Caster level in Grim Tales example

John Q. Mayhem said:
Just to make sure: caster level of a spell=spell level or caster's caster level, whichever's higher, right?

Correct. So a fireball (3rd level spell) would take effect at either caster level 3, or the actual caster level, whichever is higher.

I have to disagree with Heap, here: A 3d6, 20' radius fireball will kill a lot of ordinaries, which is what magic properly should do in a low magic game-- scare the sh*t out of the mundanes, but not outright kill the heroes. Balance magic against the mooks, not the heroes-- at least for the kinds of stories I like to tell.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Cheiromancer said:
I haven't play-tested it, but I was thinking that the spell-burn you take could add to your caster level. If your caster level is below the spell level, you would automatically take the burn to make up the difference.

Master Arcane flow is pretty good for that sort of mechanic, although what you propose would be an order of magnitude more powerful.
 

Wulf Ratbane said:
I don't know if you are aware or not, but a skill-based system will be included in my next Grim Tales spellcasting supplement. (The irony of releasing a spellcasting supplement for a low magic game...)


So, uh Wulf, you got a date for that supplement yet?

Not that I need it,no. I just, uh want to see it yeah, that's the ticket.

Another GT junkie
 

Wulf Ratbane said:
I don't know if you are aware or not, but a skill-based system will be included in my next Grim Tales spellcasting supplement. (The irony of releasing a spellcasting supplement for a low magic game...)

I'd certainly welcome help/input at any point.

Hopefully, it would be quick, flexible, and offer that same building-block utility that GT does. I've always waffled between preferring Vancian or spell-points, but now I'm really enthralled with the spell burn type systems. Vancian was usually the easiest to play and teach newbies, but it could be a little frustrating for the player if they shot thier wad early and had to sit on the sidelines. Spell point systems offered a lot of flexibility, but it led to players taking forever to minmax their spells. Both systems led to the power level of the mage varying greatly if they knew an encounter was an isolated incident, as they could expend everything and not worry about what might be around the corner (the latter system more so).

A skill-based system that offered a few common options that could be easily remembered and that balanced utlity with speed would be ideal.

Something like a spell having a base skill check DC of 10 for Range:Touch, Targets:1, Resist:Negates, Damage Die (if applicable) d4, etc. Then add DC modifiers by category,

eg Grim Magic Missile:
* Increase the range, +5DC the first 30', +1 each additional 30'
* No saves (+10DC)
* d4 damage (+0DC)
* Targets 2 (+4 DC)

Throw in some ways to reduce the DCs -- increasing the casting time, preparing the spell in advance, consumable material components, upping the burn die, etc.

You could go further, and break the skills into something approximating the traditional schools, so that a caster could be a skilled conjuror, but oblivious at illusion, for example.
 
Last edited:

Wulf Ratbane said:
What do you mean? Other folks have managed.

If it must be private, email is fine. Otherwise I'm agreeable to a discussion here (and you'll likely get as good or better help from the braintrust here as you would from me).

I didn't want to hijack your thread, honestly, but since you're cool with it, I'll toss out the basics.

The original draft worked this way:

D20 Modern is the base ruleset.

There are 10 magical skills - Attack, Charm, Create, Cure, Defend, Divine, Illusion, Move, Summon, and Transform. You must take a 'tradition feat' to gain these as class skills, and each tradition feat gives you a few magical class skills and then maybe a special rule for spellcasting.

For example, the 'Christian Miracle-Worker' tradition feat would give you access to magic that is traditionally Christian - Charm, Create, Cure, and Defend - and you'd gain a +2 bonus to your Cure skill checks. The 'Aztec Blood Magic' tradition feat would give you Attack, Summon, and Transform, and you'd be able to get bonuses to your spells if you sacrifice a creature as you cast the spell. The 'Psychic Sensitive' tradition feat would give you Charm, Divine, and Illusion, and you would always act as if you had a 1st level Divine spell active to let you sense psychic impressions.

Magical skills don't have associated ability scores, and you cannot take Skill Emphasis or any other sort of feat to enhance them. Your ranks and your tradition feats are all that affect your spellcasting checks.

You can create spells on the fly, and spells are measured in levels from 1 to 20, roughly equal to twice what the core rule version would be. So a charm person would be ~level 2, a fireball would be ~level 6, and so on (some costs are increased though, especially if being able to cast the spell repeatedly would be abusive). There's about 30 pages on how to create spells, and you can create a great diversity of spell effects using those rules. You cannot cast a spell that is higher level than the number of ranks you have in a magical skill, though you can spend an action point to raise this cap by +5.

