Book Casting

Falling Icicle

Adventurer
In another thread I posted an idea about book casting for Wizards, and thought I would repost and expand on it here. http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=201408

In this system, Wizards use their spellbooks mostly as a reference tool. Spells are very complicated, and its important to have their formula on hand to ensure that the spell is cast correctly. Wizards don't need to "prepare" their spells in advance in this system. They simply use their spell slots to cast spells they know just as Sorcerers and other spontaneous casters do, and are considered to "know" any spell they have learned and recorded in their spellbook(s).

Wizards still have to learn a spell (following the normal rules for learning and copying it into their spellbook) before they can cast it. The spellbook is treated as a focus for all Wizard spells (the spell being cast must of course be recorded in the spellbook the Wizard has in hand). He must have the spellbook in hand and open while casting. Drawing a spellbook is normally a move-action, though the character may bury his spellbook deep in his pack to make it more difficult to steal. If he does so, it takes a full round action to retrieve it. Wizards can of course carry their spellbooks in hand so that they will be readily available, but doing this has its own risks.

If the Wizard doesn't have the spellbook in hand, he can attempt to cast a spell he knows from memory, but must make a caster level check (DC 10 + 2x spell level) to do so. A roll of a 1 on this check is always considered a failure. If the Wizard fails on this check, the spell fizzles and is wasted with no effect, using up the spell slot. If the check fails by 5 or more, the spell is cast, using up the spell slot, but goes horribly awry. It could backlash against the caster or one of his allies, or have other strange effects. I will work on a table to determine the results of the mishap randomly, and will post it once it is finished.

The DC of the caster level check for casting a spell without the spellbook in hand should be increased if the Wizard does not keep the spellbook with him and regularly study it. Having the spellbook(s) on hand during his daily study and meditation to regain his spell slots counts as regular study. This helps to discourage Wizards from leaving their spellbooks in town, in secret chests, or other safe places for long periods of time. I would suggest a +1 DC if the character hasn't studied his spellbook in a day, +2 for a week, +4 for a month, and +8 for a year or more.

Obviously, this house rule gives Wizards a great deal of versatility. However, spellbooks are very expensive tools, and having them on hand while casting puts them at great risk. They can be disarmed, damaged or stolen very easily. It also requires the Wizard to keep track of which spells are in which books. This also adds an interesting strategic element in combat. A Wizard who wants to cast a spell out of a book he isn't holding has to either spend an action to retreive it, cast a different spell or attempt to cast the spell from memory. Wizards using this system would be wise to keep spells that they are most likely to use in combat in one book, with their other, more occasionally used spells in other book(s).

Considering the very large spell lists of classes like the Warmage and Dread Necromancer that are freely available to cast, I don't think this should create many balance problems, especially since spellbooks are such an expensive and risky investment. Their spell lists are much more limited in scope than Wizards are, but they also have many more spells per day and other class features that make them quite powerful in their areas of expertise. I also think this system is much more realistic than the traditional fire and forget spellcasting system. Many Wizards portrayed in books, movies, etc refer to their spellbooks while casting spells, while using those they are most familiar with from memory.

Specialist Wizards: Specialist wizards get a +2 bonus on caster level checks to cast spells from their specialty school from memory.

Metamagics: Metamagics would work in this system just as they do for sorcerers and other spontaneous casters. The Wizard applies the metamagic "on the fly", increasing the casting time (I recommend making an exception for Quicken Spell, as I do for sorcerers in my games). When casting a metamagic-improved spell from memory, use the spell's modified level to determine the DC. An empowered fireball, for example, is treated as a 5th level spell for this purpose and would have a base DC of 20 to cast from memory.

Spell Mastery: This feat obviously needs to be changed in this system. Instead of letting a Wizard prepare the chosen spells without a spellbook, it allows the Wizard to cast these spells without a spellbook or the caster level check. He has so thoroughly memorized and internalized these spells that he no longer needs to refer to a spellbook to cast them.

