Subtle Brilliance...

[Wulf Ratbane]

Would you continue to use the Improved Disarm, trip, and sunder as written there or in 3.5 dnd?

Grim Tales uses the 3.5 versions of these feats.

Remember that 3.5 was released after d20 Modern-- lot of feats were improved (or scaled back) at that time. (With good reason, based on player feedback.)

I don't think it's valid or wise to continue considering Grim Tales as "just d20 Modern." There are a lot of changes in there, blending the best of both the 3.5 and d20M SRDs-- not to mention other OGC and my own design work. You can't safely skim any section and assume that you know what it says because it "looks" like d20 Modern or "looks" like 3.5.

Wulf

 

[Tellerve]

eeek, sorry, didn't mean to offend with the modern d20 comparisson. I mainly used it to frame my question. I fully understand that grim tales can be used with any time frame and genre.

I guess I just need to post a variant question of whether or not modern d20 uses the 3.5 dnd feats of the same name.

Again, didn't mean to belittle the work you did Wulf and in fact I am very interested in it.

Tellerve

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

No, my bad-- I wasn't offended at all. Sorry it came across that way.

Just want folks to realize that the book warrants a close look.

Wulf

 

[Cheiromancer]

Wulf,

Is this a good place for a question about Grim spellcasting?

I'm looking at the spellcasting example on page 130-131, where a Smart hero casts a fireball. He takes 4 points of Strength damage from spell burn, but succeeds in the caster level check and "the fireball streaks from his weary fingertips and detonates on the villain, blasting him and his minions to fiery splinders..."

My question is- how much damage does that fireball do? As far as I can see, the Smart hero has a caster level of 1, so the fireball only does 1d6 damage. Hardly enough to blast anyone to anything. Am I missing something?

edit- I think I found your answer to this question already!

Two points: It's been suggested (and I concur) that a spell's effect should always be at least equal to the spell level, if it's higher than caster level. So your fireball does a minimum of 3d6.

Still not better than a grenade, perhaps (though a whole lot bigger...).

But just because fireball isn't the "uber" spell doesn't mean that magic is weak.

Consider the effect of other spells-- spells whose effect (other than duration) is not tied to caster level. I can think of a half-dozen off the top of my head that would have a HUGE impact on a low-magic game: charm person, alter self, invisibility, fly, haste, keen edge, wall of stone/ice/force.

Personally I would make the effect of the spell equal to spell level + caster level.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

edit- I think I found your answer to this question already!

Yep, you found it.

Personally I would make the effect of the spell equal to spell level + caster level.

I disagree, but of course you can do it however you like.

In a "normal" game, a spell has a minimum effect level of (2xspell level) - 1. This is the caster level of wands, scrolls, potions, etc.

For a low magic game to have about half this effect is reasonable. As I also have said, it's simply a matter of giving spellcasters access to the right spells, rather than trying to bump the effect levels up to D&D expectations.

Wulf

 

[Cheiromancer]

In the rules you say that increased caster level also increases burn resistance, but I believe you have posted to the effect that that is an error. So a fireball does 3d6 whether you are 0th level or 3rd level, and increased caster level gives no benefit during that time; only at 4th caster level does the damage go up to 4d6. It seems funny that the increased caster level won't give a benefit till then.

And it seems to me that the game designers who write spells don't design them to work when cast substantially lower than (2 x spell level) -1. Running them outside of the range they are designed to work at is IMHO asking for trouble. Using caster level+spell level won't solve the issue, but it is an improvement.

But I am sure that you are a lot more familiar with the issues than I am, and have playtested them most carefully. Just sayin' what it looks like at first glance.

 

[Turanil]

Personnaly I like the error printed in the book (each magical adept talent increases the burn-resistance by +1). I also intend on making spellcasting level = spell level + number of magical adept talents. In fact it would seem making the guy as powerful as a normal D&D wizard, but it won't be always the case. A 7th level Smart hero with 4 magical adept talents could cast a fireball at 7th level (with that houserule), but a magic-missile at 5th level (weaker).

