A new(ish) magic system needs harsh critiques

[FreeTheSlaves]

Vancian fire and forget is Dead!


Off the cuff here is a spontaneous magic system using standard spells & 3rd ed. rules.

1) Get rid of sorcerers.

2) Spell aquisition, scribing & learning as per normal rules.

3) Caster level check to cast spells = DC 15 + spell level (1-9).

4) 1 threatens a fumble, int check dc 20 avoid.

5) Fumble fails to cast & confers -1 to caster level check until rested.

6) 20 threatens a critical success, int check dc 20 confirm.

7) Critical improves caster level by 2 for individual spell

8) when current caster level = 0, lose casting ability until rested

9) The maximum number of spells known is 10+int bonus for each spell level.

What do you think?

 

[Falling Icicle]

1) Get rid of sorcerers.

Why? I'm not necessarily against the idea, but it would help to hear the reasons behind your suggestions. It's diffcult to be helpful when I don't know what exactly you are trying to accomplish.

3) Caster level check to cast spells = DC 15 + spell level (1-9).

Interesting. I have considered such an option myself. Though there are a few things you need to adress.

1) What happens when you fail? Is the spell lost, or can the caster try again?

2) What effect, if any, does this have on spell save DCs? For example, do you keep spell save DCs the way they are, or do you use this casting check as the DC of the saving throw?

3) What about Spell Resistance? Do you keep it as is, or do you use this casting check to determine SR penetration as well?

4) Do you keep touch attack rolls, casting checks for scrying, etc?

These are important questions to adress. If you do keep all the old systems in place, it may make life easier for design purposes, but it would serve to just add one more roll to spellcasting, which would not only inflict casters with double, triple, or even quadruple jeopardy, it would also slow down gameplay. I would reccomend combining some of these options together into a single system. For example, the same roll used to cast the spell could also be used to determine if you defeat the target's SR.

4) 1 threatens a fumble, int check dc 20 avoid.

Sounds good, but I would have the DC vary with spell level. 10 or 15 + spell level sounds good to me. It should be alot easier to fumble a 9th level spell than a 0th, IMHO.

5) Fumble fails to cast & confers -1 to caster level check until rested.

I don't like this idea. For one, the less long term debuffs players have to run up against, the better. The paperwork of keeping track of all these mods can be a headache. I like the idea that one can fumble when casting spells, but I think it would be better if the DM had discression over the result. Most often, the spell effect should go awry, possible injuring, or at least humiliating the caster.

6) 20 threatens a critical success, int check dc 20 confirm.

7) Critical improves caster level by 2 for individual spell

An interesting suggestion. Thing is, there are quite a few spells that simply don't benefit from caster level, some after reaching a level cap and some are not affected by level at all. Things like range are often still variable, but those things usually only come into play when the caster begins to cast the spell, not afterwards (i.e. the caster is going to make sure an enemy is in range before casting, so increasing it on a "crit" would be meaningless.

I'm not sure what benefit I would reccomend for spell crits, but it should be a meaningful, even powerful effect. Possibilities include increasing the spell's save DC (for those spells that offer saves), a free empower effect (stacking with the metamagic, if applicable), increased duration, etc. It might even be worthwhile to write a crit effect for each and every spell, but this would take alot of work. It could be very rewarding though, and would ensure that it's worthwhile to "crit" on any spell, not just the combat ones.

I also think an Intelligence check (DC same as that to avoid a fumble, above) should be required to "crit" on a spell. Characters using weapons have to make 2 rolls to crit, and I think the same should go for casters. It would also add consistency, since the same rules used for fumbles would be used for crits as well.

One issue though comes into play with those spells that require attack rolls. They already have the ability to crit like any other attack. This also depends on whether you use the attack roll as part of the casting, as I mentioned above.

8) when current caster level = 0, lose casting ability until rested

See #5.

9) The maximum number of spells known is 10+int bonus for each spell level.

I don't like this one at all. Wizards already have the enormous and often crippling disadvantage of needing spellbooks, and the whole concept of Wizards as ones who spend lifetimes in study simply wouldn't fit with a system that artifically limited the number of spells they could learn. I think the spellbook requirement is more than enough of a balance in this area.

I think you have some good ideas here. You just need to clarify and adress a few issues.

 

[Hawken]

Ok, I'll take a shot at this:

1) Get rid of sorcerers.

