PDA

View Full Version : Spellcasting fixes 3.5



GoddessSune
2013-06-17, 11:33 AM
Ok, a whole bunch of my spellcasting homebrew fixes....


Availability
A simple and obvious reason that arcane spellcasters are so powerful is that they have unlimited, unrestricted access to every spell in the multiverse. It does not need to be this way.

Spells have two additional categories. The spells rarity and the spells complexity.

All spells start with a basic Spell Availability, then it is modified by region, societal or miscellaneous factors. Not all factors will apply to all spells. It IS possible that the wizards of the island of Lantan have the spell Water Breathing as a Rare Spell.

Spell Availability--There are five categories of spell availability: Common, Uncommon, Rare, Very Rare and Unique. When a single spellcaster creates a spell that is known only to them, that spell is unique. Once the spellcaster shares the spell with a small number of others (less then five) the spell becomes Very Rare. Once the spell is known to over twenty spellcasters, it becomes Rare. An Uncommon spell is known to roughly half of the spellcasters in the world. And a common spell is known to almost everyone.

Regional Rarity-Where a spellcaster is has an effect on how rare a spell will be to casters. Water Breathing is often a Common spell in any coastal port city, but will be very rare in a desert. A region is not necessarily a political boundary, all of the cities of several coastal kingdoms will often share the same spell rarities. A region must have intelligent spellcasting beings.

Societal Rarity-The society of a region has an effect on spell rarity. Most good societies frown upon or even outlaw necromancy magic, making such magic rare. A very militaristic society full of battle mages will have combative spells very common.

Knowing a spell
Not every spellcaster knows every spell. In order to know about a spell a character must roll a Knowledge(Arcana) check. This can only be done once per caster level, per spell, and if failed the character must wait until the next level to try again. A spellcaster must roll 10 plus the spell level to know about a common spell, 15 for a uncommon spell, 20 for a rare spell and 25 for a very rare spell. A unique spell can not be known by this method. This roll represents the continuous extermination, research, and communication with spellcasting beings and others. As such the single check represents several weeks of game time. This means that the roll must be unmodified, except for continuous effects that would have been active the whole time. A stone of good luck will modify this check, but a spell with a duration of less then thirty days will not.

Note that simply having knowledge of a spell does not give the spellcaster that spell. It must be gained in other ways.

A spellcaster can still learn about a spells existence from other ways, such as a knowledge(history) check or a tale or a story or another character. But only a successful knowledge(arcana) check gives a spellcaster the proper information to truly know the spell. Should a character hear about a spell by other means, such as from a bard's story, they must still make the knowledge(arcana) check to get the spell details.

Example:The player wishes for the wizard character of Verna to know the spell, shroud of flame. As an uncommon spell they must roll a 20 knowledge(arcana) to both know of the spells existence and know the basics of the magic needed for the spell. Should Verna join the brotherhood of the true flame, she maybe told of the existence of the spell, should of flame, but will still need to make the knowledge(arcana) roll to get the basic ideas down.


Complexity

Spell complexity--There are five categories of spell complexity: Simple, Easy, Difficult, Hard and Impossible. A simple spell is a basic fire and forget type spell, where the caster tosses a spell out there with no effort or control. A easy spell takes a slight amount of effort and control. A difficult spell takes a fair amount of effort and control. Hard is even more then that, and impossible is almost near impossible.

In order for a spellcaster to be able to use a spell, they need to understand it. This is a Spellcraft roll. A spellcaster must roll 10 plus the spell level to know about a simple spell, 15 for a easy spell, 20 for a difficult spell, 25 for a hard spell and 30 for an impossible spell. A character can only attempt to know a spell once per level. Again, single check represents several weeks of game time. This means that the roll must be unmodified, except for continuous effects that would have been active the whole time. A stone of good luck will modify this check, but a spell with a duration of less then thirty days will not.

A character can attempt to understand a spell anytime they encounter the spell in written spell formula, such as a scroll or a spellbook. They can still only attempt this once per spell and only one time at each character level.


Gaining spells
Gaining spells when leveling up: When a character levels up, they gain spells as per their class. But first a character must know a spell exists and have made a successful knowledge Arcana roll to know the spell. Once a character knows a spell they may add it to their spells known as per the normal rules of their class. But to cast the spell, they must first understand it by making a successful Spellcraft check. If the character fails to understand the workings of the spell, it can still be taken as one of the character's picks, they simply can't cast it. As soon as the character gains another level of experience they can attempt to understand the spell again.


Example:David's character, Elrod the Wizard, gains enough experience to become 5th level. As per the wizard class feature(PH pg.57) gains two spells of any level he can cast. The first spell David picks is Dispel Magic. This spell is well known to all users of magic, so the DM rules that Elrod already has the common knowledge of the spell. Next David must roll to see if Elrod knows the magical basics of the spell. The DM sets Dispel Magic as a common spell, giving it a To Know DC for the Knowledge Arcana of 13(10 for common spell plus 3 for the spell level). David rolls an 11 with a +12 from ranks and other modifiers that last at least a month. With a total of 23, Elrod knows the magical details of Dispel Magic. Next David must roll to see if Elrod understands the spell. The DM has ruled Dispel Magic is a difficult spell as it deals with the fundamentals of magic. This makes the Spellcraft roll to know the spell 23(20 for a difficult spell plus 3 for the spell level). David rolls a 15 with a +12 from ranks another other modifiers that last a month. With a total of 27, Elrod understands Dispel Magic and can add it to his spellbook and cast it. For his second choice, David picks the spell, False Life. The Dm has ruled this is a rare spell, putting it's To Know DC at 22. David rolls a 5 with a +12 for a total of 17. So Elrod does not know about this spell at all.

Mundane Magic Item Crafting

At 3rd level all non spellcasting classes gain the Create Magic Item Ability. This ability allows them to take magic item creation feats. They may pick one at 3rd level and one more every three levels. Magic item creation is essentially unchanged from the way a spell caster does it. Except that the spell need not be cast by them, or they can drain the spell from a scroll or magic item(destroying the item in the posses).

Divine Magic

All divine spell casters must have a patron deity.

Divine magic is power sent from a deity to a mortal. And what that power does depends on the target. There are three types of spells: Boon, Neutral and Bane. A boon spell has a positive effect on a target, such as a cure spell. A neutral spell has a neutral effect on target. A bane spell has a negative effect on a target. There are five possible categories of targets. Favored, Friendly, Neutral, Hostile, and Opposed.

