Gez's Variant Magic System

[Tywyll]

Gez,

Interesting system. I am very curious to see more. Specifically, I am interested in learning more about the complex/simple division you have decided on for divine and arcane spells. I assume you are using the 3.X spell lists rather then simply using the AU spell list. As such, I am very curious as to how you have seperated them out. Care to post more?

 

[Gez]

I'm not sure about modifying the progressions.

If I were to adopt a 3/3, 2/3, 1/3, 0/3 progression, it would negate one of the aims I was looking for -- to have all classes provide a small increase in MM, so that "multiclass patch" prestige class like the Eldritch Knight would not be necessary.

If I were to adopt a 4/4, 3/4, 2/4, 1/4 progression, then the "bard, psychic warrior" category would get access to 8th-level spells. Which is a bit too big a boost in power IMO.

If, to fix that, I were to modify the caster levels at which new spell level slots are gained (level * 2 -1 by normal formula), it would screw up all magic item prices.

IMO the spell categories of simple, restricted, et al muddle things up (in so much as they are additional things to remember), but under core D&D this isn't needed which makes your system even smoother.

Specifically, I am interested in learning more about the complex/simple division you have decided on for divine and arcane spells. I assume you are using the 3.X spell lists rather then simply using the AU spell list. As such, I am very curious as to how you have seperated them out. Care to post more?

Here's the reason why I took the simple/complex/etc. separation idea from Monte Cook. Not all spell lists are the same.
For example, bards and wizards cast arcane spells. With the exceptions of a few "bardicish" spells (involving music) and a handful of divine spells (namely, the cure wounds spells), most all spells on the bard spell list are also on the sorcerer and wizard list. Looking closer, we see a trend: the most esoteric spells are only for sorcerer and wizards, as well as all flashy evocation non-sonic damage-dealing spells, like fireball.

Likewise, looking at the cleric & paladin spell lists, we see that with a very few exceptions, all paladin spells are also cleric spells, but the reverse isn't true.

The same scenario repeats with druid and ranger spell lists.


The basic criteria for choosing a spell's difficulty and level lies in its availability. If a spell is put as "Clr 3, Drd 3, Sor/Wiz 3", it will be a Complex 3 arcane, divine and nature spell. Of course, other factors picture in. If a spell is "Brd 3, Clr 3, Psn 3, Sor/Wiz 3", it looks like a complex spell (since paladins, rangers, and psychic warriors don't get access to it) but what about bards? Looking at the spell, it happens to be an enchantment spell. So it can be complex and that won't change anything. On the other hand, another spell which is, say, "Asn 3, Brd 2, Clr 4, Drd 3, Pal 3, Sor/Wiz 2" will become a Simple 3 arcane, divine, and nature spell.

Here we see a first consequence of the unification of spell lists: It will be lower level for clerics, and higher level for bards and sorcerers/wizards. Another consequence is that the spell will now be available to rangers. As well as to shaman, adepts, etc.

This is, incidentally, one of the effect that I wanted. You play an OA campaign and you have Tome & Blood, Relics & Rituals, Magic of Faerûn?

Great. All this wealth of material is nigh-useless, because you don't have the spell's availability and level for shaman, shugenja, sohei and wu jen.

Another scenario: You play a Master of Shroud (PrC from Defenders of the Faith) and you wonder which of the spells from Mongoose's Necromancy: Beyond the Grave book should be on your spell list? Once these spells are given a level and complexity, there's no need to argue anymore, as would say the Cranberries.


In fact, I wanted all spellcasting classes to have spell lists that would be descriptive rather than enumerative. This is the basic reason behind the re-classification of spells.

I'm updating a huge list of spells from a lots of source, to give them magic types, possible new descriptors, and level + complexity. I'm about 50% done. I'll soon upload a file that will list name, source (which book/site it is from), school, descriptors, magics, complexity, and level.

It's about all 3.0, so you won't see the school-swapping 3.5 has done. Not because I'm hostile to them, rather because I don't want to do two updates at the same time.

 

[Gez]

In fact, you could even tweak it a bit further. For example, how about this: Paladins and Rangers have 1/4 progression until they reach level 4 (at which point they have a +1 and can start casting 1st-level spells), then they switch to a 1/2 progression? At level 20, they'd have a +9, which'd barely give 5th-level spell slots, and since they don't gain Divine/Nature V they'd use those slots for 4th-level spells.

Or they would get 5th level spells. For my level re-evaluation, I've found spells that were like "Clr 5, Pal 4" for example, so I've felt free to put them to 5th level since Paladins would get them.

I don't think it would be a good idea to change progression inside a class. That's unelegant.

2> Sorcerers? I didn't see anything in there that gave them extra spells per day. Just give a flat "2 extra slots at every level they can cast"?

Class ability. A first level sorcerer gets two bonus cantrip slots. A third level sorcerer gets two bonus 1st-level spell slots. A fifth level sorcerer gets two bonus 2nd-level spell slots. And so on.

3> Rangers and Paladins don't get cantrips, in 3E

Now they do.

and have a VERY small number of spells at each level most of the time. Paladins, Bards, and Rangers also get 0 spells at some levels. Then, there's the fact that if they have a 1/3 or 1/4 MM progression they'd gain two or three slots at every 3rd or 4th level, instead of the slow trickle they get now.

Yes, their spellcasting capacity has overall increased. Possible balance issue there, but I don't think it will be anything too nasty.

How about this:

For MM, you can get away from the +1/level max. For example, let's say "Full" MM progression is +3 per level. "Good" MM progression is +2 per level. "Poor" is +1 per level, and "Minimal" is +0.5 per level. So, it maxes at 60. The reason I picked +3 is the average "full" class gains two or three new spell slots each level, so by inserting a step between each you can make each level give ~1 spell, and account for the "0" levels that the full classes never see.

<snip table>

The ones divisible by three would be the basic Wizard progression, the ones between would be where the 0's go. While there are a few levels that give nothing, that actually stops happening as much at higher levels.

The Minimal progression caps at MM=10, which gives a single 2nd-level spell slot. The Poor progression would cap at MM=20, which'd be 4th-level spell slots with a 0 on the 5th, and the Good progression would cap at MM=40, which has one 7th-level spell.

So, for example, the Bard has a Good progression, so his MMs go 0,2,4,6,8,10,12,14 which actually matches really closely to the PHB table. He still gets all of those "0" levels in there, too.

In fact, it might better to avoid fractions altogether; maybe go 5/3/2/1, that way the max is 100 and you can use it as a percent. But then you'd have a large number of levels that gave nothing, so maybe not. Or, you could drop it to 2/1.5/1/0.5, but then you give Paladins and Rangers WAY too much spellcasting.

Well, it's an idea that has merits (and I think I saw it already on Monte Cook's boards, proposed to adress the same thing, stacking spellcasting multiclasses). But I prefer to keep a value increasing by one every so much levels, for consistency.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Well, it's an idea that has merits (and I think I saw it already on Monte Cook's boards, proposed to adress the same thing, stacking spellcasting multiclasses). But I prefer to keep a value increasing by one every so much levels, for consistency.

Well, the one reason I'd really avoid giving fractional MM levels is unbalanced multiclassing. Let's say Ranger gets +1/3, while Wizard gets +1; there'd be no difference between a Rng 2/Wiz X under the old system versus the new; the two Ranger levels would add nothing to his spellcasting ability. But then add a third level, and it'd add the equivalent of a full Druid level in one shot, which under your system is a lot better than it would be in 3E.

On the other hand, if Ranger was +1 and Wizard is +3, then a Rng 2/Wiz X will be a slightly better caster than a Rng 1/Wiz X. Not by much, but you won't get a jump in casting power by adding a third Ranger level.

Anyway, it's not a huge deal. Personally, I'm more in favor of shifting some of this into a skill-based system anyway.

 

[Tywyll]

Class ability. A first level sorcerer gets two bonus cantrip slots. A third level sorcerer gets two bonus 1st-level spell slots. A fifth level sorcerer gets two bonus 2nd-level spell slots. And so on.

don't know if you can avoid it, but personally, I don't think 2 extra cantrips at first level compensates for not starting with scribe scroll. Granted, I never play or run games below about 3rd level, so it wouldn't have a big effect on me. But just thinking about how much it would suck to play a sorcerer in this system at 1st. Perhaps you might give them their first level benny early?

 

[Gez]

I had other stuff in mind for the sorcerer, but it's more specific -- it changes the class, as opposed to the system.

See the link in my sig for some preliminary works. My current idea is to give them a free "legacy" (a list of ten set spells, from cantrip to 9th-level) of spells they'll all know from the start. As soon as they get the spell slot, they can cast it.

Then, at level 5, 10, 15, and 20, they get a bonus ability that allows them to look more closely like their ancestor/model/whatever.

 

[Otakkun]

Good job in this. I played with something akin to this when I got my hands on AU, but I didn't have the time to polish it.

The extra types of spells are really interesting, too.

About the sorcerer, remember that tampering with him means that you are also tampering with all of those spell casting monsters that use the sorcerer table, but besides that it all seems ok to me.

The only things missing in here are some example characters and a cleaner version of your rules (you may want to put them in a pdf).

Congrats,

Edo.

 

[Gez]

Well, it will only affect the spellcastingy thingy of them -- and this should basically be the same. Other class abilities (like Summon Familiar) aren't given to monsters that have virtual spellcasting sorcerer levels.