Why? How? Sorcerers are spontaneous casters. It kind of makes sense to have a spontaneous caster in a spontaneous spell system.

2) Spell aquisition, scribing & learning as per normal rules.

This I have never agreed with. Two spells per level is ridiculous. Instead, maybe try 1 new spell per caster level at each new level: a 2nd level wizard advancing to 3rd level gets three new spells, a 3rd level wizard advancing to 4th level gets four new spells, etc.

Scribing rules are ludicrous. 100gp per page?! At 100gp per page and 100 pages per book, that's 10,000gp to fill one book and for what? One page per spell level of the spell. That's a pitiful amount of spells available for 10,000gp! And what? So the wizard can study out of it? Big deal! That's nothing more than an excuse to get the wizard to part with his gold, which would be better spent on creating items. Wizard asks the group, "Well, guys, I can copy these nifty new spells into my spellbooks or make us all Rings of Protection +2, but I don't have money for both!" Guess what the party will have that wizard doing? Just how special does that quill have to be, or the ink or the paper, to write down something the wizard has to memorize? He memorizes what he sees, not the ink or paper it is written on. The words he studies would look no different if written with 2cp ink vs. 100gp ink--maybe prettier is all, or in different colors.

Learning new spells rule is fine.

3) Caster level check to cast spells = DC 15 + spell level (1-9).

Not too bad of an idea. Casting should never be perfect just as warrior-types never always hit when swinging their weapons. Granted, wizards get fewer spells than warriors get swings with their weapons, but it should still not be automatic. It should may be a skill. Otherwise, a 15th level wizard would cast any 7th level or lower spell on a 7 or higher and would only fail a 1st level spell on a 1. That said, I don't see too many 15th level wizards goofing up a Magic Missile.

4) 1 threatens a fumble, int check dc 20 avoid.

6) 20 threatens a critical success, int check dc 20 confirm.

I put these items together for the same reason: Why? How do you fumble a Detect Magic? Just how much of a difference is a critical success? A 10th level wizard casting a Fireball at 12th level still only does 10D6 damage. If you're doing it to compare spells to weapons, weapons have different critical threat ranges. Why wouldn't spells, if you were going to adopt this feature? And considering that weapons can inflict double, triple or even quadruple damage (and often more than any spell would do), a critical success on a spell (+2 caster level) doesn't even compare to that.

Also, instead of an Int check to avoid, why not make it a Concentration check? That's what the skill is for. And if you're doing it to compare spells to weapons, then there should be no confirm/avoid option. Fighters don't have the chance to avoid a fumble. Why should a wizard? If he's thinking of sipping tea and a nice warm nap while Gating in a Pit Fiend instead of paying attention, he should 'fumble'.

5) Fumble fails to cast & confers -1 to caster level check until rested.

This one alone is reason enough not to play a wizard in your game. What fighter suffers a -1 for missing an attack roll and for the rest of the day. Yeah, the fighter could be incredibly embarrassed for slipping and dropping his sword or tripping and falling on his face, but he won't beat himself up about it so much to self-induce a -1 penalty to hit until he rests and perhaps feels better about himself in the morning. Why then, should a 10th level Wizard, fumbling his Mage Armor spell, have to suffer the rest of the day!

If you want him to flub the spell, that's fine, but that should be it. Wizards have a limited number of spells already, and the effectiveness of those spells is already challenged by counterspelling, spell turning, spell resistance and other powers or abilities or other spells. If you absolutely have to penalize him further, then just add 2 to the DC check of his next spell he casts in the next round or two. That should be sufficient. After that, he should be calm and collected (and recovered) enough to cast without further penalty.

8) when current caster level = 0, lose casting ability until rested

About the only time this happens is with Energy Drain, by spell or ability. And then, even if a Restoration or whatever is handy, no spells are returned until the caster rests and studies again. So, this is kind of already 'in the rules'.

9) The maximum number of spells known is 10+int bonus for each spell level.

What is the purpose of this restriction? A wizard can only 'know' so many spells of each level, and then of those he 'knows' he can only memorize up to 6 or so at a time anyway? So he has to essentially learn a spell twice (knowing it and memorizing it later), forgets it once (as soon as it is cast) and then has to relearn it yet again to cast it another time. That is silly. So what if a wizard 'knows 15 or 20 1st or even 5th level spells (or any other level for that matter)? As mentioned before, he can only prepare maybe six or so of those 15 or 20 spells in any given day. This just places yet another needless, and unjustifiable, restriction on wizards that serves absolutely no purpose beyond reducing their versatility. If you do this, consider limiting fighters (and any other non-wizards) to maybe 10 weapons + 1 weapon per point of Intelligence bonus that they know how to use!

