Breaking magic away from classes
Moderator: Moderators
Breaking magic away from classes
I've been playing runequest and reading The Obsidian Trilogy, and I've started to wonder, would it possible to break magic away from classes and allow people to learn spellcasting in addition to what they usually do?
I'm talking d20 here, specifically.
I'm talking d20 here, specifically.
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
So a feat based magic system?
Hasn't something like that been done already? Or am I just pulling shit out of my ass again.
Definitely a feat based magic system could work and would provide the fighting characters with some better options than their in-built abilities.
The magic feat system would have to be limited as not to overshadow the Mage classes.
Of course, this also means that mages get extra spells or extra effects.
Wait, isn't the sphere system something similar?
Hasn't something like that been done already? Or am I just pulling shit out of my ass again.
Definitely a feat based magic system could work and would provide the fighting characters with some better options than their in-built abilities.
The magic feat system would have to be limited as not to overshadow the Mage classes.
Of course, this also means that mages get extra spells or extra effects.
Wait, isn't the sphere system something similar?
Ancient History wrote:We were working on Street Magic, and Frank asked me if a houngan had run over my dog.
If we're doing a feat-based magic system, I'd say there are two ways to do the mage/wizard/whatchamahoozie class:
1) Scrap it. Replace it with the "Loremaster" for smart people, or just kill it. "Wizard" now means "class who has taken a bunch of magic feats."
2) Give it a number of magic feats as class features. Thus, everyone can learn magic if they want to spend the resources, but no one can be as flexible at it as a dedicated mage. 3.x's wizard bonus feats are the general idea.
Off the top of my head, I'd say the first feat would grant access to, say, one school of magic and bard-level spellcasting. Additional feats could upgrade the casting to wizard/cleric, add more schools, etc.
1) Scrap it. Replace it with the "Loremaster" for smart people, or just kill it. "Wizard" now means "class who has taken a bunch of magic feats."
2) Give it a number of magic feats as class features. Thus, everyone can learn magic if they want to spend the resources, but no one can be as flexible at it as a dedicated mage. 3.x's wizard bonus feats are the general idea.
Off the top of my head, I'd say the first feat would grant access to, say, one school of magic and bard-level spellcasting. Additional feats could upgrade the casting to wizard/cleric, add more schools, etc.
Last edited by Talisman on Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
MartinHarper wrote:Babies are difficult to acquire in comparison to other sources of nutrition.
The Zelda d20 has something similar. Spells are broken up into groupings based on the 6 sages from Ocarina of Time, and to advance your casting, you have to spend feats.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
--The horror of Mario
Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
- Psychic Robot
- Prince
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm
Despite all the Saga edition hate going around--I'm sure that PL has enough for everyone, heh--a skill-based system magic system could work. You take a feat, you get X number of spells you can use per encounter. Whenever you use those spells, you make a Spellcraft check (or whatever), which determines your awesomeness.
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:You do not seem to do anything.Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
The True20 system uses a "take a spell instead of a feat" system, and gives you a feat every level. I like the way it's set up.
EDIT:
EDIT:
The system also makes use of skill checks to determine effectiveness. Also fatigue. Which is interesting.Psychic Robot wrote:Despite all the Saga edition hate going around--I'm sure that PL has enough for everyone, heh--a skill-based system magic system could work. You take a feat, you get X number of spells you can use per encounter. Whenever you use those spells, you make a Spellcraft check (or whatever), which determines your awesomeness.
Last edited by Ravengm on Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Random thing I saw on Facebook wrote:Just make sure to compare your results from Weapon Bracket Table and Elevator Load Composition (Dragon Magazine #12) to the Perfunctory Armor Glossary, Version 3.8 (Races of Minneapolis, pp. 183). Then use your result as input to the "DM Says Screw You" equation.
- CatharzGodfoot
- King
- Posts: 5668
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: North Carolina
At that point you might as well just give everyone full spellcasting for free.Talisman wrote:Off the top of my head, I'd say the first feat would grant access to, say, one school of magic and bard-level spellcasting. Additional feats could upgrade the casting to wizard/cleric, add more schools, etc.
