Monte Cook's Design Thoughts On Spellcasters

[WayneLigon]

There's 100s of spells in the rule books. Your wizard PC gets maybe 50 of them by 20th level (about 10 0th level + 2 per level).

Say what? That's the minimum amount of spells you know, not the normal amount. Look at a 20th level wizard having most if not all 1-4rth spells, plus at least 1/4 to 1/2 of the rest of them by that time. So your degree of choice is tremendous.

 

[WayneLigon]

...and Camp and Pratt's sympatheic magic from the Harold Shea stories (spells requiring verbal and matieral components related to the effect desired). Both are somewhat "sci fi" in presentation, which is appropriate considering the time period in which they were published (mid 20th century).

Sympathetic magic, as well as the idea that magic requires materials and incantations, has been with us for thousands of years. de Camp and Pratt merely used this well-known anthropological device as a distinquishing feature in their stories as have many, many other authors. Shea's use of mathematical proofs as the vehicle for his magic is really the only sci-fi aspect of the series.

I think that D&D magic (and a lot of the fiction mentioned) also owes a great deal to The Golden Bough, as the main source that codified a large number of real world magical principles.

 

[Lanefan]

In 2E, we had house-ruled the memorization (pre-selection) of spells out of the game. Once we did that, we found the PCs were coming up with far more creative uses for their spells. players would cast spells other than obvious "I do lots o'damage" spells in order to solve problems. Things got interesting. The key to playing a wizard PC then, was thinking to learn a spell and see uses for it, and to think of using the spell during the game. The player still had the same spells per day limit, they just weren't restricted to a tight subset of their spells that were chosen will little information.

If I ever run another campaign, I'll probably go almost exactly this route. It's too late to change my current campaign or I'd do it there, too. The only difference is the spells-per-day limit would be somewhat variable...a fixed number bolstered by a small number of assignable slots that you'd slowly get more of as you advance in level. The only restriction to assigning slots is that no level may have more slots than any lower level, to avoid people overloading a specific level (usually 3rd).

And Clerics (and Druids) would go the same route. Bards are a different type of animal that I'm still never quite sure what to do with...

Lanefan

 

[Gadget]

I'm going to be very, very wary of any attempt to move toward "encounter-based" anything, mostly because what an encounter is simply cannot be defined.

Lanefan

You know, I’ve seen this sentiment come up more than once before, and it seems to represent a fundamental misunderstanding of what ‘encounter based’ balancing is all about. The nebulous definition of an ‘encounter’ is precisely what makes the term so appropriate. There is no mechanism that requires you to define and ‘encounter’ in this paradigm. None of the abilities that use this model say something along the lines of “you may use this power X times per encounter.” The Warlock is an example of ‘encounter based’ balancing and—love the warlock or hate it-- the imperfect definition of ‘encounter’ does not have the remotest effect on how to play one or determine when its abilities come into play. So too the incarnate, binder and martial adept from the Tome of Battle. Even psonic focus falls within ‘encounter based’ balancing and is a long way more elegant than the standard ‘X times per day’ mechanic.

All ‘encounter’ based means is that certain abilities will be, roughly, about as effective in one encounter as the last one. Usually there is some opportunity cost in regaining use of powers that would discourage, but not completely prevent, one from re-using or replenishing powers/abilities in the same encounter. As an example, spending a full round action to regain psonic focus is not something many characters are going to want to do in the midst of an ‘encounter’, but under some circumstances they might whish to do so one or more times.

Back to Monte’s thoughts, I think I have seen similar suggestions on these boards for years. Depending on how it is done it could be very flavorful and evocative. I think some here are inventing straw men of ‘endless magic missile machines’ when none have been proposed. Others have brought up, and if I read Monte’s article properly, so has he, that these would be relatively minor abilities at the level they are received. I would think that, by the time a Wizard was high enough in level to have the ‘endless magic missile’ ability, it would not matter much in the Grand Scheme of things.

 

[Lanefan]

You know, I’ve seen this sentiment come up more than once before, and it seems to represent a fundamental misunderstanding of what ‘encounter based’ balancing is all about. The nebulous definition of an ‘encounter’ is precisely what makes the term so appropriate. There is no mechanism that requires you to define and ‘encounter’ in this paradigm. None of the abilities that use this model say something along the lines of “you may use this power X times per encounter.” The Warlock is an example of ‘encounter based’ balancing and—love the warlock or hate it-- the imperfect definition of ‘encounter’ does not have the remotest effect on how to play one or determine when its abilities come into play. So too the incarnate, binder and martial adept from the Tome of Battle. Even psonic focus falls within ‘encounter based’ balancing and is a long way more elegant than the standard ‘X times per day’ mechanic.

All ‘encounter’ based means is that certain abilities will be, roughly, about as effective in one encounter as the last one.

Which means, in effect, a full reload between each encounter; thus "X-times-per-encounter" just sets X as your normal maximum. Got it. But the definition of "encounter" still needs to be made, or the per-encounter ability is meaningless: when does one encounter end and another start?

Usually there is some opportunity cost in regaining use of powers that would discourage, but not completely prevent, one from re-using or replenishing powers/abilities in the same encounter. As an example, spending a full round action to regain psonic focus is not something many characters are going to want to do in the midst of an ‘encounter’, but under some circumstances they might whish to do so one or more times.

Sounds to me like the mentality of spellcasters doing the adventure in one long run, without resting, is taking hold. What benefits do the poor old Fighter get out of this?

