Full caster change

[barna10]

I've never been a fan of Vancian magic. I think the idea of "burning the spell formula" into the mind of the caster to be a bizarre idea. Useful for resource control, but bizarre.

I'm thinking of changing casters, overall, for my d20 games.

The change would be this...

Start with the Spellcaster class from UA.
Add Scribe Scroll at first level (in addition to the bonus feat).

Then, after choosing arcane or divine, add one of two special abilities (using 'she' and 'her' exclusively to save time) (remember, the class uses the by-the-book spontaneous casting of the Spellcaster class):

Spellbook(Ex): The caster has learned how to utilize a spellbook. She can scribe spells she finds on scrolls, in another spellbook, on cave walls, etc. into her spellbook for later study. The spellcaster can cast spells directly from the spellbook, but each such casting requires a full minute (10 rounds) plus the normal casting time of the spell. This casting time includes searching for the spell, speed reading it, and then reading it. The caster must still provide all components of the spell.

or

Prayers(Su): A divine caster in good standing can entreaty her deity to cast a spell on her behalf. This takes 10 rounds (1 minute) of prayer plus the normal casting time of the spell. The normal rules for casting apply, including the need for a divine focus. Success is determined by a K:Religion check with a DC of 15 + 2x the spell's level. A failed roll means her prayers were not heard or not deemed necessary. Retrying for the same request within the same 24 hour period adds 10 to the DC, and she risks making her deity mad. If she fails the second entreaty attempt, she needs to make a Will save against the same DC. Failure of this save means she won't be able to make any prayer attempts for the next 24 hours.

These would replace Sorcerers, Wizards, Clerics, and possibly Druids.

Thoughts?

[Silly Name]

The first thing that comes to mind is that this would severely impact the combat usefulness of spellcasters. Most fights are done before the ten-round mark, and the caster can't respond dynamically to what happens on the battlefield.

Suppose you want to cast Cure Lethal Wounds on the injured front-line Fighter who is near death. You can't, because this requires you one full minute during which the Fighter gets killed by whatever monster your party is facing.
Or, picture being a wizard who wants to cast a Fireball: you either do so from the shadows, unseen and unheard, or you have the rest of the party shield you from any attempt at blocking your casting.

Speaking of attempts at blocking casters, this would make ranged fighters really good at disrupting a caster's spells, because they can attack them during those 10 rounds of casting, forcing Concentration checks.

Maybe this is what you're going for, but it's going to impact the balance of your games. I'd put in some feats that allow a caster to "memorise" a spell, diminishing the necessary casting time.

[barna10]

The first thing that comes to mind is that this would severely impact the combat usefulness of spellcasters. Most fights are done before the ten-round mark, and the caster can't respond dynamically to what happens on the battlefield.

Suppose you want to cast Cure Lethal Wounds on the injured front-line Fighter who is near death. You can't, because this requires you one full minute during which the Fighter gets killed by whatever monster your party is facing.
Or, picture being a wizard who wants to cast a Fireball: you either do so from the shadows, unseen and unheard, or you have the rest of the party shield you from any attempt at blocking your casting.

Speaking of attempts at blocking casters, this would make ranged fighters really good at disrupting a caster's spells, because they can attack them during those 10 rounds of casting, forcing Concentration checks.

Maybe this is what you're going for, but it's going to impact the balance of your games. I'd put in some feats that allow a caster to "memorise" a spell, diminishing the necessary casting time.

They would still get normal spellcasting from the Spellcaster class (ie near sorcerer casting, 1 less spell per day per level than sorcerers.) This would mean they still have some goto spells that don't require prayers/a spellbook.

[Cosi]

You want to change magic's resource management system from one where spells can easily be used in combat but have sharp daily limits to one where spells essentially cannot be used in combat but have no daily limits.

I literally do not understand how you could possibly think this was a good idea.

Also, as with every time someone tries to fix casters by nerfing the crap out of them, this doesn't do anything to broken caster builds because you're casting planar binding and fabricate in downtime anyway.

[HouseRules]

Well, in AD&D, preparing a spell is 15 minutes × spell level per spell. A single 9th level spell takes 135 minutes, so preparing 3 of them takes 405 minutes, that is 6 hours and 45 minutes. Way too long to survive battles. This is how game stay balanced! Magic is very rare.

In AD&D 2E, preparing a spell is reduced to 10 minutes × spell level per spell. Most characters will not finish preparing all of their spells. A single 9th level spell takes 90 minutes, so preparing 4 of them takes 6 hours. Of course, this means that most casters would just deal with using their multiple low level spells for most issues, and divination is very important to ensure they are dealing with the correct issues.

Old School games is about fighting large armies of low level monsters most of the time, and fighting high level monsters rarely.

In 3E Spells are of

Free Action (3.0) Immediate/Swift Action (3.5)- Like Feather Fall
Partial Action (3.0) Standard Action (3.5) - Most Spells
Standard Action (3.0) Full Round Action (3.5) - Strong Spells
10 minutes - Like Resurrection, these ritual like spells should not use spell slots.


3E is about level scaling, and we know how well level scaling works right?

[barna10]

You want to change magic's resource management system from one where spells can easily be used in combat but have sharp daily limits to one where spells essentially cannot be used in combat but have no daily limits.

I literally do not understand how you could possibly think this was a good idea.

Also, as with every time someone tries to fix casters by nerfing the crap out of them, this doesn't do anything to broken caster builds because you're casting planar binding and fabricate in downtime anyway.

Again...please read my original post. Changing all casters to spontaneous casters via the Spellcaster generic class from UA, then adding one of the two special abilities. Simplifying spellcasters, slightly nerfing spell selection, hardly that dramatic.

[Silly Name]

They would still get normal spellcasting from the Spellcaster class (ie near sorcerer casting, 1 less spell per day per level than sorcerers.) This would mean they still have some goto spells that don't require prayers/a spellbook.

So, they still have classical Vancian casting for when they need a spell cast as a standard action and they get an infinite usage of spells, as long as they can take 1 minute of downtime? And you're locking Divine spells behind a skill check, while Arcane spells, the ones with the most game-breaking potential, have no such issue? :confused:

[Gnaeus]

Again...please read my original post. Changing all casters to spontaneous casters via the Spellcaster generic class from UA, then adding one of the two special abilities. Simplifying spellcasters, slightly nerfing spell selection, hardly that dramatic.

Cosi is exactly correct. I don’t care how much you limit my up front casting if I can cast any spell without limit from my spellbook. There are plenty of hour/level buffs, and every party member will have all of them. Plenty of 10m/level buffs too. And every party member will have all the good ones. If I’m a wizard, I should love this. And if I don’t have useful actions in combat, by level 7 my endless minion army will give me all the combat actions I can handle.

[barna10]

So, they still have classical Vancian casting for when they need a spell cast as a standard action and they get an infinite usage of spells, as long as they can take 1 minute of downtime? And you're locking Clerics and Druids behind a skill check, while Wizards, the ones with the most game-breaking spells, have no such issue? :confused:

Yes, confusion.

"Vancian" refers to memorizing spells and losing them after casting. That is going away. They are all now spontaneous casters like Sorcerers.

Wizards need to search out spells, and are dependent on a fragile spellbook. Divine casters get access to their entire list and simply need a skill check (which should really be a social check, like Charisma, not K:Religion).

And Wizards having "the most game-breaking" spells is an oxymoron. The spells are defined in the game and work within the confines of the game, therefore they cannot be "game breaking". Forgive the rant, but the game is meant to be broken since the spells appear in the rulebook.

[Cosi]

Again...please read my original post. Changing all casters to spontaneous casters via the Spellcaster generic class from UA, then adding one of the two special abilities. Simplifying spellcasters, slightly nerfing spell selection, hardly that dramatic.

So the ritual thing still uses a spell slot?

In that case, this just seems worse than the variety of casters that exist in the game already. Sorcerers and Dread Necromancers are interesting and worthwhile things for people to be allowed to be. No reason to go to a single spellcasting class.

[barna10]

So the ritual thing still uses a spell slot?

In that case, this just seems worse than the variety of casters that exist in the game already. Sorcerers and Dread Necromancers are interesting and worthwhile things for people to be allowed to be. No reason to go to a single spellcasting class.

No, simply no. Please reread. Nowhere does it say the "ritual thing" requires spell slots.

[Gallowglass]

I get it. You are replacing the chasis with having some slots that you can cast whatever you want off your spelllist and the ability to get free spells as long as you take a while to cast them.

I am unfamiliar with the UA spellcaster, so I'm making some assumptions here. Can they spontaneously cast any spell they know? That seems to be the context given.

So your mechanic means that the spellcaster would cast every non combat spell as a ritual. After all, no one cares if you take 10 minutes to cast a spell out of combat as there is no time constraint implicitly applied anymore. So you are just giving the spellcaster infinite utility out of combat allowing them to preserve all their base spellslots for combat. You are increasing the power on an already powerful class.