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Why? I'm not necessarily against the idea, but it would help to hear the reasons behind your suggestions. It's diffcult to be helpful when I don't know what exactly you are trying to accomplish.

This alternative creates a spontaneous spell caster that requires a book. Without modification a similar sorcerer would be very weak by comparison and thus unplayable.

Interesting. I have considered such an option myself. Though there are a few things you need to adress.

1) What happens when you fail? Is the spell lost, or can the caster try again?.

If a caster level check fails, the spell fails to be cast. If the caster level check is a critical failure the effective caster level is reduced by one. The caster may try again every round until their effective caster level = 0.

2) What effect, if any, does this have on spell save DCs? For example, do you keep spell save DCs the way they are, or do you use this casting check as the DC of the saving throw?

DCs remain unchanged.

3) What about Spell Resistance? Do you keep it as is, or do you use this casting check to determine SR penetration as well?

This is unchanged.

4) Do you keep touch attack rolls, casting checks for scrying, etc?

This is unchanged.

I don't like this idea. For one, the less long term debuffs players have to run up against, the better. The paperwork of keeping track of all these mods can be a headache. I like the idea that one can fumble when casting spells, but I think it would be better if the DM had discression over the result. Most often, the spell effect should go awry, possible injuring, or at least humiliating the caster.

The reducing caster level (along with miscast spells) are the only balancing elements to this system. If these checks did not exist this system would be all powerful for the mage.

I would expect the effective caster level (ecl) to be managed like hit points on a piece of spare paper, except it is only restored fully after rest.

As a rule of thumb I don't like critical tables.

An interesting suggestion. Thing is, there are quite a few spells that simply don't benefit from caster level, some after reaching a level cap and some are not affected by level at all. Things like range are often still variable, but those things usually only come into play when the caster begins to cast the spell, not afterwards (i.e. the caster is going to make sure an enemy is in range before casting, so increasing it on a "crit" would be meaningless.

I'm not sure what benefit I would reccomend for spell crits, but it should be a meaningful, even powerful effect. Possibilities include increasing the spell's save DC (for those spells that offer saves), a free empower effect (stacking with the metamagic, if applicable), increased duration, etc. It might even be worthwhile to write a crit effect for each and every spell, but this would take alot of work. It could be very rewarding though, and would ensure that it's worthwhile to "crit" on any spell, not just the combat ones.

I also think an Intelligence check (DC same as that to avoid a fumble, above) should be required to "crit" on a spell. Characters using weapons have to make 2 rolls to crit, and I think the same should go for casters. It would also add consistency, since the same rules used for fumbles would be used for crits as well.

One issue though comes into play with those spells that require attack rolls. They already have the ability to crit like any other attack. This also depends on whether you use the attack roll as part of the casting, as I mentioned above.?

Two rolls are necessary, a natural 20 on the caster level check and a confirmed int check dc20. You have a point about the critical success effect. Compared to the initial rush of ideas this thought did not come easily. I don't want to use a metamagic bonus because I wouldn't want to take away the specialness of them. The fact is that there is no one mechanic that applies consistantly across all spells that increases the effectiveness.

I don't know...

I don't like this one at all. Wizards already have the enormous and often crippling disadvantage of needing spellbooks, and the whole concept of Wizards as ones who spend lifetimes in study simply wouldn't fit with a system that artifically limited the number of spells they could learn. I think the spellbook requirement is more than enough of a balance in this area.

I think you have some good ideas here. You just need to clarify and adress a few issues.

The problem with limitless selection for, effectively a spontaneous caster, is that combat will bog down with players checking screeds and screeds of spells. Bear in mind that in 2nd edition my mage could memorize only 11 spells per level, so limiting the number to usually 13+ is hardly going to limit the effectiveness of this wizard. If anything I am being too generous with spell selection as sorcerers are considered balanced with 3-5 spells per spell level.

Additionally, with fewer spells known, the difference between 2 higher level mages are going to more pronounced and thus more flavourful.

 

[nikolai]

3) Caster level check to cast spells = DC 15 + spell level (1-9).

