so they can easily notice if I'm talking about them. Afterall, if they don't see those cutting jibes, how will they appreciate my clever wit? :smalltongue:

Ok, double seriously this time. I'm trying to avoid anything that is even vaguely negative about anyone. They tend to come off as insulting rather than sarcastic or joking, and I don't need any more infraction-points.

Agreed. I prefer allowing lower-level spells to be useful and even effective in combat; I just want higher level spells to be slightly more useful. I want to smooth out the curve.
One thing I'm trying to decide how to deal with is dice-caps for damage spells. While I support the idea that Searing Ray dealing damage in d6's is MORE useful, a 20d4 Ray of Frost would still average out to 50 damage per shot.

Also, if I want to allow stuff like range and duration and area to improve uncapped with level, why make a whipping boy of out damage?

Any thoughts?

Huh? Making DC based on CL actually increases the DC of full-CL partial casters like the bard, and doesn't significantly affect the DC of quasi-casters like the paladin.
I really don't understand what you are saying here; can you try it another way?
To me, it seems like in order to keep partial casters actually able to use offensive spells, it seems like they would need to have similar DCs as full casters. The stat-ability part of the DC actually becomes less important (relatively speaking) as you level up.
Following that, if some one wants to build a gish or something similar (say by combining a Fighter and a Cleric to make a faux-pally, for whatever reason), they will also need the same DCs. In other words, they can't really lose levels based on CL instead of HD (or class-level).

Ew. That strikes me as the worst of both worlds; you get the complexity of scaling with level, but not the fluff benefits; Tim the archmage's spells are just as powerful as Bob the 19th level fighter who took a level in wizard that one time while he was drunk.
....
Why should your skill in magic scale with attributes that have nothing to do with your skill in magic? Why should taking ten barbarian levels make Timmy's spells more awesome?
For the same reason my Wizard levels make me better with weapons (attack rolls) and everything improves Saves: you get more powerful overall as you level up, but at a slower rate for things you don't specialize in.

Someone with 1 single level of caster would have fewer spells/day, a smaller selection, and less caster class-abilities, but things like range and duration would be the same, so they can still employ control spells or buffs or other utility functions as needed. Basically, I don't see any real problems with it (except, maybe, for fluff) and it makes it easier for people to build multiclass casters.

I support almost anything that lets players pick any random combination they want and have it be functional.

Vadskye

2013-08-15, 06:07 PM

Dear everyone: I am sorry for the delay! I wrote up a long reply to this many days ago - actually, just thirty minutes after Nonsi's reply - but it never escaped the text file I wrote it in. By the time I realized my mistake, it had been deleted - so here is my best approximation of what I originally wrote.

Also to everyone: Part II (Conditions) should be done within the next few days. I worry that using multiple separate threads is a little confusing, but I'm not sure what the easiest way is to post it so that everyone can see. If anyone has good ideas, I'm all ears. With that said, personal replies!
Lord Raziere:

haha, yes, yes does it ever. purchase a magical two-handed hammer in it and you can basically kill anything in one hit. and thats before we get to the actual magic, cause all the magic of the hammer does is allow you to wield such a big hammer, cause its ridiculously huge.

the biggest irony here however is that the rpg setting in question was specifically designed to get as far away from DnD-style fantasy as possible while still remaining high fantasy. the fact that they ended up having pretty much the same mechanical problems is freaking hilarious, at least to me.
Heh. I tend to think that the "rocket tag" problem originates from the designers prioritizing letting the characters do "cool" things over making a functional system. That would explain why it tends to crop up in so many different systems.
Tarkisflux:

I wouldn't call them useless, but certainly less useful. And I really don't see the problem with obsolescence. No one complains when a ToB character gets to retrain an old and (dare I say it...) obsolete maneuver with a shiny new one, so why is it a big deal if your magic eventually gets replaced with different stuff? You still have the same number of highest level nukes to fire off in a day as you did before after all, they're just different.
I wouldn't consider Tome of Battle to necessarily be an example of good design for many reasons. If it was core, I'd probably write up a very long list of reasons why I believe this to be the case! It uses forced obsolescence - but that doesn't mean that's a good decision.

And since all of the caster utility stuff is built on the spells per day paradigm, those spells need a place to be prepared. Making the situational utility effects compete with combat effects just pushes the combat effects to the top, and that no one seems to like that plan.
The ritual system should help with that.

And there's nothing about that setup that I don't like. I get shiny new stuff that is distinct and feels bigger and better than my old stuff, and I get extra slots to use for utility effects I'd like to have around. While web and black tentacles serve a lot of the same functional space, they feel different in power and effect and I don't mind dropping web for some 2nd level utility stuff when I've got it prepared. Making the differences between spell levels more strict by dropping CL scaling just makes that decision even easier and makes the spell differences potentially more exciting.
Gradually trading out combat effects for utility effects is a functional system, mostly. It unnecessarily restricts easy access to utility spells until higher levels, when those same slots are not needed for combat effects. But it's not an intuitive systems. I think that a combination of using rituals for many utility effects and using dramatically altered scaling yields a better system overall. For example, this means that a caster just hitting 10th level can choose a 5th level utility spell without being gimped in power relative to a caster who chose a combat spell. Forced obsolesence forces casters to continually choose new combat effects, and actually limits their ability to choose spells simply because they are interesting.[/quote]

But if you want to eliminate the spell replacement treadmill you should maybe go through and do it for all of the classes (later I mean, this is a large enough undertaking on its own). At that point you've replaced the replacement treadmill with the same game treadmill though, because nothing ever goes away or changes substantially. And while that's not a game I want to play, your preferences may vary.
I think it is possible to replace a treadmill without introducing a new treadmill in its stead. With that said, I agree that other classes need a different scaling as well - Rise has a lot of details on how I think that should work, but I think it would benefit from being explained the same way as the Spell Reformation.

Full progression spellcasters sort of do, and everyone pretty much hates them for it. :smallwink:
shakes fist at full casters

Joking aside, whether it's true in practice or not is beside the point. That's how it's supposed to be so you build your spells and class features to accommodate that. It's hard to do because the game wants to use linear scaling numbers to represent growth and it grows lots of things at once, but thems the breaks. Else you decide that you really don't like that sort of scaling at the high end and either cap the game at a lower level or adjust the CR math and all of the monsters and do a different scaling.
I think it is very difficult to argue that any class in the game actually doubles in power every two levels. Would you rather be two 9th level wizards or a single 11th level wizards? Which would you rather fight against? I think I would rather be the 9th level wizards, and I would rather fight the 11th level wizard - actions are way too important for a single spell level to ever make that much difference.

I think it is even harder to argue that they should scale that rapidly. That is such a massive leap in power! Better to have a smoother and gentler scaling. Besides, if you really wanted to make every class double in power every two levels, you'd have to basically rewrite the entire system from scratch. I think that shows that it is the CR system which is broken, not everything else. (Admittedly, I'm coming close to rewriting the entire system anyway...)
Eggynack:

Fair enough then. In that case, I suppose that it's necessary to see the remaining nerfs in order to judge fireball nerfs necessary or not. Still, the only reason a fireball nerf should exist at all is because the wizard has other spells. In other words, it doesn't matter that the wizard can cast fireball unless he can also cast fly.
I mostly agree. I suggest that we put fireball discussion on hold until I can finally finish writing my proposed changes to nondamaging combat spells - that provides a crucial baseline for judging fireball which is currently missing.
Dark.Revenant:

Just replying to point out that psionics can nova no better than vancian casting due to the manifester level = maximum power points spent on one power rule. A few specific feat combinations and exploits can be used to nova, but the player must deliberately go out of his way to make such a build, which a DM can just say "no" to. A wizard/sorcerer can do the same with his own exploits, and arguably do it better.
As Yitzi pointed out, a psion can spend his maximum power points every round. In other words, a psion can spend every single daily resource he has doing nothing but producing his highest power of effects. Vancian casters have nowhere near that potential; they are forced to spend their daily resouces producing effects with a variety of strengths. This means they "last longer", even when they try to expend all of their resources at once - resulting in a more sustainable and balanced interaction with classes that don't use daily resources. No one can nova as well as a power/spell point caster, even ignoring all of the "overchanneling" abilities.
Tuggy:

I'm not sure of this, though; Reflex half spells are so often avoided because of the (perceived) fairly high chance of the damage being lessened or negated by passing the save. Any given defense can, with modest (<10%) investment, usually be boosted to the point where maybe a third of attack attempts are missing/saved against.
Is a third really enough to be significant? I would say "heck no". Even if boosting a single defense was easy and resulted in a very significant chance to ignore attacks against that defense, the attacker always has the flexibility to choose which defense he targets. Offense is substantially better than defense.

Against the Balrog in Balin's Tomb, Gandalf used hold portal and something else (Power Word: Reinforce?) to delay the enemy long enough to make it to the hall.
You're right! I wonder whether that is where the idea for Hold Portal came from...

What? You mock my pain?!?

Nah, just kidding. It's mostly just disgust, honestly; one webcomic I mostly find amusing is 4e-based, and that was one of the things they presented quite casually in passing that I … did not think made sense. Not even as a homebrew mechanism with custom fluff.
Unfortunate. :smallfrown:

I think it was someone else's upthread.
Ah, okay.

I assume you're including size and dex modifiers in there somewhere?
Yes, most certainly! That chart was only listing "magical" modifiers. Size and Dex apply directly to AC as inherent bonuses.
Deepbluediver:

I'm on vacation for a couple of days, so while my "free-time" is much greater than normal, my "motivation" has shrunk significantly. :smallbiggrin:
(go swimming in the ocean or sit inside and type; hmm...that's a tough one)

If I don't post or for a couple of days, it's not because I've abandoned the conversation, but because I'm just otherwise occupied...
...wasting away in Margaritaville...
Haha. Jealous!
Relevant username?

I'm a little confused by the distinction between bonuses and modifiers. :smallconfused:
Wouldn't it be simpler to just have one classification with one completely encompassing rule?

The SRD describes AC bonuses as follows:

describe describe describe

Now I'm uncertain about what can stack under RAW, what can stack under your new system, and what SHOULD or SHOULDN'T stack in an ideal system.

If I said that "modifier" was just a synonym for "bonus", and bonuses of a like-type don't stack (except for Inherent) so for example your Circumstance + Competence + Enhancement + whatever is your "total bonus", are there any major problems gonna pop out of that?
It would be simpler to use one classification. However, the complexities of the AC system as written do not realistically permit that. Let me see if I can describe the differences between bonuses and modifiers more effectively. (And "modifier" is probably not the best name for what I am trying to describe.)

A bonus is the most basic way that a roll or numerical attribute can be modified. All bonuses have one of four types: inherent, competence, enhancement, and circumstance. You use these types to determine whether different bonuses stack. For example, a magic weapon provides an enhancement bonus to attack and damage.

A modifier is a sum of bonuses (and penalties). For example, your attack modifier is the number you actually add to the d20 roll when you attack.

This gets complicated when it comes to Armor Class, for the simple reason that Armor Class is inherently complicated: it requires a more nuanced approach to how things should stack than the simple bonus system provides. Therefore, Armor Class is treated as a sum of modifiers, rather than a simple sum of bonuses. Bonuses are tracked and stacked separately for each of the modifiers that contribute to armor class.

So why is this necessary? Because AC is complicated. Consider that you can have an enhancement bonus to natural armor or armor, with Barkskin/Amulet of Natural Armor and Shield of Faith/Ring of Protection. You can also have a competence bonus to armor or natural armor, as with the Heavy Armor Optimization feat from Races of Stone or the Improved Natural Armor feat from the Monster Manual. If you simply consider "natural armor" to be a bonus, or part of a bonus, you can't adequately represent this. It has to be an odd exception to the normal stacking rules. Moreover, you have to use the same weird exception whenever you have bonuses which apply to bonuses. Unless you want to rewrite Barkskin and all of the other abilities which apply bonuses to bonuses, you need a systematic way to represent this. That's what modifiers are for. They provide a consistent and coherent way to represent this complexity while staying very true to the original mechanics.

Would it be better to have a simpler AC system, such that you don't have to have a distinction between bonuses and modifiers? Probably. However, implementing that would require a huge change to the game as a whole, and I'm not ready to go there (with this fix, at least. Rise has some creative ideas on AC, but it still uses the bonus/modifier system). There's also probably a better name than "modifier" to represent the concept of "sum of bonuses". If you think of one, let me know! that would probably make it a little easier to understand.

(also, using a shield and getting behind a tree should absolutely stack.)

If it's going to be for something really game-changing, I don't think I'd have a problem with that, but what exactly is the issue with Solid Fog lasting 12 minutes instead of 7? (or any other similar spell). It's probably not going to make the that much of a difference except in the hands of a really clever player, but I think it helps players feel like they are improving and growing more powerful.
It's not going to break the game either way. In fact, my point is largely that the difference doesn't matter at all (except for round/level spells). But it adds an unnecessary level of complexity. I find it hard to imagine that a 12th level spellcaster doesn't feel more powerful than he did at 7th level just because his Solid Fog doesn't last longer (without Extend Spell).

As I've mentioned, balancing meta-magic is a pain in the arse, mainly because of reducers. Now, I actually really like the fact that they exist, and some of the inventive combos that people come up with are quite amusing. But the way the rules work they are also completely unbalanced.
Agreed. However, the problem here is the metamagic reducers, not the concept of metamagic. Metamagic is super cool.

The problem is that you can't really determine how it SHOULD work until you know how magic works, and you need to fix magic while under the assumption that Meta-magic might be in use. It's an Escher's staircase of imbalance.
I reject the second assumption. I just nuked the problematic metamagic effects (hi, Empower) until I came up with a better way to accomplish it. Which I did! Empower and Heighten got merged into one metamagic feat that works nicely.

Personally, don't dislike prepared casting, and it's kind of necessary if you want any class to have the wizard-like potential to research additional spells. But I really dislike the accounting necessary to make such a thing work..
I think there are alternate methods of accomplishing that goal - such as using a list of spells known and allowing a single spell to be changed each day, or using the ritual system, and so on. Or you could just implement the thematic concept of "preparing" in a way that doesn't actually involving changing spells each day (Rise has some class features on that theme).

I would support almost any sort of change that kept a difference between 2 types of casters, but made them less difficult to play (whether it's in the tracking of spell or the use of the meta-magic or whatever).
Something something Rise something something :smalltongue:

Yeah, you'd need a few blanket rules for some types of spells, and I'm sure there are weird combinations I haven't considered. Permanent Summoned Monster or Project Image, for example. To some degree, I'm willing to let players and GMs work this out for themselves with minimal guidance.
Also, high level spells with round/level durations would be sucking up those valuable higher level spell-slots. If anyone can suggest game-breaking combos; please let me know so I can get a headstart on figuring out ways to prevent them.
Well, I think that the specific numbers from the chart you gave are wayy too low. Compare that to Extend, and it's crazy. I think that more reasonable numbers are found from my Persist feat as proposed in the other thread.

Rather than doing it by single-creature type, I'd have groupings of similar types so it wasn't useless quite as often. Something like:
Humanoids, Monstrous Humanoids, Giants
Dragons, Magical Beasts
Elementals, Outsiders, Fey
Plants, Animals, Vermin
Constructs, Undead
Abberations, Oozes
The mechanics would be changed to (hopefully) be less overpowering. Dominate Whatever, for example, would likely be rounds/level or Concentration instead of days/level (seriously, who the feck thought that was balanced in ANY way?!?) and require constant checks or saves to maintain control and/or the use of actions to direct the creature.
If you're already nerfing Dominate Person (which is good), does it still need the complexity of creature type limitations?

Well...good then. See, I'm never sure what people will like or hate when it comes to homebrewing.
I know what you mean...

I think it's only wonky when it transitions from lasting less than a single encounter to a full encounter/pre-fight-buff-plus-encounter. As I mentioned, I'd probably just not have any 1st and 2nd level spells with that duration.
If you don't actually allow any significant scaling - that is, if every round/level spell lasts for exactly one encounter, what's the point of making it scale? What's the point of tracking the complexity of having widely varying spell durations?

It depends on the spell, I guess; an evocation-based wand is really just the magical version of the crossbow. Ideally, they'd use their spell slots for things OTHER than what the wand did.
Right, but how fun is it when 90% of your character's usefulness comes from a stick they somehow picked up or otherwise acquired before the game started?

Skills frequently roll vs. the universe, and I don't really have a problem with that; to me what you are rolling against doesn't change the nature of the roll.
A smart player would evaluate the situation round-by-round and determine what type of spell would be the most effective.
Skills don't have uses/day that expire when you fail the roll, and they aren't critical to combat. They are also not the fundamental/only class feature granted to the class. And there are many more ways to affect one's ability with a skill than to affect one's caster level.

Dammit! :smallfurious:
I made the mistake of not being critical enough. Now he'll develop self-esteem and "opinions" and crap; gotta figure out some way to rebreak his spirit....
Seriously, though I usually just try to bold anyone's name in a reply, so they can easily see if I'm talking about them.
:smalltongue:
Haha. Well, I like it.

One thing I'm trying to decide how to deal with is dice-caps for damage spells. While I support the idea that Searing Ray dealing damage in d6's is MORE useful, a 20d4 Ray of Frost would still average out to 50 damage per shot.

Also, if I want to allow stuff like range and duration and area to improve uncapped with level, why make a whipping boy of out damage?

Any thoughts?
Heavens yes. I spent many hours running spreadsheets to calculate spell damage such that it would deal an amount of damage I was comfortable with relative to noncaster damage while still getting rid of arbitrary and unintuitive caster level caps on damage - and also synchronizing with the change to make spell DC based on caster levle. I'll save the full explanation for spell damage mechanics until Part III, because it's difficult to look at without the context of the nondamage nerfs in Part II, the changes to Empower, and so on. (But, of course, it's in the most recent version of Rise. I just don't want you to reject it before I have the chance to explain it!)

I really don't understand what you are saying here; can you try it another way?
To me, it seems like in order to keep partial casters actually able to use offensive spells, it seems like they would need to have similar DCs as full casters. The stat-ability part of the DC actually becomes less important (relatively speaking) as you level up.
Following that, if some one wants to build a gish or something similar (say by combining a Fighter and a Cleric to make a faux-pally, for whatever reason), they will also need the same DCs. In other words, they can't really lose levels based on CL instead of HD (or class-level).
A 12th level bard casting a 4th level spell (his maximum) in the original system has a DC of 14 + Cha mod. The same bard casting the same spell in the new system has a DC of 16 + Cha mod. Partial casters have a higher DC in this system.

Characters that multiclass between caster and noncaster levels are a different issue; their problems are not solely with respect to DC, but with regards to the entire way spells are gained.

For the same reason my Wizard levels make me better with weapons (attack rolls) and everything improves Saves: you get more powerful overall as you level up, but at a slower rate for things you don't specialize in.

Someone with 1 single level of caster would have fewer spells/day, a smaller selection, and less caster class-abilities, but things like range and duration would be the same, so they can still employ control spells or buffs or other utility functions as needed. Basically, I don't see any real problems with it (except, maybe, for fluff) and it makes it easier for people to build multiclass casters.

I support almost anything that lets players pick any random combination they want and have it be functional.
Here is my idea on that:
Characters with magical ability gain a special benefit when multiclassing. For every two levels that a character has in nonmagical classes, the character increases his caster level, spells per day and spell known as if he had gained a level in one of his magical classes. If the character has multiple magical classes, he chooses a single class to receive this benefit each time it is gained. However, the character can only count a number of levels in nonmagical classes equal to the number of levels he has in his chosen magical class for the purpose of this benefit.

For example, Gish, a 2nd level fighter / 4th level wizard, would have the caster level, spells per day, and spells known of a level 5 wizard. If he gained two more fighter levels, he would be the equivalent of a level 6 wizard. Gaining two additional fighter levels, making him a 6th level fighter / 4th level wizard, would not increase his caster level, spells per day, or spells known.
This encourages a 50/50 split between caster and noncaster, which is the most intuitive approach. I don't think it is remotely fair for a fighter 19 to gain a ton of wizard casting by taking 1 wizard level, so it is limited by the levels in the casting class.

Nothing about this requires that spells increase in range or duration with caster level.
Nonsi:

Hey Vadskye.
first of all, I want to congratulate you on taking on this endeavor.
For a long time now countless insights regarding spells run around all over the homebrew forums and you seem to have summed them up better than ever before.
Thank you kindly.

I especially like the effort of keeping low level spells viable at higher level, though this is a real tough one.
But very possible!

You definitely seem to be progressing in the right direction, but there are several issues I wish to address – not just about spells and magic, but also about what’s to come later on.
Yay, feedback!

IIRC, Ziegander had suggested using the average of multiple physical ability scores to determine HP, but I also remember you not wanting to touch the ability distribution, so I’m not sure how you’d wanna tackle this one.
You might decide to make Con grant initial HP boost and not being included in the level progression.
This will work, but make things not uniform with everything else in the game.
I think low-level HP should be higher, so I don't mind the idea of an initial HP boost - but I don't like the idea that it is totally irrelevant with level. That makes it important and low-level games and mostly pointless at high-level games. I think 4e had the most elegant approach to Con I've seen, where it helps you keep going throughout the day without substantially increasing your survivability in any given fight, but I don't want to just throw healing surges into 3.5. This is a problem that I've pondered for a while without great success. At some point, if I haven't burned out, I'll consider doing a new Theses thread for noncaster combat things, and address this issue more thoroughly there.

Noncasters can be T3 out of the box.
It’s not easy, but it is doable:
- Warrior (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14982442)
- Rogue (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14897341)
- Monk (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14444342)
You're quite right; a theoretical infinite attack/damage fighter would be T3. Actually, given his ability to reshape his environment, he might be T2...

Damage spells don’t put spellcasters at T1 (or even T2).
The spells that push spellcasters above T3 are the ones that change the environment, the ones that change the battlefield and the ones that manipulate allies and opponents
Agreed; raw damage is purely a T3 and below consideration. However, that doesn't mean it's actually balanced, as the above fighter shows.

Same issue if spells can solve everything.
Knock, for instance, shouldn’t work as it does. It should be much more “stupid”. It should be noisy and leave noticeable evidence. If you wish to elegantly handle a locked door/window/chest – that’s where Disable Device comes.
Rope Trick is another example. It’s a 2nd level spell that can be manipulated to completely shift the balance of power between those that have it and those that don’t.
Agreed, mostly. I don't actually have an issue with the idea of using a spell to open a lock subtly; I don't like that it can open a lock unconditionally. Both of those spells have been changed; Knock now requires a check (and rewards you for having Disable Device), and Rope Trick is now a 5th level ritual (plus other changes).

Until you adopt my approach to noncasters (at least in principle), you’ll never address the issue that a single spell can completely reposition a spellcaster in the role s/he takes in an adventuring party.
How would you describe your approach to noncasters? My approach to noncasters can be seen in Rise, if you're interested in seeing how I approach that. I remember taking some inspiration from the Codex Gigas, though I can't remember what.

Try ½ force ½ sonic and negative respectively.
I don't like the idea of throwing "force" around randomly. It has specific fluff and mechanical implications that don't belong in a spell like Chaos Hammer, I think. Same thing with negative; channeling negative energy is firmly a Necromancy effect, not a Evocation effect. Also, that would mean that Unholy Blight would heal undead - except if they are evil, in which case it has no effect on them. Which is bizarre. I think just calling it "divine" damage would solve the problem of giving it a type best.

Actually, the greater problem is the ability to apply multiple summons/animate simultaneously.
Kill that one and summon spells automatically become a non-issue.
Agreed. Though I don't think I'll address summons directly until Part V (utility/miscellaneous spells), the basic idea is that they require a swift action each round to command.

That’s actually a great idea. This would also automatically make metamagic combos impossible.
I was actually just intending to restate the core rules when I said that. :smalltongue:

1. If it is per shape and not per spell, then everyone will soon catch up and you wouldn’t need to go back to the books.
This is true. I think that a "small/medium large" or simply "small/large" division that's unique to each shape could work, and if I had found many situations where a spell really just didn't fit the existing templates, I would use a different system. However, from what I have seen, about 95% of all area spells fit comfortably into the 10/20/50 divide, so it wasn't an issue.

2. What would you do with class features such as Eldritch Spear? Kill the class (or the invocation) just because things don’t fall into your predefined spaces.
If I felt like the exact number "250 ft." was important, I'd keep it as written. For example, Lightning Bolt is a 100 ft. line in my system; it's okay to have one-off effects be unique. It's only a problem if there are a lot of different effects with the same characteristics that the system doesn't take into consideration. However, the 250 ft. number seems pretty arbitrary to me. What I'd probably do is make the 1st level essence be "Medium (100 ft.) range" and then add a new invocation at 2nd level that would extend it to "Long (500 ft.) range". With that said, I haven't focused on the Warlock, so I reserve the right to change my opinion later. :smalltongue:

Some sort of EB application would cover that one nicely.
That one covers arcane casters, but what about divine casters?
That's the idea, yes. One of the options is essentially a refluffed Eldritch Blast, though I use a different scaling progression. Divine casters have less need to get at-will abilities; they can wear armor, fight halfway decently, and get more class features that aren't just spells. In Rise, clerics get at-will "divine invocations", but they get them at 3rd instead of 1st, and druids don't get an equivalent ability at all.

I strongly disagree.
At the fundamental mechanical level, 3.5e provides everything you’ll ever need in an RPG to run an adventure.
There’s no need to get rid of attack rolls, AC, damage, saves, skills, feats, skill-tricks, conditions and the like.
I’d much prefer to see changes within the known parameters rather than reinventing the wheel.
We actually completely agree here; I was simply vague in my statement. I have no intention of getting rid of anything you just listed. The whole point of the Spell Reformation - and Rise - is that 3.5 is a great base for building a good system. It would be more accurate to say that I want to change everything except the core mechanics of the game. I rewrote every single spell - but they are still fundamentally one-shot magical effects ranging from 0th to 9th level (though I want to nuke 0th level spells), acquired by spellcasters on a daily basis using a virtually identical system. I'm not sure how exactly to describe that, but I feel like we agree on the core value of 3.5's system.

It’s also about how much action you have to put into flying.
Definitely. I'm fine with flying for longer periods of time if you have to concentrate to do it.

When you re-shift your focus, consider this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202011) option as a baseline.
If it’s too radical a change for you, consider a spell-point cost of 0/1/3/6/10/15/21/28/36/45 for SLs 0 – 9 respectively with about 200 – 250 spellpoints at level 20. This should be coupled with some sort of slow hourly spellpoints regain and you’ll have the same effect as my suggestion for NOVA blocking and longer than 15min workday.
I'll take a look. However, I'd note that the spell point cost is not the problem. It doesn't matter how expensive it is to use highest-level effects; it will still be possible for casters to use all (or almost all) of their daily resources to produce those effects. That's the problem.

If you plan on keeping T3 casters, consider the fact that this would be a devastating blow to the Beguiler at low levels.
That’s basically their entire 1st level offense repertoire (Whelm just ain't worth it).
While I haven't explicitly designed the system for noncore classes, I don't think beguiler would suffer unduly. A beguiler should get access to Enchantment and Illusion-based arcane invocations (there are two invocations per school). When combined with the revised school definitions, a beguiler should be fairly happy after the Spell Reformation.

tarkisflux

2013-08-16, 02:39 PM

I wouldn't consider Tome of Battle to necessarily be an example of good design for many reasons. If it was core, I'd probably write up a very long list of reasons why I believe this to be the case! It uses forced obsolescence - but that doesn't mean that's a good decision.

Fair enough, it was only pulled as an example that lots of other players seem pretty happy with. For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of the forgetting that is associated with the ToB obsolescence (among other things), since it implies that you can't do the older things that you used to be able to do and there's no benefit to the character or the player in that case. I'd much rather just give them new maneuvers and let them keep their old ones, even if they had no reason to ever use them again (much like I'm suggesting for spells). Narrative consistency should not be sacrificed to obsolescence IMO.

I think I'm done harping on the point though. It's a design difference of opinion and your later comments suggest that it's not even an important one because of other priorities that you seem to have.

The ritual system should help with that.

I may have missed where you discussed this in more detail, and I'm sorry if I did. While it's true that giving spellcasters a secondary system in which to do their utility stuff reduces the demand for their remaining slots, it also gives them a lot more slots to do functional combat/buff things with. Are you really suggesting that keeping spells relevant over all levels with no substantial reduction in available slots while also reducing the demand for other effects to share the slots is going to result in a lower balance full caster? That seems extremely unlikely without vastly reducing the baseline effectiveness of spells... which you may want to do anyway given your stance on nukes I guess. I have to admit to being extremely skeptical of its viability, but I guess we'll see when example spells come out (or when I get around to reading that other thread you have).

And I really hope you're opening up the ritual system to the non-casters as well. A second system for utility / big magic effects that only have the classes get to play with seems like a waste of a new generalized subsystem.

Gradually trading out combat effects for utility effects is a functional system, mostly. It unnecessarily restricts easy access to utility spells until higher levels, when those same slots are not needed for combat effects. But it's not an intuitive systems. I think that a combination of using rituals for many utility effects and using dramatically altered scaling yields a better system overall. For example, this means that a caster just hitting 10th level can choose a 5th level utility spell without being gimped in power relative to a caster who chose a combat spell. Forced obsolesence forces casters to continually choose new combat effects, and actually limits their ability to choose spells simply because they are interesting.

I think gimped is putting it wrongly, or at least overly broad. They'd be gimped in combat probably, but potentially awesome outside of it because they'd have a pretty substantial utility effect sitting in their pocket. So they prepare combat spells when they're going to war and utility spells when they're at home for some rest, and have to make a tactical decision about the spell slot resource on days when they're not sure. I'm all for allowing people to make a decision that doesn't work out with a resource mechanic, but it sounds like you'd prefer to insulate players a bit from those sorts of choices.

I'm also not sure what functional effect you think spell level should even have in such a setup. If I can prepare a level 1 combat spell and not feel bad about using my level 5 for a non-combat effect, what's the point of spell levels in the first place? Why not just scale all of the magic effects, and put minimum caster levels on anything that you don't want to show up early (like death spells)? Then you can prepare whatever you want and not feel gimped by your decision.

I think it is very difficult to argue that any class in the game actually doubles in power every two levels. Would you rather be two 9th level wizards or a single 11th level wizards? Which would you rather fight against? I think I would rather be the 9th level wizards, and I would rather fight the 11th level wizard - actions are way too important for a single spell level to ever make that much difference.

I think it is even harder to argue that they should scale that rapidly. That is such a massive leap in power! Better to have a smoother and gentler scaling. Besides, if you really wanted to make every class double in power every two levels, you'd have to basically rewrite the entire system from scratch. I think that shows that it is the CR system which is broken, not everything else. (Admittedly, I'm coming close to rewriting the entire system anyway...)[/spoiler]

I have the opposite preference, I'd rather play the 11th level wizard and fight the two 9th level ones. The two of them will have lower DCs but can double up on effects if necessary, so the odds of at least one of the effects happening are pretty good. They're not great at splitting their fire except against a large opposed force though. And while there are times when I might (ignoring non-core) want two walls of stone instead of a wall of iron, two dominates instead of a mass suggestion, two permanent images instead of a programmed one, or two hold monsters instead of flesh to stone/disintegrate, I don't think they're as common as you are suggesting. The higher level effects are substantially stronger or don't have lower level counters, and these things matter in the games that I've played.

I happen to like that sort of scaling and don't consider it particularly rapid, though I often pair it with slow or non-existent level progression and other sorts of progress rewards because it can certainly overwhelm a table. It means that the game is different at level 12 vs. level 6 instead of just being bigger enemies and more dice, but it's not everyone's cup of tea. Since you don't seem to like it, you probably should sit down and rewrite the CR system. It's not that it's broken, it's that it doesn't output numbers that are relevant for your design goals and should be replaced with something that does.

nonsi

2013-08-17, 07:58 AM

Forced obsolesence forces casters to continually choose new combat effects, and actually limits their ability to choose spells simply because they are interesting.

Prepared spellcasting basically does the same, because a prepared caster chooses his spells according to frequency of need – and when a slightly different need arises, you don’t have the right tools for the job.

Characters with magical ability gain a special benefit when multiclassing. For every two levels that a character has in nonmagical classes, the character increases his caster level, spells per day and spell known as if he had gained a level in one of his magical classes. If the character has multiple magical classes, he chooses a single class to receive this benefit each time it is gained. However, the character can only count a number of levels in nonmagical classes equal to the number of levels he has in his chosen magical class for the purpose of this benefit.

BRILLIANT!!!
Wiz 6 / Fighter 4 / ==> Wiz 8.
Fighter 12 / Wiz 2 ==> Wiz 3.
One’s overall experience does have an added value, but you’re not gonna suddenly gain 6 Wiz levels just by taking the 1st level.

I think low-level HP should be higher, so I don't mind the idea of an initial HP boost - but I don't like the idea that it is totally irrelevant with level. That makes it important and low-level games and mostly pointless at high-level games. I think 4e had the most elegant approach to Con I've seen, where it helps you keep going throughout the day without substantially increasing your survivability in any given fight, but I don't want to just throw healing surges into 3.5. This is a problem that I've pondered for a while without great success. At some point, if I haven't burned out, I'll consider doing a new Theses thread for noncaster combat things, and address this issue more thoroughly there.

