PDA

View Full Version : Low Power Spells for High Level Casters



jqavins
2018-04-24, 05:49 PM
I'm branching off of an idea in this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=23020892#post23020892).

I want to think about a magic system in a game system that has class levels, but probably doesn't have spell levels, and has a feature that I don't really know how to implement. Here's the idea.

Spells are characterized by two factors: complexity and power. High complexity requires a high caster level to master. High power also requires a high caster level to control, and also a high <something else> to provide the juice. So, a complicated but low power spell, such as using a modified Wall of Force to manifest a paring knife, would require a high caster level but only a low <something else>.

Now, in D&D the <something else> is spell level, but the idea of a low level spell that can only be cast by a high level caster is a really non-D&D thing. Can this be pushed in anyway, saying that a particular spell takes, let's say a seventh level caster but only fills a first level slot? Should we then review every existing spell to see if such a modification is warranted?

Maybe the <something else> could be a spell point cost. That makes sense with it being tied only to the spell power. Is there an existing, published system that has class levels and spell points where this could work?

Any good ideas for creating such a system? Certainly one would not want to create a whole game system to accommodate a detail of how magic spells work, so one would look for a combat/skill/the rest system onto which a new or modified spell system could be grafted.

Is there some other way to approach it? Is it just a dumb idea in the first place?

Vogie
2018-04-24, 07:02 PM
It kinda sounds like Spheres of power, but not precisely.

I mean, D&D kinda has it, but all of the spell options are locked into the Vancian framework.

For example, Mage Hand exists as a Cantrip. Bigby's Hand exists as a 5th level spell and has 4 distinct options. It doesn't take logical gymnastics to see that those could have been a series of smaller spells, but would seem really odd from a "space on page" point of view.

Gate, as well, is a single spell that does two different things. Planar travel as well as Specific Summoning.

If a DM wanted to, they could take high level spells and break them down into smaller spells that do pieces of the whole.

jqavins
2018-04-24, 08:27 PM
I think that misses the point, so I suppose I may not have been clear. I'll take another example.

Let's say teleportation is a difficult and delicate thing to understand and perform. Because making a thing disappear from one place and reappear in another requires (I'm making this up) shifting the item into a demi-plane parallel to the material wherein it can move at the speed of light, directing that movement, and then switching it back to the material plane, it requires the skilled hand and well trained mind of a ninth level mage to perform any sort of teleportation.

Teleport, which moves the caster and whatever she is carrying to another location, requires a lot of magical power, which can only be provided (or managed or something) by a mage of at least ninth level. Thus, Teleport is a fifth level spell, or takes five spell points, or something.

Mass Teleport, which allows a mage to transport himself and all of his party to another location, takes only the same level of sophistication Teleport, but more power, so it is a seventh level spell requiring a 13th level mage, or takes 7 spell points, or something.

Fetch Item is a low power spell that allows a mage to bring a small object to her hand. Despite it's low power effect, it still requires all the finesse and understanding of Teleport, so it is a cantrip, or requires only one spell point, or something, but still requires a ninth level mage to cast. It is easily within the power of someone lower level, but is beyond his comprehension or skill.

A spell like Gate that does two different things, might be using the same concepts with different power levels. If it is broken up into two spells at different levels, the lower power spell can be done by a comparatively low level mage, even though it is just as complicated as the higher power spell, so this is really a negation of what I'm looking for.

aimlessPolymath
2018-04-24, 09:10 PM
Huh.

This is actually surprisingly reminiscent of some conversation I had when trying to build a superhero RPG. Among the stats developed were Strength and Precision, referencing the raw power of the superpower and the ability to use it precisely, respectively.
Linky (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22987181&postcount=78)
This suggests, generally, that a mage with lots of skill but a small spell point pool could be considered to be "equivalent", for some exchange rate, with a mage with little skill but lots of magic (i.e. the wilder)

Anyway, I think we actually do have a weird way of looking at the skill involved in a spell- Caster level!

A Fireball cast by a 5st level wizard is obviously not the same as one cast by a 10th level wizard. Furthermore, the amount

This presents a strange picture of what spell slots and caster level represent- caster level is actually the power put into the spell, the spell known represents the skill involved in using the spell, and the spell slot involved represents...nothing?

