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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gez" data-source="post: 1219926" data-attributes="member: 1328">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.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.</blockquote>

Verification