I think that the Spell Casters in Dungeons and Dragons get a short stick when it comes to Attacks. Mind you nobody expects that that a mage can match a fighter sword swing to staff swing. However I am thinking about a drastic rules change. Giving Spell casters extra spells on the order of two level one spells per round for level six casters and three first or two third at level 12, I know this makes them much more powerful but I think the way high level fighters can take down high level mages from flat footed is unrealistic. Any comments or suggestions?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:the way high level fighters can take down high level mages from flat footed is unrealistic.
Yes, I agree that it is unrealistic for mages to _________.
Fill in the blank at your convenience. Almost anything you put in there will make the statement true.
(You see, mages aren't real, so it's more than a little silly to talk about them being "realistic".)
----
I think it's a good idea for game play to high level characters of all classes roughly equal in power. Otherwise, you get the problem like existed in 2nd edition AD&D: playing a mage is lame at low levels, and playing a fighter is lame at high levels.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There are already feats which do this. Check out Quicken Spell, Chain Spell, Spell Contingency, etc.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I think the "istic" part of the word "realistic" allows it to be applied legitimately to fantasy cases.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I think the "istic" part of the word "realistic" allows it to be applied legitimately to fantasy cases.
Spoken like a true gamer.
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
I hate the D&D magic system.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
MPH, come on you know what I mean.
I am familiar with the feats but here is my logic, all fighter types get another attack every five levels. This reflects greater facility with the weapons, extra strike opportunities every six seconds. A mage has two combat attacks in the upper levels, perhaps level 12 or so. However I think that from the point of view of both role play and game balance high level mages should have grater speed with low level spells.
An Enraged Level 10 Barbarian with the right feats can make three attacks on a LV 10 mage that will almost certainly kill him/her, while the mage can cast one spell, which even if maximized will do perhaps 40 HP of damage, at most half his/her HP, that is not an even distribution of power. Nor does it make sense that the number of attacks for the mage goes up in melee but not in spell casting I was thinking of using 1+ (1-Spell level) + (Roundown(Character Level/6)) Spells per round. To generate the casting rate I will run some simulations in Excel to see.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
BC: I don't care if it makes sense for a magic user to cast more spells at a higher level -- it would still be a bad idea because it would unbalance the entire game.
Meat shields ramp up in damage dealing with both number of attacks per round and BAB. Spell flingers ramp up in damage dealing with the number and power of the spells they can cast.
quote:Originally posted by Lord Of All Fools: I hate the D&D magic system.
Same here. I have always found it intensely dissatisfying.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
I liked Role Master Magic System best, however this change is never going to make the mage limitlessly powerful, Oh the equation that I am adding to my character generation is [1+Max( (1-Spell level) + (Roundown(Character Level/6)),0),0)] This gives a second Lv 1 spell at Lv 6, a third at 12 with a second level 2, and at level 18 a mage can throw four level 1, three level 2 and two level 3. I do not know how upset the game balance would be by this, but my parties have no fear of Lich's even at LV 18 because they know they get one attack per round. With hot mage on mage action that is fine, but I have always thought a mage at high levels shold have the ability to activate his low level defenses in a single round, it is even a standard for the fantasy genre, These are not the most powerful spells, they are the most often used utility spells, the most practiced. For an eightteenth level mage to get off two fireballs a round seems pretty resonable. If you think about it, the level 18 mage is terribly limited in what he can do. He needs way too much preperation to defend himself decently, so either he is dead if the plan is good, or he is untouchable if the plan is bad. No challenge.
I might make 3/round an upper limit hmmmm.....
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
That correction is [Min(1+Max( (1-Spell level) + (Roundown(Character Level/6)),0),3)] a pretty good equation though nothing so fierce as solving for the psionic level/stat combination bonus table, that was fierce. [ROUNDDOWN(((Intellegence-10)*0.25),0)*Level+ROUNDDOWN((Level/2),0)*(ROUNDDOWN(ABS(MOD(Intellegence,4)-2)/2,0))]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Regarding a mage needing several rounds to prepare himself: again, check out Contingency, Chain Spell, and Time Stop. I've never had any high-level mage in any campaign I've ever run who's been unable to cast multiple spells per round.
It's also worth noting that your hypothetical combat situation -- an enraged 10th level barbarian making a full attack -- requires that the mage and the barbarian end their previous turns adjacent to each other. A straight mage who allows this to happen either has failed to acquire useful meat shields or has failed to control the battlefield. And if there's anything a mage can do, it's battlefield control.
While it's true that fighter-types can actually rule the damage-dealing roost at higher levels (although not always), no class compares to mages in terms of flexibility. A mage should never permit a barbarian to get adjacent to him.
Why, when that barbarian started moving towards the mage, did the mage not cast Fly and then move 30' straight up? Or cast Blur or Invisibility? Or summon three wolves with Improved Trip to act as blockers?
In a straight combat, sure, the mage is toast. But it's a mage's job not to get into a straight combat.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Contingency should allow you to chain spells but it does not, it gets you one spell extra if the right bad thing happens and you specificlly predict it (usually get me out of here!) that as it may be timestop is way too high a level spell to kick in at a useful point, chain spell, is that a feat or a spell? Either way it is a slot that wizards should have for other things, If it is a feat then every wizard would need to take it, if it is a archmage feat then you cannot get it until you reach level 20 and if it is a spell then what level and from what book?
One thing that bugs me is that a wizard can either go item creation or meta-magic with feats, One is more or less a stay at home wizard, the other is the adventuring wizard. item creation should be one or two feats at the most or a skill set that lets you make certain items after you aquire enough craft magic item ranks. So if the Chain Spell is a feat then it is just one more that costs a feat slot. so you give up meta magic feats you really need.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's a rare wizard who ever takes more than "Craft Wondrous Item." Most of the other item creation feats are simply not worth it for an adventuring wizard.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Honestly, a figher or a barbarian, at level 20, stands no chance against a mage at a similar level.
Unless he surprises the mage and manages to kill him before he's prepared, like, cou de'graceing him in his sleep or something, said 20th level wizard, or worse, 20th level sorceror is going to kick butt.
If the two start at 5' distance away from each other, within melee range that is, and the barb/fighter/whatever gets the initiative, he might be able to kill the mage. Maybe. But only if he started that turn right in front of the mage. Sure, I can do a build in which a figher does 8 attacks in a single turn, at least half of which have an incredibly good chance at hitting. But to do that I'd need to be literally right next to said 20th level wizard, and moving right next to a 20th level spell-caster is essentially suicide unless you can do something to him first.
See, those 9th level spells only take one hit to do the damage.
