Magic costing HP

[heavyfuel]

The recent thread about forcing casters to pay gold to cast spells made me think.

What if casting a spell required actual sacrifice to be cast? You can fluff this as a blood price, it draining your energy, or any number of ways. But, from a mechanical point of view, it's simply: magic costs Hit Points.

This wouldn't be "damage" it would be "burn", which is like "Ability burn" in that it can only be healed by resting. It also works like Nonlethal damage in that if burn ever equals your current HP you are disabled.

So I was thinking every spell burns HP equal to spell level^1.4, rounded down.

Lv 0 = 0 burn point
Lv 1 = 1 burn point
Lv 2 = 2 burn points
Lv 3 = 4 burn points
Lv 4 = 6 burn points
Lv 5 = 9 burn points
Lv 6 = 12 burn points
Lv 7 = 15 burn points
Lv 8 = 18 burn points
Lv 9 = 21 burn points

- This damage cannot be cured by any means other than natural healing. Healful Rest and similar spells/abilities don't make the burn heal faster.
- The natural healing rate for HP damage and burn is now level*Con mod HP/night. For all characters.
- Things that aren't sleep/rest don't affect Burn recovery rate (things such as Fast Healing or using Wild Shape)
- Spells require that you burn this many HP. If you don't pay the tax, you don't cast the spell. So while you can, say, apply "hardness" to the burn, applying it makes it impossible to cast the spell. Same goes for Temporary HP.
- The burn damage is part of the spellcasting, and requires no extra Concentration check
- Spell from magic devices also burn your HP
- There's a “burn pool”. Every time you gain a Class Level that doesn’t increase your Caster Level, you gain 3 points for your “Burn Pool”, which you can use to reduce the Burn cost of spells cast on you if the caster is adjacent. It could be fluffed as “those who don’t open themselves up to magic have the natural resistance to the effects of Burn”

This would make Casters less SAD, since a REALLY GOOD Con score is absolutely required. Might start seeing Wizards with 18 starting Con instead of 18 starting Int.

This helps with 15 min adventuring days since the caster has to wait a few days to be at full casting capacity again

This wouldn't bother half-casters like the Paladin, since they have a Burn Pool

I don't think it breaks Grod's Law since it's not annoying to use. It's a non issue for classes that don't focus on casting, and classes that do only have one more resource to keep track off.


I probably won't even use this in the future, but I still wanted your opinions.

Edits: They are in blue

[Covenant12]

Wouldn't ever use it. A cleric who is low-optimization would be miserable. Just wands of lesser vigor/clw, bigger heals as needed, debuff removal and such and he's at a big penalty. At times required spells like plane shift or teleport and the casters want to rest a day or more.

Personally I believe in buffing "mundanes" (ToB, Frank and K stuff) more than trying to gimp casters. Some spells are as written unbalanced, but this isn't a fix I'd advise.

[ryu]

Necropolitan faerie mysteries intiate wizard. You now have more HP than any other PC with D12 hitdie and HP that scales with your casting stat.

[torrasque666]

Necropolitan faerie mysteries intiate wizard. You now have more HP than any other PC with D12 hitdie and HP that scales with your casting stat.
Don't think that would work actually. He makes mention of how if you can't pay the tax, you can't cast. Necropolitans can't take Nonlethal, therefore they can't pay the tax, therefore they can't cast.

Would be interesting in that it would completely remove any concept of Undead Casters (liches, vampires, etc)

[heavyfuel]

Wouldn't ever use it. A cleric who is low-optimization would be miserable. Just wands of lesser vigor/clw, bigger heals as needed, debuff removal and such and he's at a big penalty. At times required spells like plane shift or teleport and the casters want to rest a day or more.

Personally I believe in buffing "mundanes" (ToB, Frank and K stuff) more than trying to gimp casters. Some spells are as written unbalanced, but this isn't a fix I'd advise.

While this is a fair argument, this is not the case in my games. Any caster (except the Druid, maybe) at low OP is pretty terrible. Casters have notoriously low skill floors to match their sky-high ceiling.

And I always buff mundanes, but you either buff them to the point that they're basically casters by a different name or they're still very inferior to casters. Since I don't like the first possibility, I'm thinking of ways of nerfing casters.

Broken spells are always fixed regardless.

But do you think this possible rule is nerf too big for casters?

[Deophaun]

To be blunt and 100% honest: your rules are designed to have no optimization potential. Therefore, I find it boring. If I want that, I play 4e.

[ryu]

Don't think that would work actually. He makes mention of how if you can't pay the tax, you can't cast. Necropolitans can't take Nonlethal, therefore they can't pay the tax, therefore they can't cast.

Would be interesting in that it would completely remove any concept of Undead Casters (liches, vampires, etc)

He said works like not is. Even if it has the same immunities I seem to recall the ability to willingly forgo. You'd certainly need that for the DR stuff to apply.

[heavyfuel]

Necropolitan faerie mysteries intiate wizard. You now have more HP than any other PC with D12 hitdie and HP that scales with your casting stat.

A setting specific template and a dragon magazine feat? Yeah. No.

Also, with a Con of --, you'd heal Burn at the impressively low rate of lv/day, instead of say, having 18 Con and healing it at 4*lv/day.


Don't think that would work actually. He makes mention of how if you can't pay the tax, you can't cast. Necropolitans can't take Nonlethal, therefore they can't pay the tax, therefore they can't cast.

Would be interesting in that it would completely remove any concept of Undead Casters (liches, vampires, etc)

Sorry, I don't think I made myself clear. It only functions as Nonlethal damage in the sense that if it ever equals your current HP you fall unconscious. It's not really non-lethal damage.

[heavyfuel]

To be blunt and 100% honest: your rules are designed to have no optimization potential. Therefore, I find it boring. If I want that, I play 4e.

Honest question. What do you mean by no optimization potential? Literally nothing changes except the rate at which you can cast spells in a week or so.

Do you think the burn damage is too high? I was thinking about lowering it, but decided on the presented formula for the post.

[Deophaun]

Honest question. What do you mean by no optimization potential? Literally nothing changes except the rate at which you can cast spells in a week or so.
I mean how you include special rules so that you aren't allowed to get around burn, tying it to natural healing but then saying it's not really natural healing so that things that do affect natural healing don't affect burn. Well, okay then. What things do affect burn? What spells/items/class features reduce it/heal it? You don't give any. No optimization potential for burn.

And optimization potential is what I like about 3.5. There are lots of systems out there that lock down everything, they have the math planned out so that you will do this much damage at this level and get hit this many times. I will go play one of them.

You'll note that this is purely a taste issue. I'm not saying that your system is bad, just that I wouldn't play in a 3.5 game with it.

[Mike Miller]

I think the damage is way too high. I think simply having HP damage = level of spell cast is enough. Or spell level +1 if you want to have cantrips hurt, too. I could see a max of spell level * 2 in damage, but it really just prevents spellcasters from contributing as much due to more risk. I could see this causing rocket tag to be even more prevalent as casters need every spell to end the fight due to how much self-inflicted damage there is.

Also, campaigns without much down time would mean no healing of spellcasting. I would never use this sort of houserule, but the level^2/2 is too much

[Quertus]

There are a great many ways I could go at this point. However, I think I'll start here: let's table talk of this particular change, or even buff vs nerf for a moment - what do you want?

You've said that, at your tables, you've seen the very low floor of tier 1 casters. So, it sounds like, you need to bring the caster floor up, while potentially lowering the ceiling (more than your stated fixing broken spells).

So, let's start there: what does the floored caster look like? That will give us some idea what we need to solve particular to your table.

Next, you say that you'd buff mundanes, but you don't want them to become refluffed casters. Ok, but... what do you want them to be? Demigods who can split mountains and drink rivers? Wuxia who can stand on clouds and charm gods with their poetry? Or something more down to earth? If so, what?

What level and type of narrative contribution do you want characters to have?

-----

Now, as to your question, eh, I've played Channelers in 2e, Jedi who spend their HP, WoD Mages who burn their life force for Quintessence. Shrug.

Now, simultaneously killing the Cleric for performing the thankless job of healing, and making his healing less relevant by making everyone heal faster? That's just mean. Hate religion much?

But, giving people reasons to consider, for example, hunting for natural portals rather than just casting Plane Shift? That's great, IMO. It means that there's an extra layer of decision points, of tactical and strategic planning - and an extra opportunity for pure mundane knowledge to be of value.

-----

As an aside, Quertus, my signature character for whom this account is named, already rolled a natural 18 for Constitution - I'm already a fan of the Con Wizard. :smallwink:

[Deophaun]

Actually, I'll take it back and say that there is optimization potential for it. Although now we put in fast-time on a demiplane shenanigans. DMM Persist clerics are more desirable as they can also cast their spells every other day and be fine.

That means this eats away at the mid-power tiers. It's go big or go home. Not a fan.

[Pex]

Players should not be punished for doing what they're supposed to be doing. It is not a fair thing to force players to kill their characters for the audacity of using their class features. You paralyze the player into doing nothing or the character dies.

[Necroticplague]

Question: Fast Healing, Polymorph, and Wild Shape interaction? All of those either are natural healing/heal as if rested for the night.

[Quertus]

Actually, I'll take it back and say that there is optimization potential for it. Although now we put in fast-time on a demiplane shenanigans. DMM Persist clerics are more desirable as they can also cast their spells every other day and be fine.

That means this eats away at the mid-power tiers. It's go big or go home. Not a fan.

Yeah, unless you make DMM:Persist a class feature of all casting classes. At this point, it simultaneously raises everyone's floor, and lowers everyone's ceiling.

Now, if you give muggles class features that let them, X times per day, make a caster ignore burn when casting a buff spell on said muggle, it might be kinda cool.

However, there is one problem I can think of: the iconic elven Wizard is kinda boned. At high levels, he might cast a single spell, then sleep for a week.

[ryu]

Also simple point buy trick. Dump everything else and you can get two 18s. One for int one for con. Throw on a con race and you're at at least 20. If you also itemize for con you can essentially optimize this away. I seem to remember simple methods for con getting you to low-mid thirties at high levels. In the land of casting death the man who can use his powers more or less freely is king. Also mailmen. Oh god mailmen.

[Jack_Simth]

This would make Casters less SAD, since a REALLY GOOD Con score is absolutely required. Might start seeing Wizards with 18 starting Con instead of 18 starting Int.

I see those occasionally anyway. Con's a useful stat for everyone.


This helps with 15 min adventuring days since the caster has to wait a few days to be at full casting capacity again

For the folks who don't know how to budget, it results in a 15 minute adventuring week, instead.


