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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Seraphael" data-source="post: 305307" data-attributes="member: 2003">Actually, I understand that you changed the Sorcerer in an attempt to give them some power back (and agree that it needed to be done to keep the class), but I was actually questioning whether or not magic users would become overpowered compared to non-magic users through their greater flexibility. Are Clerics, Druids, Wizards and Sorcerers more powerful than Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues and Monks using these new rules?As far as my questioning the need for the Sorcerer at all, that comment was based on the fact that you felt the need to give them something more to make the class worth it at all using this system. Would anyone who chose to use Matrixed spellcasting actually miss the Sorcerer if it was not included?I understand that, but would anyone risk powering a 4th level spell with a 5th level slot considering the possible consequences (keep in mind that even your hypothetical 1st level/18Int wizard will fail a normall spellcasting check 33% of the time. which is more than significant)? I know I'd think twice about it except under the most dire of circumstances. Using the standard rules if a character wants to prepare a (non-metamagiced) fireball in a 5th level slot that works just fine. Overcasting is a great idea, and I although I mentioned that the risks seemed a bit high, there is some definate benifit to doing so. It is a nice way to introduce risk to spellcasting in dire situations (when one no longer has open spell slots).Well, you assume that every wizard, druid, cleric and sorcer starts with an 18 in their primary spellcasting statistic, which isn't the case. A character with a lower score (like a 15) has a lower bonus (3 in this case), meaning that they must roll 9 or higher (and therefore will fail to cast their highest level spells 45% of the time). That was the reason that I chose to call it just under 50% rather than mention a specific number. In either case, it seems a bit harsh to expect that a character will fail to cast their spells even one third of the time. I agree that a chance to fail when casting spells is interesting, but it can't get out of hand if you expect magic users to depend on spellcasting when their lives are in danger.This is exactly why I said I liked this aspect of the rules. As it stands, a wizard has the same chance to fail to cast a spell when wearing armor regardless of their skill or the difficulty of the spell. Your system changes that by changing the spell failure roll into a modifier to the spellcasting failure check, which I think is a good decision.</blockquote>

Verification