Spellcasting Blues

[fourthmensch]

So I've been playing this 3e thing for over two years now, and certain aspects of the system are becoming more and more prominent as the PCs reach higher and higher levels. And by "more prominent," I mean something like I'm not sure that I really like this whole deal, but its pretty much welded into the core of the system and there isn't a damn thing I can do about it.

Chief among these items are spells, namely the number and complexity of spells that come into play on a consistent basis.

Disclaimer: While the purpose of me starting this thread, I admit, is to vent a little of my frustration, I wish to be perfectly clear that I am not expressing difficulty with or dislike of high-level adventuring per se, and especially not the effects of very powerful spells. That's a whole other can of worms.

What I'm really getting at is the effect that magic has on the game (as opposed to the plot or the adventure, if that distinction can be meaningfully made). A 15th level wizard can cast something on the order of 35-40 spells per day, which doesn't even take into account scrolls or (for clerics rather than wizards) the extra domain slots. That's a lot of freaking spells. Each one has a very specific stat block and description, with differing areas of effect, durations, ranges, and all kinds of special cases that have to be adjudicated specifically in the spell description.

I have to admit, this has become a constant drag on the game. I need to look up a spell probably half the time it is cast in order to be sure that it is being used with the right range, casting time, etc. (this actually happens seldomly; but the next category happens all the time) or because it is being used by creative players in innovative ways and there is a need to figure out exactly what is going to happen.

Perhaps I am insufficiently familiar with the rules--I concede the possibility. There may be any number of things I, as a DM, am doing wrong and therefore allowing this situation to get out of hand. But I think it is probably an underlying dissatisfaction with the entire Vancian magic system, which in my opinion (these days, at least) seems overly rigid and complex.

So that was the venting part. Thanks for reading, those of you who are still with me. What I'd like to know is, do others feel the same way? Still liking sword and sorcery and high magic, but simply dissatisfied with the D&D spellcasting system? Has anyone ever tried to give it a major overhaul, and totally rethink the way that characters cast spells? I think I would like to give something like that a try, but I'm not sure how successful a system I'm going to cook up on my own. The only other basis for spellcasting that I can think of is something along the lines of the way the Force is handled in Star Wars: separate skills that spellcasters would invest ranks in, and then roll a skill check to achieve a desired effect. If there are alternative spellcasting systems out there, can anyone point me to them?

 

[Laman Stahros]

Alot of folks like Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. It has an interesting take on spellcasting.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I'm not sure that switching to Arcana Unearthed (and a whole new set of spells and equally complex mechanics) is the way to go if you're just tired of referencing spells. By now, you probably know what cone of cold does, but what about ride the lightning?

One option would be removing the wizard, bard, cleric and druid classes and having all spellcasters be sorcerers (with access to every spell in the PHB). This would keep the variety of spells more manageable, although they could cast more per day.

Another, more radical, option would be to keep most of the D&D mechanics but to handle magic like Conan the RPG from Mongoose; at a glance, a D&D barbarian loaded down with magic items and a Conan barbarian without them are roughly equal in power (disclaimer: I haven't actually tried that out, it's just a guess), so the scholar class from Conan shouldn't unbalance the game. That leaves you with mighty magic, but in a *much* more limited form.

 

[Ourph]

I think WotC missed a grand opportunity in Unearthed Arcana for taking the "spell seeds" concept from the Epic Level Handbook and expanding it into a very simplified magic system where a limited number of "seeds" are explained in detail and the specifics are modified according to the players choice using a magic point/mana system. Essentially, what the D&D magic system does is give players a multitude of spell choices that are (for the most part) different variations on the concept of blowing stuff up, traveling very quickly or not taking damage. It would be nice to see a system that gave the player/GM a basic skeleton for the idea of a spell that "blows stuff up" , "goes somewhere" or "avoids damage" and allows the range/area/duration/damage/energy type/etc. to be modified based on either level or magic point cost. I would have gladly switched to such a system when playing 3rd ed, and if someone came out with a system like that for the current version of D&D, I might even put in the work to convert it back to B/X for my own use if I thought it was good enough.