This wouldn't bother half-casters like the Paladin (who would be taking a maximum of 8 HP burn at lv 14)

I don't think it breaks Grog's Law since it's not annoying to use. It's a non issue for classes that don't focus on casting, and classes that do only have one more resource to keep track off.


I probably won't even use this in the future, but I still wanted your opinions.

1) Hurts PC's far more than NPC's (an NPC will cast maybe half a dozen spells on screen if the fight goes long... while a PC will cast LOTS).
2) Hurts the casters who are bad at optimization much more than the casters who are good at optimization (you'll want two or three Scorching Rays in an encounter if you use that sort of thing, but only one Web).
3) Encourages minionomancy (which will likely bog down tables), as that's about the only way to "stock up".
4) Hits melee pretty hard - the Cleric can't heal very well anymore, and melee folks go through HP quickly.
5) Has some weirdness in that the rogue using UMD on wands is now taking a bunch of damage.
6) Even with potions, still hits melee hard. They're magic devices, after all, which means the fighter's effective max HP goes down with each battle in which he needs to use them to heal up.

[Goaty14]

This would make Casters less SAD, since a REALLY GOOD Con score is absolutely required. Might start seeing Wizards with 18 starting Con instead of 18 starting Int.

Sure... but you're just making low level wizards (read: the cool kind that doesn't get in everybody's way) worse than they are.


This helps with 15 min adventuring days since the caster has to wait a few days to be at full casting capacity again

No? I suppose you don't exactly have a 15 min adventuring day, instead a 15 min adventuring month. While you're doing so, the fighter and the rest of the campaign are stuck waiting. As others have said, you shouldn't get punished for utilizing your class features. Either change the class or


I don't think it breaks Grod's Law since it's not annoying to use. It's a non issue for classes that don't focus on casting, and classes that do only have one more resource to keep track off.

1) Still circumventable, which is the entire point of Grod's law... Go read the rest of the post for reference. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?328767-More-realistic-D-amp-D-Economy/page4&p=17613518#post17613518)
2) "non issue for non casting classes" is the same for the other thread, except now you're also targeting the poor lil UMD rogue

Naturally, this buffs truenamers

[DMVerdandi]

Personally, I think it would cause such a standstill as to anyone having any game mastery, and wanting to play a caster just backing out.
I find it interesting that you criticized a build choices like Necropolitan and faerie mysteries initiate, yet propose your own home-brew as acceptable.

Now, do I like Vitalizing Spell points? Absolutely. At lower levels of spell points remaining, the spell caster tacks on fatigue and exhaustion, So their performance decreases a little bit, representing the mental drain that spell casting causes, but it doesn't slow down the game so much that they have to rest after casting a big spell.

Your home-brew causes MORE downtime, as well as possibly causing quicker death for the spell caster in question. It's rather heavy-handed and really is more of a soft ban.
The thing about "nerfing" spell casters is that if you go to far, no one will play them, and at that point, why not just play a non-spellcaster game, or one with ritualists.
Now, using HP as fuel for meta magic could be very cool, and the Maho-tsukai from ORIENTAL ADVENTURES had a mechanic that essentially did that.

What you want to do as people have said, is get rid of problem spells, and bring no-maj characters up.
And if anything, making spell casting easier and more accessible. An example could be doubling spells per day, increasing ALL spell casters[Even 4/9 and 6/9 casters] to wizard progression, Adding spell points, and only allowing spell trigger items for characters without spells per day.

Now, native casters can cast more, earlier, and have to rest less, but aren't able to circumvent how much they can cast per day with magic items. Secondly classes like paladin, ranger, and bard are magical from the start, and can contribute a lot more to the power of the group, as well as being more viable of a choice. Third, Magical classes are more flexible, and the less you have to optimize, the less they will search for ways to break the game.

A final "fix", just on the caster side of things would be having a feat that allows for making a first level spell of their choice into an at will. Make it so that they can only take the feat 4 times, and if they take it again, it just replaces the spell that is now an at will. Innate Spell Could be the name.
With this, they get a spell they can always rely on, not unlike warlock invocations, which we now know is not actually all that powerful per say.


From there, what needs to happen is a martial fix, which can be done by simply adding maneuvers to a non-spellcasting class, or allowing non-magical classes to gestalt. Or more complexly by just creating a new home-brew mechanic all together [Thats more of a big undertaking]

[SirNibbles]

I probably won't even use this in the future

Nor will anyone else who is trying to have a fun time.

Problem: Spells are overpowered.
Your solution: Make spells annoying to use.

Problem: Once casters burn their spells, they usually make the whole party wait for them to recover (15 minute adventuring day).
Your solution: Make it take even longer to recover, so everyone has to wait forever for anything to get done.

There's a reason why the response to this has been overwhelmingly negative: it's a terrible idea.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I've considered doing something like this, but using Vitality and Wounds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm) and only Vitality points can be spent to cast spells. That would put a hard limit on how many spells a character could cast before needing to rest, representing exertion rather than injury.

[Aetis]

Uh... I think burn damage (spell level)^2/2 rounded up scales faster than your natural rate of healing level*Con mod HP/night.

[Kayblis]

Your idea seems to suffer from a very common issue with "rebalancing" rules - trying to fix a problem of high OP with a system-wide, world-changing, inflexible rule.

Basically, what you just did is ban any non-optimized caster in existance, as no one's going to play Wizzy McSuicide who cuts his wrists just so he can cast Knock and has to rest after three spells. High-level spells are prohibitively expensive and caster HP will never be high enough to last more than two encounters, if it even gets you through the second one. And, after said two encounters, we have to take a whole week off because burn heal rates are abhorrent and nothing, NOTHING helps to speed it up. You also give a penalty to anyone that uses a wand, so most UMDers are screwed and no one will want to be the one to use the CLW wand in a common group, as the HP burn can't be healed at all. Self-buffing becomes idiotic as you're hurting yourself to protect yourself.

Not to mention, this rule screws over Wizards and Sorcerers way more than Clerics and Druids for no real reason. You're tying your limiter to a non-casting stat, so different casters are affected differently. As burn seems to be nonlethal damage, classic undead casters such as Liches and Vampires are either unbeatable or unable to cast at all, which is a very big flaw of your ruling.

On the other hand, people that DO play highly optimized characters WILL only use encounter-ender spells, as they can't throw two or three buffs every day and still be useful with BC and the like. You limit builds immensely by saying "builds based around many castings are impossible", thus increasing he rocket-tag mentality already present in high OP.

All in all, nerfs are usually poorly thought out and based on a limited mindset, too focused on a single level of optimization and/or not considering different classes. Buffing martials is better because you're giving something new to the player that uses it, instead of saying "you can't have your usual fun here" to the one being nerfed.

[Necroticplague]

And, after said two encounters, we have to take a whole week off because burn heal rates are abhorrent and nothing, NOTHING helps to speed it up.

Actually, judging by the words he said, it can be sped up. Which essentially makes it a per-encounter resource. Fast Healing, after all, is natural healing.

Still, think this is a horrible idea. Anything that hits casters where they're the least problematic (helping out in combat, blasting, BFC, buffing party members), while barely touching casters where they're the most problematic (out of combat utility and long-term effects) is a bad idea. It was a bad idea when people suggested 'increase all casting times', and its a bad idea now.

[FelineArchmage]

The recent thread about forcing casters to pay gold to cast spells made me think.

What if casting a spell required actual sacrifice to be cast? You can fluff this as a blood price, it draining your energy, or any number of ways. But, from a mechanical point of view, it's simply: magic costs Hit Points.

This wouldn't be "damage" it would be "burn", which is like "Ability burn" in that it can only be healed by resting. It also works like Nonlethal damage in that if burn ever equals your current HP you are disabled.



Read up on pathfinder's Kineticist class (Occult Adventures). The class already utilizes a burn system and its casting is directly based of constitution.

You have a limited number of "spells" known (similar to warlock's invocations), and you can shape them and make them more powerful by taking "burn" - nonlethal HP damage. Haven't played one yet, but it seems hella fun.

[Andor13]

Read up on pathfinder's Kineticist class (Occult Adventures). The class already utilizes a burn system and its casting is directly based of constitution.

You have a limited number of "spells" known (similar to warlock's invocations), and you can shape them and make them more powerful by taking "burn" - nonlethal HP damage. Haven't played one yet, but it seems hella fun.

It may be worth noting that the Optimization Guide for that class has the subtitle "Sucking counts as Airbending, right?"

[heavyfuel]

I’m using Spoilers to address some common criticism.


Problems with 15 min adventuring days are plenty in the game already. The argument could be made that Spells per day break Grod’s Law, even though they are already part of the game. They still make new players shy away from the class, and still forces the party to abide by the casters’ schedule if the players don’t know how to manage their spells.

And while this rule doesn’t FIX the 15 min adventuring days, it certainly helps the problem, since the usual solutions to the problem are all made easier to apply when the Wizard and Cleric have to wait a week to be back to full power, instead of 9 hours. “Having a time limit” and “having the enemies actively hunt the players” are tow common suggestions on resolving the 15 min adventuring day, and both are helped with this new rule.

The time limit can now be long enough for characters with per day abilities (paladins, barbarians, monks, etc) to use them more freely, while casters are still stuck with Burn. If anything, this turns the table on casters, as now they are more likely to wait for the party, and not the other way around.

And having the enemies hunt players also make for more dramatic moments. You pissed off a Dragon that’s now chasing you even after you teleported? You can’t run and hide for a few hours and fight it back at full strength. You either manage to hide for a few days, or you’re stuck with having less spells.



Encounter ending spells definitely fall into problematic spells/class features that should be patched regardless of the existence of this rule.

No single rule will ever fix these spells. The same goes for problematic Feats and Class Features.

However, these spells, feats and class features, by themselves, are not the reason Tier 1-2 casters are Tier 1-2 casters. The reason casters have a high Tier is because they’re extremely versatile with things like Invisibility, Fly, Dimension Door, Remove Disease, Freedom of Movement, Heal, etc. Even cantrips like Detect Magic and Prestidigitation. None of these spells (usually) end encounters, but they’re still damn good ones.




Question: Fast Healing, Polymorph, and Wild Shape interaction? All of those either are natural healing/heal as if rested for the night.

I'm gonna say no. Otherwise it just becomes a completely useless rule since Lesser Vigor would defeat it. Honestly, I had forgotten about these aspects of the rule, and will be editing the OP.



