Spell Philosophy you would like to see

[boredgremlin]

This is very very close to the system that I have already created. Now if I could have a little more spare time and a portion of the funding that WOTC has, I could get the project complete and save Wizards (Monte, et. al.) the effort.

I'd love to see something like that and i'd be willing to help with some of the effort if you wanted to PM me. We could figure out a way to proceed.

 

[satori01]

Disagree. Some monsters should have a form of SR. It forces players/characters to think outside the norm and come up with creative ways to kill stuff.



Disagree here too. Same reasons as above. Forces players to think of creative ways to bypass or deal with the situation at hand.

Except it doesn't...ohh we tell ourselves that little fiction, because from a world building standpoint having Mind Influencing spells not effect Undead might make sense, but it is a bad design path, which is confirmed by the example of history.

Players like powers that work. If a power has a large chance of failing, then said power is not used. This is common sense, if your TV only turned on 50% of the time, you would quickly either get a new TV or adapt to not watching TV, but most likely you would not sit there and make plans to watch a particular show on your TV, knowing you have a coin flip chance of being able to watch it.

Categorical rules like Mind Influencing spells do not work on Undead, Lizards, and whatnot are like the TV not turning on. Spell Resistance did not encourage creative play, it encouraged people to (at least in 3E) to find spells that were not subject to SR, like the Orb line of spells. It in effect made Conjuration specialists and Druids, (whom had a large number of truly wicked Conjuration spells on their list) able to do more sheer damage than an Evocation specialist because they could just cherry pick powers that bypassed the extra roll required by SR.

It did not encourage creative play, it did encourage exhaustive research instead, which can be unfair aspect...I might have more time to research and read material as a married male without children, then my fellow player that is finishing up law school and just recently had twins. Remember the hobby is graying.

Moreover, I would also posit that Categorical Keywords, while they can make for a logical system, in many ways reduce the ability for creative play. I think you want a system that encourages a player to say: " hmm we a trying to enter the Temple of the Rat via the sewers, so I will take Lower Water" and try to use Lower Water on the water elemental the group encounters. Yet in 3E and 4E often times you would find valid Keyword reason to shoot down those ideas because of a logical inference of the rules.

I would posit the better way to allow for someones powers to face a difficulty boost against specific creatures is to not categorical nerf a set of powers, but to write the resistance into the monster stats.

If you want your base skeleton to be immune to charm spells because skeletons have no minds but follow orders only w/o thought...write that into the monster stat block. If you want a Hag to be highly magic resistant, give the Hag higher saves vs Magic...do not nerf a whole group of spells.

Let the TV turn on!!

 

[Khaalis]

• Well I would like to see both vancian and 4e magic tossed in a barrel of napalm and dropped on a tiefling as core village.......
• Come up with an internally consistent system for creating spells and determining their power and level. SHOW THAT SYSTEM IN THE PHB. And let players create their own spells if they want.
• Include consequences that make magic dangerous the way warhammer systems do but not quite as bad as call of cthulu. Something that makes low level magic routine for powerful casters but higher level stuff risky.

So basically a freeform build-a-spell system like the d20 Elements of Magic?

Take feat style powers associated with each school of magic and make them at-will powers for magic users. Something cantrip level power or maybe up to 3e 1st level spell strength so that wizards arent throwing darts or cowering behind their stick after they use their one crappy Magic missile spell.

FC already did this. The system has vancian spell levels (0-9) but changes from vancian spell-slots to spell points (and use of a Spellcasting skill roll). 0-level spells cost no spell points (unless you apply Spell Tricks {aka metamagic}).

For instance, the PHB combat 0-level spell basically is an at-will attack with a Spellcasting check instead of an attack roll, 15’ range and 1d6 damage (Ref half). In the upcoming Spellbound book there will be a much wider range of spells added, as well as Specialist classes that will all be unique and play differently (e.g. a Preserver will play much differently from a Reaper).