Think very carefully about the effects of this.

Level 1: 30% chance of casting a 1st level spell.
Level 20: 85% chance of casting a 9th level spell; 6th level spells are automatic.

1st level wizards are going to be not very useful inside of combat. Outside of combat, they're going to have every spell with a duration running. Whenever I've thought about constructing an alternative magic system - something that really need doing - I've given up. Balancing it is just so complex.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Ok, I'll take a shot at this:

Why? How? Sorcerers are spontaneous casters. It kind of makes sense to have a spontaneous caster in a spontaneous spell system.

This model is based around a spontaneous caster that uses a spellbook. It, in every way outclasses a sorcerer so to allow sorcerers is to allow a woefully understrength class.

This I have never agreed with. Two spells per level is ridiculous. Instead, maybe try 1 new spell per caster level at each new level: a 2nd level wizard advancing to 3rd level gets three new spells, a 3rd level wizard advancing to 4th level gets four new spells, etc.

Scribing rules are ludicrous. 100gp per page?! At 100gp per page and 100 pages per book, that's 10,000gp to fill one book and for what? One page per spell level of the spell. That's a pitiful amount of spells available for 10,000gp! And what? So the wizard can study out of it? Big deal! That's nothing more than an excuse to get the wizard to part with his gold, which would be better spent on creating items. Wizard asks the group, "Well, guys, I can copy these nifty new spells into my spellbooks or make us all Rings of Protection +2, but I don't have money for both!" Guess what the party will have that wizard doing? Just how special does that quill have to be, or the ink or the paper, to write down something the wizard has to memorize? He memorizes what he sees, not the ink or paper it is written on. The words he studies would look no different if written with 2cp ink vs. 100gp ink--maybe prettier is all, or in different colors.

Learning new spells rule is fine.

I don't want to change too many rules. This system is supposed to emulate the mage that learns from the book and then casts their spells as they are required. Btw 3.5 halved the cost of scribing spells.

I put these items together for the same reason: Why? How do you fumble a Detect Magic? Just how much of a difference is a critical success? A 10th level wizard casting a Fireball at 12th level still only does 10D6 damage. If you're doing it to compare spells to weapons, weapons have different critical threat ranges. Why wouldn't spells, if you were going to adopt this feature? And considering that weapons can inflict double, triple or even quadruple damage (and often more than any spell would do), a critical success on a spell (+2 caster level) doesn't even compare to that.

Also, instead of an Int check to avoid, why not make it a Concentration check? That's what the skill is for. And if you're doing it to compare spells to weapons, then there should be no confirm/avoid option. Fighters don't have the chance to avoid a fumble. Why should a wizard? If he's thinking of sipping tea and a nice warm nap while Gating in a Pit Fiend instead of paying attention, he should 'fumble'.

The point is to make there no guaranteed success or failure. Otherwise higher level play will become predictable. Critical success is there for the same reason but is almost as likely at all levels.

Comparing weapons to spells is a little difficult. Weapons are supposed to be used much more often and so have lesser damage ranges. Spells on the otherhand progress in their bands of levels, starting quite weak to extremely powerful. Clearly basing spells on the mechanics used for weapons is going to lead to some very strange results.

Using concentration to confirm critical success and avoid critical failures will quickly result in auto-successes by the mid-levels, assuming it is max ranked. I like to have the primary spellcasting attribute (int) involved to emphasize it's importance and to ensure the bonus to the die roll is difficult to get past +10 (i.e. 30int). If the bonus to the dice roll is too big you'll get the "concentration" effect.

Perhaps the critical success should be a +1 increase to the effective caster level until rested.

This one alone is reason enough not to play a wizard in your game. What fighter suffers a -1 for missing an attack roll and for the rest of the day. Yeah, the fighter could be incredibly embarrassed for slipping and dropping his sword or tripping and falling on his face, but he won't beat himself up about it so much to self-induce a -1 penalty to hit until he rests and perhaps feels better about himself in the morning. Why then, should a 10th level Wizard, fumbling his Mage Armor spell, have to suffer the rest of the day!

If you want him to flub the spell, that's fine, but that should be it. Wizards have a limited number of spells already, and the effectiveness of those spells is already challenged by counterspelling, spell turning, spell resistance and other powers or abilities or other spells. If you absolutely have to penalize him further, then just add 2 to the DC check of his next spell he casts in the next round or two. That should be sufficient. After that, he should be calm and collected (and recovered) enough to cast without further penalty.