On one hand I agree and think it might be too high. On the other hand, I kind of want to have high-level spells be incredibly costly.

After some proper math with the Wizard class, I realized there’s no way a high level Character would survive with this much Burn. I propose a new formula of Spell Level^1.4, rounded down.

Burn isn’t much of a problem at lower levels, and at higher levels this new formula helps. High level spells are still expensive, but not prohibitively so.

The old table compared to the new one is:


Level
Old Burn
New Burn


Lv 0
0
0


Lv 1
1
1


Lv 2
2
2


Lv 3
5
4


Lv 4
8
6


Lv 5
13
9


Lv 6
18
12


Lv 7
25
15


Lv 8
32
18


Lv 9
41
21






Now, if you give muggles class features that let them, X times per day, make a caster ignore burn when casting a buff spell on said muggle, it might be kinda cool.

This might be interesting. Like a “burn pool”. Every time you gain a Class Level that doesn’t increase your Caster Level, you gain 3 points for your “Burn Pool”, which you can use to reduce the Burn cost of spells cast on you if the caster is adjacent. It’s a cool idea, I like it a lot. It could be fluffed as “those who don’t open themselves up to magic have the natural resistance to the effects of Burn”

It also helps the UMD Rogue and people who are chugging potions. These things even requiring Burn in the first place can be fluffed as you still needing a sacrifice to activate the wand and potions draining your own life force to actually activate.

I also think about letting Cure spells always heal the maximum amount. This also helps with Clerics never ever healing people. So a Wand of CLW would cure 9 points of damage, at the cost 1 point of burn. Seems fair.




There is one problem I can think of: the iconic elven Wizard is kinda boned. At high levels, he might cast a single spell, then sleep for a week.

The Iconic Elven Wizard is indeed screwed. Maybe something like elf races with a -2 penalty to Con heal HP/Burn after their meditation as if they had 4 extra points of Con. So an Elf with Con 14 would heal as if he had Con 18.


Also simple point buy trick. Dump everything else and you can get two 18s. One for int one for con. Throw on a con race and you're at at least 20. If you also itemize for con you can essentially optimize this away. I seem to remember simple methods for con getting you to low-mid thirties at high levels. In the land of casting death the man who can use his powers more or less freely is king.

This is assuming you have 32 pb or more, which is a not a big assumption but it's an assumption nonetheless. Even then, having a penalty to literally every other ability score is something I imagine would make most people think twice before doing. This means less Initiative, Reflex, Will, AC, attack bonus, skill bonuses, etc.


1) Hurts PC's far more than NPC's (an NPC will cast maybe half a dozen spells on screen if the fight goes long... while a PC will cast LOTS).
4) Hits melee pretty hard - the Cleric can't heal very well anymore, and melee folks go through HP quickly.
5) Has some weirdness in that the rogue using UMD on wands is now taking a bunch of damage.
6) Even with potions, still hits melee hard. They're magic devices, after all, which means the fighter's effective max HP goes down with each battle in which he needs to use them to heal up.

1) A lot of in-game mechanics already hurt PCs more than NPCs. Spells per day, per day class features, consumables, Hit Points, attacks failing on a Nat 1, crits, magic instruments that only have a few charges remaining, Action Points (if you’re using them).

4, 5, and 6) What about the “Burn Pool” idea? (it’s in one of the spoilers above)



Now, do I like Vitalizing Spell points? Absolutely. At lower levels of spell points remaining, the spell caster tacks on fatigue and exhaustion, So their performance decreases a little bit, representing the mental drain that spell casting causes, but it doesn't slow down the game so much that they have to rest after casting a big spell.

Now, using HP as fuel for meta magic could be very cool, and the Maho-tsukai from ORIENTAL ADVENTURES had a mechanic that essentially did that.

A final "fix", just on the caster side of things would be having a feat that allows for making a first level spell of their choice into an at will. Make it so that they can only take the feat 4 times, and if they take it again, it just replaces the spell that is now an at will. Innate Spell Could be the name.

With this, they get a spell they can always rely on, not unlike warlock invocations, which we now know is not actually all that powerful per say.

Hadn’t heard of this variant before. However I think “Fatigued” is a condition that has almost no impact on casters. Same goes for “Exhausted” (though that’s worse because of Initiative). Definitely an interesting thing to look into.

This rule was created thinking about the Maho-tsukai, but the biggest problem I see with the Maho-tsukai mechanic is that it’s incredibly easily circumventable.

The feats are an interesting idea. I might give them for free to Spontaneous casters.


I've considered doing something like this, but using Vitality and Wounds (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm) and only Vitality points can be spent to cast spells. That would put a hard limit on how many spells a character could cast before needing to rest, representing exertion rather than injury.

That’s nice concept. Do you happen to have the details figured out? And isn’t it too easy to circumvent with out of combat healing being almost free?


Read up on pathfinder's Kineticist class (Occult Adventures). The class already utilizes a burn system and its casting is directly based of constitution.


It may be worth noting that the Optimization Guide for that class has the subtitle "Sucking counts as Airbending, right?"

I didn’t take the name “Burn” from out of thin air hahaha

And yeah, they kind of suck. Which I suppose is a form of Airbending indeed.

[Duke of Urrel]

The recent thread about forcing casters to pay gold to cast spells made me think.

What if casting a spell required actual sacrifice to be cast? You can fluff this as a blood price, it draining your energy, or any number of ways. But, from a mechanical point of view, it's simply: magic costs Hit Points.

This wouldn't be "damage" it would be "burn", which is like "Ability burn" in that it can only be healed by resting. It also works like Nonlethal damage in that if burn ever equals your current HP you are disabled.

If I were a player, I would be willing to try this and see how it worked.

I wouldn't make the system too complicated. Why not make "burn" damage exactly the same as nonlethal damage due to being pummeled with nonlethal attacks? Or make it the same as nonlethal damage due to hunger or fatigue. (You could even impose fatigue or exhaustion penalties for extra flavor when a certain number of "burn" Hit-Points were lost.) All these forms of nonlethal damage already have rules, so you wouldn't have to make up any new ones. For example, you can't heal nonlethal damage due to hunger, because the only cure is to eat; and you can't heal nonlethal damage due to fatigue, because the only cure is to rest.

I also think it would be simpler not to make the Hit-Point cost too steeply geometric. A heavy price should be imposed only for those few spells of various spell levels that people generally regard as game-breaking.

But these are only suggestions. Try it out and see how it goes!

[ZamielVanWeber]

IIRC is not a major concern of the 15 minute adventuring day the caster burning all their resources too quickly and then the party being left too vulnerable to risk proceeding (or the caster player brow beating the party into waiting)? That is what I understood it to be.

With that in mind this feels lIke it could make the problem a lot worse as healing outside of the heal spell itself and buffs are far more dubious the mundane resource of HP is going to be strained for everyone (and a wizard taking an errant hit means the adventuring day just suddenly ends).

[heavyfuel]

If I were a player, I would be willing to try this and see how it worked.

I wouldn't make the system too complicated. Why not make "burn" damage exactly the same as nonlethal damage due to being pummeled with nonlethal attacks? Or make it the same as nonlethal damage due to hunger or fatigue. (You could even impose fatigue or exhaustion penalties for extra flavor when a certain number of "burn" Hit-Points were lost.) All these forms of nonlethal damage already have rules, so you wouldn't have to make up any new ones. For example, you can't heal nonlethal damage due to hunger, because the only cure is to eat; and you can't heal nonlethal damage due to fatigue, because the only cure is to rest.

I also think it would be simpler not to make the Hit-Point cost too steeply geometric. A heavy price should be imposed only for those few spells of various spell levels that people generally regard as game-breaking.

But these are only suggestions. Try it out and see how it goes!

I kind of didn't want it to be so easily circumvented is why I didn't simply make it "nonlethal damage".

The hitpoint loss from Heat is an interesting one, only being heal-able if you're cool (literally). Burn could have a similar condition of only being heal-able after a night of rest, but it would kind of defeat the purpose, since casters would wake up and heal themselves taking maybe 4 burn during the healing process .

I honestly think no price is high enough for the truly game-breaking spells.


IIRC is not a major concern of the 15 minute adventuring day the caster burning all their resources too quickly and then the party being left too vulnerable to risk proceeding (or the caster player brow beating the party into waiting)? That is what I understood it to be.

With that in mind this feels lIke it could make the problem a lot worse as healing outside of the heal spell itself and buffs are far more dubious the mundane resource of HP is going to be strained for everyone (and a wizard taking an errant hit means the adventuring day just suddenly ends).

That's a fair concern. However, the idea that the party should be at nearly full resources at all times makes for bad games IMO. Especially at mid-to-high level (the levels Burn really start to accumulate to somewhat worrisome levels) D&D becomes a game of attrition, where parties can very easily nova encounters if they have no concern for their "per day" abilities. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0145.html)

And yes, the Wizard being hit by a stray arrow could drop them below 0 HP if they're not careful (and even if they are careful), but even then, they're still a single spell away from being back into action. Sure, this spell will likely Burn the Cleric, but it's just part of dangerous adventuring.

[Nifft]

I like this idea, though I wouldn't use it in its current form. It reminds me a bit of how casting may cause Stun damage in Shadowrun, for example.

My major concern would be that spell level imperfectly tracks with spell power, so I'd suggest assigning a separate Burn Factor to various spells independent of level.

Also, it's a bit too easy to game a constant burn factor -- I'd suggest making it a thing that PCs can avoid most of the time (say 75% of the time), so when they don't avoid it, they feel a bit of tension.

Also also, this seems like a mechanic that could be used to mechanically represent some of the flavor of specialization. Specialization might mean something like... +2 to burn resistance checks, and you only suffer half the listed burn when you fail. That could easily represent a caster who favors one type of spells -- a caster who is capable of casting other spells, but doesn't cast them as often.
- Specialist Wizards
- Domain-focused Clerics
... etc.

Anyway, interesting idea. Could be usable ... after a lot more work. :smile:

[heavyfuel]

I like this idea, though I wouldn't use it in its current form. It reminds me a bit of how casting may cause Stun damage in Shadowrun, for example.

My major concern would be that spell level imperfectly tracks with spell power, so I'd suggest assigning a separate Burn Factor to various spells independent of level.

Also, it's a bit too easy to game a constant burn factor -- I'd suggest making it a thing that PCs can avoid most of the time (say 75% of the time), so when they don't avoid it, they feel a bit of tension.

