Balancing bad mechanics

[eggynack]

Which is exactly what he is doing.

I was assuming that he was arguing that improvised weapons are only able to be quick drawn if they're actually going to be used as weapons. I suppose this way makes sense also.

[Elderand]

I was assuming that he was arguing that improvised weapons are only able to be quick drawn if they're actually going to be used as weapons. I suppose this way makes sense also.

No, he is clearly arguing that you cannot quickdraw an improvised weapon because it's not a weapon until it's used in an attack. Intent don't matter.

[Curmudgeon]

That doesn't really make sense unless you're arguing that no improvised weapon can ever qualify for quick draw.

Almost; Elderand is nearly right. You can draw a longsword with Quick Draw, because it is a (melee) weapon. You could then use it as an improvised thrown weapon (necessarily improvised, because it has "—" listed as its range increment and you would instead need the 10' range increment provided to improvised thrown weapons; your DM would then need to decide what damage such an improvised weapon deals, because you're not using it as a longsword).

[Brookshw]

It qualifies as a weapon upon use as such in combat, as per the rules. It doesn't start qualifying before then.

That's RAI, not RAW.

Improvised Weapons

Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat.

It does not say used as a weapon, just used in combat.

This is rather an academic distinction really, my earlier proposition was whether we should consider drawing spell components to be covered by quick draw as a change to the feat, not an analysis of the current RAW.

[NichG]

I'm pretty sure you're engaging in hyperbole to establish contrast, but I think everyone can agree that any game that involves killing 12 dragons every 6 seconds is an outlier that doesn't really represent 3.x games in a statistically meaningful way.

For the record, the quote in this post was jedipotter's, not mine.

[dascarletm]

This

Improvised Weapons

Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat.

Is not the same thing as saying

Improvised Weapons

Objects not intended for use as weapons, only qualify as such when used in combat.

I'm not seeing anything in the SRD Quote saying anything about when an object changes it's classification.

[Red Fel]

The problem is as follows.

Let us start with the assumption that any object can qualify as an improvised weapon. If we assume that improvised weapons qualify as weapons for the Quick Draw feat, the following logic emerges:

1. Quick Draw allows you to draw a weapon as a free action rather than as a move action. This is based upon the RAW of the feat.
2. Any object is an improved weapon. This is one of our two assumptions.
3. An improvised weapon counts as a weapon for purposes of Quick Draw. This is another of our assumptions.
4. Therefore, any object counts as an improvised weapon for purposes of Quick Draw. This is the conclusion we arrive at by combining our two assumptions.
5. Therefore, Quick Draw allows us to draw any object as a free action rather than as a move action. This is the conclusion we arrive at by combining the RAW of the feat with our assumptions.

The conclusion, while based upon sound logic, is nonetheless invalid because Quick Draw was not designed to allow you to draw any object as a free action. If it was, it would have said "you can remove any object from a storage container you have on hand as a move action." It does not; it specifically applies to drawing a weapon. Note also that, unlike drawing a weapon (which is generally a move action), removing an object from a container is not always a move action, depending on the container and the object.

Because our conclusion is invalid, we know that one of our two assumptions (or both) must be untrue. Either not every object can qualify as an improvised weapon, or improvised weapons do not qualify for Quick Draw, or both.

[Boci]

Because our conclusion is invalid, we know that one of our two assumptions (or both) must be untrue. Either not every object can qualify as an improvised weapon, or improvised weapons do not qualify for Quick Draw, or both.

Or third option: The intention of an ability and the actual ability based on its wording, because 1,000+ geeks on the internet over the course of several years have more brainpower than any type of game testing WotC could possibly have put together.

[Necroticplague]

The conclusion, while based upon sound logic, is nonetheless invalid because Quick Draw was not designed to allow you to draw any object as a free action. If it was, it would have said "you can remove any object from a storage container you have on hand as a move action." It does not; it specifically applies to drawing a weapon. Note also that, unlike drawing a weapon (which is generally a move action), removing an object from a container is not always a move action, depending on the container and the object.