Nonesense. I'm assuming, in this hypothetical system, that feats are worth taking and not taking a spellcasting feat doesn't mean you suck...it means you're a badass mofo in some other respect.CatharzGodfoot wrote:At that point you might as well just give everyone full spellcasting for free.Talisman wrote:Off the top of my head, I'd say the first feat would grant access to, say, one school of magic and bard-level spellcasting. Additional feats could upgrade the casting to wizard/cleric, add more schools, etc.
Question: Does anyone have any experience with either Green Ronin's psychic class/system, and their True Sorcery optional system? Both are, essentially, skill-based magic systems.
MartinHarper wrote:Babies are difficult to acquire in comparison to other sources of nutrition.
The concept of Saga's magic system was interesting, I'll give you that. It will prohibit the existence of magic that boosts skills, otherwise things go into crazy town.
Another source of ideas, assuming you fix some of the numbers and benchmarks (even the author mentioned his attempt at veering away from the focus subsystem), can be found HERE.
Another source of ideas, assuming you fix some of the numbers and benchmarks (even the author mentioned his attempt at veering away from the focus subsystem), can be found HERE.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
- CatharzGodfoot
- King
- Posts: 5668
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: North Carolina
Then you're really talking about revising the non-magic feat system, because even in a Races of War game a fighter would be best off ditching two feats for full wizard casting.Talisman wrote:Nonesense. I'm assuming, in this hypothetical system, that feats are worth taking and not taking a spellcasting feat doesn't mean you suck...it means you're a badass mofo in some other respect.CatharzGodfoot wrote:At that point you might as well just give everyone full spellcasting for free.Talisman wrote:Off the top of my head, I'd say the first feat would grant access to, say, one school of magic and bard-level spellcasting. Additional feats could upgrade the casting to wizard/cleric, add more schools, etc.
So what do you recommend?CatharzGodfoot wrote:Then you're really talking about revising the non-magic feat system, because even in a Races of War game a fighter would be best off ditching two feats for full wizard casting.
One feat per spell is obviously retarded.
One feat for 1/2-level casting seems worthless by itself.
One feat per spell level? You'd have to give out feats like candy to make it workable.
Obviously, spellcasting feats have to scale to some extent...some middle ground between "everyone's a wizard" and blowing a feat on some spells that are worthless in two levels.
MartinHarper wrote:Babies are difficult to acquire in comparison to other sources of nutrition.
Zelda d20? Gimme gimme gimme gimme! *fanboy squeal*
Absentminded_Wizard wrote:Yes, according to 4e RAW, you are your own enemy.4e PHB, p. 57 under "Target" (bolding mine) wrote:When a power’s target entry specifies that it affects you and one or more of your allies, then you can take advantage of the power’s effect along with your team-mates. Otherwise, “ally” or “allies” does not include you, and both terms assume willing targets. “Enemy” or “enemies” means a creature or creatures that aren’t your allies (whether those creatures are hostile toward you or not). “Creature” or “creatures” means allies and enemies both, as well as you.
- JonSetanta
- King
- Posts: 5525
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: interbutts
here...ZER0 wrote:Zelda d20? Gimme gimme gimme gimme! *fanboy squeal*
http://z12.invisionfree.com/Zelda_RPG/i ... act=SC&c=6
-
- King
- Posts: 6403
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
For all your adoption of this community for its shared hate of 4th edition you really don't get on well with numbers and facts do you?Psychic Robot wrote:Despite all the Saga edition hate going around--I'm sure that PL has enough for everyone, heh--a skill-based system magic system could work. You take a feat, you get X number of spells you can use per encounter. Whenever you use those spells, you make a Spellcraft check (or whatever), which determines your awesomeness.
Skill based d20 magic systems suck, the numbers are just stupid and skill ranks in Profession will never equal skill ranks in "Save or die bitch!"
Feat based d20 magic systems suck, magic is just better than feats, and even if it were equal you can't do the OP's thing of "doing what you do AND learning magic" because you need the stupid feats to do what you do in the first place.
And Saga's brilliant plan of giving you an unknown amount of an unknown selection of unbalanced spells that were considered balanced by a resource limit that refreshed on an unknown and variable timetable was, oddly, a steaming load of shit.
A combination of all of that (which Saga did) is utter lunacy.
All those things should be pretty self evident and most of them have been discussed exhaustively enough around if not directly then certainly as they pertain to certain late 3rd edition tack on magic system and tack on fighter powers splat books.