Also, your fluff doesn't work. If they can cast any spell they know spontaneously, then they shouldn't have to refer to the spellbook to cast it slower.

Even if you make them pick a limited number of spells at the beginning of the day to use spontaneously, forcing them to slowcast anything they don't reserve ahead of time, they will jsut take their most useful combat spells for spontaneous because they can ritual cast all their prep and utility spells.

Moving from Vancian spellcasting to a non vancian system requires you to establish some power control mechanic or it will never work. Some kind of mana pool or spellpoint system. Depending on time to limit utility will not work in most games because its too easy to slip out of combat speed to normal speed. And in normal speed, no one cares how long you take to cast spells.

[HouseRules]

Build on the keeping the casters balance, Previously Spontaneous Casters should take 2/3 the time to cast a spell.

10 minutes for full casters means 6 minutes 42 seconds for spontaneous casters.

[Elkad]

I'll have every hour/level or longer buff up. Always. On the whole party. Starting at 9th level that includes most of the "you" restricted spells, as I can Magic Jar into each party member and buff them all.
Important spells (Mind Blank) can be stacked multiple times, so you'd have to dispel them all.
Top it off with a few dozen CL-boosted day/level spells (like Magic Aura) for defense against area dispels.

10min/level buffs will be up in huge quantities by mid-level as well.

Even 1min/level stuff can be reset before every new room in the dungeon. If I'm 9th level, I can put up 8 of them for every fight.

[Silly Name]

Yes, confusion.

"Vancian" refers to memorizing spells and losing them after casting. That is going away. They are all now spontaneous casters like Sorcerers.
I agree that that's not "proper" Vancian casting, but they still have daily spell slots. How does this fit in with the lore you're trying to establish?

Plus, as others have said, this will only make casters more powerful than they are, even if they have less spell known, simply because they can ritual-spam any non-combat spell.


Wizards need to search out spells, and are dependent on a fragile spellbook. Divine casters get access to their entire list and simply need a skill check (which should really be a social check, like Charisma, not K:Religion).

This disparity between arcane and divine puzzles me. Why give the Divine casters a chance to fail, and fail hard, at their ritual casting, while Arcane casters have no such issue? The "fragile spellbook" doesn't really hold, unless you, as a DM, go out of your way to target said spell book, which can be easily be protected anyway. It's not like wizards walk into combat waving their precious tomes of arcane knowledge around.


And Wizards having "the most game-breaking" spells is an oxymoron. The spells are defined in the game and work within the confines of the game, therefore they cannot be "game breaking". Forgive the rant, but the game is meant to be broken since the spells appear in the rulebook.

Ok then. Arcane spellcasters have access to spells that seriously upset the balance of the game. They don't "break" it, but they still tend to be more powerful and have deeper, greater ramifications than divine spells. This is why I find it odd that you're making divine casters have a chance at failing ritual casters, while arcane casters can just spam it.


Depending on time to limit utility will not work in most games because its too easy to slip out of combat speed to normal speed. And in normal speed, no one cares how long you take to cast spells.

I have a very small exception to make of this. In normal speed, ten minutes is very little. An hour or more is actually a lot, if your DM is smart enough to keep track of this. If it takes you two hours to cast Mage Armor and Shield, you just burnt through two hours of adventuring, and buffing your whole party might take so long that by the time you're done, the first buff you cast has already vanished.

I'd go with a 10 minutes*Spell level rule for ritual casting, rather than flat 10 minutes.

[HouseRules]

Book Worms have CR 1/8 and they can destroy any Spellbook easily. Just make them more common?

[barna10]

Also, your fluff doesn't work. If they can cast any spell they know spontaneously, then they shouldn't have to refer to the spellbook to cast it slower.



They are limited like a sorcerer in spells they "know". Their spellbook is not "spells know".

[ericgrau]

Spellbook(Ex): The caster has learned how to utilize a spellbook. She can scribe spells she finds on scrolls, in another spellbook, on cave walls, etc. into her spellbook for later study. The spellcaster can cast spells directly from the spellbook, but each such casting requires a full minute (10 rounds) plus the normal casting time of the spell. This casting time includes searching for the spell, speed reading it, and then reading it. The caster must still provide all components of the spell.

or

Prayers(Su): A divine caster in good standing can entreaty her deity to cast a spell on her behalf. This takes 10 rounds (1 minute) of prayer plus the normal casting time of the spell. The normal rules for casting apply, including the need for a divine focus. Success is determined by a K:Religion check with a DC of 15 + 2x the spell's level. A failed roll means her prayers were not heard or not deemed necessary. Retrying for the same request within the same 24 hour period adds 10 to the DC, and she risks making her deity mad. If she fails the second entreaty attempt, she needs to make a Will save against the same DC. Failure of this save means she won't be able to make any prayer attempts for the next 24 hours.
Thoughts?
There are too many abusable between combat spells like utility and buff for this to work. If I found out we were about to enter a dungeon I'd totally stack 9 10 min/lvl buffs plus maybe 1-2 min/lev or rnd/lev. Or basically insta-dump most of my spell levels below the top 2. Or keep a list of extremely obscure and narrow utility spells to use as required. Like contact other plane as an extreme example. But basically I'd be ready for everything. The TO mage isn't quite as good but suddenly he becomes the commonplace PO mage. Suddenly everyone breaks the game. Not just the crazy people who put in tons of complicated planning and tricks.

You could pull an idea from 5e and make certain spells "rituals". That basically means the quoted rules apply to them and only them. Rituals may still be known and cast normally too. But this way you keep abusable spells from becoming rituals. I should note that 5e clerics need to have the spell prepared (but it is not expended once cast as a ritual), while 5e wizards need only have it in their spellbook.

[barna10]

This change is highly dm-specific. I can balance this by controlling spells found, presenting environmental challenges, making the spellbook save versus environment, etc.

Also, there are limits on the size of the book.

I agree, this would be crazy in a world where you make daily runs to magic-mart or where you have a weak dm.

I could care less about balance because my dm CR is higher than any monsters. I can challenge the best of 'em.

[TiaC]

This change is highly dm-specific. I can balance this by controlling spells found, presenting environmental challenges, making the spellbook save versus environment, etc.

Also, there are limits on the size of the book.

I agree, this would be crazy in a world where you make daily runs to magic-mart or where you have a weak dm.

I could care less about balance because my dm CR is higher than any monsters. I can challenge the best of 'em.

If you don't actually want to listen to what people are telling you, why are you asking for advice?

[barna10]

If you don't actually want to listen to what people are telling you, why are you asking for advice?

Sorry, me agreeing with someone is now me not listening to advice? Very weird how that could come to pass without me taking advice...

[Silly Name]

This change is highly dm-specific. I can balance this by controlling spells found, presenting environmental challenges, making the spellbook save versus environment, etc.

Also, there are limits on the size of the book.

Sure, you can make all of those things. But your players will respond by taking measures to keep their books safe. Controlling spell found is going to be a bit of an issue, because I assume you are going to let characters learn spells which make sense to cast as a ritual (see my above example of ritual casting Fireball: it just isn't viable).

You can keep them away from the truly ridicolous stuff (like Planar Bind or Wish, Ice Assassin, Soul Jar et al), but there are cases where ritual casting free of charge is going to make things way easier on your characters, such as using multiple divination spells. Plus, you could simply ban those spells in normal play.


I agree, this would be crazy in a world where you make daily runs to magic-mart or where you have a weak dm.

I could care less about balance because my dm CR is higher than any monsters. I can challenge the best of 'em.

So, what exactly is a "weak DM"?

[barna10]

Sure, you can make all of those things. But your players will respond by taking measures to keep their books safe. Controlling spell found is going to be a bit of an issue, because I assume you are going to let characters learn spells which make sense to cast as a ritual (see my above example of ritual casting Fireball: it just isn't viable).

You can keep them away from the truly ridicolous stuff (like Planar Bind or Wish, Ice Assassin, Soul Jar et al), but there are cases where ritual casting free of charge is going to make things way easier on your characters, such as using multiple divination spells. Plus, you could simply ban those spells in normal play.



So, what exactly is a "weak DM"?

A "weak DM" is one that can't control the game through a good story or by simply being able to roll with any power level. This says nothing about preferred power level. In my experience, I haven't run into a "game-breaking" situation. I've let players expand their characters in any way they want and stepped-up my game in response.

I'll outlaw clearly stupid crap, but "balance" issues are rarely a problem.