A good wizard will have something like quickened fly prepared, quickened haste prepared, etc. She will have a +5 ring of protection, amulet or natural armor, other things or all of them to add a huge bonus to their AC, permenant magical effects of all sorts, et. This is if he's just out adventuring, not if he knows he's gonna face said level 20 fighter.
Now, while the fighter will have magic weapons and items too, these are not gonna help, because the wizard has the same number of items, in addition to any spell effects he has prepared that day, which is a lot of spell effects.
Flying straight into the air 30 feet then casting Meteor Swarm, Wail of the Banshee, Dominate Monster, Power Word Kill, Bigby's Crushing Hand, Mordenkainen's Disjunction, Etherealness or Time Stop, just for starters.
If I had this fighter at melee range at the start of my turn, and I got initiative, I'd probably cast Time Stop. After that, depending on how many turns I had, I'd cast fly and fly away, then cast a number of spells such as Delayed Blast Fireball, at 20th level (20d6) several times, perhaps, maybe Cloudkill, or other effects that last after my time stop ends. Then, I'd activate all, say, two or three delayed blast fireballs, doing 40-60 d6 of damage at once. Maybe 80 if I have enough turns and enough spells. A sorceror wouldn't have that problem, of course.
tjhat's just one option. If I got the turn first, I'd fly away, he'd have trouble hurting me, and I could just cast Meteor Strike until he's at less than 100 hp, then fire a Power Word Kill.
I could Just Meteor Strike him to death, period.
I could humble him with something funnier, like creating a giant boulder over him and dropping it on top of him. Perhaps an anvil! That'd work.
Heck, I could even cast Mordenkainen's Disjunction, laugh at him as he wallows without any magic items whatsoever, losing the entirety of his fortune, warn him not to try to fight me again and walk away, satisfied that he's screwed.
Or I could imprison him, via the spell.
Then there are the hundred other ways I could make a meat shield pie.
Now, if he did start out at melee range from me, and got the initiative, he might attack me a bunch of times. I might survive, I might not. If I died, nothing I could do, I'd deserve it for letting myself get within melee distance of any level 20 fighter. If I did manage to survive, the guy'd die within the next two turns, and I'd not be harmed any longer.
I'm just using the PHB, not even bothing with any other books yet. And the fighter I'm thinking of DOES use other, strnoger books.
But, any farther away than melee rnage, and the fighter dies. There's virtually no chance. I'm barely even scratching the possibilities, really. If he was fifteen feet away, little to no chance. Any more than 30 feet away, almost absolutely no chance. The only way the fighter could get close to me was when I was sleeping, really.
As TomDavidson said, no mage should ever permit a meat shield to get that close to him. And the only reason they would, really, is stupidity, or the meat shield somehow managing to sneak through the defenses to where the wizard/sorceror slept.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's a rare wizard who ever takes more than "Craft Wondrous Item." Most of the other item creation feats are simply not worth it for an adventuring wizard.
In a world where it's extremely difficult to acquire magic items and potions, those feats could be extremely powerful.
Of course, most games don't take place in such worlds. Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Also, Counter Bean, wizards get a number of extra feats so its' easil ypossible for them to get a bunch of item creation AND metamagic feats.
It's not a large problem, really. Let's see, non human wizard would get... seven feats normally, plus scribe scroll, plus 4 other feats. That's 11 feats, 12 if you're human.
In the PHB, the number of item creation + metamagic feats are 17. So, you could get all 8 magic item feats, plus 3 or 4 metamagic. Or you could skip a few magic item feats, like Brew Potion, a good one to skip, and have 4-5 metamagic feats. Maximise, Quicken, Empower, and another, Spell feats are pretty darn good. Or you could go the othe route, get all 9 metamagic, and still get 2-3 item creation feats, or skip a couple metamagics like silent spell or still spell, I'd prolly skip both, and have 4-5 item creations.
Then there are tall the other fun things you could do with feats, but I digress.
Granted, you probably won't use all your feats for those two routes. But you could. And you don't relaly need em all. (Brew Potion? Silent Spell? Eh... skip those and a few other lame ones, and you'd have no big problem. you don't need ALL of them, after all.)
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
So what do you do for your wizard characters players over the year they are not 18th level sheesh...
I am going to implement the change and play test it. It just makes too much sense, as a wizard becomes more powerful he does not need as long as a reeking novice to cast a level one spell. It is correcting an oversight not really making a new rule. It also lets some old mage clobber a young upstart in a single round without trading spell after spell with each other. As I have conserved it, no more then three spells in a round and never more then two of third level in a round, it will even make things more interesting, do I go with multiple low level spells or do I need to throw down with a big gun, it is a solid option. A wizard with level 9 spells in my campaign is certain to have some sort of resurrection contingency set up. Either a contingent trap the soul into a stasis clone or a mind seed planted into an apprentice with great potential and a magic item to bring the full power of the dead mage with it.
I am talking about Mages of intermediate level, from 8-14 where they are vastly under powered compared to even one fighter of the same level let alone a party of assorted attackers.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
At lower levels, yeah, fighters can outstrip wizards. At the levels you're talking about, though, the match is a lot more equal-ish. A level ten fighter, based on the best build I can think of, will have... about 3-4 attacks per turn, tops, depending on his attack style. (without two weapon feats, it'll be lower.)
Now, tenth level fighters versus tenth level wizards. Let's see what the difference will be:
Wizards are definitely more susceptible to physical damage, but at that point it still wont' be nearly the threat it was at levels 1-5.
Anyway, at that point wizards and sorcerors will have 5th level spells, a wizard can cast 2 perday, a sorceror 4.
Let's see...
again, if within 5', the fighter has a better chance of killing the wizard, and has a chance even if there's range. But.
Wizards can cast some nifty offensive spells. Fireball, cone of cold, lightning bolt, (all of which would do 10d6 damage to him, fireball to all his friends, too!) Ice storm does 5d6 to him and his friends, and even better, if he's farther than 5' away from the fighter, you can cast such yummy spells as wall of fire, or even better, wall of ice to trap him for a turn or two.
You could cast cloudkill, which would be really unpleasant for the dude. You could teleport away to 1000 miles distance, and avoid the fight altogether, with just a standard action. Take a five foot step away from him if you survive his attack (if he's in melee range anyway, which he shouldn't be at that level) and just cast teleport to get the hell out. That's a great last resort.
Then there's Baleful Polymorph, Hold Monster, Wall of Stone, Enervation, and other fun tricks. Like Evard's Black Tentacles. Those... could be painful.
In addition, Fly is a third level spell, and has the same effect as Fly at level 20. Go up 30 feet and then pound him with deadly evocations. Or just humilite him by turning him into a toad.
He probably doesn't have very strong spell resistance, if at all, which means he has a greater chance to be affected by all these lovely spells.