Returning to the suggested paradigm, this suggests the following spell point paradigm:
-You can spend any number of spell points on a spell, up to your level in the relevant spellcasting class. The number of spell points you put in is analogous to the caster level of the spell for the purpose of effects.
-Each spell has a spell level, representing where it lies in the "spells known" table
-Each spell has a list of effects that you get at differing investment levels. This is analogous to psionics, actually- spending extra points is equivalent to augmentation, with related effects bundled into one power. The difference from psionics is that you can "undercast" powers to get particularly efficient effects.

PairO'Dice Lost
2018-04-24, 09:22 PM
Now, in D&D the <something else> is spell level, but the idea of a low level spell that can only be cast by a high level caster is a really non-D&D thing. Can this be pushed in anyway, saying that a particular spell takes, let's say a seventh level caster but only fills a first level slot?

As aimlessPolymath mentioned, that's already in D&D in a variety of forms, like caster level thresholds (e.g. phantom steed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/phantomSteed.htm) where higher absolute CL gets you a more fancy horse or blasphemy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blasphemy.htm) and its ilk where higher relative CL lets you inflict more harm) or psionic augmentation (e.g. psionic dominate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/dominatePsionic.htm) where spending more power points [which are capped by manifester level] gives you more options for affected creature type and duration).

D&D assigns different spells to different levels to allow effects to "come online" gradually; all the following examples are from 3e, but the same apply to AD&D and 5e just as well:

In an absolute sense, this lets the game change in playstyle as PCs level up because the spell levels are lightly "themed"--0th level spells are essentially "basic mundane effects, but more convenient" (mage armor is weightless armor, mage hand lifts things, prestidigitation cleans things), 1st level spells are essentially "bypass mundane obstacle" (Need to talk to someone? Comprehend languages. Need a horse? Mount. Need to carry heavy things? Floating disk.), 3rd level spells are your "I can affect a whole battlefield" spells (fireball/lightning bolt are a much bigger and farther burning hands/shocking grasp, invisibility sphere/magic circle against X are multi-person invisibility/protection from X), 5th level spells are your "I can run a kingdom" spells (overland flight/teleport to get around your territory quickly, sending/telepathic bond to talk with far-off agents, major creation/wall of stone to build fortresses), and so forth.

In a relative sense, this lets PCs have counters to level-appropriate monsters. Shadows (CR 3) need magic weapons to harm them, and magic weapon (available at CL 1) lets you do that. A sea hag (CR 4) can curse you with its evil eye, and remove curse (available at CL 5) can break that. A medusa (CR 7) can petrify you, and stone to flesh (available at CL 11) can reverse that. It's not an exact correspondence because the 3e spell levels are more based on AD&D spell lists while the CRs were tweaked in 3e to move monsters around a bit, but in general counters to monster abilities come online around when those monster abilities will be faced.

So there's no reason that you couldn't declare all spells are usable starting at 1st level, in the same way that there's no reason you couldn't have PCs start facing lower-HD versions of mid-level monsters at 1st level, you just have to adjust your expectations a bit and be ready to deal with a much wider variety of spells and monsters.


To make the system you're thinking of, one option is to do something similar to what psionics did, as mentioned: start with the D&D spells, remove spell levels from spells, combine similar spells into one spell, and assign spell effects to certain spell levels. Teleportation lets you dimension hop at low levels, dimension door at low-mid levels, teleport at mid levels, and greater teleport at mid-high levels; monster summoning lets you go from summon monster I to summon monster IX based on CL alone; Bigby's hand starts at a visible mage hand, then spectral hand, then the various Bigby's X Hand spells; and so on.

You could stick with the psionics route and require spending varying amounts of spell points to get the higher-CL effects, or go with a more Vancian-as-in-the-actual-Jack-Vance route and give casters a very small number of spells known and let them cast at whatever power level they want; a powerful wizard with teleportation and 10 slots could cast 10 dimension hops or 10 greater teleports or any combinations thereof if he wanted, but it's one of his 5 spells known so he has to be creative with it. This is similar to psionics in that psionicists can pump all their PP into a few massive powers each day, but reduces the "Do I really want to spend 7 of my remaining 22 PP on this?" bookkeeping and decision-making. A hybrid approach, where slots are required for spells above a certain CL and not for spells below that CL, would achieve a similar effect without forcing casters to hoard slots.

You could even go with a more superhero-themed approach and give spells branching paths to represent a caster's signature spells. Teleportation always starts with dimension hop, but some wizards can use it to greater dimension door for multiple teleports in a short time while others can retrieve items to themselves, and more powerful wizards can either mass teleport to bring more people along at once, greater teleport to go much farther, or teleportation circle to make it last longer.