Also (with the book's error), a 7th level Smart hero with 4 magical adept talents and Int 16, who would cast the same number of spell levels as a basic wizard, would statistically lose only 4 points of Strength during the day. Thus he could cast more spells if need be. After having played for years with a spell-points system that entitled more lower-level spells per day (cast as a sorcerer) it wouldn't unbalance the game IMO. Also note that he must succeed a spellcasting roll, which makes his magic less reliable. Of course, without the errata for the magical adept talent, you don't play "low magic", but I also think you neither play munchkin magic. Using the magical-adept talent as printed I thought about the following ideas:

- Preserver / Defiler. Using Grim Tales for Dark Sun (or similar idea), the defiler uses the magical adept talent as written in the book, while the preserver uses the errata's magical adept talent.

- Moorcock's world of Law & Chaos. In area where Chaos is stronger, magic is stronger, while in areas where Law is stronger, magic becomes increasingly difficult to cast. So, strong Chaos = magical adept talent as written in the book; less Chaos and more Law, magic is at -1, -2, -3 penalty etc. as relevant, where penalty equal number of magical adept talents "temporarily removed" while in the zone (so casting level decreases, and spell burn increases).

- Ley Lines and similar stuff. This is a world where magic is stronger near "ley lines" (or other sorts of high magic zones, such as near a gate for example), and weaker everywhere else. So, near ley lines / in high magic zone = magical adept talent as written in the book; everywhere else = errata's magical adept talent.

Having magic that work always the same everywhere, is also a staple of D&D, and that also could be changed when playing Grim Tales. Magic would become all the more mysterious and unreliable, thus all the more magical IMO. A world like that could be at the same time low magic and high magic, depending on the circumstances.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

In the rules you say that increased caster level also increases burn resistance, but I believe you have posted to the effect that that is an error.

That is indeed an unfortunate error. The result of listening to a whiny playtester, sticking it in there temporarily so as not to forget the comment, and forgetting to take it back out again!

And it seems to me that the game designers who write spells don't design them to work when cast substantially lower than (2 x spell level) -1. Running them outside of the range they are designed to work at is IMHO asking for trouble.

Damage-dealing spells whose effect is based on caster level are (IMHO) poor choices for inclusion in a low-magic game. You very rarely see that kind of flash-bang in low-magic, pulpy fiction. Spells should be much more subtle, and there are plenty of spells whose effect is not based on caster level that can be hugely effective in-game.

Man, do I ever regret using fireball as my example...

Using caster level+spell level won't solve the issue, but it is an improvement.

Until caster level + spell level exceed the normal expected level of effect, at which point you're granting a bonus for no reason. Imagine the effect of a D&D game if all spells got a bonus to caster level equal to their spell level! A 5th level caster with 8d6 fireballs is not an improvement to a low-magic game.

But I am sure that you are a lot more familiar with the issues than I am, and have playtested them most carefully. Just sayin' what it looks like at first glance.

The problem with first glances is that you rarely have the chance to free your mind of excess baggage you're carrying over from high-magic D&D expectations: Don't let fireball (and other spells that scale solely by damage dice) overpower the discussion.

Nothing wrong with friendly debate.

Wulf

 

[Cheiromancer]

Good point on the damage dealing spells being rare in pulp fiction. If I use these rules I'll hold off on the caster level = (spell level + 1/improved caster level) house rule. Though a feat that allows them to stack for a single spell might be fun.

Man, do I ever regret using fireball as my example...

If you could do it over again, what spell would you choose? Fly? Fear? Charm Person?

[edit]Oh, and another question- how is the DC for the awesome presence ability (of the primal dragons) calculated? It seems like the dragons with lower stats have higher save DCs.[/edit]

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If you could do it over again, what spell would you choose? Fly? Fear? Charm Person?

Oh, I really don't know. Invisibility is pretty utile and easily understood...

[edit]Oh, and another question- how is the DC for the awesome presence ability (of the primal dragons) calculated? It seems like the dragons with lower stats have higher save DCs.[/edit][/QUOTE]

Looks like a copy/paste error on my part. It should be:

DC = (10 + 1/2 dragon’s Hit Dice + dragon’s Cha modifier)

Added to the errata!

Wulf