Because our conclusion is invalid, we know that one of our two assumptions (or both) must be untrue. Either not every object can qualify as an improvised weapon, or improvised weapons do not qualify for Quick Draw, or both.

It may not have been intended to allow it, but that doesn't preclude it from doing so, because intention is not RAW and who gives a **** what a bunch of designers intended. You are assuming that our conclusion is invalid without any real backing. The RAW is that you can draw a weapon, an improvised weapon can still be drawn (because an improvised weapon is still a weapon, qualifying for quick draw), and they weren't very specific about what can and can't be used as an improvised weapon.

[AuraTwilight]

For the record, the quote in this post was jedipotter's, not mine.

I even knew that! Sorry, some weird copypaste error on my part, it's fixed.

[Alex12]

It may not have been intended to allow it, but that doesn't preclude it from doing so, because intention is not RAW and who gives a **** what a bunch of designers intended. You are assuming that our conclusion is invalid without any real backing. The RAW is that you can draw a weapon, an improvised weapon can still be drawn (because an improvised weapon is still a weapon, qualifying for quick draw), and they weren't very specific about what can and can't be used as an improvised weapon.

The RAW also says that you can draw spell components as free actions, and that spell component pouches exist and mitigate the entire issue. Quick Draw wasn't designed with spell components in mind because, in the environment it was developed in, that was unnecessary.

[Larkas]

Y'know, I actually think the magic component crystal method of doing this might be enough to maintain the integrity of this rule set without being horribly insane. You have eight separate varieties of magic crystals, each of which can be commonly and easily found in some regions of the world. Maybe tie it to the environment, with maybe deserts providing illusion (cause mirages), and maybe beach regions providing transmutation (cause tides mean a constant state of flux), and so on. You impose the arbitrary limit on crystals you can keep in one place, because having enough crystals of one type near you when you use magic will cause them to explode, cause magic. Let's set the limit at 99, or maybe 49, cause it has a classy RPG feel, but other setups will work as well. You could also have several varieties of crystal in some locations, or maybe in all locations, but presumably not all of them.

I think that solves most of the problems with the mechanic. You don't need to keep track of every component for every spell, cause there's only eight of them to keep track of, and notably, even less for something like a beguiler or focused specialist (this might be a little imbalancing, but meh, crazy elven generalist domain wizard is probably better anyway), which helps with the nerfing crap casters problem. The lower your spell versatility, the easier this is. There is no solo questing required, because these crystals flow like water wherever they're available. The arbitrary limit is a bit less arbitrary, owing to how arbitrary magic is already. Overall, I think that you'd be able to get a reasonably unannoying material component system out of the deal, and if you tweak it some, you'd probably get something like marginally increased balance.

Wow, I must really be getting invisible. I posted something along these lines on the first page (though your post was admittedly more comprehensive)

It may not have been intended to allow it, but that doesn't preclude it from doing so, because intention is not RAW and who gives a **** what a bunch of designers intended. You are assuming that our conclusion is invalid without any real backing. The RAW is that you can draw a weapon, an improvised weapon can still be drawn (because an improvised weapon is still a weapon, qualifying for quick draw), and they weren't very specific about what can and can't be used as an improvised weapon.

This is running dangerously close to the reasoning of "if this ability doesn't say I can't do something, I can do that thing". Think of it this way: does it make sense to quick draw a feather as an improvised weapon? Does it have the kind of handle you'd expect from a weapon. The weight? I mean, I could see quick drawing a cooking pan (it's not that different from quick drawing an axe, I think), but a feather? A lizard's tongue? Some guano? (Aaaand now I run dangerously close to killing cat girls. Oh well.)

[Brookshw]

The problem is as follows.

Let us start with the assumption that any object can qualify as an improvised weapon. If we assume that improvised weapons qualify as weapons for the Quick Draw feat, the following logic emerges:

1. Quick Draw allows you to draw a weapon as a free action rather than as a move action. This is based upon the RAW of the feat.
2. Any object is an improved weapon. This is one of our two assumptions.
3. An improvised weapon counts as a weapon for purposes of Quick Draw. This is another of our assumptions.
4. Therefore, any object counts as an improvised weapon for purposes of Quick Draw. This is the conclusion we arrive at by combining our two assumptions.
5. Therefore, Quick Draw allows us to draw any object as a free action rather than as a move action. This is the conclusion we arrive at by combining the RAW of the feat with our assumptions.