And finally, [Reserve] feats do something like what you're looking for: If you have a spell of level X prepared that has descriptor [Y], you can perform a minor [Y] effect at will with strength proportional to X, weakening as your top-level prepared spells are expended and going away if you don't have any [Y] spells prepared anymore. Needle of Force fires mini-magic missiles, Minor Shapeshift makes mini-polymorph alterations, and so forth. Make the cantrip-level effects of your spell chains usable at will (maybe higher-level effects, too, as CL rises) and you really hammer home the "expert-level casters can do things weaker casters can, but much more easily" theme.

TL;DR: Wizard spells, [Reserve] feats, and the psionics augmentation system basically do what you want already, you just need to mix and match them to taste.

Vogie
2018-04-25, 12:31 AM
I think that misses the point, so I suppose I may not have been clear. I'll take another example.

Let's say teleportation is a difficult and delicate thing to understand and perform. Because making a thing disappear from one place and reappear in another requires (I'm making this up) shifting the item into a demi-plane parallel to the material wherein it can move at the speed of light, directing that movement, and then switching it back to the material plane, it requires the skilled hand and well trained mind of a ninth level mage to perform any sort of teleportation.

I picked up what you were putting down, I didn't explain well. It's effectively a High level spell that can be scaled down, in lieu of (or in addition to) our lower level spells that scale up.

Using my example, You'd learn Bigby's Hand when you reach the ability to cast 5th level spells... but you'd also get all the variations as lower-level spells as well. Forceful hand by itself, for example, could be a, say, level 1 spell... but it'd only be available for you to get that spell once you got Bigby's hand.

Gate, on the other hand, is a 9th level spell. Once you learn it, you'd also unlock both halves of the spell at lower levels. Truename Summon would be a 4th level spell, while Planar Gate would be a 6th level spell that allows you to do just the other half. But both require the caster to be able to cast Gate to know how to do them, because they are variations of Gate.

Lets take Telekinesis. Also a 5th level spell, but also makes your mage hand spell invisible, and gives you the Telekinetic Projectile Cantrip, which is a scaling cantrip that throws small objects at targets for 1d10 bludgeoning damage for each object thrown (a la Eldritch blast, but telekinetically flinging stuff rather than force damage).

Learning Shadow of Moil, a 4th level spell, will also give you Shadow Wreath, a darkness-esque 2nd level spell which only heavily obscures you, without giving resistance and dealing damage to those who hit you.

Learning Locate Creature, a 4th level spell, also gives the caster the ability mark an ally with an 1st level touch spell, and can find the direction of your ally for 8 hours when an action.

rferries
2018-04-25, 02:28 AM
Perhaps retroactive spell lists?

e.g. a 1st level wizard's spell list would have only magic missile (and similar spells) as a 1st level spell.

at 9th level, his spell list would expand to include teleport as a 5th-level spell, and would also add fetch item as a 1st-level spell.

Tvtyrant
2018-04-25, 04:44 AM
I'm branching off of an idea in this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=23020892#post23020892).

I want to think about a magic system in a game system that has class levels, but probably doesn't have spell levels, and has a feature that I don't really know how to implement. Here's the idea.

Spells are characterized by two factors: complexity and power. High complexity requires a high caster level to master. High power also requires a high caster level to control, and also a high <something else> to provide the juice. So, a complicated but low power spell, such as using a modified Wall of Force to manifest a paring knife, would require a high caster level but only a low <something else>.

Now, in D&D the <something else> is spell level, but the idea of a low level spell that can only be cast by a high level caster is a really non-D&D thing. Can this be pushed in anyway, saying that a particular spell takes, let's say a seventh level caster but only fills a first level slot? Should we then review every existing spell to see if such a modification is warranted?

Maybe the <something else> could be a spell point cost. That makes sense with it being tied only to the spell power. Is there an existing, published system that has class levels and spell points where this could work?

Any good ideas for creating such a system? Certainly one would not want to create a whole game system to accommodate a detail of how magic spells work, so one would look for a combat/skill/the rest system onto which a new or modified spell system could be grafted.

Is there some other way to approach it? Is it just a dumb idea in the first place?

Not dumb, just makes things complicated.