Clerics, Druids and other preparation-based casters: This system can be just as easily used for these classes as for Wizards. In the case of Clerics, treat cure/inflict spells and their domain spells as if the cleric had the spell mastery feat for them. The same goes for Summon Nature's Ally spells for Druids. Clerics and Druids don't need to refer to their prayer books or make caster level checks to cast these spells from memory.

[Edit] Changed the spellcraft check to a caster level check.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Falling Icicle said:
He must have the spellbook in hand and open while casting. Drawing a spellbook is normally a move-action, though the character may bury his spellbook deep in his pack to make it more difficult to steal. If he does so, it takes a full round action to retrieve it. Wizards can of course carry their spellbooks in hand so that they will be readily available, but doing this has its own risks.
This does lead, though, to the completely awesome image of a wizard with his spellbook chained to his wrist like a spy's attaché case. Better yet, it could be huge, iron-bound, and usable as a bludgeoning weapon.

Falling Icicle said:
If the Wizard doesn't have the spellbook in hand, he can attempt to cast a spell he knows from memory, but must make a spellcraft check (DC 10 + 2x spell level) to do so.
The problem you're inevitably going to run into, here, is similar to the problems with the Truenamer class, and skill-based spellcasting in general: Skill checks are an enormously variable character trait, affected as they are by skill ranks, synergy bonuses, ability modifiers, feats, any number of magic items and spell effects, and possibly various circumstantial factors. This means that the same casting DCs might be both ridiculously easy to beat if someone is really cheesing out their character build, and essentially impossible for non-optimized characters. When something as important as a primary class feature hinges on a single skill check, you can expect people to arrange for some extremely high skill bonuses, and it gets progressively more difficult to gague what kind of bonuses they'll have as character levels rise.

Anyway, let's look at your proposed formula: DC = 10 + (spell level x 2). So, a 1st level Wizard would just need a result 10 to cast level 0 spells, and 12 to cast level 1. Depending on what kind of character generation is used, we can expect him to have an Int of about 16, and he'll definitely put full ranks into Spellcraft. That's a bonus of +7 so far. But, remember, it'd also make all the sense in the world for him to take Skill Focus: Spellcraft (for another +3), and--if he's human--he might just go for Magical Aptitude, as well (getting him +2). That takes him up to +12, meaning that he's only going to fail on a natural 1. Who the hell needs Warlocks?

I could run the numbers for levels after first, but I'm actually pretty sure things are only going to get worse. The DC to cast a level 9 spell would be 28, and this guy would have a +27 bonus to his Spellcraft check by . . . I think level 16, without even factoring in skill synergies, magical items, Intelligence enhancements, etc. And since Wizards don't even start casting level 9 spells until they're 17th level...

So naturally, that DC formula can't really work. But I think a more demanding one would just lead to the same challenge the Truenamer faces: Min-max the everloving crap out of your character, or be entirely useless. Maybe it's just me, but I think it's bad design to give a class a feature that flat-out compels certain feat and skill choices. It screws over players who aren't rules-savvy enough to catch the class feature's implications, and it limits the choices of players who are.

That said, I do like the basics of your idea. Maybe it would make more sense to base the spellcasting roll on something much less cheesable, like an ordinary caster level check? I'm sure some math genius over on the WotC forums could tell me about a dozen ways to break that mechanic, but it's the best I've got at the moment. I'll try and post something more constructive when I've got time to think properly.
 

GreatLemur said:
This does lead, though, to the completely awesome image of a wizard with his spellbook chained to his wrist like a spy's attaché case. Better yet, it could be huge, iron-bound, and usable as a bludgeoning weapon.