 

[boredgremlin]

Except it doesn't...ohh we tell ourselves that little fiction, because from a world building standpoint having Mind Influencing spells not effect Undead might make sense, but it is a bad design path, which is confirmed by the example of history.

Players like powers that work. If a power has a large chance of failing, then said power is not used. This is common sense, if your TV only turned on 50% of the time, you would quickly either get a new TV or adapt to not watching TV, but most likely you would not sit there and make plans to watch a particular show on your TV, knowing you have a coin flip chance of being able to watch it.

Categorical rules like Mind Influencing spells do not work on Undead, Lizards, and whatnot are like the TV not turning on. Spell Resistance did not encourage creative play, it encouraged people to (at least in 3E) to find spells that were not subject to SR, like the Orb line of spells. It in effect made Conjuration specialists and Druids, (whom had a large number of truly wicked Conjuration spells on their list) able to do more sheer damage than an Evocation specialist because they could just cherry pick powers that bypassed the extra roll required by SR.

It did not encourage creative play, it did encourage exhaustive research instead, which can be unfair aspect...I might have more time to research and read material as a married male without children, then my fellow player that is finishing up law school and just recently had twins. Remember the hobby is graying.

Moreover, I would also posit that Categorical Keywords, while they can make for a logical system, in many ways reduce the ability for creative play. I think you want a system that encourages a player to say: " hmm we a trying to enter the Temple of the Rat via the sewers, so I will take Lower Water" and try to use Lower Water on the water elemental the group encounters. Yet in 3E and 4E often times you would find valid Keyword reason to shoot down those ideas because of a logical inference of the rules.

I would posit the better way to allow for someones powers to face a difficulty boost against specific creatures is to not categorical nerf a set of powers, but to write the resistance into the monster stats.

If you want your base skeleton to be immune to charm spells because skeletons have no minds but follow orders only w/o thought...write that into the monster stat block. If you want a Hag to be highly magic resistant, give the Hag higher saves vs Magic...do not nerf a whole group of spells.

Let the TV turn on!!

By your logic every TV should play DVD's and computer games right out of the box.

Because hey, everyone likes DVD's and video games so why should they have to buy a DVD player and game computer too when they already have a TV?

Thats it, everyone throw out your TV's. They dont do everything so they are worthless. Sony will be in for a major shock.

 

[boredgremlin]

So basically a freeform build-a-spell system like the d20 Elements of Magic?

I never saw elements of magic but from what I've heard about it, yes.

FC already did this. The system has vancian spell levels (0-9) but changes from vancian spell-slots to spell points (and use of a Spellcasting skill roll). 0-level spells cost no spell points (unless you apply Spell Tricks {aka metamagic}).

For instance, the PHB combat 0-level spell basically is an at-will attack with a Spellcasting check instead of an attack roll, 15’ range and 1d6 damage (Ref half). In the upcoming Spellbound book there will be a much wider range of spells added, as well as Specialist classes that will all be unique and play differently (e.g. a Preserver will play much differently from a Reaper).

I dont know what FC is but it sounds like they got it pretty close to perfect for what i want.

 

[Mattachine]

I also am against swaths of creatures with categorical immunities.

Campaigns sometimes prominently feature a creature type, such as undead, and if players know that, then they can plan accordingly.

My experience as a DM, however, is that particular adventures (or series of adventures) feature particular sorts of creatures. While it is is challenging and fun to get around a limitation in an encounter or two, having a character who's major and secondary options are nullified in a whole adventure isn't fun as a player, and it made me sad as a DM.

This was true for melee fighters fighting only flying creatures with ranged attacks, wizards fighting all creatures with high SR, bards/enchanters fighting undead, thieves/rogues fighting only creatures immune to sneak attack (backstab), or even an adventure with zero social interactions when you have a bard.

A player can figure an encounter or two while they are on the sidelines, but having multiple play sessions of it is downright frustrating.

The new edition spell philosopher should avoid making certain types of magic useless with blanket categorization.