I would suggest replacing spells with domains. The domain has a minimum level to take, but you get every spell in it. So Time Domain is really strong;
True Strike/Gentle Repose/haste/freedom of movement/Permanency/Contingency/Moment of Prescience/Time Stop; but you can't take it until level 15. Haste, freedom of movement, permanency and contingency are thus locked away until later levels.

You would probably get a new domain every other level, coming out a little ahead in number of spells but with less flexibility.

Darth Ultron
2018-04-25, 07:00 AM
This type of magic runs into the reality problem quick.

Like you can say it costs 5 spell points to telekinetically lift a person up to say 300 pounds. Sounds reasonable. But then picking up a dagger should be like one spell point...or even free.

And then you start ruining in to...''well how many points is it to hold their windpipe closed'' or ''hold their eye lids closed'' or such. And the problem is: it would be very few spell points.

Then you'd need to add tons and tons of rules to prevent abuse ...

jqavins
2018-04-25, 10:25 AM
I picked up what you were putting down, I didn't explain well. It's effectively a High level spell that can be scaled down, in lieu of (or in addition to) our lower level spells that scale up.

Using my example, You'd learn Bigby's Hand when you reach the ability to cast 5th level spells... but you'd also get all the variations as lower-level spells as well. Forceful hand by itself, for example, could be a, say, level 1 spell... but it'd only be available for you to get that spell once you got Bigby's hand.
Perhaps retroactive spell lists?

e.g. a 1st level wizard's spell list would have only magic missile (and similar spells) as a 1st level spell.

at 9th level, his spell list would expand to include teleport as a 5th-level spell, and would also add fetch item as a 1st-level spell.
Not dumb, just makes things complicated.

I would suggest replacing spells with domains. The domain has a minimum level to take, but you get every spell in it. So Time Domain is really strong;
True Strike/Gentle Repose/haste/freedom of movement/Permanency/Contingency/Moment of Prescience/Time Stop; but you can't take it until level 15. Haste, freedom of movement, permanency and contingency are thus locked away until later levels.

You would probably get a new domain every other level, coming out a little ahead in number of spells but with less flexibility.These all seem to be more or less the same good idea; some low level spells are not on the list until a higher caster level is reached and perhaps a particular higher level spell is learned. Tvtyrant has added a bit more specific guidance wrapped in different fluff, which also sounds pretty good.

In the mean time, I've come up with a different method, scrapping spell levels altogether, on which I will expound at lunch time.


This type of magic runs into the reality problem quick.

Like you can say it costs 5 spell points to telekinetically lift a person up to say 300 pounds. Sounds reasonable. But then picking up a dagger should be like one spell point...or even free.

And then you start ruining in to...''well how many points is it to hold their windpipe closed'' or ''hold their eye lids closed'' or such. And the problem is: it would be very few spell points.

Then you'd need to add tons and tons of rules to prevent abuse ...Well, yes, that would be an issue. It's the Accio problem: in Potterverse there is one special curse that is banned because it kills, but there are plenty of ways to kill with other, ordinary, less powerful spells. "Accio heart" for example. While it can't cause someone's heart to fly out of his/her chest, it would cause the heart to try to leave, pressing it against the rib cage, and causing cardiac arrest.

This aspect definitely requires more thought.

brian 333
2018-04-25, 12:59 PM
Spell Batteries, (for lack of a better word,) are objects which have been given power over time, to be used to power spells. Let's call them Talismans.

Suppose the first spell any wizard learns is Charge Talisman, and that it requires one hour for a 1st level wizard to charge one spell level of energy into a Talisman. That Talisman is then useful for casting a level 1 spell.

A wizard may only charge a Talisman to the limits of his ability in casting, thus a wizard who can cast a level 2 spell may charge up to 2 levels in any one Talisman. Each Talisman maybe used only once, so a level 2 Talisman used to cast a level 1 spell is used up.

The number of spell levels which can be stored in Talismans in one day is capped at the caster level of the character. Thus, a level 5 wizard may store up to 5 spell levels of energy per day, with a level 3 Talisman being the most powerful, but up to five level one Talismans being possible.

When a character grows in power his ability to charge Talismans improves. At the highest level of which the caster is capable of casting, it requires one hour per level to charge a Talisman. The second-highest level can be charged twice as fast, allowing two spell levels of energy to be stored per hour. The third highest allows 3/hour, and so on.