Fly kills most chances he has, and Fly is only a third level spell and at level ten you have 5th level. Any good wizard at that level will have that ready, at least in a scroll form, at all times.
The only way the fighter will win for sure is if he, again, sneaks up on the wizard while asleep or gets him totally unprepared. Catches him with his pants down. But then again, you can kill a fighter the exact same way.
Now, again, at level ten, I wonder how the fighter even GOT within five feet of the wizard. And even if he does, he has a much better chance of killing the wizard than at level 20, but even so the wizard is still stronger.
Now, at level 4, say, the wizard doesn't stand a chance in straight combat, and is better in a support role in a group, as the fighter's the star. At level 16, the fighter doesn't stand a chance, and is better in the support role in a group, as the wizard's the star.
Anyway, at level 8, with fourth level spells, which still include fly, 8d6 fireballs and other fun spells, the fighter isn't gonna do well unless he's hella well prepared.
---
Regarding feats, you can still choose between metamagic and item creation equally, depending on the level your'e at and what's available. It's not that big a change, really, from what I said above.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
You are all more nerd than I. Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
So... underpowered?
Not at all! All you have to do is fly out of the fighter's range, turn him into a toad, or just blast him to death with horribly powerful spells that do more damage than his attacks at that level.
At level ten, let's say he's got a +3 flaming burst greatsword, a stength of 20, and the wizard has casted haste on him just to be fair.
That means he will get three attacks with the greatsword. IF, and only if, he hits all three times (VERY possible, as his attack would be 19/19/14, thanks to weapon focus in addition to +5 from strength, +3 from magic) he does 3d6+8 damage per hit. That equals, for one hit, between 11-26 damage. With three hits, that's 33-78 if all 3 hit, or else 11-78, counting all variables I saw. Now, the wizard, let's say the wizard has a constitution of 16, so he has +3 hp per level, so... average 2 per d4 HD, for ten levels, and you have ~52 hp. Now, if the fighter gets in close to the wizard, he CAN kill him, as he's physically frail.
the fighter, with a CON of 18, +4 per level, average of 5 per d10 HD, would have... ~95 hit points.
He's got power, sure. And a fort save of... +11. Reflex, if this guy is all about strength, and has a DEX of 12, would be... +4. Now, to beat the 10th level fort save for spells, which, based on his intelligence of, say, 20, would be 10+5+5, or 20 for, say, Baleful Polymorph. So, the fighter would have a 60% chance of beating it, since he needs only to roll a 9 or above to match it, and 8 or below fail. To beat, say, a Fireball, the guy would have to roll a 14 or above, for half damage, so the chances are 65% that the wizard would do full damage. A cone of Cold, also, would go up to 75% chance, as it's a fifth level spell. Stastically, the wizard has a good shot of turning the fighter into a toad after he flew away, but still will fail more often than not. Fireballs, though, would be more likely to do full damage, and at 10d6 the damage is... 10-60 hp of damage for that one spell. And Cone of Cold is even better at this.
For one attack, the fighter can do 11-26 damage, while the wizard can do 10-60 to the fighter AND all his friends at the same time. Cold of Cold does the same, but at a higher level continues to increase in power. And he could do it from safely 30-60 feet into the air. Ranged attacks from a different build of fighter would still be powerful, but wind Wall, a basic 3rd level spell, can deal with this, creating a wall that the fighter couldn't cross easily, considering that the wizard/sorceror could just make it a cube kinda thing deflecting all arrows away from him, regardless of where the fighter/barbarian/ranger moves. While the wind wall would last ten turns, the fighter would be dead or gone long before ten turns are up, unless the wizard rolled VERY badly.
If you're at level 8, the wizard just loses stuff like baleful polymorph, and must rely more on directly damaging spells.
Again, it's possible for the fighter to win. But only if they start right next to the wizard, at which point they'll almost certainly force the wizard to withdraw. But how would they start right next to the wizard?!
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Eh. I rarely get to play the game, and rarely think about the statistics or anything. I just have the book open and am thinking of useful ways to defeat a fighter. I'm not even using all the OTHER books I could be using, and the cool things I do from them!
The fighter, of course, could have magic items to make up for the weakness... but at the level we're talking, he's no longer the main damage dealer. He's deadly to a wizard who isn't careful, or who doesn't have fly prepared, but...
Regardless, yes, I'm a terrible geek.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Counter Bean: I am going to implement the change and play test it. It just makes too much sense, as a wizard becomes more powerful he does not need as long as a reeking novice to cast a level one spell
All game balance arguments aside, this line of thinking does make sense. Perhaps, if it does seem to unbalance things, some other balancing factor could be introduced?
Posted by Chris Kidd (Member # 2646) on :
I hope i'm not derailing the thread with my question.
i was wondering with all theses RPG gurus here what would be a good set of spells for an adventuring level three druid ?? Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
All this talk about starting 5' away seems to ignore the bull rush and improved bull rush Feats, as well as the likelyhood of the fighter having Combat Reflexes or Boots of Speed to make his movement per round 60' anything under that is a partial action an atttack and if the fighter wins the initiative roll (with a +6 to initiative) he get across any reasonably sized room and gets an attack off before the wizard can react. At that point before the wizard can do anything he needs to pass two checks, If he took more then 20 HP in damage he needs to sv to stay conscious, he needs to make a concentration check to see if he cast spells at all (gods help the wizard that did not dump a lot of skill in concentration.) Then even if he does throw the lightning bolt, the fighter saves for half damage getting a whopping fifteen out thirty points possible (assuming he did not have the cleric in the hall cast a simple lightning Resistance spell to negate the first 40 pts of a lightning attack) A fireball is silly, who blows up their own house... Still the point is once the wizard and the fighter are in the same room together, the wizard is at an extreme disadvantage, even with a Fire-shield worn all the time giving every HP of damage the wizard takes to the fighter the wizard dies and the fighter gets a nose bleed.
I have played this out dozens of times with parties and I cannot think of a single time when even a level seven party could not beat a single wizard in the middle levels. Now admittedly he is alone and can run away efficiently but how embarrassing. I seem to recall a tenth level party fighting an 18th level lich and losing two player characters before destroying it. Both of whom were subsequently returned to life, so beating a wizard just requires that one find his room, not get within arms reach.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
quote: i was wondering with all theses RPG gurus here what would be a good set of spells for an adventuring level three druid ??
Carry seeds of specific plants, (assasin vine if you can find it), but any thorny plant is great, use plant growth and entangle, and always carry your cure light and moderate wounds.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: i was wondering with all theses RPG gurus here what would be a good set of spells for an adventuring level three druid ?