The conclusion, while based upon sound logic, is nonetheless invalid because Quick Draw was not designed to allow you to draw any object as a free action. If it was, it would have said "you can remove any object from a storage container you have on hand as a move action." It does not; it specifically applies to drawing a weapon. Note also that, unlike drawing a weapon (which is generally a move action), removing an object from a container is not always a move action, depending on the container and the object.

Because our conclusion is invalid, we know that one of our two assumptions (or both) must be untrue. Either not every object can qualify as an improvised weapon, or improvised weapons do not qualify for Quick Draw, or both.

The problem is that you ignored your point three in deciding its invalid. Your not drawing "any object", your drawing something which would be classified as a weapon.

Of course its still purely academic as no ones really proposing this.

[eggynack]

Wow, I must really be getting invisible. I posted something along these lines on the first page (though your post was admittedly more comprehensive)

Nah, I remembered it. Hence referring to it as the magic component crystal method, instead of being all like, "Hey, check out this completely new thing." I just thought the merits could use some elaboration. Also, I vaguely like coming up with environments that could support 'em. Like, maybe mountains for abjurations, cause they stand in the way of junk, and maybe freshwater regions for divination, cause scrying is so intimately connected with pools of fresh water.

[Gemini476]

Nah, I remembered it. Hence referring to it as the magic component crystal method, instead of being all like, "Hey, check out this completely new thing." I just thought the merits could use some elaboration. Also, I vaguely like coming up with environments that could support 'em. Like, maybe mountains for abjurations, cause they stand in the way of junk, and maybe freshwater regions for divination, cause scrying is so intimately connected with pools of fresh water.

Well, the eight basic terrain types in the Prime Material as presented in the DMG and MM might be a good place to look in that place. (Note that other supplements added more later.)
Aquatic, Desert, Hill, Forest, Marsh, Mountain, Plain, Underground.

Here's a tentative suggestion:

Spoiler

Show

Aquatic => Divination
Desert => Illusion
Hill => Conjuration
Forest => Transmutation
Marsh => Necromancy
Mountain => Abjuration
Plain => Evocation
Underground => Enchantment

Not the best, but eh. They also come in Cold/Temperate/Warm varieties, by the way, except for Underground which never really got that kind of expansion. It's just generally Dungeons/the Underdark.

I'm thinking that you could combine this with some kind of maximum crystal capacity and just replace the vancian system altogether. I'm feeling like this could be a good homebrew for replacing the generalist wizard with something else. I'm thinking full list caster with spell points split into eight pools. Have them be able to spend an hour to get up to their class level in appropriate crystals with a maximum limit of... 49 or 99 or something, to follow the earlier suggestion. That way you can have this guy who knows a whole lot of spells and can cast any of them spontaneously but is really limited by where he is. In a dungeon? Hope you like Enchantment!

Yeah, I think that might work.

[Red Fel]

Or third option: The intention of an ability and the actual ability based on its wording, because 1,000+ geeks on the internet over the course of several years have more brainpower than any type of game testing WotC could possibly have put together.

We're deriving intention from wording, not examining it in a vacuum. The wording itself says "weapon." It could have said "any object," it did not. From the deliberate wording choice, we can infer that the ability applies to weapons, and not to anything I have in my pocket. The question then becomes which items in your pocket constitute a weapon; if they all do, there is no point in distinguishing weapons from any other object in the wording.

There is a logical theory that states that if a person lists certain features of a thing, or certain elements of a list, and does not list others, he is excluding them by implication. For example, "Pets permitted in this apartment include cats, dogs, fish, and guinea pigs." The failure to list lizards implies that the list excludes lizards. The argument "But he didn't say we couldn't have lizards" will generally not be seen as effective. In this case, the ability says "weapon." This implies that there are some objects, which are not "weapons," to which the ability does not apply.

