On choices during rpg creation (specifically the onslaught of "3.75" variants"

[Drolyt]

I've noticed a lot of people talking about how to fix Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 or 4.0, on this forum and in numerous other places. They usually start with 3rd edition as a base because of the OGL. Many of these so called "3.75" homebrews are (somewhat surprisingly) quite good. However, most, if not all of them miss what is, in my opinion, one of the main draws of Dungeons and Dragons. That is, being able to play characters reminiscent of the great heroes of mythology and literature. Few characters want to play Frodo, they want to play Gandalf or Aragorn or King Arthur or name your favorite fantasy character here. This applies whether their inspiration is High Fantasy, Steam Punk, or Sword and Sorcery. But even more so they don't want to play a bunch of statistics on a page. The game mechanics are merely a tool to evoke this sort of epic (or gritty, or magical, or whatever) feel. For me this is why I don't like 4th edition, the rules don't serve this purpose. Of course if I had to play 4th edition I wouldn't let the rules stop me, they're just words on paper after all, I just don't think their focus on strategic mechanics is appropriate. Game balance is of course necessary; mythology is rich with heroes who slay dragons and sorcerers with just sword and shield, ridiculous as it may sound for a knight to slay a wizard that can summon demons and incinerate buildings at his whim. I'm also not against some strategy, but if that was why I was playing D&D I would quit and play a Wargame or Chess or a CRPG. I think that strategy is better represented by an action economy and rock-papers-scissors interactions than trying to copy Wargames. One thing I see alot is people trying to balance the Wizard by limiting their spell lists in arbitrary ways or removing some of their more powerful spells. Not only is this doomed to fail it defeats the purpose, many of the most broken spells are abilities standard in mythology and fantasy literature, including divination magic and scrying, flight and teleportation, mind control and instant death effects. D&D prior to 4th edition did a wonderful job of this with spell lists. The goal should be to balance these abilities so that they don't break the game, after all D&D Wizards are often arbitrarily better at these abilities than their fantasy counterparts (for example, D&D scrying is almost limitless, but in the Lord of the Rings Scrying required powerful artifacts and great force of will and could be countered). And to be honest the design flaw is more on the side of the melee classes than the Wizard, most heroes of legend could do more than just swing a sword like most D&D Fighters. I guess this kinda sounds like a rant but I just don't like where 4.0 and alot of D&D homebrew is heading, especially as far as magic is concerned.

[Dante & Vergil]

I have to say that this makes me happy.:smallsmile:

[erikun]

Well, yes and no.

Melee is terribly underpowered in D&D 3rd edition. Most threads seem to want to make melee "realistic", yet forget that 5th level is supposed to be the same as an olympic athlete. A 15th level fighter isn't going to be realistic by any sense of the word; I'm not sure why people insist that swinging a sword is all he should be capable of doing.

On the other hand, what high level play looks like greatly depends on what the designer considers high level play should look like. If you're balancing everything similar to Finger of Death, then the entire higher level game turns into Save-or-Die-ville. If, rather, you set Polar Ray or some high level Tome of Battle maneuvers as the "high level" standard, then tossing around instakills is no longer appropriate.

Also, unlike what D&D implies, level 20 doesn't need to be max level.

[Drolyt]

Also, unlike what D&D implies, level 20 doesn't need to be max level.
On this specifically I should point something out. One thing 4th edition does brilliantly is create power tiers. 3rd edition fails at this. 20th level characters are reality altering. Sure there are more powerful reality-alterers, like say the deities, but I can't see stating even a greater god above the high 30s. God's with 40 class levels 20 Outsider Hit Dice AND a host of abilities is absurd. Even a 5 level gap pre-epic implies a HUGE power gap. Given what a 20th level caster can do, how strong can you get? What would level 60 even imply? Just adding damage dice and hit points destroys verisimilitude. That said I don't like 4th edition creating the cap and also having creatures that surpass it. Player's should be allowed to become as strong as gods, even if most campaign's won't go that far.

On the other hand, what high level play looks like greatly depends on what the designer considers high level play should look like. If you're balancing everything similar to Finger of Death, then the entire higher level game turns into Save-or-Die-ville. If, rather, you set Polar Ray or some high level Tome of Battle maneuvers as the "high level" standard, then tossing around instakills is no longer appropriate.
I agree. Instakills are really bad mechanically, even though they are in some fantasy literature. I would personally only allow them to be used on enemies much less powerful than the caster (mainly a fluff ability) rather than let everything turn into harry potter where everyone has to have the insta kill to be effective. Or else make them into damage spells that only act like insta kills if they deal enough.

Melee is terribly underpowered in D&D 3rd edition. Most threads seem to want to make melee "realistic", yet forget that 5th level is supposed to be the same as an olympic athlete. A 15th level fighter isn't going to be realistic by any sense of the word; I'm not sure why people insist that swinging a sword is all he should be capable of doing.
I agree entirely. That's why I think that the problem is just as much if not more the design of melee classes as the design of spellcasting classes. Odd. I responded to your points in reverse.