Also also, this seems like a mechanic that could be used to mechanically represent some of the flavor of specialization. Specialization might mean something like... +2 to burn resistance checks, and you only suffer half the listed burn when you fail. That could easily represent a caster who favors one type of spells -- a caster who is capable of casting other spells, but doesn't cast them as often.
- Specialist Wizards
- Domain-focused Clerics
... etc.

Anyway, interesting idea. Could be usable ... after a lot more work. :smile:

Again you make me want to play Shadowrun.

Back to topic, I like the idea of specific spells having specific Burn values, but that's 1605 (unless I counted them wrong) spells just between the PHB and Spell Compendium. That's too much! :smalleek:

I think if they can avoid Burn maybe it should be have higher damage? Or if we want to avoid players precisely calculating how much HP they can Burn, it's possible to use damage dice instead of straight damage (possibly with lower average damage)

Like 1 point for lv 1, 1d2 for 2, 1d6 for 3, 1d8 for 4, 2d6 for 5, so on.

I like the idea of Specialized classes getting less Burn. Like they can treat Burn as a spell level lower.

If they're can avoid it, how would you suggest? Caster Level check, Concentration check, straight up d%?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

IIRC is not a major concern of the 15 minute adventuring day the caster burning all their resources too quickly and then the party being left too vulnerable to risk proceeding (or the caster player brow beating the party into waiting)? That is what I understood it to be.

With that in mind this feels lIke it could make the problem a lot worse as healing outside of the heal spell itself and buffs are far more dubious the mundane resource of HP is going to be strained for everyone (and a wizard taking an errant hit means the adventuring day just suddenly ends).


That's a fair concern. However, the idea that the party should be at nearly full resources at all times makes for bad games IMO. Especially at mid-to-high level (the levels Burn really start to accumulate to somewhat worrisome levels) D&D becomes a game of attrition, where parties can very easily nova encounters if they have no concern for their "per day" abilities. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0145.html)

ZamielVanWeber is exactly right. The 15-minute adventuring day is not about the party being at full resources at all times, it's that if you're stuck in enemy territory (like a dungeon, but also like the front lines of a war, sneaking into Mordor, etc.), then you're in more danger the fewer resources you end up with. Use up your last spell of the day, and you can't deal with a nighttime ambush or a sudden blizzard or the like when you do decide to rest.

Yes, if you rest a lot that also lets you nova to defeat encounters and actively rest-nova-rest-nova to trivialize encounters or punch above their weight class, but there are plenty of games where parties will 15-minute-adventure while expending normal amounts of resources when not under time pressure because they don't know when they will be under time pressure and there's no reason not to rest if you can.


And yes, the Wizard being hit by a stray arrow could drop them below 0 HP if they're not careful (and even if they are careful), but even then, they're still a single spell away from being back into action. Sure, this spell will likely Burn the Cleric, but it's just part of dangerous adventuring.

But if you're trying to avoid the 15 minute adventuring day, this houserule doesn't help. In the normal rules, finishing daily encounter 2 with half your spells left and pressing on to daily encounter 3 just means that you're low on spells and need to use them more carefully before you reset. In this setup, it also means you're low on HP, so any damage is more pressing for the cleric to heal (thereby hurting the cleric, and preventing them from possibly making better use of their spells to shorten the encounter) and having a lot of buffs and a lot of healing spells on hand becomes more important the more encounters you face, incentivizing you to rest sooner rather than later.

In short, imposing an HP death spiral for casting spells is likely to make 15-minute-adventuring-day problems more pronounced and incentivize parties who aren't 15-minute-adventuring to start doing so, so this proposal has its incentives backwards.

[AnimeTheCat]

My personal opinion is that this seems unnecessarily bad and doesn't target the true problem of T1 spellcasting characters.

The class features for wizards are summon familiar and wizard bonus feats.

Clerics get turn undead.

Sorcerers get summon familiar.

Druids get constant personal resource drain, and a smattering of nature junk, plus furry transformation.

Ok... Druids get a lot... The point is, none of the class features are inherently overpowered. Even the progression of spellcasting and the ability to do so isn't overpowered. The part of the game that is so inherently flawed is the actual spells.

1605 spells, give or take. There are more spells than there are feats, skills, and classes combined. This overabundance of spells inherently upset the balance of the game. This overabundance of spells causes entire classes to be rendered useless. This overabundance of spells totally replaces features that make classes and feats unique. That's the core problem. There are outlier problems, such as ease of access to turn attempts for divine metamagic, but that is secondary to the widely available existence of heroism, polymorph, gate, planar binding, etc.

If you want to "fix" spellcasters, you'll truly need to fix the entirety of the spell list for every class to make it fit your idea of balance, which will be different from my perception of balance.

WRT your subsystem, specifically I don't like that it causes double the resource management, one on a daily basis (spells per day), one on an oddly free form basis (your burn subsystem). It seems like a punishing version of "mana" style systems. I would suggest, pick one or the other (spells per day/Magic burn) and roll with it, but don't carry on with both.

Should you choose burn, give sorcerers something to latch on to, like a scaling burn pool that gives them a notable difference is spell casting ability. Wizards still prepare spells as normal, but can cast them as much as they have burn pool for. Maybe adjust the number of spells they can prepare (1 fist level spell at level 1, 2 at 2, 2 first 1 second at 3, etc) and don't grant bonus spells prepared for high not, grant burn pool bonuses. Actually place limits on the spellcasters, not "limits".

These thoughts are brought to you by bored in ulta beauty with my significant other. As such, they're something more akin to ramblings. Take them with a few grains of salt, some tequila if you're of age and enjoy it, followed by a squeeze of lime. Or dont. Its youre preference.

[Talverin]

The Spheres of Power have something fairly cool for this. I used it to make a 'blood mage' style character by refluffing it as him actually using his own vitae to cast spells.

Draining Casting [Core]
Using magic saps your lifeforce. Using any sphere ability deals you 1 point of nonlethal damage which cannot be healed through any means except rest. This increases to 2 points at 5th caster level, 3 points at 10th caster level, 4 points at 15th caster level, and 5 points at 20th caster level. Creatures immune to nonlethal damage cannot gain this drawback.

Drawbacks give you additional 'spell points' - a resource pool specific to SoP. However, they could, for example, have some other benefit. Up to you.

With two 'drawbacks', you can also take a 'boon'. In this case, there's a specific Boon tied to Draining Casting - Fortified Casting.

Fortified Casting [Core]
You may use your Constitution as your casting ability modifier if it is higher than your usual casting ability modifier. You must possess the Draining Casting drawback to select this boon.

It allows you to use your Constitution as your casting modifier, which lets you be less hampered by your Draining Casting, and would be more in-line with the idea of 'paying for magic' with health. I would say if you decide to include -requiring- HP to be spent to cast spells, then offer something similar to 'Fortified Casting', in that they can also choose to have spellcasting based on their constitution. It keeps things thematic. Just make sure people understand what, precisely, casting would entail.

Instead of being a penalty, make it a world 'feature'. Have some benefit to compensate for the inherent drawback you're forcing them to take. A flat penalty isn't an interesting mechanic - it's just a penalty for playing a more powerful character. Instead of punishing them for using their class features, make it a feature of the world. Make it roleplay. It can allow you to balance the world as you see fit, but without it feeling artificial and imposed.

[heavyfuel]

ZamielVanWeber is exactly right. The 15-minute adventuring day is not about the party being at full resources at all times, it's that if you're stuck in enemy territory (like a dungeon, but also like the front lines of a war, sneaking into Mordor, etc.), then you're in more danger the fewer resources you end up with. Use up your last spell of the day, and you can't deal with a nighttime ambush or a sudden blizzard or the like when you do decide to rest.

Yes, if you rest a lot that also lets you nova to defeat encounters and actively rest-nova-rest-nova to trivialize encounters or punch above their weight class, but there are plenty of games where parties will 15-minute-adventure while expending normal amounts of resources when not under time pressure because they don't know when they will be under time pressure and there's no reason not to rest if you can.



But if you're trying to avoid the 15 minute adventuring day, this houserule doesn't help. In the normal rules, finishing daily encounter 2 with half your spells left and pressing on to daily encounter 3 just means that you're low on spells and need to use them more carefully before you reset. In this setup, it also means you're low on HP, so any damage is more pressing for the cleric to heal (thereby hurting the cleric, and preventing them from possibly making better use of their spells to shorten the encounter) and having a lot of buffs and a lot of healing spells on hand becomes more important the more encounters you face, incentivizing you to rest sooner rather than later.

In short, imposing an HP death spiral for casting spells is likely to make 15-minute-adventuring-day problems more pronounced and incentivize parties who aren't 15-minute-adventuring to start doing so, so this proposal has its incentives backwards.

Are you actually arguing in favor of 15 min adventuring days? Like, are you saying players should do that and the DM should be totally fine with it?

Anyway, I never denied what you mentioned in your first paragraph, I understand that's very much a reality. What you mentioned in your second paragraph, however, should not be a reality, even though it is many cases.

But whether the DM is preventing 15min days because the rules say so, or because the characters would bored out of their minds after 2 days of waiting for the spellcasters, the fact is it's the DM's job to keep things moving. That's when time limit or enemies chasing you start appearing, and then you have to manage your resources. It's a nerf to casters because now they have an additional cost on top of their extremely powerful spells. The Fighter has to manage his HP, and now so does the Wizard.

There's no way this incentivizes 15 min days when the DM is actually making an effort to move things forward. Like I said before, it in fact makes it easier on non-casters with per day abilities.


My personal opinion is that this seems unnecessarily bad and doesn't target the true problem of T1 spellcasting characters.

The class features for wizards are summon familiar and wizard bonus feats.

Clerics get turn undead.

Sorcerers get summon familiar.

Druids get constant personal resource drain, and a smattering of nature junk, plus furry transformation.

Ok... Druids get a lot... The point is, none of the class features are inherently overpowered. Even the progression of spellcasting and the ability to do so isn't overpowered. The part of the game that is so inherently flawed is the actual spells.

1605 spells, give or take. There are more spells than there are feats, skills, and classes combined. This overabundance of spells inherently upset the balance of the game. This overabundance of spells causes entire classes to be rendered useless. This overabundance of spells totally replaces features that make classes and feats unique. That's the core problem. There are outlier problems, such as ease of access to turn attempts for divine metamagic, but that is secondary to the widely available existence of heroism, polymorph, gate, planar binding, etc.

If you want to "fix" spellcasters, you'll truly need to fix the entirety of the spell list for every class to make it fit your idea of balance, which will be different from my perception of balance.

WRT your subsystem, specifically I don't like that it causes double the resource management, one on a daily basis (spells per day), one on an oddly free form basis (your burn subsystem). It seems like a punishing version of "mana" style systems. I would suggest, pick one or the other (spells per day/Magic burn) and roll with it, but don't carry on with both.

Should you choose burn, give sorcerers something to latch on to, like a scaling burn pool that gives them a notable difference is spell casting ability. Wizards still prepare spells as normal, but can cast them as much as they have burn pool for. Maybe adjust the number of spells they can prepare (1 fist level spell at level 1, 2 at 2, 2 first 1 second at 3, etc) and don't grant bonus spells prepared for high not, grant burn pool bonuses. Actually place limits on the spellcasters, not "limits".

These thoughts are brought to you by bored in ulta beauty with my significant other. As such, they're something more akin to ramblings. Take them with a few grains of salt, some tequila if you're of age and enjoy it, followed by a squeeze of lime. Or dont. Its youre preference.

Those are excellent points, and while adjusting spell lists to my liking would be the ideal thing to do, it's like I said to Niff. 1605 spells is a lot of spells! And choosing which spells I'm perfectly ok with existing might lead to some complications.

I don't think it's like mana, I think it's more like "blood magic" from the Dragon Age series or like in Full Metal Alchemist where "magic" requires something equivalent in exchange (Full Metal spoilers in white --> In fact, philosopher stones are basically condensed humans and their life can be used to fuel alchemy, which is the world's magic).

Maybe removing spells per day is ok since they're still limited by burn. Will think about it.

As for your significant other, try to think like this: At least they're gonna look good by the time they're finished :smallbiggrin:

[Knaight]

The particulars of the HP cost table are a bit screwy (though if you assume Con is increasing it obviates that problem somewhat), and I'd definitely drop spell slot restrictions if you're using this, and probably bump up caster HD a bit. I'd also tweak the way Max HP burn works, as it's very much not standard healing and just having it fully recover 24 hours later should be fine.

Besides that though, I have no issue with it.

[heavyfuel]

The Spheres of Power have something fairly cool for this. I used it to make a 'blood mage' style character by refluffing it as him actually using his own vitae to cast spells.

[...]

Instead of being a penalty, make it a world 'feature'. Have some benefit to compensate for the inherent drawback you're forcing them to take. A flat penalty isn't an interesting mechanic - it's just a penalty for playing a more powerful character. Instead of punishing them for using their class features, make it a feature of the world. Make it roleplay. It can allow you to balance the world as you see fit, but without it feeling artificial and imposed.

This looks nice, though I haven't acquired SoP yet. I'm not keen on making it a feature though. It's supposed to be a penalty


The particulars of the HP cost table are a bit screwy (though if you assume Con is increasing it obviates that problem somewhat), and I'd definitely drop spell slot restrictions if you're using this, and probably bump up caster HD a bit. I'd also tweak the way Max HP burn works, as it's very much not standard healing and just having it fully recover 24 hours later should be fine.

Besides that though, I have no issue with it.

Don't you think that giving every prepared caster effectively Erudite "casting" (except instead of PP it's Burn) would make Prepared Caster would make them even more versatile?

Maybe bump d4s (Sorcerers and Wizards) to d6 like Pathfinder did? It's a minor buff, but does alleviate the disparity between divine casters d8 and arcane casters d4s.

[Nifft]

Again you make me want to play Shadowrun. Shadowrun is a hot mess. It's also hella fun. But you may wind up putting a lot of work into making it behave.


Back to topic, I like the idea of specific spells having specific Burn values, but that's 1605 (unless I counted them wrong) spells just between the PHB and Spell Compendium. That's too much! :smalleek: Then break it down into categories, or perhaps leverage the existing extra-cost mechanics (GP components, XP components, Corruption / Sacrifice costs, drug / abstinence components, strange non-trivial M components, coldfire, etc.).


If they're can avoid it, how would you suggest? Caster Level check, Concentration check, straight up d%? Something that's difficult to game. Not a level check, and not a d20 check, some new thing ("Burn Check").


Roll 1d6, on a 1 or 2 you suffer Burn.

If you've got an appropriate specialty, you only suffer Burn on a 1 instead. Since this is a 2/3 chance of not suffering any damage, you can multiply all damage by 3. That means low-level casters can eat up to 1d6 instead of just 1.


If you want casters to have a bit more daily endurance, give them a resource which isn't HP to expend before expending HP.


Grace: Each day, the first 3 times you would suffer Burn, you don't suffer Burn. These three graces recharge when you get a good night's rest and prepare spells or recover spell slots.

Feats & class features can increase that number. That would allow low-level characters to contribute for a while (on average 9 spells) before needing to eat Burn to go on.


If you want more carrot with that stick, give perks related to suffering Burn.


Soulpyre: Magic hurts. You like to share that pain with others. If you cast a spell the turn after you suffer Burn, the spell's saving throw DC is increased by +2, any penalties inflicted by the spell are 2 worse, and if the spell deals damage that damage is increased by the Burn you suffered since the start of your previous turn.

Burning Clarity: Pain is weakness leaving the body. When you suffer Burn, you may either add the triggering spell's level to your AC and saves until the end of your next turn, or make a check to dispel one magical condition currently affecting you.

That's where I'd put Blood Magus type stuff.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Are you actually arguing in favor of 15 min adventuring days? Like, are you saying players should do that and the DM should be totally fine with it?

No, I'm saying that your cast-from-HP houserule assumes that people play with the 15MAD so that they can nova, and so making nova-ing less appealing by forcing longer recovery times will reduce the incidence of 15MAD, when in fact people play with the 15MAD because it gets too dangerous to continue, and so making it even more dangerous to continue by introducing a death spiral will increase the incidence of 15MAD.


But whether the DM is preventing 15min days because the rules say so, or because the characters would bored out of their minds after 2 days of waiting for the spellcasters, the fact is it's the DM's job to keep things moving. That's when time limit or enemies chasing you start appearing, and then you have to manage your resources. It's a nerf to casters because now they have an additional cost on top of their extremely powerful spells. The Fighter has to manage his HP, and now so does the Wizard.

There's no way this incentivizes 15 min days when the DM is actually making an effort to move things forward. Like I said before, it in fact makes it easier on non-casters with per day abilities.

There's an important and obvious difference between the fighter and wizard "managing their HP." If the fighter plays well enough (doesn't get hit due to high AC, kills enemies too fast for them to hurt him), he loses no HP, and if he plays badly, he loses a bunch of HP; using his primary class features (one of which is "has higher HP") directly results in losing less HP. If the wizard plays well (stacks defensive buffs on himself, kills enemies from range), he loses a bunch of HP, and if he plays badly, he loses a lot of HP; using his primary class features directly results in losing more HP. They're completely opposite scenarios, because the fighter loses HP when he makes mistakes and those mistakes can be fixed by a handy cleric so that the party can keep going while the wizard loses HP even if he plays perfectly optimally and the resulting HP loss cannot be fixed except by resting, the one thing you're trying to prevent the party from doing.

And as for moving things forward, why does every plot have to be "the world is going to end in 30 days, chop chop, get moving, no rest for you!"? In pretty much every scenario except saving the world--exploring the wilderness, winning a war, playing political intrigue, clearing out a static location, and so forth--there's no inherent external time pressure and the DM adding some would be very forced and arbitrary. As for characters getting bored, heck, if I were a fighter out slaying monsters I'd love to get a two- or three-day breather after every day of frantic fighting for my life to recuperate, decompress, and maybe practice some hobbies like woodworking or orienteering. You're out in the wilderness, might as well enjoy it, right?

My current campaign involves a large party of Norsemen exploring the New World, establishing a colony, and raiding the poor innocent Christians of Europe. For every day or couple of days of combat they engage in they usually have weeks of downtime, whether that's because every viking raid has a two-week trip there and a two-week trip back, because they're busy overseeing their NPC allies crafting longhouses and ships, or whatever. None of the players are impatient to hurry things along and none of their characters have any reason to be bored. And most campaigns are going to look much more like that little-to-no-time-pressure scenario than a save-the-world-in-two-days-or-die scenario.

[Acanous]

If its like non lethal damage, does that mean it’s tracked separately and doesn’t actually reduce your HP?

That being the case I’d probably not mind.

[heavyfuel]

Shadowrun is a hot mess. It's also hella fun. But you may wind up putting a lot of work into making it behave.

Then break it down into categories, or perhaps leverage the existing extra-cost mechanics (GP components, XP components, Corruption / Sacrifice costs, drug / abstinence components, strange non-trivial M components, coldfire, etc.).

Something that's difficult to game. Not a level check, and not a d20 check, some new thing ("Burn Check").


Roll 1d6, on a 1 or 2 you suffer Burn.

If you've got an appropriate specialty, you only suffer Burn on a 1 instead. Since this is a 2/3 chance of not suffering any damage, you can multiply all damage by 3. That means low-level casters can eat up to 1d6 instead of just 1.


If you want casters to have a bit more daily endurance, give them a resource which isn't HP to expend before expending HP.


Grace: Each day, the first 3 times you would suffer Burn, you don't suffer Burn. These three graces recharge when you get a good night's rest and prepare spells or recover spell slots.

Feats & class features can increase that number. That would allow low-level characters to contribute for a while (on average 9 spells) before needing to eat Burn to go on.


If you want more carrot with that stick, give perks related to suffering Burn.


Soulpyre: Magic hurts. You like to share that pain with others. If you cast a spell the turn after you suffer Burn, the spell's saving throw DC is increased by +2, any penalties inflicted by the spell are 2 worse, and if the spell deals damage that damage is increased by the Burn you suffered since the start of your previous turn.

Burning Clarity: Pain is weakness leaving the body. When you suffer Burn, you may either add the triggering spell's level to your AC and saves until the end of your next turn, or make a check to dispel one magical condition currently affecting you.

That's where I'd put Blood Magus type stuff.

Not to stride away from the topic, but what version of Shadowrun do you play? I discovered a friend who has the 5th edition book, so I might borrow from him to give it a read.

I might make it a d20 and adjust the numbers. For example "Suffer burn if roll a 7 or worse" and being a specilized wizard reduces it to a 4 or lower. Something like this.

I really like the idea of both feats. I might even create more feats that are tied with receiving Burn damage.


No, I'm saying that your cast-from-HP houserule assumes that people play with the 15MAD so that they can nova, and so making nova-ing less appealing by forcing longer recovery times will reduce the incidence of 15MAD, when in fact people play with the 15MAD because it gets too dangerous to continue, and so making it even more dangerous to continue by introducing a death spiral will increase the incidence of 15MAD.