It may not have been intended to allow it, but that doesn't preclude it from doing so, because intention is not RAW and who gives a **** what a bunch of designers intended. You are assuming that our conclusion is invalid without any real backing. The RAW is that you can draw a weapon, an improvised weapon can still be drawn (because an improvised weapon is still a weapon, qualifying for quick draw), and they weren't very specific about what can and can't be used as an improvised weapon.

We're not talking about what can and cannot be used as an improvised weapon. That's part of the exercise. If we assume that any object can be used as an improvised weapon, and that an improvised weapon qualifies for Quick Draw, we reach the conclusion that Quick Draw applies to every possible object you can store in a container on your person. Since that is clearly incorrect, one of our assumptions - that any object can be used as an improvised weapon, or that an improvised weapon qualifies for Quick Draw - must be false.

We're not looking at what was intended. We're looking at RAW. The RAW is that you can draw a weapon. The assumptions are that you can draw an improvised weapon, and that any object can constitute an improvised weapon. We are determining whether these assumptions are accurate. Again, you're arguing for lizards, as above. Stop that.

The problem is that you ignored your point three in deciding its invalid. Your not drawing "any object", your drawing something which would be classified as a weapon.

Of course its still purely academic as no ones really proposing this.

Correction. We are following logic. If we assume that any object can be used as an improvised weapon, and that an improvised weapon qualifies for Quick Draw, then what we draw is irrelevant - it all qualifies. I use the term "any object" because if an improvised weapon can be composed of anything, then anything should be able to qualify for Quick Draw, if and only if our two assumptions are true.

The question, therefore, is which assumption, if not both, is false?

Can any object qualify as an improvised weapon? Does anybody have RAW on this point? If any object can qualify as an improvised weapon, then the only falsifiable assumption is that improvised weapons qualify for Quick Draw.

I think the argument hinges, however, upon the second assumption: Whether an improvised weapon can qualify for Quick Draw. If it can, we are limited only by the definition of "improvised weapon." If it cannot, however, the entire logical sequence collapses, which frankly makes more sense to me.

[Boci]

We're deriving intention from wording, not examining it in a vacuum. The wording itself says "weapon." It could have said "any object," it did not. From the deliberate wording choice, we can infer that the ability applies to weapons, and not to anything I have in my pocket. The question then becomes which items in your pocket constitute a weapon; if they all do, there is no point in distinguishing weapons from any other object in the wording.

There is a logical theory that states that if a person lists certain features of a thing, or certain elements of a list, and does not list others, he is excluding them by implication. For example, "Pets permitted in this apartment include cats, dogs, fish, and guinea pigs." The failure to list lizards implies that the list excludes lizards. The argument "But he didn't say we couldn't have lizards" will generally not be seen as effective. In this case, the ability says "weapon." This implies that there are some objects, which are not "weapons," to which the ability does not apply.

Or maybe it was worded that way because of the Ivory Tower game design, which was totally a deliberate effort.

[eggynack]

We're not talking about what can and cannot be used as an improvised weapon. That's part of the exercise. If we assume that any object can be used as an improvised weapon, and that an improvised weapon qualifies for Quick Draw, we reach the conclusion that Quick Draw applies to every possible object you can store in a container on your person. Since that is clearly incorrect, one of our assumptions - that any object can be used as an improvised weapon, or that an improvised weapon qualifies for Quick Draw - must be false.

It doesn't work this way. You're trying to assert some variety of reductio ad absurdum, except the conclusion that you're claiming is absurd, and therefore necessarily wrong, is the same conclusion that is being claimed as correct by your opponents. We've reached the conclusion, based on your premises, that quick draw applies to every object that you can store in a container on your person. You say that this is "clearly incorrect". Why is that so? What evidence do you have that this conclusion is necessarily an incorrect one to reach. It's a silly conclusion, perhaps, but it could easily be the correct one. This is where your RAI lies, because there's certainly nothing in the RAW that says that quick draw can't work on material components.