*Favored-This target is the most loyal to the deity and that deities ethos. Most often, but not always, this will be a faithful worshiper of the deity. It may also be an individual that shows true dedication to the deities ethos. A boon spell cast on a favored target will have a boon effect. This is most often a bonus +50% effect or duration, a bonus spell effect(often a 1st or 2nd level spell effect), or another beneficial effect. A bane spell will have it's effects and duration reduced by 50%. A neutral spell is the same.
*Friendly-This is anyone who actively worships the deity, or at least follows the deities ethos. This is most often a +25% bonus to boon spell effect or duration, a bonus spell effect(often a 1st or 0 level spell effect). A bane spell will have it's effects and duration reduced by 25%. A neutral spell is the same.
*Neutral-This target is in the middle. A boon spell has the normal effect. However no boon spell effect will last. A spell effect will only last for a maximum of one week(ten days) minus one day per spell level(so a 5th level spell effect would last five days). Neutral and bane spells are as normal.
*Hostile-This target is hostile to the deities faith. A boon spell has the maximum of 25% of the normal effect. The duration of any boon effect is never more then a day. Neutral spells are the same. Bane effects have a bonus 25% to effect and duration, or a spell effect of 0 or 1st level.
*Opposed-This target is opposed to the deities faith. A boon spell will have no effect on the target. The casting of a boon spell on a opposed target will almost always have a backlash to the cleric from a inflict spell effect or other such 1st or 2nd level bane effect. Neutral spells are as normal. Bane spells has a maximum of 50% more of the normal effect, or a bonus spell effect of 1st or 2nd level.

A bonus spell effect will always almost always be a special unique spell of the deity or a spell that directly follows the deities ethos. The cleric has no control over the bonus spell, that comes from the deity. The spell is treated as if the cleric cast it however.

Example:A cleric of Corellon Larethian casts a cure wounds spell on a worshiper of Corellon Larethian, that worshiper gets the effects of the spell Sixth Sense(A Corellon Larethian special spell). If the cleric of Corellon Larethian was to cast flamestrike on a group of drow, each would also have the spell cause fear cast on them.



Magic Item Creation
All magic items need three components: Mundane, Rare and Exotic.
*The mundane component is simply the physical form of the object. It must be made out of special materials to hold the magic.
*The rare component is something that locks the magic effect into the item. This is most often a creature part, but can be any physical thing.
*The exotic component is not physical thing, it is a process. It is what needs to be done to finish the item. It is a process of what to do at a set time and maybe place.

As the caster level increases, so does the hardness of the components. A 5CL item might only need oak wood, but a 10CL item might need 100 year old oak wood, and a 15CL item might need 100 year old oak wood that has been struck by lightning. A rare component that is a creature part is must be from a creature of HD at least equal to the CL. After 10 CL, many items get extreme rare components, such as a daisy steeped on by a dragon at midnight. Proses get harder as CL's go up. At 5CL the item might just have to be made at night. 10 CL on a high mountain in the winter, and 15CL and above often have a exact location like the ''Fire Pit of Doom''.

Some components are set, but most change depending on the time. A character must research what components are needed, or otherwise gain the information. Or optionally, the character can simply self experiment to know the right components. A set of components only remains valid for roughly three months, then they will change.

A Knowledge(Arcane or Divine, as appropriate) check can be made anywhere the character can do research, with a DC of 10, plus the caster level of the item. Divination magic can also be used. Self Experimentation requires a full hour with the component in question, and a primary spellcasting ability check of 10 plus the caster level of the item(Mundanes use whatever ability of Int, Wis or Chr is highest). Each component, mundane, race and exotic must be checks separately.

Example: Dorst wishes to make a minor circlet of blasting. He knows it must be made primarily of gold(from the item description). He checks the research (DC 10 +6 =16) and discovers that phosphorus is needed as well. He uses a divination to get the crypic knowledge that he figures out to be the rare component: seven pryolisk feathers. For the exotic component he simply tries self experimentation. Each hour he tries a flame related posses, making a check (DC 16 again) to see if it is the right one. If he does not stumble upon it, he goes back to research what it might be or cast another divination for a clue.


Scrolls
Using a scroll is a Full Round Action, that provokes AoO and can not be done Casting Defensively.


Well, what does everyone think? I lot to read, I know. I want to give magic lots of wonder, but still be useful.

Cheiromancer
2013-06-17, 02:45 PM
There are an awful lot of spells in D&D. Are you going to assign complexity and rarity ratings to all of them?

How do you build a caster past first level? It seems like a chore to have to simulate the process of acquiring spells over several levels.

AuraTwilight
2013-06-17, 03:45 PM
This doesn't even address the problem with Spellcasting at all, considering how easy it is to use spells to simulate other spells.

I mean, hell, give me some shadow illusions and I'll break the hell out of your fix.

GoddessSune
2013-06-17, 06:21 PM
There are an awful lot of spells in D&D. Are you going to assign complexity and rarity ratings to all of them?

How do you build a caster past first level? It seems like a chore to have to simulate the process of acquiring spells over several levels.

Well, you need do it only one spell at a time. That is whenever a player picks a spell. But a good DM can also take, oh say, ten minutes a day to rank some spells. Put a load of clothing in the machine, pull out Complete Mage and rank the spells....

It might take more time then a standard build, but then some people take hours to make a character anyway...


This doesn't even address the problem with Spellcasting at all, considering how easy it is to use spells to simulate other spells.

I mean, hell, give me some shadow illusions and I'll break the hell out of your fix.

How so?

AuraTwilight
2013-06-17, 07:27 PM
Do you really need me to explain how someone can use shadow illusion spells to replicate other spells? This is literally their entire gimmick.

Yitzi
2013-06-17, 09:39 PM
There are an awful lot of spells in D&D. Are you going to assign complexity and rarity ratings to all of them?

It might be easier to do it by general guidelines (complexity based on spell level, rarity based on the sourcebook it's from, with PHB being the most common, followed by Spell Compendium and the Complete series, followed by other splatbooks, with magazine-based stuff the rarest), and then apply exceptions as appropriate.

TuggyNE
2013-06-17, 09:46 PM
Spell Availability--There are five categories of spell availability: Common, Uncommon, Rare, Very Rare and Unique. When a single spellcaster creates a spell that is known only to them, that spell is unique. Once the spellcaster shares the spell with a small number of others (less then five) the spell becomes Very Rare. Once the spell is known to over twenty spellcasters, it becomes Rare. An Uncommon spell is known to roughly half of the spellcasters in the world. And a common spell is known to almost everyone.

Without knowing the typical rarity factors for spells, this is just an interesting idea that could turn out rather well, or very poorly. Decent framework, needs to be filled in though. (Or at the very least give guidelines for determining the rarity of a spell for most cases.)


A spellcaster must roll 10 plus the spell level to know about a common spell, 15 for a uncommon spell, 20 for a rare spell and 25 for a very rare spell. A unique spell can not be known by this method. This roll represents the continuous extermination, research, and communication with spellcasting beings and others.

I'm not sure what you mean by "extermination" here: actually hunting down and killing things?

+4 starting Int (boosting at every fourth level and improving headband of Int at 6 and every fourth thereafter), max ranks, and Skill Focus autopasses checks for all common spells at all relevant levels (which is probably sensible), autopasses uncommon at level 6 and beyond, autopasses rare spells at level 12 and beyond, and autopasses very rare spells at level 19. Skill-boosting equipment or situations (a library of magic for a +2/+4 circumstance, say, or a luckstone or custom magic item of +5 to Knowledge: Arcana) would obviously bring those levels down.

