Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Design Discussion
Spells and Magic
Spells
Design Goals
1) Identify and fix all “problematic” spells
1. Identify and fix all “problematic” spells.
I am seeking significant input in this category. Obviously, years of play and active forum participation have helped me to generate a significant personal list. I am looking for lists others may have made (google-fu?) and am compiling all suggestions. I would love to have a “master list” of broken spells similar to the design goals set out in the first chapter of Trailblazer.
1b. Spells that intrude on the class features of other players
Such spells should operate more like find traps than knock: grant the ability to use the relevant skill and a bonus to that skill (scaled to the level of the spell and the caster level).
1d. Spells that grant “absolute” effects
Nominations are open for DMs to call out the spells that “trump” their “set pieces.”
Note that this is a two-pronged consideration. Is the spell problematic from a game balance standpoint? Or it is problematic because it is a danger to verisimilitude?
On that note, we strongly encourage the creative use of spells to “trump” the mundane and even the magical. We do not condone the use of spells to “trump” set pieces of truly epic magnitude. For example, a wizard should not be able to cast fly, iron body, and energy immunity in order to travel through space and spend an afternoon picnicking on the surface of the sun. Indeed, it is less of a strain on verisimilitude to envision immunity to magic than it is to envision immunity to the most extreme forces of the natural physical world.
As an example of our thinking here, death ward is problematic primarily from a game balance standpoint: it grants immunity to magical death effects. It is not particularly problematic with regards to verisimilitude, as there is no “epic” source of death magic in the natural world.
1e. Spells that unduly and adversely disrupt the flow and satisfaction of gameplay
I believe most of these spells can be fixed primarily by making them rituals, which will limit their use to 1/day without action points.
1f. Spells that require more than a couple of paragraphs to explain
Admittedly, I have a pretty short hit list here. I’m thinking at the moment of magic circle against evil and its many incarnations, depending on how you want to use it. My inclination in this specific case would be to move the “summoner’s trap” function directly into the Spellcraft skill (excising it entirely from the spell description).
That example aside, the basic design philosophy is this: No spell in the game should have a function within (and integration with) the rules that requires more than a couple of paragraphs to explain. It’s a red flag for a spell that tries to do too much or is poorly integrated into the existing mechanics.
1g. Curtail the power of lower level spells by implementing caster level caps
This function of game design is best evidenced in the evocation spells. 1st level spells have a “caster level” cap of 5 dice, no matter how high your caster level; 3rd level spells have a “caster level” cap of 10 dice, no matter how high your caster level; and so on.
I find this to be excellent game design. While not completely invalidating the utility of the low level spell slots, it does mean that those spells will start to fall off in utility at higher levels.
The same thing happens with spells like sleep and deep slumber, and even cloudkill and circle of death, which have hard HD caps on their effectiveness.
It is worth specifically contrasting the level-capped spells against abjuration spells like resist energy. Rather than fall off in utility, resist energy gets more powerful at 7th (resist 20) and again at 11th level (resist 30). Ditto for shield of faith and others. The practical effect is that as a caster increases in level, the utility of his lowest level spell slots will start to invariably shift to defense, leaving his highest level spells for offense.
I will be carefully re-assessing that (deliberate?) design direction and listening to feedback.
2a. Rebalance/Reclassify all spell schools (move spells from school to school)
I’m not going to go into great detail on this design goal in this preliminary post (it will appear in greater detail in a subsequent post).
Suffice to say, the classification of spells is all over the map, giving it an appearance that it is completely arbitrary. I will be defining very strict guidelines for classifying spells into the various schools—and sticking to them. In some cases, this will entail some rather significant changes (moving healing away from conjuration and back to necromancy, for example.)
Concurrent with this effort will be the creation of such additional descriptors as are necessary to create a logical and consistent rules framework that will actually expand the design space ([life] and [death], [shadow] and [light], [extraplanar], [curse], etc.)
2b. Ensure that all spell schools are equally attractive and compelling for any style of play
As an example of what I mean here, it should be possible to play a dungeon-delving or battle-focused Divination specialist (as opposed to the usual cloistered bookworm); this effort will require the creation of highly desirable spells that offer insight bonuses, for example: to hit, to AC, to initiative, etc. including new design space such as bonus combat reactions.
3. Design entirely new spells to create a “master” spell list
3a. “Fill in the Gaps” where the existing logical framework of spell design has room to expand
As a low-hanging example here, consider the 0-level spell, resistance. It grants a +1 bonus to your saving throw within a minute. Fine. But there is no spell that grants a scaling resistance bonus to saving throws (analogous to shield of faith, for example). There is room for a higher level resistance spell that grants a +1 bonus per 3 caster levels. The existence of such a spell would go a long way towards obviating the need for one of the Big Six items (cloak of resistance).
For this effort, I will be primarily using the design work I laid down in Heroes of High Favor: Elves, which included in the appendix an attempt to classify all spell functions by school and level, all within a consistent rules framework.
As an aside, we are strongly considering following the lead of Monte Cook’s Arcana Unearthed spells, and providing both a diminished and heightened effect for every spell.