With this approach (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249887) I tried to take the best from all worlds:
1. Longer lasting at low levels.
2. Dropping unconscious without dying.
3. "Healing surges" that make sense.
4. A clearer distinction between lethal and nonlethal damage.

If you feel like this will result in too many HP, try to couple it with the following values:
All creatures gain max HP for their racial HD (yes – this means that each race also comes with HD spec).
HD gained from level progression are averaged, with fractions rounded up (e.g. 6 HP for d10).

See if you can make any use of it (at least for inspiration.)

How would you describe your approach to noncasters? My approach to noncasters can be seen in Rise, if you're interested in seeing how I approach that. I remember taking some inspiration from the Codex Gigas, though I can't remember what.

My approach: Not having spellpower, noncasters need to be inherently as versatile and self sufficient as humanly possible.
I particularly don’t like the fact that noncasters need magical buffs. They should be designed to more than decently manage themselves without buffs.
If you'd ask me, spell-derived buffs shouldn't exist at all (other than circumstance-associated) and debuffs should be all about conditions & circumstances.
If buffs didn't exist (or played a far less significant role), them people could stop spending the majority of their time CharOp-ing and focus their attention to game strategy.

In any case, I consider the three classes I linked to in my previous post a vast improvement to the ones given in the codex.

It doesn't matter how expensive it is to use highest-level effects; it will still be possible for casters to use all (or almost all) of their daily resources to produce those effects. That's the problem.

I’m not sure what “problem” you’re putting your finger on here.
If producing the highest effects comes with a massive resource drain, then one wouldn’t squander them.

No one can nova as well as a power/spell point caster, even ignoring all of the "overchanneling" abilities.

Unless you adopt my proposed strain & tolerance, or the proposed 0/1/3...45 (200-250 at 20th) alternative.
You can still NOVE, but not as much as vancian casters and doing so leaves you “dead in the water”.
The players have the choice and it's up to them to make the most of it.

Vadskye

2013-08-22, 01:17 PM

Tarkisflux:
The obsolesence discussion has moved to the other thread, but there are a few good points that deserve a response here. (If you think I didn't address something that I should have, let me know. These are good points, but I feel like we were misunderstanding each other, as you noticed.)

And I really hope you're opening up the ritual system to the non-casters as well. A second system for utility / big magic effects that only have the classes get to play with seems like a waste of a new generalized subsystem.
I agree that this is a good area for development. However, the default would be that only the casters would have access to it. Even if it would be balanced, it stretches my credulity to imagine a typical fighter performing complex arcane rituals, even if he is trained in Knowledge (arcana). However, I could definitely imagine allowing a feat or other option that would allow a noncaster to perform rituals. They would probably gain ritual access more slowly than casters; a 10th level cleric or wizard can perform a 5th level ritual, but perhaps a 10th level fighter or rogue with the hypothetical Ritual Caster feat can only perform a 2nd (maybe 3rd) level ritual. This is more speculative than the rest of the Spell Reformation, but I actually really like the options that opens up, though I am still undecided on the flavor. Something about that still feels... off.

I'm all for allowing people to make a decision that doesn't work out with a resource mechanic, but it sounds like you'd prefer to insulate players a bit from those sorts of choices.
I am actively trying to make player skill less of a requirement. My general philosophy towards RPGs is that we enjoy them in part because the characters can do things that we ourselves couldn't do. Player skill should be rewarded in subtle ways, but never necessary. Someone playing a fighter doesn't need to know how to fight. Having a firm grasp of battlefield tactics is helpful, but the character's abilities are not totally dependent on the player. A player playing a prepared caster, however, must have a very firm grasp of the principles and limitations of magic to be able to do anything useful at all. It is perfectly reasonable for skilled players to be "better" or more effective in combat than new players. However, there should not be a massive divide; that poses too high of a barrier to entry for new players to enjoy the game. Right now, casters are immensely dependent on player skill. You shouldn't have to have the Intelligence of a wizard to play a wizard, and sometimes it feels like you do. (I can remember making painfully complex spreadsheets to track all of my options and spell effects the last time I played a high-level prepared caster.) Yes, I want to insulate players a bit more from choices like this. Being a caster will always be more complex than being a noncaster, and I'm not actually changing that, no matter how many simplifications and insulations I introduce. But I think it is better for the game to limit that complexity.

I have the opposite preference, I'd rather play the 11th level wizard and fight the two 9th level ones. The two of them will have lower DCs but can double up on effects if necessary, so the odds of at least one of the effects happening are pretty good. They're not great at splitting their fire except against a large opposed force though. And while there are times when I might (ignoring non-core) want two walls of stone instead of a wall of iron, two dominates instead of a mass suggestion, two permanent images instead of a programmed one, or two hold monsters instead of flesh to stone/disintegrate, I don't think they're as common as you are suggesting. The higher level effects are substantially stronger or don't have lower level counters, and these things matter in the games that I've played.
Interesting. I believe that you have had that experience, but I do not think it is the norm. If you have the time, try running a sample encounter to test that. I would bet you five internet points that the two 9th level casters would win. One complicating factor is that this difference is slightly level-dependent. Two 18th level casters would trivially obliterate a 20th level caster, and I'd argue that the same is true with 16th vs 18th too - after about 12th level, save or die effects are commonplace, so it's just a question of who can get the party to fail more saves.

I happen to like that sort of scaling and don't consider it particularly rapid, though I often pair it with slow or non-existent level progression and other sorts of progress rewards because it can certainly overwhelm a table. It means that the game is different at level 12 vs. level 6 instead of just being bigger enemies and more dice, but it's not everyone's cup of tea. Since you don't seem to like it, you probably should sit down and rewrite the CR system. It's not that it's broken, it's that it doesn't output numbers that are relevant for your design goals and should be replaced with something that does.
The CR system - and actually, the Monster Manual as a whole - are definitely on my "target list" of things to fix. Unlike spells, I don't have any good solutions yet. In fact, I'm not even sure where to start. What defines a good CR? I'm not sure that I buy the "20% of resources" assumption, given how many classes don't really use resources. I'd rather measure it in terms of "chance that a PC will go down", or perhaps "chance that the PCs will lose or have to run". But I don't know how to measure those things either. It's a complicated business.
Nonsi:

Prepared spellcasting basically does the same, because a prepared caster chooses his spells according to frequency of need – and when a slightly different need arises, you don’t have the right tools for the job.
Agreed. I don't like prepared casting, but I'm trying to make the Spell Reformation as universal as possible. Removing prepared casting requires a fairly significant rewrite of the classes, which I'm trying to avoid (for now).

BRILLIANT!!!
Wiz 6 / Fighter 4 / ==> Wiz 8.
Fighter 12 / Wiz 2 ==> Wiz 3.
One’s overall experience does have an added value, but you’re not gonna suddenly gain 6 Wiz levels just by taking the 1st level.
:smallsmile: Exactly!

With this approach (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249887) I tried to take the best from all worlds:
1. Longer lasting at low levels.
2. Dropping unconscious without dying.
3. "Healing surges" that make sense.
4. A clearer distinction between lethal and nonlethal damage.

If you feel like this will result in too many HP, try to couple it with the following values:
All creatures gain max HP for their racial HD (yes – this means that each race also comes with HD spec).
HD gained from level progression are averaged, with fractions rounded up (e.g. 6 HP for d10).

See if you can make any use of it (at least for inspiration.)
Interesting. I see two key functional differences. First, it is much harder to die without a coup de grace; instead, people tend to just go unconscious. Second, there are mid-day rests, though they are oddly limited in number. The first isn't a particular design goal for me; I think that going unsonscious mean you are very close to death, both from a realism perspective (though realism is far from the most important priority) and from a mechanical perspective, since it is so easy to die by coup de grace - having a large HP buffer between unconscious and dead feels strange when it can be ignored so easily. The concept of a mid-day rest is useful, but I don't see a need to assign a fairly arbitrary number of "rests per day". As long as we're on this topic, I'll summarize what Rise uses. I might write this up more formally once the Spell Reformation is done and I move on to other areas, like combat.

Resting for 8 hours heals a character by their bloodied value (half HP). A DC 15 Heal check halves this time. For every 5 by which this DC is exceeded, this time is halved again; thus, a DC 25 Heal check means that the party can all heal their bloodied value after a 1 hour rest. This maintains realism (hit points don't magically come back) but means that hit points stop being a significant hindrance for many parties at higher levels. (This works best with Rise's friendlier approach to cross-class skills.) A party with time to rest can fully heal multiple times each day.

There is no such thing as "negative HP". If you take damage that would reduce your HP below 0, your HP becomes 0, and you are staggered. Any additional damage from that specific attack is ignored (there should be an exception for exceptionally damaging attacks, but I haven't figured out a good rule for that yet). If you take any damage while you are staggered in this way, that damage is "critical damage", and you go unconscious. If your critical damage exceeds your Con score + level, you die. Critical damage is more difficult to heal; it takes 24 hours of rest to recover a single point of critical damage, though a Heal check can reduce the time required as normal, and some spells (Cure Moderate and above) have a limited ability to heal critical damage. It is possible to recover regular HP without recovering critical damage, so characters with injuries can continue to act in the party. However, as long as a character has any critical damage, he is staggered, even if he has hit points remaining. If a character with critical damage goes to 0 HP, he immediately goes unconscious. This makes gameplay more dynamic and makes injuries matter more, rather than simply forcing parties to camp out for a week to wait for their injured companion to heal. Adventuring with critical damage is dangerous, since it means you are that much closer to death! Generic enemies don't typically use the critical damage threshold rules, but bosses and significant opponents should.

Instead of Hit Dice, classes and creatures have Hit Values. The Hit Values are equal to the average on the original die, rounded up, with d6s as d8s and d4s as d6s (as Pathfinder). Thus, class HV ranges from 4 for a wizard to 7 for a barbarian. 1st level HP equals class HV plus Con score, and Con otherwise works as normal. Both of those last two rules are things I am actively interested in improving; there is likely a better way, and I worry that this makes low-level HP too high.

The total effect of these changes is as follows:

There is a "buffer zone" between a perfectly healthy character is perfectly healthy and an unconscious character.
Injuries matter in a way that doesn't take players and characters out of the game while recovering.
It is difficult to "accidentally" kill a player, but easy to make them feel as if they are in danger.
Healbots are useful, but unnecessary. HP is often not a primary limiting factor on adventuring. (Particularly with the significantly improved scaling on healing spells which I will discuss later.)
Low-level HP is higher. (Maybe too high.)

My approach: Not having spellpower, noncasters need to be inherently as versatile and self sufficient as humanly possible.
I particularly don’t like the fact that noncasters need magical buffs. They should be designed to more than decently manage themselves without buffs.
If you'd ask me, spell-derived buffs shouldn't exist at all (other than circumstance-associated) and debuffs should be all about conditions & circumstances.
If buffs didn't exist (or played a far less significant role), them people could stop spending the majority of their time CharOp-ing and focus their attention to game strategy.

In any case, I consider the three classes I linked to in my previous post a vast improvement to the ones given in the codex.
We mostly agree on the problems with buffs, though my approach is more to limit the versatility/necessity/complexity of buffs than to give noncasters quasi-buff effects and remove the whole concept of spell buffs from the game. Also, I tend to reduce the overall versatility and complexity of casters rather than trying to make noncasters equally complex. Effects like the Warrior's Combat Adaptation are something I specifically want to avoid, since it requires the warrior to be aware of every single combat feat in the game at all times.

I’m not sure what “problem” you’re putting your finger on here.
If producing the highest effects comes with a massive resource drain, then one wouldn’t squander them.

Unless you adopt my proposed strain & tolerance, or the proposed 0/1/3...45 (200-250 at 20th) alternative.
You can still NOVE, but not as much as vancian casters and doing so leaves you “dead in the water”.
The players have the choice and it's up to them to make the most of it.
It has to do with my long explanation to Tarkisflux above. Basically, I don't think that making something a "bad idea" is a good solution to a problem, for the same reasons that I don't like including "must-take" feats or options. Whenever players are given the option to make stupid decisions that will cripple their characters, they can and do. I don't think there should be stupid decisions like that; if there is a choice, it should be a real choice, not a fake choice that has only one "right" answer. That's why I don't think assigning exorbitantly high point costs to high level spells/powers is a good solution; it just introduces a fake option.
Also, just so everyone knows, Parts I and II of the Spell Reformation are up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=296817)!

Deepbluediver

2013-08-22, 01:43 PM

Relevant username?
Yes! I won't lie, I love the ocean.
[french accent]but ze sea, she iz a crue-ell mistress.[/french accent] *smokes cigarette*

Let me see if I can describe the differences between bonuses and modifiers more effectively.

A bonus is the most basic way that a roll or numerical attribute can be modified.

A modifier is a sum of bonuses (and penalties). For example, your attack modifier is the number you actually add to the d20 roll when you attack.
Ah, ok. I understand now, thank you.

Armor Class is treated as a sum of modifiers, rather than a simple sum of bonuses.
Why is this necessary? Because AC is complicated.
Sounds like we need to simplify AC then. After dealing with Magic, can it really be that much worse?
Personally, I don't really like magic items that do (what I consider) to be boring things, like passive bonuses to AC, and I'm not sure why Natural Armor CAN'T just be another AC bonus. If we need to scrap or alter certain spells and magic items....weren't we already doing that?
Just have Barkskin grant an Inherent Bonus, and Mage Armor grant an Enhancement-type. Bam, stacking issue resolved. :smallwink:

also, using a shield and getting behind a tree should absolutely stack
Eh, I'm on the fence here, probably open to either argument. Like I said, I could make Gear bonuses stack as well, or just have shields improve cover by one step or something.

It's not going to break the game either way. In fact, my point is largely that the difference doesn't matter at all (except for round/level spells). But it adds an unnecessary level of complexity.
Yes, you are correct in that. However, I was hoping that by making everything based off of HD instead of caster-level, then the increase in complexity would be almost negligible.

I think there are alternate methods of accomplishing that goal - such as using a list of spells known and allowing a single spell to be changed each day, or using the ritual system, and so on. Or you could just implement the thematic concept of "preparing" in a way that doesn't actually involving changing spells each day (Rise has some class features on that theme).
In another thread where I talked about standardizing casting (I think I linked it already, somewhere) I basically made prepared casting like the Spirit-Shaman, in that you have to prepare a certain number of spells each day, then you can use those spells at will. It still needs tweaking, I think; I'm trying to find an appropriate level of trade-off between a prepared caster's flexibility and a spontaneous caster's greater uses per day.

Any suggestions on that count (from anyone, of any sort from data-analysis to anecdotes) would be appreciated.

Well, I think that the specific numbers from the chart you gave are way too low. Compare that to Extend, and it's crazy. I think that more reasonable numbers are found from my Persist feat as proposed in the other thread.
Is Permanency one of the rituals in your system? It seems like the kind of thing that should be.

Anywho, there would probably be other costs to casting Permanency (just not XP), plus it's supposed to cost you a spell slot. So for example, casting Light on a Pebble and dropping it into the ocean is a 0th level slot you're not likely to get back. But overall, you're probably right.
I toss a lot of things out there just to see what sort of reaction it gets. A proposal that generates nothing but frothing rage in all who read it probably needs revision, no matter how much I like it.

If you're already nerfing Dominate Person (which is good), does it still need the complexity of creature type limitations?
That part came out of a long debate over whether or not certain creatures types (mainly undead) should have a racial immunity to mind-affecting spells.
I thought they shouldn't, pretty much everyone else seemed to think they should, but lets not rehash THAT here...
One point that kept coming up was that they didn't have a mind that functioned in the same way as a human(oid)'s, to which my reply was that neither did elementals, and probably not outsiders, fey, magical beasts, etc. Dividing the spell by creature type seemed to be a compromise.

I could understand that from a Humanoid's perspective, dominating another humanoid is probably easier than dominating a dragon or an aberration or something else very dissimilar just because it's more different (my grammar sucks here, bare with it please) but that's really hard to represent in a game in which players fairly regularly like playing weird characters.

Ultimately, to answer you're question...I'm not certain. If I am successful in creating a system that has a decent ingrained failure chance for casting, then combined with the other nerfs, possibly not. Rather than being game-ending spells that gain you mind-slaves equipped to take on the entire party, they just buy you a few more minutes to figure out how to kill it, or at least talk your way out of the situation.

If you don't actually allow any significant scaling - that is, if every round/level spell lasts for exactly one encounter, what's the point of making it scale? What's the point of tracking the complexity of having widely varying spell durations?
Easier to use, makes players feel stronger, & leaves open the options for someone to come up with a clever use I haven't thought of.
Also, I'd like Metamagic to be able to work on something like categories or steps of improvement, so that rather than saying a spell's duration is "doubled", I could say it's improve by one tier, for example from 1 round/level to one minute, etc.

And again, if I base it off something simple like HD then the calculations aren't hard, and tracking a 7 minute spell and a 15 minute spell isn't significantly harder than tracking two 10 minute spells, especially since it's rare they would be cast at precisely the same time.

Right, but how fun is it when 90% of your character's usefulness comes from a stick they somehow picked up or otherwise acquired before the game started?
Most characters are less functional without their gear; in fact casters are already less gear dependent than just about anyone else. The point is not to have the wand overwhelm the caster, but to provide a backup when necessary (we are talking about level 0 spells here). The Ray of Frost Wand is only going to be used AFTER I've blown throw my entire assortment of Magic Missiles, much like the Fighter doesn't reach for his dagger until after the rust monster eats his Greatsword.

Skills don't have uses/day that expire when you fail the roll...
No, they don't, but I would also make any loss of spells slots on a failed roll a very small percentage. As an example, in my initial magic writeup, Arcane casters would only "fumble" a spell on a roll of 1, and would then roll a d10. They only lost the spell slot on a critical fumble of (I think) 1 or 2 on the d10. That's a 20% chance of a 5% chance, or 1% overall.

...and they aren't critical to combat.
Bluff, Escape Artist, Ride, and Tumble (and probably a few more) all say "Hi".

They are also not the fundamental/only class feature granted to the class.
I agree that spells should not be the only thing that casters get in the way of class features. I'm just not sure giving them unlimited or at-will SLAs or something is the answer either.

A 12th level bard casting a 4th level spell (his maximum) in the original system has a DC of 14 + Cha mod. The same bard casting the same spell in the new system has a DC of 16 + Cha mod. Partial casters have a higher DC in this system.
Ok, that's good, but do partial casters still have a lower DC than full-casters? That was more the issue that I thought was a problem.

If we want low-level spells to be useful at higher levels, than replacing the spell level from the DC calculation seems like a good idea.

Here is my idea on that:
We think alike in many ways; I had considered something much the same, at least for casters of like-types (for example, letting your paladin levels improve your cleric casting, etc). Ultimately though, I decided it was too complicated, and raised some difficult questions, like why my fighter levels give me more spells but why my wizard levels don't give me more fighter bonus feats.

I do want to make it easier for people to make gishes and multi-class mixes, which I why I aimed to alter things like range, duration, damage, and DCs. I think something like that is pushing them a step too far, though. At least, that's my initial take on it; I've been known to change my mind from time to time. :smallsmile:

Edit: We go days without posting, and then I end up writing my reply as you are posting yours. What a coinkydink.

Vadskye

2013-08-22, 03:17 PM

Yes! I won't lie, I love the ocean.
[french accent]but ze sea, she iz a crue-ell mistress.[/french accent] *smokes cigarette*
I just noticed that your avatar is a turtle!

Sounds like we need to simplify AC then, which after dealing with Magic, seems practically like child's play by comparison.
Personally, I don't really like magic items that do (what I consider) to be boring things, like passive bonuses to AC, and I'm not sure why Natural Armor CAN'T just be another AC bonus. If we need to scrap or alter certain spells and magic items....weren't we already doing that?
Just have Barkskin grant an Inherent Bonus, and Mage Armor grant an Enhancement-type. Bam, stacking issue resolved. :smallwink:
Does Barkskin stack with a creature's existing natural armor? Does it stack with a different spell that also enhances natural armor (Spiderskin, from Spell Compendium)? Does it stack with an Amulet of Natural Armor? Does Mage Armor stack with Shield of Faith? I don't see that simpler approach actually solving the stacking. The only way to simplify AC dramatically that I see is to cut out vast swaths of flavor space in a generally confusing fashion.

Eh, I'm on the fence here, probably open to either argument. Like I said, I could make Gear bonuses stack as well, or just have shields improve cover by one step or something.
Which is harder to hit: A guy with a shield, or a guy with a shield behind a big tree? If the answer isn't "the second guy, by a reasonable margin", the system is unintuitive. Also, it punches the fun of taking cover in the face. ("I could take cover... but there's no point, since I've got this shield.") That also makes shields (even more) inferior to the other combat styles.

Yes, you are correct in that. However, I was hoping that by making everything based off of HD instead of caster-level, then the increase in complexity would be almost negligible.
The increase in complexity doesn't come from when or how the duration/range/etc. increases. It's that it increases at all. When there is no consistency between levels in the effects and ranges of spells it is harder to cast and use spells. This is particularly bad with durations. As a DM, I hate tracking multiple overlapping durations with widely varying lengths.

In another thread where I talked about standardizing casting (I think I linked it already, somewhere) I basically made prepared casting like the Spirit-Shaman, in that you have to prepare a certain number of spells each day, then you can use those spells at will. It still needs tweaking, I think; I'm trying to find an appropriate level of trade-off between a prepared caster's flexibility and a spontaneous caster's greater uses per day.

Any suggestions on that count (from anyone, of any sort from data-analysis to anecdotes) would be appreciated.
I actually used this exact system in a year-long campaign that I ran two years ago. (I've been working on this for a long, long time...) I think the system itself worked fairly well, though it had some problems. I can give you a more detailed breakdown if you are actually looking at making that a core part of your rules. My short takeaway is that it's better than prepared casting and less problematic than blindly making everyone fully spontaneous, but inferior to a fully spontaneous system that includes more nuanced fixes (primarily the ritual system) to deal with problematic spells and concepts.

Is Permanency one of the rituals in your system? It seems like the kind of thing that should be.

Anywho, there would probably be other costs to casting Permanency (just not XP), plus it's supposed to cost you a spell slot. So for example, casting Light on a Pebble and dropping it into the ocean is a 0th level slot you're not likely to get back. But overall, you're probably right.
I toss a lot of things out there just to see what sort of reaction it gets. A proposal that generates nothing but frothing rage in all who read it probably needs revision, no matter how much I like it.
Yes, Permanency is a ritual. The XP cost is replaced with expensive material components. I will probably make further changes as I go - forcing the loss of a spell slot to make a spell permanent in addition to the material component cost would solve a lot of problems, and I like that idea.

That part came out of a long debate over whether or not certain creatures types (mainly undead) should have a racial immunity to mind-affecting spells.
I thought they shouldn't, pretty much everyone else seemed to think they should, but lets not rehash THAT here...
One point that kept coming up was that they didn't have a mind that functioned in the same way as a human(oid)'s, to which my reply was that neither did elementals, and probably not outsiders, fey, magical beasts, etc. Dividing the spell by creature type seemed to be a compromise.

I could understand that from a Humanoid's perspective, dominating another humanoid is probably easier than dominating a dragon or an aberration or something else very dissimilar just because it's more different (my grammar sucks here, bare with it please) but that's really hard to represent in a game in which players fairly regularly like playing weird characters.

Ultimately, to answer you're question...I'm not certain. If I am successful in creating a system that has a decent ingrained failure chance for casting, then combined with the other nerfs, possibly not. Rather than being game-ending spells that gain you mind-slaves equipped to take on the entire party, they just buy you a few more minutes to figure out how to kill it, or at least talk your way out of the situation.
I definitely buy that argument from a flavor perspective. I could imagine letting someone research a "Dominate X Creature Type" spell, particularly if they were of that creature type, or giving some NPCs a spell to that effect. But I don't want it to be the default, for the mechanical reasons I said before.

Easier to use, makes players feel stronger, & leaves open the options for someone to come up with a clever use I haven't thought of.
Also, I'd like Metamagic to be able to work on something like categories or steps of improvement, so that rather than saying a spell's duration is "doubled", I could say it's improve by one tier, for example from 1 round/level to one minute, etc.
How is it "easier to use"? Have you seen my durations in the Spell Reformation thread? Super easy (and tiered)! I actually decided not to make metamatic follow the tiers, because of... math and stuff. I like the way spell levels work out better if +1 level is just a doubling of the range instead of a full tier increase.

And again, if I base it off something simple like HD then the calculations aren't hard, and tracking a 7 minute spell and a 15 minute spell isn't significantly harder than tracking two 10 minute spells, especially since it's rare they would be cast at precisely the same time.
Minute/level spells aren't problematic; the scaling on them ever really comes up from what I've seen. It's the round/level spells that give me headaches.

Most characters are less functional without their gear; in fact casters are already less gear dependent than just about anyone else. The point is not to have the wand overwhelm the caster, but to provide a backup when necessary (we are talking about level 0 spells here). The Ray of Frost Wand is only going to be used AFTER I've blown throw my entire assortment of Magic Missiles, much like the Fighter doesn't reach for his dagger until after the rust monster eats his Greatsword.
If that's a core part of caster aptitude at low levels, can you UMD into it too? Why do casters get these specific and powerful magic items? Fighters are dependent on their weapons, yes, but any village blacksmith can make a weapon. And a longsword isn't that much better than a big stick. Wands are a whole different beast.

No, they don't, but I would also make any loss of spells slots on a failed roll a very small percentage. As an example, in my initial magic writeup, Arcane casters would only "fumble" a spell on a roll of 1, and would then roll a d10. They only lost the spell slot on a critical fumble of (I think) 1 or 2 on the d10. That's a 20% chance of a 5% chance, or 1% overall.
Got it. That's not as much of an issue then; it's just the actions in combat.

Bluff, Escape Artist, Ride, and Tumble (and probably a few more) all say "Hi".
None of those are anywhere near as fundamental as spells and swords. They are situational alternatives to the normal way of fighting, not a means of fighting in themselves. Also, Bluff should never have been used for feinting in combat. Hsssk.

I agree that spells should not be the only thing that casters get in the way of class features. I'm just not sure giving them unlimited or at-will SLAs or something is the answer either.
It took some getting used to. But my testing so far hasn't seen it causing problems. The weirest thing thing that has happened is that spellcasters tended to use their SLAs to break down obstacles. But when you consider that a greatsword works about as well, it actually isn't that bad, I think.

Ok, that's good, but do partial casters still have a lower DC than full-casters? That was more the issue that I thought was a problem.
Paladins and rangers do. Bards have equivalent DC. That's inherent in the "10 + 1/2 caster level + ability modifier" calculation. Depends on the bard's Charisma, of course; many bards ware not as charismatic as a sorcerer.

If we want low-level spells to be useful at higher levels, than replacing the spell level from the DC calculation seems like a good idea.
Yup. Did that.

We think alike in many ways; I had considered something much the same, at least for casters of like-types (for example, letting your paladin levels improve your cleric casting, etc). Ultimately though, I decided it was too complicated, and raised some difficult questions, like why my fighter levels give me more spells but why my wizard levels don't give me more fighter bonus feats.
Your wizard levels give you BAB, saves, and HP. The stumbling block is transitioning from seeing spellcasting as a class feature, like a fighter's bonus feats, and more as a fundamental aspect of the character, like BAB, saves, and HP. The trick is that it's a fundamental aspect that only some classes grant - but many classes grant it in many different ways. It's still something that can improve with overall experience.

I do want to make it easier for people to make gishes and multi-class mixes. I think something like that is pushing them a step too far, though. At least, that's my initial take on it; I've been known to change my mind from time to time. :smallsmile:
In my experience, this is exactly the kind of complexity which doesn't cause problems. First, it's totally behind the scenes; it doesn't in any way add complexity to gameplay. Second, it only comes into play with characters that are already complex. That sounds like it's bad, because you're stacking complexity on top of complexity, but it actually works out well because it's behind the scenes. Basically, there are two main kinds of people who will use this rule. New players won't understand it fully - but they already didn't understand how spellcasters worked, because casters are bloody complex. They want to play a halfcaster because that fits their image of their character, and more power to them. That means they're already used to letting their character details (spells per day, spells known, etc.) be determined by just doing whatever the DM says is right, so it doesn't make their life appreciably more complex. The second kind of player is the powergamer/rules enthusiast/etc. This slightly increases complexity, but not substantially more than the existing system, which is still much simpler than spellcasting used to be. And this is exactly the kind of player best equipped to deal with the added rules baggage.

Bottom line is that I've been using it for a while, and it hasn't caused complexity issues.

Edit: We go days without posting, the both decide to log in and write replies within an hour of each other? WTF is this?
Haha. Must be something about Thursdays, I guess.

tarkisflux

2013-08-23, 01:51 AM

I agree that this is a good area for development. However, the default would be that only the casters would have access to it. Even if it would be balanced, it stretches my credulity to imagine a typical fighter performing complex arcane rituals, even if he is trained in Knowledge (arcana). However, I could definitely imagine allowing a feat or other option that would allow a noncaster to perform rituals. They would probably gain ritual access more slowly than casters; a 10th level cleric or wizard can perform a 5th level ritual, but perhaps a 10th level fighter or rogue with the hypothetical Ritual Caster feat can only perform a 2nd (maybe 3rd) level ritual. This is more speculative than the rest of the Spell Reformation, but I actually really like the options that opens up, though I am still undecided on the flavor. Something about that still feels... off.

And this is why fighters can't have nice things.

I thought about coloring that up in sarasm, but it's not actually a joke. Non-casters don't get to learn rituals in a world with magic built into its physics because people don't want them to do magic things. Despite living in a magic world, where it is potentially common and reasonably well understood and repeatable. But if it's just a fluff issue, then here's a potential solution. Rituals do not require a spark of magic (like spellcasting does) so much as they require strict adherence to a procedure. Control weather, for example, might require a very specific style of dance, like a rain dance to bring the rains. And once you know how to perform such a ritual, ranks in perform or the ability to dance for a lone time would seem more relevant than ranks in know(nature). Mind blank or bull's strength might require the preparation of a number of healing herbs to induce the state. And so on.

While some rituals may be inappropriate for non-casters (which could be controlled through skill access really), keeping or delaying acquisition to the majority of them seems a failure of creativity and a tacit acceptance of the "magic can do anything because it's magic and the mundanes don't get to play" status quo.

I am actively trying to make player skill less of a requirement. My general philosophy towards RPGs is that we enjoy them in part because the characters can do things that we ourselves couldn't do. Player skill should be rewarded in subtle ways, but never necessary. Someone playing a fighter doesn't need to know how to fight. Having a firm grasp of battlefield tactics is helpful, but the character's abilities are not totally dependent on the player. A player playing a prepared caster, however, must have a very firm grasp of the principles and limitations of magic to be able to do anything useful at all. It is perfectly reasonable for skilled players to be "better" or more effective in combat than new players. However, there should not be a massive divide; that poses too high of a barrier to entry for new players to enjoy the game. Right now, casters are immensely dependent on player skill. You shouldn't have to have the Intelligence of a wizard to play a wizard, and sometimes it feels like you do. (I can remember making painfully complex spreadsheets to track all of my options and spell effects the last time I played a high-level prepared caster.) Yes, I want to insulate players a bit more from choices like this. Being a caster will always be more complex than being a noncaster, and I'm not actually changing that, no matter how many simplifications and insulations I introduce. But I think it is better for the game to limit that complexity.

I think you're overstating things a bit. Casters are immensely dependent on player foresight and prep, and can be totally awesome or totally sucky if they guessed the right spells to prep in the morning. And spells known casters have it even worse, because they have to guess right at level up and can't fix a mistake on the following day. And while I wholeheartedly agree with insulating the spont caster from that crap, doing so for the prep caster seems unnecessary to me. Though what with your goal of moving utility effects into rituals, I'm not sure what they'll even have left to prep besides generically useful combat spells, and should come out insulated from making a poor tactical decision for the day anyway.

Interesting. I believe that you have had that experience, but I do not think it is the norm. If you have the time, try running a sample encounter to test that. I would bet you five internet points that the two 9th level casters would win. One complicating factor is that this difference is slightly level-dependent. Two 18th level casters would trivially obliterate a 20th level caster, and I'd argue that the same is true with 16th vs 18th too - after about 12th level, save or die effects are commonplace, so it's just a question of who can get the party to fail more saves.

The 18 and 20 level issue is granted, but that seems an artifact of the lack of spell level 10. The rest I'll dispute strongly, and suggest that it's more likely a toss up in each case. Contingency is a thing after all (and contingent magic circle shuts down most of a spell school), as is silent dimension door, mindblank, and many other effects that a higher level caster can better afford to pull out of their hat in order to counter something thrown at them by a lower level caster (plus any item that grants death ward). This gets back to the part where people stop trying to fill their lower level slots with lower level combat effects and grab utility or buff effects now that the opportunity cost is lower. I don't like blanket immunity in some of these cases, but it's a very functional thing and often discounted even though it's using a much lower level spell slot or lasting more than a day (contingency).

You want to solve some of the duration issues, which I basically agree with, but that doesn't stop them from using lower level slots in defensive ways instead of offensive ones to block or mitigate the attacks of lower level attackers. And there's enough of those that a properly prepped caster (either through preparation or retraining of known) has even odds against any double team of their CR-2 IMO.