[Saintheart]

Prayers(Su): A divine caster in good standing can entreaty her deity to cast a spell on her behalf. This takes 10 rounds (1 minute) of prayer plus the normal casting time of the spell. The normal rules for casting apply, including the need for a divine focus. Success is determined by a K:Religion check with a DC of 15 + 2x the spell's level. A failed roll means her prayers were not heard or not deemed necessary. Retrying for the same request within the same 24 hour period adds 10 to the DC, and she risks making her deity mad. If she fails the second entreaty attempt, she needs to make a Will save against the same DC. Failure of this save means she won't be able to make any prayer attempts for the next 24 hours.

These would replace Sorcerers, Wizards, Clerics, and possibly Druids.

Thoughts?

DC 15 + 2xspell level gives us a maximum score of 33 to hit.

Divine Caster first entreaties his god for Divine Insight or Guidance of the Avatar. The check for these spells is DC 19. Knowledge (Religion) can be pushed to +18 with an 17 in INT, Skill Focus (Knowledge: Religion), a +2 Masterwork Tool, a +2 competence item and a maxed out Knowledge Religion check at level 5 since the max rank is 8. +3 +3 +2 +8 +2 = +18, thanks for that, Divine Insight and/or Guidance of the Avatar is now active at Cleric level 5, i.e. I won't fail to cast a second level spell if I have a roughly +4 item of INT, blown one feat, a +2 competence item, and maxed what is explicitly a class skill to me by virtue of UA Spellcaster's class skill list.

Anyway, one successful casting of Guidance of the Avatar means I'll never fail to cast my second spell which I'll cast one minute later. Divine Insight only gives me a maximum of +15, but I only have to hit 33. By the time I hit Cleric 10 the skill check will be entirely irrelevant.

What it strikes me you're doing here is trying to lock out mages and clerics going with "lolnope" spells, summons, and direct damage effects, and tying them to the heavily-powered-down Spellcaster class. The problem being that since you're not banning metamagic , it pushes these guys to Persistent Spell-focused builds and hour/level spells, of which there's still plenty of variety to wreck what comes after them. At least they don't have to worry about whether to choose between DMM Quicken or DMM Persistent, this is now a direction from your DM to go down the CoDzilla path. And as said, for divine casters you're only hindering them up to level 5, at which point the Knowledge Religion check is automatically passed. And you can expect them to attempt to optimise that skill modifier, since you've basically gated their primary ability right behind the check; a rational player will incorporate that need to pass the check into their playstyle, only a fool is going to actually go out into the adventuring world without assurance that they've got their primary spellcasting ability available.

EDIT: ...indeed if I have a wand of Divine Insight to start the game with or a custom item of +2 competence bonus to Knowledge Religion, it does much the same thing. (I also altered some math because the check 15 + 2 x spell level, not 15 + spell level.)

A Greater Skillshard at the exorbitant cost of 300 gp and which can be assigned to any skill gives me +5 to the check and makes guaranteed spell success available even earlier or for less invested skill points. Indeed at Cleric 5, the Greater Skillshard will allow me to reliably cast my entire spell list without having to resort to Divine Insight shenanigans: INT 17 (+3) + Max Skill ranks (+8) + Greater Skillshard (+5) + Skill Focus (+3) + Masterwork Tool (+2) = 21, which is the DC for Cleric 3 spells.

[Gallowglass]

This change is highly dm-specific. I can balance this by controlling spells found, presenting environmental challenges, making the spellbook save versus environment, etc.

Also, there are limits on the size of the book.

I agree, this would be crazy in a world where you make daily runs to magic-mart or where you have a weak dm.

I could care less about balance because my dm CR is higher than any monsters. I can challenge the best of 'em.

aaaand with that, I'm outta here. No point discussing with someone this myopically blinded to their own idea.

Have fun everybody who stays!

[barna10]

As with anything in this format, optimization can suck the life out of it.

So, I challenge the brains here to come up with an alternate mechanic for the divine side of this.

And note: both casters are still limited by caster level to determine the highest level of spell the can read/cast or prayer/cast.

[One Step Two]

Okay, so using the UA Generic Spellcaster is clever.
If I understand the opening post correctly the core ideas is that the caster gains access to a set of spells they know, their personal repertoire hat they can draw on at all times, limited to a number of casting of times per day. But with access to their spell/prayer book, they can learn any other spell and cast them as a ritual.

This removes a lot of their immediate power, but gives them a larger set to draw from for different acts. The use of Scribe Scroll and access to a book of spells means that they can prepare other spells before an adventure, but they are one-shot items, giving their spells a cost. I like this as it adds a greater opportunity cost to a spell, where before it was just a matter of 8 hours rest, and preparing a new slot the following day. Now having a 9th level spell that can solve a problem can take days of time, and should not be spent lightly.

My only thought is that when casting a spell as a Ritual, either Arcane or Divine, both should require a Knowledge (Arcane or Religion) check to ensure the ritual works, and the failure cost is the same, they cannot attempt it again until they have rested 8 hours to clear their minds.

[barna10]

Okay, so using the UA Generic Spellcaster is clever.
If I understand the opening post correctly the core ideas is that the caster gains access to a set of spells they know, their personal repertoire hat they can draw on at all times, limited to a number of casting of times per day. But with access to their spell/prayer book, they can learn any other spell and cast them as a ritual.

This removes a lot of their immediate power, but gives them a larger set to draw from for different acts. The use of Scribe Scroll and access to a book of spells means that they can prepare other spells before an adventure, but they are one-shot items, giving their spells a cost. I like this as it adds a greater opportunity cost to a spell, where before it was just a matter of 8 hours rest, and preparing a new slot the following day. Now having a 9th level spell that can solve a problem can take days of time, and should not be spent lightly.

My only thought is that when casting a spell as a Ritual, either Arcane or Divine, both should require a Knowledge (Arcane or Religion) check to ensure the ritual works, and the failure cost is the same, they cannot attempt it again until they have rested 8 hours to clear their minds.

I like the suggestions, thanks!

[ExLibrisMortis]

You can just refluff Vancian magic, if it's such a horrible system to you...

I never read the original Vance, so my headcanon might be way out there, but my understanding is that "memorization" is something of a misnomer, and it is certainly not the term that 3.5 uses. Spellcasters prepare spells, which is a complex process that stores the structure of the spell in the caster's body (or mind or soul, if you prefer). The spell is--from the moment of preparation to the time of casting--stored on a hair-trigger, and can be completed with a moment's effort, which involves the arcane gestures, sounds, components etcetera that are, to the untrained eye, the only requirements for world-altering powers. In other words: spellcasters don't "forget" spells after casting. There are, however, only so many separate hair-trigger rituals that you can safely contain, and you can't throw a primed grenade twice, so to speak.

By contrast, spontaneous spellcasters always have the structures of the spells they know at hand, as part of their innate connection to magic, but they cannot change them at will.


In other words, I don't see your point, either in the fluff objection or in the mechanical fix. It's clearly a very good idea to prepare spells if you have the ability to do so, because the alternative is taking ten minutes to cast a spell from your spellbook. The only thing your houserule would change is that you're making the (formerly) bad alternative free, which'll definitely make it ubiquitous, but won't change the fluff at all. Spontaneous casters still have specific spell structures stored in their mind, it just takes a little more magic to change 'em up (psychic reformation, Ancestral Relic runestaves, that sort of thing).

I think you'd be much better off going with spell points.


Edit: The description of prepared casting on page 169 of the Player's Handbook reads as follows: "Before setting out on a dangerous journey with her companions, Mialee sits in her study and opens her spellbook. First she pages through it, selecting the spells that she thinks will be most useful on her adventure. When she has chosen the spells she wants (which could mean choosing the same spell more than once), she meditates on the pages that describe each one. The arcane symbols, which she has penned by hand, would be nonsense to anyone else, but they unlock power from her mind. As she concentrates, she all but finishes casting each spell that she prepares. Each spell now lacks only its final trigger. When she closes the book, her mind is full of spells, each of which she can complete at will in a brief time". I guess my memory was pretty accurate on this one.

[Analytica]

I've never been a fan of Vancian magic. I think the idea of "burning the spell formula" into the mind of the caster to be a bizarre idea. Useful for resource control, but bizarre. (... )
These would replace Sorcerers, Wizards, Clerics, and possibly Druids.

Thoughts?

I like it.

[barna10]

I like it.
Thanks for the reply!

[Saintheart]

As with anything in this format, optimization can suck the life out of it.

So, I challenge the brains here to come up with an alternate mechanic for the divine side of this.

And note: both casters are still limited by caster level to determine the highest level of spell the can read/cast or prayer/cast.

Couple of points:

(1) This is not optimisation, not by a long shot. If you want to see what optimisation of skill bonuses can do, try ExLibrisMortis' rather delightful discussion of how Sindri the greatest blacksmith alive is basically only level three. If anything, the wiser posters out here are probably chuckling good-naturedly at the fact I spent a feat slot, a maxed skill rank, a set of masterwork tools, and a Skill Shard to push Knowledge: Religion to a +17 at level 5.

