Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 6076288" data-attributes="member: 23935">Very much agreed.  I don't think we need go that far though.  <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Capping spells that can be learner places a yoke around a Wizard so he literally can't step on everyone's toes.  It also means the Wizard spell lists can grow from supplements without substantially altering a PCs power.  The downside is adventure designers can't assume the spell-casters have a key for any situation and I can live with that.  Adding a mechanism that allows slow change over time would be polite though so a Wizard can get out of a bad choice.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Removing spontaneous casting and restricting the uses for channeling divine power does similar things with divine casters on  more tactical level. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Restrict opportunities to acquire magic from the market will have PCs focus their attention on trying to acquire it from the field and allows skewed treasure tables to reward non-casters with supplementary abilities once again.  An approach I'm toying with is make the cost to create a magic item independent from and higher than the cost to sell the magic item.  Effectively, no one makes magic items because their value to society is much less than their cost to create.  If a PC really really wants a particular item made, he can acquire it, but at a hefty price premium over paying a sage to discover where such an item lies unclaimed.  For example, keep the geometric cost increase to create found in 3.X, but have the sale prices increase linearly -- a +5 sword only fetches 5x the value of a +1 sword and is much less likely to be found in the marketplace as the value to owners is greater than the expected purchase price.</li> </ul>Another change that would seriously affect spellcastig tactics is to revert initiative away from the round-robin approach adopted in 3.X  Go back to a "all declare actions; then roll to resolve initiative" system would inject a large dose of uncertainty into casting spells in a combat situation.  The downside is groups would revert to piling on the casters to prevent a spell from being completed, but that's more a playstyle/narrative issue.Secondary restrictions, should they be necessary would be have a spell component case be consumable -- say 1 gp per spell level cast unless the spell has a higher cost.  It's a negligible cost to established characters, but it will act as minor disincentive at 1% the fiddliness of tracking individual components.</blockquote>

Verification