Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CleverNickName" data-source="post: 4158915" data-attributes="member: 50987">Wow...thanks for taking the time to playtest this stuff, and also for taking the time to type up such detailed notes and suggestions.  This is really cool.Yeah, we are also starting to notice how squishy those spell foci could be in combat.  This was the intended effect, to discourage spellcasters from getting tangled up in melee...but I don't think I meant for it to be so game-killing.On the other hand, I think it would be too unbalancing to remove the requirement altogether and impose a penalty.  Instead of allowing casting to be done without a focus but at a penalty, I propose we allow a caster to use a broken focus at a -4 penalty to the caster check...but if the caster has no focus (damaged, broken, or otherwise), she can't cast spells.  I want to prevent spellcasters from becoming "monks for spells," meaning that even if they are captured and stripped of all of their gear and locked in a prison cell, they aren't particularly inconvenienced.  (That's what psionics are for.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  )I like your idea of "special" foci granting a bonus to the caster level check.  This would probably be best handled with the magic item rules: a +1 holy symbol would allow a cleric to cast spells with a +1 bonus to her caster level, for example.  The pricing for such an enhancement should be handled with caution...bonus squared x 2,000 might not be high enough.  Awesome idea!The "crystal ball for divinations" idea is wonderful, and it sounds like the player had a particular idiom that she wanted to use for her character.  Instead of a hard rule that details specific bonuses and advantages, it might be easier to chalk this up to GM Judgement and let the +2/-2 rule apply.  For example, the GM could decide that if a character owns a crystal ball, that might be an advantageous circumstance for certain Divination spells, and therefore he gives the caster a +2 bonus to her caster level check and/or waives the possibility for misinterpretation.  Another awesome idea!You are right, there are certain spells that will never get used under this system...but spellcasting abilities with per-day allowances are sort of what we are trying to get away from in this system.  I propose that instead of making it a class feature, we make it a new use of the Spellcraft skill.  Sort of like Use Magic Device, but for spells instead of magic items.Let's say you really, REALLY need a stone to flesh spell, but nobody has learned it yet.  The GM could allow the spellcasters to attempt a special ritual that would have the same effect of the needed spell, but with some serious restrictions to prevent abuse:  the character will need to be of a caster level sufficient to cast the spell in the first place (caster level 12, since the spell is 6th level), the character would need her focus, and the character would need all material requirements for the spell (a pinch of earth and a drop of blood.)  The ritual takes 10 minutes per level of the spell (a whole hour, in this case), and the Spellcraft DC could be 20 + spell level (the same DC for deciphering a scroll of the spell) or 20 + caster level (the UMD DC for casting a spell from a scroll).Making it a skill check allows the GM to control it somewhat (with the +2 favorable/-2 unfavorable rule), and it lets us use the existing skill system instead of creating something new.  Three casters could attempt the ritual together, and get the Aid Another bonus for example.What do you think?  I mean, there is always the craft magic item option...if a character needs a particular spell, she could just spend some time and XP crafting a scroll, potion, or wand of the spell.  Thanks to the softened requirements for spellcasting, a character doesn't need to know a particular spell in order to make a magic item out of it (but all requirements for the spell have to be met.)I don't have a problem with this.  I think it used to be 2 1st level spells at 1st level, but I changed it for some reason (and forgot to change it on bards, paladins, and rangers), or something.  My players would heartily agree with you, so in the words of the great Capt. Jean-Luc Picard, "make it so."I hadn't decided if I wanted to allow this or not, because I haven't had a chance to test it.  I don't see it becoming a balance problem, so I say let's allow it.Yeah, it goes a long way to helping out the severe restriction on healing magic.  I think that this rule, along with the softened requirements for crafting magic items, pretty much fixes the Healing Bug for me.  Other GMs might need to tweak it for their personal gaming style, but it plays good for us.Thanks again for your help.  This is shaping up to be a good product.  I have another playtest tonight with my online group; we are going to try our best to break the Healing system at 1st, 8th, and 16th level.  And we are going to see how badly this whole system falls apart when we go Epic Level with it (I'm guessing that it will be ABSOLUTELY INSANE.)BTW, if you would like me to credit your players for helping with the playtest, just drop me their names (or nicknames, or character names.)</blockquote>

Verification