Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Drawmack" data-source="post: 3167207" data-attributes="member: 4981">Okay, so the DC is 15 + 3/spell level so the progression is 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42. I would probably house rule also that spellcraft is a class skill for any class that can cast spells and instead of tying it to int I would tie it to whatever ability the spellcasters bonus spells are tied to, just makes a little more sence to me.Assuming that spellcraft is a class skill then the skill points progression is 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. Under this system any spellcaster is probably going to keep their spellcraft skill maxed. Let's say they have a +2 (or 14, 15) in their ability to modify this skill. That means they'll be adding 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 to their roll.The Wizard class gets spells at the following levels (class level/spell level) 0/1, 1/1, 3/2, 5/3, 7/4, 9/5, 11/6, 13/7, 15/8, 17/9. Following are the modifier, assuming +2 from ability / spell DC at the level a spell level is acquired: 6/15, 6/18, 8/21, 10/24, 12/27, 14/30, 16/33, 18/36, 20/39, 22/42So a first level caster has a 45% chance of learning a first level spell, but a seventeenth level character only stands a 5% chance of learning a ninth level spell this seems a bit wonky to me. So I think the 3 per spell level is a bit off center.Learning theory tells us that the closer you get to mastery of a skill the longer it takes you to progress in your learning of said skill. So the learning chance should probably decrease but, this seems a bit drastic.This line: “if the check is unsuccessful, he cannot learn that spell that level, and must wait until next level, and must choose another spell to research.” Doesn’t seem to fit the system very well. It seems you’re attempting to create a moderate magic world, yet the PCs are guaranteed the standard level of spells, just not necessarily the spells they choose. This will not create a lower level of magic, just a less tamed one. If this is the way you want it to play out then it can be done very simply with role playing where they can only learn spells if they find a tome containing said spell. This would add great plot devices to the game.For non-phb spells the dc modifier is doubled making the dc progression 15, 21, 27, 33, 39, 45, 51, 57, 63, 69. This means that learning any non-phb spell above 4 requires a roll of 20 at any level. This is extremely difficult, which may be what you want. I just thought I’d point that out to you.With the modifier for Specialist School your roll makes very little sense. The mean is 5, there is a 25% chance that the player will roll a 5. This means that 25% of the time the player will be reducing the base modifier by 2 per spell level. At a ninth level spell this would reduce the base modifier to -3 25% of the time. Ouch. It gets even worse if you only consider the percentage of the time they will keep the modifier at 15 or less for any given level. 18% of the time the modifier to learn a spell will be 15 or less regardless of the level spell being learned. I would think that a flat reduction of 1 or 2 per spell level would work out much better.Also the modifier for Opposed school spells if very, very high. The mean value of 3d4 is 7.5. A majority of the time the only way someone can learn an opposed school spell is to roll a natural 20. Again this may be better done with a static modifier to the DC per spell level – but I’m not sure what number to use as the number would significantly change the flavor of the game.I’ll stop with the analysis there and see what you think about it.</blockquote>

Verification