So the DCs seem mostly reasonable to me, although I think the bases are too high and the scaling too slow. (Also, Sorcerers get LOLpwned by this something fierce, since they have a good chance of failing the check at most levels, and a level 3 Sorcerer might know no spells at all.)


A spellcaster can still learn about a spells existence from other ways, such as a knowledge(history) check or a tale or a story or another character. But only a successful knowledge(arcana) check gives a spellcaster the proper information to truly know the spell. Should a character hear about a spell by other means, such as from a bard's story, they must still make the knowledge(arcana) check to get the spell details.

Wait, I don't get this. They already need a Spellcraft check later to understand the complexity; why do they need a Knowledge check to see if they know what they have just been told?


In order for a spellcaster to be able to use a spell, they need to understand it. This is a Spellcraft roll. A spellcaster must roll 10 plus the spell level to know about a simple spell, 15 for a easy spell, 20 for a difficult spell, 25 for a hard spell and 30 for an impossible spell. A character can only attempt to know a spell once per level. Again, single check represents several weeks of game time. This means that the roll must be unmodified, except for continuous effects that would have been active the whole time. A stone of good luck will modify this check, but a spell with a duration of less then thirty days will not.

Basically the same as last time, except that the existence of a synergy bonus and the Magical Aptitude feat makes it a bit simpler to get higher bonuses.


A character can attempt to understand a spell anytime they encounter the spell in written spell formula, such as a scroll or a spellbook. They can still only attempt this once per spell and only one time at each character level.

This sounds like you mean that understanding a spell can only be done once, ever, and that only one spell per level can be attempted, so that a Wizard or Archivist can gain at most one spell per character level from written sources. Which makes the advantage of having a spellbook/prayerbook at all somewhat questionable.


For his second choice, David picks the spell, False Life. The Dm has ruled this is a rare spell, putting it's To Know DC at 22. David rolls a 5 with a +12 for a total of 17. So Elrod does not know about this spell at all.

Presumably this means he only gains one spell known that level, and can't try to learn another spell?


Divine magic is power sent from a deity to a mortal. And what that power does depends on the target. There are three types of spells: Boon, Neutral and Bane. A boon spell has a positive effect on a target, such as a cure spell. A neutral spell has a neutral effect on target. A bane spell has a negative effect on a target. There are five possible categories of targets. Favored, Friendly, Neutral, Hostile, and Opposed.[Ö]

Yeah, the combination of automatically knowing their whole list (and, perhaps, automatically understanding it as well) and getting nearly-free boosts to spells just for thematic alliances means this is a much-needed buff, both relatively and absolutely, to divine casters.


As the caster level increases, so does the hardness of the components. A 5CL item might only need oak wood, but a 10CL item might need 100 year old oak wood, and a 15CL item might need 100 year old oak wood that has been struck by lightning. A rare component that is a creature part is must be from a creature of HD at least equal to the CL. After 10 CL, many items get extreme rare components, such as a daisy steeped on by a dragon at midnight. Proses get harder as CL's go up. At 5CL the item might just have to be made at night. 10 CL on a high mountain in the winter, and 15CL and above often have a exact location like the ''Fire Pit of Doom''.

Difficulty, not hardness; hardness means something specific.

This is another change that's quite difficult to evaluate, since it's basically "make up something that kinda seems in line with a couple vague examples". Might work well, or might not.

(I checked, and the ability score enhancers are CL 8, so not terribly difficult to manage. At least that's good.)


A Knowledge(Arcane or Divine, as appropriate) check can be made anywhere the character can do research, with a DC of 10, plus the caster level of the item.

The fact that most mundanes don't get those skills as class skills, and the generally higher need for magic items of various sorts, means that even with the theoretical ability to craft magic items they'll still be at more of a disadvantage than a caster.

GoddessSune
2013-06-18, 09:27 AM
It might be easier to do it by general guidelines (complexity based on spell level, rarity based on the sourcebook it's from, with PHB being the most common, followed by Spell Compendium and the Complete series, followed by other splatbooks, with magazine-based stuff the rarest), and then apply exceptions as appropriate.

I very much dislike the ''common guidelines''. I don't want all the PHB spells to be common. They are ''common'' in the real world just as everyone has a PHB. But in the fantasy world, spells would be based on different things.


Without knowing the typical rarity factors for spells, this is just an interesting idea that could turn out rather well, or very poorly. Decent framework, needs to be filled in though. (Or at the very least give guidelines for determining the rarity of a spell for most cases.)

I was temped to add guidelines, but this is more an individual DM flavor sort of thing. A DM can make a spell whatever they want for a game.




I'm not sure what you mean by "extermination" here: actually hunting down and killing things? oops



So the DCs seem mostly reasonable to me, although I think the bases are too high and the scaling too slow.

Well, the intent is to slow down and modify spell selection, not stop it. Naturally a higher level spellcaster would know all common spells, most uncommon ones and plenty of rare ones.

What do you mean by bases to high and scaling too slow?



Also, Sorcerers get LOLpwned by this something fierce, since they have a good chance of failing the check at most levels, and a level 3 Sorcerer might know no spells at all

How so? They should be able to make common checks no problem?



Wait, I don't get this. They already need a Spellcraft check later to understand the complexity; why do they need a Knowledge check to see if they know what they have just been told?

The idea is that a character has no idea a spell exists. But say they listen to a bard tell a story about a wizard that uses ''a spell that makes spiders of living flame''. The character knows nothing about the spell, except the story. They still need to do a bit of research to get the facts on the spell. To use a modern example:they hear the song on the radio, but still must goggle the details.



This sounds like you mean that understanding a spell can only be done once, ever, and that only one spell per level can be attempted, so that a Wizard or Archivist can gain at most one spell per character level from written sources. Which makes the advantage of having a spellbook/prayerbook at all somewhat questionable.

No, not exactly. You can only attempt to understand a spell once, and if you fail, you must wait until you have gained another level of experience to try again.



Presumably this means he only gains one spell known that level, and can't try to learn another spell?

No, you still use the normal classes way of getting spells, so a wizard gets two per level. So a player would pick a spell they want the character to know and roll of it. If the roll fails, then the character does not even know the spell exists. So the character can't pick a spell they don't even know exists. So the player would pick another spell to attempt to know. Until the character had two known spells. Then the character could roll to see if they understand them. But if they fail to understand the spell, then yes, they don't get a spell that level. So for leveling up, it would be best t pick common spells.



This is another change that's quite difficult to evaluate, since it's basically "make up something that kinda seems in line with a couple vague examples". Might work well, or might not.

It has worked well for me for years. I have always used the 2E style magic item creation. It puts a stop to spell casters just ''sitting down'' and making tons of magic items. Simply put, you need an adventure an item.



The fact that most mundanes don't get those skills as class skills, and the generally higher need for magic items of various sorts, means that even with the theoretical ability to craft magic items they'll still be at more of a disadvantage than a caster.

I'm fine with 'unfairness'. Wizards/clerics should have it some what easier to make magic items then a mundane. The point is that a mundane can do it.