3b. Do not create highly specialized spells that perform oddball functions outside the existing framework (leave those to the players to research!)
Most spells have obvious, existing “hooks” onto the existing rules framework: bonuses, penalties, bonus actions, resistances, interactions with various monster types, and so forth. However, some spells have important functions that don’t have any “hooks” into the existing rules framework. A good example here is sending:
To describe sending as an oddball spell is not to demean its vital role in the game; that being said, this is not the kind of spell that we’ll look to create for our master spell list. Our recommendation to DMs is to allow new spells only if they perform outside functions like sending; for all the other needs of players (the buffs, attack spells, and so forth) the DM should refer his players to the master list. We’ll cover all those bases and do so in a mechanically balanced way.
Further posts on this thread will expand on some of the above design goals (showcasing, for example, the school rebalance and some of the new spells) but the thread is open for discussion on the design goals.
Spells and Magic
Spells
Design Goals
1) Identify and fix all “problematic” spells
a. Spells which do not allow for any random d20 roll mitigation
g. Curtail the power of lower level spells by implementing caster level caps
2) Rebalance/Reclassify all spell schools (move spells from school to school)i. No save, no attack roll, no SR
b. Spells that intrude on the class features of other playersi. knock vs. rogue
ii. find traps vs. rogue
c. Spells that require too much book-keeping or book-flippingii. find traps vs. rogue
i. alter self/polymorph/shape change
ii. summon monster
iii. dispel magic/antimagic
iv. etc.
d. Spells that grant “absolute” effectsii. summon monster
iii. dispel magic/antimagic
iv. etc.
i. energy immunity
ii. death ward
iii. freedom of movement
iv. etc.
e. Spells that unduly and adversely disrupt the flow and satisfaction of gameplayii. death ward
iii. freedom of movement
iv. etc.
i. divination/commune/contact other plane
ii. scrying
iii. teleport
iv. raise dead
f. Spells that require more than a couple of paragraphs to explainii. scrying
iii. teleport
iv. raise dead
g. Curtail the power of lower level spells by implementing caster level caps
a. Ensure that all spells are classified according to a logical and consistent method (what makes a conjuration a conjuration; what makes an illusion an illusion)
b. Ensure that all spell schools are equally attractive and compelling for any style of play
3) Design entirely new spells to create a “master” spell listb. Ensure that all spell schools are equally attractive and compelling for any style of play
a. “Fill in the Gaps” where the existing logical framework of spell design has room to expand
b. Do not create highly specialized spells that perform oddball functions outside the existing framework (leave those to the players to research!)
c. (see 2a and 2c above.)
b. Do not create highly specialized spells that perform oddball functions outside the existing framework (leave those to the players to research!)
c. (see 2a and 2c above.)
1. Identify and fix all “problematic” spells.
I am seeking significant input in this category. Obviously, years of play and active forum participation have helped me to generate a significant personal list. I am looking for lists others may have made (google-fu?) and am compiling all suggestions. I would love to have a “master list” of broken spells similar to the design goals set out in the first chapter of Trailblazer.
1b. Spells that intrude on the class features of other players
Such spells should operate more like find traps than knock: grant the ability to use the relevant skill and a bonus to that skill (scaled to the level of the spell and the caster level).
1d. Spells that grant “absolute” effects
Nominations are open for DMs to call out the spells that “trump” their “set pieces.”
Note that this is a two-pronged consideration. Is the spell problematic from a game balance standpoint? Or it is problematic because it is a danger to verisimilitude?
On that note, we strongly encourage the creative use of spells to “trump” the mundane and even the magical. We do not condone the use of spells to “trump” set pieces of truly epic magnitude. For example, a wizard should not be able to cast fly, iron body, and energy immunity in order to travel through space and spend an afternoon picnicking on the surface of the sun. Indeed, it is less of a strain on verisimilitude to envision immunity to magic than it is to envision immunity to the most extreme forces of the natural physical world.
As an example of our thinking here, death ward is problematic primarily from a game balance standpoint: it grants immunity to magical death effects. It is not particularly problematic with regards to verisimilitude, as there is no “epic” source of death magic in the natural world.
1e. Spells that unduly and adversely disrupt the flow and satisfaction of gameplay
I believe most of these spells can be fixed primarily by making them rituals, which will limit their use to 1/day without action points.
1f. Spells that require more than a couple of paragraphs to explain
Admittedly, I have a pretty short hit list here. I’m thinking at the moment of magic circle against evil and its many incarnations, depending on how you want to use it. My inclination in this specific case would be to move the “summoner’s trap” function directly into the Spellcraft skill (excising it entirely from the spell description).
That example aside, the basic design philosophy is this: No spell in the game should have a function within (and integration with) the rules that requires more than a couple of paragraphs to explain. It’s a red flag for a spell that tries to do too much or is poorly integrated into the existing mechanics.
1g. Curtail the power of lower level spells by implementing caster level caps
This function of game design is best evidenced in the evocation spells. 1st level spells have a “caster level” cap of 5 dice, no matter how high your caster level; 3rd level spells have a “caster level” cap of 10 dice, no matter how high your caster level; and so on.
