|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 7:42PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2012
|
Yeah. I mostly just liked the spell system and I use spell points for every game I play (pretty much) so the slots didn't bother me ; it just made it easier to convert. Some of the feats were interesting too like sniffing violence and sculpting wood by singing.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 7:48PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Yeah. I mostly just liked the spell system and I use spell points for every game I play (pretty much) so the slots didn't bother me ; it just made it easier to convert. Some of the feats were interesting too like sniffing violence and sculpting wood by singing.
Evocative of the stories eh.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 8:05PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2012
|
Yeah, they're working on a movie for Eye of the World. It's just supposed to be a stand alone with no thoughts of sequals.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 8:41PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
If it takes n turns to charge up a spell, all the enemy may be gone by then. If you cannot cast that big spell again while it recharges, the battle is probably over by he time it does. The idea of daily or encounter "spells" simplified this counting turns in your head. So this seems to be approximately the same thing or a least have the same effect.
Ive liked 2 other systems for magic in 2 other games for different reasons. Neither may be applicable to d&d aa the flavour i wrong, but let me share the regardless.
1) ars magica for free form spell creation. Verb + noun was a very creative, novel spell making engine that required player imagination and ingenuity. 2) dark heresy for a dice pool (based on level of skill) vs threshold (dc) mechanic with failure an option and even success fraught with very bad consequences potentially happening on a roll of a 9 (kinda like a too much power channelled crit fumble table) on any of the dice pool. Player can fetter (use less) dice for an easier power (lower threshold) to avoid the effects if 9s! But less dice also means less chance to hit threshold. At early levels with low dice, the player never uses less dice, so his magic is unstable with weird effects. It fits he setting, but it reminds me a little of he wild magic rules from the 2e FR godswar trilogy.
How magic alone is treated in 5e will decide many people to either adopt the system or not, perhaps even despite how good the rest of the system is. Its that important to both groups on both sides of the debate.
The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules. -Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 02, 2012 - 8:53PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
1) ars magica for free form spell creation. Verb + noun was a very creative, novel spell making engine that required player imagination and ingenuity.
Basically a skill based magic system, the rote spells still existed (ie predefined spell list) but the skills were exploited when you wanted to go beyond it and might be prequisites for specific spells . .ie they could be the meat and drink of improvised magic...having just arcana for page 42 with magic is comparatively bland.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 5:23AM
#26
|
|
|
Stinking Cloud 1st round - save or -1 to attack while in area 2nd round - save or -3 to attack while in area 3rd round - save or slowed 4th round - save or paralyzed 5th round - save or damaged 2d6 6th round - save or be knocked unconscious. etc...etc....
Nice idea, but at the same time I am a little afraid that it will slow down then game, because the caster player cannot remember all the details of the spell in his head.
You could simplify it where it picks one thing like damage or status effect path, and then have a universal chart for it... where it just increases each round.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 6:58AM
#27
|
|
|
An idea:
Drop the concept of spell levels. Simply have spells, that a wizard can cast at any level equal to or less than his or her caster class level. Have spells increase in power if they are cast at a higher level. Give the wizard a waiting time for higher level cast spells equal to the level cast at.
Take the 2nd Chromatic Orb (I prefer 1st ed as there were 12 levels instead of 9, gave us more to look forward to as we leveled)
Table 16: Chromatic Orb Effects
Level of Color of Orb Hit Points Special Caster Generated of Damage Power 1st White 1-4 Light 2nd Red 1-6 Heat 3rd Orange 1-8 Fire 4th Yellow 1-10 Blindness 5th Green 1-12 Stinking Cloud 6th Turquoise 2-8 Magnetism 7th Blue 2-16 Paralysis 8th Violet slow Petrification 9th Black paralysis Death
Let the caster cast the 1st level version all he or she wants, but if he or she casts the 9th level version he or she has to wait 9 rounds before casting the 9th level version again.
So you propose a kind of MMO type "cooldown" system for spells that don't basically have any levels. But giving spells cooldown means monitoring all those cooldowns round by round by the player and/or DM. It will be a taxing issue once you hit the upper experience levels and in big fights. And I think it will be illogical to make the cooldowns in units of rounds. Casting a 9th level death spell in every 54 seconds, from dawn to dusk? I think no.