The problem you're inevitably going to run into, here, is similar to the problems with the Truenamer class, and skill-based spellcasting in general: Skill checks are an enormously variable character trait, affected as they are by skill ranks, synergy bonuses, ability modifiers, feats, any number of magic items and spell effects, and possibly various circumstantial factors. This means that the same casting DCs might be both ridiculously easy to beat if someone is really cheesing out their character build, and essentially impossible for non-optimized characters. When something as important as a primary class feature hinges on a single skill check, you can expect people to arrange for some extremely high skill bonuses, and it gets progressively more difficult to gague what kind of bonuses they'll have as character levels rise.

Anyway, let's look at your proposed formula: DC = 10 + (spell level x 2). So, a 1st level Wizard would just need a result 10 to cast level 0 spells, and 12 to cast level 1. Depending on what kind of character generation is used, we can expect him to have an Int of about 16, and he'll definitely put full ranks into Spellcraft. That's a bonus of +7 so far. But, remember, it'd also make all the sense in the world for him to take Skill Focus: Spellcraft (for another +3), and--if he's human--he might just go for Magical Aptitude, as well (getting him +2). That takes him up to +12, meaning that he's only going to fail on a natural 1. Who the hell needs Warlocks?

I could run the numbers for levels after first, but I'm actually pretty sure things are only going to get worse. The DC to cast a level 9 spell would be 28, and this guy would have a +27 bonus to his Spellcraft check by . . . I think level 16, without even factoring in skill synergies, magical items, Intelligence enhancements, etc. And since Wizards don't even start casting level 9 spells until they're 17th level...

So naturally, that DC formula can't really work. But I think a more demanding one would just lead to the same challenge the Truenamer faces: Min-max the everloving crap out of your character, or be entirely useless. Maybe it's just me, but I think it's bad design to give a class a feature that flat-out compels certain feat and skill choices. It screws over players who aren't rules-savvy enough to catch the class feature's implications, and it limits the choices of players who are.

That said, I do like the basics of your idea. Maybe it would make more sense to base the spellcasting roll on something much less cheesable, like an ordinary caster level check? I'm sure some math genius over on the WotC forums could tell me about a dozen ways to break that mechanic, but it's the best I've got at the moment. I'll try and post something more constructive when I've got time to think properly.

Thanks for the reply.

You make some very good points. Obviously for this kind of system to work the DM would need to restrict alot of the feats, items, etc that currently exist to improve spellcraft. Another option that might work better, as you mentioned, is a caster level check. This isn't something that can normally be bumped up to ridiculous levels with feats and items. I'm going to modify it to use caster level instead.

As for the Warlock comment, I'm not sure what you mean there. The spellcraft check to cast a spell from memory does *not* allow the wizard to cast the spell for free. It still uses up a spell slot of the appropriate level. There's still the normal daily limit (which for wizards is the least of all the pure caster classes). All it lets him do is cast a spell he knows without having the spellbook in hand.

Thanks again for your comments and suggestions.
 

Ok, this needs some extra thinking, but have you thought about allowing both aproaches? wizards can memorize spells AND cast them directly from books.
The catch would be on casting time: memorized spells are cast as per normal rules, but casting from books would require 1 full round per spell level. Metamagics would increase casting time too, unless you could prepare it in advance - that would be the only way to quicken a spell.
Essentially, you'd memorize blasts/heals and other combat spells and leave some slots open for those utility spells, like knock or levitate. Once you memorize a spell, the slot is compromised and cannot be used to cast another spell from book or memory.
(Anyway, it's just something I thought about while reading your post. Sorry if i'm intruding :p )
 

Falling Icicle said:
As for the Warlock comment, I'm not sure what you mean there. The spellcraft check to cast a spell from memory does *not* allow the wizard to cast the spell for free. It still uses up a spell slot of the appropriate level. There's still the normal daily limit (which for wizards is the least of all the pure caster classes). All it lets him do is cast a spell he knows without having the spellbook in hand.
Ah, okay. I'd misinterpreted the primary point of your idea, thinking it was more of a standard skills-instead-of-slots magic system.
 

Remove ads

Top