Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder overhaul suggestions, pt. 2

[phloog]

Somewhat related: A true GENIUS once wrote the Revised Edition of Elements of Magic, which has a nice system for dispel magic that we use in our campaign.

This thread, of course, reminds me why I love my laptop and its software for D&D (DMGenie)...the machine does the math for me.

I DO remember the pain of recalculating everything any time a buff was put in place, but I think that there must be a scalpel-style fix rather than taking out the chainsaws for those not choosing to use a PC.

The benefit I do have is that while they are a bit more casual than I'd like about the game, I have a group devoid of rules lawyers and min-maxers, so IF I ever decided that buffs and bonuses were a problem, I'd likely get away with something like this:

"This spell makes you mighty like a bull...here's a poker chip with +2 written on it in crayon...whenever you could reasonably describe an act as benefitting from being Strong Like Bull or Generally Bullish, show me the chip and I'll give you a +2" So rather than calculating an Enhancement Bonus to strength, you get a +2 Bull Strength bonus to anything that 'seems appropriate'...most of the normal STR-based stuff of course.

I wouldn't have to keep track of all those fiddly stats...

"While the spell is active I'm going to snort in this guys face, flip my foot back to kick up dust, and try to Intimidate him into giving me what I want" - - +2 Bull Bonus to Intimidate!

I understand the problem that you folks might have though in groups where making one spell choice even slightly better than another means that everyone takes it. It's the old discussion about story/play versus mechanics, and I thank my lucky stars that I don't have some of these concerns.

The concept is interesting, though.

 

[phloog]

Opinion: I don't like the idea of reactive counterspelling leading to any sort of looping stuff....and I'm not sure I like the idea of reactive counterspells at ALL.

Actions ARE precious, and while I think that a fighter could Ready an action to fire a crossbow at a charging foe, short of killing that charging foe it doesn't necessarily stop the charge.

To me Ready is to allow you to TRY to stop an action, or to get your licks in before it happens. If you succeed, the opponent has been thwarted in some way...they don't get another chance to try something else.

I think you'll get into problems of logic AND game flow with any kind of 'try again...no?...try again...mechanic'.

I may be way off base here, so I'm interested in different/better thoughts. And I may be forking this thread too severely.

I think about a round being six seconds long, and I think about how much you can accomplish in six seconds...I know that often a spell takes a STANDARD action, which is arguably about half a round, because you can in a round move twice, or move and take a standard action.

Say a typical spell then takes a standard action of three seconds.

Let's assume the more basic dispel, where you use a Fireball to dispel a Fireball. So it takes that person three seconds to cast her spell, and three seconds to cast yours, which is basically Fireball * (-1). You have to see the spell, and make a Spellcraft check. Granted, by the rules this takes 'no action'...it just seems like it SHOULD take time to recognize the spell, pull your spell from memory, etc.

Anyway...ignoring my issue about whether or not it should work that way, you can see how it gets more goofy if suddenly after you dispel my Fireball with yours, and I try again with Lightning Bolt and someone nullifies that...eventually you get into a situation where unless all recognition, decisions, and casting takes no time, a wizard's round is suddenly an hour and a half long in GAME time.

 

[Scott DeWar]

I know that feeling all too well.



Maybe the alternative would be that it costs your action, but it doesn't cost your spell? The question is if it should still cost the counter-speller his spell?
I think that might be fair.
- Automatic Counterspell: Same spell or spell listed as counterspell. Both sides spells are expended.
- Roll opposed Caster Level Checks, but do not expend spell if you fail to counterspell: Dispel Magic, Greater Dispelling and variants. If you succeed, the opponents spell is not wasted but your dispel is, if you fail, your opponens spell succeeds but you don't lose your spell.

idea:
dispel magic (if successful)...lose spell and action lost
spell countered by natural opposing (haste/slow) spell lost and action lost
spell countered by same spell (haste/haste) spell not lost but action lost

 

[Kerrick]

But I think it's poor design-- or at the very least, no fun at all-- to create a system that is essentially a "lockdown deck." Two wizards spending multiple rounds... denying each other the opportunity to do something fun and interesting? Do not want. That remains a hurdle I've not fully thought through.