There's an important and obvious difference between the fighter and wizard "managing their HP." If the fighter plays well enough (doesn't get hit due to high AC, kills enemies too fast for them to hurt him), he loses no HP, and if he plays badly, he loses a bunch of HP; using his primary class features (one of which is "has higher HP") directly results in losing less HP. If the wizard plays well (stacks defensive buffs on himself, kills enemies from range), he loses a bunch of HP, and if he plays badly, he loses a lot of HP; using his primary class features directly results in losing more HP. They're completely opposite scenarios, because the fighter loses HP when he makes mistakes and those mistakes can be fixed by a handy cleric so that the party can keep going while the wizard loses HP even if he plays perfectly optimally and the resulting HP loss cannot be fixed except by resting, the one thing you're trying to prevent the party from doing.

And as for moving things forward, why does every plot have to be "the world is going to end in 30 days, chop chop, get moving, no rest for you!"? In pretty much every scenario except saving the world--exploring the wilderness, winning a war, playing political intrigue, clearing out a static location, and so forth--there's no inherent external time pressure and the DM adding some would be very forced and arbitrary. As for characters getting bored, heck, if I were a fighter out slaying monsters I'd love to get a two- or three-day breather after every day of frantic fighting for my life to recuperate, decompress, and maybe practice some hobbies like woodworking or orienteering. You're out in the wilderness, might as well enjoy it, right?

My current campaign involves a large party of Norsemen exploring the New World, establishing a colony, and raiding the poor innocent Christians of Europe. For every day or couple of days of combat they engage in they usually have weeks of downtime, whether that's because every viking raid has a two-week trip there and a two-week trip back, because they're busy overseeing their NPC allies crafting longhouses and ships, or whatever. None of the players are impatient to hurry things along and none of their characters have any reason to be bored. And most campaigns are going to look much more like that little-to-no-time-pressure scenario than a save-the-world-in-two-days-or-die scenario.

If he plays perfectly, he'll only lose a small portion of HP to Burn and then none at all. Playing a squishy caster is all about positioning, and I think the last time the Wizard at my current game was subject of damage was like two adventures ago. It's not hard to avoid being hit when you're casting spells with 100+ ft of range.

You are also over estimating how much burn the Cleric is subject to. It costs 1 burn to heal 10+lv HP. One single point of burn heals more than ten times the amount lost.

And what? Who talked about every plot being "the world is going to end in 30 days"? And who said anything about them not having downtime?

Yes, missions do need time frames. This doesn't mean it's always apocalypse o'clock. Stop enemy reinforcements; stop the ritual before it is completed; finish the dungeon before the comet passes, forever closing the doors and leaving you trapped. These are all things with time constraints that don't involve the world ending.

And in my current campaign the PCs also have weeks if not months of downtime between adventures. Doesn't change the fact that, when push comes to shove, they can't afford to stop to refresh spells as often as they would like.


If its like non lethal damage, does that mean it’s tracked separately and doesn’t actually reduce your HP?

That being the case I’d probably not mind.

Indeed it is. And like non-lethal damage, when the total burn equals your current HP, you are disabled. If total burn is greater than current HP, you are unconscious and stable.

[Elkad]

So a typical 9th level wizard would take 30+ dmg just from a reasonable buff routine. And over 100 dmg if he tried to use all his slots in the same day.

Even with an 18 con, he'll have 60ish hitpoints. Might as well cut his spell slots in half, he can't use them all anyway.

[AnimeTheCat]

Those are excellent points, and while adjusting spell lists to my liking would be the ideal thing to do, it's like I said to Niff. 1605 spells is a lot of spells! And choosing which spells I'm perfectly ok with existing might lead to some complications.

I don't think it's like mana, I think it's more like "blood magic" from the Dragon Age series or like in Full Metal Alchemist where "magic" requires something equivalent in exchange.

Maybe removing spells per day is ok since they're still limited by burn. Will think about it.

I used your number that you told Nift to pull that number in my class, feat, skill comparison. I know it's a lot, and too many is my point. But they are the core of the problem. Fix those and your overall problems will be hadily dealt with, unless your players refuse to use your rebuilt spells, then it's just been a waste of time.

As for it being like Mana, it's not "mana" in the sense that you have a pool that you subtract from, but that you have a resevoir of points that are seperate from your other reasources that you expend (or in this case fill up?) to cast your spells. Regardless of how it is flavored, they are still ultimately spell points that act like non-lethal damage that you deal to yourself. Like i said it's not a 'mana' system per se, it's a revision and reskin of a mana system in that it is just an energy bar with a max equal to your health, when it's full you go unconscious. You could look at it in the opposite way in that it's full, and when it's empty you go unconscious. Both applications have the same result, they just look different in appearance. Mind you, that's not a bad thing, it's just a thing thing y'know?

Again, as for the spells per day, keep the minimum caster level to cast the spell ([class level/2 round down]+1) but let them use the resource to pick their "spells per day" and then have a limit on the different number of spells they can have readied. Sorcerers always have their full known list readied, wizards can prepare the same number of spells they already can, but they don't get bonus spells per day based on high int, they get a bonus to their burn pool based on Int, or only give that to sorcerers. Sorcerers get HP+[Charisma*Caster Level] as their burn pool to help make up for their delayed casting and to showcase their innate connection to magic, they're more adept at dealing with said drain, etc. However you want to flavor it.

I could see this working, but it would really need to become it's own subsystem rather than a tack-on to existing subsystems.


So a typical 9th level wizard would take 30+ dmg just from a reasonable buff routine. And over 100 dmg if he tried to use all his slots in the same day.

Even with an 18 con, he'll have 60ish hitpoints. Might as well cut his spell slots in half, he can't use them all anyway.

The intent seems to be to make casters have to think more carefully about what spells they cast. Is it really necessary to cast all those buff spells on yourself just to turn you in to a melee-competent character, or should you just cover the fewer weaknesses of the melee character? Do I really *need* to scry, or can I prepare the best I know how and use other resources and *gasp* rely on my team to cover my weaknesses in the event I didn't do it perfectly?

I think the intent is to make decisions harder for spellcasters. and with a d4 HD, you'll have a minimum of 80 HP at 20 and that's without a Con bonus. With an 18 Con, you'll have 160. Also, he already said that the magic burn is tracked seperately from your HP and does not directly effect your HP.

[Knaight]

I used your number that you told Nift to pull that number in my class, feat, skill comparison. I know it's a lot, and too many is my point. But they are the core of the problem. Fix those and your overall problems will be hadily dealt with, unless your players refuse to use your rebuilt spells, then it's just been a waste of time.

As for it being like Mana, it's not "mana" in the sense that you have a pool that you subtract from, but that you have a resevoir of points that are seperate from your other reasources that you expend (or in this case fill up?) to cast your spells. Regardless of how it is flavored, they are still ultimately spell points that act like non-lethal damage that you deal to yourself. Like i said it's not a 'mana' system per se, it's a revision and reskin of a mana system in that it is just an energy bar with a max equal to your health, when it's full you go unconscious. You could look at it in the opposite way in that it's full, and when it's empty you go unconscious. Both applications have the same result, they just look different in appearance. Mind you, that's not a bad thing, it's just a thing thing y'know?

There's a big difference here from "mana" though, because it isn't cleanly separate from other resources. HP is already a resource used elsewhere, Max-HP is intrinsically tied into that, and this works as a temporary reduction of maximum HP.

[AnimeTheCat]

There's a big difference here from "mana" though, because it isn't cleanly separate from other resources. HP is already a resource used elsewhere, Max-HP is intrinsically tied into that, and this works as a temporary reduction of maximum HP.

Right, I get that. I said it was revised. It's similar to the "stamina" system of Salt and Sanctuary. As you cast spells, you're stamina bar is reduced which influences your maximum health to be only as high as your stamina bar. It's still ultimately a spell point system is all I'm getting at. And, I'll repeat myself, that's not a bad thing, it's just a thing thing.

What is the difference between these two:

1) I have a reserve of power. This reserve of power starts the day equal to my maximum hit points. As I take damage, the reserve fluxuates based on my current hit points. When I use abilities my power reserve is drained by a predetermined amount. I must be mindful of my current health and the amount of power reserve I have used to ensure that the power reserve never reaches 0.

2) I have a resistance to magic flowing through me. This resistance isn't all powerful though. As I use abilities, I drain my soul, essence, and body. These are physical damages, simply the amount of abuse my physical form can take before i can no longer serve as a conduit for magic. Each use of an ability causes additional, predetermined stress on my physical form. I must be mindful of my current health and the amount of strain I've put on my body to ensure the two never meet.

The difference is simply that one adds (#2) and one subtracts (#1). They accomplish the same function exactly, they just look different from each other.

[heavyfuel]

So a typical 9th level wizard would take 30+ dmg just from a reasonable buff routine. And over 100 dmg if he tried to use all his slots in the same day.

Even with an 18 con, he'll have 60ish hitpoints. Might as well cut his spell slots in half, he can't use them all anyway.

Con would likely become a priority for casters, even over their own casting stats. So I think it's very fair to assume a Lv 9 Wizard would have Con 22 (16 start, 2 lv up, 4 item). With 22 Con and average rolls, a Lv 9 Wizard would have a total of 84 HP.

Yes. It would also mean that you'd have to reduce your buff routine. Cut back on situational protections that Wizards have "just in case". You'd be more vulnerable, but making these classes more vulnerable is part of the point.

The other part of the point is being unable to cast all your spells. You're now forced to choose. Is this encounter really worth that 5th level spell? Do you really want to cast Fly just to go over that chasm? Making casters think twice before casting a spell since Burn is not so easily refreshed as spell slots are is the entire point.

[Nifft]

Not to stride away from the topic, but what version of Shadowrun do you play? I discovered a friend who has the 5th edition book, so I might borrow from him to give it a read. It was technically 4e / 4eR / 20th Anniversary, but it was modified by someone who imported a bunch of older-edition mechanics, plus I wrote a FATE-inspired narrative layer over it to simplify heist planning.

5e might be awesome, I am not a Shadowrun expert so I can't say more than "give it a look".

My experience with Shadowrun: I was inspired by the setting and the ... sheer audacity of what the mechanics attempt to model. Yeah, they failed, but they failed at something really ambitious.


I might make it a d20 and adjust the numbers. For example "Suffer burn if roll a 7 or worse" and being a specilized wizard reduces it to a 4 or lower. Something like this.