[Friend Computer]

yet forget that 5th level is supposed to be the same as an olympic athlete.

My impulse is to point out that quite convincing olympians can be statted out at third level, but that isn't why I'm posting this. my post is more of a snark, but as a snark, it is true: You use the word 'forget.' I'd like to dispute that and rather posit that instead, the 20 level system has created an atmosphere whereby it makes more sense to imagine people halfway competent at their skills will be at least level 10. In other words, people don't bother looking at the rules properly, and when this is pointed out to them, they either ignore it because of pre-concieved notions, or they ignore it for game balance, or they ignore it because, quite simply, noone actually knows what is going through the mind of a level 10 rogue with 20 int, wis and cha.

On the other side, there are the people who take this fact to heart and play e6 (myself) or actually try to make worlds that make sense at high levels while keeping the infinite majority of the population below level 8. Including the epic-awesome-skilled warrior-priest-king of the ruby-studded horde.

So yeah...

[Anonymouswizard]

I caped non-epic spells at 6th level, that way reliable teleportation and true world-shaping power is achieved around 29th level with the current plan. Metamagic can raise the effective spell level above what you can normally cast, but mana starts to scale rapidly. I also think that I will use 28 or 32 point buy as the standard model to avoid as much min-maxing as possible.

So yes, in both A20 and D20r you can play those epic characters, but in different ways. S&S is more suited to the witty rogue who outsmarts his opponents. Guess what, scoundrels are a common fantasy archetype, from rogues to warriors. However, A20 was not built specifically to let you play those characters, although fighters have gotten more powerful, it was built to let martial characters contribute without having hordes of magic items. When I get to magic items you will be able to recieve just a flaming longsword.

[Narmy]

More people need to play Pathfinder.

[Roderick_BR]

Hmm. you do have a point, but I disagree with some things.
First, people use 3E because it has better mechanics for the "immersion" thing, more than 4E, that cleaned up a lot of things to favor combat.
Second, the problem with casters in 3E, is that magic is TOO easy to use, and they gain TOO much power. Using your Lord of the Rings example: Using scrying involves powerful, rare, and dangerous artifacts. In D&D, you just need to reach the leve and add it to your spellbook, and scry anything that is not heavility warded against it.
Wizards gains benefits from spells that are, in my opinion, way above what they should be gaining. It's like saying that wizards can learn how to drive an army's tank as easily as learning how to drive a normal car. Sure, the tank (magic) is way more powerful than a car (common meleer), but it should be way harder to do, and prone to more errors, thing that doesn't happen at D&D.
And yes, non-mages get shafted up, as they often don't gain anything nice above 5th level, when they should start becoming inhumanly powerful. Tome of Battle fix some of it by giving high level maneuvers, instead of relying on only feats and some weak class features.
That said, limiting some spells, removing some that are just too broken, or at least move it to an higher level slot is a good attempt at trying to balance their powers. For example, in classic stories, the villain is not an average wizard, but an ancient mage, with tons o knowledge. In game terms, he'll be way higher level than the group, even if compared to the group's own casters. In D&D, however, a caster with same level as a group could cause a TPK with some "inteligently selected spells", without even using DM fiat.
Let's say that what 4E did for the non-casters worked, but the casters themselves, they cut too much stuff.

[Foryn Gilnith]

What, exactly, does fantasy literature dictate mages ought to be able to do?

[Eldan]

What is missing in DnD, I think, is the drawbacks of magic. What is the difference between Swordswing McSkullbash and his ally, Spellsling Fingertwiddle in a fantasy novel?
One of them uses a sword. It's not world-shattering. (Or, at least, rarely is). But you can slay a fey spirit with it, defeat three guards in combat and win a duel against the black knight, all in the same day if necessary.
The mage, on the other hand, draws circles, casts spells and then hopes that he is not eaten by the demon he summoned to do the same things for him. As others have mentioned: instead of summoning powerful forces, preparing long rituals, risking your soul and sanity and using ancient artefacts, you reach the right level, prepare the correct spell, and hten cast it.

The problem? I haven't seen any convincing drawback systems in DnD. They aren't really compatible with the system.

[Anonymouswizard]

What is missing in DnD, I think, is the drawbacks of magic. What is the difference between Swordswing McSkullbash and his ally, Spellsling Fingertwiddle in a fantasy novel?
One of them uses a sword. It's not world-shattering. (Or, at least, rarely is). But you can slay a fey spirit with it, defeat three guards in combat and win a duel against the black knight, all in the same day if necessary.
The mage, on the other hand, draws circles, casts spells and then hopes that he is not eaten by the demon he summoned to do the same things for him. As others have mentioned: instead of summoning powerful forces, preparing long rituals, risking your soul and sanity and using ancient artefacts, you reach the right level, prepare the correct spell, and hten cast it.