If I sound cynical, it's because I am.... :\

Lanefan

 

[SteveC]

Which means, in effect, a full reload between each encounter; thus "X-times-per-encounter" just sets X as your normal maximum. Got it. But the definition of "encounter" still needs to be made, or the per-encounter ability is meaningless: when does one encounter end and another start?

Whenever the GM has you roll initiative, you start an encounter. Seems pretty simple to me. In the (A)D&D Open this year the game started with a long battle with multiple opponents coming in each round, but we always kept the initiative and turn order going. That was one encounter. After we defeated the first wave, there was a short pause and then a second encounter. That was the second encounter. After that we traveled through the dungeon on a quest and had a third and fourth battle...each a separate initiative check, so each was a different encounter.

Sounds to me like the mentality of spellcasters doing the adventure in one long run, without resting, is taking hold. What benefits do the poor old Fighter get out of this?

If I sound cynical, it's because I am.... :\

Lanefan

The fighter gets to keep going. In many games I've been playing the meat shield, I've been at full HP and ready to keep going, only to have the game stalled by the clerics and mages who spent all of their spells on the previous encounters. That gets stopped once you balance things on the encounter level.

--Steve

 

[Gadget]

Which means, in effect, a full reload between each encounter; thus "X-times-per-encounter" just sets X as your normal maximum. Got it. But the definition of "encounter" still needs to be made, or the per-encounter ability is meaningless: when does one encounter end and another start?

Lanefan

How does the definition of an encounter still need to be made? All that needs to be 'defined' is how often the ability/power/super-move can be used, and none of the methods I've heard of use the word 'encounter' in this definition. 'Encounter-based' is merely a catch-all phrase used to describe various game mechanics that fall within the range that could, conceivably, be refreshed/recharged/renewed between someone’s (anyone’s really) loose definition of an ‘encounter’.

Or, in other words, could you please explain how the lack of a precise definition of ‘encounter’ hinders one’s ability to play/use/understand a warlock/binder/martial adept/psonic focus/incarnate?

I’m not saying that any ‘encounter-based’ mechanic is inherently superior, obviously poor implementations are possible. But to dismiss the whole pattern simply because an all-encompassing meta term used to describe it is poorly defined kind of misses the point.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What is an encounter. I will restrain myself from training to give a full definition, because this is more or less an ad-hoc posting, but I'll try to give some indicators for identifying an encounter.

An encounter includes a challenge for the characters. Such a challenge might be a opponent or a group of opponents that have to be dealt with, a physical obstacle that has to be cleared (like a chasm or a lava sea, but also a trap), or NPCs that have to be extracted for information or help.

At the end of the encounter, the PC either have overcome the challenge or have giving up trying to overcome it. (Side note: Encounter rewards are usually only given on overcoming the challenge.)

During the encounter, the characters have a certain amount of resources available that they can use to overcome their encounter. These resources are often expendable, but some refresh. Actions are resources that are expended within a certain time constraint (1 action per round), but during an encounter, they refresh (the next round, you regain your actions). A similar resource is the Dragons Breath Weapon.
Others are used and cannot be used again during the encounter (like the charge of a wand, a potion or a spell slot). (They might still refresh at a later time, but not during the encounter)

An encounter-based balancing mechanismn gives characters resources that refresh within such an encounter, meaning it can be used multiple times trying to overcome a obstacle.

 

[Nellisir]

Here's a rough idea/draft. This doesn't force an entire rewrite of the spell system, keeps traditional spells superior, and gives casters a broad range of possible abilities.

Gird Spell
A girded spell lasts for 24 hours or until expended. Only spells with a target of You, or damage-inflicting spells with a duration of instantaneous (this needs adjustment) can be girded. Spells with a natural duration of 10 min./level or longer cannot be girded (check this vs mage armor etc). A girded spell uses up a spell slot of its normal level, and the caster cannot cast a normal version of the spell while it is girded.

A girded spell is greatly weakened from its normal effects. All ranges are halved. Radiuses, width of lines wider than 5 ft., and lengths of lines are halved. If a girded spell has multiple effects (ie detect magic), only the first is active. If a girded spell grants a bonus (ie mage armor or shield), this bonus is halved and rounded down. If a girded spell deals a fixed amount of damage (ie chill touch), that damage is halved and rounded down. If the spell deals damage according to caster level, the caster level increment is doubled (ie, fireball 1d6/2 levels). A non-continious (ie fireball, magic missile) girded spell can only be activated every X rounds, where X = spell level (so magic missile can be used every round, fireball every 3 rounds).

A girded spell may be expended to gain the full effects of the spell. An expended spell may not be prepared or cast for 12 hours or until the 24-hour duration of the girding would have expired, whichever is longer.

Possible restrictions - only one girded spell per spell level; max number of girded spells equal to spellcasting ability modifier; max girded spell level equal to spellcasting ability modifier.

 

[A'koss]

Which means, in effect, a full reload between each encounter; thus "X-times-per-encounter" just sets X as your normal maximum. Got it. But the definition of "encounter" still needs to be made, or the per-encounter ability is meaningless: when does one encounter end and another start?

I think the easiest way to handle it (to both incorporate combat and non-combat situations) is to use the "One Minute's Peace" rule (yeah, I just made that up... ). One full minute's, undisturbed rest where you are not taking any significant action resets your "encounter based" abilities. Done.