I suppose the core issue, then, is the one you claim later, of whether anything can be used as an improvised weapon. I'm really not sure why anything wouldn't be able to be an improvised weapon, as the only requirement is that it can see use in combat. Some such objects might be really bad at the job, but at the same time, that seems to be rather the point of an improvised weapon.

Edit: Basically, on the first point, there's nothing in the rules that says that any distinction made must have some particular meaning, or that it mustn't be an attribute shared by all objects. It's a bit of an absurd result, granted, but as above, it may be the correct one.

[Necroticplague]

Well, as to what can be used as an improvised weapon, the last pages of CW have these lines relating to improvised weapons.

If an object weighs up to 2 pounds, a Medium Character can treat it as a light weapon. Objects weighing between 2 and 10 pounds are one-handed weapons for Medium characters, and objects weighing 11 to 50 pounds are two-handed weapons. Halve these numbers for every size category below Meedium, and double them for every size category above Medium

Not sure how much it helps, and I think I'm too entrenched in my position to contribute meaningfully, but it seems like it could be of use.

[eggynack]

Well, as to what can be used as an improvised weapon, the last pages of CW have these lines relating to improvised weapons.



Not sure how much it helps, and I think I'm too entrenched in my position to contribute meaningfully, but it seems like it could be of use.

That does seem like it could be useful, though that "up to" is tricky. Is a speck of dust "up to" 2 pounds? I'm unsure.

[Red Fel]

It doesn't work this way. You're trying to assert some variety of reductio ad absurdum, except the conclusion that you're claiming is absurd, and therefore necessarily wrong, is the same conclusion that is being claimed as correct by your opponents. We've reached the conclusion, based on your premises, that quick draw applies to every object that you can store in a container on your person. You say that this is "clearly incorrect". Why is that so? What evidence do you have that this conclusion is necessarily an incorrect one to reach. It's a silly conclusion, perhaps, but it could easily be the correct one. This is where your RAI lies, because there's certainly nothing in the RAW that says that quick draw can't work on material components.

I suppose the core issue, then, is the one you claim later, of whether anything can be used as an improvised weapon. I'm really not sure why anything wouldn't be able to be an improvised weapon, as the only requirement is that it can see use in combat. Some such objects might be really bad at the job, but at the same time, that seems to be rather the point of an improvised weapon.

Edit: Basically, on the first point, there's nothing in the rules that says that any distinction made must have some particular meaning, or that it mustn't be an attribute shared by all objects. It's a bit of an absurd result, granted, but as above, it may be the correct one.

The reason that the conclusion (Any object can qualify for Quick Draw) must be incorrect is that it conflicts with the exclusive language of Quick Draw itself. Quick Draw applies to weapons, by RAW. If any object could qualify for Quick Draw, it would have used more general language, rather than the specific "weapon." Therefore, there most be some non-"weapon" group of objects that do not qualify for Quick Draw.

That is how we can recognize the conclusion as being false. The conclusion flows logically from the assumptions. If any object can be an improvised weapon, and improvised weapons qualify for Quick Draw, then any object can qualify for Quick Draw. The language of Quick Draw precludes that conclusion; ergo, one of our assumptions must be in error.

Yes, we could assume that the word "weapons" is the result of sloppy or lazy writing. However, as soon as we accept that the writers did not intend what they wrote, we start bringing the entire notion of RAW into question. If we construe the RAW strictly, we must accept that use of the specific "weapons" precludes the more general "objects."

Well, as to what can be used as an improvised weapon, the last pages of CW have these lines relating to improvised weapons.

Not sure how much it helps, and I think I'm too entrenched in my position to contribute meaningfully, but it seems like it could be of use.

Actually, this helps substantially. This means that an object's utility as an improvised weapon is dependent upon the size of the wielder. For example, a Medium creature cannot use an object heavier than 50 pounds as an improvised weapon; thus, in the hands of a Medium creature, a 51 pound object cannot qualify for Quick Draw.