Where are you adventuring? It matters. *grin*
---------
quote:All this talk about starting 5' away seems to ignore the bull rush and improved bull rush Feats, as well as the likelyhood of the fighter having Combat Reflexes or Boots of Speed to make his movement per round 60' anything under that is a partial action an atttack and if the fighter wins the initiative roll (with a +6 to initiative) he get across any reasonably sized room and gets an attack off before the wizard can react.
Bull Rush and Combat Reflexes are useless in this situation; Combat Reflexes doesn't make the fighter faster OR give him more than one AoO on the wizard (who, if he's smart, is casting defensively anyway and thus not drawing one), and Bull Rush just makes it possible for the fighter to push the wizard a bit to the extent of his movement. Boots of Speed would make a difference, yeah, and are a good example of why I don't allow them in my campaign. *grin* Giving enhanced speed to a melee fighter is enormously helpful; it's as useful as, say, giving a mage a staff with imbued metamagic feats or a cloak of displacement.
Based on your test case, by the way, I'm not sure you understand how wizards "Cast Defensively." I'd strongly recommend it.
But the core problem is this: you're pitting wizards one-on-one against an enemy of equivalent level. That's not what they're for. They're meant to lend flexibility to a party while taking out large numbers of enemies of slightly lower level. They're artillery, not tanks. Note too that you're concentrating on straight damage-dealing spells, which is the least-efficient way for a mid-level wizard to take out a single mid-level fighter. Evokers, even more than other wizards, are artillery; they're not duellists.
Now, you have a valid complaint: wizards are not good solo enemies, unless your definition of "good" is that they'll put up a fight and kill a weaker character or two before dying. This is why wizards need to get allies, learn conjuration spells, and be prepared to control the battlefield. If a wizard isn't willing to run away and come back later, he's going to be a dead wizard.
I ran a campaign in which a recurring enemy was a tenth-level wizard. An entire party of fifth to sixth-level characters was regularly schooled by him, because he used guerilla attacks and scry and other tools to ensure that he always knew the tactical situation.
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
Druids are just an excuse for the True Neutral alignment to look even more ridiculous.
Don't be ridiculous. Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Wizards are the logical paranoid dungeon builders, sooner or later ever party gets to take on a lich. Of course my parties are none to likely to be scryable, they have all learned that I consider a 100,000 gp worth of equipment to be irresistible to dragons so above seventh level the keep a non detection up at all times, Improved Bull Rush lets you close distance without provoking an attack of opportunity.
I love the Feat Rods and Staffs they make sense from a role playing stand point more then staffs with spells in them, a staff should amplify spells not hold them, it creates a logical useful function for them. My fighters go after Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Boots of Speed and keen weapons just as one would expect. They are not fools.
But by the time a wizard is up to level 12 he either has tools or places to do any of the meta-magic feats. It is in this manner that the rules shape the desires of players in more sophisticated ways. "Lets build the tower on the earth node of spell empowering!"
It is all to the good. Druids are pretty cool and extremely tough in their element. Giant Wild Shape is awesome, I would never worry about a druid against a fighter of the same level, he would just go Dire Bear on him and entangle and animate plant are much better spells then most give credit for. I also use the old herb lists from role master to give them access to many more natural potions and healing. They are formidable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Improved Bull Rush lets you close distance without provoking an attack of opportunity.
What kind of wizard has reach? You can close the distance without provoking an AoO anyway. You still provoke AoOs from other enemies when you use Improved Bull Rush; you just don't draw one from the person you rushed. And since you don't get an AoO for moving up to somebody in the first place, Improved Bull Rush doesn't help against wizards unless you really need to bull rush them for some reason.
Improved Bull Rush is a feat to be used against ogres on bridges. Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Logically can you defend being able to cast a spell while being thrown across the room? It is like the uncanny dodge, if that is what you are doing that is all you are doing, it is uncanny because you are diving. Do you have Excel Tom, I can send you my new character sheet incorperating the new in house rule...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Logically can you defend being able to cast a spell while being thrown across the room?
This is what Concentration checks are for.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Logically can you defend being able to cast a spell while being thrown across the room?
Sure. By the time the wizard gets to cast, his opponent has FINISHED pushing him across the room.
But, yeah, I have Excel.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Indeed, and stone skin skivies, I have always worked to make my magic system make sense, the metamagic feats are a good step, studing a spell for me implies that it built and hung. Casting is really more like triggering it, We let rings of spell storing cast spells quicker this will be the same.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's a rather nifty character sheet, actually. Well-done.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
yeah I have them for every class and several prestige classes.
Posted by Chris Kidd (Member # 2646) on :
quote:Counter Bean
Carry seeds of specific plants, (assasin vine if you can find it), but any thorny plant is great, use plant growth and entangle, and always carry your cure light and moderate wounds.
I planned on useing cure wounds since i'm the only spell caster in the party at this time. the plant growth and entagle sound like a good idea, thank you.
quote: TomDavidson
Where are you adventuring? It matters. *grin*
so far a deseret fighting wasp Spiders. then we where in a dunguen that would phase shift from something in ruins to what it would look like in its glory days.
quote:Lord Of All Fools
Druids are just an excuse for the True Neutral alignment to look even more ridiculous.
Don't be ridiculous.
My druid isn't totaly Neutral. he's Neutral Good so he's not to ridiculous.
quote:Counter Bean
It is all to the good. Druids are pretty cool and extremely tough in their element. Giant Wild Shape is awesome, I would never worry about a druid against a fighter of the same level, he would just go Dire Bear on him and entangle and animate plant are much better spells then most give credit for. I also use the old herb lists from role master to give them access to many more natural potions and healing. They are formidable.
I think mine is even more fomidable since the GM i'm with as divided the druids into two paths Combat and nature paths. because of a good back story the GM allowed my druid to be of both paths.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I played a system once, although I don't remember what it was called, that made a good deal more sense than the typical D&D system. In it, magic-users developed spell LEVELs that grew with each level.
How the mage spent them was up to him. It could be 10 1st level spells, or 5 2nd, or any combination of spells that he know that didn't exceed his spell level allotment.
I liked it because if a mage cast a HUGE spell it could really take a toll on him, and limit the amount of spells he could cast for the rest of the day....even longer depending on the spell, and how effective it was.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
IIRC, Rolemaster, which Bean likes, works like that.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think that it was a modified version of that, combigned wiht regular D&D rules. It may have even been something home grown.
We used the D7D books for most things.
Keep in mind that this was over 20 years ago, long before the new version of D7D. I still get confused these days trying to follow all the prestige classes and feats and all...we didn't have any of that stuff. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
You know, I think this may just be the most entertaining thread I have ever read on Hatrack. Something about seeing MPH and Tom (Two of my favorite posters and, in my opinion, two of the smartest guys on Hatrack) discussing D&D rules just about makes my day.
