Magic-Light Campaign Rules..not a new system

Magic-Light Campaign Rules:

Do these look like good house rules for a magic-light campaign, while
still keeping it fun for players? Thoughts?

Core: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue.
* No changes

Spellcasters: Adept, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard:
* Concentration check required to successfully cast..may sacrifice
temporary constitution ability damage to modify
* No bonus spells for high ability scores (applies to concentration check though)
* Spellcaster can only cast spells that they 'find' and learn (DM limits)
* Trade off for lost spells: 3 extra skill points per level plus some
really cool role-playing background. Possibly "fear" effect for
people afraid of magic.

Pseudo-casters: Bard, Ranger, Paladin
* No spells. Instead they get a feat for each new _spell level gained.

Adept. As 'spellcasters' above, plus bonus feat at every even level
(2,4,6 etc.) Cannot take 'extra slot,' etc.
Aristocrat. Bonus feats as Adept
Commoner. Saving throws as Monk. Bonus feats as Adept.
Expert. Bonus feats as Adept
Warrior. Bonus feats as Adept



Instead of designing a whole new system of magic, this tones the
actual number of spells down so that the classes aren't able to cast
TONS of spells per day. It also gives the DM 100% control over what
spells are available.

Thoughts?

Em

Interesting.

Can PC's play NPC classes like Adept? If so, a Bonus Feat every other level may be tempting to them. I would tone that down to just 1-2 bonus feats total. 10 feats (for humans, 9 for others) by 10th Level is a lot for an NPC class!

As far as DM controlling available spells, I like the concept but it may tip things towards the divine casters a bit flexibility-wise. I would include some alternate means of choosing spells for the players (ie: a magical library where -for a fee- they can research and learn a couple spells from a list you provide).

So far, nobody picks the NPC classes (why would you pick anything other than expert or aristocrat anyway?).

Yea, I'm already seeing that clerics and druids are massively more powerful under this system. The best way is obviously to just use 'learning' for all classes. Druids and clerics wouldn't need spellbooks, but would operate under generally the same system.

Em

Emirikol said:

So far, nobody picks the NPC classes (why would you pick anything other than expert or aristocrat anyway?).

Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? A human Adept under that system would be pretty cool. Sure his spell list is a little wimpier, but he's got a hybrid arcane/divine spell list that includes (eventually) Lightning Bolt AND Raise Dead! PLUS a familiar PLUS healing PLUS divine casting flexibility PLUS a ton of feats!

Of course, YMMV

I think it's the limited HP's and spell selection..you're right though. It would be the way to go.

I like the Bard/Ranger/Palidan change, pretty cool.

As for the regular spell casters. How about saying you can't take two Spellcasting classes in a row? (Your mind needs time to rest, or whatever)
It is a simple change, with no additional mechanics needed.
OTOH, a 10th level character would have just gotten to cast a lvl 3 spell.
Plus, it affects divine and arcane the same.

Also, I make the conditions to create magic a bit difficult. Either by timing (this item only on the full moon, or 'blue' moon.....or this item needs Ostrich dung) Neither adds to the cost, but adds to the time/difficulty.)

.

The two-spellcasting classes in a row is an idea. Multiclassing is typically weaker than single classing but diversity in spells is usually more powerful. The other consideration is that we play in Hyboria (world of COnan the barbarian) in which most priests are probably either adepts or cleric-wizard mixes.

Players seem to really like the non-spell bard/ranger/paladin.

Em