Admittedly, this does not set a lower threshold, which is problematic. In theory, a Medium creature could use an object that weighs 0.001 ounces as an improvised weapon. So there remains some question. But this information does narrow our definition, at least somewhat, which is very helpful!

Interestingly, and somewhat sadly, this precludes the use of some corpses as improvised weapons. I'm reasonably certain many people on this board have probably attempted this at some point or another. (Really? I'm the only one?)

[eggynack]

The reason that the conclusion (Any object can qualify for Quick Draw) must be incorrect is that it conflicts with the exclusive language of Quick Draw itself. Quick Draw applies to weapons, by RAW. If any object could qualify for Quick Draw, it would have used more general language, rather than the specific "weapon." Therefore, there most be some non-"weapon" group of objects that do not qualify for Quick Draw.

That is how we can recognize the conclusion as being false. The conclusion flows logically from the assumptions. If any object can be an improvised weapon, and improvised weapons qualify for Quick Draw, then any object can qualify for Quick Draw. The language of Quick Draw precludes that conclusion; ergo, one of our assumptions must be in error.

No, if any object could qualify for quick draw, they could have used more general language. There's no absolute onus for them to do so, and the fact that they used terminology that you've deemed specific doesn't necessarily make the term non-inclusive with respect to all objects. The fact that there are some actual limits set on improvised weapons actually supports my argument, as the moon presumably cannot be quick drawn, as it is too large to be used as a weapon, despite being an object.

Incidentally, I would actually figure a significantly higher limit here than the 50 pounds that you've noted. An object need only be capable of being used as an improvised weapon to be an improvised weapon, and it may not matter that the current user cannot use the weapon. After all, a medium creature presumably can quick draw a gargantuan greatsword, as there is no stated limit on that in the feat. Thus taking the improvised weapon rules to their natural conclusion, as a colossal creature can use an 800 pound whatever as an improvised weapon, such is the max weight that can be quick drawn.

[Boci]

Yes, we could assume that the word "weapons" is the result of sloppy or lazy writing. However, as soon as we accept that the writers did not intend what they wrote, we start bringing the entire notion of RAW into question. If we construe the RAW strictly, we must accept that use of the specific "weapons" precludes the more general "objects."

No, that's the opposite of RAW.

RAW: you can quick draw any weapon. Also RAW: almost any item can be considered an improvised weapon. Ergo: You can quick draw almost any items.

What you are advocating is RASM: The writers said "weapon" and not "object", therefor they could not have intended QD to work on non-weapon objects.

[OracleofWuffing]

It pretty much implies any context just through the use of the term "Cheating". In particular, it's not so much cheating to use an item that doesn't exist as it is a non-object. The idea of this being cheating doesn't even make sense. I'm pretty sure that jedipotter just doesn't know what cheating means, because it doesn't seem like he's used the term correctly once. I guess that in his universe, it just means, "Things I don't like."

On the plus side, no bags of holdings mean Floating Disks for everyone.

Or ten thousand pack mules per party, but it doesn't smell as good.

[jedipotter]

He asked you if you really consider them to be cheating. And do remember that this is a context where you implied that it's "cheating" in any game, not just yours where you ruled them out.

Yes, I think using a bag of holding(and all the rest) is cheating. But so what? It is just my view. I see it cheating in the same way you would not keep track of a characters encumbrance or just do the old ''oh he had that in a pocket all along''. Extra space is just way to open to abuse, so it is just better not to have it.

I think it is bad enough that most players see the extra space items as a ''must have''. It is worse when they load them up with everything plus a kitchen sink. And it is cheating when they fill it with endless magic items, like scrolls. It's a great example of a broken thing: The rules let spellcasters make tons of magic items, and the extra space items let them carry around all the items. I fix both in my game, and eliminate the extra space items all together.

Spoiler: cheating

Show

Cheating is the getting of reward for ability by dishonest means or finding an easy way out of an unpleasant situation. It is generally used for the breaking of rules to gain unfair advantage in a competitive situation. Another type of cheat would be an exploit cheat where an advantage is gained through an unintended game exploit, such as skipping a weapon reload timer by quickly switching weapons back and forth without actually reloading the weapons.