(2) All due respect, but I think there's a difference between optimisation and raising the chances that you'll be able to actually use the one ability you've got that amounts to your contribution to the game. Let's say the fighter was told his attack rolls automatically miss if he hasn't succeeded on a DC 15 Craft (Weapon Maintenance) check that morning. In what world would any fighter not be making that Craft the first thing he assigns skill points to at level up? Why on Earth would that count as optimisation to minimise or eliminate a drawback which has a decent chance to literally lock out all your significant abilities for the entire day?

(3) As indicated by my skill point calculations, casters being limited by caster level to determine the highest level of spell they can read or cast doesn't have much of an impact on the chances they're going to be able to cast the spell past about level 4. Once you have a Knowledge (Religion) check at +18, the caster can always -- always -- cast Divine Insight or Guidance of the Avatar. Once they can cast that, given the highest skill check you have to hit is 33, they'll never fail the skill check again. Sure, it cuts their spell capacity per day by half if they want to reliably cast the spells, but as they get higher and higher level and they keep their skill ranks maxed, lower spell capacity is diminished because they'll pass Knowledge (Religion) checks for lower level spells automatically by dint of their skill modifier rather than casting Guidance of the Avatar. It will only be for the highest level spells that they'll need skill-boosting spells, and depending on the metamagic options they have available, the fact they have half the number than usual won't be a significant impost either.

EDIT: Indeed, they won't have half the number necessarily. Divine Insight and Guidance of the Avatar are level 2 spells, so the Spellcaster is likely to fill up his level 2 balance with those spells for the day once he's casting lower level spells regularly without a problem. High level spell capacity won't be impeded because they'll generally have enough skillboosting spells in the magazine to cast all their higher level slots.

In short, what you have is a check that hobbles spellcasting until the caster can reliably cast second level spells, i.e. until Spellcaster level 5. If they have wands of Divine Insight, it's earlier than that.

(4) As for coming up with an alternate mechanic for the divine side of this: that would depend on what you're actually trying to achieve by it. If you're trying to just lolnope or loltryagain divine spell selection for the day, don't go linking it to Knowledge: Religion, just make it a flat 50% failure chance with no retry on that spell at Spellcaster 1-5 and cut the failure chance by about 5% every 2 levels or something. That would far better represent a capricious, mythical Greek god granting boons than this system. Or maybe skip the whole 1 minute casting time and perhaps look at an analogue to the Crusader maneuvers mechanic out of Tome of Battle: let the cleric specify a decent library of spells at each level, then the deity randomly grants a few of them each day. But again, I think you need to ask yourself what you're mechanically trying to do to casting in 3.5, above and beyond the dislike for Vancian magic as such; what aspects bother you about casters, and what mechanics can you perform to minimise those botherworthy concerns?

[barna10]

After I spend more than 5 minutes actually thinking about the idea, I'll come up with a better mechanic, one based on the priest's standing with her god.

[One Step Two]

After I spend more than 5 minutes actually thinking about the idea, I'll come up with a better mechanic, one based on the priest's standing with her god.

A simple version is to make it a Caster level check, one that can get a +2 bonus for having 5 Ranks in Knowledge(religion), representing their closeness to their deity, and their understanding of the rituals in the Church

[JNAProductions]

This idea looks just plain awful. You're minorly nerfing in-combat casting, but allowing pretty much infinite out-of-combat casting of any spell they know-that will break the game far, FAR harder than the minor nerfs you've imposed.

For reference? Let's say I have a third level Wizard. That means 1 hour/level spells last three hours.

I can have 163 horses at a time. For free. Unlimited usage. At level three.

What foe that's even vaguely appropriate for a level three party can handle an endless stream of three-digits worth of horses?

[ericgrau]

As with anything in this format, optimization can suck the life out of it.

So, I challenge the brains here to come up with an alternate mechanic for the divine side of this.

And note: both casters are still limited by caster level to determine the highest level of spell the can read/cast or prayer/cast.

Tag certain spells as rituals. Only these may be cast directly from a spellbook. Divine casters and spontaneous casters must have the spell prepared, but it is not expended when cast as a ritual. Alternatively you can give divine casters prayerbooks with rituals, phylacteries with religious texts inside (not the lich kind) or similar. Spontaneous casters might likewise get various baubles or devices. Anything where multiple castings could create a pile of something is right out as a ritual. Utility spells where multiple copies are redundant are great candidates for rituals. No checks are required to cast a ritual, only 10 minutes plus the normal casting time.

[Mordaedil]

After I spend more than 5 minutes actually thinking about the idea, I'll come up with a better mechanic, one based on the priest's standing with her god.

I've always felt divine magic was a bit too closely matched to arcane magic, so I thought up an alternative where the cleric acts a bit more as a warlock, except least, lesser, greater and dark invocations are replaced by levels of prayer (favor, power, might, miracle) and turning undead mechanic is worked into the spellcasting itself, but they can pray for magic after every conflict, but have a smaller selection of spells available to them.

And unlike the warlock, they aren't unlimited, but they aren't scaled as slowly either.

[Anymage]

Spells are the main source of cool stuff in 3.x. That's a problem, but making them unusable in combat just reduces combats to basic fighters taking another swing, and occasionally monster special abilities messing with the PCs. There is no simple fix.

If you want to adjust for flavor, you can make a quick n' dirty fix by making everybody into a sorcerer (or generic spellcaster), and then create a feat with Scribe Scroll as a prerequisite that mimics a psion's ability to manifest from a power stone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#manifestAnUnknownPowerFr omAnothersPowersKnown). Spellcasters will only have a few innate "base" powers, and scribing high level spells into your spellbook will be costly (they're basically scrolls), but a character with a wide enough library can look up ways to channel their natural magical power to different ends. Matches the wizard's niche without needing a memorization mechanic.

Just be aware that the thing that takes the wizard from "good" to "stupid good" is their ability to pick just the right tool for whatever task, so long as they have at least a day's advance notice. Cast-from-scrolls wizard is even quicker to pull an effect out of his hat. Be prepared for any challenge that can be solved by a convenient spell to cease being a challenge.

[barna10]

If I implement this in my next game, I anticipate spellbooks becoming a hot commodity. Thieves will target casters to steal their spellbooks. This will be profitable since every arcane caster will most likely be carrying one.

How often do DMs have the NPCs steal a PCs spellbook? Probably not often enough. IF this is the case, why even require a spellbook?

Same with clerics, have the NPCs take the cleric's holy symbol! Easiest way to stop a DMM spammer.

I mentioned earlier about "weak DMs". One of the things, totally my opinion, that causes "balance" and "game-breaking" issues is the lack of pseudo-realism in games. How often are your PCs subject to revenge? How often are they the target of thieves after they've accumulated more wealth than a small kingdom? How often do local rulers band together to rid their lands of the new upstarts? How often do the gods send Deva's or Demons to deal with the PC menace after they raid a temple?

My games are rife with stuff like this. Maybe it's why I don't see this change as an issue...

[ExLibrisMortis]

Maybe it's why I don't see this change as an issue...
No, that's something else...

Did you actually give a reason for not using the spell point system?

[Silly Name]

"Why don't you take away the tool which is necessary for the class to even function in the first place?" sounds like a loaded question to me.

I don't target a Wizard's spell-book or a Cleric's holy symbol most of the time because it's kind of a **** move. It's like sending waves of Rust Monsters at the Fighter and Barbarian[1]: putting the items that a character relies upon under constant threat isn't fun for most players, and it certainly isn't fun for me as a DM.

I mean, if I introduce a foe which specialises in fighting spellcasters then, yes, by all means they will try to harm/steal the Wizard's spell-book, but it's not like the petty thief in the tavern is going to try and pocket the big book when he can easily cut a coin purse and be done with it. As I have said, if you threaten a Wizard's spell-book, the Wizard will just take extra steps to ensure the book's safety, but that's hardly an interesting adventure for the rest of the party.

Plus, let's suppose you manage to take away the spell-book: the Wizard is now going to be a dead weight until they can get back the book, or acquire a new one. It turns the character into something barely better than a Commoner, and nobody wants to take care of a Commoner while you're fighting a dragon.

[1]Let's all remember that Rust Monsters are there for when you screw things up and give characters magic items that are way too powerful, or want to give them a challenge they can't overcome just by beating it senseless.

[barna10]

No, that's something else...

Did you actually give a reason for not using the spell point system?

My reasoning: I don't see the spell point system as much different than spell slots, especially if you allow versatile spellcaster.

[barna10]

"Why don't you take away the tool which is necessary for the class to even function in the first place?" sounds like a loaded question to me.

I don't target a Wizard's spell-book or a Cleric's holy symbol most of the time because it's kind of a **** move. It's like sending waves of Rust Monsters at the Fighter and Barbarian[1]: putting the items that a character relies upon under constant threat isn't fun for most players, and it certainly isn't fun for me as a DM.