As for the topic at hand, I pretty much agree with Tom's assessment of your suggestion, CB. I have to be at work in about ten minutes, but when I get back I'll read through again and see if I have anything more useful to add.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Role Master was great, because you got so many Power Points per level, very similar to the Psionics system in use or to the level variant, but spells went all the way to level 50, the catch was that you needed to be of the level to cast the spell, at level ten you could use up to the level 10 spell off say Fire Mastery List without harm, but the cool thing was for say a five percent risk per level you could over cast your level.
So in a pinch you could cast your level 20 spell off that list with a 50% chance of destroying yourself, too cool! Role-master had the original Middle Earth Copyrights so the One Ring and all the Rings of Power were also in the system. Among the many list they accessed they were also Power Point multipliers. So when you put on Nenya say, you got X 6 to you Power Points. A solid kick in the ass. The One Ring was a X 10 Power Point multiplier, so when you wore it you had an extra order of magnitude of power. You went from a 10 PP to 100 and so on. Sauron with 400 levels and like 2400 PP with the Ring had 24,000 while Gandalf with like 800 PP would have had 8000 and could have kicked the dog snot out of Sauron. It all works out, and I would actually build a combat system based on role master much more easily on a computer system then d&d simply because it incorporates everything, every attack has its OB and DB (Offensive bonus and Defensive bonus) and a chance factor that is open ended (95 or better gets to re-roll and stacks) but to solve some of those attacks took seven, eight, nine or ten factors, a computer would do this much more efficiently then we ever could with pen and paper. I wonder if any of the games like WOW use a role-master style combat check system.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I loved RoleMaster, too. But as Bean observes, it's a system that would work better on a computer than in play; there were simply too many charts to track.
And it broke down badly at higher levels, too, like all games with level mechanics.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Wizards and sorcerers get more powerful than fighter-type characters anyway after about level 8-10. Even when you roughly gauge their capacity based on a 1v1 fight.
Multiple attacks are a minimal benefit until way later in a sample 'engagement,' anyway, given that multiple attacks cannot be taken until no movement has been made aside from a five foot step in that round. Yes, the warriors have a higher BAB and number of attacks, and the lower BAB of wizards is only slightly entirely redundant since they will never endeavor to duel with attacks, instead opting for quickened spells and/or spells with defensive casting (once you can exceed a minimum average 15 on a roll, you're set) which are more dangerous than even a full-round attack for warriors.
Something of a moot point for either, since at about the same time spellcasters start 'overtaking' melee fighters, clerics and druids are 'overtaking' everyone.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
In Middle Earth the presence of Sauron kept magic on the down low. When world building with ICE it was important to put upper limits on using powerful spells in some way. I think the big failing of Role Master was its lack of an original world to play in. It was meticulous in its application of Tolkien's world, if you can get Moria, Morgul Vale, Cirith Ungul or the any of the products of Middle Earth (I love Celbrimbors Stats and Equipment) The Dudgeons were mortally impossible really but so cool to read. The linear progression of combat factors, critical hits, and the Power Point system, and skill ranks are all Role Master innovations that D&D adopted. I do not know if they bought out Role Master, I know that the new system for Middle Earth Role Playing is thin gruel compared to the old, and I know that the Tolkien people where serious enough about the copyright issue that D&D has Balor instead of Balrog, Halfling instead of Hobbit and so on. I think the D&D folk had more creativity in world building and so even with a weaker system they dominated the market. Those open ended critical rolls were a blast, I had a wood elf kill a LV 25 Corsair of Umber with a single shot from his long bow.
It was quirky too, you got extra XP for Criticals Delivered and Received, 1 XP per mile traveled, and you got the XP for killing a monster if you were the one who delivered the killing blow, that could really lead to fist fights, "Stay away from that Troll I just knocked out!" Good Times
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
quote:Something of a moot point for either, since at about the same time spellcasters start 'overtaking' melee fighters, clerics and druids are 'overtaking' everyone.
Wow that is no joke, I just made a Cleric of Dumathion for a Dwarf Character, he had eight different Domains and with them came with four feats, two skill rank bonuses, extra spells, one saving throw bonus and the power to turn elementals or command earth type creatures. With normal Dwarf bonuses I had more special abilities at first level then I had on my sheet. If they are not trying to hock the Priesthood I do not know what is going on. I don't think my player will ever go back.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm sure that a cleric with eight domains has every reason to be better than any normal character, since that isn't usually at all possible.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Look it up, I gave him one, Rune that I felt was lacking the rest are all listed. Cavern, Craft, Dwarf, Earth, Knowlege, Protection, Metal all on the list. Oh and I do not make them choose just two, that would suck.
Say I do not know if anybody else doesn't know about this but Giant in the Playground is the coolist comic on the net, It is hilarious, the more gaming experience you have the more fun it is. Plus just as a story it is not too bad at all.
Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
The comic is actually called 'Order of the Stick.' Or Erfworld.
Giant in the Playground is the website.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Look it up, I gave him one, Rune that I felt was lacking the rest are all listed. Cavern, Craft, Dwarf, Earth, Knowlege, Protection, Metal all on the list. Oh and I do not make them choose just two, that would suck.
Wow...are we talking D&D 3.5 here? Because that is seriously munchkined out, man. How can you have that character in a party without him automatically becoming by far the most uber of all the characters? The feats, skill bonuses, saving throws, and special abilities you're describing represent I think at least two levels of power. Even fighters, the feat-happy class, only get combat-related feats as much as you're describing...and they don't get all that other stuff.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Look it up, I gave him one, Rune that I felt was lacking the rest are all listed. Cavern, Craft, Dwarf, Earth, Knowlege, Protection, Metal all on the list. Oh and I do not make them choose just two, that would suck.
BC, I'm a little confused by your house rules. In D&D3.5, clerics must choose two domains from all the ones available to worshippers of their god. The list of domains for a given god are the domains available to choose from, not the ones that clerics ALL get.
In fact, domains are so powerful that the ability to pick up access to an extra domain is both a feat and a class feature of some prestige classes. With the right build, I believe it's possible for a cleric in 3.5E to have five domains. This would require one feat and five levels in a certain prestige class (the prereq for which is a fairly undesirable feat).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
MERP (Middle-Earth Role Playing) by I.C.E. (Iron Crown Enterprises) was a slimmed-down version of I.C.E.'s Rolemaster, making it so that you could use MERP stuff in a Rolemaster game.
I own a whole slew of MERP and Rolmaster books, but I only played a handful of times.
Much to my delight, many of the changes that were made to D&D between AD&D 2.0 and D&D 3.0 make it much more similar to Rolemaster.
