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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="papastebu" data-source="post: 3220928" data-attributes="member: 40894">I've had some new ideas about this.I agree with the armored casting thing, because I don't really like wizards in armor. What I would do to combine it with this system idea is to make armors--padded, leather, studded leather, etc.--have a penalty instead of a % failure. This would also serve to tighten up the whole D20 as the only mechanic thing. The lightest and least restrictive armors would naturally have the lowest penalty to casting checks. Also, even if an armor-type was heavier than some others--chain-mail versus studded leather, for example--I might still give it a lower penalty than other armors of its general weight, if it was more flexible. I also want to make armor a DR thing, so the penalty for weight and inflexibility would apply to an "Avoidance Class" which would be lower than current AC, but backed up by knowing that some of the non-magical damage would be gone. Only magic armors would reduce magic damage.Skill points would have to be increased, true.The wizard's ability to manipulate or use the formulae of a given spell is represented by his or her skill-ranks in the spell.The spell points simply increase the spell's level. The higher the spell's level, the more difficult it becomes to cast, and the more costly learning the next level--a modification and improvement of the formula the wizard already knows--becomes. This provides the dynamic of skill versus power; can the wizard use the formula properly, or will he flub it, incinerating us all.Higher-level spells for lower level casters is just a neat idea, to me. All spells would have the potential of being cast at a spell-level of one. To use fireball as an example, once again, a level-one version of it would cost one spell-point to learn, and have a base DC of 11 to cast, but the damage, range, and area would be reduced along with the spell-level. You could throw your 1d6 fireball a short range of 10 feet--long range of what, three times that?--and have it explode in a five-foot space. But. If the wizard has a high intelligence, then it would be possible to start off at first-level with six spell-points in that fireball, for a level three effect--3d6, 30 feet short range, and a 15-foot blast-radius.I can see that the wizard might just keep on trying to cast his big spell over and over, which is why I think it would be a good idea to make spells add their level to the DC of each consecutive casting. Even a failed casting is a casting, though, and I can't see a barbarian waiting around in a rage while the wizard tries just one more time  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh    :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" /> . All use of the spell has to stop for the accumulated number of rounds for the resistance to dissipate.In response to the prismatic spray post, I see what you mean. So maybe along with giving the wizard more frequent access to his most potent weapon, I should possibly add opponents' will or fort save bonuses to the DC, and do away with saves? Or make it a contest with the target's save roll having to beat the caster's total skill check? It wouldn't negate a successful casting, but it could negate or mitigate--modifiers versus spell-level the effects. Now that I think about it, if the spell was leveled-down the way I intend, then that could take care of the problem. Haven't looked into it enough.</blockquote>

Verification