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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Technik4" data-source="post: 871381" data-attributes="member: 7211">I think generally you are too quick to ignore current spells and embrace the damage die table advice for making new spells. Arguing that lower level cleric spells are too weak is sort of a weak argument, as first of all the spells aren't all that weak, and second those spells belong to the most powerful class in the game. The tables for what a wizard damage spell should do per level don't generally apply to the cleric, except in certain higher level spells, generally speaking.There is no guideline or table for making feats. Augment Summoning is considered by many to be a pretty good feat for a caster who summons a lot. Personally, I think it is quite good, as adding an extra hit die, bonus to hit, bonus to damage every time you cast a certain spell is a strong bonus. What if there was an Augment Rays which gave a +1 bonus to hit and damage (per die) for any ray spell you cast? Would that be balanced? If so, then I feel Augment Summoning is also balanced, especially because Augment Rays seems overpowered!As far as your spell list, utility is all well and good, but ask yourself this: "Is there a reason to play specialist wizard X based on the mystic's spell list?". If you can do that for all the specialist wizard types, then thats a good start. For me, eyeballing the list, it seems like a transmuter might as well be a mystic, as most of the spells are there in terms of buffs, and you can pick up healing spells.Now we come to one of those points where its difficult to give accurate advice. You plan on giving all casters of magic access to healing magic, so it seems the whole lot of spellcasters is pretty muddled. One of the defining differences between arcane magic and divine magic (which I realize you are not using, the division) is that one can heal and one can burn. Generally, wizards enjoy more utility as well. You are blurring the lines which makes it difficult to see why you need all those spellcasters. It seems like possibly making the sorceror fit your needs would be a better option. Delete the cleric, create the mystic, a cha-using core class which can spontaneously cast most spells from the cleric list with some homebrewed ones and some from the wizard and druid lists. This way you end up with less wis-based (divine magic in regular d&d is defined by the WIS modifier) magic.I don't think there is room for another progression, personally. As I said in another post this is the balance (between spontaneous casters) Few Known Spells, Many Spells Per Day or Many Known Spells, Few Cast Per Day. There aren't really more variables to throw in there, so by getting rid of the sorceror (who the mystic is very close to as of now) and getting rid of the cleric (who the mystic's spell list is mostly emulating) each class can retain something in a very magic-open environment.As far as specialization, I would go with the core material (as usual). Clerics don't have specializations, they have domains. Perhaps you could implement domains for mystics, which would give access to some of your homebrewed (powerful, imo) spells. Basically take the spheres and change them into domains (mechanically. you could still call them spheres). This way you could also give them certain benefits for having certain domains, as well as powerful unique spells.For instance, under this system, a mystic would have to have the "Life" sphere in order to cast healing spells and the "Smite" sphere for access to the good offensive spells. You already have written up groupings of spells, this would cause you to shorten the lists for these (spells not in domains can be taken by any mystic). Further, you could implement a bonus ability for sphere, like with the Life sphere you get Turn Undead as a cleric.Its hard for me to judge the higher level sphere abilities since you said you planned on doing this for all classes, so its hard for me to see the balance. Also, if you feel it is balanced and are on the playtest stage, then it seems house rules isn't really the forum for you. If you've already made up your mind that it follows the rules in the dmg, and is a good spell for your campaign, then posting here and asking for criticism doesn't make sense.Anyway, thats my advice. It is probably a little too radical, but I agree we aren't exactly on the same page anyway. I hope everything works out well with your new class and spells.Technik</blockquote>

Verification