Per-encounter Simple-Complex-Exotic Magic System for d20?

[BryonD]

One option for spontaneous casters would be to give them their bonus spells as free castings, but not extra spells known. So a Chr 14 would allow the one casting of a 1st and 2nd level spell each without it become expended. This fits the current model while also keeping par with the wizards INT bonus to spells per day. I'd limit this bonus to simple spells only.


So the wizard has more spell versatility and equal to slightly better total spell output at low levels and the sorcerer has the ability to use the same spell frequently (still the blaster)

I agree about the spending an action option.

If you consider adding zeros to the sorcerer list then you may want to just take the plunge and re-build the table completely. However, I don't think that letting CHR increase spells known is a good idea because extra spells known would be a big offset to the class limitation. So if that is out then zeros don't work anyway.

 

[McBard]

...my preference would be to cap the game at 5th level spells, possibly with heightened or ladened effects to simulate 6th level power.

Instead of caping at 5th, you might create a fourth tier of power: simple, complex, exotic, and epic.

An epic spell would be those such as Wish, Miracle, True Resurrection (and perhaps the save or die spells). Epic spells could have a per class level usability (i.e. if you cast Wish at 17th level, you don't get the ability to cast it again until 18th level).

 

[Henry]

My inclination would be to hold off on an Epic-capping initially, to better make it a good D&D model of a "per-encounter" system. The fewer restrictions you'd put on it, the better.

Another thought: Are there any caps that should be put on the criteria for how a spell fits into a category? I'm thinking more along the lines of things like
"is there a die cap for simple spells?"
"should simple spells only affect up to X number of targets?"
"should simple spells have up to Y amount of healing in them, if at all"
"should complex spells only affect up to Z amount of the battlefield?"

questions of that nature that might force one to either recategorize an existing spell, OR to create a limit on certain existing spells to keep it from becoming game-breaking? Anyone follow what I'm getting at here?

 

[BryonD]

My inclination would be to hold off on an Epic-capping initially, to better make it a good D&D model of a "per-encounter" system. The fewer restrictions you'd put on it, the better.

For D&D I agree. (I'm already thinking more toward a GT application, so it would be moot for me.)

Besides, you can always build the system without the restriction and then add caps on top to individual taste anyway. So build the core first, then develop customization options later.

Another thought: Are there any caps that should be put on the criteria for how a spell fits into a category? I'm thinking more along the lines of things like
"is there a die cap for simple spells?"
"should simple spells only affect up to X number of targets?"
"should simple spells have up to Y amount of healing in them, if at all"
"should complex spells only affect up to Z amount of the battlefield?"

questions of that nature that might force one to either recategorize an existing spell, OR to create a limit on certain existing spells to keep it from becoming game-breaking? Anyone follow what I'm getting at here?

heh

So, do you want mechanical rules that are fine until the exceptions start to be a headache, or do you want case by case judgement calls that will be forever disputed????

I prefer the judgement calls because it fits better with each DM making it best for their own game.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

"is there a die cap for simple spells?"
"should simple spells only affect up to X number of targets?"
"should simple spells have up to Y amount of healing in them, if at all"
"should complex spells only affect up to Z amount of the battlefield?"

I think warlocks give some insight as to Question 1. Their eldritch blast is weak. Really weak. So I would say a simple spell should deal no more than 1d6/2 levels. (or the equivalent; about 1.5 dmg/level) If it does deal more, it should have other significant drawbacks. (melee touch plus saving throw to negate, etc)

Simple spells should generally only affect 1 target, unless the effect is weaker than the above damage or is easier to avoid (requires attack rolls and saving throws). Example: Grease - It is an area spell, but sufficient ranks in a skill or a high save will protect you.

I don't think simple spells should have healing at all. While it makes some things simple, theres no way to "wear down" the heros (or the villain) making Mooks pointless. The only kind of healing I would see as "simple" might be something like Vampiric touch.

Complex spells could have bigger areas and more damage. Things like Web or Black Tentacles could fit into Complex. (Though black tentacles is pretty cheesy; maybe it should be exotic) I would limit all the "mass death" spells to Exotic rather than complex. (Not just death effects; Mass Hold/Charm/Dominate/Etc) They end the entire fight. A single target "death" spell (Polymorph, Finger of Death, Hold, etc) could be complex, and I would consider that the upper bounds of power for complex - Take 1 guy out of the fight completely.

 

[Bloosquig]

I like this system a lot and will probably use my own spell list to make it work in my campaign I'm glad I saw this thread.

Now for healers if you still want the "wear down" factor to be high you could do some kind of fatigue type effect with healing spells. Say that healing spells heal half the damage like normal and turn the other half healed into subdual damage. (maybe with a con bonus increasing the amount of healing compared to subdual damage). So for example a fighter with a con bonus of 2 gets healed by a spell for 20 hp, 12 of that goes right back into his hp pool and the other 8 becomes subdual. This allows for people to still eventually be worn down while retaining healings usefulness.

Plus it increases people fainting and being used as prisoners for dastardly dm plots instead of dying.

Thats my two coppers.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

A divergence:

I've come to think that the standard spell progression isn't going to work for this system. As a substitute, I propose a two-column solution.

Spells Readied / Maximum Spell Level

The spells readied column for a full spellcaster tracks (as just one suggestion) with the "good saves" column: 2/3/3/4/4/5/5/6/6/7/7/8/8/9/9/10/10/11 (through 20th level) and the Max spell level is what you would expect-- the max spell level goes up by +1 every odd level.

(Lesser spellcasters would use the "poor" column or perhaps the "moderate" column from d20 Modern that goes up to +9.)

There probably has to be some limit to the number of top-level spells you can ready. (Not necessarily a foregone conclusion, but some casters are likely to ready all the highest level spells they know...)

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

...
There probably has to be some limit to the number of top-level spells you can ready. (Not necessarily a foregone conclusion, but some casters are likely to ready all the highest level spells they know...)

Well, assuming you don't change negative level rules, this is suicide. The best Debuff at high levels is Enervation/Energy Drain. Losing 1d4 or 2d4 levels means your caster level will be too low to cast any of those high level spells at all, rendering you little more than a commoner who cries when you beat them with a stick.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The Sacred Cows of the Spell List

Ok, let's kill some sacred cows. I'll be doing this piecemeal, in several threads.

ABJURATION
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=195461


Getting these polls up is a laborious, boring process. I'll see how the first poll shakes out (and solicit feedback) before I do any more.