I'm pretty sure you're engaging in hyperbole to establish contrast, but I think everyone can agree that any game that involves killing 12 dragons every 6 seconds is an outlier that doesn't really represent 3.x games in a statistically meaningful way.

It's like you honestly believe there is no middle ground between people digging in the dirt for a breadcrumb of power Hackmaster-style and super-omnipotent Mega-Godmode Optimizing.

I've sat in on the ''dragon kill a minute'' type games....they do exist. There are lots of weak ''player DMs'' out there that let the players walk all over them. But if that is how they like to have fun, who cares?

My point is my game is more ''nitty gritty'', where five characters with a wooden spoon must defeat a lich(Oh, the Spoon of Doom...good memories). My world is a real meat grinder. Chances are your character will never be at 100%. This is 180 degrees from a lot of games where the characters are ''near 100%'' at all times, where the characters rest all the time or have rules like max hit points per level.

So can we see the full write up?

Sure, I'm Out of Town right now, heading to ''The Worlds Biggest Yard Sale'' for the next two days.....so next week....

[Larkas]

Nah, I remembered it. Hence referring to it as the magic component crystal method, instead of being all like, "Hey, check out this completely new thing." I just thought the merits could use some elaboration. Also, I vaguely like coming up with environments that could support 'em. Like, maybe mountains for abjurations, cause they stand in the way of junk, and maybe freshwater regions for divination, cause scrying is so intimately connected with pools of fresh water.

Well, the eight basic terrain types in the Prime Material as presented in the DMG and MM might be a good place to look in that place. (Note that other supplements added more later.)
Aquatic, Desert, Hill, Forest, Marsh, Mountain, Plain, Underground.

Here's a tentative suggestion:

Spoiler

Show

Aquatic => Divination
Desert => Illusion
Hill => Conjuration
Forest => Transmutation
Marsh => Necromancy
Mountain => Abjuration
Plain => Evocation
Underground => Enchantment

Not the best, but eh. They also come in Cold/Temperate/Warm varieties, by the way, except for Underground which never really got that kind of expansion. It's just generally Dungeons/the Underdark.

I'm thinking that you could combine this with some kind of maximum crystal capacity and just replace the vancian system altogether. I'm feeling like this could be a good homebrew for replacing the generalist wizard with something else. I'm thinking full list caster with spell points split into eight pools. Have them be able to spend an hour to get up to their class level in appropriate crystals with a maximum limit of... 49 or 99 or something, to follow the earlier suggestion. That way you can have this guy who knows a whole lot of spells and can cast any of them spontaneously but is really limited by where he is. In a dungeon? Hope you like Enchantment!

Yeah, I think that might work.

Hmmm, that idea shows some promise. I confess I'd prefer not having the crystals tied to schools directly because, short of dual-school spells, you wouldn't need more than one type for each spell, which I think could be interesting... (But is it?) Even so, one crystal per terrain type seems interesting. Maybe roll (easy) Survival to find them, so anyone could do it?

[eggynack]

Yes, I think using a bag of holding(and all the rest) is cheating. But so what? It is just my view. I see it cheating in the same way you would not keep track of a characters encumbrance or just do the old ''oh he had that in a pocket all along''. Extra space is just way to open to abuse, so it is just better not to have it.

That's not what cheating is. I don't think you should use the word cheating, as you seem to not know what it means. Either that, or you're just intentionally misusing the term.

I think it is bad enough that most players see the extra space items as a ''must have''. It is worse when they load them up with everything plus a kitchen sink. And it is cheating when they fill it with endless magic items, like scrolls. It's a great example of a broken thing: The rules let spellcasters make tons of magic items, and the extra space items let them carry around all the items. I fix both in my game, and eliminate the extra space items all together.

That's... not really broken at all. It's pretty much just a convenience, enabling you to skip the boring book keeping that most people hate. Your response to that is, apparently, "Hey, that thing you hate? Here's massive piles of it. That'll make the game better."