Yitzi
2013-06-18, 12:39 PM
I very much dislike the ''common guidelines''. I don't want all the PHB spells to be common. They are ''common'' in the real world just as everyone has a PHB. But in the fantasy world, spells would be based on different things.

If you also apply the same logic to the obscure stuff (that it might still be common in the game world), then you've got a lot of work ahead of you in deciding what is what.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-06-18, 01:31 PM
I very much dislike the ''common guidelines''. I don't want all the PHB spells to be common. They are ''common'' in the real world just as everyone has a PHB. But in the fantasy world, spells would be based on different things.

I was temped to add guidelines, but this is more an individual DM flavor sort of thing. A DM can make a spell whatever they want for a game.

Without such guidelines, the system winds up requiring much more fiat than a lot of people like. You don't have to make them a concrete rule, but it would be nice to have a base DC that can than be modified for a given setting-- much easier than having to score every spell in the game every time the setting changes. Your system is there to codify an area that typically is entirely fiat-based, after all.


No, you still use the normal classes way of getting spells, so a wizard gets two per level. So a player would pick a spell they want the character to know and roll of it. If the roll fails, then the character does not even know the spell exists. So the character can't pick a spell they don't even know exists. So the player would pick another spell to attempt to know. Until the character had two known spells. Then the character could roll to see if they understand them. But if they fail to understand the spell, then yes, they don't get a spell that level. So for leveling up, it would be best t pick common spells.
That seems... somewhat unfair. A wizard's level-up spells are explicitly stated to be "the results of her research" (PHB 179). A single check to see if you figured out the spell is fine, even fitting. But the second check stinks of spite-- "haha, you failed a check, you don't get your class features this level." If you insist on both, I'd recommend allowing characters to keep trying both checks until they manage their two level-up spells.

And rolling for spells at all seems wrong for a sorcerer-- their magic is inherent, based on their unnatural ancestry. They don't hear about a spell and decide to learn it, and they don't need to understand the underlying mechanisms. I can see enforcing some sort of thematic limit to their spell selection, but not this way.

GunbladeKnight
2013-06-18, 01:52 PM
I like most of your ideas on item crafting and may steal and modify it.

TuggyNE
2013-06-18, 06:09 PM
I was temped to add guidelines, but this is more an individual DM flavor sort of thing. A DM can make a spell whatever they want for a game.

My take on this is that it's best to have a lot of the work done to give a reasonable basis both for evaluating, and for making a DM's job easier if they feel like using the "best practices" version.



Well, the intent is to slow down and modify spell selection, not stop it. Naturally a higher level spellcaster would know all common spells, most uncommon ones and plenty of rare ones.

What do you mean by bases to high and scaling too slow?

It's almost impossible for a low-level spellcaster to know an extremely rare spell, even if it's a cantrip, but it's trivial for a high-level caster to know even high-level extremely rare spells. Adjusting it for, say, DC 5+2x spell level for common and so on would change that; high-level casters would still be a bit better at learning of level-appropriate spells, but not massively so.


How so? They should be able to make common checks no problem?

K:Arcana and Spellcraft are both Int-based skills, and Sorcerers gain very little from Int normally. So they'd basically have to push Int fairly high, higher than Con, in order to deal with this well.

Even then, they'll always be behind a Wizard in ability to learn new spells, which seems odd since the idea of a Sorc is that they didn't really study, it just kind of came naturally.


The idea is that a character has no idea a spell exists. But say they listen to a bard tell a story about a wizard that uses ''a spell that makes spiders of living flame''. The character knows nothing about the spell, except the story. They still need to do a bit of research to get the facts on the spell. To use a modern example:they hear the song on the radio, but still must goggle the details.

Hmm. I'd suggest clarifying that it doesn't apply if someone tells you enough about a spell to clearly identify it. For example, another Wizard buttonholes you to explain about his nifty-keen research.


No, not exactly. You can only attempt to understand a spell once, and if you fail, you must wait until you have gained another level of experience to try again.

OK, that's what I hoped you meant; the text is unclear right now, though. "Once per spell per character level" would fix it.


No, you still use the normal classes way of getting spells, so a wizard gets two per level. So a player would pick a spell they want the character to know and roll of it. If the roll fails, then the character does not even know the spell exists. So the character can't pick a spell they don't even know exists. So the player would pick another spell to attempt to know. Until the character had two known spells. Then the character could roll to see if they understand them. But if they fail to understand the spell, then yes, they don't get a spell that level.

Oh, OK. That works out a little better, though it's still kind of unclear.


I'm fine with 'unfairness'. Wizards/clerics should have it some what easier to make magic items then a mundane. The point is that a mundane can do it.

Oh, I don't disagree that casters should be better at crafting magic items. I'm not entirely happy with the comparative lack of magic items available for mundanes, is the problem; it's one step forward, one step back here, since casters can usually get by with few or no magic items, and can of course more easily make what they do need.

If you coupled this with some other fix to make mundanes less dependent on the Christmas Tree effect, it would probably work out OK.

GoddessSune
2013-06-18, 10:00 PM
That seems... somewhat unfair. A wizard's level-up spells are explicitly stated to be "the results of her research" (PHB 179). A single check to see if you figured out the spell is fine, even fitting. But the second check stinks of spite-- "haha, you failed a check, you don't get your class features this level." If you insist on both, I'd recommend allowing characters to keep trying both checks until they manage their two level-up spells.

And rolling for spells at all seems wrong for a sorcerer-- their magic is inherent, based on their unnatural ancestry. They don't hear about a spell and decide to learn it, and they don't need to understand the underlying mechanisms. I can see enforcing some sort of thematic limit to their spell selection, but not this way.

I don't see it as unfair. If a player picks common, easy spells they won't have a problem. If they try for rare, complex spells they might very well fail to get them. It is a risk, and I like risk. Risk is fun.

Also a wizard can get spells all the time, it's not like the character can only get two spells when they level up.

It works for the sorcerer just fine, just add in your personal fluff. How does a sorcerer get a spell, other then saying ''it came out of no where''? So having a roll to know the spell exists, and a roll to understand it work just fine.



K:Arcana and Spellcraft are both Int-based skills, and Sorcerers gain very little from Int normally. So they'd basically have to push Int fairly high, higher than Con, in order to deal with this well.

Even then, they'll always be behind a Wizard in ability to learn new spells, which seems odd since the idea of a Sorc is that they didn't really study, it just kind of came naturally.


I was tempted to do the ''use your primary casting stat, but I'm just not a fan of that. Knowing a spell and understating it are using your intelligence. I don't have a problem with wizards having a slight advantage in knowing things, it does make sense as they have studied for years. And sorcerers use Spellcraft and Knowledge arcana all the time in game play, as they are magic related skills. How huge of a handicap is that?



If you coupled this with some other fix to make mundanes less dependent on the Christmas Tree effect, it would probably work out OK.

Like what, giving everyone supernatural abilities? What did you think about the mundane magic item crafting?