The problem? I haven't seen any convincing drawback systems in DnD. They aren't really compatible with the system.

I origionally made this (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=A20_Magic#Casting) for D&D before deciding to create A20 as an attempt to balance high level casters. 0th level spells are free and easy to cast, but higher level spells become hard to cast, and effect the caster more if miscast. Why did I do worse effects if failed by less than 5? Because you have more energy running amok.

Even magic that is successful should not always be free, I will build that into a few of the spells that are appearing (no new spells I'm afraid, but you get some from splatbooks).

Lets look at casting 9th level spells: the earliest time a wizard can cast them (23rd level) he has a spellcraft bonus of (26 ranks+3 (skillbonus)+6 (23 int)) or 35, so needs a 7 to cast (he is in epic levels though, so it isn't to much of a stretch). two levels later he can memorize 10th level spells, but has increased his ranks in spellcraft and his intelligence so needs to roll a 12. 11th: he needs a nat 20 to cast, not including bonuses from items (he is now 27th level, so casts 9th level on a 2 and 10th level on a 10. Anything else fails on a nat 1). He can cast spells up to level 9 with ease, but has trouble with his 11th level spells (he is now effectively an archmage without levels in the class).

[Tyndmyr]

Well, yes and no.

Melee is terribly underpowered in D&D 3rd edition. Most threads seem to want to make melee "realistic", yet forget that 5th level is supposed to be the same as an olympic athlete. A 15th level fighter isn't going to be realistic by any sense of the word; I'm not sure why people insist that swinging a sword is all he should be capable of doing.

If there's something that indicates a given set of rules or changes is going to be filled with suck, it's always a fixation on "realism".

If I wanted realism, I wouldn't be playing a fantasy game.

[Eldan]

Not realism. Verisimilitude (wow, I got the spelling right the first time!).
If the game world/book/movie tells me "This guy is a normal guy. He has no powers. His sword is not magical", then I'll ask "Why, how?" when he suddenly uses his sword to tear down a castle wall and then jumps fifty feet straight up. If they tell me he's a legendary martial artist, a demigod or a combat magician, I can believe it. The problem here is that DnD seems to imply that meleeists are normal guys with a lot of training. However, normal training only takes you that far...

[Drolyt]

I'll respond in order.

I caped non-epic spells at 6th level, that way reliable teleportation and true world-shaping power is achieved around 29th level with the current plan. Metamagic can raise the effective spell level above what you can normally cast, but mana starts to scale rapidly. I also think that I will use 28 or 32 point buy as the standard model to avoid as much min-maxing as possible.

So yes, in both A20 and D20r you can play those epic characters, but in different ways. S&S is more suited to the witty rogue who outsmarts his opponents. Guess what, scoundrels are a common fantasy archetype, from rogues to warriors. However, A20 was not built specifically to let you play those characters, although fighters have gotten more powerful, it was built to let martial characters contribute without having hordes of magic items. When I get to magic items you will be able to recieve just a flaming longsword.
That all sounds pretty good. Though I would argue that D&D should support all fantasy archetypes equally, all of them should be equally playable, and all levels should be playable, from the realistic to the world shattering (right now there is a "sweet spot" and there should not be).

More people need to play Pathfinder.
I don't find Pathfinder really fixes any of the problems with 3.5, but at least it doesn't make it worse. If you like Pathfinder, that's fine.

What is missing in DnD, I think, is the drawbacks of magic. What is the difference between Swordswing McSkullbash and his ally, Spellsling Fingertwiddle in a fantasy novel?
One of them uses a sword. It's not world-shattering. (Or, at least, rarely is). But you can slay a fey spirit with it, defeat three guards in combat and win a duel against the black knight, all in the same day if necessary.
The mage, on the other hand, draws circles, casts spells and then hopes that he is not eaten by the demon he summoned to do the same things for him. As others have mentioned: instead of summoning powerful forces, preparing long rituals, risking your soul and sanity and using ancient artefacts, you reach the right level, prepare the correct spell, and hten cast it.

The problem? I haven't seen any convincing drawback systems in DnD. They aren't really compatible with the system.
Older Versions of D&D had more drawbacks, off the top of my head Haste used to age you a whole year just for using it. Alot of spells should take more time to cast and many should have a higher chance of failure. As for the more dangerous drawbacks, I think those are a bad thing to enforce on players in an RPG. Maybe a few spells or powerful effects should have those kind of drawbacks, but not all of them; you shouldn't be forced to risk soul and sanity to play a spellcaster in D&D. Also a 20th level fighter is beyond mortal limits, he should be able to take out an army with just his sword. In fantasy those guys exist, but they always supplement their sword with sorcery, and alot of players don't like that, which makes balancing difficult.

I origionally made this for D&D before deciding to create A20 as an attempt to balance high level casters. 0th level spells are free and easy to cast, but higher level spells become hard to cast, and effect the caster more if miscast. Why did I do worse effects if failed by less than 5? Because you have more energy running amok.