Funny. I mention that I challenge the players and this turns into an me being a ****. So, sending waves of creatures carrying pointy things at the PCs is just peachy, but taking away their toys is a **** move? In other words, taking theirs lives is just fine, but don't take their toys? Weird.



I mean, if I introduce a foe which specialises in fighting spellcasters then, yes, by all means they will try to harm/steal the Wizard's spell-book, but it's not like the petty thief in the tavern is going to try and pocket the big book when he can easily cut a coin purse and be done with it. As I have said, if you threaten a Wizard's spell-book, the Wizard will just take extra steps to ensure the book's safety, but that's hardly an interesting adventure for the rest of the party.

If you don't challenge the players, what's the use in playing the game? One way to challenge them is to make them secure their gear. This may not be a fun idea for you, and that's fine, but why have thieves in a world if they never steal anything worth stealing? Do all the thieves have an INT below 9? Are there no Chaotic Evil mages that would hire thieves to steal another mages spellbook?



Plus, let's suppose you manage to take away the spell-book: the Wizard is now going to be a dead weight until they can get back the book, or acquire a new one. It turns the character into something barely better than a Commoner, and nobody wants to take care of a Commoner while you're fighting a dragon.

Why in the heck would you go after a dragon if you're not at full strength?!



[1]Let's all remember that Rust Monsters are there for when you screw things up and give characters magic items that are way too powerful, or want to give them a challenge they can't overcome just by beating it senseless.
Sorry, I find this lacking. This sounds too much like a video game for me. 50% or more of the challenges in my games are "challenge(s) they can't overcome just by beating it senseless."

[HouseRules]

Spell Mastery
( Player's Handbook v.3.5, p. 100)

[Special]
You are so intimately familiar with certain spells that you don't need a spellbook to prepare them anymore.

Prerequisite
Wizard level 1,

Required for
Familiar Spell (Und) , Uncanny Forethought (EE) ,

Benefit
Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells equal to your Intelligence modifier that you already know. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook.

Normal
Without this feat, you must use a spellbook to prepare all your spells, except read magic.

With Spell Mastery, a Wizard also have Spell Known.

Of course, destroying spell books is suppose to be a way of balancing overpowered spell casters. DMs are going easy on Wizards causing the game to be imbalance.

[barna10]

With Spell Mastery, a Wizard also have Spell Known.

Of course, destroying spell books is suppose to be a way of balancing overpowered spell casters. DMs are going easy on Wizards causing the game to be imbalance.

Thanks for the reference.

And I totally agree with you.

[Silly Name]

Funny. I mention that I challenge the players and this turns into an me being a ****. So, sending waves of creatures carrying pointy things at the PCs is just peachy, but taking away their toys is a **** move? In other words, taking theirs lives is just fine, but don't take their toys? Weird.
When a character depends entirely on a certain "toy" to function, taking it away is worse than trying to kill the character: a dead character can be brought back, or at least go out with a bang. Take away the fighter's swords and armors, or the wizard's spells, and they are rendered ineffectual, and it's boring to play a character who can't do anything worthwhile.

And it's not like you're suggesting anti-magic zones or monsters with DR - those are temporary and require clever thinking. An arms race between the DM and the player to protect your character's gear sounds needlessly antagonistic to me.


If you don't challenge the players, what's the use in playing the game? One way to challenge them is to make them secure their gear. This may not be a fun idea for you, and that's fine, but why have thieves in a world if they never steal anything worth stealing? Do all the thieves have an INT below 9? Are there no Chaotic Evil mages that would hire thieves to steal another mages spellbook?
A spell-book isn't worth stealing most of the time. For one, unless you time your robbery right, the Wizard still has spells prepared to make you suffer, or has allies who want the Wizard to have arcane might at his disposal; and it's hard to sell - quick coins are better than trying to sell a book whose content you don't even understand, and it's safer to not get on the bad side of a wizard.

And as I've said, there are situations where I might consider attempting to steal something from the party - but I like it to have story reasons. Maybe they got in trouble with a Thieves' Guild, and so they steal their stuff as "payment for their debts". But that's not the norm: I can't "balance" Wizards by putting them under the threat of losing their spell-book, because that's not balancing, that's threatening to take a character from 10 to 0 - it's still as unbalanced, just in a different sense.


Why in the heck would you go after a dragon if you're not at full strength?!
Which is why I tend to not target a character's gear: if I diminish their strength, they waste time on restoring that strength - time which I'd rather spend advancing the campaign's plot or the character's stories.

[ExLibrisMortis]

My reasoning: I don't see the spell point system as much different than spell slots, especially if you allow versatile spellcaster.
If it's not that different from spell slots (which it is, especially if you enhance it with some converted psionic material, but that's not the point), why don't you use it? It is a far more effective replacement of Vancian casting than the generic spellcaster, which doesn't specifically change casting at all, and is still fairly Vancian.

Hell, just declaring that prepared casters are now spontaneous would be better than using the generic spellcaster.

[HouseRules]

Spell Points is stronger and more flexible than Versatile Spell Caster except for casting Level 2 Spells.

[barna10]

When a character depends entirely on a certain "toy" to function, taking it away is worse than trying to kill the character: a dead character can be brought back, or at least go out with a bang. Take away the fighter's swords and armors, or the wizard's spells, and they are rendered ineffectual, and it's boring to play a character who can't do anything worthwhile.

Like you wouldn't kill a caster's familiar mid adventure? A build that relied on it? Would that build now have an immortal familiar?



And it's not like you're suggesting anti-magic zones or monsters with DR - those are temporary and require clever thinking. An arms race between the DM and the player to protect your character's gear sounds needlessly antagonistic to me.

It's not antagonistic anymore than the normal player-dm relationship. If the pcs don't abuse their powers, theirs no need to go crazy and nerf them.



A spell-book isn't worth stealing most of the time.

Er..what? Have you ever added up the value of spells in even a 4th level caster's spellbook?



For one, unless you time your robbery right, the Wizard still has spells prepared to make you suffer, or has allies who want the Wizard to have arcane might at his disposal; and it's hard to sell - quick coins are better than trying to sell a book whose content you don't even understand, and it's safer to not get on the bad side of a wizard.

Sorry, short-sighted. Why wouldn't another wizard hire a thief to steal the spellbook of a rival, or one that he'd witnessed tossing around high level spells?



And as I've said, there are situations where I might consider attempting to steal something from the party - but I like it to have story reasons. Maybe they got in trouble with a Thieves' Guild, and so they steal their stuff as "payment for their debts". But that's not the norm: I can't "balance" Wizards by putting them under the threat of losing their spell-book, because that's not balancing, that's threatening to take a character from 10 to 0 - it's still as unbalanced, just in a different sense.

So I suppose your parties never set guards at camp, always leave their excess gear sitting in a hotel room, and just leave their horses sitting outside a cave as they go to kill the dragon?



Which is why I tend to not target a character's gear: if I diminish their strength, they waste time on restoring that strength - time which I'd rather spend advancing the campaign's plot or the character's stories.
Sorry, again short-sighted. That "wasted time" can often be some the best gaming experiences. Sorry, I feel your are missing out.

[JNAProductions]

Like you wouldn't kill a caster's familiar mid adventure? A build that relied on it? Would that build now have an immortal familiar?

The difference is that a familiar-reliant build likely has a tough-as-nails familiar. They're EXPECTED to be able to take a hit, like any other party member. So if they die, it should be because the players goofed and made tactical or strategic mistakes.


It's not antagonistic anymore than the normal player-dm relationship. If the pcs don't abuse their powers, theirs no need to go crazy and nerf them.

"The players are too powerful, so I, the all-powerful DM, will make them weaker."

What exactly constitutes abuse of power, to you?


Er..what? Have you ever added up the value of spells in even a 4th level caster's spellbook?

Who are you selling it to? And how are you selling it safely when there's a mad-as-hell adventuring party after you?


Sorry, short-sighted. Why wouldn't another wizard hire a thief to steal the spellbook of a rival, or one that he'd witnessed tossing around high level spells?

Because that powerful caster most likely has powerful friends. Also, M.A.D. There's a long-standing tradition around spellcasters to not steal each other's books, because otherwise, not only will EVERYONE do it, if they fail to get a good book in time, they'll be reduced to the level of the common folk, and no one wants that. (Well, no caster wants that.)


So I suppose your parties never set guards at camp, always leave their excess gear sitting in a hotel room, and just leave their horses sitting outside a cave as they go to kill the dragon?

What excess gear? It should all fit in your Handy Haversack.

What horses? Illusory steeds are much better. (Can't remember the name of the spell, off-hand, but I know it exists.) Or Overland Flight. Or Teleportation. Or [INSERT ANY OTHER OPTION HERE].


