Spell Philosophy you would like to see

[satori01]

keep In mind Vancian magic is confirmed.
For myself, I would like to see:

1) If there is a roll to hit, there should be no Saving Throw for the damage portion of the spell, (just like weapons).

2) Some partial effect even with a successful save, in 3e high levels it was too easy to have high Saving Throw bonuses.

3) Set durations, not random durations.

4) No Spell Resistance, ( monsters can have save bonuses for rider effects...a hag might all be immune to Hold Person, but should take Magic Missle damage).

5) No Categorical Nerfs to classes of magic...ie Undead are immune to Charm or Illusion magic.


I would also be happy with an Arcana Evolved style spell list with simple, complex, and Unique spells, and lesser and overcharged versions built in. Ie Fireball is a 3rd level spell and does 20' radius 5d6 damage..save for half.
Firebolt is a 2nd level lesser variant of Fireball...maybe like Scorching Ray, while Delayed Blast Fireball uses a higher level slot.

 

[Rhenny]

I agree with you on the no save vs. damage part of the spell if it hits. Then, perhaps a save vs. the special effect, but I don't mind if it is all or nothing in that case.

If it is like SIEGE Engine (Castles and Crusades), then the spellcasters to hit roll would set the DC for the save. That may be cool. Not sure.

Also, I think some categorical invulnerabilities would be ok. If the creature doesn't have a mind, I don't see why mind affecting spells would apply.

 

[satori01]

Also, I think some categorical invulnerabilities would be ok. If the creature doesn't have a mind, I don't see why mind affecting spells would apply.

It adds a needless complexity, that does not really enhance the game...theoretical conversations about wether Invisbility makes you physically Invisible or only Invisible to a creature with a mind just slow things down.

It also eleminates the dilemma of wanting to play a 3e Beguiler, but the game is Undead heavy ...that leads to disappointment. A vancian spell slot is really too precious to waste....swing a sword against a Skelton and you can always swing again next round with a mace.....cast you only Charm Person spell on a Ghoul and have it be " too bad, so sad" is a bit harsh.

 

[Sunseeker]

It adds a needless complexity, that does not really enhance the game...theoretical conversations about wether Invisbility makes you physically Invisible or only Invisible to a creature with a mind just slow things down.

Running headlong into combat with the assumption that everything you've got will work is a good way to IME, get yourself killed. Slowing things down, not assuming you're going to win, these are necessary elements to any game. I mean we could run with this argument until we're saying that the enemies should just lay down and die for you.

There needs to be a certain level of pace and unpredictability to make combat anything more than just a loot pinata.

It also eleminates the dilemma of wanting to play a 3e Beguiler, but the game is Undead heavy ...that leads to disappointment. A vancian spell slot is really too precious to waste....swing a sword against a Skelton and you can always swing again next round with a mace.....cast you only Charm Person spell on a Ghoul and have it be " too bad, so sad" is a bit harsh.

That's more a matter of everyone being up-front about what the campaign is going to entail and what you'd like to play.

If a creature is mindless, why on earth would mind-affecting spells do anything?

 

[Niccodaemus]

It adds a needless complexity, that does not really enhance the game...theoretical conversations about wether Invisbility makes you physically Invisible or only Invisible to a creature with a mind just slow things down.

It also eleminates the dilemma of wanting to play a 3e Beguiler, but the game is Undead heavy ...that leads to disappointment. A vancian spell slot is really too precious to waste....swing a sword against a Skelton and you can always swing again next round with a mace.....cast you only Charm Person spell on a Ghoul and have it be " too bad, so sad" is a bit harsh.

A bit harsh? That is part of the terror of facing the undead. "harsh" is where the game starts to get fun!

 

[Pour]

Since Vancian is confirmed and it's part and parcel with the wizard and cleric, why not give the wizard and cleric (or more likely 'priest') all the complexity of 1e-3e spellcasters. I'm already avoiding them anyway, might as well lump all the rolling and intricacies of past editions. Then have the warlock and some form of cleric represent the AEDU side of things so 4thers like me don't feel completely ignored.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I like the idea of SoD spells that have an effect even on a save, but I think that should be reserved for mid-to-high level spells. A 1st level spell that could weaken an enemy with no chance of save, even briefly, would still be an overly-influential effect.

 

[WheresMyD20]

keep In mind Vancian magic is confirmed.
For myself, I would like to see:

1) If there is a roll to hit, there should be no Saving Throw for the damage portion of the spell, (just like weapons).

2) Some partial effect even with a successful save, in 3e high levels it was too easy to have high Saving Throw bonuses.

3) Set durations, not random durations.

4) No Spell Resistance, ( monsters can have save bonuses for rider effects...a hag might all be immune to Hold Person, but should take Magic Missle damage).

5) No Categorical Nerfs to classes of magic...ie Undead are immune to Charm or Illusion magic.

I pretty much want the opposite of all of this. Make spells work they way they did from OD&D to 3e.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Save DCs and Spells

My own preference since they seem to have confirmed Vancian spellcasting is to treat each spell as a "recipe" such as Mordenkainen's Disjunction, or Melf's Acid Arrow. Except for the most generic of spells (fireball etc.), each spell has a "founder/creator/crafter" that shapes the mechanical characteristics of the spell.

The mechanical characteristics are:
- Casting DC: A set DC to cast (more powerful spells are typically more difficult to cast). Different conditions such as disruptions, rate of casting and so on act as modifiers on this casting roll. Casting failure may result in unfortunate side-effects. An apprentice can attempt to cast a powerful spell but will more than likely fail. A conservative wizard will stick to easier to cast spells. A reckless wizard will attempt just about anything.
Lucifus might typically found spells of high casting DC with potentially damaging side-effects for failure, but in exchange for a more powerful effect. Galandor however, may specialise in making sure a spell is easy to cast. A wizard then becomes defined by the spells they can cast rather than the "level" of spells they can cast.

- Set DC for Spell: As the spell is a recipe, you follow the casting method you were taught and you get a predicted effect. It thus makes sense that this provides a standard DC. Lucifus's Charming (a variation on charm person) may have a higher DC [15 rather than 12 for the regulation Charm Person]. Duration and range is set by the specific spell. Lucifus's charming may be special because it has a higher DC but a reduced duration where as Galandor's Charming might have a lower DC, increased duration, is significantly easier to cast, requires no obvious casting except a silent flick of the fingers but only works on females.

To my mind, this would make this Vancian style of casting far more flavourful, reduced in power compared to 3e, while being mathematically predictable.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[jbear]

Refined spell lists with all spells as equally as good as each other, just in different ways. If some spells are better than others, then sub par spells won't be used just take up space and time when you are sifting through the spell lists.
So less spells, but more flexible: Why have Protection from good be a different spell than protection from evil? Just make it the same spell and caster chooses what the spell protects from.

Perhaps there could be a list of PHB spells, far more limited to promote easy character creation. Other more "niche" spells could be introduced (or not) by the DM via the adventure, but they can't be acquired automatically by PC when wizard levels up

No campaign crumbling spells like Wish. Limited Wish...fine. But Wish is just DM headache material.

Careful thought towards Spell design with regards to not treading on toes. If a wizard can detect and disarm traps, and open locks what makes a rogue unique?

Even though the system is Vancian, casters have a signature at will spell/cantrip. Not very powerful but decent enough that Wizards aren't forced to pull out a crossbow. These could relate to domain or specialist school. Eg evocation: Ray of Frost/Magic Missile.

Those are the only things I feel strongly enough about to mention.