Even magic that is successful should not always be free, I will build that into a few of the spells that are appearing (no new spells I'm afraid, but you get some from splatbooks).

Lets look at casting 9th level spells: the earliest time a wizard can cast them (23rd level) he has a spellcraft bonus of (26 ranks+3 (skillbonus)+6 (23 int)) or 35, so needs a 7 to cast (he is in epic levels though, so it isn't to much of a stretch). two levels later he can memorize 10th level spells, but has increased his ranks in spellcraft and his intelligence so needs to roll a 12. 11th: he needs a nat 20 to cast, not including bonuses from items (he is now 27th level, so casts 9th level on a 2 and 10th level on a 10. Anything else fails on a nat 1). He can cast spells up to level 9 with ease, but has trouble with his 11th level spells (he is now effectively an archmage without levels in the class).
The main reason I'm not fond of this system (the spellcasting thing, I haven't had time to look through A20 yet) is it just results in trying to max your spellcraft. Assuming you allow splatbooks without discretion (alot of PBP games do) that drawback will be destroyed fast. The other thing is while I have no problem with world shattering being pushed back to 30th level, that's not fixing anything it's just changing what you can do at what level. It gives melees more time to catch up sure, but it doesn't actually fix melees. Although you probably fixed melees elsewhere, I'll check it out.

If there's something that indicates a given set of rules or changes is going to be filled with suck, it's always a fixation on "realism".

If I wanted realism, I wouldn't be playing a fantasy game.
Realism might be a bad word. Verisimilitude or Suspension of Disbelief captures it better. It doesn't have to be "realistic" so much as it has to make sense, at least internally. 3.5 doesn't really make sense if you think about it too much, but a big problem with 4e is the mechanics don't even make internal sense at first glance. Alot of people, myself included, find that jarring.

Not realism. Verisimilitude (wow, I got the spelling right the first time!).
If the game world/book/movie tells me "This guy is a normal guy. He has no powers. His sword is not magical", then I'll ask "Why, how?" when he suddenly uses his sword to tear down a castle wall and then jumps fifty feet straight up. If they tell me he's a legendary martial artist, a demigod or a combat magician, I can believe it. The problem here is that DnD seems to imply that meleeists are normal guys with a lot of training. However, normal training only takes you that far...
I think that is a problem. I always thought high level non-spellcasters should gain some kind of supernatural powers, whether you explain it away as ki, divine grace, or magic. The thing is alot of people are opposed to this, since they don't get that D&D is meant to be playable at the more realistic level all the way up to playing demigods and beyond. Maybe slowing down level advancement a bit (so level 20 becomes level 30) would help by giving more levels to explore your particular playstyle.

[lesser_minion]

I've noticed a lot of people talking about how to fix Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 or 4.0, on this forum and in numerous other places. They usually start with 3rd edition as a base because of the OGL.

Well, I'm sort-of one of those people, although I think I have different goals to most other people.


Many of these so called "3.75" homebrews are (somewhat surprisingly) quite good. However, most, if not all of them miss what is, in my opinion, one of the main draws of Dungeons and Dragons. That is, being able to play characters reminiscent of the great heroes of mythology and literature. Few characters want to play Frodo, they want to play Gandalf or Aragorn or King Arthur or name your favorite fantasy character here.

That's certainly true, although players can vary.


Even more so, people don't want to play a bunch of statistics on a page. The game mechanics are merely a tool to evoke this sort of epic (or gritty, or magical, or whatever) feel. For me this is why I don't like 4th edition, the rules don't serve this purpose.

I fully agree with this, but the way mechanics interact with fluff isn't actually that simple.

The mechanics serve the fluff. They cannot do anything else. Yes, if it's an entirely original work then you can go back and re-write a piece of fluff to slightly better suit game play, but every mechanic should be clearly tied to something you want to portray - or give players the ability to portray.


Of course if I had to play 4th edition I wouldn't let the rules stop me, they're just words on paper after all, I just don't think their focus on strategic mechanics is appropriate.

Not sure about this one.


Game balance is of course necessary; mythology is rich with heroes who slay dragons and sorcerers with just sword and shield, ridiculous as it may sound for a knight to slay a wizard that can summon demons and incinerate buildings at his whim.

This is wrong - or more accurately, a little out. Game balance isn't always useful, and it isn't always meaningful. There are also a lot of different ways in which you can balance a game, and designer effort isn't always worthwhile.

All that is really important from a design perspective is that things aren't broken - that the power level of various things is consistent with what you want - and that those power levels are reasonable. There are no other balance concerns.

The dragon doesn't have to be about as powerful as the fighter, the fighter just has to have a chance of winning and a few destiny/fate/awesome points to make that chance a bit bigger in game terms.


I'm also not against some strategy, but if that was why I was playing D&D I would quit and play a Wargame or Chess or a CRPG. I think that strategy is better represented by an action economy and rock-papers-scissors interactions than trying to copy Wargames.