Grod_The_Giant
2013-06-18, 10:23 PM
Also a wizard can get spells all the time, it's not like the character can only get two spells when they level up.
Those are supposed to be his guaranteed, not-dependent-on-the-GM spells, though.


It works for the sorcerer just fine, just add in your personal fluff. How does a sorcerer get a spell, other then saying ''it came out of no where''? So having a roll to know the spell exists, and a roll to understand it work just fine.
"My" fluff, which is highly supported by the official books, is that my sorcerer gains magic because his great-great-great-grandfather was a gold dragon. He was a normal farmer until his 15th birthday, when he accidentally burned down his uncle's barn (burning hands). Ever since, the more danger he faces, the brighter the magic in his blood burns.

The two rolls make mechanical sense, but are completely disconnected from the official fluff. The sorcerer is distinct from the wizard because his spells come from his own bloodline, not through study. The entire point of the class is that he doesn't need to understand what those spells are or how they work. The wizard knows magic; the sorcerer just does magic. If the magic is innate, and based on my heritage, why do I need to roll to see if I've heard of the spell before it can manifest?

If you want an alternate soft-nerf on the sorcerer, make him write up his final list of spells known at character creation. Make sure that they share descriptors, or at least have no opposing descriptors, or are only from a few schools-- some sort of thematic limit. There-- you have a sorcerer who also can't learn spells willy-nilly, but the restrictions work with the flavor of the class, rather than against it.

TuggyNE
2013-06-18, 11:00 PM
I don't see it as unfair. If a player picks common, easy spells they won't have a problem. If they try for rare, complex spells they might very well fail to get them. It is a risk, and I like risk. Risk is fun.

Also a wizard can get spells all the time, it's not like the character can only get two spells when they level up.

Personally, I'd understand it better if Wizards were better at researching unusual spells in their "automatic" spells known, and merely had a challenge expanding beyond that. Whether this is a bonus to spell knowledge/understanding for the two/level, or whether they auto-succeed on knowing spells, depends on preference.


It works for the sorcerer just fine, just add in your personal fluff. How does a sorcerer get a spell, other then saying ''it came out of no where''? So having a roll to know the spell exists, and a roll to understand it work just fine.

The fluff you give actually contradicts the mechanics, though: Sorcerers don't know where spells come from! That's the point! So how is it that their mysterious spells from an unknown source require careful study to find out which they are before they can even attempt to figure out how to cast them with more careful study?

It just doesn't fit.


I don't have a problem with wizards having a slight advantage in knowing things, it does make sense as they have studied for years. And sorcerers use Spellcraft and Knowledge arcana all the time in game play, as they are magic related skills. How huge of a handicap is that?

Yes, but many Sorcerers in play don't actually have any ranks in those skills. (Or not more than one rank, to make trained-only checks.) As it stands, the skills are certainly useful for them, but not useful enough to eat the cost of boosting Int to get enough skill points and shoving all those skill points into the skills. Of course, with the change, they'd basically have to do that to be useful in their primary role; it's a double skill tax that doesn't give them much except "oh, you don't lose access to new spells known, maybe".

In other words, Sorcerers don't benefit much from Int or Int-based skills generally; avoiding penalties is not the same thing as an active boost or additional option.

Of course, it's not that Sorcerers don't deserve to be taken down a peg, it's mostly that Wizards deserve to be taken down two or three.


Like what, giving everyone supernatural abilities? What did you think about the mundane magic item crafting?

I don't have a good solution, although there are various attempts at homebrewing solutions to this. (Some of them are VoP fixes, some mention getting rid of "Christmas Tree", and so on.)

The mundane crafting was OKish, but not super-amazing. Better than nothing, but not enough on its own to nearly make up the gap.

LordErebus12
2013-06-19, 03:06 AM
The two biggest ways to reduce the big bad Wizard is to reduce its access to spells.


1: Generalist wizards are banned. make the character pick three schools of magic (one has a speciality and two as backup spells) and restrict them to those schools.

2: Require wizards above level 1 to have to actively buy/find/research/learn all new spells, rather than simply granting them with the level up. This means that as a DM you need to keep up on looted scrolls for the party, since the wizard is gonna be seriously limited if you never find scrolls in a game.

As for the Sorcerer... They suck quite a bit in 3.5, imo. Since their magic is based on innate magic gained through their bloodline, tailor a spell list that is roughly in theme to whatever bloodline grants them their spells. A tiefling sorcerer would never have access to what a sorcerous water genasi would have, since one would favor ice and water magic, while one would favor domination and fire. Meanwhile an orcish battle sorcerer might have more aggressive spells compared to a kobold drawing power from a black dragon's bloodline.

In my opinion, pathfinder had the right idea with sorcerers.

As for varying spell availability, its not a bad idea, I feel that it just makes things harder for the DM. Its a whole layer to add to something that is already extremely complicated to those not really familiar with the entire spell list. If as a DM you dont mind having a whole new thing to deal with, figuring out what spell would be found in which region, etc.

GoddessSune
2013-06-19, 10:25 PM
Those are supposed to be his guaranteed, not-dependent-on-the-GM spells, though.

Ok......and my Rules make this not a 'guarantee'. (but do the core rules really say it's a 'guarantee'?)



"My" fluff, which is highly supported by the official books, is that my sorcerer gains magic because his great-great-great-grandfather was a gold dragon. He was a normal farmer until his 15th birthday, when he accidentally burned down his uncle's barn (burning hands). Ever since, the more danger he faces, the brighter the magic in his blood burns.

Ok, that might be what the fluff says...but then they made the sorcerer cast magic just like a wizard and use the exact same spells. He is not tapping into spell points and shaping them into anything he wishes too. So for your example, the 15 year old would have a pinch of colored sand and make the right verbal and somatic gestures to cast Color Spray, even for the very first time. Sure Burning Hands has no material component, but most spells do. I know most DM's house rule that sorcerer's get Eschew Materials feat for free, but that is not in the core rules.

So my view is a sorcerer, even once they knew they had the power, would still have to spend time trying different gestures, words and items to cast a spell. And that is covered by the rolls.

TuggyNE
2013-06-20, 12:30 AM
Ok......and my Rules make this not a 'guarantee'. (but do the core rules really say it's a 'guarantee'?)

Yes. No mechanism is provided or implied for denying those spells; therefore, they are granted at each level according to the rules given.


Ok, that might be what the fluff says...but then they made the sorcerer cast magic just like a wizard and use the exact same spells. He is not tapping into spell points and shaping them into anything he wishes too. So for your example, the 15 year old would have a pinch of colored sand and make the right verbal and somatic gestures to cast Color Spray, even for the very first time. Sure Burning Hands has no material component, but most spells do. I know most DM's house rule that sorcerer's get Eschew Materials feat for free, but that is not in the core rules.

So my view is a sorcerer, even once they knew they had the power, would still have to spend time trying different gestures, words and items to cast a spell. And that is covered by the rolls.

That does more or less cover the need for a Spellcraft roll, fluff-wise (although I still don't think that's a great idea mechanically) but it doesn't touch the need you're giving them to make a Knowledge: Arcana check to see if they have, essentially, any knowledge of a spell that is spontaneously coming to them without their prior knowledge or study.

