Breaking magic away from classes

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:36 pm

Orc wizards are physically stronger and more intimidating than human wizards, even if they're worse at "wizardry".

Not this again (even though I agree with you wholeheartedly)...

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:04 am

Out, demons of long threads! OUT!

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:23 am

No, Elennsar has it exactly right. The trick is to make sure that whatever physical advantages the ork has are actually useful.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:48 am

While I agree with the basic concept that Elennsar is proposing, I also agree with P_R and name that this is not the thread for this particular topic.

Moving on...

Psionic Automoton wrote:b) Make the Spellcasting skill kind of a skill but not quite.

I vote for b. Thus, we won't go with a skill-based system, exactly. Instead, the Loremaster (we'll call him that, as someone suggested) makes a Spellcasting check: 1d20 + his level + 3. (Add in a key ability modifier if ye so wish.) This determines the effects of his spells.

Normally, non-spellcasters can't make this check. To do this, they take a feat, something like "Diligent Student," which allows them to cast spells. However, their Spellcasting check only receives a bonus equal to 1/2 their level + 1 (or thereabouts). They could take other feats to boost this, perhaps up to a maximum skill check equal to their level (at a time when that would be more than "1/2 their level + 1").

I agree with this, although I would just make the bonus "ability mod + level" and "ability mod + 1/2 level" and adjust the DCs accordingly. There's no reason for it to be "ability mod + level + 3" except to mirror skill rank maximums (and the whole point of this option is that skills are borked).

Telepathic Construct wrote:Now, the problem would come in determining how spells are cast:

--Do characters prepare them, or are they spontaneous?
--How many spells can characters prepare/how many do they know?
--How do we appropriately weaken spells to conform to this system?
--What other restrictions might there be on spellcasting?

1) As fond as I am of spontaneous casters, I vote prepared simply because it's a limitation. Of course, we could theoretically do both.

2) For the investment of one feat, I'd say a maximum of one spell per spell level known. Spells per day could be 1/spell level + ability mod.

I'd also come up with some rather restrictive spell lists to choose from (think Domains)...you can pick up, say, some illusion this way, but one feat won't get you charm person, glitterdust, vampiric touch, dimension door, plane shift, etc...spells that aren't thematically related.

Additional feats could grant more spells per day, as well as more spells known.

3) "All spellcasting is arcane" imposes the ever-popular spell failure chance.
"Spellcasting roll to succeed" might also work...I'd toggle the DC to be around 75-85% under optimum circumstances (so, maybe 10 + [2x spell level], or thereabouts).
"Cast as a full-round action" might work as well.

A lot depends on whether this system exists alongside the traditional wizard and cleric (in which case it's something the mundane classes pick up to give them an edge), or replaces the traditional spellcasters (in which case we need to allow the proper investment of feats to allow for a "wizard" in theme and role, if not identical to the PHB wizard).

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:10 am

"'+ level' or '+ level/2' to a check" is already firmly in retarded design territory as far as d20's concerned.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:13 am

Reasoning?

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:21 am

Knowing your own material?

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:57 am

Okay, point taken regarding "+1/2 level" but I don't agree on "+ level."

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:30 am

While I agree with the basic concept that Elennsar is proposing, I also agree with P_R and name that this is not the thread for this particular topic.

Moving on...

Agreed. I was refering to it solely to point out to Crissa that "less useful" and "useless" aren't identical, since if something is still worth using at all, it can do fine.

So. Spellcasting..

3) "All spellcasting is arcane" imposes the ever-popular spell failure chance.
"Spellcasting roll to succeed" might also work...I'd toggle the DC to be around 75-85% under optimum circumstances (so, maybe 10 + [2x spell level], or thereabouts).
"Cast as a full-round action" might work as well.

One possible thing that could be done here, and it would require figuring out how mages are useful despite it, but it is strongly tempting: "Combat is never optimum circumstances."

I like Turtledove's Videssos setting here...magic becomes unreliable when cast on people with heated emotions.

It limits the amount mages can screw over fighters, that's for sure.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:38 am

Elennsar wrote: I like Turtledove's Videssos setting here...magic becomes unreliable when cast on people with heated emotions.

It limits the amount mages can screw over fighters, that's for sure.

A perfect example of a system for balancing magic that works well in novels but not role playing games.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:44 am

Not in and of itself, but the idea that "magic isn't a combat tool" works reasonably well as a basis for "so why do people still use swords again?" rules that do work in both.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:35 am

Psychic Robot wrote:Here's a thought: if you don't want to weaken your character, then don't waste skill points on background skills.