Thus, for a level seventeen caster it requires nine hours to charge a level 9 Talisman, 4 hours to charge a level 8 Talisman, two hours and twenty minutes to charge a level 7 Talisman, one and a half hours to charge a level 6 Talisman, one hour to charge a level 5 Talisman, 40 minutes to charge a level 4 Talisman, 25 minutes and 42 seconds to charge a level 3 Talisman, 15 minutes to charge a level 2 Talisman, and 6 minutes and 40 seconds to charge a level 1 Talisman.

It breaks down as follows:
Highest level the caster can cast = 1 hour/level
2nd highest level = 1 hour/2 levels, or 30 minutes/level
3rd highest = 1 hour/3 levels, or 20 minutes/level
4th highest = 1 hour/4 levels, or 15 minutes/level
5th highest = 1 hour/5 levels, or 12 minutes/level
6th highest = 1 hour/6 levels, or 10 minutes/level
7th highest = 1 hour/7 levels, or 8 minutes 34 seconds/level
8th highest = 1 hour/8 levels, or 7 minutes 30 seconds/level
9th highest = 1 hour/9 levels, or 6 minutes 40 seconds/level

Thus, a level 3 caster may charge a level 2 Talisman in two hours, and a level 1 Talisman in 30 minutes, or three level 1 Talismans in one hour and thirty minutes, either way being his maximum charge capacity per day.


Feel free to ignore this if it appears too complex, but it's really easy once you get the gist.

aimlessPolymath
2018-04-25, 01:08 PM
Well, yes, that would be an issue. It's the Accio problem: in Potterverse there is one special curse that is banned because it kills, but there are plenty of ways to kill with other, ordinary, less powerful spells. "Accio heart" for example. While it can't cause someone's heart to fly out of his/her chest, it would cause the heart to try to leave, pressing it against the rib cage, and causing cardiac arrest.

This aspect definitely requires more thought.

It seems as though caster skill can be thought of as two threshholds at once:
-A minimum skill level such that specific classes of effects are "allowed" (e.g. using Accio with such skill that they can target someone's heart, or other general death effects, might be gained at the same level)
-Access to classes of effects that use power far more efficiently (e.g. having a level 1 cantrip and a level 9 cantrip- you will no longer use the level 1 cantrip, because the level 9 cantrip outclasses it point-for-point)

jqavins
2018-04-25, 02:52 PM
Here's the notion I've come up with. All of the specific numbers below are straw man examples, so only consider the structure.

There are no spell levels, but there is a minimum caster level for each spell.
The minimum caster level is determined by two factors. This can be done behind the scenes, so the spell description only needs to give the answer.

First there's the spell's complexity. This is rated on a scale of (using D&D terms) cantrip to nine, and only a caster of level 2×Complexity - 1 (practiced apprentice for cantrips) can cast it.
Second is the power level. Many spells can be cast with variable power, but some require a minimum power to operate at all, and others only have a very specific effect, taking only a single value of power. The greatest power a mage can use in a spell is equal to her CL.
Thus, the spell's minimum CL is either 2×Complexity - 1 or minimum power required, whichever is greater.


Spell power comes from a pool, i.e. spell points. The size of a caster's pool increases with his CL, according to some formula such as 3×CL1.5, or 2×(1+CL0.5), or something.
Spells with effects that scale by CL will now scale by power expended instead. As noted earlier, the maximum power is the CL, and the new scaling formulae should be determined such that the effects match the original description when maximum power is used, but the caster can choose at the time of casting to scale back.

For example, Fireball has a complexity of three and fully variable power. The complexity means that it has a minimum CL of five. The damage it does is 1d6 per spell point expended, so that at maximum it would be 1d6 per caster level, which matches the original description.
Force Structure (a shaped version of Wall of Force) has a complexity of six, and variable power that determines the size of the structure created. A spell like Force Slice (Remember Force Slice? This is a thread about Force Slice) would be done with Force Structure and only one (or even a fraction of a) spell point.
Teleport has a complexity of five and takes five spell points always. Fetch Item has a complexity of four or five (teleporting only inanimate objects might reduce the complexity, as might keeping one's self stationary in the material plane) and needs only one spell point for a small object.


I know this seems complicated, but the complexity is mostly in things that are handled behind the scenes and ahead of time. Once all the spell descriptions are written, stating out the minimum CL and the power scaling options, it should be simple enough in play.

EDIT: I did some math, and those are both really bad formulae.

JNAProductions
2018-04-25, 03:11 PM
It sounds like slightly modified psionics.

Modified in a very cool way, though, so keep at it!