Yes and no. Imagine, if you will, a mage bad guy with a load of minions. The PC mage is in the back of the group, countering the bad guy's spells so the PC fighters/rogues can take care of the minions without the bad guy raining down spells on them. I've seen this in action, many times - I used to play in a Neverwinter Nights PW (online MMO); we had groups who would go bugbear hunting against 25th-30th level bugbear champions and shamans, and a mage (or bard) who could counter the shaman's spells was invaluable.

1) spellcaster without dispel magic vs. sorcerer with dispel magic: I call it an action advantage because typically a sorcerer cannot cast two spells a round, but counterspelling as an immediate action allows them to cast a spell, laugh at the spellcaster who did not prepare dispel magic to counter them, then counter anything the spellcaster tries in the same round. The net result after one full round is that sorcerer has cast two spells and has one in effect, and the other spellcaster has cast one spell but has nothing to show for it.

How? You said yourself that countering is "casting a spell", and you can't cast two spells in a round unless one of them is quickened. An immediate counterspell is not, IMO, the same as a quickened spell, and thus the sorcerer is on the same footing as everyone else.

In most movies & novels, the counterspelled spell isn't prevented from being cast so much as it is intercepted - thus the great/mandatory visuals of two spells colliding and the ensuing contest of wills. So, maybe counterspelling doesn't automatically negate a spell so much as it initiates some kind of opposed/dynamic check. If initial caster wins, the spell takes effect. If he loses, it's countered.

That's a cool idea - if you do a counter as an immediate action, you have to make a caster level check, because you don't have the time to focus the magic properly. If you counter as a readied action, it works automatically.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Yes and no. Imagine, if you will, a mage bad guy with a load of minions. The PC mage is in the back of the group, countering the bad guy's spells so the PC fighters/rogues can take care of the minions without the bad guy raining down spells on them. I've seen this in action, many times - I used to play in a Neverwinter Nights PW (online MMO); we had groups who would go bugbear hunting against 25th-30th level bugbear champions and shamans, and a mage (or bard) who could counter the shaman's spells was invaluable.

You're mistaking "effective and valuable" for "interesting and fun."

 

[Kerrick]

You're mistaking "effective and valuable" for "interesting and fun."

I suppose so... but the players in question wouldn't have built their characters like that if they didn't want to be thrust into that role.

 

[Stalker0]

What if you dropped dispel magic and counterspelling and just combined the two?

Now the only counterspelling is done by dispel magic. Dispel Magic becomes an immediate action spell, that provokes the normal caster check, and on a success the spell is cancelled.

You lose the massive buff stripping/recalculating fest that is common at high levels.

That plus a retolling of the buff spells could clean up a lot of mess.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Dispel Magic becomes an immediate action spell, that provokes the normal caster check, and on a success the spell is cancelled.

This is what I was proposing above...

You lose the massive buff stripping/recalculating fest that is common at high levels.

And this is why.

 

[Kerrick]

What if you dropped dispel magic and counterspelling and just combined the two?

Now the only counterspelling is done by dispel magic. Dispel Magic becomes an immediate action spell, that provokes the normal caster check, and on a success the spell is cancelled.

It's a good idea, but are you suggesting eliminating dispel et al as spells entirely? I.e., they can't be used for anything besides counterspelling? How would you dispel other things, then? Course, I don't really see dispel ever being used except in traps and combat, so the point might be moot...

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

It's a good idea, but are you suggesting eliminating dispel et al as spells entirely? I.e., they can't be used for anything besides counterspelling? How would you dispel other things, then? Course, I don't really see dispel ever being used except in traps and combat, so the point might be moot...

Using dispel magic in its current form as an all-purpose spell stripper has its place-- it just isn't combat.