The only big change that I wished for back in my days of reading Rolemaster but playing AD&D 2.0 is the magic system, much as has been described here.
I really like the idea of the point system, but in all honesty, I don' I don't really know how well it works in play. I liked that the three magic types (arcane, divine, and psionics) are all tied to different stats (intelligence, wisdom, and charisma, or whatever they were called. In fact, when D&D 3.0 tied Cha to some magic, I jumped up and down for joy), and I like that they all pretty much use the same ruleset.
Psionics in D&D has always had a "tacked on" feel. It sometimes works like magic, sometimes doesn't, and its rules are completely different. It's no wonder that so many games disallow psionics, but I wish it weren't so.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Yeah, but in five years I have never had a player choose cleric so the first time I made one I missed the domain limits, so I let it ride, treating it like an bonus to become a cleric, In the end it is a bad example, since I am allowing it, for the one guy who is willing to play one after all, I might 'discover' the rule later if it becomes popular, I will also allow a domain for every point of wisdom bonus even then...
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Mentalism, Channeling and Essence in Rolemaster. There were some flaws though, I think the spell system for healing was brutal, you had to find a bone specialist for a break, an cut man for wounds and so on. Crazy complex.
Editing out the psionic combat and turning all the attacks and defenses into powers was the end of the last of the problems with psionics. It was really a hold over from the Nerds who invented D&D wanting to merge it with Sci-fi. Rolemaster did many things better but they had a real love of complexity for its own sake.
The Monster Summoning progression is a good example of how Rolemaster looked. I wonder how hard it would be to blend all the D&D spells into lists like that and then bring the Role Master lists over... Hmmm
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I will also allow a domain for every point of wisdom bonus even then...
Egad. With wizards casting multiple spells per turn and clerics with eight domain abilities PLUS the bonus spells, what are you doing for fighters and rogues? I assume that fighters can kill creatures by looking at them fiercely enough? Posted by Lord Of All Fools (Member # 3841) on :
I like the idea of having little to no magic at all in campaigns-- making magic very rare and special.
I like the idea of magicians' laboratories, where they work out their magic through weeks and months, instead of turns-- but those spells have vastly greater effects.
I like skill based games rather than feat based games; I like playing ordinary people (or super-ordinary people) thrown into major events. I like plot; I like characterization.
If I could remove the dice and trust everyone to tell the best story-- that'd be perfect.
I have the feeling that I could like about any game system, if I had the right GM/group.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
The fighters and rogues make very careful plans, very, very careful plans.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Counter Bean: The fighters and rogues make very careful plans, very, very careful plans.
Yup. You have to level the playing field for those wizards who aren't smart enough or have enough tools to make or execute careful plans.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Fighters make careful plans? Remind me to bump up my Intelligence and Wisdom scores next time I play a fighter.
Oh, right, those are useless for fighters.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
If I had PC spell casters it would be an issue, I more often have the opposite problem, what do you do with a players whose sheet says 18 intelligence but who is more of a barbarian in reality. I do not consider tactics to be beyond anyone.
Really when have you ever said, you are too dumb to have come up with that plan, you have to do something stupid to a PC?
In their fiction, Greenwood and Grub have taken the position that in the Realms the balance is maintained because wizards negate and oppose each other. The fighters and rogues are beneath notice so they slip in under the radar. My players tend to be sponsored by mages and clerics but not have any along, just enough magic protection to get close and do the ugly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why even have melee classes in your game world, I have to wonder? It's so drastically tilted the other direction that it would seem suicidal to play a fighter or a rogue.
Edit:
quote:Really when have you ever said, you are too dumb to have come up with that plan, you have to do something stupid to a PC?
I've done it more than once. And in a game I'm playing in, a character just did that deliberately to himself when he knew it was foolish, and nearly died at it-but that's what his character would've done.
quote:In their fiction, Greenwood and Grub have taken the position that in the Realms the balance is maintained because wizards negate and oppose each other. The fighters and rogues are beneath notice so they slip in under the radar. My players tend to be sponsored by mages and clerics but not have any along, just enough magic protection to get close and do the ugly.
Which is exactly my point-it's balanced for wizards and sorcerers and casters. The other classes are left under the cold.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If you want your non-PC spellcasters to be much more powerful than your PCs, why not just make them a higher level?
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
I cannot in good conscious let any wizard with ninth level spells be beaten by anyone if he has time to settle in and build up his supplies. I run them as I would play them and that means carefully and patiently. Just coming within twenty miles of such a wizard with hostile intent or strong spells is going to set off some alarms.
Still it is not really about parity, I am not a big advocate of fairness at high levels, I like unfairness really, it is more dramatic. The reason for the rules changes are because they smooth out lumps in the game, continuity flaws. More experienced spell casters should cast faster, however... I do not think I will be extending the ability to clerics, after all, their skills are borrowed not the product of practice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's true...but within the system you describe, wouldn't their deities grant them increased abilities to better face their enemies and do their work?
I mean, in a world where wizards and sorcerers get to cast, without feats, more spells per round...wouldn't the deities--in standard D&D 3.5 very heavily involved in the world--not want their clerics to be overmatched in the field, so to speak?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Why don't you cut out the middlemen and just make all spellcasters gods?
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
I have long reasoned that clerics can heal and wizards cannot because of the complexity of the problem. This implies that clerical spells have a 'detail in fine' that wizard spells do not. They are the products of a gods mind after all. It is reasonable since the mind can never create a cleric spell that it cannot influence the casting rate.
As for spell casters being gods... There are several major threats that spell casters face, one is that they eat their own, two is that even a level one mage is an obvious target even though a typical barroom bouncer could kill him. Mages are carried too level five then they walk too level nine, jog through the mid levels and run at the high. Once a wizard gets up to speed he is like a sea turtle at full size. I just killed off the level one mage tonight in a new party. Goblin spear... The rest of the party survives. So most wizards are going to take a long apprentice route, reach fifth or so, adventure a bit and then settle into the scroll, potion and charging items business in some major town bringing in far more then they can risking life and limb. So PC adventuring mages are all some kind of crazy and always have a bullseye on themselves. If they reach the upper levels anywhere in the realms it is either join the machine/club/secret society/school or have the man come down like a bag of bricks. My mages graduate from adventuring four to six levels before any other class and get swallowed up by politics. It is a natural progression. When the party thief is still cutting purses the mage is the mayor...
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Okay, I definitely agree with MPH and Tom and Rakeesh and... just about everyone. This seems utterly bonkers, CB. Casters are *already* better than non casters. Divine casters have been the best classes in the game since 3.0 came out; first Clerics and with 3.5 Druids were brought up to an equally absurd level. Arcane casters clocked in a close second (arguably first, if they get enough planning in). How could they possibly need a boost? I can't even wrap my head around that.
