Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder overhaul suggestions, pt. 2

[phloog]

...Think Egg-Chan vs. Lo-Pan in Big Trouble in Little China. .

I ALWAYS think Egg Chen vs. Lo Pan, so any idea that brings us closer to that film is a good idea. Any battle of wills of course must include gesturing with crossed pinkies and a sort of Rock Em Sock Em Robots thumb twiddling.

I look forward to your variant rules for this, and for your write up of the Six Demon Bag.

 

[Leif]

There are spells like reaving dispel (dispels the spell and deals damage to the caster), and I'm fairly sure there's one that dispels and heals the caster (if not, I'm going to yoink it); I've got one called forceleech that dispels force effects and gives the caster 1 magic missile per spell level. I've also got a PrC called the Spell Channeler that can absorb existing magic effects and use them to power his own spells.

Hey, here's an idea: How about a 'reaving-type' dispel that allows the caster to spontaneously 'recall' (or 'recharge,' 'rejuvenate,' whatever) a spell that he's already cast of the same level or lower as the one he is dispelling? Maybe it could be called Power-Stealing Dispel?

 

[Scott DeWar]

say, what about the conan the destroyer scene with Makko doing battle with the other wizard to close the clam shell cave when they were stealing the thingy to awaken the elder god?

I have always wished for a system that would incorporate that ... battle of wills (wisdom bonus) and knowledge of arce (spell craft and or knowledge:arcane) opposed check.

caster's base number = dc. if bested by defender, then caster can coungter with another attempt at will control. if successful (dc being the defender's numbers beffor die roll) then defender can try to wrest control until someone is successfull for two rolls. a grapple of wills, per se

 

[Leif]

I like the idea of using Wisdom for this. That adds a bit of 4E flavor to the rule (just a dash). For a little more of the same, you could say allow a wiz to use the BETTER of his Wisdom or Charisma.

And I think that the DC for this should include Caster Level as well as an ability bonus. Perhaps even DC = CL + [Knowledge (Arcana) ranks or Spellcraft ranks] + int bonus + (wis/cha) bonus.

Is that complex enough?

 

[Scott DeWar]

OH, i am sure we can make it more complex, but i think i will pass on the attempt.

 

[Leif]

Well, if complexity makes you break out in hives, you can always do it the old AD&D way: use "DM's discretion" to determine success!

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Were I going to do it all over myself, I'd introduce the concept of 'concentration' (ala DAoC -- OMG did I just make an MMO reference?) for spells with a duration longer than 'instantaneous'. Casters got a limited amount of concentration slots, and each spell they had to maintain took up one. So instead of rush-rush-rush through the dungeon, or fight/rest/fight, it became a choice of 'Do I keep up 4 bulls strengths, or drop the one on the ranger so I can summon a monster?'

Non-trivial to get the right number of concentration slots, but do-able. Also makes the higher level mass-effect buffs more useful if they took up fewer of the concentration slots.

This is the key balancing factor in Mage: The Awakening, and it's absolutely brilliant. Each mage can have a moderate number of spells active at once (4-6 for a beginning mage) and a (usually) smaller number of spells on his person based on Stamina. It would be great to see that ported over to 3.5. In fact, here's an attempt:

Active Spells

• A spell-casting character may have three spells active simultaneously, plus 1 per 5 caster levels. A spell is considered active if it has a duration that has not yet ended. Spells of Instantaneous duration do not count against the number of spells a character may maintain simultaneously.
• Characters may have a number spells active on their person or carried property equal to five plus their Constitution bonus. Magic items count as one half of a spell for the purposes of this limitation, rounded down.

 

[azhrei_fje]

Characters may have a number spells active on their person or carried property equal to five plus their Constitution bonus. Magic items count as one half of a spell for the purposes of this limitation, rounded down.

I don't like the magic item clause. D&D 3.x already implements this using body slots. Or are you suggesting eliminating the body slot system altogether? If so, how would you handle critical failures on saving throws that could affect the creature's (magical) possessions?

Otherwise, I like it. I might grant a bonus spell slot for a high ability score. INT is obviously going to be high for a mage, so maybe CON should be the ability? After all, Concentration checks are based on CON...

 

[Hella_Tellah]

I don't like the magic item clause. D&D 3.x already implements this using body slots. Or are you suggesting eliminating the body slot system altogether? If so, how would you handle critical failures on saving throws that could affect the creature's (magical) possessions?

Otherwise, I like it. I might grant a bonus spell slot for a high ability score. INT is obviously going to be high for a mage, so maybe CON should be the ability? After all, Concentration checks are based on CON...

The magic item part is just directly porting the rule over from Mage; I was thinking of it as an alternate strategy for reducing the "Christmas Tree" effect. Managing enchanted equipment versus spells you can have on your person adds a little level of resource management.

And, yeah, I'd like to do away with the "body slot" system, because I think the idea of a sorcerer wearing eight different necklaces (if she wants to) is kind of cool, but that's sort of unrelated. I think this house rule could live happily side-by-side with body slots. As far as crit failures that lead to item destruction, I don't think there's any need to change that subsystem. What conflicts do you see there?

The system definitely has room to expand, and the idea of adding INT, WIS, or CHA to Spells Active is a good one. I'd want to make it an "off" ability for each class, though, so CHA for Wizards, WIS for Sorcerers and Bards, and INT for Clerics and Druids. It would also be nice to have feats that affect Spells Active and Personal Spells, so there would be a few new feats for casters--I've felt for a while that there are about five "no-brainers" for each casting class, and there need to be more useful feat choices for casters.

I might just try tacking this system on the next time I run D&D. I think it could really cut down on the half-hour "okay, what buffs do you cast?" part of every adventure.

 

[azhrei_fje]

And, yeah, I'd like to do away with the "body slot" system, [...] I think this house rule could live happily side-by-side with body slots. [...] What conflicts do you see there?

No conflicts, per se. I was just thinking that limiting the number of magical items in use based on how many "spell slots" a caster has and then also limiting the number of items in use by having a limited number of body slots just seemed redundant.

You mention doing away with body slots altogether, then later say that this spell slots rule could co-exist side by side. I don't understand that dichotomy.

The system definitely has room to expand, and the idea of adding INT, WIS, or CHA to Spells Active is a good one. I'd want to make it an "off" ability for each class, though,

Definitely!

It would also be nice to have feats that affect Spells Active and Personal Spells, so there would be a few new feats for casters--I've felt for a while that there are about five "no-brainers" for each casting class, and there need to be more useful feat choices for casters.

If you eliminated body slots and went with "magic items count as 1/2", then there could be feats dealing with items, as well. Maybe a feat that says magic items with a CL less than "X" have no cost? So a feat where "X" == 1 would allow a free feather fall. Each time you take the feat, it applies to one single item. And the "Improved" and "Greater" versions have the lower ones as prereqs.

I might just try tacking this system on the next time I run D&D. I think it could really cut down on the half-hour "okay, what buffs do you cast?" part of every adventure.

It would certainly change the dynamics between sorcerors and wizards, too. Sorcerors great strength is lots of on-the-fly spells, while the wizards strength is variety. Using this system, would you arrange for sorcerors to be able to handle more or less spell slots?

I'm intrigued by this idea and I'd be interested in hearing more about this if/when you playtest it in a D&D campaign. I may even bring it up for the continuation of my RttToEE game (it's been idle for almost a year but we're starting up again; only two players from the original group and neither are spellcasters). I'm going to subscribe to this thread, so please post here if you do test it out. And I'll do the same. Thanks!