The CR system - and actually, the Monster Manual as a whole - are definitely on my "target list" of things to fix. Unlike spells, I don't have any good solutions yet. In fact, I'm not even sure where to start. What defines a good CR? I'm not sure that I buy the "20% of resources" assumption, given how many classes don't really use resources. I'd rather measure it in terms of "chance that a PC will go down", or perhaps "chance that the PCs will lose or have to run". But I don't know how to measure those things either. It's a complicated business.

The resource thing is predicated on the 4 encounter per day model. It's basically a statement that you can fight 1/(resource expenditure percentage) battles per day before you start really feeling the pinch and start sucking because you're spent. In days when you can afford to use more than that percentage in an encounter you're awesome, and in days when you have to use less you're going to be less awesome. It needs to be around so long as you have non-at-will characters in the game. But that's not what you base CR on, that's what you base spell slot progression on.

For CR you make the following assumptions:

Some characters may be better in some situations (not early and late situations, vs. enemy or challenge situations), so long as they are worse in others and are 'adequate' on average across all possible game types.
When a character is in a situation in which they are adequate (which they should be on average), they have a 50/50 shot against a single creature of equal level/CR/whatever. Define or ballpark similar odds for vs. +/-1 CR, +/-2 CR, and so on.
Use odds to generate a power growth function. Adjust odds slightly to match smoother power growth function, because it will be used to generate xp and smooth numbers are nicer.

If your odds gain is small enough and is smaller for the same relative difference at higher level than lower level, a linear curve might fit better. If your odds are the same for each relative difference despite level, an curve like the current CR (with different doubling points) will probably fit better.

Bezzerker

2013-08-23, 12:47 PM

One thought for CR is to make it so that a fight with a CR 1 monster is a 50/50 chance for victory for a single level 1 PC, and scale from there.

This should (I think) make it easy to come up with a good combat for the party, as you would use a number of CR 1 monsters equal to the size of the party to make that combat 50/50, with less being easier and more being harder.

Then, depending on the scaling used for the PCs, higher CR monsters can be substituted in; for example a single CR 4 monster being a 50/50 fight for a party of four lvl 1 PCs.

The issues would be how to create single monsters that are challenging at the highest PC level (which could be solved by making the CR cap higher than the PC level cap), and how to adequately plan for variable party sizes (which might not actually be an issue except for exceptionally large parties).

That's my 2 cents, though. What do y'all think, could this work?

TuggyNE

2013-08-24, 04:31 AM

That's my 2 cents, though. What do y'all think, could this work?

That is actually almost exactly how the current CR system is intended to work, with the sole note that a 50% win/loss rate is highly undesirable, so the majority of combats are with a single CR=level monster, or the equivalent, in order to ensure that the PCs will most likely win, but not without some cost. The problem is chiefly that determining the actual average difficulty for a representative PC of a given level is non-trivial, and the approximation algorithms used (HD/x, elite ability array, class levels, etc etc etc) are quite imprecise in many ways.

Bezzerker

2013-08-24, 02:33 PM

That is actually almost exactly how the current CR system is intended to work, with the sole note that a 50% win/loss rate is highly undesirable, so the majority of combats are with a single CR=level monster, or the equivalent, in order to ensure that the PCs will most likely win, but not without some cost.

Huh, I've been learned.

My intent was basically as you mentioned for the win/loss rate, in a 1-on-1 scenario there's a 50/50 split, with an imbalance shifting the odds in favor of the greater number. How would the math work for different numbers of equal leveled PCs vs Monsters?

It does kinda suck how hard it is to approximate what a PC of a given level could do.

tarkisflux

2013-08-24, 05:14 PM

Huh, I've been learned.

My intent was basically as you mentioned for the win/loss rate, in a 1-on-1 scenario there's a 50/50 split, with an imbalance shifting the odds in favor of the greater number. How would the math work for different numbers of equal leveled PCs vs Monsters?

It does kinda suck how hard it is to approximate what a PC of a given level could do.

Well, the current CR system assumes a power doubling every 2 levels, so 4 PCs of level X are about a 50/50 match for a CR X+4 creature and shouldn't have too much of a problem with a single CR X creature. And that math is pretty easy to write up, but it's hard to actually get classes that grow like that (as much because it clashes with what people expect as anything else).

And it's only hard to approximate what a PC of a given level can do because they don't all grow at the same rate. While the differences between a fighter, monk, rogue, and wizard aren't too bad at level 5, they're each playing a completely different game by level 10 or 12 and don't compare well with each other outside of extensive optimization (and sometimes not even then). You can get a good guess of what closely scaling classes are capable of at various levels though, which is helpful if you're willing to cut the other options from the game or replace them with options that scale more like what you want.

Deepbluediver

2013-08-24, 10:26 PM

I just noticed that your avatar is a turtle!
Well, we can't all be dragons, but I think that if you know where to look, you'll find that turtles have a long (http://hiroze.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/picture5.png) and proud (http://reviewsjpegs6.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/Moving_Island.jpg) history (http://cdn.wallwuzz.com/uploads/turtle-carrying-the-world-wallpaper-wallwuzz-hd-wallpaper-12987.jpg) of awesomeness (http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/7/74209/3014649-cast-of-teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles-5.jpg). :smallbiggrin:

Does Barkskin stack with a creature's existing natural armor? Does it stack with a different spell that also enhances natural armor (Spiderskin, from Spell Compendium)? Does it stack with an Amulet of Natural Armor? Does Mage Armor stack with Shield of Faith? I don't see that simpler approach actually solving the stacking. The only way to simplify AC dramatically that I see is to cut out vast swaths of flavor space in a generally confusing fashion.
To paraphrase something I know we've discussed before, how many ways does one system need to magically increase your AC?
You where the one who said you wanted to have less of a difference between buffed and unbuffed characters (which I agree is a worthwhile goal); a big part of that would seem to be having fewer stacking temporary buffs. If you want to keep them all around for flavor, or to give them different scaling and/or secondary benefits, then fine, but I don't really see a problem with making them all give an Enhancement bonus (non-stacking) to AC and be done with it.

Which is harder to hit: A guy with a shield, or a guy with a shield behind a big tree? If the answer isn't "the second guy, by a reasonable margin", the system is unintuitive. Also, it punches the fun of taking cover in the face. ("I could take cover... but there's no point, since I've got this shield.")
Eh, any system will have its little quirks, I think, and if you are already receiving heavy cover from a tree or other object, then it's harder to see incoming attacks and move to avoid them, so it's non UN-intuitive to me that additional shielding wouldn't improve your defenses further, beyond a certain point.

Alternatively, it would be easy enough to write some simple rules for how shields interact with cover (use the larger of two AC bonuses, light shield increases miss chance by 10%, heavy shield 15%, tower shield 25%, etc).

That also makes shields (even more) inferior to the other combat styles.
I'm working on improving the Sword 'n Board combat from two directions, atm: Gear (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=290667) and Feats (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14527298&postcount=2). I'll keep the cover-issue in mind, but also in the consideration is that not everyone can or will carry a shield, not everyone can take cover and remain effective, and cover isn't always available for every battle. I'm not gonna tear apart the entire system just because one little thing doesn't seem to work quite right; in this case I'd settle for 90% perfection.

The increase in complexity doesn't come from when or how the duration/range/etc. increases. It's that it increases at all. When there is no consistency between levels in the effects and ranges of spells it is harder to cast and use spells. This is particularly bad with durations. As a DM, I hate tracking multiple overlapping durations with widely varying lengths.
If you reduce the types of bonuses that can stack, particularly magic, you'll have a lot fewer effects to track, I think. In my experience, I've only ever played in a single game where, because of a combination of player-builds, houserules, and some homebrewed enemies, tracking actually reached the level of everyone-with-different-buffs/debuffs counted by rounds. What we ended up doing was taking a page from Magic: the Gathering's handbook and instituting a kind of "upkeep phase" at the top of the initiative order. We tracked different things with spare dice, and you'd turn down each one at the appropriate time (d8s where the Wizard's buffs, d10s where the faceless horror's insanity creep, red d6s where one thing and blue d6s another, etc). It was a little cumbersome to use all the time, but it worked, and as I said, it doesn't seem likely to reach that level very often.

If you don't want to track everything yourself, and are worried that your players won't be careful (or honest) enough to keep their own status in mind, then just use a similar dice trick. That way everyone can see the duration that's left at a glance, and no one needs to bother memorizing it.

I actually used this exact system in a year-long campaign that I ran two years ago. (I've been working on this for a long, long time...) I think the system itself worked fairly well, though it had some problems. I can give you a more detailed breakdown if you are actually looking at making that a core part of your rules. My short takeaway is that it's better than prepared casting and less problematic than blindly making everyone fully spontaneous, but inferior to a fully spontaneous system that includes more nuanced fixes (primarily the ritual system) to deal with problematic spells and concepts.
Now I'm actually debating the merits of making spontaneous and prepared casters have same spells/day so I only have one "primary caster" chart to worry about. Prepared casters could prepare fewer spells than spontaneous casters would know (probably in the 66-75% range) but as always they would be able to swap spells from day to day. Which I think is still a pretty hefty benefit, just more situational.

Yes, Permanency is a ritual. The XP cost is replaced with expensive material components. I will probably make further changes as I go - forcing the loss of a spell slot to make a spell permanent in addition to the material component cost would solve a lot of problems, and I like that idea.
In my original proposal, you could get the spell slot back (after resting for 8 hours) if you ended the permanent spell, which could really only be achieved 3 ways: destroying the object or creature (killing and cutting/ripping/smashing into pieces), reverse-casting (essentially recast) Permanency, or Disjunction. Combined with the high cost of material components for the spell in the first place, none of which seemed like terribly viable options just for replacing the Extend Metamagic.

How is it "easier to use"?
Easier for the player-characters.
When a spell lasts 5 rounds, it can last for an entire encounter, although just barely. If it lasts 10 rounds you've got more margin for error, pre-buffing, or something unexpected to happen. That's all I meant.

I actually decided not to make metamagic follow the tiers, because of... math and stuff. I like the way spell levels work out better if +1 level is just a doubling of the range instead of a full tier increase.
With my alterations to range, doubling or going up one tier would be the same anyway. For me, thinking rounds/level --to--> minutes/level is an easier transition than "rounds/level x2", but maybe that's just a quirk of how my brain works. For the rest though, I do like your idea of being able to add multiple copies of some metamagics; definitely gonna need to play around with that some more.

If that's a core part of caster aptitude at low levels, can you UMD into it too? Why do casters get these specific and powerful magic items? And a longsword isn't that much better than a big stick. Wands are a whole different beast.
I hadn't decided, precisely. I might make it so that there is some kind of "magic device" proficiency that casters get in place or the normal weapon-proficiencies, that makes it easier for them to use wands and staves, while at the same time leaving it possible for other classes to activate them in a pinch.
Also, wands are a "different beast" because MAGIC is so unbalanced; if we addressed the problematic spells it probably wouldn't be such a game-breaker.

Slightly off-topic, I'd light to rework precisely how wands and staves function. They'd keep the charges, but have fewer and instead recover them slowly on their own (probably 1/hour). I want them to be more like something significant, and not just "50 potions on a stick". They would also provide a boost to Spellcraft checks, which would be assumed in the calculations for DC, so that any Wizard running into battle without his wand or staff would be like a Fighter without his sword.

Even MORE off topic, I've never liked the magic-mart style of item-acquisition, particularly for magic items. In any game where I had any influence at all, you could attempt to buy a wand of Grease, a wand of Web, and a wand of Shapechange, but you're not likely to get all three, any maybe none of them, even in major metropolitan areas. By the same token, rather than regularly finding slavering monsters carrying around huge amounts of currency for no apparent reason, the PC's are more likely to just stumble across a cache of assorted gear occasionally (possibly in the form of a pile of dead corpses from the LAST party to pass this way :smallwink:).
It wouldn't be impossible to get something specific, but it would usually be much more involved, and consume many more resources (time, energy, effort, etc).

Fighters are dependent on their weapons, yes, but any village blacksmith can make a weapon.
That's only because of D&D's mantra: no nice things for melee. So magic-item crafting is reliant on knowing magic. Under a different system you might find yourself saying "any hedge-mage can imbue a wand, but it takes a real Master-craftsmen to make weapons of true power".
Also, I'm not an expert on blacksmithing, but from what little I've heard it seems like quite a leap from crafting a sharpened metal bar to forging decent weapons.

I'd like to take the "know spell X" out of the requirement for making magic items, and revamp both mundane equipment and the process for creating it, to level out the playing field somewhat.

It took some getting used to. But my testing so far hasn't seen it causing problems. The weirdest thing thing that has happened is that spellcasters tended to use their SLAs to break down obstacles. But when you consider that a greatsword works about as well, it actually isn't that bad, I think.
Honestly, I don't really see how this is different than giving them a wand, except for it being an inherent part of the character.

Ideally, I'd have a system in which nearly all classes wanted some level of gear to function, and would get fairly even boosts from having similar levels of gear. Trying to separate classes from gear entirely has just as much potential go to FUBAR. If you have a character who is totally non-dependent on gear, but still benefits from it, they are likely to more OP. If you have some one who neither requires, nor benefits from gear (a difficult design challenge, probably), that does wonky things to the power curve, meta-game flavor, and loot-division.

Paladins and rangers do. Bards have equivalent DC. That's inherent in the "10 + 1/2 caster level + ability modifier" calculation. Depends on the bard's Charisma, of course; many bards ware not as charismatic as a sorcerer.
By how much do they (Rangers, Pallys, etc) fall behind at the upper end? If it's anything more than 5, I think that's getting back into the territory where it's hard for them to use spells offensively. It would be even worse for multiclass half-casters/non-casters.

What's the problem (or what don't you like) about making all casters have effectively full-caster level?

Your wizard levels give you BAB, saves, and HP. The stumbling block is transitioning from seeing spellcasting as a class feature, like a fighter's bonus feats, and more as a fundamental aspect of the character, like BAB, saves, and HP. The trick is that it's a fundamental aspect that only some classes grant - but many classes grant it in many different ways. It's still something that can improve with overall experience.
I can alter the way I think about something easily enough, it's the fact that some classes don't have a spell list at all that bugs me. I'd argue that Fighter Bonus Feats are also a fundamental aspect of the character, how come your wizard levels don't improve them (or any other class-feature)?

If there was a list of "Fighter Spells" and your wizard level improved that, then I wouldn't mind, but it doesn't work that way. Your Wizard levels grant you benefits to your fighter's BAB, saves, regular feats, etc, while your Fighter levels grant you benefits to your wizard's BAB, saves, regular feats, AND spells/day. Something of a disconnect, IMO.

We both agree that non-casting class levels should improve caster abilities, we're just coming at it from two different angles. For me it's range, duration, and spell-effectiveness, for you it's spells/day (and spells known).

In my experience, this is exactly the kind of complexity which doesn't cause problems.

straightforward and well-presented, but totally irrelevant, explanation
It wasn't the complexity, its that I harbor concerns that these characters will be TO good. Unless you make serious changes to spells per-day/known and other caster-class features, these gishes will be only a half-step behind full Gestalt characters.

Something like a Wizard 10/Fighter 10 would have better casting than anyone except a pure full-caster, plus a healthy helping of class features from two classes. And that's before you start getting more complex; the reason dips for melee builds are so popular is because many classes front-load abilities, and now all of them also benefit magic. There's very little I can't see being improved with a dash of caster (and yes, I recognize the limit; my statement stands).

And that's just on the melee side. What happens when you start mixing multiple casting classes? I'm having dread-visions of Wizard 10/Sorcerer 10, or my personal favorite for "most broken-est combo", Wizard+Druid (I know most people would vote wizard/cleric, but AFAIK, Natural spell doesn't specify DRUID spells, negating that whole pesky spell-failure-chance in armor issue.

Also, maybe it's not going to come up in your system, but I'm kind of curious if this will interact similarly with Psionics and Incarnum (or any other alternate-magic system).

Edit:

Well, the current CR system assumes a power doubling every 2 levels

Quick question: tier 3 is usually considered the "best", or at least what is most popular and/or the sweet-spot for balance, particularly for homebrew. Do the Tier 3 classes, generally speaking, actually achieve an improvement rate of "doubling in power every 2 levels"?
If not, what is the tier-3 power curve like?
What tier (if any) actually does hit this intended curve?

unbeliever536

2013-09-01, 07:51 PM

Bonus Types and Stacking Rules

I wasn't planning on getting into this until I discussed buffs, but there has been a lovely discussion on bonus stacking here, so I think this should be addressed now. There's a critical component of how bonus stacking should work that I haven't seen anyone bring up, and which would neatly solve all the problems involved in finding a place for things like deflection bonuses and armor bonuses. It is simply this:

Some "bonus types" are not really bonus types at all. They are the results of bonuses. Let's call them "modifiers".

"Armor" is not a bonus type; it is a modifier to AC. You can have a competence bonus to your armor modifier (say, from the Heavy Armor Optimization feat in Races of Stone) and an enhancement bonus to your armor modifier (from magic armor). These stack with each other. If you also had an enhancement bonus to your deflection modifier (from a Ring of Protection), those would stack with each other, because they're added separately. Full rules for bonus stacking (taken from Rise) follow:

Bonus Types
The value that a character adds to a roll, as when rolling a Fortitude save, or total value for a static attribute, like Armor Class, is the result of a combination of bonuses. Every bonus has a type. Two types of bonuses stack with all other bonuses: inherent bonuses and circumstance bonuses. Two types of bonuses never stack with other bonuses of the same type: competence bonuses and enhancement bonuses. The bonus types are described below.

Inherent These are bonuses which are an inseparable part of the character. They come from base attack bonus, skill ranks, ability modifiers, and other fundamental parts of a character.
Competence These are bonuses which derive from a character's experience and ability. They usually come from feats, racial features, and class features.
Enhancement These are bonuses which derive from magical improvements to a character's abilities. Almost all spells and magic items (except those relating to armor, shields, and weapons) give enhancement bonuses.
Circumstance These are bonuses which derive from specific circumstances. Feats, class features, and magic items which are dependent on circumstances or are extremely temporary in nature can give circumstance bonuses.

Armor Class Modifiers
A character's armor class is a combination of more factors that can be adequately expressed with the simple bonus system. Instead, armor class is the result of a series of separate modifiers, each of which can have bonuses added to it independently from other armor class modifiers. These modifiers are described below.
{table=head]Modifier|Affects
Dodge | Armor class (except flat-footed)
Natural armor | Armor class (except touch)
Deflection | Armor class
Armor1| Armor class (except touch)
Shield1 | Armor class (except flat-footed)
[/table]
1. The base bonus for a set of armor or a shield is considered an inherent bonus. A character wearing multiple suits of armor or wielding multiple shields tracks the total armor and shield bonuses separately for each item, and uses only the highest value.

For example, you can benefit from both a shield of faith spell, which gives a +2 enhancement bonus to your deflection modifier, and a barkskin spell, which gives you a +2 enhancement bonus to your natural armor modifier. However, if you then put on a ring of protection +1, you would gain no benefit since both shield of faith and a ring of protection +1 give enhancement bonuses to your deflection modifier.

Penalties
Unlike bonuses, penalties have no types. Penalties always stack unless they come from the same source. For example, a creature who is sickened by both a ghoul touch spell and an unholy blight spell takes a \minus4 penalty to everything that being sickened penalizes. However, a creature suffering from the crushing despair spell does not take any additional penalties if another crushing despair spell is cast on it - even if the second spell is cast by a different caster.

I like this system a lot, but how do you deal with bonuses from feats that are supposed to stack, like W. Focus and Improved Disarm? Does one just give a circumstance bonus instead of a competence bonus?

tarkisflux

2013-09-01, 11:41 PM

Quick question: tier 3 is usually considered the "best", or at least what is most popular and/or the sweet-spot for balance, particularly for homebrew. Do the Tier 3 classes, generally speaking, actually achieve an improvement rate of "doubling in power every 2 levels"?
If not, what is the tier-3 power curve like?
What tier (if any) actually does hit this intended curve?

Sorry this is late, I missed it at the bottom, or in the edit, or something.

Anyway, an answer approaches! It's kind of a weird question though, because the tier system isn't predicated on sorting classes based on any sort of growth curve (which is one of the reasons I don't actually subscribe to it). And while some systems (and the classes based on them) get close to the growth curve, the tier system puts classes built on the same system at entirely different tiers based on their range of options.

The spell and power systems mostly follow that curve, for example, so any classes with full access to them mostly does as well. Thus the beguiler and dread necro are two Tier 3 classes that potentially progress along that path, but plenty of broader spellcasters also do despite being a higher tier. Classes that don't have full access, like the Bard, the Ranger, or the PsyWar, do not achieve this growth without having an awesome primary shtick to make up for their basically secondary or tertiary spellcasting shtick. While the Bard might be able to optimize or PrC up to it, I don't think the Wildshape Ranger or PsyWar get a pass. As a weird sidenote, that also puts classes who lean on / abuse UMD with lots of scroll access (or UPD with the psionic scroll equivalent) near that progression, but I don't think we'd give a class a pass based on that because they're not really using their 'class features'.

ToB might keep up, maybe, but I haven't looked into it enough to have a strong opinion on the matter. I suspect that it does not though, because it's mostly extending a low level concept with bigger numbers. And I have no idea on the Binder, because I've never played or analyzed them.

Which sets the Tier 3 classes at 50/50 (at best) in matching that growth curve. And that's not really surprising, because that sort of scaling really turns it into a different style of game after a point. While the higher tier classes that all do hit the mark (potentially anyway) and all start playing a different style of game as they level up, the Tier 3 classes don't (even that ones that could start playing different games as they level up largely elect not to). And the thing that lots of people like about the Tier 3 classes is that they don't start playing a different type of game*. So the lack of consistently hitting that mark, or only doing so in very narrow areas that don't overwhelm things, seems pretty consistent with what people actually want.

The Tier 3 curve, and the Tier 4 curve beneath it that mostly just has less breadth in places, is probably close to doubling every 3 or 4 levels. Which is enough for substantial growth and for the high end to look much more awesome without starting a different style of game entirely. It works weird with the scaling bonus bits because it means that 4 guys of your CR -6ish are supposed to be an even threat and they probably aren't (except maybe at the high end), but meh. Since most of the MM doesn't even follow the CR doubling and is closer to this scaling anyway, it works out ok (or it would with a different xp chart anyway).

*Note: I am not one of those people, and prefer Tier 1/2/High 3 classes if asked to put my preferences in Tier terms, which don't really fit well.

Vadskye

2013-09-02, 03:05 PM

I'm back! Sorry for such a long delay - I've been busy, and I was getting a little burned out on the Spell Reformation. (I came up with some fun ideas on redesigning noncaster combat and feats, though!)
Tarkisflux:

And this is why fighters can't have nice things.

I thought about coloring that up in sarasm, but it's not actually a joke. Non-casters don't get to learn rituals in a world with magic built into its physics because people don't want them to do magic things. Despite living in a magic world, where it is potentially common and reasonably well understood and repeatable. But if it's just a fluff issue, then here's a potential solution. Rituals do not require a spark of magic (like spellcasting does) so much as they require strict adherence to a procedure. Control weather, for example, might require a very specific style of dance, like a rain dance to bring the rains. And once you know how to perform such a ritual, ranks in perform or the ability to dance for a lone time would seem more relevant than ranks in know(nature). Mind blank or bull's strength might require the preparation of a number of healing herbs to induce the state. And so on.

While some rituals may be inappropriate for non-casters (which could be controlled through skill access really), keeping or delaying acquisition to the majority of them seems a failure of creativity and a tacit acceptance of the "magic can do anything because it's magic and the mundanes don't get to play" status quo.
Yes, most people don't want their fighters to be able to teleport call down rain. In some ways, it would be better to give everyone some level of access to magic, and many non-D&D systems and settings do that. However, the fluff of D&D is firmly entrenched in the old sword and sorcery mythos that Tolkein pioneered, where magic is powerful but also special and not generally accessible. I'm not trying to change what people like; I'm trying to fulfill that iconic role using the best system that I can. (Once Rise is done, I intend to adapt it to different settings, where this problem is less of an issue). The system should be able to function under the assumption that magic is simply not generally accessible.

With that said, I don't have any objection to the sort of rain dance or healing herbs you are talking about - as long as it requires some unusual investment on the part of the character to fulfill the fluff idea that magic is not generally accessible. A combined feat + skill requirement should serve that purpose. The "Ritual Caster" feat I have in mind would give a character access to rituals from a single skill as if he was a caster of 1/2 his HD. (so he would get 2nd level rituals at 8 HD). Since your typical fighter won't be taking ranks in Knowledge (arcana), magic still stays separate from the general masses, but particularly intellectual fighters can attempt some rudimentary magic. That's perfectly reasonable.

I think you're overstating things a bit. Casters are immensely dependent on player foresight and prep, and can be totally awesome or totally sucky if they guessed the right spells to prep in the morning. And spells known casters have it even worse, because they have to guess right at level up and can't fix a mistake on the following day. And while I wholeheartedly agree with insulating the spont caster from that crap, doing so for the prep caster seems unnecessary to me. Though what with your goal of moving utility effects into rituals, I'm not sure what they'll even have left to prep besides generically useful combat spells, and should come out insulated from making a poor tactical decision for the day anyway.
Part of the goal of the Spell Reformation is to remove the entire concept of "bad spells"; there are simply spells which are more or less appropriate for different characters. I think some degree of insulation from the ability to make stupid decisions is both necessary to achieve that goal and desirable in general.

The 18 and 20 level issue is granted, but that seems an artifact of the lack of spell level 10. The rest I'll dispute strongly, and suggest that it's more likely a toss up in each case. Contingency is a thing after all (and contingent magic circle shuts down most of a spell school), as is silent dimension door, mindblank, and many other effects that a higher level caster can better afford to pull out of their hat in order to counter something thrown at them by a lower level caster (plus any item that grants death ward). This gets back to the part where people stop trying to fill their lower level slots with lower level combat effects and grab utility or buff effects now that the opportunity cost is lower. I don't like blanket immunity in some of these cases, but it's a very functional thing and often discounted even though it's using a much lower level spell slot or lasting more than a day (contingency).

You want to solve some of the duration issues, which I basically agree with, but that doesn't stop them from using lower level slots in defensive ways instead of offensive ones to block or mitigate the attacks of lower level attackers. And there's enough of those that a properly prepped caster (either through preparation or retraining of known) has even odds against any double team of their CR-2 IMO.
I think the core thing we are missing here is some ability to systematically compare characters in combat situations. I want to be able to run a combat simulator and know the answer to questions like this, not just speculate about them. Have you heard of anything like that? I could probably write one myself given enough time, but time is something of a problem for me...

The resource thing is predicated on the 4 encounter per day model. It's basically a statement that you can fight 1/(resource expenditure percentage) battles per day before you start really feeling the pinch and start sucking because you're spent. In days when you can afford to use more than that percentage in an encounter you're awesome, and in days when you have to use less you're going to be less awesome. It needs to be around so long as you have non-at-will characters in the game. But that's not what you base CR on, that's what you base spell slot progression on.
On CR in general:
I think my preferred redesign of CR would be more fundamental than has been discussed here. Many vs. one encounters have a lot of issues. I think I'd rather redesign the CR system such that the default encounter used a number of opponents equal to the number of PCs, and define a "CR X" monster as an appropriate challenge for a level X character. Whatever "appropriate challenge" means.

Additionally, I'm pretty sure that the only reason that the "one CR X equals two CR X-2" formula worked in D&D was that AOE spells were more powerful than they should be. I think that two CR X-2 monsters are actually stronger than one CR X monster, but since casters were disproportionately effective against multiple opponents, the discrepancy wasn't too noticeable as long as there was a caster in the party who took any of the amazing AOE spells. In a system where AOE spells are scaled to have appropriate power relative to single-target spells, I am fairly certain that this formula no longer works. (My testing has partially confirmed this, but it was done with several changes to the system which make large groups of foes a more viable threat.)
Turtle guy:
[QUOTE=Deepbluediver;15889527]Well, we can't all be dragons, but I think that if you know where to look, you'll find that turtles have a long (http://hiroze.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/picture5.png) and proud (http://reviewsjpegs6.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/Moving_Island.jpg) history (http://cdn.wallwuzz.com/uploads/turtle-carrying-the-world-wallpaper-wallwuzz-hd-wallpaper-12987.jpg) of awesomeness (http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/7/74209/3014649-cast-of-teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles-5.jpg). :smallbiggrin:
Haha. Truly they are noble creatures!

To paraphrase something I know we've discussed before, how many ways does one system need to magically increase your AC?
You where the one who said you wanted to have less of a difference between buffed and unbuffed characters (which I agree is a worthwhile goal); a big part of that would seem to be having fewer stacking temporary buffs. If you want to keep them all around for flavor, or to give them different scaling and/or secondary benefits, then fine, but I don't really see a problem with making them all give an Enhancement bonus (non-stacking) to AC and be done with it.
Right now, there are four modifiers that comprise AC: armor, shield, natural armor, and dodge. In addition, AC can have bonuses and penalties directly applied to it using the four standard bonus types (inherent, competence, enhancement, circumstance). I think that is the minimum standard necessary to adequately express concepts like "tough skin", "good at dodging", "using a shield", "behind a tree", and so on. It's already quite compressed, and I think that taking it any farther would have unintuitive effects, risking confusion and a loss of immersion.

Within that framework, there are two main changes which I recommend using to mitigate the impact of spell buffs. As a bonus, they also attack the "Christmas Tree effect" and reduce the number of "required" magic items, since required magic items are boring. First, deflection bonuses (which are now simply direct enhancement bonuses to AC) are very rare. Shield of Faith is refluffed to give a shield bonus, Protection from <Alignment> simply doesn't give any AC bonus, and so on. Rings of Protection give saving throw bonuses instead of AC bonuses. This cuts off one key source of spell-based AC buffs. Second, natural armor only half-stacks with armor; you keep the greater of the two values, and you add half of the lesser value. This makes Barkskin and Amulets of Natural Armor less essential on armored PCs, while retaining their power on animals and monsters and maintaining the fluff requirement that they stack to at least some degree. Additionally, this means that throwing armor onto a generic monster no longer shoots its AC into the stratosphere. Since both armor nor natural armor change very rarely, and almost never in combat, the additional complexity added by the half-stacking is minimal.

Note, however, that implementing all of these changes will reduce the AC of PCs substantially. You will need to take corrective measures for that. (Rise adds 1/2 BAB to AC, but that's getting really off-topic :smalltongue:)

Eh, any system will have its little quirks, I think, and if you are already receiving heavy cover from a tree or other object, then it's harder to see incoming attacks and move to avoid them, so it's non UN-intuitive to me that additional shielding wouldn't improve your defenses further, beyond a certain point.
Ahhh, negatives! What is the "certain point" here? If they should stack somewhat, why not just let them stack and call it a day? If it makes the system biased in favor of using shields and cover, that's perfectly fine! It makes combat a bit less like rock-'em-sock-'em-robots.

Alternatively, it would be easy enough to write some simple rules for how shields interact with cover (use the larger of two AC bonuses, light shield increases miss chance by 10%, heavy shield 15%, tower shield 25%, etc).
Miss chance? Are you thinking of concealment?

I'm working on improving the Sword 'n Board combat from two directions, atm: Gear (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=290667) and Feats (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14527298&postcount=2). I'll keep the cover-issue in mind, but also in the consideration is that not everyone can or will carry a shield, not everyone can take cover and remain effective, and cover isn't always available for every battle. I'm not gonna tear apart the entire system just because one little thing doesn't seem to work quite right; in this case I'd settle for 90% perfection.
I've also made changes to combat which encourage the use of shields, though my approach has been to implement a large number of subtle changes which push the game in a more shield-based direction rather than just making them better. And I'm willing to accept compromise for a good cause - but I just don't see what the gain is from making shields not stack with cover. It seems like an accidental artifact of a glitch in the system rather than a design choice.

If you reduce the types of bonuses that can stack, particularly magic, you'll have a lot fewer effects to track, I think. In my experience, I've only ever played in a single game where, because of a combination of player-builds, houserules, and some homebrewed enemies, tracking actually reached the level of everyone-with-different-buffs/debuffs counted by rounds. What we ended up doing was taking a page from Magic: the Gathering's handbook and instituting a kind of "upkeep phase" at the top of the initiative order. We tracked different things with spare dice, and you'd turn down each one at the appropriate time (d8s where the Wizard's buffs, d10s where the faceless horror's insanity creep, red d6s where one thing and blue d6s another, etc). It was a little cumbersome to use all the time, but it worked, and as I said, it doesn't seem likely to reach that level very often.

If you don't want to track everything yourself, and are worried that your players won't be careful (or honest) enough to keep their own status in mind, then just use a similar dice trick. That way everyone can see the duration that's left at a glance, and no one needs to bother memorizing it.
I've used dice too, for sure. Part of the reason it probably comes up more in my games is that I've been building Rise to have an average combat length of five rounds, and the changes to lengthen combat have been in place for a long time before I started the Spell Reformation. In a typical D&D game, buffs and spell effects aren't much trouble to track simply because combat rarely comes close to the point where the spells could wear off, so most people get lazy about it (in my experience) and don't bother tracking them perfectly. With longer combats (in rounds, not in real life time), spells come closer to wearing off, so durations have to be tracked more precisely. This is doubly annoying because the longer combats also mean you have more rounds where you have to perform the tracking. Since my goal is to lengthen in-game combat time while decreasing out-of-game combat time, spell duration tracking has been a thorn in my side for a while.