Cheating is the getting of reward for ability by dishonest means or finding an easy way out of an unpleasant situation. It is generally used for the breaking of rules to gain unfair advantage in a competitive situation. Another type of cheat would be an exploit cheat where an advantage is gained through an unintended game exploit, such as skipping a weapon reload timer by quickly switching weapons back and forth without actually reloading the weapons.

Gaining something through dishonest means? Sure, maybe, if you mean specifically out of game. Finding an easy way out of an unpleasant situation? No way in hell. That's just frigging smartness, man. You apply your brain right to the problem, and you get a cool solution. It's also sometimes called tactics.

Even so, one crystal per terrain type seems interesting. Maybe roll (easy) Survival to find them, so anyone could do it?

I figure that you need to harvest them from the atmosphere in some fashion, perhaps using magic, except it's pretty easy to use. Thus, perhaps you'd basically have infinite access to particular types of magic when in relevant areas. That sounds kinda cool, actually, as it'd inform preparation in certain areas, and maybe incentivize the use of worse schools of magic sometimes (when you have infinite conjuration, then you'd just do what you do normally).

[Larkas]

I figure that you need to harvest them from the atmosphere in some fashion, perhaps using magic, except it's pretty easy to use. Thus, perhaps you'd basically have infinite access to particular types of magic when in relevant areas. That sounds kinda cool, actually, as it'd inform preparation in certain areas, and maybe incentivize the use of worse schools of magic sometimes (when you have infinite conjuration, then you'd just do what you do normally).

I also thought about "condensing" the stuff, but it'd be nice to have a market for the stuff. Maybe through some simple wondrous/alchemical item?That way, you could buy marsh crystals in a desert... But you'd have to pay a lot for it. How's that?

[eggynack]

I also thought about "condensing" the stuff, but it'd be nice to have a market for the stuff. Maybe through some simple wondrous/alchemical item?That way, you could buy marsh crystals in a desert... But you'd have to pay a lot for it. How's that?

I suppose there are a few models that would support such a market. In the current model, presumably the entire market would be supported by transport price. You can't teleport them hyper-efficiently, because you can only move 99 crystal stacks at a time, and you'd probably be able to use teleportation for more money in different ways if the price is too low. Alternatively, you could apply some harvesting multiplier to each location, such that you can do this really fast in the right location, but really slow elsewhere, with possibly moderate speed in a third location. It's pretty tricky though, as I'd like these things to be basically free in the right place, to mimic the currently existent version.

[Larkas]

I suppose there are a few models that would support such a market. In the current model, presumably the entire market would be supported by transport price. You can't teleport them hyper-efficiently, because you can only move 99 crystal stacks at a time, and you'd probably be able to use teleportation for more money in different ways if the price is too low. Alternatively, you could apply some harvesting multiplier to each location, such that you can do this really fast in the right location, but really slow elsewhere, with possibly moderate speed in a third location. It's pretty tricky though, as I'd like these things to be basically free in the right place, to mimic the currently existent version.

Hmmm, that might work. What if each spellcaster had to gather his own crystals (at this point, it might be simpler to just call it essence), and could do so at a fixed rate/hour while meditating, depending on the terrain? For example, while in a mountain peak, a wizard could gather 8 mountains essence/hour and 6 hills essence/hour, but only 2 plains essence/hour. Some "nodes" (I'm thinking of something along the lines of Exalted's manses here) might even multiply the relevant essence's availability: a monastery might be built around a spot in the aforementioned mountain peak that enables the gathering of 16 mountains essence/hour for those who meditate there (but regular quantities of other kinds).

You could even go so far as making nodes that drain some essences for increased gains of another essence. In the above example, maybe you'd have to pay 2 plains essence for each hour you spent meditating in that monastery, but in return you could gather as much as 24 mountains essence/hour!

Some spells or items could also probably interact with that. Maybe a mana drain-like spell could strip a caster from some of his essences, while a hard-to-make alchemical item could store a small amount of one type of essence (of course, make it non-stackable).

Ehm, did I go too far?