One thing I see alot is people trying to balance the Wizard by limiting their spell lists in arbitrary ways or removing some of their more powerful spells. Not only is this doomed to fail, but it defeats the purpose - many of the most broken spells are abilities standard in mythology and fantasy literature, including divination magic and scrying, flight and teleportation, mind control and instant death effects.

I haven't really seen much arbitrary limitation of wizard spell lists


The goal should be to balance these abilities so that they don't break the game, after all D&D Wizards are often arbitrarily better at these abilities than their fantasy counterparts (for example, D&D scrying is almost limitless, but in the Lord of the Rings Scrying required powerful artifacts and great force of will and could be countered).

Correct.


And to be honest the design flaw is more on the side of the melee classes than the Wizard, most heroes of legend could do more than just swing a sword like most D&D Fighters. I guess this kinda sounds like a rant but I just don't like where 4.0 and alot of D&D homebrew is heading, especially as far as magic is concerned.

The "fighters can only swing a sword" issue is a lot more complicated than a simple oversight in the rules. About the only thing I can really say about it is that neither 4e nor ToB actually fixes it.

Conclusion: you're mostly right, but you oversimplify a few things.

[Drolyt]

I fully agree with this, but the way mechanics interact with fluff isn't actually that simple.

The mechanics serve the fluff. They cannot do anything else. Yes, if it's an entirely original work then you can go back and re-write a piece of fluff to slightly better suit game play, but every mechanic should be clearly tied to something you want to portray - or give players the ability to portray.
I'm not positive I understand you, but if you're saying that every rule kinda creates a bit of fluff and is tied to it, that is unavoidable. That is why I like the Wizard's spell list better than most build your own effect mechanics, it gives alot of options while still tying it down to the game world.

Not sure about this one.
I just mean that even if I play with crappy rules I'll still have fun, but it would require alot more willing suspension of disbelief.

This is wrong - or more accurately, a little out. Game balance isn't always useful, and it isn't always meaningful. There are also a lot of different ways in which you can balance a game, and designer effort isn't always worthwhile.

All that is really important from a design perspective is that things aren't broken - that the power level of various things is consistent with what you want - and that those power levels are reasonable. There are no other balance concerns.

The dragon doesn't have to be about as powerful as the fighter, the fighter just has to have a chance of winning and a few destiny/fate/awesome points to make that chance a bit bigger in game terms.
This is true, but difficult to portray in a game, even if it reflects mythology and literature better. It would be nice to have a system where that worked, but it's easier to just have the fighter be as strong as the dragon.

I haven't really seen much arbitrary limitation of wizard spell lists
For some reason the suggestions to do this don't turn into full-flegded variants like d20r as often.

The "fighters can only swing a sword" issue is a lot more complicated than a simple oversight in the rules. About the only thing I can really say about it is that neither 4e nor ToB actually fixes it.
I agree. I think at least part of the problem is people insisting on making 20th level fighters "realistic" when Wizards at that level summon demons, create meteors out of thin air, and Control Time.

Conclusion: you're mostly right, but you oversimplify a few things.
Your right, but my post is big enough as it is. :smallsmile:

[Tyndmyr]

Not realism. Verisimilitude (wow, I got the spelling right the first time!).
If the game world/book/movie tells me "This guy is a normal guy. He has no powers. His sword is not magical", then I'll ask "Why, how?" when he suddenly uses his sword to tear down a castle wall and then jumps fifty feet straight up. If they tell me he's a legendary martial artist, a demigod or a combat magician, I can believe it. The problem here is that DnD seems to imply that meleeists are normal guys with a lot of training. However, normal training only takes you that far...

Verisimilitude is good. Realism is bad. I don't particularily care that D&D mechanics don't match real life physics exactly. I do care if the physics change abruptly or randomly without explanation.

I see no particular reason why in D&D, a rather high fantasy game, in which magic is common for nearly all classes, you can't give melee nice things because of either realism OR verisimilitude.

[Drolyt]

Verisimilitude is good. Realism is bad. I don't particularily care that D&D mechanics don't match real life physics exactly. I do care if the physics change abruptly or randomly without explanation.

I see no particular reason why in D&D, a rather high fantasy game, in which magic is common for nearly all classes, you can't give melee nice things because of either realism OR verisimilitude.

All true, agreed entirely. But you point out your own problem. Magic is common for all classes, so it makes sense for melee types to have it. However alot of players (and game designers) won't let melee types have anything supernatural, no magic. This destroys verisimilitude (why doesn't my magical meteor kill that guy that has no supernatural powers whatsoever?) and also makes balance insanely difficult in any game where magic is at all useful.

[Anonymouswizard]

One thing I see alot is people trying to balance the Wizard by limiting their spell lists in arbitrary ways or removing some of their more powerful spells. Not only is this doomed to fail it defeats the purpose, many of the most broken spells are abilities standard in mythology and fantasy literature, including divination magic and scrying, flight and teleportation, mind control and instant death effects.