Sorry, again short-sighted. That "wasted time" can often be some the best gaming experiences. Sorry, I feel your are missing out.

That's purely a difference of opinion. And, in this case, I disagree with you-while a shopping day in an RPG can be fun (hell, I had one last Monday and it was a blast) it's not fun to try to eke your power back, and is a lot more fun to instead be looking to get more powerful.

[Mordaedil]

Generally I don't look upon throwing waves after waves of enemies at the players for no real good reason any fun either, and generally stealing the spell book, component pouch or holy symbol of the players just seems like a **** move, but don't misunderstand, it doesn't make you a ****. There is a separation between doing bad move and being a bad person, mmkay?

There isn't usually anything wrong with doing it either, but you have to be aware that doing it once makes your players aware of what kind of game you are playing with them and they will start to prepare against it. Eschew Materials, buy specific material components and stuff them into handy haversacks, store their spellbooks in the same, clerics carve their shields into holy symbols, etc, etc.

You might consider it a cool way to throw them a quest bone, but players are going to see it as a warning that they need to stay alert at all times or suffer the consequences of not being prepared and then you'll suddenly start to suffer as their preparations are going to either throw your campaigns into chaos as they prepare spells and divinations that destroy your otherwise carefully laid plans as a DM.

You might not be doing it intentionally, but you'll be starting an escalation war with the PC's and your more fun contrivances are going to get ruined when in any other circumstance they would have been tolerated and played with in an engaging manner.

Yes, as a DM you can break all of the above. But if you do, you've already admitted loss and you'll find that fun has left the table.

[barna10]

Showing the players there are consequences for their actions is not a **** move.

Never letting there be consequences leads to spoiled-child-syndrome where the players throw a fit over their precious spellbook being destroyed one time in their career.

Tact is important.

You create a sense where loss can really happen, you don't make it happen over, and over, and over again.

If you turn the game into an amusement park where the players walk from ride..er encounter to encounter, then you are missing out, IMO.

I like a dark, gritty game. One where defeating the evil yields big rewards. Rewards that are well earned because there was an actual challenge and actual risk of loss.

So, my house rules and game changes are based on that. I could give two hoots about possible breaking some Monty Hall game somewhere else where players will sit around all day buffing their swiss army knife stand-ins so they can go kill dragon number 6789.

If that's the type of game players want to play, that's great, but that's not my table. If that's not fun for you, then my table is not the right place for you. So be it.

Now, if you are going to require a focus (holy symbol, spellbook, sword, etc) that's supposed to be a limitation. If you never loss the focus, then it's not a limitation. You might as well remove the requirement all together if there is never a chance of losing it. It's not a **** move to make the loss the happen occasionally. The risk and possible consequences were accepted by the player when they chose to play a class dependent on a focus. It's not just flavor text. NPCs should disarm the PCs. Spellbooks should be forced to save when the mage gets fireballed. Clerics should lose their holy symbols if taken prisoner. If not, WELCOME TO THE DUNGEONS & DRAGONS RIDE! PAY YOUR ADMISSION AND EVERYONE GETS A PRIZE! NO ONE LOSES...ever

[Anymage]

It's rather trivial to create characters with reduced gear dependency. The instant you make it clear that you like to go after gear, prepare for parties full of psions and druids.

[magicalmagicman]

It's rather trivial to create characters with reduced gear dependency. The instant you make it clear that you like to go after gear, prepare for parties full of psions and druids.

The OP is clearly new. Very, very new. He doesn't know Summon Holy Symbol is a cantrip, or tattoo spellbooks are a thing, or that making spellbooks that are fireproof is extremely trivial.

I like playing d&d. If a DM says d&d is about spending 10 rounds every combat encounter doing absolutely nothing and spews the kind of things he spewed in this thread, and claimed that this is d&d and this is fun, my first thought would be why he hell is he even holding a d&d book, and leave.

I'm came here to slay monsters, uncover mysteries and deep conspiracies, right wrongs, make complicated moral decisions that makes me thing about good and evil, overthrow dictators, and save a kingdom from a full scale demonic invasion lead by a demon prince. Not listen to a scrub cry about how this game is broken, how he alone fixed it with his genius intellect, lecture me about what is fun for me and what is not and how his fun is right and my fun is wrong, and waste hours and hours of precious game time, and my life, dealing with house rules that put the game to a full halt because the DM thinks its... whatever.

[RoboEmperor]

The OP is clearly new. Very, very new. He doesn't know Summon Holy Symbol is a cantrip, or tattoo spellbooks are a thing, or that making spellbooks that are fireproof is extremely trivial.

I like playing d&d. If a DM says d&d is about spending 10 rounds every combat encounter doing absolutely nothing and spews the kind of things he spewed in this thread, and claimed that this is d&d and this is fun, my first thought would be why he hell is he even holding a d&d book, and leave.

I'm came here to slay monsters, uncover mysteries and deep conspiracies, right wrongs, make complicated moral decisions that makes me thing about good and evil, overthrow dictators, and save a kingdom from a full scale demonic invasion lead by a demon prince. Not listen to a scrub cry about how this game is broken, how he alone fixed it with his genius intellect, lecture me about what is fun for me and what is not and how his fun is right and my fun is wrong, and waste hours and hours of precious game time, and my life, dealing with house rules that put the game to a full halt because the DM thinks its... whatever.

Agreed. I rather play with a DM that challenges players with advanced templated monsters with class levels that require the full repertoire of magic items and spells available to the players to overcome or a city rife with mysteries, conspiracies, cabals, factions, and deceit and it's up to us the players to figure out which is the good guys and which is the devil worshipping cult that is overrunning the court instead of a DM who tries to cut most of the content of the game by house ruling spells to be unusable in combat thus dumbing down combat drastically to the point they all look the same and "challenges" (his words not mine) players with house rules that require the wizard to waste his time rebuilding spellbooks.

One is an absolutely fantastic DM and the other is not a DM at all.

Everyone here is right that it is trivially easy to make spellbooks un-lose-able but my guess is that this DM is gonna house rule all those methods away.

If you don't like magic why the hell are you playing d&d 3.5? d&d 3.5 is a high magic game and if you don't like that pick another system instead of butchering this one and calling it an improvement.

[barna10]

Yes, I am amazingly new at this. I bow to your superior experience. The players that have enjoyed my games over the last 30 years must really need a lesson in having fun. I'll let them know they've been let down.

[quote]Agreed. I rather play with a DM that challenges players with advanced templated monsters with class levels that require the full repertoire of magic items and spells available to the players to overcome or a city rife with mysteries, conspiracies, cabals, factions, and deceit and it's up to us the players to figure out which is the good guys and which is the devil worshipping cult that is overrunning the court instead of a DM who tries to cut most of the content of the game by house ruling spells to be unusable in combat thus dumbing down combat drastically to the point they all look the same and "challenges" (his words not mine) players with house rules that require the wizard to waste his time rebuilding spellbooks.[\quote]

Lol, nothing I said even justifies this...I let the players roll with whatever they want, complain about the nerfing of magic that has occurred with each edition, and gladly welcome most characters someone goes through the trouble of making. I've gone the route of "advanced template monster" and that ended nearly a decade ago when the group grew tired of fighting the ancient celestial whatever whatever gold dragons. I found they had more fun when the story and their player's roles in it were the focus, not the next big nasty I could throw at them.

The only things I limit are the outright cheezy crap, and that list is extremely short.

To say I'm insulted by the insinuation that I am some sort of "no" DM that allows the players to do nothing is an understatement. In fact, one of the most heard answers to one of my players' questions is "sure, go ahead". I handle "OP" situations by cleverly challenging the PCs, but only after letting them go hog-wild with a few times. When they don't decide to stop being crazy on their own, then I have the world step in and make a correction.

This is laughable.

[Quertus]

OK, let me get this straight: Arcane (or Divine) Spellcaster casting, plus "free" rituals for any spell? Where Arcane Spellcaster is my go-to class to begin with, and Rituals are my icing on the cake? Well, I'm loving it. But I'm not sure it's balanced. Are you trying to address balance? :smallconfused:

So, make sure you give rituals to the muggles, too. Let them open portals to other planes with the correct rituals and a skill check. Let them summon demons with the correct rituals, a little sacrifice, and a skill check. etc, etc.

Then, yeah, I'd love this world.

What else?

Hmmm... destroying spellbooks. Hmmm... well, yeah, there's being a ****, and there's a Simulationist approach. Yes, if everyone knows that this is a vulnerability - or, at least, if the clever, clued-in people know that this is a vulnerability - then, yes, some people might game this. Enemies might target spellbooks, trade in spellbooks might become a thing, copying spellbooks might be a thing, etc. Worldbuild, Simulate intelligently, etc, and, if your players are into that, it's fine. Be a ****, and, if your players aren't into that, it's not. But, really, who targets spellbooks, when you can usually just kill the PC just as easily as steal their spellbook?