 

[Dausuul]

Regarding "categorical immunity," I'm okay with certain spells not working on certain types of foes. There was a lot of stuff that couldn't be affected by charm spells in 3E, but enough creatures were subject to them that charm person and charm monster were tools worth having in the wizard's toolbox.

However, it's important to avoid taking this too far. Categorical immunities have a way of making characters virtually useless for whole sessions at a time. Ever see a 3E rogue in an undead-centric adventure or campaign? It ain't pretty. Likewise, a beguiler may not be able to charm a zombie, but shouldn't turn into a slightly-tougher-than-normal commoner when the DM runs a "zombie apocalypse" scenario.

IMO, immunity to spells/effects should be rare, focused, and strongly tied to the fiction. Skeletons can't be charmed? Okay, I can see that. Whatever force drives the skeleton has no concept of friendship or loyalty, so it makes sense you can't make a skeleton think you're it's friend. Or you can, but it doesn't care.

On the other hand, why should death knights have massive spell resistance? There's no reason in the fiction for that to be the case. And from the game point of view, it's just a trap for wizards who make the mistake of thinking that the school full of blasting spells is what you should specialize in if you want to cast blasting spells. The idea that conjurers are better at blasty-magic than evokers, because conjurers can bypass SR while evokers can't, is ridiculous.

 

[Khaalis]

I never saw elements of magic but from what I've heard about it, yes.

Seriously - Check it out before you write your own system. Well worth the money if this is really the kind of system you want to use. Good reviews.
"Elements of Magic (revised edition)".

There are also expansions:
* "Elements of Magic - Elemental Spirits"
* "Elements of Magic - Lyceian Arcana"
* "Elements of Magic - Mythic Earth"

I dont know what FC is but it sounds like they got it pretty close to perfect for what i want.

Fantasy Craft by crafty Games. It is technically a d20 system, but they took the original d20 system, tore it down to its roots and rebuilt it. Definitely worth checking out. Unfortunately, because Crafty is so small it never got traction against other larger publishers.

 

[Khaalis]

As for categorical immunities, I don't mind ones that make sense. For instance I have no problem with Undead being immune to subdual/stress damage, disease, poison, paralysis, stunning, etc. including spells that cause such conditions. However, if Undead still have a WIS and CHA score, then they should be able to be affected by charm effects, etc. I also think creatures like elementals should have categorical immunities as well, such as a fire elemental being immune to all fire effects. I don't however want to see the return of creatures that are immune to everything except very niche situations (such as only affected by holy light spells cast at noon on the 3rd Saturday of each month).

Does this possibly leave some characters at a disadvantage in certain situations? Yes, but that's fine by me. It is part of the reality characters should face. They should have stronths in certain situations and have weaknesses in others.

However, immunities need to make sense as well as add some tactical depth to monsters. If every creature is affected the same way by every spell, it reduces any need for much variety in spells or spell selection.

JMHO.

 

[Andor]

By your logic every TV should play DVD's and computer games right out of the box.

Because hey, everyone likes DVD's and video games so why should they have to buy a DVD player and game computer too when they already have a TV?

Thats it, everyone throw out your TV's. They dont do everything so they are worthless. Sony will be in for a major shock.

No, what he's saying is you shouldn't try to sell a TV with a full suite of modern hookups and another with nothing but those two little screws in the back on the same shelf, for the same price.

Even more, you should not restrict some of your stores to selling only the antiques.

-Conjuration ignored SR. It hooks up to your DVD, your PS3 or Rosie the Robot.
-Evocation has to deal with SR, but not blanket immunites. It's cable ready, but not HDMI.
-Enchantment simply does not work on a huge swath of common encounters. It has rabbit ears, and nothing more.

The conjuration/evocation split was nothing but a system mastery trap.

The enchanment limits made the Beguiler completely useless in a fairly common set of circumstances.

That does not encourage creativity, it encourages drinking.