To cast a spell, you roll with the appropriate skill against DC 5 + spell level. If you succeed, the spell works. If you roll a nat 20, the spell is an auto success and the target automatically fails its save (if any). If you fail, the spell doesn't work, and you suffer a -1 penalty to all spellcasting checks for the rest of the day. You also fail on a natural 1.

If you fail by 5 or more, the spell mishaps in a classical fashion. It might just deal damage to you, or it might rebound, drain your health, cause you to become possessed, curse you, etc.

This scale of DCs was designed so that if you cast a spell that is the same level as you have ranks in that skill, you cannot cause a mishap, though you can still fail about 1/4 times, which will cause you to get accruing penalties, so eventually it will become too dangerous to keep casting spells. Once you're 3rd level, though, you can safely cast all the level 1 spells you want, with no chance of spell failure except on a natural 1. What ended up happening, though, was that the PC in the game I'm using to playtest this was able to fire off 5 charm persons and a ton of cure spells in one day at 2nd level.

He was a 2nd level Smart Hero, and you took the Christian Miracle Worker feat. He has 5 ranks in Charm, Create, Cure, and Defend, and took 2 ranks cross-class in Attack because, hey, he's an adventurer. He has a +7 bonus to cast Cure spells, so unless he rolls a nat 1, he can safely succeed on any spell that is level 4 or lower (mind you, a level 4 Cure spell only heals 1d6 hp [This was so that I don't have PCs going to hospitals and just firing off Cure spells, upsetting the 'normal world' feel of the game]). Even if he fails on a nat 1, he can safely heal about 40d6 in one day before he runs the risk of a mishap.

I'm thinking of upping the DC to 10 + spell level, which will make magic a much rarer thing at low level. Then, when you're 4th level and have 7 ranks in a magical skill, you can safely cast level 1 spells with no risk of mishap, and a 85% chance of success. Trying to cast a fireball (Attack level 6) at 4th level is possible, but you'd have about a 60% chance of success, and a 15% chance of getting yourself killed.

Any suggestions? I think raising the DC should do it, though I'm afraid 1st or 2nd level PCs will either never risk using magic because they can kill themselves, or they'll take the risk, and end up killing themselves.
 

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
Hopefully, it would be quick, flexible, and offer that same building-block utility that GT does.

Without getting into too much detail, it's going to be based strongly on the research I did for Elves. The 3.5 revision and moving spells around actually made that work stronger; they eliminated a lot of special cases I had trouble accounting for.

A skill-based system that offered a few common options that could be easily remembered and that balanced utlity with speed would be ideal.

Currently breaking it down by school and the most general applications of each school. If two different effects will fit into the same "chart", then in they go. If they're better off as distinct charts/effects, I break them out.

Something like a spell having a base skill check DC of 10 for Range:Touch, Targets:1, Resist:Negates, Damage Die (if applicable) d4, etc. Then add DC modifiers by category,

Yes, it's very, very much like this. Later today I will post Invoke Elements for review. I am not 100% happy with it and you folks may have a good read on it.

Throw in some ways to reduce the DCs -- increasing the casting time, preparing the spell in advance, consumable material components, upping the burn die, etc.

Not a fan of lowering DCs. All my effects start at the base and go UP. I believe that a system with +/- effects is both more complex than I want it, and far easier to twink.

You could go further, and break the skills into something approximating the traditional schools, so that a caster could be a skilled conjuror, but oblivious at illusion, for example.

Yep. You'll be happy.

RangerWickett, I'll get back to your longer post in a bit.


Wulf
 

RangerWickett said:
There are 10 magical skills - Attack, Charm, Create, Cure, Defend, Divine, Illusion, Move, Summon, and Transform. You must take a 'tradition feat' to gain these as class skills, and each tradition feat gives you a few magical class skills and then maybe a special rule for spellcasting.

So far so good. I can see where most of my breakdowns would fit within your framework, although I think you missed a couple within necromancy that don't neatly fit within those groups.

Magical skills don't have associated ability scores, and you cannot take Skill Emphasis or any other sort of feat to enhance them. Your ranks and your tradition feats are all that affect your spellcasting checks.