For that matter, giving Sorcerers a class feature that lets them use Cha for some Spellcraft rolls (including the rolls to figure out how to cast their level-up spells known) would be pretty cool.

GoddessSune
2013-06-22, 02:53 AM
Anyone have a comment on the Divine spellcasting?

jedipotter
2013-06-22, 03:55 PM
Anyone have a comment on the Divine spellcasting?

I kind like the idea, but it looks like a lot of work. And a lot to keep track of...

Studoku
2013-06-22, 07:32 PM
This seems like a lot of work compared to just banning OP/problematic spells. It honestly looks like that'd be the result anyway. Even if a DM goes through the entire Spell Compendium to classify each spell, they'll probably end up assigning the higher rarities to spells they want to discourage.

This houserule also becomes less effective at higher levels (since DCs are only increasing by 0.5/level). It's a worst-case scenario but a 17th level, a Wizard is going to have no problem making the DC 34 checks to learn Wish, Shapechange, Gate or any other gamebreaking spell.

tarkisflux
2013-06-22, 10:54 PM
Anyone have a comment on the Divine spellcasting?

I see where you're trying to go with it, but I'm not a fan.

Randomly doubling up on 1st level effects because you cast a boon spell on a favored target is a reasonably big deal at low levels when you're strapped for slots, but something I might just forget at higher levels because I don't care. It's cheesy for the same reasons that faith heal is cheesy.

Similarly, getting a boost to a bane spell against an opposed target seems silly. They're designed to be (theoretically) spell level appropriate when used against enemies of the faith, so why should they work better on them? I can sort of see them failing against the favored, but the reverse is weird.

Lastly, the opposed setup let's you turn casting a boon spell on an opposed target is an instant enemy detector. "Uh oh, someone couldn't take their cure minor wounds in order to be let into the village. Toss them in the dungeon / do something worse to them..." I'm not sure that's intentional or not.

So, lots of fiddly bits for lots of things I don't think are really worth the extra complexity for thematic or mechanical reasons.

GoddessSune
2013-06-23, 07:19 PM
Well, I've play tested them a time or two and the divine magic seems to work out all right.

The boon effect is always nice, it gives the DM a way to add a bit to a spell. As does the bane effect.

The intention is to give clerics crunch reasons to play the ethos of their god. I've seen one to many cleric just say ''I worship whoever'', and then just do what ever they want. And most role play books have the idea that gods 'judge' who gets effected by their spells. Rastilan, for example could not be cured by the good gods. And it's a common in any book with Lloth where she 'approves' spellcasting.

It does provide a 'detector' of sorts, but only for the god in question. And in most cases an enemy should be very obvious anyway.

You think the effects should scale a bit more? You don't think a bonus 1st or 2nd level spell is worth it at high levels?

Yitzi
2013-06-23, 08:24 PM
Well, I've play tested them a time or two and the divine magic seems to work out all right.

The boon effect is always nice, it gives the DM a way to add a bit to a spell. As does the bane effect.

The intention is to give clerics crunch reasons to play the ethos of their god. I've seen one to many cleric just say ''I worship whoever'', and then just do what ever they want. And most role play books have the idea that gods 'judge' who gets effected by their spells. Rastilan, for example could not be cured by the good gods. And it's a common in any book with Lloth where she 'approves' spellcasting.

It does provide a 'detector' of sorts, but only for the god in question. And in most cases an enemy should be very obvious anyway.

Yeah, if you try to use a divine spell to go against the god's goals it should either fail or (better yet) produce a similar-level effect more in line with said god's goals.

TuggyNE
2013-06-23, 08:27 PM
The intention is to give clerics crunch reasons to play the ethos of their god. I've seen one to many cleric just say ''I worship whoever'', and then just do what ever they want. And most role play books have the idea that gods 'judge' who gets effected by their spells. Rastilan, for example could not be cured by the good gods. And it's a common in any book with Lloth where she 'approves' spellcasting.

I can certainly see making spells less effective on certain targets, I'm just not sure why there'd be extra effects except under the rarest of circumstances (for example, if a particular deity declares an individual anathema, which requires deific resources or effort, then extra spell effects would make sense).


It does provide a 'detector' of sorts, but only for the god in question. And in most cases an enemy should be very obvious anyway.

Often, but by no means always. It's especially cheesable if you have an entire party all worshiping the same deity, since you can auto-detect infiltrators, as well as getting extra bang for every buck.


You think the effects should scale a bit more? You don't think a bonus 1st or 2nd level spell is worth it at high levels?

Yeah, the bonus is too much at low levels and too little at high levels to be worth tracking; if you do keep it, change the scaling to something like a bonus orison cast on the target(s) for a 2nd- to 3rd-level spell, a bonus 1st-level for a 4th- to 5th-level, a bonus 2nd-level for a 6th- to 7th-level spell, and a bonus 3rd-level for an 8th- to 9th-level (and nothing at all for orisons and 1st-level spells).

I'm also curious what "boon"* spells exist that have durations of days or weeks for faith-neutral targets to have curtailed. The only ones I know of with that long of duration are object-only (glyph of warding), permanent (polymorph any object under the right settings or imbue with spell-like ability) or for enemies/minions (dominate monster). None of those seems like a great target for this rule.

*Non-standard term, but it's probably better than the more common "buff". "Bane" is a little more confusing, though, since there's an actual Clr 1 spell called bane.

Brova
2013-06-23, 10:10 PM
Two Questions:

1. Does any of this let the fighter contribute in level appropriate encounters?

2. Does this stop the wizard from chainbinding via anything other than DM fiat?

Because if the answer to either or both of those questions is no, this fix has probably failed.

tarkisflux
2013-06-23, 11:59 PM
The boon effect is always nice, it gives the DM a way to add a bit to a spell. As does the bane effect.

While true, my point was that making a spell effect bigger than it's level would normally entail is not necessary or really helpful from a game perspective. Getting more bang for your 1st level spell is great for the cleric doing the casting, but I can't see how it's good for the game aside from the fluff. It's a balance and play style objection, but my balance goals and play style may differ from yours.


The intention is to give clerics crunch reasons to play the ethos of their god. I've seen one to many cleric just say ''I worship whoever'', and then just do what ever they want.

I don't see how this gives them crunch reasons to play the ethos of their gods. It gives them reasons to target people who do or don't, but doesn't seem to do so much to keep the cleric on the straight and narrow (or their deity's equivalent) aside from that.

If you want to keep them closer to their faith, write up benefits for them doing so instead of their targets doing so, and then leave it mostly target neutral. So if the cleric is favored, he gets a bonus to casting his spells at whoever because he's a good guy and his deity trusts him to do the appropriate thing. He gets full power spells and doesn't have to spend extra actions casting them or have them come off weird or whatever (this would be a scenario where being favored means you get to cast normally, and being less than favored means you have casting penalties or something. If you wanted to do more than 'not punish' people for not following the ethos you could do a benefit situation like you have now).