Your initial approach is quite good, though. I was also thinking about designing the spells without levels. But instead of any cooldown, i was thinking of spending spell points to cast spells at a given level. These spell points are based on intelligence and constitution and at 1st level you have spell points equal to double the sum of your int and con modifiers. You gain spell points equal to your int modifier when you level up. By spending these spell points you cast spells at a level you want. Spend 3 points to cast a spell as a 3rd level, spend another 5 to cast another at 5th level etc. You still memorize spells but how much powerful they are depends on your spell point allocation. What happens when you're out of points? You simply regain a quarter of your spell points per hour of noncombat activity. If you can manage to put enough inactive time between your combat encounters, you can avoid running out of spells. If you do, you can still spend your actual constitution as if it is spell points to cast more spells. If your constitution reaches zero, though, you are exhausted and need a full rest to recover.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 7:30AM
#28
|
|
|
You guys seriously need to check out the wotc "The Wheel of Time" RPG and more specifically the channeling system for the one power. Its probably my favorite magic system.
Most spells can be cast at multiple levels and they use up a different slot ( I usually use spell points) depending on what level you cast at. Very much like what you're talking about.
You could also "overchannel" and cast a spell you weren't able to normally because it was beyond your level or because you didn't have enough slots left. You had to roll an endurance check and if you failed you would suffer in some way ; if you failed your roll badly enough you could still or gentle yourself.
The way they had the spells set up was simple enough.
This is how I'd like the Sorcerers and other spontaneous casters to play. The overchanneling mechanic seems like something they'd (they be sorcerers) do. But it isn't for wizards. For wizards the spells per day idea worked well (well, well enough). Personally I think all that you need to do to fix the wizard is make it more costly to learn new spells (in 3.x you only learned two at level up, 3 if you were a specialist) as oppossed to just walking into a bookstore and going I need one of this and that. Sure a wizard could buff himself into a oblivion still but the oppurtunity cost to do so and be on par in melee with a fighter are utility spells and evocations. Make a wizard learning a new spell something to prized and sought after like a fighter who finds a magical longsword. Sure this doesn't solve all the problems but it lowers the curve.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 9:58AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Mar 19, 2004
|
This is how I'd like the Sorcerers and other spontaneous casters to play. The overchanneling mechanic seems like something they'd (they be sorcerers) do. But it isn't for wizards. For wizards the spells per day idea worked well (well, well enough). Personally I think all that you need to do to fix the wizard is make it more costly to learn new spells (in 3.x you only learned two at level up, 3 if you were a specialist) as oppossed to just walking into a bookstore and going I need one of this and that. Sure a wizard could buff himself into a oblivion still but the oppurtunity cost to do so and be on par in melee with a fighter are utility spells and evocations. Make a wizard learning a new spell something to prized and sought after like a fighter who finds a magical longsword. Sure this doesn't solve all the problems but it lowers the curve.
Very much agreed. But I also think that other classes could be given unique, if perhaps, far more abstract rewards of equally great importance.
Several examples:
- A sorcerer could unlock some of his latent powers by defeating a dragon or some other powerful magic foe. - A Cleric may gain some divine inspiration when meditating during his deity's holiday. - A fighter might be taught some special moves after rescuing the over-adventurous son of a master in forbidden martial arts.

|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 10:48AM
#30
|
|
|
The recent article on fighters by Mike Mearls got me thinking about wizards. If a wizard can blast every spell it has at a foe, and it still isn't in any way equal to a fighter, what is the point of being a wizard?
Why should you play the wizard if you can't equal the fighter? Because you want to play a wizard dammit, mystical robes, shouting out Dr. Strange like invocations whenever you do something getting to brag to everyone you graduated Hogwarts magma **** laude etc. That's the same answer I would have given if you'd ask me why play a fighter and not a wizard back in 3.5. We should play classes because we like the fluff it's as simple as that. If the fluff is great but the rules are broken, which I admit is a distinct possibility if they go with this "X is the best there is at Y" which you will recognize from reality as "Not X can go and check their emails etc for the whole length of Y", then the designers should fix the game. But if your complaint is "players will just go for the strongest class rules wise and that no one will play the wizard" I'm sorry but in my humble opinion the designers should not work more for the guys who only look at a class for the mechanics. The mechanics are there just to avoid infinte loops of players awesome concept one offing each other, not for people to go "Man look at this spell progression who care about the fluff I'm skipping it" we shouldn't try to attract these guys or spread them out between every class because or else the class won't be played. The guys who stuck with the fluff they loved despite horrible mechanics are the ones the designers should work for so we have balance not the guys who will leave a class as soon as the power is subpar.
|
|
|