I was thinking about monsters with both SLAs and integrated spellcasting (i.e., they can cast spells as an x level whatever) the other day, and I came to a decision: you can have one or the other, but not both. The reason? Well, there are a couple.
First and foremost, they're the same thing. Think about it for a second - SLAs are the ability to cast spells without having levels in a spellcasting class. Integrated spellcasting is... the ability to cast spells without having levels in a spellcasting class.
Second, eliminating their stacking nerfs the power of several overpowered creatures (angels, I'm looking at you!).
Third, creatures with SLAs and spellcasting can't possibly burn through all that power in a normal encounter (or ANY encounter, really, unless it lasts for hours of game time). Not to mention that with all that magical spellpower, many of their abilities become useless/superfluous, and thus never used.
The reason I'm mentioning this, though, is that I have one small question: What about dragons? They gain SLAs as they age, and they can also cast spells as sorcerers. I revised dragons so that they're more closely tied to the elements - their SLAs better reflect their elemental subtype - and they have a chance of spellcasting, as in 1E. I'd really like to keep both, but I'm not sure how if I institute the above rule. Do you guys think making their SLAs supernatural abilities would work?
Agamemnon: "Their process of building each edition atop the previous ones has resulted in 3.5 being the Michael Jackson of RPGs, desperately improving itself to ward off obsolescence but attaining only a kind of perverse lichlike state as a mockery of healthier games."
Actually, they're not the same thing. SLA is not the same as spells. SLAs are spell "like" abilities, meaning they are powers that produce the same results as a spell, but there is no 'casting' or components involved; a few seconds of concentration and there ya go!
They don't stack because they're not the same. I don't really see how it makes someone overpowered. A drow wizard has SLAs and spellcasting. They're not overpowered.
SLAs can easily be burned through, unless they are at will. And spells could definitely be burned through, although they don't have to burn through a day's worth of spells in a single encounter. It seems like you think this is what they should be doing.
The monsters don't wait around for the PCs to stumble onto them, so there is no reason for the monster with SLA and spells to have a full compliment of spells either.
I don't really see where the problem is with someone having SLAs and spellcasting levels.
I'm not really worried about PCs or even humanoid races like drow; they get so few SLAs that it's a non-issue. I also meant to mention that if you have SLAs and levels in a spellcasting class, that's fine - one is innate, and the other is learned. Innate spellcasting levels are another thing entirely - they're not learned through level advancement, but they're not quite, as you point out, SLAs either. I guess my question is, where do they come from, and why?
Quote:
SLAs can easily be burned through, unless they are at will. And spells could definitely be burned through, although they don't have to burn through a day's worth of spells in a single encounter. It seems like you think this is what they should be doing.
Not at all - but what's the point of giving a random monster umpteen levels of spellcasting if he doesn't use even half of them? It's just needless bookkeeping and extra text. Add in a bunch of SLAs, and it just gets out of hand. I guess tossing out a BBEG with lots of spells ensures that he can "go nova" and provide a challenge for the party... *shrug*
Agamemnon: "Their process of building each edition atop the previous ones has resulted in 3.5 being the Michael Jackson of RPGs, desperately improving itself to ward off obsolescence but attaining only a kind of perverse lichlike state as a mockery of healthier games."
I was thinking much the same thing (ditching innate spellcasting levels). There's no justification for them being there, and most creatures with SLAs get enough of those to make them quite effective anyway.
I'm still stuck on the idea of dragons having spellcasting, though. I mean, if I eliminate their innate spellcasting, I invalidate all the sources of dragon magic (of which there are many, for some reason), not to mention going against 30+ years of tradition. While I'm not afraid of slaughtering a few sacred cows, I think this is one I'd rather let live for awhile.
However, since dragons are inherently magical (much moreso than most other creatures), I think I could give True Dragons (as opposed to any creature of the Dragon type) innate spellcasting as an ability.
Agamemnon: "Their process of building each edition atop the previous ones has resulted in 3.5 being the Michael Jackson of RPGs, desperately improving itself to ward off obsolescence but attaining only a kind of perverse lichlike state as a mockery of healthier games."
What justification? What needs to be justified? Explained better, maybe? But if a monster has integrated caster levels, so what? The monster is definitely not going to be using all those spells in an encounter, its about having options. You don't even need to, as a DM, have the spells listed out. If your Red Dragon has enough levels of Sorcerer and you need him to cast an Improved Invisibility, have the dragon cast it. If the situation doesn't call for a spell, don't worry about it or bother with it.
If you actually want to track what spells a monster has memorized, then knock yourself out. Otherwise, the only reason you really need to track spells is if there is a specific one you are wanting to use, or a new one you're wanting to introduce into play.
If you want to simplify it, then just give the monster 1 spell of each spell level it gets, and let them use it 2-3 times/day. If a Dragon tossed off a Fireball and needs another, or even a third, let him do it. The PCs aren't going to have any idea what spells it has prepared or not.
As for SLAs, most of them, for most monsters, suck. Look at Drow--dancing lights! Really? Just how often have you ever had Drow use that? And they get it 1/day, so what? NWN 2 nails ridiculous SLAs by giving Drow the Light spell as an SLA (instead of Dancing Lights, which isn't in the game). So, the Drow casts Light and is instantly blinded by his racial light blindness.
What needs to be justified is how a creature has x caster levels in cleric or sorcerer or whatever without having any actual class levels. I rather prefer to know WHY something is, beyond just "Because I said so."
Quote:
But if a monster has integrated caster levels, so what? The monster is definitely not going to be using all those spells in an encounter, its about having options. You don't even need to, as a DM, have the spells listed out.
Options are great, as long as you don't have too many. If you have a decent list of SLAs, there's no need for umpteen caster levels too.
Quote:
As for SLAs, most of them, for most monsters, suck. Look at Drow--dancing lights! Really? Just how often have you ever had Drow use that? And they get it 1/day, so what?
So you fix the SLAs. Sounds pretty simple to me. I've done it for most of the monsters I've revised already, especially the epic ones.
Quote:
NWN 2 nails ridiculous SLAs by giving Drow the Light spell as an SLA (instead of Dancing Lights, which isn't in the game). So, the Drow casts Light and is instantly blinded by his racial light blindness.
Agamemnon: "Their process of building each edition atop the previous ones has resulted in 3.5 being the Michael Jackson of RPGs, desperately improving itself to ward off obsolescence but attaining only a kind of perverse lichlike state as a mockery of healthier games."
What needs to be justified is how a creature has x caster levels in cleric or sorcerer or whatever without having any actual class levels. I rather prefer to know WHY something is, beyond just "Because I said so."
That's the responsibility of the DM. Its up to you to decide why the Dragon has all those spells. If Dragons are the sort-of progenitors of the Sorcerer class, it makes sense that they would be able to do what Sorcerers do, in addition to what they can already do. With Celestials and Fiends, and even Elementals, because they are created directly by gods or by the primal stuff of nature, that should be reason enough for them to have what they do. And from there, you can come up with reasons why for anything else that has spellcasting abilities without levels in a spellcasting class.
Quote:
Options are great, as long as you don't have too many. If you have a decent list of SLAs, there's no need for umpteen caster levels too.
What 'too many' is is up to each DM. And there really is no such thing as decent SLAs. For the most part, probably 90% of SLAs are all 3rd level or lower spells. If you want to make them more potent, give monsters a reason to even use them at higher levels, then scale them upwards. And if you don't like spells, give them the same results through something else.
If you have a dragon with the spellcasting of a wizard, and you don't want spells and spellbooks/scrolls are out of the question (when was the last time a dragon made a printing press), then have them produce the results in other ways. If you don't want casting, then have the dragon belch (or fart) a Cloudkill spell. Have its scales shimmer and then radiate light that repels magic for an anti-magic shell. Have it exhale an Ice Storm, or have a particularly vicious claw attack operate like a Vampiric Touch.