And most role play books have the idea that gods 'judge' who gets effected by their spells. Rastilan, for example could not be cured by the good gods. And it's a common in any book with Lloth where she 'approves' spellcasting.

I didn't actually touch on the "boon spells don't help opposed targets / bane spells don't hurt favored targets" thing, because that isn't very problematic (except as a detector). It is common in fiction and seems like a trope worth supporting. And since there's already lines in the Cleric writeup about them losing spells when they do stuff the deity disagrees with repeatedly, this fits well enough as a minor version of existing mechanics. So keep that part.


It does provide a 'detector' of sorts, but only for the god in question. And in most cases an enemy should be very obvious anyway.

If your whole party is favored, like they basically are when you start casting faith healing, then you can easily tell when someone gets replaced by a doppleganger or a cleverly disguised / transformed whatever. It won't tell you if they're dominated or if they just put on a helm of opposite alignment, but that's ok.

My larger concern was for the world changes that happen when cleric magic is cast like this. Clerics of <justice god> now probably run around with all of the guard patrols. Serious law breakers and mass murderers are likely to be opposed by said god, and so every guard stop they get detected when hit with an otherwise completely benign orison. You can also use them to test people entering an area. They can just not use the gates or whatever, but if you have limited access to a place and get the right god's priest (or lots of different god's priests if you want to be really thorough) you can form a pretty effect security screen.

Or you can just go with the caster favor setup instead of target favor, keep the "some spells don't work on some public enemies of the deity" thing, and the detector bit just goes away on it's own except in plot related cases.


You think the effects should scale a bit more? You don't think a bonus 1st or 2nd level spell is worth it at high levels?

As said above, I don't really agree with bonus rider effects based on target or caster at all. But if you wanted to do a bonus effect based on caster favor, tugynne has a decent plan.

Yitzi
2013-06-24, 06:42 AM
Maybe the best approach is to say that the god has to pay special attention to make it not work on enemies, so depending on how powerful/skilled the god is it might only have that effect from the higher level clerics/worst enemies. And even then, anything that can hide what's going on from said god will block it.

GoddessSune
2013-06-27, 11:12 PM
Maybe the best approach is to say that the god has to pay special attention to make it not work on enemies, so depending on how powerful/skilled the god is it might only have that effect from the higher level clerics/worst enemies. And even then, anything that can hide what's going on from said god will block it.

I don't see the 'free detection' working all that much. Obviously opposed creatures, like say a demon if your a lawful good cleric, you won't be casting boon spells on anyway. And even hostile ones you won't be around in friendly terms anyway. So most folks will just come up neutral.

But it really depends on the god too. Even if say, a doppelganger replaced a person in the group, not every god would care and think of that as hostile or opposed. For a fun twist, more evil and 'shady' gods would approve of it...so it would be more friendlily then anything.

Belial_the_Leveler
2013-06-28, 05:35 AM
This "fix" does not work at all due to the following issues;

1) A wizard is going to have a +3 to +4 to his roll over other types of casters at 1st level. They are going to have as much as +10 to +12 in their roll at higher levels. So basically you gimp other primary casters because the intelligence-based caster is going to have a huge difference from them.

2) A wizard can get any number of attempts to learn spells via scrolls, by studying somebody else's spellbook and so on and so forth. Spontaneous casters get a limited number of spells known and if they don't get a spell, they never have the chance to get it again.

3) The caster doesn't need to make the check for rare, high-level spells. He only needs to learn the spells that boost skill checks, get an item or two to boost skill checks or get any abilities that allow him to reroll skills or take 10 or 20 on them.

4) The caster above 7th level or so doesn't need to make a check for a rare spell. He casts a divination and asks "at which country/society/mage school/tradition is this a common spell?" And then he travels there via overland flight or teleport.

5) The caster casts an augury to see if attempting to learn the spell will have good results or bad results. If the augury works, he learns the spell - he already knows his action will have good results ahead of time. If the DM tells him to make the check normally, it is DM fiat that invalidates the Augury result.
And that is only one type of shenanigans out there.

6) The system harms the flavor of spontaneous spellcasters. If I want my character to be a sorceror that uses magic through innate talent rather than bookish study I'd plain not join any campaign that used your system because it prevents me from playing the character I want.

GoddessSune
2013-06-29, 12:32 AM
1)Yes. Wizards are smarter then many others. I'm fine with this.

2)Well, a wizard only gets one chance per spell per character level, just like everyone else. All casters can learn from scrolls, not just wizards.

3)The skill checks are 'special' month checks. So you can't do all the skill tricky things. You can't take 10 or 20 and only effects that last a month can effect the roll.

4)Would you as a DM allow such a question? Well that is your style. But the character need to make the ''know the spell exists'' roll first. Then if they get a copy of the spell, they can try and learn it. But any spell caster can do that.

5)Oh the fun. You assume the augury is ''always on the players side'' and don't look at the big picture. What if it is ''good luck'' that a character does not learn a spell they wanted too....

6)I don't see how? Bob the player says ''I want Sam the sorcerer to know the spell teleport''. Then the ''know the spell exists roll'' is made to see if the character Sam knows the spell exists. You are free to add your own flavor, say Sam had dreams or visions about teleporting. So the character now knows that it is possible. Then when Sam can add a spell know, per the normal rules, a roll can be made to see if he understands and knows the spell teleport.

I guess I lot of people see sorcerer just getting spells ''nohow''. But that does not make any sense. One day, one second Sam Sorcerer does not know spell x, and the next day or second they just ''innately'' do? Ok, but how about another way. How about more like a sorcerer needs to practice and meditate and experiment? Where the sorcerer tries to tap into his innate power, and figure out the trigger to make it happen? You know the whole ''stand on your head and clear your mind and focus and try to do the effect''.

AuraTwilight
2013-06-29, 12:59 AM
I guess I lot of people see sorcerer just getting spells ''nohow''. But that does not make any sense. One day, one second Sam Sorcerer does not know spell x, and the next day or second they just ''innately'' do?

That's literally how they are in the fluff. Sorcerers have magic in the blood, not their education. And your meditation idea is how divine spellcasters get spells from their gods. :l

Belial_the_Leveler
2013-06-29, 02:28 AM
Wizards are smarter then many others. I'm fine with this.
So because they're smarter they should have access to a given spell 5-10 character levels earlier than other classes? If you don't see how this messes up internal balance then how could you ever hope to make balanced caster fixes?


All casters can learn from scrolls, not just wizards.
Unless you're changing it, no they can't. Wizards and Archivists are the only guys who do that as things are.


You can't take 10 or 20 and only effects that last a month can effect the roll.
Why would the check last a month? Knowledge checks are instantaneous - you either know something or you don't - and copying a spell into your spellbook and/or learning it only takes a couple of hours - unless you are changing that too. And if you are then a) you mess with character progression as leveling up would take months and would be impossible to do during a campaign and b) casters would just learn plane-shift instead, then shift to a timeless plane where buffs don't run out.