Does anyone who isn't PR want to step forward and agree with him here?

Seriously, you want background skills in the game but admit they're a waste in D&D. Then you want to go add spellcasting to skills too.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:45 pm

If you'll notice, I also said that it wouldn't be a bad idea to give characters a free skill point or two per level specifically devoted to Craft/Profession.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:49 pm

Background skills as currently written are a waste. That doesn't mean all skills must scale to their power level, or that the concept of background skills is useless.

That's like saying all 3rd-level spells must be equal to fireball, because it exists and is a third-level spell.

Background skills need to be heavily rewritten to be useful or interesting...but that's not the topic of this thread.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:49 pm

Then you *don't* actually favor treating them as real skills. Duh.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:52 pm

They're still skills that there's no reason to have in the game unless and until they do something someone would care about.

Hell, you could say "You get a bonus equal to your highest rank in any skill, plus 20, to all Craft and Profession checks"...and they would still be purposeless.

Its that bad.

So, before Spellcasting is made based on a skill or skills, we need to make sure every skill is worth something.

An equal something, maybe not. But a something that we give a damn for.

Also: What Talisman said. But I think in order for spellcasting being driven by skills to be even vaguely viable, we need to ensure that the skill system works before grafting this in.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:52 pm

Talisman wrote:Okay, point taken regarding "+1/2 level" but I don't agree on "+ level."

As long as everyone uses the same rate, it doesn't matter which of those. The actual problem's allowing divergence, not half level being an astrologically bad number.

Talisman wrote:That's like saying all 3rd-level spells must be equal to fireball, because it exists and is a third-level spell.

Indeed they must.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:47 pm

Well, no, because fireball sucks. All third-level spells should be as awesome as haste.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:01 pm

Psychic Robot wrote:Well, no, because fireball sucks. All third-level spells should be as awesome as haste.

I'm going to assume that was a poorly delivered bad joke.

Either that or you know even less about the rules than I thought you did.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:13 pm

Actually, discussing fireball's utility isn't even appropriate, because all 3rd-level spells must be equal to fireball as long as it's 3rd-level too, even if that means it's fireball that needs changing.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:40 pm

But that's the point. Fireball is weak for a 3rd-level spell, but it is a third-level spell. If you admit fireball should be made better, you've just admitted Profession should be made better.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:48 pm

Talisman wrote:But that's the point. Fireball is weak for a 3rd-level spell, but it is a third-level spell. If you admit fireball should be made better, you've just admitted Profession should be made better.

Better enough to be exactly as good as anything else, unlike what you first said.

Quantumboost · Post by **Quantumboost** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:48 pm

Actually, since in that case fireball only needs to be changed, you don't need to make it better. Ceasing to exist is a change. That would satisfy the requirement "If fireball is a third-level spell, it needs to be equal to all other third-level spells".

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:59 pm

Technically true, but not if fireball's merely an example for "any and every 3rd-level spell you care to name". And that's part of why I hate example use in general: we ended having a stupid semantics exchange through no fault of our own.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:00 pm

Not sure if you are on the same page here Talisman, the argument isn't whether Profession can be fixed, the argument is...

A) Whether it REALLY exists in the first place, since being so bad it apparently doesn't even count when certain people decide it doesn't.

B) Whether it is OK for it to exist despite being massively inferior to options purchased with the same resources.

Effectively the claim isn't that fire ball can't be fixed, PR, and YOU are arguing a "shouldn't be"/"doesn't need to be" fixed position.

Need I remind you that you are the one taking the position that any rule you nominate just plain doesn't count and can remain in the game without any further modification or consideration when making modification.

Talisman wrote:So is comparing magic of any level to one of the most literally useless skills in the game.

Compare it to Tumble or Spot and then we can talk....

...When was the last time a PC of yours took Profession?
I ignore it when making PCs. Page 80 of the PHB is blank to me...

...I presume you scream "Toughness! Toughness!" in any discussions of feats as well. Because if one aspect of one subsystem of a game is crap, it is your moral duty to shove it in the faces of all and sundry at every opportunity, correct?

Blathering on that you are correct because you think someone admitted profession should be made better (which wasn't even an accurate conclusion drawable from the material, but I digress) is simply an admission that YOU now want to fix it instead of sticking your head in the sand and saying its fine as long as you ignore the rules as written.