What I did with the spell lists was to limit each class to about 12 spells per level (as the wizard list was created before I settled on this limit his list is a little more hahazard). What that does is that it lets classes have some versitility without being to powerful. Wizard still get the flight and teleportation and scrying (and save or dies), just in smaller numbers.

Then I madespell's save DCs scale with caster level so charm person is still valid at 20th level.

[Eldan]

Yup. I still belief that meleeist should have some kind of internal power that let's them do their stuff. We can call it "Divine Grace" or "Destiny" or "Ki" or "Incarnum" or "Mana" (Mana in the polynesian sense, not in the PC game sense of "magic points"). Then it gets a lot easier to justify when they survive fireballs, can swim through lava, wrestle demons and stare down armies.

[Drolyt]

What I did with the spell lists was to limit each class to about 12 spells per level (as the wizard list was created before I settled on this limit his list is a little more hahazard). What that does is that it lets classes have some versitility without being to powerful. Wizard still get the flight and teleportation and scrying (and save or dies), just in smaller numbers.

Then I madespell's save DCs scale with caster level so charm person is still valid at 20th level.

12 spells/level on his list, or 12 known? Or do they just know their list? Is it kind of like what they were doing with Begiuler/Warmage/Dread Necromancer? I agree with scaling spell DCs, I always thought spellcasting should be a roll like any attack, 1d20+1/2 Caster Level+Relevant Ability+Miscellaneous modifiers.

[Tyndmyr]

Charm person isn't terribly useful at level 20 unless you got rid of mind blank. And changed the monster manual to get rid of the ever escalating amount of creatures with immunities. I mean, every single mob in the SRD between ECL 19 and 23 is immune or an illegal target. Every one. Unless you throw lots of poorly prepared leveled up, non immune humanoids at your PCs, it's a waste.

Things fade in usefulness, not because of save DCs, but because of A. better options in higher level spells and B. changing opponents.

[Eldan]

Exactly. You don't necessarily stop casting Charm Person because of it's DC. You cast it because 50% of all enemies have Mind Blank on, while the rest are undead and other immune creature types, and because you can also just cast Dominate instead.

[Drolyt]

Yup. I still belief that meleeist should have some kind of internal power that let's them do their stuff. We can call it "Divine Grace" or "Destiny" or "Ki" or "Incarnum" or "Mana" (Mana in the polynesian sense, not in the PC game sense of "magic points"). Then it gets a lot easier to justify when they survive fireballs, can swim through lava, wrestle demons and stare down armies.

Completely agreed, and they should call on that power to do superhuman things. The monk and paladin give some examples, as do the tome of battle classes, but they should be able to do a lot at high levels.

Charm person isn't terribly useful at level 20 unless you got rid of mind blank. And changed the monster manual to get rid of the ever escalating amount of creatures with immunities. I mean, every single mob in the SRD between ECL 19 and 23 is immune or an illegal target. Every one. Unless you throw lots of poorly prepared leveled up, non immune humanoids at your PCs, it's a waste.

Things fade in usefulness, not because of save DCs, but because of A. better options in higher level spells and B. changing opponents.
True enough. But in a more limited spell system where Wizards and Clerics didn't get every spell on their list as easy as taking an 8 hour nap it might be useful. And it is a cool fluff ability to charm commoners and whatnot, but as it stands unless your relevant ability is really high many commoners will make the save at least sometimes.

[Drolyt]

Exactly. You don't necessarily stop casting Charm Person because of it's DC. You cast it because 50% of all enemies have Mind Blank on, while the rest are undead and other immune creature types, and because you can also just cast Dominate instead.

Really it would only be useful if spells were more limited than they are now, maybe you don't have the freedom to always have dominate but you could have charm.

[Anonymouswizard]

Really it would only be useful if spells were more limited than they are now, maybe you don't have the freedom to always have dominate but you could have charm.

There is no charm monster spell (though I might simpily change charm person to any humanoid or monsterous humanoid), and dominate costs 18 times as much mana as charm person. I have made lots of low level spells slightly more attractive by using a set of costs I found here.


12 spells/level on his list, or 12 known? Or do they just know their list? Is it kind of like what they were doing with Begiuler/Warmage/Dread Necromancer? I agree with scaling spell DCs, I always thought spellcasting should be a roll like any attack, 1d20+1/2 Caster Level+Relevant Ability+Miscellaneous modifiers.

It is 12 spells per level on his list. Wizards work the same way, druids and sorcerers have a list of spells known, clerics know their entire list but 8 spells per level come from their two domains, shaman the same except they have only one domain of four spells.

The DC is static as to not add another roll, as you have to roll to cast the spell, and we don't want a save or die taking 3-4 rolls.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Whether justifiably or not, this reminds me of psionics.

[Eldan]

And why not? Personally, I like versatile characters. I have never played a fighter, and probably wouldn't touch one with a ten-foot pole, but I could imagine making a psychic warrior.