Now I'm actually debating the merits of making spontaneous and prepared casters have same spells/day so I only have one "primary caster" chart to worry about. Prepared casters could prepare fewer spells than spontaneous casters would know (probably in the 66-75% range) but as always they would be able to swap spells from day to day. Which I think is still a pretty hefty benefit, just more situational.
I've done this too. Like I said somewhere, I also strongly recommend making them gain spell access at the same levels. It makes the entire game easier. I think that prepared vs. spontaneous is already fair trade without introducing different spells/day and different levels of spell access.

In my original proposal, you could get the spell slot back (after resting for 8 hours) if you ended the permanent spell, which could really only be achieved 3 ways: destroying the object or creature (killing and cutting/ripping/smashing into pieces), reverse-casting (essentially recast) Permanency, or Disjunction. Combined with the high cost of material components for the spell in the first place, none of which seemed like terribly viable options just for replacing the Extend Metamagic.
Why not let people just dismiss the permanent spell?

Easier for the player-characters.
When a spell lasts 5 rounds, it can last for an entire encounter, although just barely. If it lasts 10 rounds you've got more margin for error, pre-buffing, or something unexpected to happen. That's all I meant.
Ah, got it. I think that allowing PCs to concentrate on the spell to guarantee that they get the effect for (probably) the entire combat serves the same purpose, while also prohibiting excess pre-buffing.

With my alterations to range, doubling or going up one tier would be the same anyway. For me, thinking rounds/level --to--> minutes/level is an easier transition than "rounds/level x2", but maybe that's just a quirk of how my brain works. For the rest though, I do like your idea of being able to add multiple copies of some metamagics; definitely gonna need to play around with that some more.
I agree that rounds/level -> minutes/level is easier - but what about just saying 5 rounds becomes 10 rounds? That seems easy to me (it's a minute!). As far as multiply applying metamagic goes, I've started to have second thoughts on this. If you could repeatedly apply Enlarge, you could end up with ranges much longer that I would really want a spell to last. And repeatedly applying Extend sounds fine until you think about what happens with damage-over-time effects, like Acid Arrow. Basically, allowing repeated metamagic application is mostly useless when it isn't broken, which is exactly what I don't want.

I hadn't decided, precisely. I might make it so that there is some kind of "magic device" proficiency that casters get in place or the normal weapon-proficiencies, that makes it easier for them to use wands and staves, while at the same time leaving it possible for other classes to activate them in a pinch.
Also, wands are a "different beast" because MAGIC is so unbalanced; if we addressed the problematic spells it probably wouldn't be such a game-breaker.
To me, wands are a different beast because they are about fifty times as expensive as a weapon. They occupy a dramatically different space in fluff.

Slightly off-topic, I'd light to rework precisely how wands and staves function. They'd keep the charges, but have fewer and instead recover them slowly on their own (probably 1/hour). I want them to be more like something significant, and not just "50 potions on a stick". They would also provide a boost to Spellcraft checks, which would be assumed in the calculations for DC, so that any Wizard running into battle without his wand or staff would be like a Fighter without his sword.
I like this. Instead of boosting Spellcraft checks, though, why not just let them boost caster level with certain spells or spell categories? One of the things that changed with the Spell Reformation is that it is now possible and even desirable to allow CL-boosting items and effects. For example, Spell Focus now grants +2 CL instead of +1 DC; this means it has a more uniform effect across a variety of spells.

Even MORE off topic, I've never liked the magic-mart style of item-acquisition, particularly for magic items. In any game where I had any influence at all, you could attempt to buy a wand of Grease, a wand of Web, and a wand of Shapechange, but you're not likely to get all three, any maybe none of them, even in major metropolitan areas. By the same token, rather than regularly finding slavering monsters carrying around huge amounts of currency for no apparent reason, the PC's are more likely to just stumble across a cache of assorted gear occasionally (possibly in the form of a pile of dead corpses from the LAST party to pass this way :smallwink:).
It wouldn't be impossible to get something specific, but it would usually be much more involved, and consume many more resources (time, energy, effort, etc).
Magic marts are definitely boring. One I finish rewriting the Monster Manual, I'll start on the DMG, and I'll actually get around to handling this properly.

That's only because of D&D's mantra: no nice things for melee. So magic-item crafting is reliant on knowing magic. Under a different system you might find yourself saying "any hedge-mage can imbue a wand, but it takes a real Master-craftsmen to make weapons of true power".
Also, I'm not an expert on blacksmithing, but from what little I've heard it seems like quite a leap from crafting a sharpened metal bar to forging decent weapons.

I'd like to take the "know spell X" out of the requirement for making magic items, and revamp both mundane equipment and the process for creating it, to level out the playing field somewhat.
I'm a bit torn here. I definitely want to give noncasters access to magic item crafting. However, I don't want to throw away the "know spell X" requirement away from crafting. That has a very important limiting effect on what any individual person can craft; without it, you risk letting anyone craft anything, which is very difficult to balance. Plus, it's super flavorful. So I want a system to somehow combine those two components. Maybe a feat that lets you be treated as a caster of CL = Craft ranks, and lets you "know" some spells - perhaps all spells from a certain school or domain? It's all still fuzzy right now.

Honestly, I don't really see how this is different than giving them a wand, except for it being an inherent part of the character.
That is exactly the difference - it makes it an inherent part of the character.

Ideally, I'd have a system in which nearly all classes wanted some level of gear to function, and would get fairly even boosts from having similar levels of gear. Trying to separate classes from gear entirely has just as much potential go to FUBAR. If you have a character who is totally non-dependent on gear, but still benefits from it, they are likely to more OP. If you have some one who neither requires, nor benefits from gear (a difficult design challenge, probably), that does wonky things to the power curve, meta-game flavor, and loot-division.
There should be gear that improves casters' core abilities, such as caster level and spell access. Fighters don't need magical gear to get their BAB, class features, and so on. However, gear is what takes them from "pretty okay" to "awesome". It should be the same way with casters: there should be equipment that increases CL with certain spells, descriptors, or schools. There should be equipment that increases spells/day or even grants a spell known (which should require 24-hour attunement to avoid shenanigans). That's what is missing. Don't require gear to not be useless - require gear to be awesome. After the power nerfs imposed by the Spell Reformation, this can actually be done without smashing the game to tiny pieces.

By how much do they (Rangers, Pallys, etc) fall behind at the upper end? If it's anything more than 5, I think that's getting back into the territory where it's hard for them to use spells offensively. It would be even worse for multiclass half-casters/non-casters.
By 20th level, they would have a 10 lower CL, which means a 5 lower DC. For most of their career, the difference would be lower. How many of those spells actually have a DC, though? I think they are almost entirely buffs/healing/utility/etc. (Also, I rewrote rangers so they no longer have spells.)

What's the problem (or what don't you like) about making all casters have effectively full-caster level?
It feels wrong that paladin has the same caster level as a cleric, yet can cast spells of less than half the level. If that is true, what does caster level even mean? If paladin gets 1/2 CL (and you very slightly tweak the rate of acquisition), paladins get 2nd level spells at CL 4, 3rd level spells at CL 6, and 4th level spells at CL 8. That has such a beautiful pattern to it, and is exactly what I would expect.

I can alter the way I think about something easily enough, it's the fact that some classes don't have a spell list at all that bugs me. I'd argue that Fighter Bonus Feats are also a fundamental aspect of the character, how come your wizard levels don't improve them (or any other class-feature)?

If there was a list of "Fighter Spells" and your wizard level improved that, then I wouldn't mind, but it doesn't work that way. Your Wizard levels grant you benefits to your fighter's BAB, saves, regular feats, etc, while your Fighter levels grant you benefits to your wizard's BAB, saves, regular feats, AND spells/day. Something of a disconnect, IMO.

We both agree that non-casting class levels should improve caster abilities, we're just coming at it from two different angles. For me it's range, duration, and spell-effectiveness, for you it's spells/day (and spells known).
It's just a difference of perspective: With core D&D, your wizard levels make you a better fighter, but your fighter levels don't make you a better wizard. With this change, your wizard levels make you a better fighter, and your fighter levels make you a better wizard. It's more symmetrical!

It wasn't the complexity, its that I harbor concerns that these characters will be TO good. Unless you make serious changes to spells per-day/known and other caster-class features, these gishes will be only a half-step behind full Gestalt characters.

Something like a Wizard 10/Fighter 10 would have better casting than anyone except a pure full-caster, plus a healthy helping of class features from two classes. And that's before you start getting more complex; the reason dips for melee builds are so popular is because many classes front-load abilities, and now all of them also benefit magic. There's very little I can't see being improved with a dash of caster (and yes, I recognize the limit; my statement stands).

And that's just on the melee side. What happens when you start mixing multiple casting classes? I'm having dread-visions of Wizard 10/Sorcerer 10, or my personal favorite for "most broken-est combo", Wizard+Druid (I know most people would vote wizard/cleric, but AFAIK, Natural spell doesn't specify DRUID spells, negating that whole pesky spell-failure-chance in armor issue.

Also, maybe it's not going to come up in your system, but I'm kind of curious if this will interact similarly with Psionics and Incarnum (or any other alternate-magic system).
I'm actually not concerned about the power level (mostly). How much optimizing have you done? Theurge classes have always been much weaker than full casters. As someone once said, if you ever get the urge to play a theurge, go play a Wizard 3 / Cleric 3 / Theurge 1 in a game with a cleric 7 and a wizard 7. It's vastly inferior. The difference with this system is that the progression is smoother, and you get the class features of the original classes. Yeah, that's probably dangerous if you theurge Druid with another caster (though, of course, your wild shape wouldn't get any theurging benefit). However, in a system where all of the classes have properly designed class features with steadily increasing power, it is much less of an issue. You could be a wizard 6 / sorcerer 6 and have 4th level spells from both classes - or you could be a wizard 12 with 6th level spells and the Contingency class feature. Or a sorcerer 12 with Versatile Spellblend, letting you cast two spells at once. I am not sure that this works in core D&D because the classes are so imbalanced. However, in a system with balanced classes, it works just fine.
Unbeliever:

I like this system a lot, but how do you deal with bonuses from feats that are supposed to stack, like W. Focus and Improved Disarm? Does one just give a circumstance bonus instead of a competence bonus?
They just don't stack. The point of the system is to limit the degree to which stacking is possible in as intuitive a way as possible. I'm perfectly comfortable with those two not stacking, just like I would prefer that Skill Focus (Spot) didn't stack with Alertness. They are two bonuses that come from almost exactly the same thing; therefore, they can overlap instead of stacking. Limiting the degree to which stacking is possible is absolutely critical to balancing the game.

tarkisflux

2013-09-03, 12:35 AM

Welcome back :smallsmile:

Yes, most people don't want their fighters to be able to teleport call down rain. In some ways, it would be better to give everyone some level of access to magic, and many non-D&D systems and settings do that. However, the fluff of D&D is firmly entrenched in the old sword and sorcery mythos that Tolkein pioneered, where magic is powerful but also special and not generally accessible. I'm not trying to change what people like; I'm trying to fulfill that iconic role using the best system that I can. (Once Rise is done, I intend to adapt it to different settings, where this problem is less of an issue). The system should be able to function under the assumption that magic is simply not generally accessible.

Not generally accessible could also simply mean not low level. People here complain about fighters not having nice things, so I don't think it's the case that they don't want fantastic utility on their mundane characters at higher levels. I would agree that they don't want the flavor to be too magicky, but I don't think anyone cares about asking forest spirits what's going on in the wood or preparing some gilly weed for waterbreathing. Your problem is a fluff one, not an effect one, and unless you're going to provide your higher level utility functions in some other way, all you're doing is shuffling off the caster utility imbalance to a different subsystem. It only gets resolved if you do a better job of distributing the toys, and nothing you've written suggests you're doing that.

With that said, I don't have any objection to the sort of rain dance or healing herbs you are talking about - as long as it requires some unusual investment on the part of the character to fulfill the fluff idea that magic is not generally accessible. A combined feat + skill requirement should serve that purpose. The "Ritual Caster" feat I have in mind would give a character access to rituals from a single skill as if he was a caster of 1/2 his HD. (so he would get 2nd level rituals at 8 HD). Since your typical fighter won't be taking ranks in Knowledge (arcana), magic still stays separate from the general masses, but particularly intellectual fighters can attempt some rudimentary magic. That's perfectly reasonable.

No, no it's not perfectly reasonable. You could say that it required a feat (which should probably give them rituals from every skill, not just one) for everyone and skill access for everyone, and then just give the magic classes the feat for free at some point. And so far, that's pretty fair. But delaying their acquisition breaks that fairness, and you're setting yourself up for the Epic skill problem. By the time the mundanes get access to anything, the spellcasters have been doing it for levels already and the mundane guy probably has an item that grants them the utility thing anyway. So they don't care about doing it. And asking the skill strapped mundanes to divert points from sort of useful low level skill effects into a cross-class skill that does them much less good is asking them to trade utility now for potential utility later, long after other characters got the same things. You might as well not let them have them at all.

I think the core thing we are missing here is some ability to systematically compare characters in combat situations. I want to be able to run a combat simulator and know the answer to questions like this, not just speculate about them. Have you heard of anything like that? I could probably write one myself given enough time, but time is something of a problem for me...

You could maybe use the Same Game Test (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/SGT), but it has a lot of limitations and may not be well suited for your purposes. There was talk of a Tiering test floating around here as well, but I lost track of the project when it got moved to another site and the thread died. Google may be nicer to you than it was to me in tracking down the thread here about it. But if you're going to change the monsters and classes anyway, there's not much point in using either of them for much more than a base for your own.

And it looks like you broke a quote right after this part. Did you miss something related to slot progression, or were you moving into the CR stuff?

I think my preferred redesign of CR would be more fundamental than has been discussed here. Many vs. one encounters have a lot of issues. I think I'd rather redesign the CR system such that the default encounter used a number of opponents equal to the number of PCs, and define a "CR X" monster as an appropriate challenge for a level X character. Whatever "appropriate challenge" means.

It already does that. If you get a creature of CR-4 for each member of the party, it's basically equivalent to a 4-man party fighting 1 creature with a CR equal to their level. Basically, 4 characters have an encounter level equal to their level +4, so they can fight any other set of creatures that adds up to an encounter level equal to the party's level without breaking much of a sweat. And as long as you focus on EL instead of CR it works out fine regardless of party size.

But if you want to redefine expected challenge levels, I'd recommend not using monsters initially, but characters. Most monsters can be classified as outgrowths or exaggerations of characters anyway, so this just helps make sure that things are in the right place. And while not every level 5 vs. level 5 match needs to be 50/50 because some classes should be better or worse against others, not doing 50/50 against mirror matches will break your math and leave you with nothing. So start there, and if you want to keep CR as a thing you can define it relative to character level.

Additionally, I'm pretty sure that the only reason that the "one CR X equals two CR X-2" formula worked in D&D was that AOE spells were more powerful than they should be. I think that two CR X-2 monsters are actually stronger than one CR X monster, but since casters were disproportionately effective against multiple opponents, the discrepancy wasn't too noticeable as long as there was a caster in the party who took any of the amazing AOE spells. In a system where AOE spells are scaled to have appropriate power relative to single-target spells, I am fairly certain that this formula no longer works. (My testing has partially confirmed this, but it was done with several changes to the system which make large groups of foes a more viable threat.)

AoE blasting spells are too strong.... I don't... I mean, I know you want to tone it all down, but... huh? There are no words for this.

And this was directed at Deepbluediver, but it seems relevant to me too, so...

Magic marts are definitely boring. One I finish rewriting the Monster Manual, I'll start on the DMG, and I'll actually get around to handling this properly.

I'm a bit torn here. I definitely want to give noncasters access to magic item crafting. However, I don't want to throw away the "know spell X" requirement away from crafting. That has a very important limiting effect on what any individual person can craft; without it, you risk letting anyone craft anything, which is very difficult to balance. Plus, it's super flavorful. So I want a system to somehow combine those two components. Maybe a feat that lets you be treated as a caster of CL = Craft ranks, and lets you "know" some spells - perhaps all spells from a certain school or domain? It's all still fuzzy right now.

So... magic crafting rituals are ok, but mundane utility rituals that key off of a mundane skill (like craft) to approximate magic effects are not? If you're going to let people take feats to "learn spells for crafting" you may as well let them do the same thing to learn rituals at the same pace. Unless you just want people crafting utility items instead of ritualing utility effects I guess.

glosz

2013-09-03, 11:59 PM

So... magic crafting rituals are ok, but mundane utility rituals that key off of a mundane skill (like craft) to approximate magic effects are not? If you're going to let people take feats to "learn spells for crafting" you may as well let them do the same thing to learn rituals at the same pace. Unless you just want people crafting utility items instead of ritualing utility effects I guess.

This is my idea for allowing crafting of magic items to non-casters. It is based off the craft skill and takes in ideas from Use Magic Device. It could be used in a similar way for rituals. Making a skill check to emulate a ritual.

Craft
Craft: Arms & Armour replaces Craft: Weaponsmithing, Armoursmithing and Bowmaking and is used for crafting arms & armour.

Craft: Magic Device used for crafting wondrous items, rings and rods.

You can use your Ranks in Craft -3 as your caster level for determining what items you can create with the associated craft feat.

A DC 20 check lets you emulate a class feature for the purpose of item creation only. A failed check results in a day spent but at no cost.

A DC 20 + caster level lets you emulate a spell for the purpose of item creation only. A failed check results in a day spent but at no cost.

A DC 25 check lets you emulate another race for the purpose of item creation only. A failed check results in a day spent but at no cost.

A DC 30 check lets you emulate a different alignment for the purpose of item creation only. A failed check results in a day spent but at no cost.

A check must be made per day. If multiple emulations are needed then a separate check must be made for each. If any check fails then the creation process results in a day spent but at no cost.

Example:
Tase, a 3rd level Barbarian, has 6 Ranks in Craft: Arms & Armour and the Craft: Arms & Armour feat. He can craft a +1 Weapon, Shield or suit of Armour with no check needed as his caster level is 3rd (A crafter needs 3 caster levels per +1 enhancement bonus). It will cost him 50% of the purchase price in materials and take 1 day per 1,000gp value of the item.
Tase decided to craft a +1 Greatsword. When he reaches 5th level he decides to give the sword the Keen property. Since Keen Edge is a prerequisite he must attempt to emulate the spell with his craft skill. Since he now has 8 ranks in craft his caster level is now equal to 5 (8 minus 3 = 5) which is the minimum caster level to cast the Keen Edge spell (wiz3). The DC is equal to 20+5 = 25. Tase has INT score of 12 giving him a total craft check of 9. He needs a 16 or higher to emulate the Keen Edge spell.
The cost of the Keen property is 50% of 6,000 = 3,000gp. Tase needs to make 3 checks to enhance his sword. Each time he fails a day is wasted at no cost. It will probably take him between 8-12 days to finish the job but if he is lucky he can finish it in 3.
At 6th level he can increase his sword from +1 Keen to +2 Keen with no check needed as his caster level would now be equal to 6 (9 minus 3 = 6)

New crafting feat prerequisites
Scribe Scroll - Caster Level 1st
Brew Potion - Caster Level 3rd
Craft Magic Arms & Armor - Caster Level 3rd or 6 ranks in Craft
Craft Wondrous Item - Caster Level 5th or 8 ranks in Craft
Craft Wand - Caster Level 5th
Forge Ring - Caster Level 7th or 10 ranks in Craft
Craft Rod - Caster Level 9th or 12 ranks in Craft
Craft Staff - Caster Level 11th

Deepbluediver

2013-09-04, 11:03 AM

Sorry this is late, I missed it at the bottom, or in the edit, or something.
No worries, it WAS edited in later, because no one else had responded yet, and I didn't want to double-post just for this.

Anyway, an answer approaches! It's kind of a weird question though, because the tier system isn't predicated on sorting classes based on any sort of growth curve (which is one of the reasons I don't actually subscribe to it). And while some systems (and the classes based on them) get close to the growth curve, the tier system puts classes built on the same system at entirely different tiers based on their range of options.

Fair enough, I'll keep that in mind. Mostly I'm just trying to figure out what classes can serve as some good examples to model certain aspects of the game after, when/if we're going for a fix.

The Tier 3 curve, and the Tier 4 curve beneath it that mostly just has less breadth in places, is probably close to doubling every 3 or 4 levels. Which is enough for substantial growth and for the high end to look much more awesome without starting a different style of game entirely. It works weird with the scaling bonus bits because it means that 4 guys of your CR -6ish are supposed to be an even threat and they probably aren't (except maybe at the high end), but meh. Since most of the MM doesn't even follow the CR doubling and is closer to this scaling anyway, it works out ok (or it would with a different xp chart anyway).

Frankly, doubling in power every 3 levels (instead of every 2) seems like a more balanced approach to me anyhow. With some class-based fixes to give the underwhelming classes more options at higher levels besides just "hit it more" or "hit it harder", and by toning down the OP spell selection somewhat, I think you could resolve at least half of the games major issues.

Not requiring players to make leaps to a whole new level of play just to keep being relevant would be a good thing, I think. The game still has that option if your GM wants to chuck way over-CR monsters at you anyway.

Note: I am not one of those people, and prefer Tier 1/2/High 3 classes if asked to put my preferences in Tier terms, which don't really fit well.
I'm a little confused by this; are you saying that you prefer to play as tier 1 or 2 classes? And why? Is it just fluff? Is it because you like having that level of world-breaking power, or is it just because the other classes don't offer enough viable options? If the power level was turned down, would you play a tier 3 Wizard or Druid for the versatility? Would you play a tier 1 or 2 martial-based class?

I've been busy, and I was getting a little burned out on the Spell Reformation.
Heh, I know that feeling.

Right now, there are four modifiers that comprise AC: armor, shield, natural armor, and dodge. In addition, AC can have bonuses and penalties directly applied to it using the four standard bonus types (inherent, competence, enhancement, circumstance). I think that is the minimum standard necessary to adequately express concepts like "tough skin", "good at dodging", "using a shield", "behind a tree", and so on. It's already quite compressed, and I think that taking it any farther would have unintuitive effects, risking confusion and a loss of immersion.

If I'm understanding this correctly though, all 4 of those modifiers can get boosted by each of the 4 different bonus-types, yes? So you've got 16 possible combinations. Maybe it won't work out that way, (for example, there might not be anything that provides and competence-based natural-armor bonus) but it still seems overly complicated. While I get the idea of keeping the term "modifier" around; I think I'd rather just have a few more different bonus types.

Within that framework, there are two main changes which I recommend using to mitigate the impact of spell buffs.

stuff, stuff, more stuff

Note, however, that implementing all of these changes will reduce the AC of PCs substantially. You will need to take corrective measures for that. (Rise adds 1/2 BAB to AC, but that's getting really off-topic :smalltongue:)

In my armor improvements thread, I made base AC 5+1/2 BAB. Some people complained that makes PC's too squishy at low levels, but one thing I was trying to do would be to encourage people to actually consider armor as a valuable piece of adventuring equipment. The change benefits monster-type enemies in that they tend to increase their BAB and HD faster than the PC's, so hopefully it will keep up (at least to some degree) with the higher levels of manufactured armor.

I also think it would help if designers actually used the existing Monster Feats (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm), as appropriate, instead of doing things the lazy way and just giving every enemy in the book multiple instances of Toughness.

Miss chance? Are you thinking of concealment?

Possibly; I can never keep those two straight. I would love simplify them into one set of rules.

Ahhh, negatives! What is the "certain point" here? If they should stack somewhat, why not just let them stack and call it a day? If it makes the system biased in favor of using shields and cover, that's perfectly fine! It makes combat a bit less like rock-'em-sock-'em-robots.
I've also made changes to combat which encourage the use of shields, though my approach has been to implement a large number of subtle changes which push the game in a more shield-based direction rather than just making them better. And I'm willing to accept compromise for a good cause - but I just don't see what the gain is from making shields not stack with cover. It seems like an accidental artifact of a glitch in the system rather than a design choice.

I've been trying to put this whole issue to rest by coming up with a way make shields as "Gear" bonuses in my version of things without breaking the "inherent bonuses are the only ones that stack" rule. Honestly, having shields as "gear" is much more intuitive than having them as circumstance; I only put them their because of the "non-stacking" issue in the first place. And while I acknowledge that your system is better than the RAW, I would love to be able to take things just a little bit farther.

....Since my goal is to lengthen in-game combat time while decreasing out-of-game combat time, spell duration tracking has been a thorn in my side for a while.
Frankly, I've found that play-style and GM-encouragement to be far more significant determinators of game speed than any mechanical rule. I've had 3 rounds of combat take an hour and 5 rounds take 10 minutes.

I recognize that this is an issue, but I just don't see it as big of a problem as you do, I guess. Between altering some spells directly (such as Summon Monster being minutes instead of rounds) and making other changes such as condensing the types of bonuses players can/need to stack on themselves, and granting some classes "always on" aura-type benefits, I don't think it will slow down the game significantly.

I think that prepared vs. spontaneous is already fair trade without introducing different spells/day and different levels of spell access.
The differences in spell-level access between sorcerers and wizards was one of the first things I did away with. :smallamused:
Glad to hear that you haven't had any unexpected problems with the rest.

Why not let people just dismiss the permanent spell?
With regard to Permanency, that would seem like it kind of defeats the point of it being permanent. I wanted players to actually consider what they where getting into when taking this option, rather than just wildly mashing the "make entire party firbolgs!" button as rapidly as they could.

More generally, I've never really liked spells being "dismissable". If you have a spell that requires concentration, then it ends when you stop concentrating. Otherwise, once you've set up your spell and input the energy to get it to start altering how reality works, you can't just end all that on a whim.
Part of it is that I tend to view magic sort-of like science, in that there is only a certain amount "it just is/it's just how magic works" that I'm willing to put up with. That's what forms the check on the ability to do literally anything a player could dream up- they need to be able to explain it in a way that makes sense (no, sorry, there is no "make me ruler of the entire world spell").

So once you've got all this potential energy bound up in your spell with a very specific set of instructions on what it's supposed to be doing, you can't get rid of it easily.

Ah, got it. I think that allowing PCs to concentrate on the spell to guarantee that they get the effect for (probably) the entire combat serves the same purpose, while also prohibiting excess pre-buffing.
As I alluded to above; I would rather have "concentration" based spells being a very specific type that required constant input, and spells with a duration be more fire-and-forget. Mixing the two sets of rules seems unnecessarily complex. I want to keep the basic rules as simple and straightforward as possible, because as you have pointed out, there's still room for metamagic to modify things in all kinds of crazy ways.

I agree that rounds/level -> minutes/level is easier - but what about just saying 5 rounds becomes 10 rounds? That seems easy to me (it's a minute!).
It's more like: a spell lasts 7 rounds when I'm level 7, 8 rounds when I'm level 8, 13 rounds when I'm level 13, or if I metamagic it then it's minutes instead of rounds. But if I have to start tracking some spells with duration equal to level and others not equal to level, I know I'm going to get them confused.

As far as multiply applying metamagic goes, I've started to have second thoughts on this. If you could repeatedly apply Enlarge, you could end up with ranges much longer that I would really want a spell to last. And repeatedly applying Extend sounds fine until you think about what happens with damage-over-time effects, like Acid Arrow. Basically, allowing repeated metamagic application is mostly useless when it isn't broken, which is exactly what I don't want.
Hmm....I think there are a few very specific situations where it could be useful, but I see what you mean; it's a very fine line between workable and bjorked. Maybe you could make a PrC which is focused on this kind of thing, so there is a cost (in levels taken) and you can control much more closely what players can do with it.

To me, wands are a different beast because they are about fifty times as expensive as a weapon. They occupy a dramatically different space in fluff.

Do they need to, though? Yes, Arthur had dozens of knights while there was only one Merlin, but the whole point of these fixes is that in D&D when you reverse the ratios the game breaks down and doesn't function properly. (in a party with a Wizard, a Druid, a Cleric, and a Fighter, guess who gets left behind?)

I realize that this is getting off-topic, but I'm envisioning a gameworld where wands, generally, are not uncommon as items, but where any specific wand may be hard to find. Commoners and other non-adventurers know what wands are and, generally speaking, what they do, but just like swords, spears, and armor, don't have a lot of use for them in most cases. (though the idea of a fisherman getting rich with a Wand of Web makes me chuckle)
By comparison, the wands that the populace could use (Wand of Cure Potato Blight, or Wand of Unseen Servant Who Sorts Paperwork) aren't really ones that PCs will want.
Obtaining the wands that the PCs can make good use of will be like trying to find a shop where you can buy an assault rifle in a city like New York or Chicago (in case anyone doesn't live in North 'Murica or just doesn't get the analogy, and thinks we all wear cowboy hats and carry six-shooters, both of those cities have very strict gun-control laws). Being PCs, the wizard gets to start with one just like the fighter gets to start with his flesh-rending murder-tool (sorry, meant to write "battle-axe").

I like this. Instead of boosting Spellcraft checks, though, why not just let them boost caster level with certain spells or spell categories? One of the things that changed with the Spell Reformation is that it is now possible and even desirable to allow CL-boosting items and effects. For example, Spell Focus now grants +2 CL instead of +1 DC; this means it has a more uniform effect across a variety of spells.

Sorry, I keep forgetting we're working on fixing spellcasting from different angles here. For me, Spellcraft rolls aren't just skill checks, they are required to actually cast spells (like attack rolls are required to hit something) and I want to do away with a separate "caster level". If it works better for you the other way though, go ahead.

I'm a bit torn here. I definitely want to give noncasters access to magic item crafting. However, I don't want to throw away the "know spell X" requirement away from crafting. That has a very important limiting effect on what any individual person can craft; without it, you risk letting anyone craft anything, which is very difficult to balance. Plus, it's super flavorful. So I want a system to somehow combine those two components. Maybe a feat that lets you be treated as a caster of CL = Craft ranks, and lets you "know" some spells - perhaps all spells from a certain school or domain? It's all still fuzzy right now.
Wow, we sure have come a long way. I can barely even see the original topic from here. :smalltongue:

Anyhow, I've twice tried to start a discussion on ways to reform the crafting system, and it's never attracted any attention. I guess it doesn't have the same sexy appeal as fixing magic or updating the ToB.
But to try and keep this short, I'd make crafting it's own subsystem, almost totally separate from normal class levels and exp. You would be limited on what items you could make by your crafter level, and you would learn recipes or formulas as you leveled up, and if you invest time, you can learn more like a wizard learning spells.

That is exactly the difference - it makes it an inherent part of the character.
/shrug
Whatever floats your boat. To me, that fact that they can use magic at all seems inherent in their character, and if they have a limited amount each day then that's like the fighter having a limited amount of HP with which he can absorb axe-blows to the face.

There should be gear that improves casters' core abilities, such as caster level and spell access. Fighters don't need magical gear to get their BAB, class features, and so on. However, gear is what takes them from "pretty okay" to "awesome". It should be the same way with casters: there should be equipment that increases CL with certain spells, descriptors, or schools. There should be equipment that increases spells/day or even grants a spell known (which should require 24-hour attunement to avoid shenanigans). That's what is missing. Don't require gear to not be useless - require gear to be awesome. After the power nerfs imposed by the Spell Reformation, this can actually be done without smashing the game to tiny pieces.
I fully agree with all of this; I've had frequent similar ideas myself.

*caster-level stuff*By 20th level, they would have a 10 lower CL, which means a 5 lower DC. For most of their career, the difference would be lower. How many of those spells actually have a DC, though? I think they are almost entirely buffs/healing/utility/etc. (Also, I rewrote rangers so they no longer have spells.)

It feels wrong that paladin has the same caster level as a cleric, yet can cast spells of less than half the level. If that is true, what does caster level even mean? If paladin gets 1/2 CL (and you very slightly tweak the rate of acquisition), paladins get 2nd level spells at CL 4, 3rd level spells at CL 6, and 4th level spells at CL 8. That has such a beautiful pattern to it, and is exactly what I would expect.

If that's what you feel is necessary, then that's your call. As I've said, I would rather do away with Caster-level entirely, just because I consider it a pain to work with. There are enough things reliant on "level" already without adding one more to the mix, and I don't have an issue with basing things like range, duration, or DC off of HD any more than you have an issue with levels in Fighter granting Wizard spells-per-day.

I'm actually not concerned about the power level (mostly). How much optimizing have you done? Theurge classes have always been much weaker than full casters. As someone once said, if you ever get the urge to play a theurge, go play a Wizard 3 / Cleric 3 / Theurge 1 in a game with a cleric 7 and a wizard 7. It's vastly inferior. The difference with this system is that the progression is smoother, and you get the class features of the original classes. Yeah, that's probably dangerous if you theurge Druid with another caster (though, of course, your wild shape wouldn't get any theurging benefit). However, in a system where all of the classes have properly designed class features with steadily increasing power, it is much less of an issue. You could be a wizard 6 / sorcerer 6 and have 4th level spells from both classes - or you could be a wizard 12 with 6th level spells and the Contingency class feature. Or a sorcerer 12 with Versatile Spellblend, letting you cast two spells at once. I am not sure that this works in core D&D because the classes are so imbalanced. However, in a system with balanced classes, it works just fine.