The magic system is inherently broken, because magic power increases and improves exponentially. A 9th level spell is not worth 9 first level spells. It's worth about fifty.
Imagine if the number of fighter bonus feats doubled every few levels, or if rogue sneak attack doubled every few levels. That would be the equivalent to the current spell system. How could a system like that need to be made better?
Also, discussion of Rolemaster is bringing back some major childhood flashbacks. And I agree with you, MPH, that point-based casting systems are interesting (at least in theory).
This conversation has great timing; I've spent the last couple weeks struggling to hammer out a bunch of rules for a D20, point-based spell system that doesn't improve exponentially. It's challenging, but it's been fun so far.
Anyway, yeah. I think this is probably my favorite thread now.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The best non-exponential, point-based spell systems are component-based ones, in which you combine things like "short-range/fire/single target/3d6 dice of damage" to establish criteria for point cost. IMO, of course.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I have long reasoned that clerics can heal and wizards cannot because of the complexity of the problem. This implies that clerical spells have a 'detail in fine' that wizard spells do not. They are the products of a gods mind after all. It is reasonable since the mind can never create a cleric spell that it cannot influence the casting rate.
What does it say about the campaign you're designing, where clerics have a higher degree of fine control, but are not-even at high levels-granted as much raw power as wizards and sorcerers have? It certainly seems to me that given that, 'godlike' would be an appropriate label for W/S. And it's not 'the mind' that would be influencing the casting rate of divine-based spells. Since they're power from the gods, it would be the deity granting that power, which returns to my original question: why wouldn't deities grant higher power to their higher level clerics, to match the higher powers of W/S?
quote:As for spell casters being gods... There are several major threats that spell casters face, one is that they eat their own, two is that even a level one mage is an obvious target even though a typical barroom bouncer could kill him.
OK, so the gods face threats from other gods. And when they're baby gods, they're weaker.
quote:Mages are carried too level five then they walk too level nine, jog through the mid levels and run at the high.
I'm not really sure why you think this. You're describing level progression as though it were an MMORPG, in which such things are fairly predictible because there are a limited number of threats the character can face, and a precise number of methods he can use to deal with those threats. It's not like that in a tabletop RPG, where the GM is in charge of deciding what threats are faced and in what quantities.
quote:I just killed off the level one mage tonight in a new party. Goblin spear... The rest of the party survives.
Not by much, though. The only character who is going to survive with total reliability a goblin spear to the guts at level one-critical hits included-would be a barbarian with a high constitution, and thus looking at >14HP. The rest would die after two goblin spears, perhaps. And when do they face one goblin?
quote:When the party thief is still cutting purses the mage is the mayor...
This sums it up right here. I'm not sure why you're shying away from admitting what is plain, that you like casting classes quite a bit more than non-casting classes. This is shown in the way you're drastically altering the rules to make the game easier for them-even when they face other casters, because your party will typically have more spells/better items than your opposition, just to make sure they don't get wiped out and end the game. You prefer a much more gamist/munchkin approach to RPGs than suits my tastes, but different strokes for different folks and all. But it is what it is.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
quote: why wouldn't deities grant higher power to their higher level clerics, to match the higher powers of W/S?
It is the same reason you never get rich working for a corporation as opposed to working for yourself. Gods do not give out the profits from their enterprise freely.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sure...but when you start working for the corporation and rise to the highest ranks, you can eventually become CFO or something, and extreme wealth.
I'm talking a L20, committed-his-whole-life, cleric here. Deities as involved in the world as they are in 3.5 would of course grant them greater powers to keep them in competition with high-level wizards. Deities are not fans of their powers and influence-as exhibited by their clerics, paladins, and rangers-become marginalized.
What you're really saying is that in your campaign, a high level wizard whose powers come from his own learning has more strength and knowledge than a cleric, whose powers and knowledge come directly from a god.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
If there is a one thing that doesn't match up well with fantasy as stated earlier, the daily spell casting cycle is very fast, If I had to design a magic system it would allow certain 'simple elemental' effects to be cast using no preparation and raw power points. More complex effects would fill up higher level spell slots and they would be 'Hung' on the wizard sign (arcane mark) much as Roger Zelasney had in his Merlin Chronicles. The sign would keep them fresh but they would require hours in advance to cast into the spell stack. A wizard would painstakingly create magical effects (limited only to imagination, space available, and the GM rating on the difficulty of the spell, and then horde them for the moment they are intended. That would give things that Hyperborian feel with wizards only intervening at the last moment. However since the spell is pre cast just waiting to be unleashed sending it on its way would just require a word and a hasty unlocking sigle drawn in the air to release it.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
quote: What you're really saying is that in your campaign, a high level wizard whose powers come from his own learning has more strength and knowledge than a cleric, whose powers and knowledge come directly from a god.
Which makes perfect sense, a cleric of whatever level is a child of an entity with a single minded obsession, perhaps several, they are not God's in the sense that we hold our God to be, all wise or knowing, they are just powerful. I would be far more reluctant to have my characters receive a miracle then a wish, a miracle would have so many strings on it that it would be the equivalent of a life sentence.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Which makes perfect sense, a cleric of whatever level is a child of an entity with a single minded obsession, perhaps several, they are not God's in the sense that we hold our God to be, all wise or knowing, they are just powerful.
This is just another way of saying that the powers wizards have are more potent than the ones gods give in your campaign settings. Remarking that this makes your W/S godlike is thus pretty fair.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
In Rolemaster the introduction says that essence and mentalist spell casters are 'little gods' mucking about with the powers of the universe. It is really a difference in degree not kind.
Perhaps my views are influenced by the Basic-Expert-Companion-Immortals box set rules that I started with. (a very good system by the way) So my AD&D is corrupted.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Wizards and Sorcerers are supposed to have more potent capacity to wield magic, since they are specialized in that field.
To a degree, this is true: arcane magic is the best field of magic in the game, and provides a superior body of spells by level, with more variety.
Unfortunately, its advantage is rendered somewhat negligible after the Wish/Miracle spells come in to play. It also doesn't make up for the other advantages Clerics have over arcane spellcasters (e.g., all).
But it's something of a moot point. What you initially proposed is not actually a solution to the spellcaster issue; it just makes later game spellcasters more powerful. Nobody thinks they need to be.
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
Well, nobody except him. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Bean, I think your bizarre ideas about what wizards and clerics should be like would work much better in a system like AD&D 2.0, where each class has its own XP progression table.