Of course, a simplified magic system precludes books full of new variations on spells that "blow stuff up", so I can see why there would be reluctance to do so. :\

 

[Saeviomagy]

My suggestion:
Simply get the wizard player to do the work for you. When he casts a spell, he hands you the rules for it.

Then HE spends his time looking up the rules, rather than you.

 

[fourthmensch]

Ourph, that's exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. A way to preserve the power and wonder of magic without the complexity of the current system (and endless minor variations of spells).

Trouble is, I'm pretty much where you are: Thinking, "Man, it would be awesome if someone came up with this. Because I sure as hell can't do it." Or something along those lines.

I'm not that familiar with the ELH, though; do you think the spell seeds idea could be adapted to magic of all levels?

 

[RangerWickett]

Well, as writer of the revised Elements of Magic, I can tell you that it has a 'build your own spell' system, but I'm not sure if it's simpler than the core rules. You can make spells up as you go, but it's easier if you plan them in advance.

For some types of spell, the rules are simple. Evoke spells deal a set amount of damage based on how much MP you spend (and you have an MP limit you can spend per spell based on your level). Heal spells heal a set amount of damage. Illusion spells let you buy simple, moderate, or complex illusions for different senses, and the rules are standardized. Summon spells summon a creature of a CR equal to the MP you spend, or half the MP spent if you want the creature to be loyal.

But for some things, like Create or Transform, there are a lot of options and complexities to let you do the thing you want without being broken.

For others, like Abjure and Infuse, there are a lot of different things you can do. The core rules have lots of ways to defend yourself (armor-based AC, deflection AC, natural armor bonus to AC, saves, spell resistance, damage reduction, energy reduction) or improve yourself (skill bonus, attack bonus, ability bonus, extra actions per round, etc.), so the rules have a lot of options.

The expansion book Lyceian Arcana was going to include a simplified version of the system, but I think I might just sell it as a separate, self-contained rulebook.

Take a look at it, and read the reviews. It might be what you want, but like I said, it's not exactly a simpler system.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Well, as a quickie you could lay down some ground rules:

1. To counter a spell, a spell of equal or greater level must be expended. Additionally for every spell, a spell of equal level or greater WILL counter it, once.

Upside: A lot of the spells in the book are there just to counter other spells or groups of spells. This eliminates all of them.

2. All spell-based bonuses are unnamed. Since there are no discrete types of spells, bonuses never stack (because in all cases the bonus would be stacking with itself).

Upside: spells don't require you to re-evaluate all of your bonuses to find those that stack and those that don't. Just add the bonus from the spell

3. All spell damage from a single spell is of one of the following types:
Energy descriptors (acid, sonic etc)
Piercing, bludgeoning, slashing
Alignment based (holy, unholy etc)

Note - force doesn't exist. Just assume that spells are no better or worse at attacking ethereal or incorporeal foes, unless the spell is crafted to do so.

4. Spells will have schools and subschools as judged appropriate by the DM. Creatures with immunity to schools or subschools may be affected by a given spell, but in this case the spell affects ONLY those creatures.

Benefit - if it looks and smells like something, it is. If you want a level 1 spell that charms undead, then go ahead, but it won't charm other creatures.

Finally, you should have some guidelines on the total effect of spells of certain levels, which don't hinge on the precise effects of the spell.

For instance: Spells may create items which the characters are capable of purchasing for a minimal outlay. Look at the level that the slot is gained, look at the level of the PC, and look at the value of the item given the level of the PC, and allow the spell to create it if the PC could buy one with 1/10th of his expected wealth. Naturally creating it for a long period of time should require a higher level spell. Start with a base of 1round/level, +1 level bumps it to minutes, +2 to 10s of minutes, +3 to hours, +4 days and +5 permanent.

