A crazy new idea for spells

Galethorn

First Post
So, I've been thinking about how magic doesn't compare very well (i.e. too different, rather than not good enough) with other forms of attack. A fighter gets better at hitting, and gets more attacks, and more strength. A rogue's sneak attack improves. But magic doesn't work as 'seamlessly'...magic users are simply unbalanced. Being bad at the low levels and good at the high levels just doesn't work. The point of balance is for the different classes to be roughly equal at all levels, at least in my mind.

So, I thought of a way around this. You see, all the classes other than mages/attack clerics use weapons as their main source of damage. Magic involves spells that work on a completely contrary system (automatic success unless their getting hit, and the defender rolls to see if its a success or not, usually). Also, magic-users give up staying power for short periods of massive power (basically until they run out of spells). Those are my major gripes...

So, I've come up with a solution...
Magic as a weapon.

These are the basics so far...

Remove all existing attack spells, making a few exceptions (like area-effect spells), and keep most non-combat spells.

Give magic-users an 'unarmed ranged magic attack' that they could use as much as fighters get to use their swords. It would do damage based on a base die-type for each energy type (force would use d4s, fire/cold/acid/electricity would use d8s, etc., just as an example), + the primary casting stat, + bonuses for using wands/staves. Wands/staves would work pretty much like magic weapons; they would have enhancement bonuses that would add to the attack and damage of a 'spell attack' or whatever you want to call it. Iterative attacks would also apply, so you could make three 'fire blasts' per round as a high-level 3/4 BAB caster.

So, how's the idea sound? Anybody read/heard/tried something similar?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yair

Community Supporter
Interesting.

Have the "attack roll" be d20+spell level+primary stat, opposed by 10+save (or something like that) - to put the saving throws in line. Otherwise the classes no longer balance right.
You could go with caster level instead of spell level and gain iterative attacks et al - but I am not sure how to treat that with regards to saves.
 

Aaron2

Explorer
Galethorn said:
So, how's the idea sound? Anybody read/heard/tried something similar?

For a similar solution, I created a list of spells. Each spell had a very long duration (at least 1 hour per caster level). During the spell's duration, the caster could, as a standard action, launch a tiny fireball (or whatever type) ranged attack. The first level did 1d6 points of generic magic damage (thus no special effects) while the higher level ones did more varied things. I was trying to replicate the wizard from Gauntlet but it was mostly to remove the crossbow from the wizard's standard list of equipment.


Aaron
 

Galethorn

First Post
Well, I forgot to mention that I would be using this system along with other house rules (like my personalized version of the Generic Classes in UA), so here's the class that would be using it...(oh yeah, the lack of class skills listed is because all three base classes have access to all skills, and it doesn't all add up perfectly without my 'removed spells' list, but oh well)

Anyway, without further ado, here's what I was able to figure out with a little number crunching...
 

Galethorn

First Post
I just had another thought after discussion with one of my players; as written, there would be little reason not to take a level of spellcaster if you were a warrior...you know, since you'd then have a ranged weapon with unlimited ammo...so, here's how I'd get around it...

Spellcasters use the monk Flurry Attack Bonus for their Spell Flinging, while getting rid of the last attack...so, at level one, they get one attack at -2, +5/+5 by level 8, +10/+10/+10 at level 14, +11/+11/+11/+6 at level 15, and +15/+15/+15/+10 at level 20. Not as accurate as a fighter, but more likely to hit on more of them. Also, a warrior with only one level of spellcaster would be stuck, no matter their level, with one ranged attack at -2. So, how does that sound?

EDIT (only minutes later!)
Just thought of a better way to do it...just give them a separate 3/4 BSB (Base Spellslinging Bonus)...that way they could still take the Flurry feat (one of the 'class ability feats' that I use with generic classes) to get more attacks.
 
Last edited:

Galethorn

First Post
Aaaaaand, here's the list of spells that have been cut, for campaign-setting reasons as well as to comply with this new Spell Flinging system.
 
Last edited:


Kemrain

First Post
I heard that Ranger Wickett was looking at something similar recently. You might want to talk to him about it. Try the Publisher's forum, if you want to get his attention, for I know his email address not.

- Kemrain the Really Poor Stalker.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top