Now, personally, I love the Wizard class in part because of exactly the limits you describe - no guaranteed spell access, each Wizard is unique, etc. But you're describing giving them Arcane Spellcaster competence on top of that. So that they aren't exactly useless, even without their precious Spellbook.

I'd comment about how someone with just Animate Dead in their spellbook might be more powerful than someone with no spells in their spellbook... but 3e isn't exactly known for game balance already, so... that's just par for the course for 3e, IMO.

-----

So, force all spellcasters to be Arcane / Divine Spellcasters with oddball Rituals (and give muggles Rituals?), as some unique worldbuilding? Sounds fine (if as unbalanced as the rest of 3e) to me. :smallcool:

[RoboEmperor]

Yes, I am amazingly new at this. I bow to your superior experience. The players that have enjoyed my games over the last 30 years must really need a lesson in having fun. I'll let them know they've been let down.

Lol, nothing I said even justifies this...I let the players roll with whatever they want, complain about the nerfing of magic that has occurred with each edition, and gladly welcome most characters someone goes through the trouble of making. I've gone the route of "advanced template monster" and that ended nearly a decade ago when the group grew tired of fighting the ancient celestial whatever whatever gold dragons. I found they had more fun when the story and their player's roles in it were the focus, not the next big nasty I could throw at them.

The only things I limit are the outright cheezy crap, and that list is extremely short.

To say I'm insulted by the insinuation that I am some sort of "no" DM that allows the players to do nothing is an understatement. In fact, one of the most heard answers to one of my players' questions is "sure, go ahead". I handle "OP" situations by cleverly challenging the PCs, but only after letting them go hog-wild with a few times. When they don't decide to stop being crazy on their own, then I have the world step in and make a correction.

This is laughable.

For someone claiming 30 years of experience, you think making spellcasters spend 10 rounds before being able to cast a spell in a game where combat ends in round 1-5 was a fabulous idea especially since direct combat spellcasters are balanced as-is and is in fact mandatory against higher level monsters while it is the out of combat spellcaster shenanigans that break games.

For someone who claims capability to challenge players with high-op monsters and claims players have more fun with story, you characterized both as an amusement park ride for kindergarteners that are mutually exclusive to one another for some reason.

For someone who claims that he allows virtually everything in a game and claims he has the ability to deal with all of it you resort to house rules that completely shuts down your player's ability to cast even a single spell.

If you truly are doing everything you claim you are then there is literally no reason you would think of these house rules let alone think they are a good idea. So excuse me while I doubt your claims.

[Gnaeus]

Stealing spell books is a stupid counter to abuse of this system.

It isn’t necessarily foolish to target a spellbook. Although having it happen often or randomly is both punitive and kind of stupid. As mentioned, randomly stealing books from gangs of armed murders is kind of insane, particularly when the book is likely better defended than other valuables.

But the problem is that your idea practically begs for abuse, and there is no reason to steal the spellbook of the wizard who just cast 150 buffs that isn’t a better reason to steal the book of the one operating as you seem to intend.

Also, let me add my voice to those who suggest that nothing you say indicates even a minimal level of understanding of game balance, fair play, or really anything learned over those 30 years.

[barna10]

I really question some people's mastery of the English language... All casters would be be the Spellcaster class from Unearthed Arcana plus the abilities I am working on. I stupidly assumed visitors to a forum could read. My bad.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I really question some people's mastery of the English language... All casters would be be the Spellcaster class from Unearthed Arcana plus the abilities I am working on. I stupidly assumed visitors to a forum could read. My bad.
Which is a reply to... what exactly?

Anyway, I have to say you're not living up to the sorcerer king (His RAW hath no defense, and His abs be chiseled), so I think we're done here.

[magicalmagicman]

Yup, everyone's right. This guy hasn't played even one session and is lying about all his experience because every single experienced person on this forum is disagreeing with him. It's like watching a guy say large objects fall faster than small objects while calling himself a physics nobel prize winner. It's laughable.

[Jack_Simth]

Which is a reply to... what exactly?
There's been several folks who took things to mean "all spells take one minute + the normal time to cast" when what the OP is doing - even after he clairified - is taking the UA spellcaster, adding a feat, and in addition to the normal castings times of spells known from UA, folks can take a minute + the normal time to cast directly from a spellbook / or via prayer without having it take a spot on the "known" list.

That said... yeah, greatly improves casters overall. The UA Spellcaster is a solid Tier-2 already, and the ability to spam (out of combat) basically any spell is VERY easy to abuse. Knock takes 11 rounds at 3rd or 4th, compared to the 20 rounds needed for a 3rd or 4th level Rogue to take 20 to open a Good lock. Once you've got access, there's no particular reason NOT to use Clairaudience / Clairvoyance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/clairaudienceClairvoyance.htm) to map out the entire dungeon before setting foot inside. Any buff spell with a decent duration (Mage Armor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mageArmor.htm), Greater Magic Weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicWeaponGreater.htm), Magic Vestments (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicVestment.htm), etcetera - anything over about 10 minutes/level) is now on the entire party, full-time, as soon as it's available (there's no reason to conserve them, as they just take a minute + 1 round per party member). All the fix-it spells (the Cure line, [Lesser/Greater] Restoration, Stone to Flesh, Cure Blindness/Deafness, Remove Curse, Break Enchantment, etcetera) are also instantly available, and are immediately applied after a fight as needed. Then there's the long-term minionomancy spells ([Lesser/Greater] Planar (Binding/Ally), Animate Dead, Create [Greater] Undead, Charm Monster, Command Undead, et cetera)....

This will result in a significantly more magical party. Whether or not that's a good thing is a matter of taste.

Edit: Might help with "15 minute adventuring day" syndrome. Out-of-combat spells are essentially free, so the casters don't blow through their resources quite as quickly.

[gogogome]

There's been several folks who took things to mean "all spells take one minute + the normal time to cast" when what the OP is doing - even after he clairified - is taking the UA spellcaster, adding a feat, and in addition to the normal castings times of spells known from UA, folks can take a minute + the normal time to cast directly from a spellbook / or via prayer without having it take a spot on the "known" list.

Doesn't change the fact that he's been ignoring people who give valid examples of how at will out of combat spells can be abused even at level 1, believes d&d can only be combat focused or story focused and not both, and believes destroying player's gear is good gaming and even implements house rules to make it easier for him to do so.

If his 30 year experience is true then all of it is not with the 3.5 system as the above behavior is generally the behavior of new DMs.

[Mordaedil]

Showing the players there are consequences for their actions is not a **** move.
What action, perchance, did the players commit to deserve the consequence of you destroying their primary source of being able to fulfill the minimum that their class, their career invested in their character? There's logical consequences and then there is the DM targetting class features to neuter players to actively punish them. Be clear on where you fall here.



Never letting there be consequences leads to spoiled-child-syndrome where the players throw a fit over their precious spellbook being destroyed one time in their career.

Tact is important.

You create a sense where loss can really happen, you don't make it happen over, and over, and over again.
Who is acting like a spoiled child in this scenario, really? The DM that keeps destroying the thing the players build up over their career (and actively invested into on a basis of two spells every level, in addition to scrolls they happen to find along the way, that you hand them, by the way.) or the player trusting the DM to not intentionally screwing them over at the base level?

It's one thing if you really have to take things away from the player, but taking the wizards spellbook, the fighters sword is almost akin to taking away the paladins powers or making the monks unable to punch things.



If you turn the game into an amusement park where the players walk from ride..er encounter to encounter, then you are missing out, IMO.

I like a dark, gritty game. One where defeating the evil yields big rewards. Rewards that are well earned because there was an actual challenge and actual risk of loss.

So, my house rules and game changes are based on that. I could give two hoots about possible breaking some Monty Hall game somewhere else where players will sit around all day buffing their swiss army knife stand-ins so they can go kill dragon number 6789.

If that's the type of game players want to play, that's great, but that's not my table. If that's not fun for you, then my table is not the right place for you. So be it.

Now, if you are going to require a focus (holy symbol, spellbook, sword, etc) that's supposed to be a limitation. If you never loss the focus, then it's not a limitation. You might as well remove the requirement all together if there is never a chance of losing it. It's not a **** move to make the loss the happen occasionally. The risk and possible consequences were accepted by the player when they chose to play a class dependent on a focus. It's not just flavor text. NPCs should disarm the PCs. Spellbooks should be forced to save when the mage gets fireballed. Clerics should lose their holy symbols if taken prisoner. If not, WELCOME TO THE DUNGEONS & DRAGONS RIDE! PAY YOUR ADMISSION AND EVERYONE GETS A PRIZE! NO ONE LOSES...ever

You know what, never mind, this isn't worth anyones time. You are arguing with a strawman.