Spells which disable can use the CR estimations - generally a spell should have the potential to kill a creature of lesser CR to it's minimum caster level. It should be able to cripple a creature 0-1 cr's above, inconvenience a creature 2-3 cr's above etc.
Then let restrictions decrease the spells level, and additional powers increase it. So for instance - 8 creatures are 3 CRs higher than a single creature of the same type. So a spell with the potential to kill 8 creatures should probably be 3 levels higher than the spell which kills one of them.

The key here is that D&D already has some restrictions built in as to what characters should be able to defeat, and what they should be able to buy. It makes sense to USE those restrictions to base spells off, especially if you want a fast-and-loose magic system.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I love the idea of basing spells of of CRs, Saeviomagy, but those figures seem a little harsh.

Cripple 0-1 higher? (by cripple, I'm guessing reduce to 50% hp or temporarily but significantly impair, ala blind/stun/sicken)

Kill anything lower?

Ouch.

Let's look at some spells in the PHB.

Disintegrate, a 6th-level spell (minimum level 11th) deals 22d6 damage when first obtained (asuming a failed save). That's 77 average damage to a single target, 132 max.

Barring massive damage saves, an average CR 11 hezrou (138 hp), CR 11 young adult black dragon (152 hp) or CR 11 elder fire elemental (204 hp) can't die from one of the game's most devastating offensive spells. A typical CR 11 human fighter (87 hp), CR 11 devourer (78 hp) or CR 11 harpy archer (103 hp) won't die from the average damage.

In fact, a glance at the monster manual shows that most monsters can't die from a single Disintegrate cast at the minimum caster level.

A sorcerer adds two minimum dice of damage, which brings the hezrou into killable range and the devourer under the average. But those creatures are than a CR below him and ought to be killable without question. As a rule this spell, considered one of the game's strongest, doesn't meet the criteria you advanced.

It's even worse for single-target damage spells. Fireball? 5d6 (17.5 average, 30 max) against CR 5 monsters? None are going to die from the *max*, much less the average.

CR 10 and CR 4 monsters, respectively, can survive these spells with reasonable rolls.

I think a better range would be:

Single target:
4 or more CRs below or less: That's gotta hurt!
2-3 CRs below or less: That's (probably) going to take it out.
1 CR below to equal CR: It's got about a 50-50 chance.
1-2 CRs above: It'll feel it, but don't look for dead monsters.
3 CRs or more above: You are like the buzzing of flies to it!

Multiple targets:
5 or more CRs below or less: That's gotta hurt!
3-4 CRs below: You know who to hit with this spell.
1-2 CRs below: It's got about a 50-50 chance.
equal CR to 1 CR above: It'll feel it, but don't look for dead monsters.
2 CRs or more above: You are like the buzzing of flies to them!

 

[Saeviomagy]

I love the idea of basing spells of of CRs, Saeviomagy, but those figures seem a little harsh.

Cripple 0-1 higher? (by cripple, I'm guessing reduce to 50% hp or temporarily but significantly impair, ala blind/stun/sicken)

Kill anything lower?

I did say the potential to kill.

Massive damage saves are potential. Paralysis is potential death. Sleep is potential death etc etc.

Perhaps I should have said incapacitate.

And that was assuming that damage on a successful save is gonna cost extra.

With that in mind - flesh to stone is probably what I was thinking of, although under my system, it's too good (as it has the potential to kill any living target, not just those lower level than you).

Circle of death is a bit better. No creature over 9 hd. Living creatures only. Multiple targets. Unfortunately targeting HD is ugly, because HD do not scale with CR.

Oh, and just so you know - this was for effect spells only - hitpoint damage spells are a lot different, because even with their minimum effect they usually make a contribution in a fight.

Save-or-dies are just that. If the monster saves, the spell may as well not have been cast. So the spells are justified in being a bit bigger.

For hipoint spells, at a guess, 1d6 per level to multiple targets, with 3 x spell level as the cap. Save for half.

Single target is probably more like 5xspell level as the cap. Only this time you've got a choice between save for half or ranged touch attack.