Argothair
2018-04-25, 06:24 PM
To me it sounds like you're describing:
(1) the difficulty and risk-of-failure associated with managing a complex and/or powerful spell , and
(2) the difficulty and temporary exhaustion associated with channeling large amounts of magic.

Ordinarily, (1) gets a skill check. Maybe you roll a d20, add your INT, add your caster level, and compare it to the spell's DC. If you fail the DC, the spell fizzles. If you fail the DC badly, the spell backfires.

Ordinarily, (2) consumes some kind of limited pool of resources. That could be spell slots, but the system you're describing sounds like it would work much more elegantly if you instead consume mana, or, as D&D 5e calls it, "spell points."

So, if you want to use an absurdly complex spell to cast a tiny, short-term enchantment, you still have to pass a very high DC (or the spell fails), but you only have to spend 1 or 2 mana (so you can keep casting that spell all day long as long as you're skillful enough to manage it). An example would be trying to get time to stop for a minute inside a small snowglobe, so you can amuse your friends by suspending the snowglobe's toy snowflakes in mid-air for a few seconds and then have the snowflakes start falling down again when you snap your fingers. It's very difficult to stop time, even for just an instant, but it's not very exhausting, so once you learn the knack, you can do it repeatedly.

By contrast, if you want to use a relatively simple spell to cast a huge, ultra-powerful enchantment, you only have to pass a moderate DC, but you have to spend 20 or 30 mana (so even if you pass the DC, you can only cast that spell once or twice a day). An example would be slathering a whole room full of balls of fire. It's not very difficult to turn magic into fire, so even a rookie mage can probably manage it, but throwing huge amounts of fire around is exhausting, so no matter how skilled or clever you are, you can only do it once in a while.

jqavins
2018-04-25, 09:33 PM
To me it sounds like you're describing:
(1) the difficulty and risk-of-failure associated with managing a complex and/or powerful spell , and
(2) the difficulty and temporary exhaustion associated with channeling large amounts of magic...
Yes, that's it exactly. I hadn't thought of using a skill check, but instead just a minimum caster level. The skill check is an interesting notion, but I'd want the DCs to be well within reach so even if magic is made less reliable than we're accustomed to, it isn't a lot less.

eternalink
2018-04-26, 09:35 AM
While I like this idea, I feel it will have big problems dealing with the system as it exists. Power and Complexity as two variables of magic is a really neat concept, and it could probably work fairly simply (something along the lines of: Each caster has a Power score and a Complexity score. The spell slot a spell takes up is the sum on the Power and Complexity of that spell, but you must have a high enough Power score and a high enough Complexity score to match the spell's Power and Complexity). The big issue I see with it is that this is probably also how other things should work (I'm thinking of using Dexterity to hit and Strength to damage as a rule, as some other games use). Adding a system like this would force more stats on magic-users, making them likely more MAD than non-casters. This might actually be okay, but would probably also require a revamp of several systems. Notably, some spells that have complex, but low-power effects might see their spell level rise considerably (I'm thinking of Prestidigitation in particular). This concept also makes a lot more sense for Sorcerers and other arcane casters than for Clerics (why should the Cleric's magical power or finesse be a limitor on what power their god can give them?).

Apologies if I restated anything that's already been said, I haven't read the whole thread yet and wanted to get the thought out there.

jqavins
2018-04-26, 10:15 AM
Eternalink,
These are all good points if the D&D magic system were to be modified in this way. That's why, in the OP, I stated that the whole idea "is a really non-D&D thing". I've been using many D&D terms as reference points, but I'm also looking for various different ways to implement it, such as a whole new magic system to graft onto an existing system for all the other stuff; that existing other system may be D&D or not.

To reiterate:
Maybe the <something else> could be a spell point cost. That makes sense with it being tied only to the spell power. Is there an existing, published system that has class levels and spell points where this could work?

Any good ideas for creating such a system? Certainly one would not want to create a whole game system to accommodate a detail of how magic spells work, so one would look for a combat/skill/the rest system onto which a new or modified spell system could be grafted.

