|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 4:15PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
community.wizards.com/emerikol/blog/2012...I proposed a new class in my blog. I'd like to get feedback from pro-4e people as well as pro-3e people. I tried to design it with both sides concerns in mind. I am by no means proposing this class replace any other but rather ask the question - would this class be good for you in the abstract?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 4:52PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
Emerikol how fascinating. This is the answer to all our dreams. Why it even gets geeks dates on Friday night with supermodels. Why have you been holding back your genius from us?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 5:00PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
So, it's pretty much just a different resource mechanic for something that is otherwise very wizard-like, eh? I don't know that it's what I'd call a class, exactly, but if that's the way they're going to go about it...
I'm looking at it and seeing 20-30 spells per day at first level. It seems really powerful in that regard.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 5:00PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Did look - not sure - tis fluxy
I am sure it wont do the supermodel thing though.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 5:14PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
@Sealorn
Actually at 1st level you'd only have one spell by the class design. You have the potential to know 18 but you only get one per level automatically. The rest you got to find.
What do you guys think of the roll to keep the point mechanic as a means of discouraging trivial uses of magic?
I also had an idea that permanent magical effects could use a point permanently until you dispel the magic.
Garthanos, perhaps I exaggerated with the supermodel in your case.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 5:34PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
I'm worried about spells per day, rather than spells known. From what I read, you start with 5(!) points, and you only lose a point if you roll a 3 or less after casting.
It probably works out better at high level, but at level 1, I think that's too many spells per day.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 7:57PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
I'd agree 5 is too many in that system, probably closer to 2+caster level/3, capping at 8 at level 18+. I'd also suggest changing the DC to something a little more conventional like 10+spell level*2. Assuming a spell level 7 cap, that puts the DC range from 12 - 24 (hope you can get a bonus somewhere). Specialization might lower the DC by your MAM for the specialty spells. If 20 (+5) is the highest ability score, you have a slight chance to keep a point after casting a level 7 spell (19+), but very unlikely.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 9:58PM
#8
|
|
|
I think you designed this system with the higher levels in mind, but ignored the low levels when spells are basically free. I mean, the Mage absolutely is going to cast Knock, because the risk of losing a spell point is so insanely low--plus, if he loses one, he has 4 more!
I'm not saying the system can't work--I just don't think your way of calculating the DC is a good one. Unfortunately, I don't have a better idea.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 13, 2012 - 8:16AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2009
|
Spell slots aside, I think the DC should be set at (15 + Spell Level - Spell Level Proficiency); where Spell Level Proficiency is the number of Class Levels the caster has been able to cast that level of spell. Then just make a normal skill check against whichever ability the caster gets a bonus for magic (Intelligence for Wizards in the playtest). This gives DCs according to the following table:
| Caster |
Max Spell |
Proficiency / Spell Level |
DC for Spell Success / Spell Level |
| Level |
Level |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
| 1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
14 |
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
3 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
13 |
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
4 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
12 |
15 |
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
4 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
11 |
14 |
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
5 |
9 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
7 |
10 |
13 |
16 |
19 |
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
5 |
10 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
6 |
9 |
12 |
15 |
18 |
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
6 |
11 |
9 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
|
|
|
5 |
8 |
11 |
14 |
17 |
20 |
|
|
|
| 12 |
6 |
12 |
10 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
|
|
|
4 |
7 |
10 |
13 |
16 |
19 |
|
|
|
| 13 |
7 |
13 |
11 |
9 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
|
|
3 |
6 |
9 |
12 |
15 |
18 |
21 |
|
|
| 14 |
7 |
14 |
12 |
10 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
|
|
2 |
5 |
8 |
11 |
14 |
17 |
20 |
|
|
| 15 |
8 |
15 |
13 |
11 |
9 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
|
2 |
4 |
7 |
10 |
13 |
16 |
19 |
22 |
|
| 16 |
8 |
16 |
14 |
12 |
10 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
|
2 |
3 |
6 |
9 |
12 |
15 |
18 |
21 |
|
| 17 |
9 |
17 |
15 |
13 |
11 |
9 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
5 |
8 |
11 |
14 |
17 |
20 |
23 |
| 18 |
9 |
18 |
16 |
14 |
12 |
10 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
7 |
10 |
13 |
16 |
19 |
22 |
| 19 |
9 |
19 |
17 |
15 |
13 |
11 |
9 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
6 |
9 |
12 |
15 |
18 |
21 |
| 20 |
9 |
20 |
18 |
16 |
14 |
12 |
10 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
5 |
8 |
11 |
14 |
17 |
20 |
This gives a narrower range of success across the spell levels, allows success to improve as the caster becomes more familiar with casting spells of each level and still retains the OP's idea that higher level spells always remain harder to cast. I also bottomed out the numbers at 2 to reflect a "1 always fails" ruling; this would suggest a "20 always succeeds" ruling as well. Alternately, you could grant auto success at the level where the number would become a 1 and make those spells At-Wills at that level (as some people on these forums have expressed a desire to see lower level spells become At-Wills over time); then ignore the "20 always succeeds" ruling as well, making some spell levels impossible to cast without an increasing number levels worth of practice for those with decreasing Intelligence modifiers.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 13, 2012 - 8:54AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Basically needs stat analysis and expected results but the general concept isnt bad
|
|
|