[Tyndmyr]

And why not? Personally, I like versatile characters. I have never played a fighter, and probably wouldn't touch one with a ten-foot pole, but I could imagine making a psychic warrior.

Changing wizards into psionists...sorta...doesn't really make them versatile.

If you want balance and versatility, I'd suggest starting from the other end, and adding fun options to melee classes.

[erikun]

I origionally made this (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=A20_Magic#Casting) for D&D before deciding to create A20 as an attempt to balance high level casters. 0th level spells are free and easy to cast, but higher level spells become hard to cast, and effect the caster more if miscast. Why did I do worse effects if failed by less than 5? Because you have more energy running amok.
This is something I think the original post was trying to avoid; specifically, setting an arbitrary penality on casting spells. I can't think of a single fantasy story where a spellcaster can daze themselves for half a minute by failing to cast a spell. I don't recall Merlin or Gandalf or Dumbledore even stunning themselves, and saying "Gandalf made his saves" just feels like a cop-out. And yet, if the failing-and-stunning is required to balance the spellcasting, you're trapped between either allowing it (which seems to disrupt verisimilitude) or removing it (which puts us back at the disruptive balance problem).

While some magic certainly should be dangerous - I cannot think of a story with perfectly safe demon summoning - having Merlin's head asplode doesn't feel like the correct way to balance casting spells.

I was going to respond to another post about level 20+ characters, but I'm apparently missing in. Perhaps I just imagined it. :smallconfused:

[Tyndmyr]

Some forms of magic are generally potrayed as dangerous. Dealing with other living entities, particularily bargaining with them...dangerous yeah. Fireball? Not generally.

I agree that this sort of system is what the OP was advising against...with good reason. There's an increase in complexity, a decrease in versatility, and significant changes to class feel. It seems like a high price to pay for a "fix".

I've toyed with some sort of cooldown mechanism for casters...I'm not sure it's appropriate, but it seems better than the chance of failure options. I dislike things that add heavy random elements or rely on DM fiat.

[Eldan]

However, I'm also trying to think of any legends where a magician throws fire balls at his enemies... or any novel that is older than DnD where they do that. Afterwards comes DnD inspired novels and movies.

[Ashtagon]

One of the problems with casters under vancian magic systems is their ability to go nova and burn their entire daily allotment in three minutes, then be useless until next morning. This doesn't make for a balanced class in terms of working day, and neither does it really match with most fantasy novels, where wizards can generally keep sufficient minor magics in reserve to always have something to use.

In terms of the "magic is dangerous" trope, this is usually couple with a "wizards know their limits" trope. I think the best way to reflect this is that once you've spent al your spell slots/mana/whathaveyou, you can start burning your Constitution (or Wisdom, or whathaveyou), or summon literally uncontrollable forces to do your bidding etc, to continue casting. Most sensible casters won't do this, but the potential exists.

[Drolyt]

This is something I think the original post was trying to avoid; specifically, setting an arbitrary penality on casting spells. I can't think of a single fantasy story where a spellcaster can daze themselves for half a minute by failing to cast a spell. I don't recall Merlin or Gandalf or Dumbledore even stunning themselves, and saying "Gandalf made his saves" just feels like a cop-out. And yet, if the failing-and-stunning is required to balance the spellcasting, you're trapped between either allowing it (which seems to disrupt verisimilitude) or removing it (which puts us back at the disruptive balance problem).

While some magic certainly should be dangerous - I cannot think of a story with perfectly safe demon summoning - having Merlin's head asplode doesn't feel like the correct way to balance casting spells.

I was going to respond to another post about level 20+ characters, but I'm apparently missing in. Perhaps I just imagined it. :smallconfused:

That is exactly what I think needs to be avoided. One post I missed asked what wizards can do in fantasy literature, and the answer is almost anything. Some forms of magic should be dangerous of course, but most should not. A D&D Wizard should be able to do anything you could expect a fantasy Wizard to do- though obviously not all at once, and many spells would require high level. But fighters should also be able to do anything a fighter can do in literature and mythology. Anyone who thinks fighters should be limited to swinging swords needs to read more.

One of the problems with casters under vancian magic systems is their ability to go nova and burn their entire daily allotment in three minutes, then be useless until next morning. This doesn't make for a balanced class in terms of working day, and neither does it really match with most fantasy novels, where wizards can generally keep sufficient minor magics in reserve to always have something to use.
This is another big problem, Wotc seems to think that resource management balances classes. It doesn't, especially when use Rope is a second level spell. They went nuts and extended it to every class in 4th edition, and now many players try hard to avoid more than one encounter a day so they can abuse daily powers.

[Anonymouswizard]

One of the problems with casters under vancian magic systems is their ability to go nova and burn their entire daily allotment in three minutes, then be useless until next morning. This doesn't make for a balanced class in terms of working day, and neither does it really match with most fantasy novels, where wizards can generally keep sufficient minor magics in reserve to always have something to use.