I really like the idea of both feats. I might even create more feats that are tied with receiving Burn damage.

The thing about d20 rolls is that there are mechanics which allow you to muck with them, so I'd suggest using a different die type to negate those mechanics.

Other ideas to make Burn "fun":
- When you suffer Burn, raw arcane energy writhes around you, doing something nasty to your nearby foes.
- When you suffer Burn, you get a Rage analogue which makes you a passible melee threat for a little while.
- When you suffer Burn, you gain some temporary HP which last for 1 minute.

Look at stuff like Rage Mage and the Wilder class, too.

[Goaty14]

If he plays perfectly, he'll only lose a small portion of HP to Burn and then none at all. Playing a squishy caster is all about positioning, and I think the last time the Wizard at my current game was subject of damage was like two adventures ago. It's not hard to avoid being hit when you're casting spells with 100+ ft of range.

Huh. It never occured to you that there can exist other wizards with 100+ ft range? Heck, even archers don't have a problem hitting 300 ft+.


You are also over estimating how much burn the Cleric is subject to. It costs 1 burn to heal 10+lv HP. One single point of burn heals more than ten times the amount lost.

It costs 1 burn to heal 1d8+1 (5). Your ideal of fixing casters whilst also fixing in-combat healing exist seperately.


And what? Who talked about every plot being "the world is going to end in 30 days"? And who said anything about them not having downtime?

"The world ending in 30 days" is a hyperbole for "the players have a hard deadline to do something".


Yes, missions do need time frames. This doesn't mean it's always apocalypse o'clock. Stop enemy reinforcements; stop the ritual before it is completed; finish the dungeon before the comet passes, forever closing the doors and leaving you trapped. These are all things with time constraints that don't involve the world ending.

As above, they do however provide a hard deadline set by the GM. Don't stop the enemy reinforcements? Congrats, you're about to get TPKed. Don't finish the dungeon before the doors close? Have fun rolling starvation checks.


And in my current campaign the PCs also have weeks if not months of downtime between adventures. Doesn't change the fact that, when push comes to shove, they can't afford to stop to refresh spells as often as they would like.

How you run your campaigns is irrelevant to how the game can run as a whole. Here is the argument where a GM argues that the rules work differently in his campaign than how the rules work overall.

[Elkad]

And of course it all breaks when I get to Magic Jar.

Possess something, cast at will. When it dies, jump to the next HP battery and repeat.

[Kayblis]

Con would likely become a priority for casters, even over their own casting stats. So I think it's very fair to assume a Lv 9 Wizard would have Con 22 (16 start, 2 lv up, 4 item). With 22 Con and average rolls, a Lv 9 Wizard would have a total of 84 HP.

Yes. It would also mean that you'd have to reduce your buff routine. Cut back on situational protections that Wizards have "just in case". You'd be more vulnerable, but making these classes more vulnerable is part of the point.

The other part of the point is being unable to cast all your spells. You're now forced to choose. Is this encounter really worth that 5th level spell? Do you really want to cast Fly just to go over that chasm? Making casters think twice before casting a spell since Burn is not so easily refreshed as spell slots are is the entire point.

You really don't get it, do you? For the sheer amount of misinterpreting of other people's messages alone, I'd say you're trolling.

Elkad had a very good point: in your "system", you penalize casters so much that a wizard at full health can't cast his daily allotment of spells. There's no need at all for a spell-per-day limit then, you're already cutting your wrists and hanging yourself too much for them to limit you. You're crusading so hard against spellcasting that you're willing to call a glaring, class-ban-like flaw as a "feature".

Even when you put EVERYTHING into CON, your money AND your leveling bonuses, you still can't cast them all. From full health. Not only you die in a single hit from any level-appropriate source, you also can't cast your usual spell count.

You seem to think that "the wizard never ever gets hit" is such a given that no one would ever dare to challenge that. This is your DM's fault, for no one should be 100% certain they won't be ambushed by archers or face an enemy they can't shut down in a single round - and even if one could, he'd need either a very high level or a lot of spell slots, which your homebrew makes impossible anyway. What I'm trying to say is, you can't assume the wizard will never get hit AND cut his spell count by less than half in the same go.

As a final point, give up on this mentality that casters should be penalized for using their class features. You're killing a guy for doing his job. HP is not a separated resource from the rest of the combat system. If you hate casters so much, ban them. Just don't complain when you get a TPK because the DM is used to use monsters that require some spellcasting to deal with.

[Knaight]

And of course it all breaks when I get to Magic Jar.

Possess something, cast at will. When it dies, jump to the next HP battery and repeat.

On the other hand, it's not like there aren't ways around existing limits. To some extent this is being held to much higher standards than the default rules actually meet.

[heavyfuel]

Huh. It never occured to you that there can exist other wizards with 100+ ft range? Heck, even archers don't have a problem hitting 300 ft+.



It costs 1 burn to heal 1d8+1 (5). Your ideal of fixing casters whilst also fixing in-combat healing exist seperately.



"The world ending in 30 days" is a hyperbole for "the players have a hard deadline to do something".



As above, they do however provide a hard deadline set by the GM. Don't stop the enemy reinforcements? Congrats, you're about to get TPKed. Don't finish the dungeon before the doors close? Have fun rolling starvation checks.



How you run your campaigns is irrelevant to how the game can run as a whole. Here is the argument where a GM argues that the rules work differently in his campaign than how the rules work overall.

There can be, but unless the players are constantly fighting other playable races and not monsters from the MM (or other sources), these archers and wizards aren't so prevalent.

And at lv 1 (since you're only curing 1d8+1) the maximum Burn a Wizard will have is 2. Hardly a big difference. Mundanes can be healed more easily due to their "Burn pool"

As I've stated, having a hard deadline is required sometimes. I really don't think having one every now and then is a bad thing.

A lot of classes and builds already depend on downtime. It's nothing new to the game. Artificers without downtime are a terrible class. A Wizard with Forge Ring and no downtime just wasted a feat. A Scout that wants to train with a Sparring Dummy of the Master using UMD will have no use for his 30k gold purchase.


And of course it all breaks when I get to Magic Jar.

Possess something, cast at will. When it dies, jump to the next HP battery and repeat.

I've stated before that I'm very aware this rule wouldn't fix strong spells and that they need to be dealt with separately.


You really don't get it, do you? For the sheer amount of misinterpreting of other people's messages alone, I'd say you're trolling.

Elkad had a very good point: in your "system", you penalize casters so much that a wizard at full health can't cast his daily allotment of spells. There's no need at all for a spell-per-day limit then, you're already cutting your wrists and hanging yourself too much for them to limit you. You're crusading so hard against spellcasting that you're willing to call a glaring, class-ban-like flaw as a "feature".

Even when you put EVERYTHING into CON, your money AND your leveling bonuses, you still can't cast them all. From full health. Not only you die in a single hit from any level-appropriate source, you also can't cast your usual spell count.

You seem to think that "the wizard never ever gets hit" is such a given that no one would ever dare to challenge that. This is your DM's fault, for no one should be 100% certain they won't be ambushed by archers or face an enemy they can't shut down in a single round - and even if one could, he'd need either a very high level or a lot of spell slots, which your homebrew makes impossible anyway. What I'm trying to say is, you can't assume the wizard will never get hit AND cut his spell count by less than half in the same go.

As a final point, give up on this mentality that casters should be penalized for using their class features. You're killing a guy for doing his job. HP is not a separated resource from the rest of the combat system. If you hate casters so much, ban them. Just don't complain when you get a TPK because the DM is used to use monsters that require some spellcasting to deal with.

Misinterpreting of messages? Name one.

There's still need, otherwise the caster could use his Burn limit to only cast his strongest spells. It's hardly ban-like. For example, ask any class what they would rather have: The benefits granted by a spell such as Mindblank or 18 more max HP. Unless you're playing at very low levels of optimization, I'm confident everyone would choose Mindblank. Same goes for a bunch of other spells.

One of the points of the rule is that you can't cast all your spells. It forces you to choose. You have to invest a lot in Con AND you still can't cast every single spell.

The Wizard does get hit. It's not a common occurrence nor should it be if the Wizard is being played correctly, but it does happen. I never said it never happened. In fact, I'm sure I said it happened 3 sessions ago.

Banning casters is impossible what with over half the base classes being able to cast spells in some form or another.

[heavyfuel]

It was technically 4e / 4eR / 20th Anniversary, but it was modified by someone who imported a bunch of older-edition mechanics, plus I wrote a FATE-inspired narrative layer over it to simplify heist planning.

5e might be awesome, I am not a Shadowrun expert so I can't say more than "give it a look".

My experience with Shadowrun: I was inspired by the setting and the ... sheer audacity of what the mechanics attempt to model. Yeah, they failed, but they failed at something really ambitious.



The thing about d20 rolls is that there are mechanics which allow you to muck with them, so I'd suggest using a different die type to negate those mechanics.

Other ideas to make Burn "fun":
- When you suffer Burn, raw arcane energy writhes around you, doing something nasty to your nearby foes.
- When you suffer Burn, you get a Rage analogue which makes you a passible melee threat for a little while.
- When you suffer Burn, you gain some temporary HP which last for 1 minute.

Look at stuff like Rage Mage and the Wilder class, too.

A look I shall give. I was warned it's a 500 page tome though.

Good point. I don't like the idea of rolling 1d6 because in my mind that's for other boardgames. But I'm in for a d% (i really don't think there's anything that affects a percentage roll, except stuff like Alter Fortune which affects any roll).

All good ideas. Might roll them into the feats I've mentioned. The rage one would be particularly useful for Gishes.

[Goaty14]

As I've stated, having a hard deadline is required sometimes. I really don't think having one every now and then is a bad thing.

Then we could reach a compromise that players could still abuse a 15MAD with this rule? Granted, that wasn't the goal of this "fix" nor could it be abused all of the time.


A lot of classes and builds already depend on downtime. It's nothing new to the game. Artificers without downtime are a terrible class. A Wizard with Forge Ring and no downtime just wasted a feat. A Scout that wants to train with a Sparring Dummy of the Master using UMD will have no use for his 30k gold purchase.

The argument wasn't about downtime. What I was saying was whether or not the players could decide when to set up camp at their leisure.

[heavyfuel]

Then we could reach a compromise that players could still abuse a 15MAD with this rule? Granted, that wasn't the goal of this "fix" nor could it be abused all of the time.

We can. I'm actually hoping that with this rule players that rely on other per day abilities (paladins, monks, etc) will be the ones wanting to stop more often.