You assume the augury is ''always on the players side'' and don't look at the big picture. What if it is ''good luck'' that a character does not learn a spell they wanted too.
I'm not "assuming". It is in the spell description.


I don't see how? Bob the player says ''I want Sam the sorcerer to know the spell teleport''
Sorceror magic is inherited, not learned. To give an obvious example, not knowing that his specific superpowers existed or how they worked didn't stop Clark Kent from having superhearing, flight, invulnerability, heat vision and superstrength. Similarly, it shouldn't stop a sorceror from having the spells clairaudience, fly, stoneskin, scorching ray and bull's strength.
And if you change that we're back to the "I'm removing an entire archetype of fantasy casters just so I can impose a system of balance that isn't balanced to begin with".


But that does not make any sense.
Of course it does. Having magical powers through study makes much less sense than because your ancestor was a demon and now you have to deal with demonic powers randomly emerging at puberty. It also makes much less sense than a god granting you a given spell outright - why would studying help a saint or prophet or other godly herald heal wounds better or curse his deity's enemies or part the red sea?






In short;

1) Your system has mechanical problems that lead to imbalances and promote the use of exploits by being skill-based and relying on randomness of a d20 roll for class features.
2) Your system takes up game time, in-character time and lots of bookkeeping for no real gain in improvements.
3) Your system hurts the flavor of several spellcasting archetypes.

Thus, it is not a system that most people would use.

GoddessSune
2013-06-29, 10:44 PM
1)I'm not sure how you see wizards having such a huge advantage?

2)Sorcerer's can learn spells from scrolls, at leas that is what the PHB says.

3)The idea is that a spellcaster is always clearing about magic, 24/7 365. So they are always listing to stories, reading books, talking with others and even doing self study. The month check represents this. Lots of skill checks, like craft, are made over large periods of time. And you can't do that by time traveling.

4)Not exactly. Because ''good'' and ''bad'' are relative. Maybe it would be a ''bad'' thing for the caster to get a new spell, maybe it would be a ''good'' thing for them to fail....and so on.

5)I'm not getting the archetype other then ''the spellcasters just get spells no-how''. You can say sorcerer magic is inherited, but it does not work that way mechanical. Sorcerer's don't have some type of ''special innate magic'', they cast the exact same spells wizards do. And not similar, they cast the exact same spell. If a sorcerer wants to cast fly, they must have a feather as a material component. (yes they can get around it, but we are talking by default) So how does the sorcerer ''innately' know what they need for material components. And all the spell components too. Remember, anyone (even non spellcasters) can look at the sorcerer and make the check to know exactly what spell they are casting.

Superman is not much of a good example, Harry Potter is better, as they have both innate and learned magic.


*)Is randomness so bad? If used the right way, randomness is ver balanced.
*)The big improvement is that a player can't just have a character take any spell they want to at will. This removes hundreds of spells from the game. Make teleport a rare complex spell and almost no one in the game will have it. Make it even common and complex and few will know it.

AuraTwilight
2013-06-29, 10:57 PM
5)I'm not getting the archetype other then ''the spellcasters just get spells no-how''. You can say sorcerer magic is inherited, but it does not work that way mechanical. Sorcerer's don't have some type of ''special innate magic'', they cast the exact same spells wizards do. And not similar, they cast the exact same spell. If a sorcerer wants to cast fly, they must have a feather as a material component. (yes they can get around it, but we are talking by default) So how does the sorcerer ''innately' know what they need for material components. And all the spell components too. Remember, anyone (even non spellcasters) can look at the sorcerer and make the check to know exactly what spell they are casting.

"I...have this instinctual...I don't know what's happening, just hand me that <wand, or whatever> quick!"

It's a common enough fantasy trope. And besides, almost everyone ever gives Sorcerers Eschew Materials as a bonus feat anyway.

And some people just utterly ignore material components as a game mechanic because they don't matter and are literally jokes.

Epinephrine_Syn
2013-06-29, 11:07 PM
About the Divination Topic:
You're essentially saying "Don't bother casting any divination spells ever, because they'll only work if I wanted them to in the first place, and if I want you to know something, I'd have you figure it out somehow regardless."


About Wizards and Power Scale:
Wizards have an advantage here because their main competitor Sorcerers are entirely screwed. Wizards have a 72.25% chance to know a spell. Sorcerers by contrast only have a 49% chance to know a spell. The Wizard also has many more tries to gain spells than the sorcerer. Nevermind that they also get a bonus feat on top of this. The Wizard will almost always be able to cast spells in some fashion. The Sorcerer poses a very real chance to become a Commoner for their first level. This is the difference.

(% chance for wizards derived from a 16 Int first level Wizard with 4 ranks in Spellcraft and Knowledge: Arcana, learning the most common spells possible DC 11.)
(% chance for sorcerers derived from a 10 Int first level Sorcerer and 4 ranks in Spellcraft and Knowledge: Arcana, learning the most common spells possible DC 11.)


About the Sorcerers and Power Scale:
I'd like to pose a question. Has anybody ever played a Sorcerer in any of your games? If not, do you think there is a reason they haven't? I know that me, personally, the idea that "Okay you have a 26% chance at character creation to lose all your class features, and you're stuck that way for an entire level, where you might gain a class feature if you make it that long" would seriously put me off choosing a class. I generally play spellcasters to cast spells, not to play Joe the Commoner.


Also, could you give a direct page Citation on the "sorcerers can learn, not just cast but learn, from a scroll" from the PHB? Because if this exists I've (and probably a lot of others) have misunderstood Sorcerers on a basic level.

TuggyNE
2013-06-30, 04:51 AM
1)I'm not sure how you see wizards having such a huge advantage?

Most Sorcerers have Int of 8-12. Most Wizards have Int of 16-18 to begin with, 24-26 halfway through their careers, and over 30 by the time they hit level 20. That's a +10 modifier or so, and that's not counting the ability to easily invest skill points in all the skills they could want which might easily make an even larger difference.


2)Sorcerer's can learn spells from scrolls, at leas that is what the PHB says.

So far as I know, it has never said any such thing, and has in fact said what you might loosely call the exact opposite. Here, direct quote time:
Adding Spells to a Sorcererís or Bardís Repertoire
A sorcerer or bard gains spells each time he attains a new level in his class and never gains spells any other way. When your sorcerer or bard gains a new level, consult Table: The Bard or Table: Sorcerer Spells Known to learn how many spells from the appropriate spell list he now knows. With permission, sorcerers and bards can also select the spells they gain from new and unusual spells that they have gained some understanding of.

The implication of the last line, incidentally, is that they might be able to research spells from Clr or Drd lists.


4)Not exactly. Because ''good'' and ''bad'' are relative. Maybe it would be a ''bad'' thing for the caster to get a new spell, maybe it would be a ''good'' thing for them to fail....and so on.

This is absurd and unjustifiable (relying on deliberately misinterpreting the spellcaster's purpose in casting the spell), but it doesn't really matter.
The augury can see into the future only about half an hour, so anything that might happen after that does not affect the result. Thus, the result might not take into account the long-term consequences of a contemplated action.