Enhancing Spell Casting With SpellCraft

[Centaur]

Has anyone done any work with regards to using the Spellcraft skill to enhance spell aspects in the D20 system.

The PHB has a breif discusion on using Spellcraft to make a binding diagram to help with plannar binding spells. However, is this the limit on what is possible or should the area be expanded.

What about using spellcraft to create a teleport target. Once created (DC 25 say) then anyone who knows this target symbol can teleport to it without knowing where exactly it is. This way, a Wizard could give another wizard a piece of parchment with a copy of the symbol on it and say: "this is were you can find me Bob". Then the wizard could just "Teleport to the Symbol" without having to know where it is. The other benefit here would be an increase in targeting accuracy, say by one or two steps on the table, if not better.

Of course, if you use this, what happens if two copies of the target exist. Which one do you land at. Can this target path be hijacked or is the first one the only valid one. Can this symbol be drawn in the dirt at every camp the wizard makes while on an adventure so that colleags can always find him.

What are some other ways to use spellcraft to enhance spell casting. Could it be used to enhance the duration of "Magic Circle" spells but make them non-mobile in exchange?

If lots of circle and diagram like enhancements are concieved, should a new skill be introduced to cover the effect such as Circle Mastery or Knowledge: Circles?

Any thoughts?

 

[Mark Chance]

Has anyone done any work with regards to using the Spellcraft skill to enhance spell aspects in the D20 system.

I've considered removing metamagic feats from the game and assigning each metamagic feat effect as a Spellcraft check against DCs based on the potency of the effect.

 

[Umbran]

Re: Re: Enhancing Spell Casting With SpellCraft

I've considered removing metamagic feats from the game and assigning each metamagic feat effect as a Spellcraft check against DCs based on the potency of the effect.

No need to remove the feat, then. Simply rewrite the feat to give a bonus on the skill check.

Mind you, having every spellcaster with access to [/i]every[/i] metamagic feat does remove a bit of differentiation between casters. And it bumps up the value of that one skill to nigh absurd levels.

You're lso likely to see lots more item creation feats among your wizards.

 

[Mark Chance]

No need to remove the feat, then. Simply rewrite the feat to give a bonus on the skill check.

That's a thought.

Mind you, having every spellcaster with access to every metamagic feat does remove a bit of differentiation between casters.

How so? The differentiation between casters isn't in the feats. It's in the spell lists.

And it bumps up the value of that one skill to nigh absurd levels.

You're lso likely to see lots more item creation feats among your wizards.

It would certainly change the entire tone of a campaign. Spellcasters of all stripes would become more potent due to the radically increased flexibility.

Of course, this isn't necessarily a bad things, only a different thing.

 

[Umbran]

Re: Re: Enhancing Spell Casting With SpellCraft

How so? The differentiation between casters isn't in the feats. It's in the spell lists.

No, there's differentiation to be found in the feats, too. The spellcaster who has silent and still spells will be doing things the guy with maximize and enlarge can't, and vice versa.

 

[Mark Chance]

No, there's differentiation to be found in the feats, too. The spellcaster who has silent and still spells will be doing things the guy with maximize and enlarge can't, and vice versa.

Admittedly, but all metamagic feats are potentially available to all casters to begin with. They are built in features of this or that class. IOW, wizards don't get X feat while sorcerers get Y and clerics Z, et cetera.

 

[Umbran]

Re: Re: Enhancing Spell Casting With SpellCraft

Admittedly, but all metamagic feats are potentially available to all casters to begin with.

Potentially yes. But nobody gets enough feats to have them all. Each caster only gets to choose a few, thus making himself different from other casters.

This variant would mean that all casters have access to the entire list of the same powers. Blandness ensues.

 

[Harker Wade]

I had considered keeping the feats, to allow access, and assigning DC for actually implementing the meta-magic effect instead of the spell level penality.

1. Spellcasters still have to choose the feat, keeping it unsual rather then commonplace.

2. Place greater empahsis on Spellcraft. I like the idea of using a skill to alter the spells because there's a chance it may not work.

Harker Wade

 

[Umbran]

Okay, so if you're using a Spellcraft check for the feat and it does not work, what happens? Note that the problem is different for sorcerers than for those who prepare spells...

 

[Harker Wade]

I guess I was thinking that failing the DC would mean the spell is cast without the intended meta-magic effect. And a roll of "1" would mean loss of the spell. Though you could apply the 'opposite' of the intended effect on a 1, but that's a lot more work for the DM during a combat.


Harker Wade