In terms of the "magic is dangerous" trope, this is usually couple with a "wizards know their limits" trope. I think the best way to reflect this is that once you've spent al your spell slots/mana/whathaveyou, you can start burning your Constitution (or Wisdom, or whathaveyou), or summon literally uncontrollable forces to do your bidding etc, to continue casting. Most sensible casters won't do this, but the potential exists.

With true Vancian magic wizards would only be able to memorize 3-5 spells, if you don't believe me go read dying earth. But then that is how many spells they can memorize at one time, they have no spells per day limit.


One post I missed asked what wizards can do in fantasy literature, and the answer is almost anything.

Depends on the book. In Eragon this is correct, but in Dying Earth many wizards are limited to a selection of the hundred remaining spells. In the Black Magician trilogy magicians are limited to creating effects such as heat, attacking with rays known as strikes, shielding themselves, telepathic communication with other magicians, and a few other effects including taking magic from others, but no scrying. In Lord of the Rings Gandalf can cast spells but rarely does so, hinting at a low magic world. In fact, in most fantasy novels mages are unable to do everything, but they can do a large selection, pointing towards specialists.

[Drolyt]

With true Vancian magic wizards would only be able to memorize 3-5 spells, if you don't believe me go read dying earth. But then that is how many spells they can memorize at one time, they have no spells per day limit.



Depends on the book. In Eragon this is correct, but in Dying Earth many wizards are limited to a selection of the hundred remaining spells. In the Black Magician trilogy magicians are limited to creating effects such as heat, attacking with rays known as strikes, shielding themselves, telepathic communication with other magicians, and a few other effects including taking magic from others, but no scrying. In Lord of the Rings Gandalf can cast spells but rarely does so, hinting at a low magic world. In fact, in most fantasy novels mages are unable to do everything, but they can do a large selection, pointing towards specialists.

This is true. The problem is that D&D should accommodate whatever character archetype a player wants to play, even a generalist that knows every spell imaginable, without being unbalanced. Still, most classes probably should not know their spell list. As for Lord of the Rings, it is most certainly not low magic, but Tolkien wasn't interested in magic. He wanted the story to take center stage, not the supernatural powers of the Elves and their enemies, so we don't get to see much of the magic, but there was certainly a lot of it, especially pre-LOTR. But I guess that's the problem I'm getting at, D&D should accommodate almost any fantasy archetype and still be viable at least at a certain level range.

[Eldan]

Gandalf, however, is one of the few examples I can think of where a mage actually throws around lightning, though. These are quite rare.

[Drolyt]

Gandalf, however, is one of the few examples I can think of where a mage actually throws around lightning, though. These are quite rare.

True, but sadly that type of flashy magic isn't what breaks the game. Transformation magic, on the other hand, is practically ubiquitous in folklore but nearly impossible to stat without breaking everything. Divination in general is perhaps one of the most common types of magic in folklore, but among the most abusable (although most folklore divination isn't as effective as D&D spells). Flight and teleportation are less common, and flight is indeed one thing that many fantasy characters explicitly cannot do, but most people can think of characters with these powers. I never actually heard of instant death powers before D&D/Harry Potter, so I think those might be done away with. Illusion and enchantment are also staple fantasy powers, and are usually more effective than flashy attacks. So yeah, the flashy fireballs that are easily balanced aren't actually that common in the genre D&D is based on. One thing that is often overlooked though is buff magic. Most fighter types that expected to fight toe to toe with wizards and dragons had their own buff magic, they didn't rely on wizards and magic items to do it for them.

[Eldan]

They ususally had some kind of blessing, or a magic item, though. So that would probably count as divine magic in DnD.

Divination in folklore, as far as I know, either comes in the form of "sensing" things, which is represented by the various detect spells, or in very cryptic prophecies, which often are only helpful at the very last moment.

Also: Abjuration. Protective circles, wards and amulets are abundant in folklore and magical traditions.

[Drolyt]

They usually had some kind of blessing, or a magic item, though. So that would probably count as divine magic in DnD.

Divination in folklore, as far as I know, either comes in the form of "sensing" things, which is represented by the various detect spells, or in very cryptic prophecies, which often are only helpful at the very last moment.

Also: Abjuration. Protective circles, wards and amulets are abundant in folklore and magical traditions.

Abjuration and the like are one thing D&D does do pretty well though. There's an abundance of wards and amulets, both in the form of spells and as magic items. True many heroes of folklore required a magic item to be effective, but these are usually artifact level, not WBL gear. A few Wizard spells are supposed to do the cryptic prophecy thing, those are fairly balanced. The spells that give straight forward answers should probably either be done away with or made more difficult to use/more dangerous. Also it might make sense to have lower level spellcasters have to choose a specialty, and at higher levels the restrictions are removed. This fits better, in folklore only really powerful mages have that kind of versatility.