I find this to be excellent game design. While not completely invalidating the utility of the low level spell slots, it does mean that those spells will start to fall off in utility at higher levels.
The same thing happens with spells like sleep and deep slumber, and even cloudkill and circle of death, which have hard HD caps on their effectiveness.
It is worth specifically contrasting the level-capped spells against abjuration spells like resist energy. Rather than fall off in utility, resist energy gets more powerful at 7th (resist 20) and again at 11th level (resist 30). Ditto for shield of faith and others. The practical effect is that as a caster increases in level, the utility of his lowest level spell slots will start to invariably shift to defense, leaving his highest level spells for offense.
I will be carefully re-assessing that (deliberate?) design direction and listening to feedback.
2a. Rebalance/Reclassify all spell schools (move spells from school to school)
I’m not going to go into great detail on this design goal in this preliminary post (it will appear in greater detail in a subsequent post).
Suffice to say, the classification of spells is all over the map, giving it an appearance that it is completely arbitrary. I will be defining very strict guidelines for classifying spells into the various schools—and sticking to them. In some cases, this will entail some rather significant changes (moving healing away from conjuration and back to necromancy, for example.)
Concurrent with this effort will be the creation of such additional descriptors as are necessary to create a logical and consistent rules framework that will actually expand the design space ([life] and [death], [shadow] and [light], [extraplanar], [curse], etc.)
2b. Ensure that all spell schools are equally attractive and compelling for any style of play
As an example of what I mean here, it should be possible to play a dungeon-delving or battle-focused Divination specialist (as opposed to the usual cloistered bookworm); this effort will require the creation of highly desirable spells that offer insight bonuses, for example: to hit, to AC, to initiative, etc. including new design space such as bonus combat reactions.
3. Design entirely new spells to create a “master” spell list
3a. “Fill in the Gaps” where the existing logical framework of spell design has room to expand
As a low-hanging example here, consider the 0-level spell, resistance. It grants a +1 bonus to your saving throw within a minute. Fine. But there is no spell that grants a scaling resistance bonus to saving throws (analogous to shield of faith, for example). There is room for a higher level resistance spell that grants a +1 bonus per 3 caster levels. The existence of such a spell would go a long way towards obviating the need for one of the Big Six items (cloak of resistance).
For this effort, I will be primarily using the design work I laid down in Heroes of High Favor: Elves, which included in the appendix an attempt to classify all spell functions by school and level, all within a consistent rules framework.
As an aside, we are strongly considering following the lead of Monte Cook’s Arcana Unearthed spells, and providing both a diminished and heightened effect for every spell.
3b. Do not create highly specialized spells that perform oddball functions outside the existing framework (leave those to the players to research!)
Most spells have obvious, existing “hooks” onto the existing rules framework: bonuses, penalties, bonus actions, resistances, interactions with various monster types, and so forth. However, some spells have important functions that don’t have any “hooks” into the existing rules framework. A good example here is sending:
Sending
Evocation
Level: Clr 4, Sor/Wiz 5 Components: V, S, M/DF Casting Time: 10 minutes Range: See text Target: One creature Duration: 1 round; see text Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: No
You contact a particular creature with which you are familiar and send a short message of twenty-five words or less to the subject. The subject recognizes you if it knows you. It can answer in like manner immediately. A creature with an Intelligence score as low as 1 can understand the sending, though the subject’s ability to react is limited as normal by its Intelligence score. Even if the sending is received, the subject is not obligated to act upon it in any manner.
If the creature in question is not on the same plane of existence as you are, there is a 5% chance that the sending does not arrive. (Local conditions on other planes may worsen this chance considerably.)
Now, sending is an important spell—it’s used all the time as campaigns move from mid-levels into higher level play and the PCs find themselves pulled in many directions, acting as agents for various powers-that-be. But notice how few “hooks” the spell has into the existing rules framework: Outside of the header statblock, there’s a reference to the Intelligence of the receiving target, and that’s it.Evocation
Level: Clr 4, Sor/Wiz 5 Components: V, S, M/DF Casting Time: 10 minutes Range: See text Target: One creature Duration: 1 round; see text Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: No
You contact a particular creature with which you are familiar and send a short message of twenty-five words or less to the subject. The subject recognizes you if it knows you. It can answer in like manner immediately. A creature with an Intelligence score as low as 1 can understand the sending, though the subject’s ability to react is limited as normal by its Intelligence score. Even if the sending is received, the subject is not obligated to act upon it in any manner.
If the creature in question is not on the same plane of existence as you are, there is a 5% chance that the sending does not arrive. (Local conditions on other planes may worsen this chance considerably.)
To describe sending as an oddball spell is not to demean its vital role in the game; that being said, this is not the kind of spell that we’ll look to create for our master spell list. Our recommendation to DMs is to allow new spells only if they perform outside functions like sending; for all the other needs of players (the buffs, attack spells, and so forth) the DM should refer his players to the master list. We’ll cover all those bases and do so in a mechanically balanced way.
Further posts on this thread will expand on some of the above design goals (showcasing, for example, the school rebalance and some of the new spells) but the thread is open for discussion on the design goals.
Last edited:
