D&D 3E/3.5 Spells On Demand v1.1 (At-will spells in 3.5 Edition)

[CleverNickName]

I think that's a good and reasonable idea. The ability to still cast while using a broken focus is in line with the existing fluff and good for game balance. I still think, however, that an option should exist in the system for a spellcaster to cast even without a focus in hand. This would allow characters who don't want foci to still use the system and would make particular sense for things like Dragons who cast spells but would look very strange indeed with a wand clutched under their claw. So what do you think about making a feat that allows a caster to still cast spells without a focus as long as it is on his body?

Well, there is the Eschew Focus feat (on page 15):

Eschew Focus [General]
Benefit: Choose any three spells that you can cast, of 2nd level or lower. You may now cast these spells without the need for your spell focus. The casting of these spells still requires all other components listed (such as material, verbal, and somatic components), and still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.
Special: you may take this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take this feat, it allows you to cast three more spells without your focus.

A spellcaster who has taken the Eschew Focus feat and selected mending and/or make whole is in pretty good shape.

In one of our PvP playtests, the paladin sundered our cleric's holy symbol...but she had planned ahead with the Eschew Focus feat for make whole, sanctuary, and shatter. The look on his face when she sundered his +1 longsword without her focus was priceless.

I don't think that the 4E magic item system would do you well. It's main problem is that almost no matter how expensive you make it an item that gives you +3 to your caster level in your system has just broken it.

(nod) Yup, that's what I'm seeing here as well. I've decided to scrap it. It is okay to want to "improve" a focus, and the best way to do that IMO is to make them more durable...not with magic bonuses.

How about this:

A wand made from adamantine is considerably harder to sunder than one made from oak...but maybe it gives its wielder some sort of special power over Constructs? Maybe werewolves suffer a -2 penalty to save throws against spells cast with a silver wand? A cold iron pentacle could impose a penalty to a fey's save throw too, now that I think about it.

Food for thought. At any rate, I think this is much better than having to deal with yet another item that grants bonuses to a check...

As a note I do agree that the Spell crafting system might be able to serve the function by itself, I just don't feel it is the most.....what do I want to say.....artistic way it could be done. Yeah artistic. I think we can find a way that feels good and gets players excited to use it. It'll just take a bit.

True, it doesn't have a lot of panache...but it gets the job done.

The more I think about it, the more I think that this is out of scope of the rule system I am trying to write. "Ritual" magic and incantations feels like it should be an entirely different house rule altogether (one that would work well with this system, mind you, but still a different rule.) Like reserve feats.

 

[CleverNickName]

On Epic Spells and Psionics

Last night's playtest went great; we decided we would run some epic-level characters under it and see how the system holds up. And we all decided to test our tolerance for red wine, but perhaps that should go in another thread.

EPIC SPELLS ON DEMAND

I had assumed that epic-level spells would totally break my system and cause untold grief...but I was pleasantly surprised. Assuming that the standard d20 System rules for epic spellcasting are held as-written in the Epic Level Handbook (all epic spells are considered 10th level spells, and Spellcraft checks are still required to learn and cast them), the system works reasonably well.

First of all, under the d20 System rules:

1. Characters do not gain new spells per day after 20th level.
2. Caster level continues to increase.
3. A character must take the Epic Spellcasting feat to cast epic spells.
4. A character must laborously develop an epic spell before it can be used.
5. A character may only learn one epic spell per 10 ranks in a relevant Knowledge skill.
6. Spellcraft checks must be made to cast the spell successfully.


What these rules mean under the Spells on Demand system:

1. Characters do not learn any new spells past 20th level.
2. Caster level checks get easier as level increases.
3. No change.
4. No change.
5. No change.
6. The character must also have her focus readied.

So with the exception of the scaling caster level making spells easier, there really isn't much of an impact on the system at epic level. Now granted, epic spells are unbalancing even under the d20 System rules as written, so any system that allows them at all will have some issues. But for our playtesting (which featured a 30th level bard, 30th level cleric, and 30th level wizard against a great red wyrm), it seemed to play fine. Or at least as well as it did compared to standard d20.

Since there were so few balance problems with epic spells under this system, and since the majority of gamers do not even use epic rules in the first place, I did not think it was necessary to develop an entire stack of rules to govern Epic Spellcasting under this system. A paragraph or two should be sufficient, along with the occasional rewritten feat or spell description. I will try to include these in the next release.

PSIONICS ON DEMAND?

I got an e-mail from someone asking about psionics and the "On Demand" system. I know that a lot of players use psionics in their games, and I would like to create a product that appeals to the widest variety of gamers....but the trouble is, I do not use psionics...never have, in fact. I have absolutely no idea what I am doing, what problems could arise, what differences would be incompatible, and so forth. If anyone out there is a fan of psionics, I would deeply appreciate some help with development and playtesting.

My first thought on the matter would be to make all powers into spells, and allow psionic characters to learn spells at the same rate as a sorcerer. Psionic characters would use crystals or geodes as a focus, and would make manifestor level checks instead of caster level checks. But I get the feeling that this is over-simplifying the subject. Or is the whole idea unnecessary, given the power-point system that psionics already uses?

Right now, I am content to omit psionics from the project. If anyone would like to take the initiative to develop "Psionics on Demand" or something similar, let me know so I can include a link to it in my document.

 

[CleverNickName]

:bump:

The semester finally ended, and I'm on winter break...so I finally have some free time. I'd like to spend at least a little bit of that time finishing my favorite house rule, before I move on to bigger and better things.

Now that 4th Edition has been released, and a lot of people have played it, I was wondering if anyone had any new insight on how at-will spellcasting might be better accomplished in the 3.5E system.

 

[Ashtagon]

Some random thoughts:

raw paladins and rangers have a caster level of half their class level. You raised this to be equal to their class level. Intentional?

In my house system for magic, spells are always cast as if at the lowest caster level necessary for it to be cast at all (CL 1 for 1st level spells, CL 3 for 2nd level spells, CL 5 for 3rd level spells, and so on). I allow the spell to be cast at a higher CL (up to the character's actual CL), but at a penalty. This may be necessary to balance out the fireball-wielding casters.

Specialist wizards could be done by granting a bonus on checks to cast their speciality, and a penalty to cast spells from either all other schools (-1 suggested), or 3 chosen schools (-2 suggested).

 

[CleverNickName]

raw paladins and rangers have a caster level of half their class level. You raised this to be equal to their class level. Intentional?

Nope, that was an oversight. We have been playing it at 1/2 caster level; I just forgot to update the book. Good catch!

In my house system for magic, spells are always cast as if at the lowest caster level necessary for it to be cast at all (CL 1 for 1st level spells, CL 3 for 2nd level spells, CL 5 for 3rd level spells, and so on). I allow the spell to be cast at a higher CL (up to the character's actual CL), but at a penalty. This may be necessary to balance out the fireball-wielding casters.

Interesting idea. Essentially you are lowering the damage cap on problematic spells (fireballs would be capped at 5d6 damage instead of 10d6.) It might be less work to just change the spell descriptions on a case-by-case basis, however, instead of changing the way all spells work across the board.

Specialist wizards could be done by granting a bonus on checks to cast their speciality, and a penalty to cast spells from either all other schools (-1 suggested), or 3 chosen schools (-2 suggested).

I never really understood the concept of a "specialist wizard." I've always been under the impression that a "necromancer" is just a wizard who knows more necromancy spells than the average wizard.

So you want a wizard who prefers to cast spells from a particular school of magic, and casts them better than most other wizards? No problem...pick your favorite spells, grab the Spell Focus feat, and go on with your bad self. There is nothing stopping you. You might even be able to persuade your GM to let you take Spell Focus as a bonus feat instead of Scribe Scroll.

That said, a lot of people like specialist wizards...and I want these rules to be as friendly and universally-compatible as possible. Giving specialists a +1/-1 modifier to their caster level checks probably wouldn't break the game, and would give them a bit of an edge. Thanks for the tip!