For example, the thief was under-powered per level, so to balance it out, it took less XPs for the theif to advance levels than any other class. On the other end of the spectrum was the paladin, which was (supposedly) overpowered per level, but since it took so many XPs to gain levels, they tended to be a lower level than the rest of their party.
That way, you could make certain classes too powerful, but counterbalance that somewhat by making it much harder to advance in those classes. Of course, that would break all sorts of things in D&D 3.x.
The AD&D 2.0 world of Darksun used this mechanic to deal with different types of magic. There were two very different methods of weilding arcane magic -- one was ecologically destructive and had pretty normal XP requirements, while the other one was ecologically friendly but took about twice as much XP to advance.
Needless to say, the ecologically destructive type was much more popular, causing all sorts of problems to the planet.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Tom: I agree with your assessment of point-based spellcasting systems 100%
And once again MPH and Rakeesh and... pretty much everybody... said what I was thinking with regards to CB.
And MPH... Dark Sun! Wow, this thread just keeps on bringing back childhood memories.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The best non-exponential, point-based spell systems are component-based ones, in which you combine things like "short-range/fire/single target/3d6 dice of damage" to establish criteria for point cost. IMO, of course.
Don't warlocks from Complete Arcana kinda work like this?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And MPH... Dark Sun! Wow, this thread just keeps on bringing back childhood memories.
Yeah. For someone who had only played in relatively generic D&D worlds (Forgotten Realms, etc.), it was fascinating.
Heck -- it still is. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Kinda -- but warlocks are pretty "meh" compared to the component options available in, say, GURPS, Shadowrun, or Mage/Ars Magica.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:For example, the thief was under-powered per level, so to balance it out, it took less XPs for the theif to advance levels than any other class.
And for another example: the thief was useless at higher levels, so to balance it out, people dropped 2.0 like a rock. Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Counter Bean: I just killed off the level one mage tonight in a new party. Goblin spear... The rest of the party survives.
I'm glad you're not my DM. I probably wouldn't play with you if you killed off first-level characters. As a DM, your philosophy should be that the game is fun first- even if you're playing with people who are rule-mongers.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, I kill off first-level characters, on the rare occasions that I have my PCs start at first level. Part of the whole "first-level" experience is dying before you get too attached. Why play at the lower levels if you aren't going to take advantage of one of the two unique aspects of those levels, namely the fragility of the PCs?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Hey, when did I say that you were a fun DM, Tom? Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Kinda -- but warlocks are pretty "meh" compared to the component options available in, say, GURPS, Shadowrun, or Mage/Ars Magica.
Tom, there are scores of books for those systems. Do you know the names of the "core" books for me to check out, the equivalent of PHB and DMG?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For GURPS, you'd want the core book and GURPS Magic. Shadowrun has one core book, but The Grimoire is a good expansion for its magic system. And the core Mage book is all you need to play.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I don't know what we're talking about right now in this thread, but personally it bugs me that wizards (in D&D) have to memorize their spells in advance (at the start of the day). This would seem to result in very specialized spells never getting memorized, and therefore never being required by a fair DM.
I actually don't play D&D much lately. Would it really be unbalancing to just let a wizard cast so many spells of each level per day without having to memorize them ahead of time?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I actually don't play D&D much lately. Would it really be unbalancing to just let a wizard cast so many spells of each level per day without having to memorize them ahead of time?
It would add a lot of power to the wizard class, which would be unbalancing.
In 3.x D&D, there's a new class like that called the "Sorcerer" who doesn't have to memorize spells beforehand. The big drawback is that they have far fewer spells they can cast. A wizard can have a million spells to draw on, as long as he has enough spell books. A sorcerer only has a set number of spells of each level that they can cast.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: I actually don't play D&D much lately. Would it really be unbalancing to just let a wizard cast so many spells of each level per day without having to memorize them ahead of time?
Sounds like a Sorceror to me.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
I think one death in six for first level characters is pretty good actually. It makes the game more fun on average by raising the level of risk for the rest. If the dice rolls a twenty then the character takes the spear in the guts. I am pretty free with magical options so the death rate drops a good deal as the characters gain levels and options. But that is why the common man doesn't go adventuring. The only other DM I trust to run may group would have probably killed three of the six. The good thing is that those characters that survive make third level really fast and can Shepard the new first levels along. No game is fun if you have a certainty of success...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There are two classes that have 'spontaneous' casting: Sorceror and Bard. Each has a number of spell slots per day that can be spent on whatever spells they know from that spell level. The number of spells they know are based on their level.
Sorcerers are mostly equivilant to wizards, appearing to just be a Charisma-based spontaneous casting version. There's a number of differences, though: They end up with a larger pool of spells per day, and gain spell levels slower. They get no wizard bonus feats. They need no spellbook. They are much more straightforward. There are furious arguments brimming with nerd rage and theorycraft as to which of the two full-arcane classes are stronger.
There's a good way to figure out whether or not you definitely want to be a sorcerer. It's a simple question.
Q: Does your DM allow you to take metamagic feats and build up a library of self-made scrolls?
If the answer is "No," "Yes, but s/he makes it insanely difficult," "Uh, how do you do that?" or "I don't bother with that stuff ^_^" then the choice is clear. Be a sorcerer. A wizard is not for you.
Also, if your DM is stingy and gimps your spell selection in any way (like preventing you from obtaining fly because they don't know how to handle a flying character), be a sorcerer and pick your own spells. If the DM insists on picking your spells for you, give up and be a cleric, which recieves ALL spells from ALL available spell levels ALWAYS.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Right on Samp. I find the average wizard player isn't doing anywhere near what he could be, because he tends to overlook the free item creation feat wizards get (and one of the best): Scribe Scroll!
It enables all the limited usefulness "is this really going to come in handy?" spells to be available, all the time. You don't need to memorize spells like knock, water breathing, halt undead (unless you know ahead of time you're going into a particular situation)... but you can have a scroll handy for virtually every occasion. They're unbelievably cheap in both gold and XP.
Certainly, metamagic and other item creation feats can come in handy. But I Scribe Scroll has saved my bacon more times than any other feat out there.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Its not just the players missing that feat, look at R A Salavatore's 10000 Orc Series, a strong mage with years to prepare is limited to a few daily spells in his own tower, I would have enough maximized fireballs to kill 10000 orcs myself in that time.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Okay, I didn't realize that wizards had ways to get around having to memorize spells ahead of time. That makes them seem more useful to me.
Can't DMs disallow certain cleric spells in-game simply by having the cleric's god refuse to give the cleric the spells?
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Golden Rule: The DM may allow or disallow anything although, for this particular change, I'd like him to warn me ahead (that it could happend).
Another thing: Do you guys know "ARS Magica"?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Spoken like a true gamer.
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)