So if you want magic to NOT be classed based you either need to create a new level based resource everyone just gets to spend on magic and/or new previously unimagined stuff as good as magic...
Or something. Really though tacking a whole new magic system on d20? Almost certainly not an especially great idea...
- CatharzGodfoot
- King
- Posts: 5668
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: North Carolina
One thing worth considering is 4e's Ritual system. The implementation in that game is poor, but (like many things in the system) the idea is good.Talisman wrote:So what do you recommend?CatharzGodfoot wrote:Then you're really talking about revising the non-magic feat system, because even in a Races of War game a fighter would be best off ditching two feats for full wizard casting.
One feat per spell is obviously retarded.
One feat for 1/2-level casting seems worthless by itself.
One feat per spell level? You'd have to give out feats like candy to make it workable.
Obviously, spellcasting feats have to scale to some extent...some middle ground between "everyone's a wizard" and blowing a feat on some spells that are worthless in two levels.
What the character gets should depend on the type of spellcasting. If wizard-type casting is desired, the mechanics should probably be somewhat different from sorcerer casting.
An orthogonal possibility is to build wizard casting off of sorcerer casting. That is, sorcerer casting represents raw magical ability and the wizard learns to methodically control it.
Your first feat could grant a single floating spell slot of level/2 (possibly rounded up), and one spell known of each spell level. Take the feat again, and you get one slot per spell level known. That's equivalent to a sphere, except you can use higher slots to cast lower spells. Other feats could give more spell slots and/or spells known.
The Prepared Casting feat would let you prepare spells from spellbooks or scrolls in your normal slots. I'm not sure whether you'd want to allow 'spontaneous conversion'.
DCs would probably be based on character level.
- Psychic Robot
- Prince
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm
SkillsPL wrote:Skill based d20 magic systems suck, the numbers are just stupid and skill ranks in Profession will never equal skill ranks in "Save or die bitch!"
Feat based d20 magic systems suck, magic is just better than feats, and even if it were equal you can't do the OP's thing of "doing what you do AND learning magic" because you need the stupid feats to do what you do in the first place.
Your first complaint is that the d20 is wildly divergent in terms of number generation.
Solution: I suppose that there isn't one, short of not using a d20, which would go against the purposes of this thread.
Your second complaint is that magic gets to be more powerful than completely useless background skills.
Solution: None needed.
Feats
Your first complaint is that magic is more powerful than feats.
Solution(s): Accept that Magic Is Better, or weaken the magic, or strengthen the feats, or do more than one of those.
Your second complaint is that a feat-based system doesn't work because it has opportunity cost.
Solution: None needed.
So, in a d20 system, one possible solution would be a feat-based system that appropriately balances feats with magic powers.
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:You do not seem to do anything.Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
- JonSetanta
- King
- Posts: 5525
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: interbutts
And so here we are back again to Tome...Psychic Robot wrote: So, in a d20 system, one possible solution would be a feat-based system that appropriately balances feats with magic powers.
It's ironic that youcome to such a logical conclusion for that (Solution) because I had reached the same back in SKR forum years ago.
At the time I was bitchmoaned at for making 'overpowered crap'.
Oh, irony.
- Psychic Robot
- Prince
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm
If everyone's overpowered, who cares?
(On a side note, I'm actually okay with players writing up their own classes. If one guy wants to masturbate feverishly to his full BAB, full wizard/cleric casting, all good saves, powergaming douchebag, I don't really care.)
(On a side note, I'm actually okay with players writing up their own classes. If one guy wants to masturbate feverishly to his full BAB, full wizard/cleric casting, all good saves, powergaming douchebag, I don't really care.)
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:You do not seem to do anything.Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
Divergent == "the modifiers scale at different rates between characters", not "a d20's too big a RNG". It's of course possible to have d20 without divergence, though even 4E (which supposedly had the objective) already failed. ![Big Grin :D](./images/smilies/biggrinyellow.gif)
Also, not only you fail to understand that "overpoweredness" is definitionally never shared by everyone, but you also seem to have no respect for your own players (hardly surprising in hindsight, actually).
