Making magic more newbie-friendly

[Firechanter]

Hello Playground,

as I have a few players in my pool who are rather new to D&D or pen&paper altogether, I've been thinking about changing the magic classes a bit to make them more accessible to new players.
However, at the same time I also want to improve the inherent balance between casters and noncasters. And that is rather tricky.

I feel that the Spell Retrieval method introduced by the Spirit Shaman might be a good starting point, allowing players to experiment with different spell setups and change the selection on a daily basis, but without the "Vancian amnesia" (which especially players new to D&D find preposterous and difficult to grasp), instead being able to cast the same spell multiple times.

So I am toying with the idea of changing all caster classes to Retrieval or a similar method -- but at the same time I am worried that this would make classes like Wizard much more powerful. I mean, look at all the flak the Paizo Arcanist got for doing exactly that. What can I do?

Among other things, I am thinking of splitting the casting stat, so full casters aren't so SAD. The idea would be to make spell access and bonus spells dependent on Int (Arcane) or Wis (Divine), but base spell DCs off Cha in either case.
An even harsher change would be to base level access on Int, bonus spells on Wis and DCs on Cha -- however that would nix the distinction between arcane and divine magic, which I would rather preserve.
Also, such a split would make the magic of secondary casters (like Paladins and Rangers) virtually unusable, as they need rather less MADness instead of more.

Any ideas how I can juggle this?

[Renen]

Use psionics. Its basically the "mana" system that oh... every video game out there uses.

[Firechanter]

Yeah, no. I don't like Psionics or Spell Points.

[Renen]

Well, I think its much simpler to understand than forgetting spells.
But I guess your way would work too.

[Snowbluff]

Beguiler-type casters help. If anything, I would say throw warlocks ans DFI into the mix as substitutes for lower power players.

For SAD, I'd like to point out that the Paladin is already MAD, so Wis-Cha based casting couldn't hurt. I don't think SAD is that bad of a thing, and it only makes casters that much more complicated to play. Higher OP players would just play Illumians to avoid it more readily for DEX/INT or STR/WIS builds, anyway.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'd avoid anything that requires new players to pour through entire books to find their spells for the day. Whether that means Beguiler-style fixed list casters or Sorcerer-style spontaneous casters is up to you, but Spirit Shaman casting is just as bad as Vancean from a complexity point-of-view.


Beguiler-type casters help. If anything, I would say throw warlocks ans DFI into the mix as substitutes for lower power players.
If you want more than are presented, I've got some homebrew for you (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16545265#post16545265).

[erikun]

If you want to reduce power of wizards, then you should probably just limit the spells available to characters - either by changing spell lists, or just something like "choose five schools of magic to use". Then again, if we're talking about new players who aren't familiar with spellcasting, then perhaps limiting power should not be a priority to focus on.

I haven't used the Spirit Shaman, but using a similar Spell Point variant (where the Cleric memorized spells slots and then freely cast them) and it turned out pretty simple to manage. I might recommend a different "Spells Memorized" list, as the Spells-per-Day tends to be fairly high.

[JusticeZero]

Yeah, no. I don't like Psionics or Spell Points.Well, if you don't like using a point based system that's fine, but is there any particular reason you dislike that specific balanced and fantasy themed spellcasting system that doesn't apply to the other videogamey ways of invoking magical effects?
I'm always a bit stumped by that one - not that I don't think there's good reason to omit classes and races from a setting, but that people omit that specific one while letting a whole wide variety of other forms of magic through without comment. Just group them in with wherever your monks hang out, or something.

[Ravens_cry]

If you want some of the Wizard flavour on a simpler character, give a Sorcerer Int casting and a Wizard's skill list. To simplify things even further, though this is more work for you, you could pare the lists down to certain themes and give whole list casting within a certain theme.

[Calimehter]

If you want some of the Wizard flavour on a simpler character, give a Sorcerer Int casting and a Wizard's skill list. To simplify things even further, though this is more work for you, you could pare the lists down to certain themes and give whole list casting within a certain theme.

I'm in with another vote for just using the spontaneous mechanic casting that a lot of classes (Sorcerer, etc.) already have, maybe with a few tweaks like the one mentioned above for flavor.

One of the potential pitfalls with these classes is that you can mess up your spell selection and be stuck with it . . . this is a true point, but with a truly new player, you are probably going to want to be helping out with the basics of character generation as it is, so a bit of extra help with spell selection is not going to be out of place or really that much more work.

Once those good/versatile spells are selected and the players are sitting down at the table with dice in hand, the simplicity of spontaneous casting works out great. In the past our group has had a first time player jump right into play with a mid-level sorcerer with great results.

[zlefin]

I'd add that it's not hard to refluff vancian amnesia into something that makes a lot more sense and is easy to understand.

[tzar1990]

I'd add that it's not hard to refluff vancian amnesia into something that makes a lot more sense and is easy to understand.