[Jack_Simth]

Doesn't change the fact that he's been ignoring people who give valid examples of how at will out of combat spells can be abused even at level 1, believes d&d can only be combat focused or story focused and not both, and believes destroying player's gear is good gaming and even implements house rules to make it easier for him to do so.

If his 30 year experience is true then all of it is not with the 3.5 system as the above behavior is generally the behavior of new DMs.

To me, this thread looks like an example of an emotionally charged feedback loop.

(paraphrasing)
OP goes "Hey, I'm planning on doing X, with Y bonus and Z restriction"
A few folks react: "What? Adding Z restriction to X completely nerfs X! That's horrible! You're bad for doing that to folks!"
OP, feeling insulted, gets a bit angry and insulting back, and doesn't phrase things carefully when attempting to reply to the few folks. And says something like "No, Z restriction doesn't apply to X, it only applies to bonus Y. How'd you miss that?"
Feeling insulted, folks read even less carefully. And react with more things that don't directly address what the OP meant.
Another person reacts: "What? Adding Z restriction to X completely nerfs X! That's horrible! You're bad for doing that to folks!"
OP feels more insulted that folks keep missing what's intended - even with clarification - and goes "Can't you read?"
Folks feel more insulted, and the cycle of escalation of bad feelings continues.

Sure. The OP is skipping over some stuff that does apply to his actual intent. Much of that is simply getting lost amongst the things that are complaining about stuff that's not quite what the OP intended to mean. Some folks on both sides feel frustrated, insulted, and/or ignored... pay less attention to what folks are actually typing because of those feelings, lash out in text based on those feelings... and this makes the folks on the receiving end feel more insulted, frustrated, and/or ignored. So, of course, the folks on the receiving end respond in kind (or walk off in a huff).

Classic example of a hostile emotion feedback loop, really.

[Mordaedil]

If he's feeling aggrevated when people point out that generally punishing players arbitrarily is a bad idea, then that's on him, truthfully.

There's nothing wrong with trying to find new ways to play the game, but doing that to actively pull the rug from under the feet of other players isn't a productive way to go about it.

That isn't to say there are times where they will be going without their tools available, such as through an anti-magic field, or while taken prisoners, but generally these are considered temporary set-backs, not life-destroying ones, from where the players will have to either resort to reverting to an inferior set of items (somebody elses spellbook or a heftily degraded sword) or need to rebuild something they've been rightfully given to stay relevant since level 1. (New feats for the fighter, loss of spells memorized for the wizard)

[Jack_Simth]

If he's feeling aggrevated when people point out that generally punishing players arbitrarily is a bad idea, then that's on him, truthfully.

There's nothing wrong with trying to find new ways to play the game, but doing that to actively pull the rug from under the feet of other players isn't a productive way to go about it.

That isn't to say there are times where they will be going without their tools available, such as through an anti-magic field, or while taken prisoners, but generally these are considered temporary set-backs, not life-destroying ones, from where the players will have to either resort to reverting to an inferior set of items (somebody elses spellbook or a heftily degraded sword) or need to rebuild something they've been rightfully given to stay relevant since level 1. (New feats for the fighter, loss of spells memorized for the wizard)
When he destroys a spellbook, he's not completely nerfing the character. He's just getting rid of the selection of out-of-combat at-will's, because he's also using this houserule, which leaves them with the UA Generic Spellcaster's spells known and bonus feats in the case of spellbook destruction. Basically, the equivalent of destroying one (somewhat expensive) item on a build ... which is kind of one of the options presented in the case of DM oopsies in the DMG (Page 13, right column, "Handling Unbalanced PC's"; also page 14, right column, "Making Mistakes" - comes with some notable warnings, though).

But again: Folks are feeling insulted, angry, ignored, etcetera, and as a partial result of that, misunderstandings keep happening (e.g., folks don't catch that it's more the equivalent of having the rust monster munch on that +5 Vorpal Greater Returning Shakram of Distance that showed up in the treasure pile at level 3 when he kills a spellbook, and react more like a rust monster completely obliterating all equipment at level 15), and reactions to the misunderstandings produce more feelings of insult/anger/ignored/etcetera, keeping the loop going.

[Silly Name]

Resorting to "taking away the PC's toys" isn't game balance: it's a sign that the game balance has been broken already and that you're trying to salvage stuff, rather than talking with your players about the goof-up.

Giving casters essentially free, unlimited out-of combat slots makes them even more powerful than they already are. It's a mechanic ripe for abuse, even without malice, because if I tell a player that they have infinite Divination spells, or that they can buff up the whole party three times over without having to use any spell slot, why wouldn't they use these opportunities to maximum efficiency?

The (theoretical) design objective and balance point of Vancian casting is that spellcasters get the power to rewrite reality, but only for a certain number of times every day. Prepared casters are, theoretically, balanced by having to make guesses and predictions about what spells they would need for the day, rather than being able to just cast the right spell when necessary. Spontaneous casters are limited by number of spells known.
All casters are limited by having to choose whether it's the right time or not to cast a certain spell, and thus spend a slot that might come in handy later.

Spontaneous casting+free, quick ritual casting=balance issues. You can more comfortably spam combat spells, and be safely assured that if you ever need buffs of utility spells you just have to spend 1 minute per spell cast, rather than actual slots.

It should really be obvious at first glance that such a system would have big issues, and, I reiterate, "the DM can take away the free, quick ritual casting" is not a way around the issues. The DM can just rule that the character's spells don't function because Plot, or that rocks fall and everyone dies, but that's not part of what is called "game balance".

[Quertus]

So, I haven't gotten a response from my first comment, but on to my second take.

Replacing Wizard and Sorcerer with Arcane Spellcaster + Rituals is a bit of a buff to, well, buffs, plus other out-of-combat actions. If it's coupled with free access to rituals for muggles, it sounds like potentially interesting world building and rebalancing, with a focus on making skills matter.

Replacing the armored combat healbot with Divine Spellcaster? Replacing a shapeshifter + animal companion with Divine Spellcaster? I feel like some flavor and niches are being lost.

This talk of destroying spellbooks is kinda weird. I mean, who does that? From a Simulation perspective, it's stupid - it's generally just as easy (if not easier) to kill the target as it is to incur their wrath by destroying their gear. From as social perspective, it's a **** move, dealing with OOC problems IC.

Sure, it's one more dial to turn for game balance, and that's great when players talk about what characters that they want to bring ("I've got a 12th level Arcane Spellcaster with Animate Dead, Lesser Restoration, Knock, and Cure Light Wounds"). But when you find that adding Greater Magic Weapon, Divination, Contingency, and Planar Binding to his friend's spellbook ruins the game, the correct answer is to sit people down, explain the problem, and ask them how they'd like to solve it, not to whip out the nerf bat in inconvenient mildew form.

[ericgrau]

You can just refluff Vancian magic, if it's such a horrible system to you...

I never read the original Vance, so my headcanon might be way out there, but my understanding is that "memorization" is something of a misnomer, and it is certainly not the term that 3.5 uses. Spellcasters prepare spells, which is a complex process that stores the structure of the spell in the caster's body (or mind or soul, if you prefer). The spell is--from the moment of preparation to the time of casting--stored on a hair-trigger, and can be completed with a moment's effort, which involves the arcane gestures, sounds, components etcetera that are, to the untrained eye, the only requirements for world-altering powers. In other words: spellcasters don't "forget" spells after casting. There are, however, only so many separate hair-trigger rituals that you can safely contain, and you can't throw a primed grenade twice, so to speak.

By contrast, spontaneous spellcasters always have the structures of the spells they know at hand, as part of their innate connection to magic, but they cannot change them at will.

If I remember my 1e, that's sort of right. First a spell is like a recipe. In the morning you do every step except for the last step of that recipe. Then when the time is right, you perform the final gesture, speak the last word(s) and perhaps hold an ingredient in that recipe. A wizard is someone who has done this several times and is walking around with several incomplete recipes. And besides saving time, there is a 2nd reason to walk around with all these partially complete spells. Magic is fleeting. Once you cast a spell it is wiped from your mind. Even writing down a spell erases it from the original source. Wizards get around this by likewise not writing the entire spell in their spellbook; they leave out the last word. Knowing how to fill in that last word is a basic part of magical training, which is why anyone with 1 level in wizard can use spell completion and spell trigger magic items. A scroll works much like a prepared spell, you complete the spell in the same way, and doing so likewise wipes the text from the page. A spell trigger item is even simpler, which is why even a wizard 1 can use a high level wand or staff, but I forget the details.

When I saw it for the first time I thought it was kinda cool. I think it's a shame that 3e left out the details. Anywho I've also liked other magic systems and I can totally understand wanting to change things up and pick a different kind of cool. Each one has their own interesting way like Vancian does.