![Big Grin :D](./images/smilies/biggrinyellow.gif)
Also, not only you fail to understand that "overpoweredness" is definitionally never shared by everyone, but you also seem to have no respect for your own players (hardly surprising in hindsight, actually).
Hans Freyer, s.b.u.h. wrote:A manly, a bold tone prevails in history. He who has the grip has the booty.
Huston Smith wrote:Life gives us no view of the whole. We see only snatches here and there, (...)
brotherfrancis75 wrote:Perhaps you imagine that Ayn Rand is our friend? And the Mont Pelerin Society? No, those are but the more subtle versions of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution you imagine you reject. (...) FOX NEWS IS ALSO COMMUNIST!
LDSChristian wrote:True. I do wonder which is worse: killing so many people like Hitler did or denying Christ 3 times like Peter did.
- Psychic Robot
- Prince
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 10:47 pm
You seem to have missed the point. I can repeat it more slowly, if you would like.Also, not only you fail to understand that "overpoweredness" is definitionally never shared by everyone
I have no respect for retards who play out power fantasies with their characters.you also seem to have no respect for your own players (hardly surprising in hindsight, actually).
Count Arioch wrote:I'm not sure how discussions on whether PR is a terrible person or not is on-topic.
Ant wrote:You do not seem to do anything.Chamomile wrote:Ant, what do we do about Psychic Robot?
-
- King
- Posts: 6403
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
No. No it isn't. The problem is that THE d20 system (not a system using d20s) has a totally unbalanced off the RNG bullshit skill system.Psychic Robot wrote:Your first complaint is that the d20 is wildly divergent in terms of number generation.
I have no idea what weird innumerate fantasy about d20s in general you are waffling on about.
Well you lose, you fail and nothing more you can say on the topic, or much of game design in general, matters then I guess?Psychic Robot wrote:Your second complaint is that magic gets to be more powerful than completely useless background skills.
Solution: None needed.
After all there is NO way that sort of attitude is going to provide anything short of the most incredibly retarded "solution". Hmm let me try?
"Hey OP, you should do it by allowing some fighter characters to take Proffession (Basketweaver) Ranks and other fighter characters to get full wizard spell casting instead!"
Yeah that is FUCKING STUPID actually isn't it?
Entirely rewriting one or more likely BOTH of the magic and feat systems is ricockulously stupid in complexity as a mere d20 system patch.Psychic Robot wrote: Your first complaint is that magic is more powerful than feats.
Solution(s): Accept that Magic Is Better, or weaken the magic, or strengthen the feats, or do more than one of those.
Sure, just completely ignore the basic premise of the OP.Psychic Robot wrote:Your second complaint is that a feat-based system doesn't work because it has opportunity cost.
Solution: None needed.
I like this conceptually. It fits well with the way magic is described in many novels.CatharzGodfoot wrote:An orthogonal possibility is to build wizard casting off of sorcerer casting. That is, sorcerer casting represents raw magical ability and the wizard learns to methodically control it.
Perhaps a "sorcerer" might also risk feedback/brainburn whenever casting a spell (damage minimal, but not something you want happening in the middle of a fight), and taking the "wizard" feat negates this as you learn to channel your magic correctly.
Leaving aside for the moment how many schools/whatever are available, how many feats should it take to ger full, cleric/wizard, levels-0-through-9 spellcasting? Not just one spell per spell level (or a sphere), but "I am a wizard"?Your first feat could grant a single floating spell slot of level/2 (possibly rounded up), and one spell known of each spell level. Take the feat again, and you get one slot per spell level known. That's equivalent to a sphere, except you can use higher slots to cast lower spells. Other feats could give more spell slots and/or spells known.
It could be done like Arcana Unearthed: you can cast X number of spells per day and have Y number "readied." You can change your spells readied with rest and study. It's a cross between sorcerer and wizard casting.The Prepared Casting feat would let you prepare spells from spellbooks or scrolls in your normal slots. I'm not sure whether you'd want to allow 'spontaneous conversion'.
A "sorcerer" in this system would just have the spells he knows and he can cast those. A "wizard" would be able to learn new spells from scrolls, spellbooks, demonic imps, whatever, and ready different ones each day (from his spellbook, natch).
MartinHarper wrote:Babies are difficult to acquire in comparison to other sources of nutrition.