Is there some other way to approach it?
As for clerics, if D&D-like divine magic exists in the new, modified, or other existing system then that's a good point. Complexity might still be the determining factor for minimum CL, but power might not. On the other hand, it might, if you view the divine caster as a conduit for divine power; the deity can provide all the power s/he wants, but the caster can only channel so much.*

* Which also allows for a really epic event where a mid level cleric sacrifices himself to cast something more powerful than he can handle. And that, in turn, suggests something else: it could be that this notion is better suited to fantasy literature than an to RPG. But I'm not giving up.

eternalink
2018-04-26, 11:51 AM
If the restriction of being D&D-like doesn't exist, I think my first idea would be to take the Shadowrun approach and add a seventh attribute to the game governing spellcasting power or finesse, and having the other be represented by the "casting stat". For example, a Sorcerer might derive the finesse/complexity of their spellcasting from their Charisma (representing their force of personality allowing them to coax magic into the form they want), while a Wizard might derive the same finesse/complexity from their Intelligence (representing their understanding of spells and ability to alter spells subtly to produce desired effects), but both derive their spellcasting power from some "Magic" attribute representing the strength of their connection to magic or their capacity to store magical energy (what this means should probably be defined in the spellcasting class description).

This allows for a Shadowrun-style system of having spells without level that can be cast at any power level (and any finesse level), but the spell description has to contain enough info for the DM to adjudicate every possible combination of finesse and power. According to my experience with Shadowrun, this also means the diversity of spells is very limited (everything has to be something that could feasibly be cast at any power level, and it has to be clear what that means).

I'd advise sticking with Vancian Magic and controlling for at least one variable (for example, a spell has a specified Finesse, but can be cast at anywhere from 1-5 Power. This seems like the easiest way to allow for both open-ended straightforward spells (A Fireball spell that can be cast at any power and has only 1 Finesse just gets bigger and more damaging the more Power you put into it) and complex, specific spells (Minor Creation can only be cast with 2 or 3 Power, giving a Fine or Diminutive object, but can be cast at any Finesse between 3 and 7, giving more control over the end result's complexity and material properties). I'm still in favor of summing the Power and Finesse/Complexity of the spell to give the final level, and using spell slots as normal (though this would likely require more than 9 spell levels).

Clearly a point-based system would work too (as mentioned earlier, psionics and its augmentations work this way), but I feel that would wreck the ability to have prepared spellcasters (notice that there are no prepared psionic classes), and I think prepared spellcasters are an interesting enough notion that you might not want to sacrifice it.

(Also, re: epic event of sacrifice, again check out the Shadowrun system. All spells cause nonlethal damage (which can be mitigated), but you can also "overcast" a spell, casting it at a higher level than is safe, to take lethal damage instead, which absolutely means that casters can sacrifice themselves to cast spells that will almost 100% guaranteed kill them.)

Tvtyrant
2018-04-26, 01:42 PM
You could also Harry Potter/warlock it. Spells are effectively at-will but require both the power to cast them and the skill to manipulate them.

So Abracadeadbra is simple but takes a lot of power, shapeshifting is low power but complicated.

PairO'Dice Lost
2018-04-26, 01:43 PM
If the restriction of being D&D-like doesn't exist, I think my first idea would be to take the Shadowrun approach and add a seventh attribute to the game governing spellcasting power or finesse, and having the other be represented by the "casting stat".

I'd actually advise against having a separate Magic stat, since just like in Shadowrun (or like casters with their single casting stat in D&D) that turns into the one number that casters want to boost above all others and noncasters don't really care about; it's like having a special Combat stat fighters care about that wizards really don't, instead of using existing stats. Caster level, BAB, and other primarily-level-dependent attributes fill that role well enough in a D&D-like system, I think.

Building off your mention of variable magic stats, though, while multiple casting stats is viewed as being bad in D&D because the standard is to have a single stat, in this system it doesn't have to be that way and you could say that all casters use all three stats to determine aspects of their spells: Intelligence for complexity, because you need to understand the underlying magical theory; Wisdom for breadth, because you can encompass more distinct effects in mind at once; and Charisma for power, because it represents projecting your magical oomph. It's kind of like a Vancian caster who uses Int for max spell level, Wis for bonus spells, and Cha for save DCs, where focusing on any one (or any two) of the three can be a valid life choice depending on what kind of character you're going for and what spells you want to focus on.

High Int but low Wis and Cha means fewer, weaker, but more complex effects; high Cha but low Int and Wis means fewer, simpler, but stronger effects; all three stats high makes you good all around; and so forth, and you can tie the scales for those three parts of spells to stats instead of needing a bunch of extra attributes. We already have the idea of using point buy to make tradeoffs between the different stats, so tying it to certain stats makes the complexity/versatility/power tradeoff immediately more intuitive for players.