Especially because, as I understand it, it's NOT amnesia.

The default fluff is that you cast most of the spell during preparation time. The act of spellcasting during the day consists of adding to finishing touches to a spell that's already mostly cast. The reason you can't cast the same spell over and over is that to cast it again, you'd need to complete the whole ritual (read: spell-preparation) again!

It's not that you forget how to cast fireball - it's that Fireball is the "happily ever after" on the end of "The story of how I learned to stop worry and love burning people to death" - without the longer bit, it doesn't matter WHAT you say!

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'd add that it's not hard to refluff vancian amnesia into something that makes a lot more sense and is easy to understand.
I like to use something along the lines of magic in the early Diskworld books: Spells aren't just "say the words and this stuff happens;" they're things, in and of themselves. When you prepare spells, you drag the spell out of your spellbook and trap it in your mind. The actual "spellcasting" is just opening the door to the mental cage and telling the spell where to go.

If you're a wizard or archivist, your spells start off bound in your book, thanks to the special inks and whatnot. After the spell is cast, it flees back to its home in your book.

If you're a cleric, paladin, or something like that, your god reaches down and hands you a pile of spells, which return to him/her when they're cast.

For a druid or ranger, your spells are more like nature spirits. You recruit them from the natural world, and they return there once used.

If you're a spontaneous caster, you're the home of your spells. They go straight back to you once cast, and it's only mental fatigue that keeps you from using them over and over again. (The distinct spell levels are a sort of mnemonic, to keep things more organized.)

[Firechanter]

Just a short feedback since I'm on my phone and in a bit of a hurry. I try to avoid spell points for several reasons:
- yes, everyone else does it. Video games, other p&ps ... it's just kinda boring.
- it ultimately works against the players as it allows npcs to nova much more effectively. PCs still need to manage their resources but an NPC can churn out evetything in one encounter, all with their highest level spells.

[weckar]

Psionics NPCs are assumed to only have half their point pool available though.

[Talakeal]

Just a short feedback since I'm on my phone and in a bit of a hurry. I try to avoid spell points for several reasons:
- yes, everyone else does it. Video games, other p&ps ... it's just kinda boring.
- it ultimately works against the players as it allows npcs to nova much more effectively. PCs still need to manage their resources but an NPC can churn out evetything in one encounter, all with their highest level spells.

That is not a bad thing, imo.

As much as the wizard in my group bitches about the "imbalance", I found that the ease of NPC nova-ing really helps to keep magic dangerous and scary while at the same time keeping PC mages from overshadowing the rest of the group.

[ramrod]

If this helps at all, I just introduced my gf to d and d, she has no roleplaying experience and minimal background in any kind of computer game that uses similar concepts.

She picked up the spell casting and loss system instantly with no problems. It wasn't too difficult for her at all and she has like No experience with this stuff at all.

[Firechanter]

Sorry folks, forum rollback was so hard I lost sight of this thread. ^^

Okay. Well, personally I do agree that specialized fixed-list casters would be the best way to go -- if one were to completely overhaul the system and publish new books.
However, that not being so, I am willing to settle for "quick fix" solutions that are easy to apply while keeping most of the printed content intact. In such a way that you kind of apply "templates" to official stuff.

To give you an idea what I am talking about, here is what I did to the Ranger to make it more competitive with the Martial Adepts:

- D10 HD
- Pet of full class level (i.e. like regular Druid)
- Caster Level = Class Level
- +2 slots per spell level
- expanded Combat Style feat list, not "virtual feats", not limited to Archery or TWF

That's pretty much it. So for the most part it's like the PF Ranger, except with pimped Spellcasting and full-sized Pet without feat tax.
It's working out fine for the most part, except that my current playtester (a newbie) has trouble with the spell preparation system, so I have half a mind to switch it to Spontaneous casting (retaining the fixed list) or using Spell Retrieval.

However, unilaterally boosting stuff is easy. The bigger problem is to balance full casters better, by rasing the floor (to make them more newbie-friendly) and lowering the ceiling (to keep experienced players from breaking the game), while all the time not going into too much trouble with a pile of new mechanics, rewritten spell lists, extra rules and whatnot.

[Wargamer]

You want newbie friendly magic? Easy!

1) Core Only. Don't drop twenty books on their heads and expect them to handle it.

2) Spontaneous Casters only - no Wizards!

3) You pick the spell list. You plan out all the spells they can have and you hand them out when they reach the appropriate levels.

All of this means that your players only need to do two things; declare what spells they want to cast, and keep track of how many spells they have left to cast. That's no more challenging for them than, say, playing a Rogue and keeping track of how many Sneak Attacks you have.

[HammeredWharf]

Ban T1&2 casters. Use warmages, beguilers, dread necros and bards, instead. I think using published classes is much easier than taking note of a bunch of houserules.