The fact that multiclass or theurge-like classes tend to be underpowered was one of the things that led me to base spell-improvement off of HD instead of caster level. As you said, in a system with balanced classes you could improve the theurge-ish aspects if they where underwhelming. And I would rather have actual PrCs, rather than just making this part of the core rules.

tarkisflux

2013-09-04, 12:36 PM

Fair enough, I'll keep that in mind. Mostly I'm just trying to figure out what classes can serve as some good examples to model certain aspects of the game after, when/if we're going for a fix.

Frankly, doubling in power every 3 levels (instead of every 2) seems like a more balanced approach to me anyhow. With some class-based fixes to give the underwhelming classes more options at higher levels besides just "hit it more" or "hit it harder", and by toning down the OP spell selection somewhat, I think you could resolve at least half of the games major issues.

Balanced depends almost entirely on what you're comparing to, so that is no more or less balanced than anything else as long as you're consistent. It may promote narratives that you prefer though, in which case it is actually better. There is no good or bad in games except as it affects the type of game that was intended after all.

But an easy way to go with the 3 level thing is to take the current spell levels and pass them out every 3 levels instead of every 2. Then do a bit of fixing of outliers / actually broken effects at each spell level and call it a day. Legend sort of does this actually, but bolts on enough other stuff that they still claim to double every 2 (and I haven't bothered to look closely at their growth to have a strong opinion on that statement).

Not requiring players to make leaps to a whole new level of play just to keep being relevant would be a good thing, I think. The game still has that option if your GM wants to chuck way over-CR monsters at you anyway.

I wouldn't call it a different level, more like a different style of game. The classes that almost match that pace level out of fetch quests, travel montages with random encounters, and wilderness exploration/survival. They just don't do them anymore because they have powers that make those challenges trivial. And some of the T3 classes do that too, but mostly they keep playing the same style of game from 1-20 and you still root around in the jungle looking for the temple at higher levels.

I'm a little confused by this; are you saying that you prefer to play as tier 1 or 2 classes? And why? Is it just fluff? Is it because you like having that level of world-breaking power, or is it just because the other classes don't offer enough viable options? If the power level was turned down, would you play a tier 3 Wizard or Druid for the versatility? Would you play a tier 1 or 2 martial-based class?

The short answer to those last two questions is "sort of". If I want to play a limited wizard, I grab a beguiller or a dread necro. If I want to play a martial, I generally play what Morph would call OP tier3 martial classes because the felxibility of tier 1/2 is hard to do with a martial archetype. But I don't have anything against any of the tiers, and have played enjoyable games in each of them (well, maybe not 6, but certainly 1-5). I just prefer high growth (and thus high power) classes when given the opportunity or when I'm running a game, and those tend to be in tiers 1 or 2 (but aren't always).

A detailed explanation of my personal preferences seems pretty off topic in a thread largely devoted to toning spells down, even though we're already pretty far from the OP. I could probably start a new one in defense of high power (which is a hallmark of Tier 1/2, but not synonymous with it) or PM you if you wanted though.

unbeliever536

2013-09-04, 04:46 PM

(And "modifier" is probably not the best name for what I am trying to describe.)

What about "value"? That is, to my knowledge, not already a word for anything remotely similar in D&D. Just an idea.

AttilaTheGeek

2013-09-04, 04:50 PM

What about "value"? That is, to my knowledge, not already a word for anything remotely similar in D&D. Just an idea.

"Value" sounds like a final value, not a modifier.

Also, playtesting was mentioned; if anyone wants to run a playtest game, I'd play.

unbeliever536

2013-09-04, 08:38 PM

"Value" sounds like a final value, not a modifier.

It is, in a sense, a static value. You add your four values to the base value to get your final Armor Class attribute. You have modifiers (some bonuses, some penalties) which apply only to your four different values, except in very rare cases where they hit the attribute.

AttilaTheGeek

2013-09-04, 09:30 PM

It is, in a sense, a static value. You add your four values to the base value to get your final Armor Class attribute. You have modifiers (some bonuses, some penalties) which apply only to your four different values, except in very rare cases where they hit the attribute.

I understand what values are, I was just commenting on the fact that I think they could use a better name, like "modifiers".

Also, I didn't want to pop my head into the thread and volunteer for playtesting without offering any feedback. I've worked with Vadskye a little bit on magic before, but with school starting back up I have much less time to post long treatises. However, despite that, I still want to do what I can to help the Spell Reformation.

Vadskye

2013-09-14, 03:54 PM

Hey all. Part III - Damage Spells - is now up! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16018567&postcount=33)
Tarkisflux:

Not generally accessible could also simply mean not low level. People here complain about fighters not having nice things, so I don't think it's the case that they don't want fantastic utility on their mundane characters at higher levels. I would agree that they don't want the flavor to be too magicky, but I don't think anyone cares about asking forest spirits what's going on in the wood or preparing some gilly weed for waterbreathing. Your problem is a fluff one, not an effect one, and unless you're going to provide your higher level utility functions in some other way, all you're doing is shuffling off the caster utility imbalance to a different subsystem. It only gets resolved if you do a better job of distributing the toys, and nothing you've written suggests you're doing that.
Very true. I think you're getting at the core solution to this problem, which is essentially about magic items. I think everyone has accepted the idea that noncasters can have access to some interesting utility effects, as long as those effects don't come from inherent aspects of the noncaster. Only a mage can wave their hands and let you breathe water - but as long as we call it a magic item, there's no fluff dicontinuity. I haven't fully explored this area, but I think you've convinced me (not sure if that was exactly your intention) that really integrating these "external" utility effects into the system is a key part of restoring the imbalance. I think the Spell Reformation needs to be complete before a comprehensive magic item + crafting fix can be written, since magic items are so intimately tied to spell effects. However, I've been kicking around some ideas, if you're interested.

No, no it's not perfectly reasonable. You could say that it required a feat (which should probably give them rituals from every skill, not just one) for everyone and skill access for everyone, and then just give the magic classes the feat for free at some point. And so far, that's pretty fair. But delaying their acquisition breaks that fairness, and you're setting yourself up for the Epic skill problem. By the time the mundanes get access to anything, the spellcasters have been doing it for levels already and the mundane guy probably has an item that grants them the utility thing anyway. So they don't care about doing it. And asking the skill strapped mundanes to divert points from sort of useful low level skill effects into a cross-class skill that does them much less good is asking them to trade utility now for potential utility later, long after other characters got the same things. You might as well not let them have them at all.
After further reflection, I think you're right. The combination of skill + feat (which, yes, should grant access to rituals from all skills), in addition to the gold cost of scribing and casting rituals, means that it's a significant investment that can grant significant utility. As long as the cost is great enough that it's not an automatic choice, I'm happy - and I think this system accomplishes that goal.

You could maybe use the Same Game Test (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/SGT), but it has a lot of limitations and may not be well suited for your purposes. There was talk of a Tiering test floating around here as well, but I lost track of the project when it got moved to another site and the thread died. Google may be nicer to you than it was to me in tracking down the thread here about it. But if you're going to change the monsters and classes anyway, there's not much point in using either of them for much more than a base for your own.
The SGT looks pretty useful; I should put my class designs through that. It's not quite what I was thinking of, though - it doesn't solve the "two mages vs. one mage" problem.

And it looks like you broke a quote right after this part. Did you miss something related to slot progression, or were you moving into the CR stuff?
Oops! I think I addressed that in the general CR section.

It already does that. If you get a creature of CR-4 for each member of the party, it's basically equivalent to a 4-man party fighting 1 creature with a CR equal to their level. Basically, 4 characters have an encounter level equal to their level +4, so they can fight any other set of creatures that adds up to an encounter level equal to the party's level without breaking much of a sweat. And as long as you focus on EL instead of CR it works out fine regardless of party size.
True - just changing CR to mean "appropriate challenge for 1 character of level X" instead of "appropriate challenge for a four-man party of level X" is a strictly nonfunctional change. In the current system, it only requires increasing all CRs by 4. It encourages multi-person encounters, though, since (in my experience) most DMs default to just looking at CR=level monsters and in that vicinity. It's less than ideal, sure - but DMs use mental shortcuts just like anyone else, and I think changing the system to encourage many vs. many encounters instead of many vs. one encounters is healthy - regardless of any other changes to CR calculations.

But if you want to redefine expected challenge levels, I'd recommend not using monsters initially, but characters. Most monsters can be classified as outgrowths or exaggerations of characters anyway, so this just helps make sure that things are in the right place. And while not every level 5 vs. level 5 match needs to be 50/50 because some classes should be better or worse against others, not doing 50/50 against mirror matches will break your math and leave you with nothing. So start there, and if you want to keep CR as a thing you can define it relative to character level.
That's a good idea, and more or less what I was thinking. My current theory is that a NPC of level X should be an appropriate challenge (not 50-50) for a PC of level X. I might tweak the NPC classes and NPC WBL as necessary to make that true. If we can get a character-based CR system to work, it's much easier to assign monster CRs, as you point out.

AoE blasting spells are too strong.... I don't... I mean, I know you want to tone it all down, but... huh? There are no words for this.
AoE blasting spells aren't too strong relative to debuff spells. They're too strong relative relative to noncaster damage vs. groups, and too strong relative to any damage spell not named Scorching Ray. (And maybe the Orbs.) I give a more detailed explanation of this in Part III, which is (finally) up now! Yay.

So... magic crafting rituals are ok, but mundane utility rituals that key off of a mundane skill (like craft) to approximate magic effects are not? If you're going to let people take feats to "learn spells for crafting" you may as well let them do the same thing to learn rituals at the same pace. Unless you just want people crafting utility items instead of ritualing utility effects I guess.
Yeah, that doesn't make much sense, does it? You're definitely right on rituals.
Glosz:

This is my idea for allowing crafting of magic items to non-casters. It is based off the craft skill and takes in ideas from Use Magic Device. It could be used in a similar way for rituals. Making a skill check to emulate a ritual.

rulesrulesrules
I like the restriction to arms and armor - Craft definitely has particular relevancy there. However, it's a little more broad than I would prefer. For example, I think it should definitely be possible to make a +3 Keen Wounding Longsword with nothing more than Craft and a crafting feat. However, this would allow you to Craft some more esoteric weapons that I'm not sure should be possible with strictly mundane means, such as Brilliant weapons. I think it is useful to still keep a divide between the "mundane" and the purely magical. The scope of the mundane should be significantly expanded, but it's okay to say that even a dwarven smith can't do everything. This means a more nuanced approach is needed.
Deepbluediver:

Frankly, doubling in power every 3 levels (instead of every 2) seems like a more balanced approach to me anyhow. With some class-based fixes to give the underwhelming classes more options at higher levels besides just "hit it more" or "hit it harder", and by toning down the OP spell selection somewhat, I think you could resolve at least half of the games major issues.

Not requiring players to make leaps to a whole new level of play just to keep being relevant would be a good thing, I think. The game still has that option if your GM wants to chuck way over-CR monsters at you anyway.
This is exactly what I want.

If I'm understanding this correctly though, all 4 of those modifiers can get boosted by each of the 4 different bonus-types, yes? So you've got 16 possible combinations. Maybe it won't work out that way, (for example, there might not be anything that provides and competence-based natural-armor bonus) but it still seems overly complicated. While I get the idea of keeping the term "modifier" around; I think I'd rather just have a few more different bonus types.
Yeah, I can't think of anything that would give a competence-based bonus to natural armor. And I would draw a distinction between "complicated" and "comprehensive". Having the exact same four bonus types for every single thing in the game is not that complicated. The interaction between bonus types and modifiers allows it to be comprehensive, but I'm not convinced that it significantly increases complexity. I'm pretty sure that you can look at any ability in the game and know pretty quickly which category it belongs to.

In my armor improvements thread, I made base AC 5+1/2 BAB. Some people complained that makes PC's too squishy at low levels, but one thing I was trying to do would be to encourage people to actually consider armor as a valuable piece of adventuring equipment. The change benefits monster-type enemies in that they tend to increase their BAB and HD faster than the PC's, so hopefully it will keep up (at least to some degree) with the higher levels of manufactured armor.
My experience is that low-level PCs do value armor (to the extent that they can afford it). If you make base AC 5 + 1/2 BAB, you lose the fundamental principle of the d20 system: equally matched foes have a (roughly) equal chance of success and failure. When two average commoners get in a fight, they both have a 80% chance to hit each other. AC needs to start at 10.

I also think it would help if designers actually used the existing Monster Feats (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm), as appropriate, instead of doing things the lazy way and just giving every enemy in the book multiple instances of Toughness.
Absolutely true. I think they got better at that in the later books.

Possibly; I can never keep those two straight. I would love simplify them into one set of rules.
I've considered it, but I think it actually makes a lot of sense. Concealment is vision-based; it doesn't matter how good they are at defending themselves if you're attacking where they aren't. That's why it's a separate miss chance. Cover is difficulty-based; it makes it harder to hit them, but you still know where they are. That's why it's an AC bonus. Now, is that distinction worth the complexity? Maybe not. I've kept it in so far - if only because one of my weaknesses as a DM is a lack of interesting terrain, so they come up less often than they should. But I think as long as you have spells like Blur and Displacement, you will need to separate "miss chance" from AC; a game where Displacement simply gives an AC bonus and Blindness simply gives a penalty to attack rolls has lost a mechanic that adds a lot to the game. Given that you will need miss chances anyway, why not keep concealment and cover distinct?

I've been trying to put this whole issue to rest by coming up with a way make shields as "Gear" bonuses in my version of things without breaking the "inherent bonuses are the only ones that stack" rule. Honestly, having shields as "gear" is much more intuitive than having them as circumstance; I only put them their because of the "non-stacking" issue in the first place. And while I acknowledge that your system is better than the RAW, I would love to be able to take things just a little bit farther.
What types of AC does a "gear" bonus improve? Does it help touch AC or flat-footed AC? What does a spell like Magic Vestment do - increase your Gear bonus? If that's the case, isn't it just the same as the bonus/modifier system except without the clear labeling?

Frankly, I've found that play-style and GM-encouragement to be far more significant determinators of game speed than any mechanical rule. I've had 3 rounds of combat take an hour and 5 rounds take 10 minutes.

I recognize that this is an issue, but I just don't see it as big of a problem as you do, I guess. Between altering some spells directly (such as Summon Monster being minutes instead of rounds) and making other changes such as condensing the types of bonuses players can/need to stack on themselves, and granting some classes "always on" aura-type benefits, I don't think it will slow down the game significantly.
All of that is true; fast players (particularly noncasters) are faster than slow players, and simplifying bonuses will speed up gameplay. However, this isn't an either/or thing. Everything that increases play time and decreases bookkeeping is good, unless it makes other things worse - and I definitely don't see much added value from 1 round/level.

The differences in spell-level access between sorcerers and wizards was one of the first things I did away with. :smallamused:
Glad to hear that you haven't had any unexpected problems with the rest.
Heh, indeed. The only problems I've encountered have been with people upset at the loss of prepared casting. All of the gameplay has worked out just fine.

With regard to Permanency, that would seem like it kind of defeats the point of it being permanent. I wanted players to actually consider what they where getting into when taking this option, rather than just wildly mashing the "make entire party firbolgs!" button as rapidly as they could.

More generally, I've never really liked spells being "dismissable". If you have a spell that requires concentration, then it ends when you stop concentrating. Otherwise, once you've set up your spell and input the energy to get it to start altering how reality works, you can't just end all that on a whim.
Part of it is that I tend to view magic sort-of like science, in that there is only a certain amount "it just is/it's just how magic works" that I'm willing to put up with. That's what forms the check on the ability to do literally anything a player could dream up- they need to be able to explain it in a way that makes sense (no, sorry, there is no "make me ruler of the entire world spell").

So once you've got all this potential energy bound up in your spell with a very specific set of instructions on what it's supposed to be doing, you can't get rid of it easily.
I've never seen a party throw around Permanency willy-nilly; the significant resource investment required has always made it a serious consideration. Anyway, I agree that permanency shouldn't be dismissable - if it doesn't exert a continuous drain on your resources. In that sense, it is like magic items, which should clearly not be dismissable.

However, if permanent spells continuously detract from your spells per day, it makes very little sense to me that one couldn't cut off that flow of power. Even putting fluff aside, this needs to be the case; consider that there are ways to render yourself incapable of casting spells of a given level, such as negative levels and ability damage. If that happened, wouldn't the Permanency that requires a spell slot of that level end by default? In other words, you can always cut off the flow of power to a Permanency'd spell that consumes your resources - you just have to use a weird and convoluted mechanism. Better to make it dismissable (though I would accept that you can only make that decision when you ready your spells for the day; that seems like a good compromise).

As I alluded to above; I would rather have "concentration" based spells being a very specific type that required constant input, and spells with a duration be more fire-and-forget. Mixing the two sets of rules seems unnecessarily complex. I want to keep the basic rules as simple and straightforward as possible, because as you have pointed out, there's still room for metamagic to modify things in all kinds of crazy ways.
There is a history of spells with "Concentration + X duration"; I don't see anything complicated about saying that a spell lasts X amount of time after you stop concentrating on it. In practice, you're almost always going to see concentration on short duration spells only happen outside of combat. Think about how much simpler it is to just cast a spell and say that you concentrate on it until combat starts than to have to individually track precise round before a combat starts (when time flows more irregularly and narratively).

It's more like: a spell lasts 7 rounds when I'm level 7, 8 rounds when I'm level 8, 13 rounds when I'm level 13, or if I metamagic it then it's minutes instead of rounds. But if I have to start tracking some spells with duration equal to level and others not equal to level, I know I'm going to get them confused.
With this system, no spells have "duration equal to level", since level is a highly variable value. Instead, every short duration spell has the same duration. Every close range spell has the same range. Every extended short duration spell lasts for a minute. I can't imagine that being more complicated than having to double your caster level (which requires knowing what your caster level is which each spell - and since both DC and damage are based on caster level, caster level is now much more variable). If you have Spell Focus: Conjuration (+2 caster level) and you're a 7th level wizard casting Extended Grease, how long does it last? With the original duration, that's (7+2)*2=18 rounds. With this system, it's a minute. No math involved. Even if we remove the Extend, you're still looking at 7+2 instead of a simple 5. If you then cast Chill touch, you have to remember that it lasts a different amount of time. And, of course, the durations of those spells have changed every single level since you started. With the new system, those spells have had the same duration the whole time. I guarantee you that you won't even have to think about the range or duration; you'll just know it intuitively because it's been the exact same the other twenty times you cast the spell.

Hmm....I think there are a few very specific situations where it could be useful, but I see what you mean; it's a very fine line between workable and bjorked. Maybe you could make a PrC which is focused on this kind of thing, so there is a cost (in levels taken) and you can control much more closely what players can do with it.
That could work. There's definitely design space to be explored here, but I don't think that repeatable metamagic should be the default.

Do they need to, though? Yes, author had dozens of knights while there was only one Merlin, but the whole point of these fixes is that in D&D when you reverse the ratios the game breaks down and doesn't function properly. (in a party with a Wizard, a Druid, a Cleric, and a Fighter, guess who gets left behind?)

I realize that this is getting off-topic, but I'm envisioning a gameworld where wands, generally, are not uncommon as items, but where any specific wand may be hard to find. Commoners and other non-adventurers know what wands are and, generally speaking, what they do, but just like swords, spears, and armor, don't have a lot of use for them in most cases. (though the idea of a fisherman getting rich with a Wand of Web makes me chuckle)
By comparison, the wands that the populace could use (Wand of Cure Potato Blight, or Wand of Unseen Servant Who Sorts Paperwork) aren't really ones that PCs will want.
Obtaining the wands that the PCs can make good use of will be like trying to find a shop where you can buy an assault rifle in a city like New York or Chicago (in case anyone doesn't live in North 'Murica or just doesn't get the analogy, and thinks we all wear cowboy hats and carry six-shooters, both of those cities have very strict gun-control laws). Being PCs, the wizard gets to start with one just like the fighter gets to start with his flesh-rending murder-tool (sorry, meant to write "battle-axe").
But a specific requirement for a wand is that you be able to cast the spell stored in the wand. That means a commoner can never use any wand, ever. What you're describing isn't a wand - it's something different. With that said, I actually like the idea of having an item like that. It's like the potion version of a wand; usable by everyone, but perhaps less versatile or more expensive than a scroll or wand.

This is actually leading me towards a total rewrite of how wands work. What if the current mechanic for a "wand" was called something different and usable by the general population? Let's call those "magic sticks" as a placeholder name. In that case, a wand would be redesigned as a tool for casters to enhance their casting abilities. Perhaps a wand grants bonuses when casting the spell or spells associated with the wand. Or it grants spells known (with limitations), like a runestaff currently does. Magic sticks should probably have their mechanic change slightly; 50 charges that can all be used at once is too powerful (and therefore too expensive) for it to be as accessible as you seem to the thinking. So maybe the default magic stick has 10 charges, and no more than one charge can be used per day. Or it has three charges, and one charge regenerates each day. Wands might not need to be charged at all. This is more brainstorming than anything else - what do you think?

Sorry, I keep forgetting we're working on fixing spellcasting from different angles here. For me, Spellcraft rolls aren't just skill checks, they are required to actually cast spells (like attack rolls are required to hit something) and I want to do away with a separate "caster level". If it works better for you the other way though, go ahead.
Right, sorry. I remembered after posting that you use Spellcraft for casting. (Personally, I changed Spellcraft to a Wis-based perception skill. Very different!)

Wow, we sure have come a long way. I can barely even see the original topic from here. :smalltongue:
Haha. Well, you people keep having interesting ideas!

Anyhow, I've twice tried to start a discussion on ways to reform the crafting system, and it's never attracted any attention. I guess it doesn't have the same sexy appeal as fixing magic or updating the ToB.
But to try and keep this short, I'd make crafting it's own subsystem, almost totally separate from normal class levels and exp. You would be limited on what items you could make by your crafter level, and you would learn recipes or formulas as you leveled up, and if you invest time, you can learn more like a wizard learning spells.
Like I said to tarkisflux above, the crafting system is my next target after the Spell Reformation. Since magic item effects are so intricately tied to spell effects, I think spells have to be fixed first. But I'd love to investigate that with you.

/shrug
Whatever floats your boat. To me, that fact that they can use magic at all seems inherent in their character, and if they have a limited amount each day then that's like the fighter having a limited amount of HP with which he can absorb axe-blows to the face.
From my perspective, it's more like telling a fighter that he's run out of sword swings for the day, and he can only swing his sword more if he uses a special sword. But this is just quibbling; we seem to agree that casters should have a spell-related mechanic at low levels that is less limited in uses/day so they don't feel boring, and that's what's important. (We did agree on that, right? I'm not just making things up?)

If that's what you feel is necessary, then that's your call. As I've said, I would rather do away with Caster-level entirely, just because I consider it a pain to work with. There are enough things reliant on "level" already without adding one more to the mix, and I don't have an issue with basing things like range, duration, or DC off of HD any more than you have an issue with levels in Fighter granting Wizard spells-per-day.
I also think it's a pain to work with! I just think that because of the way it's used for range and duration. :smalltongue:

The fact that multiclass or theurge-like classes tend to be underpowered was one of the things that led me to base spell-improvement off of HD instead of caster level. As you said, in a system with balanced classes you could improve the theurge-ish aspects if they where underwhelming. And I would rather have actual PrCs, rather than just making this part of the core rules.
There is definitely still a role for theurge classes. This change makes it so that theurge classes matter because of their class features (which means they can and should have interesting class features) rather than simply being a "requirement" to play a theurge character. If theurge classes are required, you need at least one theurge class for every single distinct combination. This is essentially the approach we use now, and there is an immense glut of different theurge classes. Better, I think, to make a theurge prestige class be focused on the unique aspects of the combination of the classes, rather than just trying to be "generic X plus Y". Less Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge, and more Daggerspell Mage or Rage Mage. When theurge classes don't need to be a generic representation of the two classes smashed together, they will have more freedom to really focus on some aspect of what makes that combination unique.
Unbeliever:

What about "value"? That is, to my knowledge, not already a word for anything remotely similar in D&D. Just an idea.
Like Attila said, that feels more like a final result to me than an intermediate step in a calculation. However, it is a great word! What would make the most sense is if the "value" was the result of putting the modifiers together. That would be great; you could have attack value, armor value, saving throw value, and it would all be beautifully unambiguous.

Unfortunately, it would also be a huge culture shock to people used to D&D. I don't think the world is ready to replace "Armor Class" with "Armor Value". (Though AV does at least sound similar to AC...)
AttilaTheGeek:

Also, playtesting was mentioned; if anyone wants to run a playtest game, I'd play.
Ah, I would definitely enjoy that. But as my reply speed suggests, I'm way too busy to run a game myself at the moment. If someone actually did this, I would be super happy and make sure I was available to help, though!

unbeliever536

2013-09-15, 01:39 PM

Like Attila said, that feels more like a final result to me than an intermediate step in a calculation. However, it is a great word! What would make the most sense is if the "value" was the result of putting the modifiers together. That would be great; you could have attack value, armor value, saving throw value, and it would all be beautifully unambiguous.

Unfortunately, it would also be a huge culture shock to people used to D&D. I don't think the world is ready to replace "Armor Class" with "Armor Value". (Though AV does at least sound similar to AC...)

As it happens, because I decided to go with the BAB->AC rule for my own games (the amount of homebrew I'm using is piling up to the point that it's probably worth calling it a new d20 based system), I decided to change the name of "base attack bonus" to "combat value", because it applies to a fair bit more than just attacks. I'm also thinking of switching from "caster/manifester level" to "caster/manifester value" as well, since it's no longer a nearly-static value dependent only on level.

Vadskye

2013-09-15, 01:45 PM

As it happens, because I decided to go with the BAB->AC rule for my own games (the amount of homebrew I'm using is piling up to the point that it's probably worth calling it a new d20 based system), I decided to change the name of "base attack bonus" to "combat value", because it applies to a fair bit more than just attacks. I'm also thinking of switching from "caster/manifester level" to "caster/manifester value" as well, since it's no longer a nearly-static value dependent only on level.

I see the logic behind this, but be careful; "combat value" is a really vague and generic term. That's the downside to "value"; it's totally ambiguous as to how the value is derived. "Base attack bonus" is much more clear. Same thing with "caster value"; it's less clear that it's a direct representation of casting ability than "caster level". My preferred renames, if you're trying to reduce the overabundance of "level", would be "casting power" and "combat prowess". Those are more evocative than "value".

This is all just quibbling, though. It's possible that once I got used to "combat value", it wouldn't seem weird to me. We all got used to armor class, after all, and that's an odd set of words.

Deepbluediver

2013-09-16, 12:27 PM

Taking a page from the Book of Vadskye* on controlling post-length...
*A holy tome, bound in leather and dripping blood, except on alternate thursdays, when it drips cheese.
Vadskye:

Yeah, I can't think of anything that would give a competence-based bonus to natural armor. And I would draw a distinction between "complicated" and "comprehensive". Having the exact same four bonus types for every single thing in the game is not that complicated. The interaction between bonus types and modifiers allows it to be comprehensive, but I'm not convinced that it significantly increases complexity. I'm pretty sure that you can look at any ability in the game and know pretty quickly which category it belongs to.
What, exactly, do you mean by "comprehensive"? If you think your system will work, then go for it, but if you can't have every kind of bonus-modifier combination, how many different combos do you actually need? Just four types of bonuses IS pretty limited, which I why I raised the number.

I can summarize my proposal in 3 lines, effectively:
1) There are 6/7/8 (whatever I finally decide) different types of bonuses which can apply to any value in the game.
2) They don't stack, except for Inherent (and maybe gear).
3) The sum of all bonuses and penalties is your final modifier to a roll or other value.

Simple. Easy. Done.

I think what I have finally decided is that shield will be Gear bonuses, and gear bonuses can stack, but not from the same source. So for example, if you get an Inherent bonus to AC (representing something like natural armor) from multiple classes or feats, they will all stack along with anything else, like from race. At the same time, bonuses from both a shield and a set of armor and would stack, but you can't stack bonuses from wearing multiple sets of armor or having 6 sets of lockpicks. Does that make sense?
With the bonus types I outlined above, is there any basic combination or situation that you don't think I can represent? Do you forsee any looming problems?

My experience is that low-level PCs do value armor (to the extent that they can afford it). If you make base AC 5 + 1/2 BAB, you lose the fundamental principle of the d20 system: equally matched foes have a (roughly) equal chance of success and failure. When two average commoners get in a fight, they both have a 80% chance to hit each other. AC needs to start at 10.
I think there's something that's not exactly accurate in that summary. The question is: what are you trying to measure as equal?

Both commoners have the same chance to strike the other.
Both commoners have the same chance of victory in a fight.
The only thing that's not equal is their chance to hit or miss, and I don't really see a problem with that.

In practice, virtually everything in the game is about subverting this 50/50 split. For a common example, the DC's for Skill-checks can be all over the place, depending on circumstances and other modifiers.

I wanted to make armor better on it's own (which I did) and I also wanted to make players more likely to consider using it or taking the relevant feats. It is still not beyond the reach for any individual player to create a build that is better off without armor, but in general having some armor should be better than having none. And I don't think changing how the base AC value is calculated will unbalance the game in a disruptive way.

I've considered it, but I think it actually makes a lot of sense. Concealment is vision-based; it doesn't matter how good they are at defending themselves if you're attacking where they aren't. That's why it's a separate miss chance. Cover is difficulty-based; it makes it harder to hit them, but you still know where they are. That's why it's an AC bonus.
Hmm...that's a good way to explain it; I can see that. Maybe if one or the other just didn't start with "C" I'd have an easier time keeping them straight.

Still, I think this line of debate is largely moot at this point. Unless you really WANT to add in some additional rules for shields and cover/concealment, I don't think I'll need them to be a circumstance bonuses after all. Which is where this all started.

What types of AC does a "gear" bonus improve? Does it help touch AC or flat-footed AC?
AC is an odd little duck, isn't it?

Basically, unless specified otherwise, a bonus applies to every version or roll of it's specified type. For this, I'd say first calculate your regular AC, then work backwards for the sub-categories.
-Touch-AC is just your normal AC without any Gear-bonus from Armor (though in my revised armor rules, shields do add to touch-AC. cause that's what shields do, they keep things from touching you)
-Flat-footed AC should probably just be regular AC without Dexterity (Inherent) and Gear bonuses from shields.
Most of the other bonus types will ALWAYS apply, and if you can think of any circumstances where that doesn't make sense (headscratchers, essentially) let me know.
Also, I guess we need to keep touch-AC for magic, but if we got rid of a different calculation for flat-footed, would that upset anything else? (you can still be "flatfooted" which might affect what actions you can take, but it wouldn't change your AC).

What does a spell like Magic Vestment do - increase your Gear bonus? If that's the case, isn't it just the same as the bonus/modifier system except without the clear labeling?
I'm not exactly certain yet; if I can't come up with a good method for it to do something interesting, then it gets scrapped. We already have Shield, Mage Armor, Barkskin, the cleric one, and plenty of other ways to boost AC.

It might be better if Magic Vestement did something different entirely, or provided a different sort of bonus (perhaps to different factors).

....- and I definitely don't see much added value from 1 round/level.
/shrug
Don't use it then, or at least don't use it for buffs.
There are some spells that I think are too powerful for minutes/level, but that could just be a matter of opinion. If it's bugging some one, let them take a metamagic feat and bump-up all spells with a duration. That's the attraction of player-choice.

Heh, indeed. The only problems I've encountered have been with people upset at the loss of prepared casting. All of the gameplay has worked out just fine.
I'd probably keep prepared casting in some form or aspect, just because I like the potential for Wizard-like classes (lots of variety, but with a need to make choices) but in a significantly simplified fashion. I'll try to post something about this soon.

However, if permanent spells continuously detract from your spells per day, it makes very little sense to me that one couldn't cut off that flow of power. Even putting fluff aside, this needs to be the case; consider that there are ways to render yourself incapable of casting spells of a given level, such as negative levels and ability damage. If that happened, wouldn't the Permanency that requires a spell slot of that level end by default? In other words, you can always cut off the flow of power to a Permanency'd spell that consumes your resources - you just have to use a weird and convoluted mechanism. Better to make it dismissable (though I would accept that you can only make that decision when you ready your spells for the day; that seems like a good compromise).
These are all valid points. With that in mind, what I'm currently thinking is that I like the permanency spell/ritual/whatever having a cost more in terms of RP or class-mechanics than it does in gold. Gold is variable, and easy for the DM to control in an absolute sense, but very easy for the players to shift about among themselves or do creative things with (that I don't really want to limit further; that's the appeal of tabletop gaming afterall).

I like the idea of it clearly not being like a normal spell, because it does have the potential (especially if you leave it open-ended) to be very powerful. Having to effectively "uncast" it helps with that, I think. Plus, if making something permanent requires lots of time, preparation, special knowledge or resources, then its logical to me that making it un-permanent would require a similar set-up.

If a player could mechanically use Permanency whenever they needed to, but felt conflicted over the long-term ramifications and potential benefits or drawbacks, that's a good scenario, IMO.

There is a history of spells with "Concentration + X duration"; I don't see anything complicated about saying that a spell lasts X amount of time after you stop concentrating on it. In practice, you're almost always going to see concentration on short duration spells only happen outside of combat. Think about how much simpler it is to just cast a spell and say that you concentrate on it until combat starts than to have to individually track precise round before a combat starts (when time flows more irregularly and narratively).
You're right in that it does have precedent, and that its probably not terribly complicated. I just don't like how it interacts with the rest of the magic system. I basically want there to be spells you can "fire and forget", (either instantaneous or with a fixed duration), and then spells that need constant input and control (Dominate is probably a fine example). I want them all to be clear and distinctly different. What is the benefit of "Concentration+X rounds" that I can't get with just a fixed duration spell? Particularly since you said you don't like the accounting of tracking spells by rounds, and time flows both in and out of combat, no matter what.

With this system, no spells have "duration equal to level", since level is a highly variable value. Instead, every short duration spell has the same duration. Every close range spell has the same range. Every extended short duration spell lasts for a minute. I can't imagine that being more complicated than having to double your caster level (which requires knowing what your caster level is which each spell - and since both DC and damage are based on caster level, caster level is now much more variable). If you have Spell Focus: Conjuration (+2 caster level) and you're a 7th level wizard casting Extended Grease, how long does it last? With the original duration, that's (7+2)*2=18 rounds. With this system, it's a minute. No math involved. Even if we remove the Extend, you're still looking at 7+2 instead of a simple 5. If you then cast Chill touch, you have to remember that it lasts a different amount of time. And, of course, the durations of those spells have changed every single level since you started. With the new system, those spells have had the same duration the whole time. I guarantee you that you won't even have to think about the range or duration; you'll just know it intuitively because it's been the exact same the other twenty times you cast the spell.
It's a trade-off; we've each got our own way of doing things, with some fixed variables and some sliding, and I'm not sure we're going to convince the other. The biggest thing that simplifies in my version is that "Caster-level" doesn't exist, and ECL changes much less frequently. The way I see it, all 7th level casters, be they Wizards, Paladins, or Fighter/Bard gishes will have the same durations, ranges, DCs, etc. That's how, like your system, it's easily learnable, and while levels change, everything will only ever be a multiple of your current level (or calculated in a non-level dependent mannter).

Anything that previously modified CL will need to be updated in some fashion, but I'm holding off on that until I can work out exactly what formula I want for the casting DCs and a few other things.

But a specific requirement for a wand is that you be able to cast the spell stored in the wand. That means a commoner can never use any wand, ever. What you're describing isn't a wand - it's something different. With that said, I actually like the idea of having an item like that. It's like the potion version of a wand; usable by everyone, but perhaps less versatile or more expensive than a scroll or wand.
Ok, maybe what I want IS something different then. One of the biggest issues with game-balance under RAW is that non-magic users are still dependent on casters because they can't enchant items, brew potions, craft scrolls, or use wands themselves.
If they where more like tools, open to everyone, then I'd feel a lot better about them.

This is actually leading me towards a total rewrite of how wands work. What if the current mechanic for a "wand" was called something different and usable by the general population? Let's call those "magic sticks" as a placeholder name. In that case, a wand would be redesigned as a tool for casters to enhance their casting abilities. Perhaps a wand grants bonuses when casting the spell or spells associated with the wand. Or it grants spells known (with limitations), like a runestaff currently does. Magic sticks should probably have their mechanic change slightly; 50 charges that can all be used at once is too powerful (and therefore too expensive) for it to be as accessible as you seem to the thinking. So maybe the default magic stick has 10 charges, and no more than one charge can be used per day. Or it has three charges, and one charge regenerates each day. Wands might not need to be charged at all. This is more brainstorming than anything else - what do you think?
I think they are all fine ideas.

What I'd probably do is break it down something like this:

Potions- mad science, etc. Anyone can brew with them with the right recipe.

Wands- as described above; allows you to cast one spell from charges, and probably gives a general Spellcraft bonus

Staffs- I don't think I want them to just be bigger wands, so granting the ability to cast spells you otherwise don't know would be a great idea, I think.

Rods- free Metamagic, effectively, but very rare; possibly not craftable at all by players, so as to limit their availability (aka minor-artifact status)

Scrolls- I wasn't sold on your idea of rituals, initially, but I was also trying to figure out what to do with scrolls- what niche could they cover that wasn't already filled by something else? I think I can mesh the two: scrolls are not spells themselves, but a combination magical-focus and instruction manual for rituals, which would otherwise be to complex for anyone to attempt on their own.

The most important factor in my mind, is to make each separate item clearly distinct (wands and potions probably overlap a bit, maybe I can come up with some way to encourage wands for offensive use while keeping potions for buffs and defensive),

I think I said this before, but there will probably be a "magical implements proficiency" feat which casters get instead of weapon-feats. Anyone can to activate a wand or perform a ritual without it, but it will be much more difficult/resource-intensive/have a greater failure chance, etc.

Like I said to tarkisflux above, the crafting system is my next target after the Spell Reformation. Since magic item effects are so intricately tied to spell effects, I think spells have to be fixed first. But I'd love to investigate that with you.
I'll resist the urge to run ideas by you atm, and save it for another thread.

From my perspective, it's more like telling a fighter that he's run out of sword swings for the day, and he can only swing his sword more if he uses a special sword. But this is just quibbling; we seem to agree that casters should have a spell-related mechanic at low levels that is less limited in uses/day so they don't feel boring, and that's what's important. (We did agree on that, right? I'm not just making things up?)
Yes, we're in agreement on that.
And yes, it can be weird at times; I know that D&D doesn't mesh perfectly with reality. The game doesn't have a good system to track something like battle-fatigue (though some of the more abstract versions of HP claim this is what they are doing). And you have some classes with unlimited magic (Warlocks or other invocation users) just like you have the occasional class with effectively unlimited HP (Dragon Shaman with the right aura).

But for the most part, if a caster runs out of effective spells or wand-charges right around the same time that the Fighter runs out of HP, then I'd consider the system passable. Alternative, if the length of the adventuring day is determined by HP pools or other abilities an equal amount of the time as spell-slots, then that's also viable. In practice, it doesn't happen like that often, but that's at least partially because melee-classes tend to be more reliant on magic-users and not the reverse. There are lots and lots of different things that go into my plan for fixing D&D; there's no one spot I can adjust and declare "there, it's done!"

Spells are versatile, and powerful. We can work on fixing the truly OP ones, but to keep the feel of classic D&D that basic premise won't change. I'm not going to say it's entirely off the table, but the idea of unlimited magic makes me very wary, for what it might mean for gameplay, worldbuilding, and fluff.

There is definitely still a role for theurge classes. This change makes it so that theurge classes matter because of their class features (which means they can and should have interesting class features) rather than simply being a "requirement" to play a theurge character. If theurge classes are required, you need at least one theurge class for every single distinct combination. This is essentially the approach we use now, and there is an immense glut of different theurge classes. Better, I think, to make a theurge prestige class be focused on the unique aspects of the combination of the classes, rather than just trying to be "generic X plus Y". Less Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge, and more Daggerspell Mage or Rage Mage. When theurge classes don't need to be a generic representation of the two classes smashed together, they will have more freedom to really focus on some aspect of what makes that combination unique.
Spells are variable enough, particularly if you are getting them from more than one type of magic, that I could see a player not needing too many other class features (some, yes, but not a lot). Particularly on a PrC, which is a specific choice, and is, IMO, supposed to be more tightly focused anyway.

I agree that there are quite a few superfluous theurge-like classes, some which where made obsolete by later books. Frankly, I think that some concepts are enough to stand on their own (isn't a Duskblade basically just a Arcane Knight base-class?), and I'd probably reserve the dual-casting aspects for a very specific type of play. I think that with other fixes (such as a party not living or dying by the Caster-level of their wizard, and easier entry requirements) the actual theurge(s) that remain will be more appealing.

There are also plenty of classes (both base and PrC) which are too thinly characterized, trying to have only one unique feature carrying 10 or 20 levels. I'd be happy enough combine plenty of them to cover any holes in the current set-up. For example, give the Spellthief his own spell-selection, and make him your arcane-skillmonkey combo-gish without the need for a PrC at all (and without the Bard's fluff)

tarkisflux:

But an easy way to go with the 3 level thing is to take the current spell levels and pass them out every 3 levels instead of every 2. Then do a bit of fixing of outliers / actually broken effects at each spell level and call it a day. Legend sort of does this actually, but bolts on enough other stuff that they still claim to double every 2 (and I haven't bothered to look closely at their growth to have a strong opinion on that statement).

I like the progression of new spells every other level, particularly since "bolting on" things to casters is something both necessary, but also requiring extreme caution. Particularly if I want to keeps D&D's existing flavor.
If I fundamentally alter certain aspects of how casting works (chance of failure, none/fewer broken spells, etc) then I think it will work out alright.

I wouldn't call it a different level, more like a different style of game. The classes that almost match that pace level out of fetch quests, travel montages with random encounters, and wilderness exploration/survival. They just don't do them anymore because they have powers that make those challenges trivial. And some of the T3 classes do that too, but mostly they keep playing the same style of game from 1-20 and you still root around in the jungle looking for the temple at higher levels.

Poor choices of wording on my part then. I don't have a problem with characters increasing the scale of their impact. Stopping Liches instead of goblins and dealing with courtly intrigue rather than a corrupt sheriff, stuff like that.

But its very hard to keep an equally-interactive game when some of the party can't assist at all in certain encounters and the rest of the party makes other encounters trivial.
What I guess I'm getting at is that there should be the possibility for the Fighter and Monk to contribute to apocalypse-prevention similarly to the Wizard's ability to still have fun rooting around in a crypt and killing zombies at level 20 (some people are perfectly happy to never go beyond kick-in-the-door style play, and there's nothing wrong with that IMO).

The short answer to those last two questions is "sort of". If I want to play a limited wizard, I grab a beguiller or a dread necro. If I want to play a martial, I generally play what Morph would call OP tier3 martial classes because the felxibility of tier 1/2 is hard to do with a martial archetype. But I don't have anything against any of the tiers, and have played enjoyable games in each of them (well, maybe not 6, but certainly 1-5). I just prefer high growth (and thus high power) classes when given the opportunity or when I'm running a game, and those tend to be in tiers 1 or 2 (but aren't always).
If I where to be successful, my ideal world would be one where the current concept of a Tier 1 or 2 doesn't exist (not taking epic levels into account, because at that point all bets are off). Among PC classes though, some would would also have to work really hard to be tier 4 or lower (incapable of contributing, not just unwilling).

A detailed explanation of my personal preferences seems pretty off topic in a thread largely devoted to toning spells down, even though we're already pretty far from the OP. I could probably start a new one in defense of high power (which is a hallmark of Tier 1/2, but not synonymous with it) or PM you if you wanted though.
I could see certain games being fun with all high-tier classes (a Wizard, a Cleric, and a Psion all walk into a bar....etc) but I would also think that even for a supposedly "balanced" group it would be hard for the DM to come up with suitable challenges without turning the game into a very deadly competition of rocket-tag. If you want something "more powerful" then there's relatively little that I think you could get out of the OP classes that couldn't be mostly addressed just by tweaking levels, which leaves the potential for imbalance at the door.

If you feel that Tiers 1 and 2 have a place for players I would indeed be interested in taking that discussion to PMs or to their own thread, in case anyone else wants to weigh in.

Vadskye

2013-09-16, 10:50 PM

Taking a page from the Book of Vadskye* on controlling post-length...
*A holy tome, bound in leather and dripping blood, except on alternate thursdays, when it drips cheese.
I hate Thursdays...

What, exactly, do you mean by "comprehensive"? If you think your system will work, then go for it, but if you can't have every kind of bonus-modifier combination, how many different combos do you actually need? Just four types of bonuses IS pretty limited, which I why I raised the number.
I don't know how many combinations I need, honestly. I just know that I want to use the same four justifications for literally everything in the game. I know that "armor class" can't be adequately represented using solely those four justifications - but everything else in the entire game can be, including everything that makes up armor class.

I can summarize my proposal in 3 lines, effectively:
1) There are 6/7/8 (whatever I finally decide) different types of bonuses which can apply to any value in the game.
2) They don't stack, except for Inherent (and maybe gear).
3) The sum of all bonuses and penalties is your final modifier to a roll or other value.

Simple. Easy. Done.
Sort of. As discussed below, this version leaves ambiguities with regards to Gear. As long as you stick to keeping one statement per line, I'm pretty sure you'll need a fourth line for Gear. Mine takes five lines because I split the stacking explanation into two lines:
There four types of bonuses which can apply to any modifier in the game: inherent, competence, enhancement, and circumstance.
Inherent and circumstance bonuses always stack with each other, except from the same source.
Enhancement and circumstance bonuses never stack with each other.
The sum of all bonuses and penalties is your final modifier to a roll or other value except armor class.
Your armor class can be modified directly, but is also the sum of four separate modifiers: armor, shield, dodge, and natural armor.

I think that hits all of the key points, and isn't too much worse. Yes, it's not as quick, though I will point out that listing every type of bonus will take some time.

I think what I have finally decided is that shield will be Gear bonuses, and gear bonuses can stack, but not from the same source. So for example, if you get an Inherent bonus to AC (representing something like natural armor) from multiple classes or feats, they will all stack along with anything else, like from race. At the same time, bonuses from both a shield and a set of armor and would stack, but you can't stack bonuses from wearing multiple sets of armor or having 6 sets of lockpicks. Does that make sense?
I see what you're trying to get at here, but you're using confusing wording. When the core rules say "X stacks, but not from the same source," it means something different than what you're describing. Specifically, if I get hit by two Crushing Despair spells, I take the full penalty from both spells; though they are the same effect, they are from separate sources. If you use the same wording here, that would mean that wielding two shields would stack, because they are separate sources. See the problem?

The only mechanism in the game that I know of to express what you're trying to describe is to give them the same bonus type. That's what the bonus types are for. If you say that armor doesn't stack with other armor, and shields don't stack with other shields, you're implicitly using a bonus type, even if you handwave around that by giving them both the Gear typing. Also, what about gear that improves my AC that isn't an armor or a shield, like a ring of protection or an amulet of natural armor? That's gear, but it presumably doesn't give a Gear bonus. Sounds confusing.

With the bonus types I outlined above, is there any basic combination or situation that you don't think I can represent? Do you forsee any looming problems?
Barkskin, Magic Weapon, and anything else which applies a bonus to a bonus is problematic. The only way to word it in your system that I know of is to say it "increases the Gear bonus" or "increases the inherent bonus", unless I'm missing something. So how do you keep Barkskin from stacking with, say, Spiderskin? How do you keep Magic Weapon from stacking with the weapon itself being magical, or with Spikes, or Shillelegh, or other spells? Sounds to me like you have to write up explicit stacking exceptions for each individual effect.

In order to get more detailed I'd have to see the actual list of bonus types, but that's what comes to mind off the top of my head. I just don't think you'll be able to express D&D with nothing but bonus types, because it's never worked that way, even if it claimed to. The bonus/modifier system is merely making explicit what was already in the game.

I think there's something that's not exactly accurate in that summary. The question is: what are you trying to measure as equal?

Both commoners have the same chance to strike the other.
Both commoners have the same chance of victory in a fight.
The only thing that's not equal is their chance to hit or miss, and I don't really see a problem with that.

In practice, virtually everything in the game is about subverting this 50/50 split. For a common example, the DC's for Skill-checks can be all over the place, depending on circumstances and other modifiers.

I wanted to make armor better on it's own (which I did) and I also wanted to make players more likely to consider using it or taking the relevant feats. It is still not beyond the reach for any individual player to create a build that is better off without armor, but in general having some armor should be better than having none. And I don't think changing how the base AC value is calculated will unbalance the game in a disruptive way.
I'm not convinced it's inherently unbalancing, per se. 1st level D&D combat has always been a bit screwy on balance. But it is out of sync with everything else in the game. Let's imagine we have two commoners, Alice and Bob. Here's a list of things they can do, and their odds of success in your system:
50%: Alice hides, and Bob tries to notice her.
50%: Alice tries to beat Bob in a race (initiative)
50%: Alice tries to open a door while Bob holds it closed (Strength)
50%: Alice tries to disarm Bob.
50%: Alice tries to trip Bob.
50%: Alice tries to perform any combat maneuver on Bob that doesn't involve AC.
80%: Alice tries to punch Bob.
Can I say this is unbalanced? Not necessarily; combat is a different system from everything else, and their odds of success in the combat are equal. However, I can say that it's incredibly unintuitive.

Hmm...that's a good way to explain it; I can see that. Maybe if one or the other just didn't start with "C" I'd have an easier time keeping them straight.
I know! Funny how much difference that can make. And I never understood the difference either until I heard it explained that way. But now (hopefully) it'll stick in your head too!

Still, I think this line of debate is largely moot at this point. Unless you really WANT to add in some additional rules for shields and cover/concealment, I don't think I'll need them to be a circumstance bonuses after all. Which is where this all started.
Yup, moving right along...

AC is an odd little duck, isn't it?
Oh heavens yes. Sigh.

Basically, unless specified otherwise, a bonus applies to every version or roll of it's specified type. For this, I'd say first calculate your regular AC, then work backwards for the sub-categories.
[quote]-Touch-AC is just your normal AC without any Gear-bonus from Armor (though in my revised armor rules, shields do add to touch-AC. cause that's what shields do, they keep things from touching you)
Does natural armor apply to touch AC, then?

-Flat-footed AC should probably just be regular AC without Dexterity (Inherent) and Gear bonuses from shields.
With all this talk of armor and shields, it sounds to me like you're using them as bonus types in all but name. I think you'll find your job is easier if you go ahead and call armor and shield bonuses armor and shield bonuses, considering that you actually haven't changed anything about their mechanics when you merged them into "Gear bonuses" and are still keeping them separate.

Most of the other bonus types will ALWAYS apply, and if you can think of any circumstances where that doesn't make sense (headscratchers, essentially) let me know.
Does the Dodge feat improve flat-footed AC?

Also, I guess we need to keep touch-AC for magic, but if we got rid of a different calculation for flat-footed, would that upset anything else? (you can still be "flatfooted" which might affect what actions you can take, but it wouldn't change your AC).
I already merged "lose Dex and dodge modifiers" and "flat-footed" in my system. It was a poor design decision to make them separate. Or are you saying that there should be no such thing as flat-footed at all - that is, that you can gain your full Dex modifier (and shield bonus) while blind, while unaware of attacks, and so on? Because that actually does seem strange to me.

I'm not exactly certain yet; if I can't come up with a good method for it to do something interesting, then it gets scrapped. We already have Shield, Mage Armor, Barkskin, the cleric one, and plenty of other ways to boost AC.

It might be better if Magic Vestement did something different entirely, or provided a different sort of bonus (perhaps to different factors).
The same problem applies to more than just AC, though, as described above.

/shrug
Don't use it then, or at least don't use it for buffs.
There are some spells that I think are too powerful for minutes/level, but that could just be a matter of opinion. If it's bugging some one, let them take a metamagic feat and bump-up all spells with a duration. That's the attraction of player-choice.
I could. But then I wouldn't get the dramatic effects that stem from using Concentration + 5 rounds for almost all buff spells. That has a fantastic impact on the game.

I'd probably keep prepared casting in some form or aspect, just because I like the potential for Wizard-like classes (lots of variety, but with a need to make choices) but in a significantly simplified fashion. I'll try to post something about this soon.
I'll keep an eye out for it! If you can make simplified prepared casting, it would definitely catch my eye. I threw around a few ideas that bridge that divide before: primarily spontaneous but change one spell known each day, primarily spontaneous but reserve one spell known at each level as a "prepared" spell of some sort, primarily prepared but introduce new mechanics for using spell slots spontaneously (you can use any prepared spell of level X+1 to cast any prepared spell of level X or lower), variations on Spirit Shaman casting... I'm curious what you'll come up with.

These are all valid points. With that in mind, what I'm currently thinking is that I like the permanency spell/ritual/whatever having a cost more in terms of RP or class-mechanics than it does in gold. Gold is variable, and easy for the DM to control in an absolute sense, but very easy for the players to shift about among themselves or do creative things with (that I don't really want to limit further; that's the appeal of tabletop gaming afterall).

I like the idea of it clearly not being like a normal spell, because it does have the potential (especially if you leave it open-ended) to be very powerful. Having to effectively "uncast" it helps with that, I think. Plus, if making something permanent requires lots of time, preparation, special knowledge or resources, then its logical to me that making it un-permanent would require a similar set-up.

If a player could mechanically use Permanency whenever they needed to, but felt conflicted over the long-term ramifications and potential benefits or drawbacks, that's a good scenario, IMO.
I like the feel of this. What if a permanency'd object could be used to harm the original caster in some way? It could be used as a perfect Scrying beacon, perhaps, guaranteeing that the caster fails his saving throw. Or there could be a ritual that uses such an object to invoke a backlash against the original caster. Or both. The exact mechanics matter less than the fundamental message of "You really shouldn't go around casting Permanent Light on everything". What do you think?

You're right in that it does have precedent, and that its probably not terribly complicated. I just don't like how it interacts with the rest of the magic system. I basically want there to be spells you can "fire and forget", (either instantaneous or with a fixed duration), and then spells that need constant input and control (Dominate is probably a fine example). I want them all to be clear and distinctly different. What is the benefit of "Concentration+X rounds" that I can't get with just a fixed duration spell? Particularly since you said you don't like the accounting of tracking spells by rounds, and time flows both in and out of combat, no matter what.
Two things. First, it provides a very strong incentive to just have one buff active. The power of buffing can have a huge effect on the party's ECL, making it very difficult to have appropriate encounters. It can also be time-consuming and complex, without adding much value. Moving to a (primarily) one-buff system removes the prevalence of heavy buffing without actually changing the effectiveness and thematic coolness of buffs. In other words, I want to decrease the power of buffs, but I don't want to make buffs worthless; they have an important role in both fluff and mechanics. Limiting people to one or two buffs strikes that balance.
Second, when the party is following the single-buff guideline encouraged by the system, it negates the necessity to track time out of combat. The caster just keeps concentrating until combat; the exact timing is irrelevant.

It's a trade-off; we've each got our own way of doing things, with some fixed variables and some sliding, and I'm not sure we're going to convince the other. The biggest thing that simplifies in my version is that "Caster-level" doesn't exist, and ECL changes much less frequently. The way I see it, all 7th level casters, be they Wizards, Paladins, or Fighter/Bard gishes will have the same durations, ranges, DCs, etc. That's how, like your system, it's easily learnable, and while levels change, everything will only ever be a multiple of your current level (or calculated in a non-level dependent mannter).

Anything that previously modified CL will need to be updated in some fashion, but I'm holding off on that until I can work out exactly what formula I want for the casting DCs and a few other things.
I can see the logic you are following. It is simpler than core. I just strongly encourage you to playtest it. I'm curious how it runs.

Ok, maybe what I want IS something different then. One of the biggest issues with game-balance under RAW is that non-magic users are still dependent on casters because they can't enchant items, brew potions, craft scrolls, or use wands themselves.
If they where more like tools, open to everyone, then I'd feel a lot better about them.

I think they are all fine ideas.

What I'd probably do is break it down something like this:

Potions- mad science, etc. Anyone can brew with them with the right recipe.

Wands- as described above; allows you to cast one spell from charges, and probably gives a general Spellcraft bonus

Staffs- I don't think I want them to just be bigger wands, so granting the ability to cast spells you otherwise don't know would be a great idea, I think.

Rods- free Metamagic, effectively, but very rare; possibly not craftable at all by players, so as to limit their availability (aka minor-artifact status)

Scrolls- I wasn't sold on your idea of rituals, initially, but I was also trying to figure out what to do with scrolls- what niche could they cover that wasn't already filled by something else? I think I can mesh the two: scrolls are not spells themselves, but a combination magical-focus and instruction manual for rituals, which would otherwise be to complex for anyone to attempt on their own.

The most important factor in my mind, is to make each separate item clearly distinct (wands and potions probably overlap a bit, maybe I can come up with some way to encourage wands for offensive use while keeping potions for buffs and defensive),

I think I said this before, but there will probably be a "magical implements proficiency" feat which casters get instead of weapon-feats. Anyone can to activate a wand or perform a ritual without it, but it will be much more difficult/resource-intensive/have a greater failure chance, etc.

I'll resist the urge to run ideas by you atm, and save it for another thread.
Magic items in general definitely deserve a thread on their own. They are the logical next step after the Spell Reformation, since magic items are almost entirely dependent on spells for their mechanics. As a result, I'm actively looking for good ideas for magic items, and this seems like a great one. I'll just point out that you don't need to worry about making wands more offensive than potions; potions are defensive by their very nature, since the spell only has its effect on the drinker. See the "Creating Potions" section of the DMG.

Yes, we're in agreement on that.
And yes, it can be weird at times; I know that D&D doesn't mesh perfectly with reality. The game doesn't have a good system to track something like battle-fatigue (though some of the more abstract versions of HP claim this is what they are doing). And you have some classes with unlimited magic (Warlocks or other invocation users) just like you have the occasional class with effectively unlimited HP (Dragon Shaman with the right aura).

But for the most part, if a caster runs out of effective spells or wand-charges right around the same time that the Fighter runs out of HP, then I'd consider the system passable. Alternative, if the length of the adventuring day is determined by HP pools or other abilities an equal amount of the time as spell-slots, then that's also viable. In practice, it doesn't happen like that often, but that's at least partially because melee-classes tend to be more reliant on magic-users and not the reverse. There are lots and lots of different things that go into my plan for fixing D&D; there's no one spot I can adjust and declare "there, it's done!"

Spells are versatile, and powerful. We can work on fixing the truly OP ones, but to keep the feel of classic D&D that basic premise won't change. I'm not going to say it's entirely off the table, but the idea of unlimited magic makes me very wary, for what it might mean for gameplay, worldbuilding, and fluff.
I absolutely respect that concern. (And it doesn't help that I haven't actually posted the arcane invocations I have in mind). I designed them to be as basic as possible, so they would feel like a lesser form of magic - and so they would have limited or nonexistent potential for abuse. And I haven't seen anyone actually reject the idea yet on fluff grounds when they otherwise accepted the system. But it's something I'm keeping a close eye on. One possibility that might help from a fluff perspective is simply to require that, in order to use an arcane invocation, the mage must channel power through a magic item of some sort. The magic item enhances the mage's innate power enough to turn it into an arcane invocation, but is useless to anyone not a mage. This helps with the fluff and means a mage and a fighter both have significantly decreased power if you take all their stuff away, but doesn't actually require making "at-will wands" with all of the potential abuse, UMD-based and otherwise, that comes with that. I actually really like that idea - it has always bugged me how item-independent casters are, and this helps with that.

Spells are variable enough, particularly if you are getting them from more than one type of magic, that I could see a player not needing too many other class features (some, yes, but not a lot). Particularly on a PrC, which is a specific choice, and is, IMO, supposed to be more tightly focused anyway.
Yes, that probably wouldn't work with the original magic system. Part of my goal is actually to nerf magic to the point that casters should expect - and receive - interesting class features, both in the core classes and in prestige classes. I think the game will be much, much healthier when everyone gets class features.

I agree that there are quite a few superfluous theurge-like classes, some which where made obsolete by later books. Frankly, I think that some concepts are enough to stand on their own (isn't a Duskblade basically just a Arcane Knight base-class?), and I'd probably reserve the dual-casting aspects for a very specific type of play. I think that with other fixes (such as a party not living or dying by the Caster-level of their wizard, and easier entry requirements) the actual theurge(s) that remain will be more appealing.

There are also plenty of classes (both base and PrC) which are too thinly characterized, trying to have only one unique feature carrying 10 or 20 levels. I'd be happy enough combine plenty of them to cover any holes in the current set-up. For example, give the Spellthief his own spell-selection, and make him your arcane-skillmonkey combo-gish without the need for a PrC at all (and without the Bard's fluff)
I think that means we agree?

tarkisflux

2013-09-17, 03:12 AM

I like the progression of new spells every other level, particularly since "bolting on" things to casters is something both necessary, but also requiring extreme caution. Particularly if I want to keeps D&D's existing flavor.
If I fundamentally alter certain aspects of how casting works (chance of failure, none/fewer broken spells, etc) then I think it will work out alright.

Yeah, it works out ok for the beguiller and the dread necro, for the most part. They still gentleman's agreement things a bit though.

Poor choices of wording on my part then. I don't have a problem with characters increasing the scale of their impact. Stopping Liches instead of goblins and dealing with courtly intrigue rather than a corrupt sheriff, stuff like that.

But its very hard to keep an equally-interactive game when some of the party can't assist at all in certain encounters and the rest of the party makes other encounters trivial.
What I guess I'm getting at is that there should be the possibility for the Fighter and Monk to contribute to apocalypse-prevention similarly to the Wizard's ability to still have fun rooting around in a crypt and killing zombies at level 20 (some people are perfectly happy to never go beyond kick-in-the-door style play, and there's nothing wrong with that IMO).

I have some problems with your examples, but if by "stopping liches" you meant "stopping a lich a few countries away, while using your powers to determine that the lich was a threat in the first place and then determining what the lich was up to" vs. "court intrigue and foiling an assassination plot", then sure.

But our approaches to the second parts are very different, though the goals are the same. I agree that the player who started as a fighter or monk should get to contribute to apocalypse prevention. I just don't agree that they get to do so by remaining mundane. As far as I'm concerned, mundane stops at 4 and even extraordinary stops at 8. If you want to keep playing kick in the door dungeon games, you can stop there too and just keep getting fancy new trophies or item sets (or occasionally kick in the door in between doing other things). Yeah, it's not how a lot of people play the game (and there's nothing wrong with that either), but it's what I like and it has some deep roots (see BECMI).

If I where to be successful, my ideal world would be one where the current concept of a Tier 1 or 2 doesn't exist (not taking epic levels into account, because at that point all bets are off). Among PC classes though, some would would also have to work really hard to be tier 4 or lower (incapable of contributing, not just unwilling).

The tier system is really quite terrible for describing things other than versatility at high levels, which doesn't even matter until high levels. To the point that I don't even want to have a broad conversation in those terms if I can avoid it, because it's not sufficiently explanatory.

I think it would be more accurate to say that you would prefer a game where PC classes doubled in power every 4 levels or so, and no class was sufficiently versatile as to do more than 1 (maybe 2 with proper investment) roles well. And that's not a game that I'm particularly interested in, though I'm sure I would enjoy it if I were playing with the right group (just like I don't mind the 4e game I'm playing).

I could see certain games being fun with all high-tier classes (a Wizard, a Cleric, and a Psion all walk into a bar....etc) but I would also think that even for a supposedly "balanced" group it would be hard for the DM to come up with suitable challenges without turning the game into a very deadly competition of rocket-tag. If you want something "more powerful" then there's relatively little that I think you could get out of the OP classes that couldn't be mostly addressed just by tweaking levels, which leaves the potential for imbalance at the door.

The problem is that those classes level out of a lot of combat challenges, and people aren't used to dealing with that, particularly when the other classes don't. It's an adventure design and incompatible scaling problem more than it is a class or power design problem. Except for the rockets maybe, but my opinion on those is to bring them (because only damage to win fights bore me to tears). I run high level T1 / T2 games (which really don't mean the same thing to me as they do to you) without a problem and with only a very minor gentleman's agreement not to do things like shadow over the sun or other world ending things. Even infinite wishes through chain binding aren't a big deal if you go back to 3.0 wish.

But you're right that most of what you want could be achieved by tweaking levels. Your casters probably don't need to go past 10, and you can bring in some of the higher level plot powers or shuffle plot powers down a few revised levels if you want. It doesn't work for me though, because my epic levels start around 13 and the game doesn't go over 20 (stretching them out just introduces a bunch of filler I'm not interested in on top or messing with the math, though it works well for people who want to have regular level ups).

Really, game stops at 20. You're plenty Epic by then if you're scaling the way I prefer.

If you feel that Tiers 1 and 2 have a place for players I would indeed be interested in taking that discussion to PMs or to their own thread, in case anyone else wants to weigh in.

If you mean Tier 1 as "stepping on everyone else and doing things to the game that I don't like", then I agree that those can go or be modified to better fit what you want. Game needs to be the game you want, or at least the game that was described to you. But as those classes actually grow into the types of games that I want and I've put epic levels down in that range where you're already doing norse god style shenanigans, I disagree with the rest. It's not about crushing your enemies power (though that comes over low level guys as a result of the scaling) or breaking the game, it's about narrative power and creating the story as much as playing through it.

They have a place past level 8 (and are not a large problem mixed with slower scaling classes before that), it's just not a place a lot of people want to go. I probably won't start that thread though, as I'm being distracted by another project.

Deepbluediver

2013-09-17, 02:05 PM

...I will point out that listing every type of bonus will take some time.
Yes, though that is the simplest bit, really. The original RAW had 20+ bonus types because some of them only applied to a single stat (deflection, resistance, etc). I'm hoping that it will be easier to just have more general bonuses that can apply to anything.

I see what you're trying to get at here, but you're using confusing wording. When the core rules say "X stacks, but not from the same source," it means something different than what you're describing. Specifically, if I get hit by two Crushing Despair spells, I take the full penalty from both spells; though they are the same effect, they are from separate sources. If you use the same wording here, that would mean that wielding two shields would stack, because they are separate sources. See the problem?
Yes, I see that I need to change either the rules or the wording. Though if we have a blanket rule stating- "all penalties stack, no matter the type or source", doesn't that get around the issue? What if I said "can't stack from the same type of item"? (i.e. only the best bonus from the 18 sets of lockpicks I'm carrying applies) At some point I need to rely on people to work WITH the rules instead of fighting to subvert them in the most illogical manner possible.

I'll make that a written rule, if I have to.

For example: shields. I am not an expert with medieval weaponry, but if there was some benefit to dual-wielding them, surely someone somewhere in the history of warfare would have tried it out. To my knowledge, nothing like that has never ever been widely accepted or used. Therefor, by combining my existing knowledge with an interpretation of the game that as it is intended and what is least-broken, I rule that trying to use 2 shields at once creates so many problems that it negates any additional benefit to AC.

Unless, of course, you have more than the standard number of limbs, but if your GM has allowed you to play a were-squid, he's on his own at that point anyway.

And all this is more intuitive to me than the bonus/modifier/combo thing you have going on, but that's because it was the system that I envisioned from the ground up. I'm fairly certain I could get into either one fairly easily if we started a game with them.

The only mechanism in the game that I know of to express what you're trying to describe is to give them the same bonus type. That's what the bonus types are for. If you say that armor doesn't stack with other armor, and shields don't stack with other shields, you're implicitly using a bonus type, even if you handwave around that by giving them both the Gear typing.
If its just a question of phrasing...what if I said that Gear bonuses stack, but not from the same type of item? I.e. armor and shield stack, but multiple sets of lockpicks don't?

(I just think I can make this work, somehow; if it seems like I'm pushing really hard, it's not because I think it's the only or even the best solution, but because I do think that it's decent, and I don't want to quit quite yet.)

Also, what about gear that improves my AC that isn't an armor or a shield, like a ring of protection or an amulet of natural armor? That's gear, but it presumably doesn't give a Gear bonus. Sounds confusing.
First, I hate flat-stat bonuses on anything that isn't armor anyhow (it's not that I like it on armor, but I'm more willing to let it slide since armor is largely passive anyway). I'd likely do away with Rings and Amulets that just boosted AC or other stats.

If I absolutely had to keep those sorts of things around, then either I would change it to a less common type of bonus (Lucky Ring grants a Luck-bonus to AC) or just make it a straight-up magical Enhancement bonus. Yes that means it may not stack with certain spells, but I thought we agreed that we want players to spend less time and shift in power-level less from limited duration buffs anyway.

There wouldn't really be anything like "natural armor" in the sense of a separate mechanical term. A creature might be described via fluff as having a particularly thick hide or an odd physiology that makes it harder to score a damaging blow, but what that does is give it an Inherent bonus to AC.

Barkskin, Magic Weapon, and anything else which applies a bonus to a bonus is problematic. The only way to word it in your system that I know of is to say it "increases the Gear bonus" or "increases the inherent bonus", unless I'm missing something. So how do you keep Barkskin from stacking with, say, Spiderskin? How do you keep Magic Weapon from stacking with the weapon itself being magical, or with Spikes, or Shillelagh, or other spells? Sounds to me like you have to write up explicit stacking exceptions for each individual effect.
As before, most of the AC spells would likely just grant you an Enhancement bonus. They don't stack because they're all the same type of bonus (Enhancement). The "stacking from different sources" would be a Gear-bonus only exception. It sounds a little odd, but honestly the only real place I can think of where it might come up is actually armor+shields.

Getting into specifics, Shillelagh seems like basically just a more limited version of Magic Weapon for Druids (the "two-sizes larger" bit is basically still just more damage, because the spell can only be used on sucky items in the first place), I'd vote to give it the boot. Not quite sure what spell "Spikes" refers to; atm I can only access the SRD, so if it's in a Splatbook let me know.
In some of these cases, if there are currently 3 or 4 or 5 spells that all do the same thing, effectively, I'd love to narrow it down to just 1. Does it ruin your suspension of disbelief if I replace Shillelagh with Magic Weapon on the druid's spell list?

I'm honestly asking, because I consider fluff to be important but also very flexible, and I'd rather have a simpler and more rigorous set of rules, and then let some one RP out that their druid won't "bless" an unnatural metal weapon.

In order to get more detailed I'd have to see the actual list of bonus types, but that's what comes to mind off the top of my head. I just don't think you'll be able to express D&D with nothing but bonus types, because it's never worked that way, even if it claimed to. The bonus/modifier system is merely making explicit what was already in the game.
I think I can make it work; even if its a fundamental change, it doesn't seem like a big one to me.

For the bonus types, this is pretty much what I outlined before:
Enhancement- mostly everything magical, including Divine, Profane, Sacred, and anything else spells based, like Deflection (which only boosts AC) and Resistance (which only boosts Saves)
Competence- things that you practice to get better at; includes Perfection and Skill-synergy bonuses
Circumstance- things based on the environment, positioning, and occasionally other creatures; includes former Morale bonuses
Inherent- bonuses you get for being what you are, without improvement or effort; anything from an ability score counts as this, as well as Natural Armor, Size, & Racial; all inherent bonuses stack
Luck- self explanatory; gets its own category because it doesn't fit very well anywhere else, except maybe circumstance
Gear- also self explanatory; mostly weapons and armor, though items that aid skill checks should also go here. Gear bonuses stack but only from different types of items.
Alchemical- I want the Craft-alchemy skill to be more like mad science rather than magic-in-a-bottle, so it gets it's own category, again to stack with everything else.
Epic- a reserved category, possibly for formerly Exalted bonuses or anything else suitably unusual, like a bonus from an artifact.

I'm not convinced it's inherently unbalancing, per se. 1st level D&D combat has always been a bit screwy on balance. But it is out of sync with everything else in the game. Let's imagine we have two commoners, Alice and Bob. Here's a list of things they can do, and their odds of success in your system:
50%: Alice hides, and Bob tries to notice her.
50%: Alice tries to beat Bob in a race (initiative)
50%: Alice tries to open a door while Bob holds it closed (Strength)
50%: Alice tries to disarm Bob.
50%: Alice tries to trip Bob.
50%: Alice tries to perform any combat maneuver on Bob that doesn't involve AC.
80%: Alice tries to punch Bob.
Can I say this is unbalanced? Not necessarily; combat is a different system from everything else, and their odds of success in the combat are equal. However, I can say that it's incredibly unintuitive.
Again, you make good points, but most of those are also opposed checks. You don't roll anything for AC; it's a static value.

Look at something like skill checks:
50%: Bob tries to balance on a 1-ft wide surface.
25%: Bob tries to balance on a 6-inch wide surface
40%: Bob attempt to appraise the value of a well-known or common object.
XX%: Alice drank to much at the frat-party and now Bob is trying to prevent her from succumbing to alcohol poisoning (I don't know the save DC for alcohol atm; probably depends on type)

They're all over the place. When you look at what is actually being OPPOSED (chance to win the fight or chance to hit) they are still equal. So it doesn't seem any more un-intuitive to me than anything else in the game. And from the perspective of a player, all they really care about is:
Alice: *rolls*Does a 16 hit the Bob-beast?
GM: Yes/or/No

If the mechanics work, then I don't really care if the theory or underlying formula's are a little wonky. I'm not that OCD.

Does natural armor apply to touch AC, then?
I don't think I was explicit about this before I said it a few paragraphs back, but basically there is no more separate "natural armor" bonus anymore. Any inherent bonuses would apply unless it was explicitly spelled out that they didn't (which I would try to avoid).

With all this talk of armor and shields, it sounds to me like you're using them as bonus types in all but name. I think you'll find your job is easier if you go ahead and call armor and shield bonuses armor and shield bonuses, considering that you actually haven't changed anything about their mechanics when you merged them into "Gear bonuses" and are still keeping them separate.
That makes sense, I guess, even if it feels a little awkward. Alternatively, another rules-option is that a shield just adds to the Gear bonus from armor (if you're not wearing armor then your base bonus is effectively 0, or just whatever the shield provides).
Grrr...I'm arguing myself in circles at this point. WHY U NO WORK AC?!?

Does the Dodge feat improve flat-footed AC?

I already merged "lose Dex and dodge modifiers" and "flat-footed" in my system. It was a poor design decision to make them separate. Or are you saying that there should be no such thing as flat-footed at all - that is, that you can gain your full Dex modifier (and shield bonus) while blind, while unaware of attacks, and so on? Because that actually does seem strange to me.
The Dodge feat needs some tweaking. It would be easy enough, I think, to spell out exactly what it did. I could see arguments either way for it applying/not-applying to flat-footed AC, though if flat-footed takes away all Dexterity-based stuff it probably shouldn't.

I could. But then I wouldn't get the dramatic effects that stem from using Concentration + 5 rounds for almost all buff spells. That has a fantastic impact on the game.
How so? I'm not precisely seeing it here.

I'll keep an eye out for it! If you can make simplified prepared casting, it would definitely catch my eye. I threw around a few ideas that bridge that divide before: primarily spontaneous but change one spell known each day, primarily spontaneous but reserve one spell known at each level as a "prepared" spell of some sort, primarily prepared but introduce new mechanics for using spell slots spontaneously (you can use any prepared spell of level X+1 to cast any prepared spell of level X or lower), variations on Spirit Shaman casting... I'm curious what you'll come up with.
My first attempt basically did recreate the Spirit Shaman version of things, apparently reinventing the wheel. But I'm trying to make it even simpler than that, however.

I like the feel of this. What if a permanency'd object could be used to harm the original caster in some way? It could be used as a perfect Scrying beacon, perhaps, guaranteeing that the caster fails his saving throw. Or there could be a ritual that uses such an object to invoke a backlash against the original caster. Or both. The exact mechanics matter less than the fundamental message of "You really shouldn't go around casting Permanent Light on everything". What do you think?
Yes, that's a good message, however the GM wants accomplishes it. I think you could use any of the ideas that you want; there's plenty of room for customization.

Two things. First, it provides a very strong incentive to just have one buff active. The power of buffing can have a huge effect on the party's ECL, making it very difficult to have appropriate encounters. It can also be time-consuming and complex, without adding much value. Moving to a (primarily) one-buff system removes the prevalence of heavy buffing without actually changing the effectiveness and thematic coolness of buffs. In other words, I want to decrease the power of buffs, but I don't want to make buffs worthless; they have an important role in both fluff and mechanics. Limiting people to one or two buffs strikes that balance.
Second, when the party is following the single-buff guideline encouraged by the system, it negates the necessity to track time out of combat. The caster just keeps concentrating until combat; the exact timing is irrelevant.
Alright, that's fine, I don't disagree with any of it, but if it doesn't negate a system that uses fixed-duration buffs or buffs in rounds/minute, particularly if all my magic spells provide the same type of buff.

The only real issue I can see is that if you needed to buff up the entire party individually (1 round caster on each person) a short-duration single target buff might start to wear off, particularly if I do away with all the automatic-Mass spells (Haste, etc). But I don't see that as an inherent problem, so much as it is just another consideration or obstacle for battle. Deciding who can buff who and when would be part of planning session, provided you have the time to stop and plan. Hopefully, castable buffs like that will be less crucial to a party, so if you don't have the time or have a sub-optimal arrangement it won't be the sole-cause of a wipe or defeat.

I'll just point out that you don't need to worry about making wands more offensive than potions; potions are defensive by their very nature, since the spell only has its effect on the drinker. See the "Creating Potions" section of the DMG.
It was more the Wand-side of the issue that worried me. People take the (somewhat erroneous, IMO) attitude that healing-actions or healing-based -classes are useless because you can just buy a dozen wands of Cure Light Wounds.

That's the sort of situation I'm looking to avoid.

I absolutely respect that concern. (And it doesn't help that I haven't actually posted the arcane invocations I have in mind). I designed them to be as basic as possible, so they would feel like a lesser form of magic - and so they would have limited or nonexistent potential for abuse. And I haven't seen anyone actually reject the idea yet on fluff grounds when they otherwise accepted the system. But it's something I'm keeping a close eye on. One possibility that might help from a fluff perspective is simply to require that, in order to use an arcane invocation, the mage must channel power through a magic item of some sort. The magic item enhances the mage's innate power enough to turn it into an arcane invocation, but is useless to anyone not a mage. This helps with the fluff and means a mage and a fighter both have significantly decreased power if you take all their stuff away, but doesn't actually require making "at-will wands" with all of the potential abuse, UMD-based and otherwise, that comes with that. I actually really like that idea - it has always bugged me how item-independent casters are, and this helps with that.
Hmm...yes, that could be a very effective way of tying everything together. I've never liked the idea that a Wizard NEEDED a wand to cast a spell any more than a warrior NEEDS a sword to throw a punch. He's just significantly better off one way than the other.

Yes, that probably wouldn't work with the original magic system. Part of my goal is actually to nerf magic to the point that casters should expect - and receive - interesting class features, both in the core classes and in prestige classes. I think the game will be much, much healthier when everyone gets class features.
....
I think that means we agree?
We agree on a lot of the problems, the theory, and what needs to change to fix it. We disagree on the exact path and mechanics that will best get us to where we want to go.

@ tarkisflux
I'll try to craft a reply to you later, but I'm out of time atm, sorry.

Deepbluediver

2013-09-18, 10:55 AM

Yeah, it works out ok for the beguiller and the dread necro, for the most part. They still gentleman's agreement things a bit though.
At some level, there always has to be cooperation within the group and between the players and the DM; I could take a Monk and make a game so un-enjoyable the the only recourse is to resort to PvP and try to kill me.
But that's not really the point though. Ideally whatever level of game you want to play at, all characters should be able to contribute significantly in at least some situations, without struggling to min-max every last point out of a build. By the some token, a character should not have to hold back large portions of their potential just to overwhelm everything.

But our approaches to the second parts are very different, though the goals are the same. I agree that the player who started as a fighter or monk should get to contribute to apocalypse prevention. I just don't agree that they get to do so by remaining mundane. As far as I'm concerned, mundane stops at 4 and even extraordinary stops at 8.

I think it depends on exactly what you mean by "mundane". D&D is a magic-based fantasy world; IMO, reality has no bearing on what occurs there. If I want to give my rogue psuedo-invisibility or my fighter the ability to cut through ghosts with his sword, then I can, and no one can really tell me I'm wrong (well, they can tell me, but I won't listen).

Trying to reserve things someone might think of as "magic" for only certain classes seems like just being stingy with the fluff.
That's why I approach balance from two directions- some classes definitely need more power and more choices while others need more limitations. As an example, my version of the Wizard normally only gets access to 5 schools, and he gains them slowly over the course of 20 levels. There is an alternate version (archetype, to use the PF word) that can learn spells from more schools, but only has the equivalent of a Bard's spells/day.
This alone isn't what I would call a complete balance, but it's an example of the tradeoffs or opportunity costs that I like players having to think about.

The tier system is really quite terrible for describing things other than versatility at high levels, which doesn't even matter until high levels. To the point that I don't even want to have a broad conversation in those terms if I can avoid it, because it's not sufficiently explanatory.
/shrug
I fully acknowledge that the Tier system is both limited, and not totally comprehensive for measuring certain aspects of the game, but I work with the tools I have available. If you know of a different metric that is more detailed, I'd be happy to learn it as well.

I think it would be more accurate to say that you would prefer a game where PC classes doubled in power every 4 levels or so, and no class was sufficiently versatile as to do more than 1 (maybe 2 with proper investment) roles well. And that's not a game that I'm particularly interested in, though I'm sure I would enjoy it if I were playing with the right group (just like I don't mind the 4e game I'm playing).
Eh, that sounds like more like a tier-4 balance point, and as I stated I generally try to aim for tier 3. Any player can be as diverse or as focused as they want to the limits of their ability, but I definitely think classes need to have the potential to do more than one thing. Whether it's something simple like giving a fighter more skill points, or more complex like giving a monk the ability to planeshift, low tier classes need more options.
And if the Wizard no longer has an answer for every problem, then those options become even more valuable to the party as a whole.

The problem is that those classes level out of a lot of combat challenges, and people aren't used to dealing with that, particularly when the other classes don't. It's an adventure design and incompatible scaling problem more than it is a class or power design problem. Except for the rockets maybe, but my opinion on those is to bring them (because only damage to win fights bore me to tears). I run high level T1 / T2 games (which really don't mean the same thing to me as they do to you) without a problem and with only a very minor gentleman's agreement not to do things like shadow over the sun or other world ending things. Even infinite wishes through chain binding aren't a big deal if you go back to 3.0 wish.
You bring up a lot of different points here. I'm curious what you mean by T1/T2 games then; are they just those classes not played to their full world-ending/game-breaking potential? That's fine, but it doesn't really help out if I WANT to play a fighter or monk or paladin, etc. If there as nothing lower than a tier 3 class, then playing it in that style of game would be a good fit, I think.

Also, the HP system isn't ideal, but one thing I really like is 4e's "Bloodied" condition, where being injured makes your more vulnerabl. I'd tweak the numbers and perhaps alter some of the mechanics, but it's a good start IMO. It lets you whittle down an enemy's health, then finish it off with one good shot, or make it easier to capture, or intimidate, or any other number of outcomes.
Even with that taken into consideration, I fully support giving non-primary casters more ways to end a fight rather than just smacking something with a pointy stick until it's dead.

But you're right that most of what you want could be achieved by tweaking levels. Your casters probably don't need to go past 10, and you can bring in some of the higher level plot powers or shuffle plot powers down a few revised levels if you want. It doesn't work for me though, because my epic levels start around 13 and the game doesn't go over 20 (stretching them out just introduces a bunch of filler I'm not interested in on top or messing with the math, though it works well for people who want to have regular level ups).
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. If you want to play a high level game but don't want to slog through the swamps of killing goblins for 10 levels first, then you can just start at a higher level. My groups used to do it all the time; I've probably started more games above level 1 than at it.
And yes, I would love for all classes to be able to have adventures outside of combat at the higher levels; I read a lot of other homebrew looking for inspiration on how I can make that happen.

Really, game stops at 20. You're plenty Epic by then if you're scaling the way I prefer.
I would agree with you here. I've never really seen a good scenario for something that required level 21+ that couldn't be done in a more scaled-down version, which was usually easier to balance anyhow.

Maybe you've had different experiences though; I always love a good story if you want to share. :smallbiggrin:

If you mean Tier 1 as "stepping on everyone else and doing things to the game that I don't like", then I agree that those can go or be modified to better fit what you want. Game needs to be the game you want, or at least the game that was described to you. But as those classes actually grow into the types of games that I want and I've put epic levels down in that range where you're already doing norse god style shenanigans, I disagree with the rest. It's not about crushing your enemies power (though that comes over low level guys as a result of the scaling) or breaking the game, it's about narrative power and creating the story as much as playing through it.

They have a place past level 8 (and are not a large problem mixed with slower scaling classes before that), it's just not a place a lot of people want to go.
I think this was what I was trying to get at before; I don't really have an issue with this style of play. If you want your level 12 party to try and seize control of an entire continent, as a precursor to total world domination at levels 16-18 or so (or whenever else you want), then I wouldn't have a problem with that. But it should be more involved than the Wizard teleporting into the castle and mind-controlling the king into abdicating his throne, or simply declaring himself Overlord and melting into slag anyone who opposes him.

In a perfect (game)world, everyone from the Bard to the Barbarian to the Healer would be able to take a separate roll in orchestrating something like this.

tarkisflux

2013-09-18, 07:08 PM

I'm leaving a few things out for brevity. If I missed something you wanted to see discussed, lemme know and I may get back to it. Otherwise, I think I'm about done after this. Playstyle discussions are nice and all, but they're pretty off topic here and I have other projects making time demands on me.

I think it depends on exactly what you mean by "mundane". D&D is a magic-based fantasy world; IMO, reality has no bearing on what occurs there. If I want to give my rogue psuedo-invisibility or my fighter the ability to cut through ghosts with his sword, then I can, and no one can really tell me I'm wrong (well, they can tell me, but I won't listen).

Trying to reserve things someone might think of as "magic" for only certain classes seems like just being stingy with the fluff.
That's why I approach balance from two directions- some classes definitely need more power and more choices while others need more limitations. As an example, my version of the Wizard normally only gets access to 5 schools, and he gains them slowly over the course of 20 levels. There is an alternate version (archetype, to use the PF word) that can learn spells from more schools, but only has the equivalent of a Bard's spells/day.
This alone isn't what I would call a complete balance, but it's an example of the tradeoffs or opportunity costs that I like players having to think about.

Everyone pretty much needs magic fluff bolted on to their archetype/character concept no later than some level determined by power scaling. At doubling every 2 scaling, it's probably somewhere between 5 and 9. So when I say mundane stops, I mean your fighter has to Cuchulain or Pecos Bill or John Henry or Bleach or OnePiece or whatever it up sometime between 5 and 9 and not look back (and possibly add more stuff later on). So boosting people on the bottom end is a direction I agree with. Whether the top also needs scaling down in power depends on your power scaling goals. With doubling every 2, it doesn't, and you should be bringing everyone up to wizard levels of power (though not necessarily versatility).

Whether classes need to be more narrow in scope or not is sort of a secondary design concern.

/shrug
I fully acknowledge that the Tier system is both limited, and not totally comprehensive for measuring certain aspects of the game, but I work with the tools I have available. If you know of a different metric that is more detailed, I'd be happy to learn it as well.

Already way off topic, but this is even worse, so...

The wiki balance categories use monsters of equal CR as a benchmark for determining power, since you can tell a lot about the scaling of a class by the CR of monster that it starts dropping off against. Classes that fall behind noticeably around 4 are low, classes that fall behind around 8 are moderate, classes that keep up until at least 12 are high, and classes that start to do better than CR encounters around 12 (when the MM scaling starts to drop off) are very high (this is also the most broad category unfortunately). Different things fall out of that formulation, like level ranges where you can play with classes from different balance categories, which I think are a whole lot more useful to intra-party balance and design.

You bring up a lot of different points here. I'm curious what you mean by T1/T2 games then; are they just those classes not played to their full world-ending/game-breaking potential? That's fine, but it doesn't really help out if I WANT to play a fighter or monk or paladin, etc. If there as nothing lower than a tier 3 class, then playing it in that style of game would be a good fit, I think.

Yeah, it was a tired and rambly post in retrospect. Sorry about that.

Anyway, if you wanted to play a monk or a paladin, I'd give you a version of those suited for the game. Though it's often snubbed here (and not unreasonably from a game preference standpoint), the Tome series has numerous replacement classes that Morph would call OP T3. And if you didn't want any of those or wanted a less fantastic character over more levels, the group could compromise on that, you could try something new anyway, or I'd ask you to look for a game that better fit your preferences. I'm not really interested in catering to low power players except with a narrow level range, but plenty of other groups are and I'm perfectly happy to refer to one of them instead.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. If you want to play a high level game but don't want to slog through the swamps of killing goblins for 10 levels first, then you can just start at a higher level. My groups used to do it all the time; I've probably started more games above level 1 than at it.
And yes, I would love for all classes to be able to have adventures outside of combat at the higher levels; I read a lot of other homebrew looking for inspiration on how I can make that happen.

That was me trying to offer advice for putting higher power classes on par with lower power classes by spreading out their ability growth while not spreading out the growth of anyone else. It's probably not great advice in the cold light of two days later though...

I think this was what I was trying to get at before; I don't really have an issue with this style of play. If you want your level 12 party to try and seize control of an entire continent, as a precursor to total world domination at levels 16-18 or so (or whenever else you want), then I wouldn't have a problem with that. But it should be more involved than the Wizard teleporting into the castle and mind-controlling the king into abdicating his throne, or simply declaring himself Overlord and melting into slag anyone who opposes him.

It already is a lot more involved than that. Mind-control the king, get an army of peasants and some tax revenues, so what? Population is unlikely to sit for a ruler that is substantially worse, and there are always adventurers out there who oppose that sort of thing. And if the kingdom wasn't much of a threat to you, why do you particularly want it in the first place? The overlord thing is similar. You can declare whatever you like, and rule with fear and meltdowns, but getting people to do what you want them to instead of starting a guerila campaign and stretching your "one man with limited slots a day and maybe some followers" resources is non-trivial.

Yes, these are story based counters to abilities and may not be appropriate in all cases, but that's kind of the point. People use their abilities to develop the story after they reach a certain level. If they derail your plot with it, then it's a strong sign that they wanted to do something other than you had planned. And I support them doing that, even at the cost of my own plans.

In a perfect (game)world, everyone from the Bard to the Barbarian to the Healer would be able to take a separate roll in orchestrating something like this.

In a perfect game world, everyone would be contributing in some manner that was roughly equal but potentially different. Only the scale of the job and the level that they attempted it at would vary based on power scaling. I'm perfectly happy leaving out class concepts that don't fit the level range though.

Nitpick: They don't need to each take a separate role. Multiple people in the same role only increases success odds of their missions, or lets those missions be larger or more plentiful. And the roles don't need to be unique between the classes either. Even if the way that they are filled is different, because there's a lot more classes than there are roles out there by this point. A party with all thieves or with no thieves can still take control of a thief's guild, only their methods change.

Vadskye

2013-09-21, 04:32 PM

Yes, though that is the simplest bit, really. The original RAW had 20+ bonus types because some of them only applied to a single stat (deflection, resistance, etc). I'm hoping that it will be easier to just have more general bonuses that can apply to anything.
I do think you'll get a simpler and better system than RAW.

Yes, I see that I need to change either the rules or the wording. Though if we have a blanket rule stating- "all penalties stack, no matter the type or source", doesn't that get around the issue?
So you can spam penalties from the same source? Problematic. Also, conditions don't self-stack, so that would be an inconsistency unless you also change it so all conditions self-stack, even from the same source. Which introduces a whole slew of issues: if I'm in a Mind Fog, do I keep taking an additional -10 every round? Effects from the same source shouldn't stack.

What if I said "can't stack from the same type of item"? (i.e. only the best bonus from the 18 sets of lockpicks I'm carrying applies) At some point I need to rely on people to work WITH the rules instead of fighting to subvert them in the most illogical manner possible.

I'll make that a written rule, if I have to.
Are you going to define item types? If so, you need a list of every item that can possibly give a Gear bonus. If not, you're leaving it very open for interpretation. That would probably work for armor and shields, but you're going to have a mess with regards to skill checks and other things where a variety of possible items could conceivably give a bonus - because if the only things that don't stack are bonuses from the same "type of item", I could have a wide variety of gear bonuses, all to the same task. That's too much stacking - and it's ambiguous to boot.

For example: shields. I am not an expert with medieval weaponry, but if there was some benefit to dual-wielding them, surely someone somewhere in the history of warfare would have tried it out. To my knowledge, nothing like that has never ever been widely accepted or used. Therefor, by combining my existing knowledge with an interpretation of the game that as it is intended and what is least-broken, I rule that trying to use 2 shields at once creates so many problems that it negates any additional benefit to AC.

Unless, of course, you have more than the standard number of limbs, but if your GM has allowed you to play a were-squid, he's on his own at that point anyway.

And all this is more intuitive to me than the bonus/modifier/combo thing you have going on, but that's because it was the system that I envisioned from the ground up. I'm fairly certain I could get into either one fairly easily if we started a game with them.
From a strict realism perspective, I am fairly sure that there is actually some defensive bonus from using two shields at once, provided that neither is too large. Two small shields would definitely help. Two tower shields, not so much. However, it's definitely not worth including in the core rules because it breaks the fantasy idiom - and that's more important than realism.

And yes, I am pretty sure that either of our systems is functional (once you get the kinks worked out in yours). Heck, we've all gotten used to the original bonus system, which had its own weirdness. We're just looking for the best bonus system, I think.

(I just think I can make this work, somehow; if it seems like I'm pushing really hard, it's not because I think it's the only or even the best solution, but because I do think that it's decent, and I don't want to quit quite yet.)
You probably can! I'm poking holes not because I think it can't work, but because I don't think it works yet.

First, I hate flat-stat bonuses on anything that isn't armor anyhow (it's not that I like it on armor, but I'm more willing to let it slide since armor is largely passive anyway). I'd likely do away with Rings and Amulets that just boosted AC or other stats.

If I absolutely had to keep those sorts of things around, then either I would change it to a less common type of bonus (Lucky Ring grants a Luck-bonus to AC) or just make it a straight-up magical Enhancement bonus. Yes that means it may not stack with certain spells, but I thought we agreed that we want players to spend less time and shift in power-level less from limited duration buffs anyway.
I've been trying to get rid of boring AC from items for a while. The problem is that items are just spells on a stick, and as long as you have a Shield of Faith spell that provides a boring bonus to AC, you should have an item that does the same thing. You could just make every item and spell give an Enhancement bonus. However, that means you'll have to get rid of every single spell that can't be justified as a pure enhancement bonus (Magic Vestment, Barkskin, bonuses which should be lost when you're flat-footed, etc.).

There wouldn't really be anything like "natural armor" in the sense of a separate mechanical term. A creature might be described via fluff as having a particularly thick hide or an odd physiology that makes it harder to score a damaging blow, but what that does is give it an Inherent bonus to AC.
So it's really hard to touch a creature with a high natural armor, but easy to touch a creature in armor? :smallconfused:

Getting into specifics, Shillelagh seems like basically just a more limited version of Magic Weapon for Druids (the "two-sizes larger" bit is basically still just more damage, because the spell can only be used on sucky items in the first place), I'd vote to give it the boot. Not quite sure what spell "Spikes" refers to; atm I can only access the SRD, so if it's in a Splatbook let me know.
In some of these cases, if there are currently 3 or 4 or 5 spells that all do the same thing, effectively, I'd love to narrow it down to just 1. Does it ruin your suspension of disbelief if I replace Shillelagh with Magic Weapon on the druid's spell list?

I'm honestly asking, because I consider fluff to be important but also very flexible, and I'd rather have a simpler and more rigorous set of rules, and then let some one RP out that their druid won't "bless" an unnatural metal weapon.

I think I can make it work; even if its a fundamental change, it doesn't seem like a big one to me.
Getting rid of Shillelagh or just changing its effect to "This spell functions like Magic Weapon, except that it only affects clubs and quarterstaves" are both fine with me. Just giving druids Magic Weapon feels wrong for reasons that I can't quite define. I think it's the idea of druids encouraging and enhancing manufactured weapons and "technology". Spikes is from Complete Divine and/or Spell Compendium, and it's like a more powerful and flexible Shillelagh.

You can probably solve the stacking issue by reducing every single weapon enhancement in the game to "this functions like Magic Weapon, except...". However, by doing so, you're crippling a potentially interesting and not overpowered aspect of the spell system solely because the bonus system can't figure out how to express a fairly basic concept.

For the bonus types, this is pretty much what I outlined before:
Enhancement- mostly everything magical, including Divine, Profane, Sacred, and anything else spells based, like Deflection (which only boosts AC) and Resistance (which only boosts Saves)
Competence- things that you practice to get better at; includes Perfection and Skill-synergy bonuses
Circumstance- things based on the environment, positioning, and occasionally other creatures; includes former Morale bonuses
Inherent- bonuses you get for being what you are, without improvement or effort; anything from an ability score counts as this, as well as Natural Armor, Size, & Racial; all inherent bonuses stack
Luck- self explanatory; gets its own category because it doesn't fit very well anywhere else, except maybe circumstance
Gear- also self explanatory; mostly weapons and armor, though items that aid skill checks should also go here. Gear bonuses stack but only from different types of items.
Alchemical- I want the Craft-alchemy skill to be more like mad science rather than magic-in-a-bottle, so it gets it's own category, again to stack with everything else.
Epic- a reserved category, possibly for formerly Exalted bonuses or anything else suitably unusual, like a bonus from an artifact.
Here's what comes to mind off the top of my head:
Skill synergy bonuses are competence? So they don't stack with Skill Focus? (Personally, I just got rid of skill synergies.)
I think "Equipment" is a better name than "Gear" - it sounds more fantasy-ish to me.
Do circumstance bonuses not stack?
What type of bonus is a rogue's sneak attack or a paladin's smite (both to attack and damage)? I strongly encourage making fleeting and circumstantial bonuses like that stack with everything; otherwise, you have to do stacking math on the fly.
Does luck really need to be its own bonus type? It seems pretty rare.

Again, you make good points, but most of those are also opposed checks. You don't roll anything for AC; it's a static value.

Look at something like skill checks:
50%: Bob tries to balance on a 1-ft wide surface.
25%: Bob tries to balance on a 6-inch wide surface
40%: Bob attempt to appraise the value of a well-known or common object.
XX%: Alice drank to much at the frat-party and now Bob is trying to prevent her from succumbing to alcohol poisoning (I don't know the save DC for alcohol atm; probably depends on type)

They're all over the place. When you look at what is actually being OPPOSED (chance to win the fight or chance to hit) they are still equal. So it doesn't seem any more un-intuitive to me than anything else in the game. And from the perspective of a player, all they really care about is:
Alice: *rolls*Does a 16 hit the Bob-beast?
GM: Yes/or/No

If the mechanics work, then I don't really care if the theory or underlying formula's are a little wonky. I'm not that OCD.
Skill checks are all over the place because you are no longer comparing equivalent things: you're comparing things with an arbitrary chance of success. AC shouldn't be arbitrary like that. But I recognize that I care more about internal consistency than most.

That makes sense, I guess, even if it feels a little awkward. Alternatively, another rules-option is that a shield just adds to the Gear bonus from armor (if you're not wearing armor then your base bonus is effectively 0, or just whatever the shield provides).
Grrr...I'm arguing myself in circles at this point. WHY U NO WORK AC?!?
Yeah, if you could add certain bonuses to other bonuses, the system could work a lot better! And we could call some of the bonuses "modifiers"... :smalltongue:

The Dodge feat needs some tweaking. It would be easy enough, I think, to spell out exactly what it did. I could see arguments either way for it applying/not-applying to flat-footed AC, though if flat-footed takes away all Dexterity-based stuff it probably shouldn't.
If you can't dodge, you can't Dodge. Seems pretty straightforward to me. And do you think Dodge is the only thing based around dodging?

How so? I'm not precisely seeing it here.
Yeah, I haven't fully explained that, though I give a stab below. The full-length argument is coming up in Part IV of the Spell Reformation. Basically stuff works better and stuff.

My first attempt basically did recreate the Spirit Shaman version of things, apparently reinventing the wheel. But I'm trying to make it even simpler than that, however.
Good luck! I'll be around to poke at weird problems with it when you're done. :smalltongue:

Alright, that's fine, I don't disagree with any of it, but if it doesn't negate a system that uses fixed-duration buffs or buffs in rounds/minute, particularly if all my magic spells provide the same type of buff.
Even with the stacking system, you'll still have a lot of buffs that stack. Bull's Strength, Divine Favor, Death Ward, Freedom of Movement, Resist Energy, Blur, Mirror Image... Spells have a staggering number of variations. Buffs need a more comprehensive solution than just the bonus stacking system if you actually want them to stop stacking so much.

The only real issue I can see is that if you needed to buff up the entire party individually (1 round caster on each person) a short-duration single target buff might start to wear off, particularly if I do away with all the automatic-Mass spells (Haste, etc). But I don't see that as an inherent problem, so much as it is just another consideration or obstacle for battle. Deciding who can buff who and when would be part of planning session, provided you have the time to stop and plan. Hopefully, castable buffs like that will be less crucial to a party, so if you don't have the time or have a sub-optimal arrangement it won't be the sole-cause of a wipe or defeat.
Yes, buffing the whole party individually is no longer an option with short-term buffs. I think that's good. For one thing, it means that when you hit the Mass spells, they're actually adding something significant to the game.

It was more the Wand-side of the issue that worried me. People take the (somewhat erroneous, IMO) attitude that healing-actions or healing-based -classes are useless because you can just buy a dozen wands of Cure Light Wounds.

That's the sort of situation I'm looking to avoid.
Ahh. Well, that's out of combat. Healers can also shine in combat, if they heal enough damage.

We agree on a lot of the problems, the theory, and what needs to change to fix it. We disagree on the exact path and mechanics that will best get us to where we want to go.
Three outta five ain't bad!

Deepbluediver

2013-09-30, 12:45 PM

It's another long reply. Shocking, I know. I opted to just spoiler the entire thing because I was feeling lazy.

Otherwise, I think I'm about done after this.
Alright, I can certainly understand being otherwise occupied. I won't really expect a reply; just didn't want to leave this hanging.

*I tend to be kind of wordy; editing a reply for brevity is perfectly acceptable; I promise I wont' be offended.

Playstyle discussions are nice and all, but they're pretty off topic here and I have other projects making time demands on me.
I see two issues here: first, magic is such an integral part of the system, and it ties into so many other issues, that virtually any discussion will eventually start to branch out. But, as I said, since Magic has it's fingers in so many pies, I'm not really sure it counts as being off-topic.

Secondly, playstyle is VERY important, because so many of the problems arise from people not doing exactly what the designers intended for them to do. Now, I don't blame the makers of D&D for not being clairvoyant and having precognitive super-powers, but in order to design a rigorous system that can stand up to a lot of abuse, you need to have some idea of what things will be like when the people go off the rails (in terms of mechanics and character design). This is doubly true for the open type of environment that tabletop games tend to encourage, when it's practically a requirement for both players and GMs to experiment with the unusual and unorthodox.

I don't want to control the game's power level by imposing severe limits on the type of things you can do (say, for example, having only 5 classes total, ever). But neither can you construct the underlying rules or any subsystem in a complete vacuum, ignoring everything outside your narrow field of vision.
Given that this thread is all about "the brokenness of spells", how players use and abuse these tricks and quirks seems to be fairly appropriate.

Everyone pretty much needs magic fluff bolted on to their archetype/character concept no later than some level determined by power scaling. So when I say mundane stops, I mean your fighter has to Cuchulain or Pecos Bill or John Henry or Bleach or OnePiece or whatever it up sometime between 5 and 9 and not look back.
I absolutely do not have a problem with any of that. In a world ruled by magic, I think trying to keep ANY class so that it fits in with things that seem "realistic" is a recipe for failure.

If Wizards and other magic users start being more unrealistic sooner (however you define it) then so be it. Even low level magic-less classes don't exactly line up with realism when you look at something like skill-checks or HP. How many people do you know can shrug off multiple hits to the chest with an axe?

So anywho, if the Fighter needs to fire anime-esque energy blasts from his sword (and anything else you want to strap on to melee'rs) to keep the game interesting, then by all means go for it, IMHO.

Whether the top also needs scaling down in power depends on your power scaling goals. With doubling every 2, it doesn't, and you should be bringing everyone up to wizard levels of power (though not necessarily versatility).

The issue is that power and versatility tend to be linked. It doesn't need to be that way, but it's sort of how things played out. You could have a feat that let Fighters instantly slay dragons or some other creature type from hundreds of feat away at will, and they'd still be tier 4 because they can't assist in other situations.

The hallmark of high tier classes is that they have access to multiple sets of one-hit-win abilities either all at once or with relatively little cost. Personally, I don't think those abilities are much fun for anyone for a prolonged period (or they only are fun for one individual at the expense of a group). So I think that some classes need to have their power levels tuned downward.

When it comes to versatility, I don't think that every player needs to be able to contribute equally to all situations at all times. That's both a tall order to fill and not necessarily good for variety: if everyone is the same, what's the point of having different classes?
What I do think is that some classes need more options, and some classes need more restrictions on how many options they can have all at once. That way, while a CLASS might be highly versatile, any particular build at any given moment will be more limited.

Just as a reminder, I prefer to balance around tier 3+ so that most characters can contribute something to most situations. For example, forcing a wizard to choose just 3 or 4 schools of magic that they use, instead of letting them dip into all 8. The class remains versatile for lots of replay value, but the character doesn't overwhelm the rest of the party. Get what I'm saying?

Yes, these are story based counters to abilities and may not be appropriate in all cases, but that's kind of the point. People use their abilities to develop the story after they reach a certain level. If they derail your plot with it, then it's a strong sign that they wanted to do something other than you had planned. And I support them doing that, even at the cost of my own plans.

In a perfect game world, everyone would be contributing in some manner that was roughly equal but potentially different. Only the scale of the job and the level that they attempted it at would vary based on power scaling. I'm perfectly happy leaving out class concepts that don't fit the level range though.

Nitpick: They don't need to each take a separate role. Multiple people in the same role only increases success odds of their missions, or lets those missions be larger or more plentiful. And the roles don't need to be unique between the classes either. Even if the way that they are filled is different, because there's a lot more classes than there are roles out there by this point. A party with all thieves or with no thieves can still take control of a thief's guild, only their methods change.

Obviously, as I was getting at before, I don't have a problem with some characters or even classes being better at certain roles, or even with some classes struggling in certain situations. What I really don't like is just how MANY scenarios make it nigh-impossible for anyone but a high-tier character to assist in, and how easily low-tier classes can fall into traps or be marginalized. If all I succeeded in doing was narrowing the Power-Versatility spread across the tiers so that the whole scale only stretched from the current 2 to 4, then I'd still be doing better than the RAW rules.

Also, I fully support the players and the GM working together to ensure that player-concepts fit the intended gamestyle. If the DM sets up and adventure that's more murder mystery and political-backstabbing than gore and mayhem, a raging berserker may not be the best choice (it might have potential for hilarious roleplay, but the player should know what they are stepping into).
By the same token, a player might not want to pick a squishy class and make Con their dump stat if the game is going to see lots of high-lethality combat.

At some point, I'm willing to say "I've done the best I can, anything else is on your [the group's] shoulders to guarantee everyone has a fun time."

So you can spam penalties from the same source? Problematic. Also, conditions don't self-stack, so that would be an inconsistency unless you also change it so all conditions self-stack, even from the same source. Which introduces a whole slew of issues: if I'm in a Mind Fog, do I keep taking an additional -10 every round? Effects from the same source shouldn't stack.
How does RAW do it? I don't recall hearing about to many issues with that.

What I think I want is a setup where no one thing stacks with itself, but different types do. Two copies of a spell like Curse, whether cast twice by one person or once by two people shouldn't stack. And you can't be "double-poisoned" with the same poison (as unrealistic as that probably is). But two different spells, two different poisons, or a poison and a spell would all stack. That's what I'm thinking of.

Conditions....need some TLC to, I think. I'm gonna avoid that minefield atm.

Are you going to define item types? If so, you need a list of every item that can possibly give a Gear bonus. If not, you're leaving it very open for interpretation. That would probably work for armor and shields, but you're going to have a mess with regards to skill checks and other things where a variety of possible items could conceivably give a bonus - because if the only things that don't stack are bonuses from the same "type of item", I could have a wide variety of gear bonuses, all to the same task. That's too much stacking - and it's ambiguous to boot.

Ideally, I'd leave it up to the GM and common sense. Just because I own 16 shields and happen to be carrying them all around with me doesn't mean I can use them all at once.
Still, I admit the potential for problems there.

I think for most things the basic system this will actually work out OK. It's really just shields, armor, and AC that I'm struggling to all get to work together right now. While I don't really like it, I'm thinking of just classifying Shields as their own type of bonus which adds to AC, so that it can stack with anything else but not itself. Yes, I realize that puts me almost back on square one. I'm will to concede defeat on this point and sacrifice some internal consistency if it works and lets me move on to other things.

You probably can! I'm poking holes not because I think it can't work, but because I don't think it works yet.
Captain! We're still taking on water!
What? Are the pumps working on full capacity?
Yes, but you see there's this one nutter running around with a drill....
Sorry, just having a little fun.

I've been trying to get rid of boring AC from items for a while. The problem is that items are just spells on a stick, and as long as you have a Shield of Faith spell that provides a boring bonus to AC, you should have an item that does the same thing. You could just make every item and spell give an Enhancement bonus. However, that means you'll have to get rid of every single spell that can't be justified as a pure enhancement bonus (Magic Vestment, Barkskin, bonuses which should be lost when you're flat-footed, etc.).

For some reason, I don't mind activated magic items nearly as much as passive ones. Probably because with activation there's always some cost, either opportunity or in resources.
And I don't entirely mind passive bonuses to what you might think of as boring stats; I just think they should be more limited. Armor can grant a boost to AC and DR, Weapons to melee damage. But that's where those stats should end, IMO. All the magic rings, necklaces, crowns, gloves, boots, wands, and trinkets should do more interesting things.

Part of my armor-fix, if you've seen it, was intended so that a player could upgrade their armor as they advanced in level to keep the AC necessary to survive high-level combat without needing to devote every item slot to it.

So it's really hard to touch a creature with a high natural armor, but easy to touch a creature in armor? :smallconfused:
No, it's like this.
You can still make individual adjustments to any type of bonus (not that I expect it to come up a lot outside of AC). So, for example, I add up all most best bonuses of every type, and calculate regular AC. I can put it in the rules that armor (the item, or an inherent bonus from something like thick skin or a shell) does not add to your Touch-AC. I can put it in the rules that Dexterity or dexterity-based benefits (such as an inherent bonus from speed or physiology or weird anatomy) does not add to your Flat-footed AC.

If there where any specific adjustments to be made from a given bonus, it would say it right there on the same line as the bonus. To me, this is actually simpler than trying to deal with modifiers and bonuses; there's no formula or complicated rules to memorize or interpret, I can just flip right to the page and look it up: does this apply to AC? Yes. Touch AC? Yes. Flat-footed AC? No. etc.

Maybe it's just my preference, but I'd love a straightforward set-up like that, and I don't foresee it causing to many problems (barring the shields/armor/Gear-bonus issue, which I'm just gonna pretend doesn't exist for the moment).

Yeah, if you could add certain bonuses to other bonuses, the system could work a lot better! And we could call some of the bonuses "modifiers"... :smalltongue:

Hate you. So much. :smallfurious:

Just giving druids Magic Weapon feels wrong for reasons that I can't quite define. I think it's the idea of druids encouraging and enhancing manufactured weapons and "technology".
To me that sounds kind of like forcing fluff into mechanical aspects of the game. The best known example is, I think, that Paladin's code, and you probably know how well that went over (like a lead life-jacket, FYI).

If you want to say in the class description that many druids dislike certain types of weapons or armor, fine, but I don't see much benefit to sticking the druid with a crappy version of another spell that only they are going to use, in all likelihood, because no one else will be carrying those weapons. Giving the druid Magic Weapon encourages them, IMO, to spread the magic around to other members of the party when appropriate.

Either that or the spell should be altered so it's a different effect, perhaps something like allowing the druid to turn any stick or sliver of wood into a basic magic weapon, so they are never entirely without a means of defense. That seems like it would fit the "benefiting from nature" aspect of the fluff you want to keep.

You can probably solve the stacking issue by reducing every single weapon enhancement in the game to "this functions like Magic Weapon, except...". However, by doing so, you're crippling a potentially interesting and not overpowered aspect of the spell system solely because the bonus system can't figure out how to express a fairly basic concept.
But the thing is, I DON'T find multiple spells that all just add to attack rolls or damage to be particularly interesting in he first place.

I would rather just spread around Magic Weapon and let players think of it however they like (arcane embodiment, divine guidance, whatever). Then we have room for spells which actually do new and interesting actions.

Here's what comes to mind off the top of my head:
Skill synergy bonuses are competence? So they don't stack with Skill Focus? (Personally, I just got rid of skill synergies.)
I think "Equipment" is a better name than "Gear" - it sounds more fantasy-ish to me.
Do circumstance bonuses not stack?
What type of bonus is a rogue's sneak attack or a paladin's smite (both to attack and damage)? I strongly encourage making fleeting and circumstantial bonuses like that stack with everything; otherwise, you have to do stacking math on the fly.
Does luck really need to be its own bonus type? It seems pretty rare.

Regarding synergy...you can make the argument for some actions being part of more than one skill, at least going by the names. Synergies are a decent compromise (IMO) for heading off any potential arguments over what skill is appropriate in a certain situation. And what other type could they fit in if not competence?
Also, I might just alter the way the Skill Focus feat works; probably something like have it add +1d6 to your skill checks, so it doesn't requiring typing it as a bonus anyway.

Equipment, Gear, Tool, Apparatus, Utensils, whatever. I just picked the one that was the shortest and easiest to write. I'd call it "squiddleblump" if that's all it takes to make you happy. :smallamused:

Circumstances bonuses do not stack with other circumstance bonuses. If you had a list of things that potentially grant circumstance bonuses I'd peruse it for potentially illogical pitfalls. Keep in mind though, that part of the goal when setting out was to make power levels swing less with buffs, and some of that requires stuff to NOT STACK so much.

Skill checks are all over the place because you are no longer comparing equivalent things: you're comparing things with an arbitrary chance of success. AC shouldn't be arbitrary like that. But I recognize that I care more about internal consistency than most.

I don't see AC as being arbitrary; the base number is a very specific value. The whole game is essentially about being better (i.e. not equivalent) and for the comparison that REALLY matters in my mind, the chance of victory in combat, the odds are still dead-even.

If you can't dodge, you can't Dodge. Seems pretty straightforward to me. And do you think Dodge is the only thing based around dodging?
What exactly does flat-footed mean though? (this is starting to get really off-topic, but I'll forge ahead anyhow) It probably means you can't act normally (i.e. get a turn in the initiative order). But are you simply open to special attacks (like Sneak-attack) or more vulnerable to ALL attacks? That would determine, in my mind, what sources of AC you'd benefit from.
I'm asking but I really don't have a preference here; what do you prefer?

Even with the stacking system, you'll still have a lot of buffs that stack. Bull's Strength, Divine Favor, Death Ward, Freedom of Movement, Resist Energy, Blur, Mirror Image... Spells have a staggering number of variations. Buffs need a more comprehensive solution than just the bonus stacking system if you actually want them to stop stacking so much.
Eh, what I would like to do is spread the types of things those buffs do around to more classes, and make it harder for casters to acquire all of them at once. I don't object to the idea of having a really buff-heavy party if that's the way the players want to roll with things, but it should be neither a requirement, nor should it come without cost.

Achieving that is quite difficult and complex though; everything is still pretty much a WIP, but if you have any specific questions or sticking points I'd offer whatever answers I've decided upon so far.
And as always, I'm open to suggestions.

unbeliever536

2013-09-30, 10:15 PM

Spoilered because these replies are a seeecret.

How does RAW do it? I don't recall hearing about to many issues with that.

Penalties from different sources stack, but conditions never stack with themselves (sometimes they upgrade, such as fatigue->exhaustion, but they never stack), and penalties from the same source (such as two castings of the same spell) never stack, and only the worse one is used.

For some reason, I don't mind activated magic items nearly as much as passive ones. Probably because with activation there's always some cost, either opportunity or in resources.
And I don't entirely mind passive bonuses to what you might think of as boring stats; I just think they should be more limited. Armor can grant a boost to AC and DR, Weapons to melee damage. But that's where those stats should end, IMO. All the magic rings, necklaces, crowns, gloves, boots, wands, and trinkets should do more interesting things.

Activated magic items also feel more...magical. Bob's magic carpet (or Aparatus of Kilwash, if you want to go whole-crab) is way cooler than Alice's Article of Clothing of +6 Attribute, even if Alice's magical neckerchief is a necessity.

No, it's like this.
You can still make individual adjustments to any type of bonus (not that I expect it to come up a lot outside of AC). So, for example, I add up all most best bonuses of every type, and calculate regular AC. I can put it in the rules that armor (the item, or an inherent bonus from something like thick skin or a shell) does not add to your Touch-AC. I can put it in the rules that Dexterity or dexterity-based benefits (such as an inherent bonus from speed or physiology or weird anatomy) does not add to your Flat-footed AC.

If there where any specific adjustments to be made from a given bonus, it would say it right there on the same line as the bonus. To me, this is actually simpler than trying to deal with modifiers and bonuses; there's no formula or complicated rules to memorize or interpret, I can just flip right to the page and look it up: does this apply to AC? Yes. Touch AC? Yes. Flat-footed AC? No. etc.

Maybe it's just my preference, but I'd love a straightforward set-up like that, and I don't it will cause to many problems (barring the shields/armor/Gear-bonus issue, which I'm just gonna pretend doesn't exist for the moment).

But what if I don't list out every bonus to my AC and its source? What if I only want to have one-three stats listed/memorized, instead of a dozen? Applying every bonus to a particular meta-bonus, if you will, feels simpler to me than checking every bonus individually.

Equipment, Gear, Tool, Apparatus, Utensils, whatever. I just picked the one that was the shortest and easiest to write. I'd call it "squiddleblump" if that's all it takes to make you happy. :smallamused:

Circumstances bonuses do not stack with other circumstance bonuses. If you had a list of things that potentially grant circumstance bonuses I'd peruse it for potentially illogical pitfalls. Keep in mind though, that part of the goal when setting out was to make power levels swing less with buffs, and some of that requires stuff to NOT STACK so much.

The player's handbook lists both cover and kneeling as improving ranged armor class, to pick one example. You could probably handle that with common sense/a more thourough cover system, but without any other changes those seem to stack intuitively.

And I am one hundred and ten percent in favor of shields giving a squiddlebump bonus, as long as Defensive Tentacles (new racial feat for mindflayers, watch out!) gives the same type of bonus. Because those shouldn't stack.

I don't see AC as being arbitrary; the base number is a very specific value. The whole game is essentially about being better (i.e. not equivalent) and for the comparison that REALLY matters in my mind, the chance of victory in combat, the odds are still dead-even.

I'd like to jump in as a martial artist and say that a 20% chance to avoid an attack from someone who is competent, but not especially skilled (ie, only proficient) without an unusual amount of dodging or blocking is pretty reasonable. That 20% is probably mostly going to be "whew! I managed to hop back far enough that his attack didn't really do anything!" rather than "good thing he swung a foot to my left!" Hitting an opponent with a weapon you know how to use is not that hard.

What exactly does flat-footed mean though? (this is starting to get really off-topic, but I'll forge ahead anyhow) It probably means you can't act normally (i.e. get a turn in the initiative order). But are you simply vulnerable to special attacks (like Sneak-attack) or to ALL attacks? That would determine, in my mind, what sources of AC you'd benefit from.
I'm asking but I really don't have a preference here; what do you prefer?

Flat-footed means you're off your guard and can't really react to a blow. You can't roll away from it, dodge it, or anything. If you see it at all, all you'll have is whatever protective gear you're wearing and maybe a flinch reflex (but not a conscious, controlled dodge).

Vadskye

2013-10-04, 05:43 PM

Separated because I, unlike Deepbluediver, am not a lazy bum!
Deepbluediver:

It's another long reply. Shocking, I know. I opted to just spoiler the entire thing because I was feeling lazy.
So you write a 2000+ word reply, but you're too lazy to add an extra two spoiler tags? Your definition of lazy is weird. :smalltongue:

How does RAW do it? I don't recall hearing about to many issues with that.
Effects from the same source don't stack. "Source" is poorly defined, but seems to refer to "anything with the same name is the same source". Another way to think about it is that every spell has a <spell name> type, and effects with the same type don't stack. See PHB p. 171-172 for a more comprehensive explanation. Unbeliever also explained it well, I think.

What I think I want is a setup where no one thing stacks with itself, but different types do. Two copies of a spell like Curse, whether cast twice by one person or once by two people shouldn't stack. And you can't be "double-poisoned" with the same poison (as unrealistic as that probably is). But two different spells, two different poisons, or a poison and a spell would all stack. That's what I'm thinking of.

Conditions....need some TLC to, I think. I'm gonna avoid that minefield atm.
So you're actually using the RAW version. No worries then! Just say that effects from the same source don't stack.

Ideally, I'd leave it up to the GM and common sense. Just because I own 16 shields and happen to be carrying them all around with me doesn't mean I can use them all at once.
Still, I admit the potential for problems there.

I think for most things the basic system this will actually work out OK. It's really just shields, armor, and AC that I'm struggling to all get to work together right now. While I don't really like it, I'm thinking of just classifying Shields as their own type of bonus which adds to AC, so that it can stack with anything else but not itself. Yes, I realize that puts me almost back on square one. I'm will to concede defeat on this point and sacrifice some internal consistency if it works and lets me move on to other things.
If you classify shields as its own unique type of bonus which adds to AC, and you acknowledge that there can be multiple separate types of bonuses which improve shield AC (the shield itself, magic shields/Magic Vestment, shield specialization...) what's the difference between our systems except that I'm more explicit about it?

Captain! We're still taking on water!
What? Are the pumps working on full capacity?
Yes, but you see there's this one nutter running around with a drill....
Sorry, just having a little fun.
That induced more giggling than it had any right to.

For some reason, I don't mind activated magic items nearly as much as passive ones. Probably because with activation there's always some cost, either opportunity or in resources.
And I don't entirely mind passive bonuses to what you might think of as boring stats; I just think they should be more limited. Armor can grant a boost to AC and DR, Weapons to melee damage. But that's where those stats should end, IMO. All the magic rings, necklaces, crowns, gloves, boots, wands, and trinkets should do more interesting things.

Part of my armor-fix, if you've seen it, was intended so that a player could upgrade their armor as they advanced in level to keep the AC necessary to survive high-level combat without needing to devote every item slot to it.
We're on the same page here, I think. I recently made a breakthrough in how to handle magic items that takes those themes and expands on it - can't wait to get started on that once I finish the Spell Reformation.

No, it's like this.
You can still make individual adjustments to any type of bonus (not that I expect it to come up a lot outside of AC). So, for example, I add up all most best bonuses of every type, and calculate regular AC. I can put it in the rules that armor (the item, or an inherent bonus from something like thick skin or a shell) does not add to your Touch-AC. I can put it in the rules that Dexterity or dexterity-based benefits (such as an inherent bonus from speed or physiology or weird anatomy) does not add to your Flat-footed AC.

If there where any specific adjustments to be made from a given bonus, it would say it right there on the same line as the bonus. To me, this is actually simpler than trying to deal with modifiers and bonuses; there's no formula or complicated rules to memorize or interpret, I can just flip right to the page and look it up: does this apply to AC? Yes. Touch AC? Yes. Flat-footed AC? No. etc.

Maybe it's just my preference, but I'd love a straightforward set-up like that, and I don't foresee it causing to many problems (barring the shields/armor/Gear-bonus issue, which I'm just gonna pretend doesn't exist for the moment).
So every single creature that used to have natural armor has to include a separate text box specifying that they have an inherent bonus to AC that doesn't apply to touch AC? How do you specify "an inherent bonus from speed" without either explicitly listing it in the creature's description or giving it a type?

Have you played Magic: the Gathering or any other game that uses keywords to express moderately complex concepts that come up very frequently? Keywords and types create incredibly valuable mental shortcuts that keep players and DMs from having to individually process the exact same text every single time. Eventually they're just going to stop reading the text at all if it looks similar to what they are used to seeing on almost every other monster, which means that it's just wasted text - still a mental shortcut like a type, but more confusingly written.

Hate you. So much. :smallfurious:
Teehee.

To me that sounds kind of like forcing fluff into mechanical aspects of the game. The best known example is, I think, that Paladin's code, and you probably know how well that went over (like a lead life-jacket, FYI).

If you want to say in the class description that many druids dislike certain types of weapons or armor, fine, but I don't see much benefit to sticking the druid with a crappy version of another spell that only they are going to use, in all likelihood, because no one else will be carrying those weapons. Giving the druid Magic Weapon encourages them, IMO, to spread the magic around to other members of the party when appropriate.

Either that or the spell should be altered so it's a different effect, perhaps something like allowing the druid to turn any stick or sliver of wood into a basic magic weapon, so they are never entirely without a means of defense. That seems like it would fit the "benefiting from nature" aspect of the fluff you want to keep.
Using mechanics to represent fluff is a huge part of the game! Why do clerics and druids get Flame Strike and Invisibility Purge while wizards get Fireball and See Invisibility? Why do druids get an animal companion and wizards get a familiar? That's representing fluff with mechanics. (Perhaps a bad example because druids shouldn't get Flame Strike, but the general point should be clear). Cleverly and intuitively representing fluff through mechanics is amazing, and it's what separates Dungeons and Dragons from Dice and Data. The paladin's code is the opposite of that; it's using mandatory non-mechanical fluff, and that's why it doesn't work.

Now, is Shillelagh really necessary? No, probably not. But that flexibility is important.

But the thing is, I DON'T find multiple spells that all just add to attack rolls or damage to be particularly interesting in he first place.

I would rather just spread around Magic Weapon and let players think of it however they like (arcane embodiment, divine guidance, whatever). Then we have room for spells which actually do new and interesting actions.
So you'd get rid of Weapon of the Deity (Complete Divine), Spikes(Complete Divine), Deific Bastion (Complete Champion), and literally any other spell that happens to give a weapon a +1 bonus, simply because it would stack with an actual magic weapon? It's a brute force fix to a simple problem.

Here's another way to look at it. I think that an important test of a bonus system is whether it can handle "duplicate" effects: say, Heroism and Good Hope, both of which give offensive morale bonuses, or Bull's Strength and Divine Power, both of which give a bonus to Strength. This is important because it's reasonable to design multiple versions of a similar effect to serve different purposes. I'd consider a system broken if it made Bull's Strength stack with Divine Power, for example, even if it could "fix" the problem by redesigning every single Strength-boosting spell so it said "this functions as Bull's Strength, except...". That's unnecessarily limiting.

By the same token, I consider a system broken if it makes Magic Weapon stack with Shillelagh, even if you can "fix" the problem by removing every single spell that enhances weapons except for Magic Weapon.

Regarding synergy...you can make the argument for some actions being part of more than one skill, at least going by the names. Synergies are a decent compromise (IMO) for heading off any potential arguments over what skill is appropriate in a certain situation. And what other type could they fit in if not competence?
You could call it "inherent" since it's purely a function of skill ranks, and skill ranks themselves are inherent bonuses (I assume).

Also, I might just alter the way the Skill Focus feat works; probably something like have it add +1d6 to your skill checks, so it doesn't requiring typing it as a bonus anyway.
:smallconfused: So the way you'll make the bonus system work is... by bypassing the bonus system entirely and introducing unnecessary rolls? Not to mention that you can't really add rolls as a passive ability to skill checks. What happens if you take 20?

Equipment, Gear, Tool, Apparatus, Utensils, whatever. I just picked the one that was the shortest and easiest to write. I'd call it "squiddleblump" if that's all it takes to make you happy. :smallamused:
Man that would be the best name ever.

Circumstances bonuses do not stack with other circumstance bonuses. If you had a list of things that potentially grant circumstance bonuses I'd peruse it for potentially illogical pitfalls. Keep in mind though, that part of the goal when setting out was to make power levels swing less with buffs, and some of that requires stuff to NOT STACK so much.
Unbeliever has a good start of an analogy here. There's also:
Total defense + tree
Total defense + prone/kneeling
Flanking + invisible (attacking)
Flanking + higher ground
Flanking + aid another
Aid another + anything, really
Charging + flanking
That's what comes to mind off the top of my head.

I don't see AC as being arbitrary; the base number is a very specific value. The whole game is essentially about being better (i.e. not equivalent) and for the comparison that REALLY matters in my mind, the chance of victory in combat, the odds are still dead-even.
After thinking about it some more, I don't have as strong of an objection. If I was designing a system from scratch and I had to pick an estimate for how long it would take for a couple of unarmored people with swords to seriously injure each other, I would pick a fairly short time frame. Saying that AC is 5+stuff instead of 10+stuff still feels strange to me because it's out of sync with the rest of the system - but it's something I'd be willing to accept if it made the results better as a whole.

(It occurs to me that a similar thought process might explain why 4e used "weapon proficiency bonuses": that way, attackers had a consistently better than 50% chance to hit, but you could keep the numerical symmetry that comes from making AC start at 10.)

What exactly does flat-footed mean though? (this is starting to get really off-topic, but I'll forge ahead anyhow) It probably means you can't act normally (i.e. get a turn in the initiative order). But are you simply open to special attacks (like Sneak-attack) or more vulnerable to ALL attacks? That would determine, in my mind, what sources of AC you'd benefit from.
I'm asking but I really don't have a preference here; what do you prefer?
Unbeliever said it well. If you're flat-footed, you can't dodge; you are either unaware of the attack or unable to take any action to react to it. No Dex, no dodge bonuses, no shield (in my system): nothing but you and your armor (and your magic, as necessary).

Eh, what I would like to do is spread the types of things those buffs do around to more classes, and make it harder for casters to acquire all of them at once. I don't object to the idea of having a really buff-heavy party if that's the way the players want to roll with things, but it should be neither a requirement, nor should it come without cost.

Achieving that is quite difficult and complex though; everything is still pretty much a WIP, but if you have any specific questions or sticking points I'd offer whatever answers I've decided upon so far.
And as always, I'm open to suggestions.
You should check out Part IV of the Spell Reformation (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16156034&postcount=53). It's about buffs.
Unbeliever:
I made reference to some of your replies in my response to Deepbluediver. Basically, unless I mention something specifically (and sometimes even then), I agree!

Activated magic items also feel more...magical. Bob's magic carpet (or Aparatus of Kilwash, if you want to go whole-crab) is way cooler than Alice's Article of Clothing of +6 Attribute, even if Alice's magical neckerchief is a necessity.
Definitely. My next quest after the Spell Reformation is to rewrite magic items - both because they wouldn't work as originally written after the Spell Reformation, and because they are in serious need of more awesomeness.

I'd like to jump in as a martial artist and say that a 20% chance to avoid an attack from someone who is competent, but not especially skilled (ie, only proficient) without an unusual amount of dodging or blocking is pretty reasonable. That 20% is probably mostly going to be "whew! I managed to hop back far enough that his attack didn't really do anything!" rather than "good thing he swung a foot to my left!" Hitting an opponent with a weapon you know how to use is not that hard.
I'd point out that knowing how to use a proper weapon takes us out of commoner territory, but I generally admit that you're right. Actually, the regular system is a bit of a problem from a realism perspective; because of the -4 penalty with nonproficient weapons, two commoners given longswords would have a devil of a time hitting each other, when really they should be able to cut each other up pretty quickly.

Rise actually solves this problem sort of kind of, but I'll certainly withdraw my objection. I just would prefer a system that accomplished that goal without making AC out of sync with the rest of the d20 system.
Part IV of the Spell Reformation is now up! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16156034&postcount=53)