There's all kinds of options. Everyone knows that dragons have sharp senses, but what they don't know about "this" dragon is that it can focus its senses so intensely that it gets the effects of True Seeing every so often.
The options are limitless and you've got an idea rolling spells over into SLAs, but then you're trapping SLAs in the same place that spells were at; why and why so many? Instead, choose a few 'spells' and tie them in to what the monsters can do. If you need it to do something else, do it and let the PCs discover the how/why behind the creature doing what it did.
In part, sure. But I also like my rules to have an internal logic.
Quote:
Its up to you to decide why the Dragon has all those spells. If Dragons are the sort-of progenitors of the Sorcerer class, it makes sense that they would be able to do what Sorcerers do, in addition to what they can already do.
True.
Quote:
With Celestials and Fiends, and even Elementals, because they are created directly by gods or by the primal stuff of nature, that should be reason enough for them to have what they do. And from there, you can come up with reasons why for anything else that has spellcasting abilities without levels in a spellcasting class.
Celestials are the only ones who get spellcaster levels. I've always wondered why they were so much more powerful than fiends, beyond discouraging PCs from trying to kill them.
Quote:
What 'too many' is is up to each DM. And there really is no such thing as decent SLAs. For the most part, probably 90% of SLAs are all 3rd level or lower spells.
Hardly. The SLAs in the MM are fairly evenly balanced across levels - most of them get a good spread of levels; it's just that a lot of them aren't very useful and/or thematically tied to the monster. I've already beefed up SLAs for those that needed it when I did the monster revisions.
Quote:
The options are limitless and you've got an idea rolling spells over into SLAs, but then you're trapping SLAs in the same place that spells were at; why and why so many? Instead, choose a few 'spells' and tie them in to what the monsters can do. If you need it to do something else, do it and let the PCs discover the how/why behind the creature doing what it did.
SLAs are fairly easy to justify - the creature is inherently magical and can cast spells. (Yes, I know that same argument can be applied to innate spellcasting levels, but as you pointed out, they're not the same - SLAs don't require any components.) My main problem is "Why do creatures get SLAs AND innate spellcaster levels?". Why can they cast some spells without components of any kind, and yet have to use components for others? It makes no sense. It should be an all-or-nothing thing, unless they actually have class levels. Not that many creatures get ISLs anyway (celestials and dragons are the only ones), so eliminating them entirely wouldn't hurt much. Dragons, by dint of their origin, will be a special case.
Agamemnon: "Their process of building each edition atop the previous ones has resulted in 3.5 being the Michael Jackson of RPGs, desperately improving itself to ward off obsolescence but attaining only a kind of perverse lichlike state as a mockery of healthier games."
To my mind, inherent magical/supernatural power is, for most beings*, better represented by SLAs. And yes, that includes Dragons, as far as I'm concerned. A chance of some SLAs, tailored for type - that's more to my liking.
If a being should have, say, Sorcerer spellcasting, well they can always acquire some levels in Sorcerer, of course. Just like everyone else has to.
But seriously, it's how I've arranged things, and it seems to work just fine.
* i.e., those who shouldn't simply have supernatural abilities, or 'other'.
To my mind, inherent magical/supernatural power is, for most beings*, better represented by SLAs. And yes, that includes Dragons, as far as I'm concerned. A chance of some SLAs, tailored for type - that's more to my liking.
Makes sense to me. What I did with dragons (before coming up with this idea) is bring back the 1E "dragons have a chance of spellcasting" percentage. I also made sorcerers based on bloodlines - fey, elemental, celestial, etc.
So, I think what I'll do is combine those: a dragon can have a chance of sorcerous spellcasting ability, in which case they have the listed CL.
Edit: I was going to apply a suggested list of spells for each type, but after trying it out, I discovered it was a goofy idea, so I dropped it.
Agamemnon: "Their process of building each edition atop the previous ones has resulted in 3.5 being the Michael Jackson of RPGs, desperately improving itself to ward off obsolescence but attaining only a kind of perverse lichlike state as a mockery of healthier games."
Last edited by Kerrick; 15th April 2009 at 04:55 PM..
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