About the only time this happens is with Energy Drain, by spell or ability. And then, even if a Restoration or whatever is handy, no spells are returned until the caster rests and studies again. So, this is kind of already 'in the rules'.

The whole purpose of a generally declining effective caster level is to eventually reduce the mage to exhaustion whereby he can't cast spells until rested.

This system no longer has spell slot & spells per day limitations. Assuming no critical failures, the mage could cast meteor swarms all day (very unlikely).

This system has little to no comparison to fighters & weapons. Any such comparison is comparing apples with oranges.

What is the purpose of this restriction? A wizard can only 'know' so many spells of each level, and then of those he 'knows' he can only memorize up to 6 or so at a time anyway? So he has to essentially learn a spell twice (knowing it and memorizing it later), forgets it once (as soon as it is cast) and then has to relearn it yet again to cast it another time. That is silly. So what if a wizard 'knows 15 or 20 1st or even 5th level spells (or any other level for that matter)? As mentioned before, he can only prepare maybe six or so of those 15 or 20 spells in any given day. This just places yet another needless, and unjustifiable, restriction on wizards that serves absolutely no purpose beyond reducing their versatility. If you do this, consider limiting fighters (and any other non-wizards) to maybe 10 weapons + 1 weapon per point of Intelligence bonus that they know how to use!

?

Again, this system does not use spell slots or a given number of spells per day. A limitless capacity of spells in their spellbook would, imho, overpower the mage. Effectively that would be the best of both wizard and sorcerer.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Think very carefully about the effects of this.

Level 1: 30% chance of casting a 1st level spell.
Level 20: 85% chance of casting a 9th level spell; 6th level spells are automatic.

1st level wizards are going to be not very useful inside of combat. Outside of combat, they're going to have every spell with a duration running. Whenever I've thought about constructing an alternative magic system - something that really need doing - I've given up. Balancing it is just so complex.

Good points.

I can live with those % numbers given that I don't care about epic levels and that there are critical success and failures.

Heavy duration spells are going to fully active...

This is an absolute killer if not addressed. My initial gut reaction is to limit any spells to a 1 minute per level cap...

 

[DreamChaser]

rule of thumb to remember: any randomness favors the bad guy because PCs stand to loose more from a failed roll. I would never play a wizard starting out with such a low chance of casting any of my spells. If I were having a bad dice night I would be completely worthless (in the current system at least I could cast utility spells). I would hate the added roll (possibly 4 rolls for a single spell: casting check, touch attack, spell resistance, and damage/effect) would be nightmarish for me.

Just my thoughts and personal opinions.

DC

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

rule of thumb to remember: any randomness favors the bad guy because PCs stand to loose more from a failed roll. I would never play a wizard starting out with such a low chance of casting any of my spells. If I were having a bad dice night I would be completely worthless (in the current system at least I could cast utility spells). I would hate the added roll (possibly 4 rolls for a single spell: casting check, touch attack, spell resistance, and damage/effect) would be nightmarish for me.

Just my thoughts and personal opinions.

DC

I hear ya. The thing is, how do you balance a system that potentially allows you to cast spells every minute of the day? 30% is not too far off the rogues 40-50% to hit & the wizard effects can singlehandedly win the encounter (sleep anyone?).

The four rolls business is tempered by the lack of book work required to select spells and their number memorized at the beginning of each day.

I must admit I am a dice monkey, I like the idea of a wizard rolling as many dice as the fighter every round.

 

[DreamChaser]

I hear ya. The thing is, how do you balance a system that potentially allows you to cast spells every minute of the day? 30% is not too far off the rogues 40-50% to hit & the wizard effects can singlehandedly win the encounter (sleep anyone?).

You don't. Either the system will be underpowered (1st level) or moronically overpowered (anything much above 7th level).

So even if every 20 times I cast phantasmal killer or fireball or wall of fire or magic missile or scorching ray or sleep or deeper slumber or fear i fail I still outclass everything else. Period. End of story. No non-magic user can even come close.

It sucks from the fantasy archetype angle, but magic-users need limits per day that are strict and not determined by chance. You have the "fumbles reduce caster level" limit but it is just as likely that a 7th level caster will never fumble or only crit during a game as it is that he will fumble 7 times before he needs to sleep.

DC