Hmph. I'd allow Skill Emphasis, myself.

You can create spells on the fly, and spells are measured in levels from 1 to 20, roughly equal to twice what the core rule version would be. So a charm person would be ~level 2, a fireball would be ~level 6, and so on (some costs are increased though, especially if being able to cast the spell repeatedly would be abusive). There's about 30 pages on how to create spells, and you can create a great diversity of spell effects using those rules. You cannot cast a spell that is higher level than the number of ranks you have in a magical skill, though you can spend an action point to raise this cap by +5.

Not altogether that different from Elves' 1/2 spell levels. I am still using 1/2 levels, which I prefer because it preserves the 0-9 Spell Level everyone already knows.

I'd love to compare your breakdowns with mine (and swipe a few I haven't gotten around to yet!)

To cast a spell, you roll with the appropriate skill against DC 5 + spell level. If you succeed, the spell works.

With you so far. I use DC15 + roughly 2 per spell level, with some rounding. So from 0 to 9th, my DCs are 15, 20, 20, 20, 25, 25, 30, 30, 30, 35.

If you roll a nat 20, the spell is an auto success and the target automatically fails its save (if any).

That's harsh.

If you fail, the spell doesn't work, and you suffer a -1 penalty to all spellcasting checks for the rest of the day. You also fail on a natural 1.

Ok.

If you fail by 5 or more, the spell mishaps in a classical fashion. It might just deal damage to you, or it might rebound, drain your health, cause you to become possessed, curse you, etc.

Interesting. Not something I would use-- just not my style. I have enough "safeguards" to make magic unpleasant without adding another level of design, another table to roll against. Again, just my design style. I would expect this from the designer of "Wild Magic." ;)

This scale of DCs was designed so that if you cast a spell that is the same level as you have ranks in that skill, you cannot cause a mishap, though you can still fail about 1/4 times

So far, so good...

...which will cause you to get accruing penalties, so eventually it will become too dangerous to keep casting spells. Once you're 3rd level, though, you can safely cast all the level 1 spells you want, with no chance of spell failure except on a natural 1.

Well... gee. I wonder where you went wrong. If only we could pin it down... :]

I'm thinking of upping the DC to 10 + spell level, which will make magic a much rarer thing at low level. Then, when you're 4th level and have 7 ranks in a magical skill, you can safely cast level 1 spells with no risk of mishap, and a 85% chance of success. Trying to cast a fireball (Attack level 6) at 4th level is possible, but you'd have about a 60% chance of success, and a 15% chance of getting yourself killed.

The problem with just raising the DC is that you haven't changed the consequences-- just the DC. Eventually, someone will still be able to cast "all the spells they want" without any worry.

And that's where the problem is.

The spell burn mechanic in Grim Tales, where you CANNOT resist a natural 1 on the spell burn die, makes it highly unlikely that you will be able to cast spells all day.

Any suggestions? I think raising the DC should do it, though I'm afraid 1st or 2nd level PCs will either never risk using magic because they can kill themselves, or they'll take the risk, and end up killing themselves.

Well, to put it another way, you are better off scaling the consequences of failure rather than simply scaling the chance of failure.
 


Wulf Ratbane said:
The problem with just raising the DC is that you haven't changed the consequences-- just the DC. Eventually, someone will still be able to cast "all the spells they want" without any worry.

And that's where the problem is.

To use an old standby, "that's not a bug, that's a feature."

If you're playing Merlin, the 20th level spellcaster with a +20 in various spell-skills, you would expect to be able to do piddly little stuff without any chance of harm. Just like a 20th level marksman can take shots that a 1st level mook could never take without fear of accidentially hitting something else nearby.

The "right" way to limit magical power in a setting is to simply limit magical skill. Allow only to a certain skill-rank without specific campaign events. Like favored class and core-class restrictions, this would be one of those easily tweaked variables that does next-to-nothing to game balance but everything to game feel. Yes, an elf from the wyld can learn 15 ranks and Hectate's daughter can learn 20 ranks, but your man-off-the-street can learn only 1-5, maybe a bit more if he's got a strong mystic background.



FWIW, though, I agree with your assessment about the natural 1, but for a different reason. It's a simple question of die parity--if a natural 20 is better than 19+1, then a natural 1 must be worse than 2-1.

(Although I'm not a huge fan of "my magic drains me" style systems, mostly because they don't feel magical to me.)
 


Remove ads

Top