The argument wasn't about downtime. What I was saying was whether or not the players could decide when to set up camp at their leisure.

They can. But on occasion it will be difficult to so

[Gnaeus]

I think it’s a way better idea than the gp spending thread. If you tweaked the numbers or allowed some burn mitigation methods it might work.

[heavyfuel]

I think it’s a way better idea than the gp spending thread. If you tweaked the numbers or allowed some burn mitigation methods it might work.

Any ideas regarding mitigation methods?

[bean illus]

There are two types of people.

Those that think all characters need twice as much full caster magic, and the ones that channel it through swords are called martial.

And those that think interesting ideas are worth mentioning, and that conversation might find a solution.

I like the idea. Obviously it would need much play and tweak. Obviously only those that wanted to would leave 3.5 for it.

[Goaty14]

Mitigation? Maybe if you sacrificed spell slots you'd be able to slowly increase a "temporary burn pool" that ticks out whenever you'd gain burn? Or perhaps a DR system that progresses with the character (giving immunity to burn from lower-level slots, and resisting that of higher level ones). Oh, and add a mechanic that allows players to take voluntary burn for extra benefits, maybe in it's own class or feat chain.


There are two types of people.

There actually exist millions of different types of people because a true black and white rating system does not exist.


I like the idea. Obviously it would need much play and tweak. Obviously only those that wanted to would leave 3.5 for it.

Do note that "play a different system" is not in question. Instead heavyfuel is suggesting a homebrew subsystem. Also, people who aren't willing to play it should still be allowed to comment. I mean, if you only ever get back pats from those around you no matter what you do, you're going to make something crap.

[Quertus]

Still haven't heard what low floor casters you've seen, to evaluate this change in relation to them.

-----

So, let's break this apart. Let's separate "pool" from HP for a minute. Suppose every caster character got a "burn pool" equal in size to their HP pool. Conceptually, this works just like the old model, with two exceptions: it removes any healing shenanigans, and doesn't "punish" characters for doing their thing / doesn't make squishy casters even squishier.

Under this hypothetical variant, Con is still prioritized, making casters more MAD (although nothing changes for my preferences, where I already often prioritize Con over casting stat). Casters still need to carefully consider the value of casting a spell vs seeking an alternative solution. Whereas Drinking Problem Fighter and even UMD Rogue hardly notice, and could get by without Con.

I play casters. It's what I do. Even in systems where that's horrible. Unlike most Playgrounders, I have no issue with the concept of forcing casters to pick and choose, rather than spam spells at every encounter.

That having been said, I prefer mages who feel magical, who can spam spells easily, who brush their teeth with magic, because magic. Further, when starting from a D&D base, this change encourages maximum spell efficiency (like Minionmancy, persistomancy, or chain gating Solars) while hurting spell casters who spam spells more liberally (like Healbots or mailman). If that's the desired effect - if this is intended as a primer for playing at Tippy's table - then it likely succeeds.

Similarly, by reducing caster stamina, it seems likely to encourage the 15MWD.

-----

If we tie it into HP, it serves to make casters even squishier, further exacerbating / encouraging 15MWD, while penalizing Drinking Problem Fighter and UMD Rogue builds. Although that last bit can be mitigated by giving Muggles some form of "burn resistance".

-----

Now, a curious thing happens when you combine this with letting casters cast their spells at will. Freed from the shackles of Vancian casting, Wizards look a lot like standard mana-based casters from many systems (just with an added bit of changing their abilities with a day's rest). Add in chance for drain, and make drain deal (its own form of) HP damage (say, like Vile (or, rather, Vile Subdual!) damage, but healed back at X rate if Y), and you've got something resembling Shadowrun magic.

Curiously, I don't recall many people complaining about Shadowrun mages being punished for doing their job.

-----

But, again, the question is, what problems are you trying to solve? What do you want this system to accomplish?

[ZamielVanWeber]

Yes. It would also mean that you'd have to reduce your buff routine. Cut back on situational protections that Wizards have "just in case". You'd be more vulnerable, but making these classes more vulnerable is part of the point.

1) the buff routine could be for the benefit, exclusively or primarily, of others in the party. Punishing that is ultimately just going to make everything more miserable for everyone.

2) I am not sure squeezing a caster from both ends would be a valid strategy here.

It is starting to feel like creating a narrower list of more powerful (but fewer open ended spells/SoL&SoD) might be the best way to go. New class, new list, etc. The caster then must pick each spell to cast carefully but is not caught up in a "these 3 spells will make the barbarian a happy killing machine and end adventuring for a week" issue.

The idea has issues yes but is certainly ripe for refinement which you have been doing admirably: I am just quite unconvinced that it will work where you want it to.

[bean illus]

There are two types of people.

Those that think all characters need twice as much full caster magic, and the ones that channel it through swords are called martial.

And those that think interesting ideas are worth mentioning, and that conversation might find a solution.

I like the idea. Obviously it would need much play and tweak. Obviously only those that wanted to would leave 3.5 for it.



There actually exist millions of different types of people because a true black and white rating system does not exist.

It was a joke. Sorry if i hurt your feelings.

[Goaty14]

It was a joke. Sorry if i hurt your feelings.

It did not hurt my feelings. I just like arguing aaand... there was a point in need of contention :smallredface:

[Knaight]

Any ideas regarding mitigation methods?

This is where you could bring in a lot of the classic mage equipment - staffs, amulets, etc. with their own small HP pools that are able to split damage until they run out. It's also a classic way of bringing in certain types of dark magic, such as ritual blood sacrifices that let you use somebody else's HP.

[Gnaeus]

I’d be thinking about having the point costs for lower level spells drop as levels increase. If a 15th level wizard can spam second level spells it’s not going to break any encounters, and it won’t leave the wizard player casting his one spell and then spending the rest of combat playing Xbox. But I like knaight’s suggestions too.

The problem, as kineticist shows, is that the more complexity we add in the name of balance the bigger the pain of the class in general. Mitigation by level i think is a good idea. Mitigation by items or rituals or sacrifices or feats or specialization (I liked that one a lot too) or other things could all be workable ideas. But I wouldn’t want to be in a system where every round im going “ok, 15 burn points, -2 as a transmuter, -4 because I’m 16th level, -3 for my staff, -2 as I sacrifice this goblin..,,..”

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Or perhaps a DR system that progresses with the character (giving immunity to burn from lower-level slots, and resisting that of higher level ones).


I’d be thinking about having the point costs for lower level spells drop as levels increase. If a 15th level wizard can spam second level spells it’s not going to break any encounters, and it won’t leave the wizard player casting his one spell and then spending the rest of combat playing Xbox.

Yeah, this is one scenario where a burn system isn't counterproductive and 15MAD-inducing. If the setup is not "punished for using any class abilities" but rather "weaker magic for free at will, middling magic judiciously, and powerful magic in an emergency," it wouldn't be terrible. Being able to freely use, say, 3rd-level and lower spells at 15th level in exchange for possibly killing yourself by casting multiple 7th- or 8th-level spells, with 4th- through 6th-level spells being usable but not spammable, would be the kind of tradeoff a reasonable person might want to make. And hey, if it applies to the partial casters at the same rate (being based on class level rather than caster level or current max spell level, for instance) then high-level paladins/rangers/hexblades/etc. casting basically all of their spells at will might actually give them a nice boost.

Even in that case, though, it's the kind of thing that should probably be its own system or set of classes, so people could choose Vancian vs. spontaneous vs. burn casters according to their preferences and they could play alongside each other, rather than an imposition on every caster.

[bean illus]

It did not hurt my feelings. I just like arguing

So, there are THREE types of people.

[Nifft]

So, there are THREE types of people.

Timmy / Johnny / Spike?

Lawful / Chaotic / Boring?

Good / Bad / Ugly?

[GrayDeath]

I find it immensely funny that your three lists, if read from top to bottom, work rather well description-wise. ^^ Not wanting to troll anyone, just mgoing by the TImmy, Johnny and Spike population I know ^^


As for the System: if it encourages lower Level Spell usage and punishes using Higher ones more than sa once a day, I am open for it.
Spamming lower stuff and struggling with high stuff is how I feel Magic (as contrasted to Superpowers) should work any way. :)

[Florian]

@Quertus:

Well, I could type pages upon pages about incompetent casters that only survived because the martials acted as meat shield.......

@heavyfuel:

You might look at the very controversial PF Kineticist and their "Burn" mechanic to understand why you get flak on this.

Personally, I'm more into systems that tread magic as a skill check and need things like an "activation roll" to get them going, with a marked chance of (critical) failure and success each time.

For altering a D&D-sytle game, how about this: Cut (Bonus) Spell Slots in halve, this is what you can get "save" and it only "reserves" a very modest amount of hp, if at all. Go beyond that and you'll pay a price n ever-increasing "burn" cost.

[Quertus]

If the setup is not "punished for using any class abilities" but rather "weaker magic for free at will, middling magic judiciously, and powerful magic in an emergency," it wouldn't be terrible.

This is almost the mage I really want to play. Just add in "epic magic when given time", where even the low level mage can conduct a week-long ritual to open a rift to another plane, and at mid levels is creating flying castles during downtime, and you've got it.


@Quertus:

Well, I could type pages upon pages about incompetent casters that only survived because the martials acted as meat shield.......

Lol - is that just from copying stories of Quertus, my signature tactically inept academia mage for whom this account is named, or do you have incompetent casters of your own?

Either way, I'm responding to this bit:
Any caster (except the Druid, maybe) at low OP is pretty terrible. Casters have notoriously low skill floors to match their sky-high ceiling.

I'm curious what particular really low floor the OP has seen - especially that they would consider this burn mechanic as a solution to the caster floor problem. :smallconfused:

[Florian]

Lol - is that just from copying stories of Quertus, my signature tactically inept academia mage for whom this account is named, or do you have incompetent casters of your own?

Hey, wargaming is not so much a thing around here, so the idea of "tactical knowledge", not to speak of "strategic knowledge", is a bit limited in local TTRPG circles. So, in multiple systems and editions over the last 3 decades, it was rather common for low floor, heigh ceiling classes to perform abysmally.

[heavyfuel]

I liked most mitigation ideas and I agree with Gnaeus regarding multiple bonuses and them being a bad thing.

Specifically, I enjoyed having magical items that give you a specific quantity of HP to burn, kind of like how staves and wands already exist in that you trade Wealth for more spells.

Will try to work these in the system when I have time and will post back with results. I've also been thinking about some feats that I hope will be good choices, but not super powerful ones.